Nuclear Energy???? Clean Coal??? W. T. F?

[SnoopDog]

Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Geothermal...

That is the only answer.

[valerief]

1. But, but, but that's not bipartisan. nt

[Robb]

11. Nuclear energy is part of the Democratic platform.

So, work to change that if you'd like.

[Mithreal]

23. Bury the waste in your phucking backyard

[Turborama]

25. +1 Where's all the radioactive waste going to go when they run out of space?

Nuclear is NOT by definition a renewable source of energy.

[Statistical]

34. Run out of space really?

Coal has roughly 6150kwh of energy per ton.
Average coal plant is 40% efficient. So usable output is about 2460kwh per ton (or 2.46 MWh per ton).

In one year a 1000 megawatt nuclear power plant with 95% uptime produces 1000 * 24 * 365 * 0.95 = 8,322,000 MWh of usable electrical power.

To produce 8,322,000 via coal would require 8,322,000 / 2.46 = 3,382,926 roughly 3.4 MILLION TONS of coal.

Single nuclear reactor power core weighs about 30 tons and is good for around 18 months depending on burnup rate.

So 1.5 years = 5 MILLION TONS of coal vs 30 tons in nuclear fuel.

Per DOE all spent nuclear fuel from all nuclear reactors since 1950s is "a couple thousand tons".

The policy limit for Yucca Mountain is 63,000 tons. That is according to the DOE enough capacity for 75 years of power generation.

Of course Yucca can easily hold 10x that amount (literally hundreds of years of waste) it is simply a policy decision to create a framework for the study.

[laughingliberal]

36. I live in Nevada

Bury it in your yard. We don't produce the crap here and we don't want others' garbage.

[Statistical]

40. Well that is a different argument.

Of course Nevada imports power from outside the state borders so kinda hard to call it "other peoples garbage".

Still it is a valid point.

Saying we will run out of space is utterly stupid though.

A storage location the size of football stadium has more volume than spent nuclear fuel for 500+ reactors for next 1000 years.

[Mithreal]

51. People have to live on this planet, stop defending poisoning it.

[laughingliberal]

129. Just as long as it doesn't come here

They've put some test caskets in at Yucca and within 5 years the groundwater nearby is found to be contaminated. The screw Nevada bill needs to stay dead. And I can't think anyone else wants it, either.

[hunter]

46. In 75 years most of this nuclear fuel might also be recycled.

Current nuclear plants extract only a small fraction of the energy from the fuel.

Other plant designs might utilize this so-called "nuclear waste" to make more energy, which would also reduce the long term difficulty of sequestering the waste stream. As the most radioactive elements in the used fuel decay it might also be of great benefit to extract very valuable non-radioactive elements from this "waste," elements that might prove very useful in a post fossil fuel economy.

The volume of "coal waste" is magnitudes greater than that of nuclear, much of this coal waste is also radioactive, and carbon dioxide and other coal wastes change earth's climate in very unfavorable ways. Some of worst toxins emitted by coal plants, such as mercury, "have a half life" of FOREVER.

There is no question that nuclear power is a cleaner less environmentally destructive technology than coal or even many "alternative energy" proposals.

I would favor banning all fossil fuel power plants even if they were replaced with nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is a cleaner, safer, more rational way to generate electric power than any fossil fuel, most especially coal.

[Mithreal]

52. no question, come on, you sound like a business person

who can't resist externalizing the costs.

[hunter]

62. These externalized costs are much lower than those of coal...

... or even solar energy.

Manufacturing photovoltaic cells or destroying fragile desert ecosystems to build solar power plants is a dirty business.

[Mithreal]

63. I am pretty sure I do not have a fragile desert ecosystem on my roof.

And I will concede manufacturing of the equipment does come with costs. I am having a hard time taking that counter argument seriously when you compare to the true costs of coal.

[avaistheone1]

100. If nuclear power is so safe why is the nuclear power industry trying to force taxpayers to pay

$40Billion for their insurance?

They should take that insurance money from their own profits. You and I should not be forced to pay for it.

[Statistical]

110. You don't. Please educate yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

EVERY nuclear power plant has a private $300 mil insurance contract. The contract is a normal insurance contract like any other liability insurance and covers that plant only. That is 100% paid for by each individual power plant.

Second there is a insurance pool of $10 billion. That pool is established by every nuclear plant owner paying $111.9 million dollars into a no-fault shared resources pool. Any claims > $300 million will be paid from the $10 billion pool. Once again this second level pool costs taxpayers $0.00.

Finally the Price Anderson Act then says the federal govt will act as a "super-insurer" and pay any claims IN EXCESS of both pools. So a claim of more than $10.3 BILLION at a single plant.

Even this final pool will only cost taxpayers IF AND ONLY IF a claim is ever paid. To date in the last 52 years you (and every other taxpayer) hasn't paid a single cent in claims. Even if a substantial accident did occur a claim would be first paid from the $300 mil policy then from the $10 billion shared pool and only if the claim was greater than $10.3 billion would the govt pay anything.

Say worst case scenario in some future year (2027) a massive accident did happen that resulted in $15 billion in claims & damages. Well first $10.3B paid for by insurance + pool = $4.7B residual for govt. Only at that point would the govt insurance cost taxpayers anything. $4.7B / $300 million citizens / 70 years = $0.22 per year per citizen. Remember this is only a hypothetical, to date Price Anderson has cost you $0.00. A hypothetically a $15B accident in 2027 would be an annualized cost of $0.22 per citizen. If that happens I will pay your share.

[Mithreal]

118. When corporations and our government harm people they often avoid paying.

[Zoeisright]

112. Excellent question.

And it's NOT safe. I notice that none of those nuclear power execs live anywhere near plants OR the waste.

[Mithreal]

49. Check out how long it takes before your nuclear investment starts

turning a profit then get back to me.

[Statistical]

56. Yup because money is all that matters.

Currently coal is the most profitable form of power.

Hell we can even liquefy coal and use it in our cars.

[Mithreal]

59. Statistical, that was a weak response. All costs should be considered.

Are you really arguing against that?

[madokie]

54. Yucca wouldn't hold what we have now

let alone the future waste. Thats not an issue as yucca is no longer a possible option.

[Turborama]

125. Yes, run out of space.

75 years or 100s of years, whatever. The lifespan of a power plant is maximum 75 years. There is a finite amount of space on this planet for power plants and the radioactive waste they produce. Look up the text book definition of renewable energy.

Also, have you ever considered what would happen if there's an earthquake in the area it's stored?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Ah, a NIMBYist.

Are you going to forego the nuclear power plant produced electrons?

[Turborama]

30. How about NIABY?

Not In Anybody's Backyard.

[Mithreal]

48. HFPS, I have a Bachelor of Science and taught biology, chemistry and physical science.

President Obama has nothing on me when it comes to understanding science.

That anti-science rhetoric of yours, bring it on.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. My anti-science rhetoric?

Care to back that up with anything, oh great and powerful bachelor of science?

[Mithreal]

72. Is it my job to point out every time you spout nonsense?

I don't consider it to be, but I am getting tired of people letting stupid statements go without some sort of response.

Let's look at your following statement.

"Are you going to forego the nuclear power plant produced electrons?"

Was that question not mocking my position by claiming some superior understanding of energy generation? Maybe you meant I should boycott energy produced by nuclear power? Do you really consider that question as adequate defense of your position?

You tell me, oh wise one.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

74. No, but you should at least try to not post nonsense yourself.

And post #48 was unmitigated nonsense at all levels.

"Was that question not mocking my position by claiming some superior understanding of energy generation?"

No.

"Maybe you meant I should boycott energy produced by nuclear power?"

Meh, you're getting warmer, Doc.

"Do you really consider that question as adequate defense of your position?"

I don't consider it a defense of my position at all. I consider it a riposte to your "bury it in your own phucking backyard" absurdity.

[Mithreal]

78. You consider that absurdity do you? Then bury it in your backyard.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. It's even more absurd that you couldn't spell out "fucking."

I'd tell you where to bury it, but I'm afraid the stick would get in the way.

[Mithreal]

83. HFPS, I used that misspelling purposefully, don't expect you to understand.

If you had an argument that didn't waste my time I might take your pov more seriously. Maybe you can provide me a link that explains how my comment was absurd, but please don't give me a link to a freepet friendly site.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. I know, that's my point.

[Mithreal]

90. Your point is that you are here to confuse?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. I think you were confused long before I got here.

[Mithreal]

98. HFPS, be who you are, but don't expect everyone to indulge you

[Duende azul]

122. Huh?

How does the power plant produce electrons?

Interesting take on the subject,indeed.

[Mithreal]

127. Good catch.

[ParkieDem]

84. And it should be.

France generates a ton of their energy from nuclear sources. It's much cleaner and more reliable than coal, oil, natural gas, wind and solar.

Just one more thing we can learn from the French.

[Mithreal]

89. France has what fraction of our size and population?

And externalizing the costs does make nuclear energy more attractive.

French nuclear power has not been without accidents.

Nuclear waste is an enormously difficult political problem which to date no country has solved. It is, in a sense, the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry. Could this issue strike down France's uniquely successful nuclear program? France's politicians and technocrats are in no doubt. If France is unable to solve this issue, says Mandil, then "I do not see how we can continue our nuclear program."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

95. ~20%

Why?

[Zoeisright]

113. +10000

Those French plants have been having problems:

"The first of these , on July 9, saw nearly 8,000 gallons of radioactive waste dumped into two nearby rivers from the Tricastin nuclear site near Bollene, about 25 miles from Avignon in the south of France. The second, on the same day, saw 15 Electricité de France workers at the Saint-Alban plant in the Alpine Isere region near the borders of Switzerland and Italy exposed to what EDF, France's main electricity supplier, insists were non-harmful traces of radioactivity.

The spills are an unfortunate reminder to nuclear lobbyists in the U.S. that accidents do happen, even in the best-managed plants, and their effects can range from minimal to catastrophic."

http://www.celsias.com/article/france-rethinks-nuclear-safety/

Anyone who thinks that nuclear power is safe is delusional.

[Duende azul]

123. Wow. The only issue besides coal and drilling where you'll find true bipartisanship.

Today in my radio they quoted Romney saying they'll surely not block those.

Reach across the aisle, my ass.

[Mithreal]

22. +1

[liberalmuse]

2. I agree. It's not perfect, but...

It's certainly better than hearing that 'WMD's' and 'Oyul' crap we did for 8 years.

[Mithreal]

67. Point taken. We set our bar too low and too many DU'ers are grading on the Bush curve.

[JerseygirlCT]

3. I agree. nt

[t0dd]

4. And offshore drilling?

:eyes:

[harun]

81. I laughed at that one. Obama was just saying that "All your power are belong to us".

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

5. When running for Senate he got big bucks from the nuke industry.

[amandabeech]

64. Exelon, a big nuclear power company, is headquartered in Illinois.

Chicago area, I believe.

Also, southern Illinois is big time coal country.

Obama has supported both nukes and coal for some time. He's not changing any time soon.

[Freddie Stubbs]

71. They probably gave his campaign money because they liked his energy policies

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

76. Or, it can be visa versa.

[SnoopDog]

6. I cringe at the phrase 'clean coal'...

There is no such thing. Yet President Obama always was this. It hurts my brain
to hear it...

[G_j]

9. it's a lie

as you say, there is no such thing.

[Diclotican]

15. SnoopDog

SnoopDog

No sutch thin as "clean coal" that is true, but we can burn the coal in ways that make it less toxi than most industry do it today.. Newer coal burning plants with the new tecnology can do a large dent in all the polution who is happend today.. It is most of all a need for newer, better burning plants in this area.. Most of the coal burning plants of today is maybe 30-40 year old and should have been closed down at least a decade ago.. Build down, and rebuild with new tecnology who would manage the polution far better than today.. But it cost a lot of money to build new plants, and to buldoze the old ones... And as long as the plants is working well - and in many cases also long after "old age" is coming into play, they tend to be used and then the polution is really going to be a issue..

The same with nuclear reactors.. Most reactors in the world is old, some of them are reatching 60 year now and still been used, far longer than they was orginaly planed to do.. What the world need are new design, who are on paper, and in some degree in fact be build in UK and France at least.. 5 generation nuclear reactors is far better than the current 4 and 3 generation reactors.. Who should have been closed down and build down for a long time.. US alone have a lot of reactors who should have been closed down, the same have Europe, and parts of Asia, like in Japan who use the reactors to 80 percent of their electrical needs.. And Japan have also the best "track record" when it came to nuclear saftly - even then the last decade even there it have been some ugly accidence at some reactors..

The reason no one is building in a large scale new nuclear reactors, and other electrical producing plants is mostly becouse it cost a lot of money to build new ones.. Even with the standard most country have in the nuclear industry, regard to saftly, it is not inexpencive to maintain a nuclear reactor - and if you want to have a surplus you need more than one reactor in most country.. And if every one of US nuclear reactors was to be rebuild, and to be new ones, the prize of it wil go into the billions - easy..

And for the moment, who should US got the money to build the new reactors, with the debt US have today...

Diclotican

[SnoopDog]

16. Sir, these are technologies that harm everything...

Perpetuating these harmful power sources kill our progress as humans.

The goal for life is to not introduce things that kill life.

Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro power are all energy sources that sustain life -not kill it.

[Diclotican]

32. SnoopDog

SnoopDog

Sir:

I agree that it harm, but for the moment, not even Geothermal, and other energy sources who is in its infancy tecnologi vice is not the "ONLY" answer... Not every country on the face of the earth have rivers who can sustain hydro power on a large scale, not everyone can substain solar power, even that modern houses can reduce 20-40 percent of their energy by using solar power on roof toops and so on.. Geothermal is in its really infancy, and it is a long way before Geothermal energy can be something that can outrun other, more conventional means of heat our houses and light our streets in the night. But go 10-20 year down the road I would guess that Geothermal energy, combined with solar power and wind power wil make a really dent in conventional forms of energy produsing forms.. But even if we build more of the new energy forms, we still have to work with the conventional forms of energy - and it is important then, to build forms of energy that is SAFE... And even if we have to build new nuclear reactors it wil take at least a decade for a new reactor to be build. The Finns have not build there new smart reactors yet, even that one of them are under way, at least a decade later than planned.. it should have been up and running in 1999, and now the new plans is in late 2010-11 og maybe later.. And that is a generation 4.5 Reactor, with all the new safty standards who have been made since the 1990s.. And then some becouse the finns have their own safty rules on top of the international nuclear saftly rules.. So it is a pretty safe reactor the finns are building there..

But as I pointed out, it is not the new generation of nuclear reactors who are dangrous, it is ALL the old ones, who are a present danger to human life. And most of them should have been made absolute a long time ago..

And we must also build new forms of energyforms, like Solar, ind geothermal, hydropower (My own country get 80-90% from hydropower energy) and other forms of energy we might dosen't know about today, but who 20-30 year down the road wil be common knowlegde..

Diclotican

[MicaelS]

82. Wind power sustaining life?

Right, and almost weekly there's some environmentalist complaining about wind turbines killing birds. Or a bunch of rich bastards, somewhere, who lecture the common people about the environment and clean energy, are complaining about wind turbines blocking their precious view of something. So one of the major potential sources of clean energy in this country is being fought by those whom a rational person would normally expect to support it. But then it just proves there are hypocritical NIMBY bastards everywhere. Even on the left.

[Mithreal]

86. Are not solutions to the bird kill problem being tested?

Wind Turbines Don’t Kill Birds; Coal Plants Do

A very detailed and complex study (pdf) Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to the US Electricity Supply weighing the costs and benefits of increasing wind power to 20% by 2030 included some very interesting projections on bird extinction numbers expected from climate change.

While it may not be news to cleantechnica readers that climate change will kill more members of more species than wind turbines, it is interesting to see the actual figures comparing bird loss from climate change versus from wind turbines.

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/10/28/wind-turbines-dont-kill-birds-coal-plants-do/

Googling found that argument, so sharing. The title doesn't deny bird kill, just adds perspective, but I was really looking for answers. Found an article on bats.

The study found that the two methods resulted in a 60 and 67.5% decrease in bat mortality respectively. They estimated that the 2nd method had no impact on electricity production and the 1st method had a reduction of approximately $200-$265 revenue (Canadian) per turbine during the month of the study (though they caution that costs could be higher or lower based on a variety of technical and market factors). This study offers promsing results for finding a method to reduce bat mortality from wind turbines. However, the researchers caution that more studies need to be conducted to test how effective and costly these methods are when used with other wind turbines, in different environmental settings, and with other bat species.

http://www.conservationmaven.com/frontpage/2009/8/26/reducing-bat-mortality-at-wind-farms-testing-a-new-method.html

Alternative design to eliminate bird kill.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/judith_lewis/reading/this-wind-turbine-doesnt-kill/

[Mithreal]

70. If there were no other alternatives, your argument wouldn't be wasted effort.

The Solar Resource

The amount of energy from the sun that falls on Earth's surface is enormous. All the energy stored in Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas is matched by the energy from just 20 days of sunshine. Outside Earth's atmosphere, the sun's energy contains about 1,300 watts per square meter. About one-third of this light is reflected back into space, and some is absorbed by the atmosphere (in part causing winds to blow).

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/how-solar-energy-works.html

http://www.physorg.com/search/?search=solar+power

Solar is just one 21st Century solution.

[Mithreal]

68. +1

[Martin Eden]

124. Yeah, that was the low point for me.

He should know better.

[CBR]

7. "Clean Coal" makes me sick... ugh. nt

[NYC_SKP]

8. NO. "It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development."

is what he said.

Unless and until we all use about 1/2 the energy we use, even as we ramp up renewables, we must use some fossil fuel and nuclear.

It's sad, but it's true.

[Raine]

10. Fuck that shit

I can't listen to this anymore. :argh:

[SnoopDog]

13. The nuke/clean coal statement is the only Bull-ony thing he has said...

Everything else sounds real good....

[Mithreal]

93. Need to listen more closely then.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

12. Clinton stopped geothermal development

Unfortunately, geothermal development was shutdown by the Clinton administration as a bone to environmentalists. Most of the US's geothermal reservoirs (which are vast -- the US is the Saudi Arabia of geothermal) are on Federal land in the Great Basin region of the US, so it pretty much lives and dies by the EPA et al.


Since geothermal is the only way we'd be able to generate anything close to base load power and would realistically take many, many decades to even approach current capacity, so even assuming the lobbyists for the environmentalists let them drill the desert for geothermal that leaves nukes. Which I am fine with. Nuclear power is a good technology.

[SnoopDog]

14. Not True...

Ormat Technologies in Nevada produces Geothermal plants all around the world....

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

18. I'm talking about geothermal power *in* Nevada

Nevada is sitting on the world's largest geothermal hotspot. Fantastic for base load power generation. Unfortunately, the land is ~90% Federal.

They have the expertise in geothermal power in Nevada, and they do it for other countries, but permits to develop geothermal power actually in Nevada on Federal land have routinely been delayed or denied indefinitely since the 1990s. Instead, they have been building new coal and gas power plants, which don't require the use of Federal land.

I really don't get it. Is the construction of a coal power plant really preferable to drilling geothermal wells on Federal land to the Sierra Club et al that have lobbied to prevent? Because that was the consequence. Sometimes I think environmentalists are their own worst enemies.

[SnoopDog]

20. Please show where geothermal permits are being 'denied' since Clinton?

Your claims are not backed up by facts....

[Lorien]

17. Amen. nt

[Neecy]

19. Don't forget offshore drilling!

That's in the mix, too!

Ugh.

[Odin2005]

21. Nuclear is very good. Clean Coal, on the other hand, is a fucking oxymoron.

[KittyWampus]

42. Nuclear is good if we can bury the waste from extracting it and reacting it in your back yard-

okay?

[ddeclue]

24. Disagree - NUCLEAR YES - COAL NO.

Nuclear is quite safe and if you want electrically powered cars it is really the only way to make that practical. Most industrialized nations including Europe use a much larger percentage of nuclear than we do.

[Luminous Animal]

26. Weel, you know, wind, tide, and sun is finite.

[Turborama]

27. And wave power

More info and video: http://www.biopowersystems.com/technologies.php

-

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Listen, we need it all.

While most of the "peak oil" people are nuts, they have got a point.

Petroleum's just going to get rarer and rarer and while we're going to switch to alternative energy, we're going to switch to whatever we got.

So yeah, we'll build nuke plants, and frankly that's a lot better than what we've got now.

And we've got a shit load of coal, and for the near future that's going to get burnt. Yes, we'll get to totally green energy production some day. But in the intervening decades coal's going to burn.

Yes, there's no such thing as Clean Coal.

There is, however, cleanER coal, and if we can burn it cleaner while we still burn it, I'm all for that.

[Turborama]

128. Do you know the cradle to grave time & $ of a nuclear power plant versus

the cradle to grave time & $ of a wind, solar and/or wave farm?

For a start, nuclear power plants take up to 10 years to build and therefore it's a myth that they are some magic wand that can instantly solve our energy needs.

[1]

31. we are going to need something to power all of those electric cars...

even on days when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow.

you betcha!

[hayu_lol]

33. Cannot sustain today's usage of electricity with...

renewable energy sources. Cannot.

We could however, manage with what renewable sources we have, provided we eliminated about 75% of our population. Do I hear volunteers? Ummm...didn't think so.

Burning cleaner in the case of coal is only part of the equation. The mining process is every bit as dirty and there is no way to make that part cleaner.

We really do need to start designing and building new nuclear plants. For those who wish to whine and cry about that statement, go without any...repeat...ANY...power use in your home for a month and then report back.

[Statistical]

35. No need to design new nuclear reactors.

The AP1000 is an amazing design.

It is also completely standardized. Current reactors are all custom built. No two are alike. This is due to changing technology, changing regs, and different contractors. Often 2 reactors at the same site are completely different. Reactors built at the same time are often completely different.

The AP1000 is 100% standardized and aproved by the DOE. Every single AP1000 around the world will be exactly the same down to the bolts. Every door, every wire, everything. You could take a plant operator from Florida and put him in a plant in China and he would be instantly familiar.

China is building 4 AP1000s right now. They are on schedule, on budget and will begin producing 1000MW of power each starting in 2013. China also has contracts for 16 more and has goal of building a total of 100 nuclear reactors (not necessarily all AP1000s) over next 30 years.

We just need to start building them.

The AP1000 (and other Gen III+ reactors) are more efficient and safer than any design in the past.

[KittyWampus]

43. you still have to extract the radioactive stuff and then dispose of waste.

[Statistical]

45. Of course you do.

You have to extra "stuff" for everything.

Coal plants require millions of TONS of extraction each year (per plant).

Even PV require massive amounts of raw material.
It doesn't grow on trees and thus "green" PV panels require old fashion dirty mining.
Lots of exotic and toxic compounds.

Nuclear is far more suited to replce other baseline power sources (nat gas & coal).
PV, Wind, Tidal is beeter suited to replace peaking and load following power sources.

The idea that everything can be solved by solar is as foolish as thinking we can go 100% nuclear or that all transportation can be done by electric vehicles.

[Mithreal]

96. This is the conservative argument.

[Statistical]

108. There are many luddite conservatives.

This isn't a progressive vs. conservative issue.

PV require raw material. Some of those raw materials are relatively rare. Which requires massive amounts of mining to obtain these trace elements.

PV panels are made from materials that come from dirty mining with all the environmental damage and energy costs (mining equipment, trucks, heavy movers all run on diesel).

You can wish it away but that doesn't make it false.

[Mithreal]

117. I acknowledged that, who wouldn't? You are arguing falsely.

[Jennicut]

37. James Lovelock supports Nuclear Energy, says it is the only green energy.

http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm

Clean coal is a lie however.

[Jennicut]

38. dupe

[JBoy]

39. My only complaint with nuclear is its cost. Ontario spent itself into a big hole

from the cost of nuclear projects in the 80s and 90s.

[KittyWampus]

41. Sorry, but the Industrialized World can NOT move into Green Technology without Coal.

That is just a fact. It's Reality.

Now, if you wanted to have an actual impact and be helpful, you'd fight for greater protection of the environment as coal is extracted, greater protection for workers who extract the coal and further improvements on scrubbing out harmful particles released when using coal.

But civilization needs Coal to bridge the gap between where we are now and the future.

[Mithreal]

58. Kitty, your fact is arguable. Externalizing costs, coal is cheaper.

http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/2160.html

[earth mom]

44. I wonder what Gore thinks of this bullshit.

:grr:

[ensho]

47. those nuke and coal Barons have a lot of money = power and

the Obama team has to work them into a corner, so to speak.

hang in and observe.

[asdjrocky]

50. There is no such thing as clean coal.

If I know that, why doesn't he?

[earth mom]

53. Obama knows that but he's saying what the coal companies told him to.

:puke:

That's what "hope & change" really is about.

[asdjrocky]

57. I know, and that's what kills me a little every day.

I love it when the coal companies run that commercial on TV with our President singing the virtues of "clean coal".

[earth mom]

60. I haven't seen that commercial and if I did it would probably piss me off.

I can't believe that so little has been done to solve the global warming crisis and that no one except RFK Jr. is standing up to the lies of clean coal! :argh:

[Mithreal]

55. President Obama proves "brilliant" people can be stupid about energy.

[amandabeech]

65. He's a lawyer, not a scientist.

Big difference.

[bridgit]

61. It needs to all be hooked up - 'the grid' is just what gets it there, it's the energy matrix...

That will birth the world onto the next level

[-wulf-]

66. Tired of hearing about solar

I work in energy management for a facility that is the largest of its kind in the world. We nearly 6 million square feet of covered space, and the facility happens to consume a great deal of power. At any given point in time, we're using well over 11,000 kw of power. On average, we pay about 6.8 cents per kw/h and our monthly bill is usually in the 1.2 million dollar range.

I am personally responsible for reducing our consumption last year by 7,343,071 kwh, which is significant. For reference, the national average for residential consumption is 920 kwh per month.

The largest part of my job deals with eliminating wastes and ensuring all of our systems are functioning at peak efficiency. This yields the greatest return.

Another part of my job is to constantly evaluate any and all innovations and technologies that could be of benefit to us.

I've heard it said after presentations about solar installations that the problem is that there isn't enough incentive to install solar.

This is back-asswards. The problem is that solar is way to expensive to install, period. I had one guy give a presentation about installing a new roof on part of our facility with solar membranes, and when I pointed out the ROI (return on investment, simply payback) would be never (over 75 years but the life of the product is only 20 years) he got upset and told me that we shouldn't always think about money and just do it for the "right reasons." I challenged him to sell it to us with a five year pay-back price, and do it for the "right reasons." Of course, he left and we don't have solar membranes.

The going average for installed solar systems is $10,000 per kw. PER KW. This is the same Kw that cost less than seven cents from the power company.

I've heard it said that we should raise the price of power via taxes to encourage solar installations, since higher energy costs would make solar more economical, since the pay backs would be shorter or reasonable. I say that if a person can't afford to buy and install solar panels, then how can they afford to pay the same price for power? If that were to happen, we wouldn't install solar panels or anything else. We would just shut down and over 60,000 people would be out of a job.

The other problem with Solar is that it isn't powerful enough to produce base-load power. Remember that 11,000 kwd that I told you is our average? At high noon, a 3 Mega-watt solar array would only produce 27% of our power. This array would also cost us $30,000,000 dollars to install.

Do you see? Even if we lived in an area with full sun 24/hrs per day it would take a full 16.37 years to pay for itself. Of course this isn't the case. The actual payback, even including annual power cost increases would be well over 70 years, well exceeding the rated life of the materials.

The only sensible (a.k.a "affordable") application for Solar is small point-of-use applications, such as street lights, emergency phones, or other applications that have less than .5 Kwd.

And wind? Wind is even more expensive and less productive.

There is simply no alternative to base-load power. Solar can't produce base-load power and the power it does produce costs a whopping 142,857 times more than power that is purchased through local utilities that produce power via coal and nuclear.

[Mithreal]

75. Tell that to the countries that are not in denial.

Externalize all the costs of nonrenewables and your argument makes sense.

[-wulf-]

85. Ok..

Let's say we want to go solar.

To meet our average load during the middle of the day when the solar array would produce its maximum design power (in the summer), we would need to install a solar plant that would need to be in the range of 15 Mega-watts, which would place it in the top ten largest solar plants in the world.

Just to power our facility when the sun is out.

We could pay over $300,000,000 (we're exceeding the 10,000 Kwh for install estimate since now we're talking about an actual solar power plant rather than local panels on the roof or something ), or we can pay 12 million dollars a year to buy power from the power company. Not to mention we would need to expand our facility by about 56 hectares to install the plant (sorry local neighborhoods.)

Actually, we could either buy it from the power company, or just shut down and send every body home.


Again, just to power our facility we would need to install a solar power plant that would place it within the top ten largest in the world if we wanted to power our facility with solar most of the time. This is one facility in a city, and one city in a state, and one state in this country. Hell, there are at least twenty facilities within an hour that use more power than us.

Top ten largest in the world, for one building.

Do you see the part where logic breaks down? It's over there by the unicorn and leprechaun thing.

[Mithreal]

87. You are thinking small and you ignored my argument about externalizing costs.

Wonder why you would do that?

[-wulf-]

92. and to where

would you externalize these costs? I'm telling you that solar technology cannot produce enough power to keep a single facility in a single city in this country running. If you want to expand solar to include the surrounding areas, there isn't enough land to support such a power plant. Also, my example assumes that the plant would operate at design power outputs 12 hours per day. In reality, a solar plant anywhere this entire portion of the coutnry would only operate at design output on average a few hours per day.

You say that I'm thinking small, and I say that you're not thinking. You say "go solar and make someone else pay for it" when those of us that actually work in energy management are trying to tell you that it isn't a matter of who pays for it; it is a matter of no one can afford to build a system that cannot be built.

[Mithreal]

97. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[-wulf-]

101. Alright.

There isn't enough money in the world to build solar and wind plants that can produce enough power to support this state or even this city. There is no way to get creative with sharing costs, because it can't be done.

Technology that current exists is too expensive
Current technology can't produce that much power
The angle of the sun in this part of the country (1/4) is too low for existing solar panels to operate at design production.

[Mithreal]

103. -wulf- you are so full of vaguery and conservative nonsense

Unsolicited advice, go to options, edit your profile and add some information. People who talk like you and hide that sort of information are viewed with suspicion.

[-wulf-]

107. Seriously

that this is the part where you hope to get your "ah ha" moment and expose someone. You don't want to look at the substance of the debate. You'd rather attack the person rather than the issue.

I am responsible for managing the consumption of a facility that consumed 212,363,746 Kwh last year. That represents a decrease of nearly 4% from the prior year, which I am responsible for and proud of. The 7,343 Mega watt hours of power that I eliminated last year didn't cost anything, aside from salary. By comparison, if I wanted to install a solar plant that would produce that much power over the course of a year at this facility, it would need to generate 4 megawatts of power (figuring max output on average five hours per day and actual proposed costs for solar systems)which would cost several million dollars. The actual value of the power eliminated, at our actual rates, was just over $330,000.

If we want to curb our national consumption, I believe that more power can be saved by eliminated waste and increasing efficiencies of load-side equipment than can be generated by installing solar plants and wind farms, and at a much lower cost, and I have proven that at this facility.

[Mithreal]

116. Not expose as much as, know where from you speak

You are the one that mentioned the lack of availability of solar energy at your location. It is natural for me to wonder your region since you avoided disclosing it.

Ignore what I said, fine, I expected as much.

And you may be legit, when someone speaks in conservative code expect to be called on it here.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

131. So now you make accusations when you can't counter his arguments.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

130. Is that a part of your argument. He made some good points I'd love to see your counter.

[bridgit]

94. Your "$10,000 per kw" # is a 'price per oil barrel' measurement used *by* the oil industry...

To taint the longterm benefits of alternatives until their portfolios stuffed with un-maturated defense & finite fossil fuel stocks become realized

[-wulf-]

99. N/T

Actually, my "oil company" estimate comes from actually sitting in real meetings, where actual projects are discussed and where actual products and prices are evaluated with real engineers who are committed to seriously evaluating any and all options.

It is easy to sit back and say "solar, wind, blah, blah, blah" when you don't have anything to do with the actual implementation of any of these technologies on a larger scale than your calculator or hot water heater.

Believe me, if there were a way for us to produce our own power, we have the capitol and desire to use it.

Again, if there were a way for us to produce our own power, we have the capitol and desire to use it.


See that? You're talking to an actual person who works for an organization that can actually afford to install solar panels on a large scale (if the price were comparable to commercial power rates), and who wants to do so, but there is no way it can happen at current costs.

Even if the cost of solar panels were as little as THREE TIMES the cost of commercial power, we would do it.

Did you hear that? We are willing to pay three times as much for power, and yet solar is still out of reach by a long shot. Not to mention that we couldn't build a solar plant to support us completely, since there isn't enough sunlight to do so in our area.

[Mithreal]

102. No, I don't see that. Please tell us for whom you speak.

[bridgit]

104. Yeah, you're probably right, there is no return on solar - I'm sure that's why China just dumped...

billions & billions in on their alternative tech base and Spain is building a turbine farm in the Dakotas http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/wind-power/wind-farms :thumbsup:

My husband worked through the Parsons, Co. for So Cal Edi in steam/power generation as a systems and start-up eng and has sat in on a few meetings of his own as well...his sounded more nuanced and forward thinking than some of the ones you've been attending :shrug:

But California is different that way: we have sun lots of it, and still operate a long-existing hydroelectric system as well as wind and fuel cell tech, etc, now...

Did *you* hear *that*?

It is not a keyed lock it is a combination; and woe unto the persons that refuse to think correctly as to such matters as they will be viewed as purveyors of "nope!"

[Mithreal]

105. +1

[-wulf-]

106. East cost

The sunlight isn't there.

The system in Spain is different, as it is not using solar panels that produce electricity. They're using the focused heat to generate steam.

I'm not aware of any local companies that can produce the billions required to build stations (if there were the sun to support it.)

You also pay more money for your power in California. Tell me where you can find rates of less than 7 cents per kw/h outside of our area. We're on a real time price rate, so it changes every hour. For the past two weeks, we haven't paid more than 4 cents per kw/h.

In some places in the world, solar is more effective, but it doesn't change the fact that at the moment current solar technology has no return in most of this country and most of the world.

We can buy "green" power from our local utility that is generated by solar, but it cost ten times as much as what we're pay now, and there isn't enough of that power to keep the lights on.

Even with the large solar plants being built in the world, they don't produce base load power. Their goal is to offset interval loads during the middle of the day. The system in Spain is a little different, but they simply store the steam underground.

The China example is a bit ironic because it is because of them becoming a net importer of coal that our power costs spiked last year, since the coal that China was buying from the US came from the east coast, which is where most of the coal that produces power for the east coast came from.

So on one hand, China is dumping money into Solar, but they're also burning more coal than ever, so much so that last year for the first time ever, China because a net-exporter of coal.

[bridgit]

109. Well I hear you, and there's allot of good people trying to put this all together but don't confuse

a "real time price rate" subject to hourly change with the felonious, spurious manipulations of ENRON energy futures & commodities proponents pinching off the grid just to raise prices for oil, coal & natural gas companies...California is still paying for that one too

The ultimate recipient of what is dragged about as a war between wind over solar over oil over water over natural gas over you-name-it ~ is this fossil based economy of war profiteering and the annexation of another nation's finite resources so that you can still pay 4 cents per kw/h ;)

[-wulf-]

114. actually

the only reason that power is cheap here is because we're so close to the fuel. Local utilities don't have to annex another nation's finite resources so we can have cheap power. We're using our own finite resources.

[bridgit]

119. That's how it is here with SMUD, but as an over-arching matter energy...

and this is the way traders have set it up but; expect for the bill itself and shut off notices; energy on that scale beyond what is coinsidered 'local' is seldom a local matter. To the extent that is the case for you & me that's great! For others trading off a speciously speculated energy grid, they may have fewer options and there are reasons for that as well maybe not my fault maybe not yours - maybe just the way it is :(

http://www.smud.org/en/community-environment/Pages/index.aspx

[-wulf-]

120. optional

Our real-time-price agreement is an option. I don't think residential user have that option. Our energy costs are regulated by the Public Service Commission and they set the base rates. Not all of our power is billed at the real-time-price rate. If our current load is 11,000 kw for example, 5,000 kw of that will be billed at the base rate of 7.4 cents, and the rest is billed at the RTP rate. While this rate is very low most of the time, there is some risk. In the summer months, it is not uncommon for this rate to spike to over twenty cents for a couple of hours. We manage this risk by turning off whatever we can when this happens to minimize the impact. On any give day our RTP average may be around four cents and the base rate at the fixed 7.4 cents, so our total average will be just under seven.

We could lock in a fixed rate, but it will remain cheaper this year to stay on the RTP rate. We saved over three million dollars last year by moving to the RTP structure. At the end of the year, I'll have to decide which way we go, and that usually depends heavily on what China is doing and long term weather forecasts.

[galledgoblin]

73. "clean coal" and "off-shore drilling" disturbed me deeply

neither are fixes, nor are they good bridges to REAL clean energy.

you can at least debate that nuclear energy and biodiesels can theoretically work safely IF we regulate and fund the right research and projects, but I cannot fathom how anyone could say with a straight face that clean coal and drilling off-shore should be considered, even as a short term bridge.

[rd_kent]

77. The ONLY answer, huh? Glad you are not in charge.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

79. oh don't worry.

That was just saying the only buzz words the fossils understand.

You have to speak their language, even as you carry out your own ethical vision.

[jonathon]

111. You left out EXPANDED OFF SHORE DRILLING

Drill baby drill!

[arthritisR_US]

115. yep, I thought the very same as you. n/t

[LiberalEsto]

121. Safe nuclear and clean coal are oxymorons

like "good republicans". They don't exist.

[underpants]

126. Throwing that dog a bone Snoop

There is no money to build nuclear power plants. All nuke plants are built with public money and paid off later (great rates too!). Underwritten to some degree by government approved liability limits.

Coal is just a heads up to WV, KY, VA, Utah, etc.

That was actually empty rhetoric but the Republicans Love themselves some empty rhetoric.

[Turborama]

132. FYI: Spanish wind farms = the equivalent of 11 nuke power plants' worth of electricity last Nov.

Spain's windfarms set new national record for electricity generation

=snip=

With high winds gusting across much of the country, Spain's huge network of windfarms jointly poured the equivalent of 11 nuclear power stations' worth of electricity into the national grid.

At one stage on Sunday morning, the country's wind farms were able to cover 53% of total electricity demand – a new record in a country that boasts the world's third largest array of wind turbines, after the United States and Germany.

For more than five hours on Sunday morning output from wind power was providing more than half of the electricity being used. At their peak, wind farms were generating 11.5 gigawatts, or two-thirds of their theoretical maximum capacity of almost 18GW.

=snip=

The massive output of wind turbines meant the Spanish grid had more electricity than was needed over the weekend. In previous years similar weather has forced windfarms to turn turbines off but now the spare electricity is exported or used by hydroelectric plants to pump water back into their dams — effectively storing the electricity for future use.

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/spain-national-record-power-windfarms

[Statistical]

133. Such a worhless and misleading stat.

Power output is meaningless.
Energy output is what matters.

So a peak they output 11.5 Gigawatts which as an INSTANTANEOUS MEASUREMENT is the same as 11.5 nuclear reactors (most reactors have power output of 1 GW (1000 MW). However an instantaneous measurement is not meaningful in terms of energy consumption.

Energy = Power * Time.

Your electric bill is not measured in terms of peak load or power.
It is measured in energy. 748 KWH that is POWER (KW) x TIME (Hours).

So a single nuclear reactor produces:
1 GW continually * 24 hours a day * 365 days a year * 0.95 load factor* = 8322 GWH (Gigawatt hours) annually = 8.32 TWH
*load factor is a measure of the % of theoretical output (peak output *24/365) downtime and output less than peak output reduces load factor. Load factor for nuclear reactors in US is 95.6% Spain may be slightly lower.

Spain has 16.7 GW of installed wind capacity (equal to 16.7 nuclear reactors) however it only has a load factor of 21.4%
Thus
16.740 GW * 24 * 365 * 0.214 = ~ 31,400 GWH = 31.4TWH


So despite having Spain's wind turbines having a total installed capacity of 16.7 GW (which is 16.7x that as nuclear reactor) combined they only produced usable energy equal to that of (31.4/8.32) 3.77 nuclear reactors.

So a 1 GW nuclear reactor is roughly equal to 4.44 GW capacity wind farm (which using 1 MW turbines would consists of 4400 turbines) in terms of usable energy.