Three Way Discussion on Coal-Nuclear-Alternative Energy

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

unsung said:

Kind of off topic.

Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.

so ... your criteria is what energy source creates the most jobs!?

if you objectively look at all new power generation ... renewables are by far the most cost effective ... and that doesn't even factor the impacts to health and environment of fossil fuels ...

Wind farms are not cost effective. The technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators. Plus, distribution prices are sky high since most wind farms are in remote locations.

This site gives the pros and cons of wind energy. The pros are contradicting. For example, it's cheap per kw hour, but getting the turbine to that point costs a lot. Also, farms can be built on existing reaches and farms, but those farms are typically far away from the big cities that need the power.

http://energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy

so ... you linked a source that explicitly says wind farms are cost effective and then say they aren't!? ... the basic engineering for wind turbines is the same as any power generation except we don't need to rape our planet to get it ... not sure, how you are doing the math ... when you consider what you have to do to get a coal fired station up and running ...

check out this link ... http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

I referred the link because the pros are condratdictive. And I didn't specifically say coal fired plants.

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

unsung said:

Kind of off topic.

Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.

so ... your criteria is what energy source creates the most jobs!?

if you objectively look at all new power generation ... renewables are by far the most cost effective ... and that doesn't even factor the impacts to health and environment of fossil fuels ...

Wind farms are not cost effective. The technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators. Plus, distribution prices are sky high since most wind farms are in remote locations.

This site gives the pros and cons of wind energy. The pros are contradicting. For example, it's cheap per kw hour, but getting the turbine to that point costs a lot. Also, farms can be built on existing reaches and farms, but those farms are typically far away from the big cities that need the power.

http://energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy

so ... you linked a source that explicitly says wind farms are cost effective and then say they aren't!? ... the basic engineering for wind turbines is the same as any power generation except we don't need to rape our planet to get it ... not sure, how you are doing the math ... when you consider what you have to do to get a coal fired station up and running ...

check out this link ... http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

I referred the link because the pros are condratdictive. And I didn't specifically say coal fired plants.

sorry ... you lost me ... you believe wind farms aren't cost effective but you send me a link that says they are ... only to tell me you sent me the link to show a contrarian view to yours!? ... what did I miss?

Did you read the advantages and challenges on the link? The advantages directly contradict with the challehnges. For example: Wind power is cost-effective. It is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies available today, costing between four and six cents per kilowatt-hour, depending upon the wind resource and the particular project’s financing.

And then it says:
Wind power must still compete with conventional generation sources on a cost basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm might not be cost competitive. Even though the cost of wind power has decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.

So which one is it? Is it cost effective or not? If it's not competitive, it's not cost efficient.

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

unsung said:

Kind of off topic.

Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.

so ... your criteria is what energy source creates the most jobs!?

if you objectively look at all new power generation ... renewables are by far the most cost effective ... and that doesn't even factor the impacts to health and environment of fossil fuels ...

Wind farms are not cost effective. The technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators. Plus, distribution prices are sky high since most wind farms are in remote locations.

This site gives the pros and cons of wind energy. The pros are contradicting. For example, it's cheap per kw hour, but getting the turbine to that point costs a lot. Also, farms can be built on existing reaches and farms, but those farms are typically far away from the big cities that need the power.

http://energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy

so ... you linked a source that explicitly says wind farms are cost effective and then say they aren't!? ... the basic engineering for wind turbines is the same as any power generation except we don't need to rape our planet to get it ... not sure, how you are doing the math ... when you consider what you have to do to get a coal fired station up and running ...

check out this link ... http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

I referred the link because the pros are condratdictive. And I didn't specifically say coal fired plants.

sorry ... you lost me ... you believe wind farms aren't cost effective but you send me a link that says they are ... only to tell me you sent me the link to show a contrarian view to yours!? ... what did I miss?

Did you read the advantages and challenges on the link? The advantages directly contradict with the challehnges. For example: Wind power is cost-effective. It is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies available today, costing between four and six cents per kilowatt-hour, depending upon the wind resource and the particular project’s financing.

And then it says:
Wind power must still compete with conventional generation sources on a cost basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm might not be cost competitive. Even though the cost of wind power has decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.

So which one is it? Is it cost effective or not? If it's not competitive, it's not cost efficient.

The article clearly says that wind power is very cost-effective, while transmission lines do have to be built initially because they are often in remote locations. So that means there is an initial cost to handle indefinite delivery. The cost-effectiveness after that, along with the fact that wind power doesn't create any pollution control measures, makes the technology ultimately cost effective despite initial investments in infrastructure.

Y

unsung said:

They actually wouldn't exist if they weren't subsidized. Their capacity factor takes a very long time to recoup costs and due to a need for wind when it isn't always windy they often sit still making no power.

Fossil fuel companies are subsidized to the nines. 6 and one-half dozen to the other. Keystone pipeline, if I'm remembering correctly, already spent 2 million in in tax payer money in one state just for research. The Koch's stand to make 100 billion off of it.

Gtilley8 said:

Y

unsung said:

They actually wouldn't exist if they weren't subsidized. Their capacity factor takes a very long time to recoup costs and due to a need for wind when it isn't always windy they often sit still making no power.

Fossil fuel companies are subsidized to the nines. 6 and one-half dozen to the other. Keystone pipeline, if I'm remembering correctly, already spent 2 million in in tax payer money in one state just for research. The Koch's stand to make 100 billion off of it.

Nuclear is unable to compete due to an artificially rigged playing field.

No, I did read it. I really don't know what to make of it. I'm well aware of the environmental impacts. Bottom line is, we need power. As i,said in the other thread, theres really no way to reverse the overshoot date. And nobody wants a $600/month power bill. And that's what will happen if coal is eliminated from the power grid.

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

No, I did read it. I really don't know what to make of it. I'm well aware of the environmental impacts. Bottom line is, we need power. As i,said in the other thread, theres really no way to reverse the overshoot date. And nobody wants a $600/month power bill. And that's what will happen if coal is eliminated from the power grid.

what you should have made of it is that coal is very expensive and not remotely close to being cost-effective ...

as for reversing the overshoot date ... the problem is that we are led to believe that we need all this power and that the cause is hopeless when the reality is that the solutions are already in place ... it's laughable someone would begrudge the subsides for renewables when we've been subsidizing dirty and harmful fuel for years ...

just like everything else in this world - the information has been corrupted by powerful lobbies ... and it's sad that we can't see the fire from the smoke ...

Lol. You think "green" companies don't spread information that may not be accurate or helpful. Coal and oil aren't the only power lobbies.

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

No, I did read it. I really don't know what to make of it. I'm well aware of the environmental impacts. Bottom line is, we need power. As i,said in the other thread, theres really no way to reverse the overshoot date. And nobody wants a $600/month power bill. And that's what will happen if coal is eliminated from the power grid.

what you should have made of it is that coal is very expensive and not remotely close to being cost-effective ...

as for reversing the overshoot date ... the problem is that we are led to believe that we need all this power and that the cause is hopeless when the reality is that the solutions are already in place ... it's laughable someone would begrudge the subsides for renewables when we've been subsidizing dirty and harmful fuel for years ...

just like everything else in this world - the information has been corrupted by powerful lobbies ... and it's sad that we can't see the fire from the smoke ...

Lol. You think "green" companies don't spread information that may not be accurate or helpful. Coal and oil aren't the only power lobbies.

#whyweareinamess

Ohhhh, so there are no green power lobbies?

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

Then there's this:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/29/the-worlds-largest-green-energy-company-is-facing-bankruptcy/

And this:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/30/obama-backed-green-energy-company-goes-bankrupt-after-getting-billions-from-taxpayers/

With that much tax dollars being handed out, whyou hasn't green technology thrived?

Don't forget how Tesla, Sun City, SpaceX probably wouldn't exist without subsidies either.

companies fail all the time ... how is that related to misinformation and influencing domestic and foreign policy ... is the US bombing innocent people around the world to secure space for solar panels and wind farms!?? ...

enough with the subsidies ... if we took everyone's subsidies and tax breaks away - do you know which energy source would make the most sense!? ... it ain't coal, nuclear or oil ...