Printable View
Wait a gal darn minute here.Quote:
Originally Posted by stupendous man
Are you really proposing we compress air in order to use it to generate wind power?
I think that's the most laughable idea I've ever heard in years of arguing about energy policy.
:nonono2:Quote:
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an energy industry group, nuclear power plants planned for construction in the next decade will be competitive with other electricity sources.
"Once we get past the uncertainties and some of the hurdles associated with first-of-a-kind construction, nuclear can be seen as a very competitive technology," Steve Kerekes, a NEI spokesman said in a March 23 interview.
Hmmmmm.
In other words, fantasyland. :DQuote:
Many experts support the industry's view. .. new nuclear power plants are economically competitive with other types of large-scale electricity generation once initial engineering costs are absorbed, construction experience gained and other near-term financing issues resolved.
No, you must have had a hard time arguing about energy policy. Compressed air storage is using wind power to generate electricity, but also to confine air into natural or man-made 'tanks'. Air can be released from pressure to turn turbines, resulting in doubling wind power capacity, making it available when the wind isn't blowing, and efficiently co-generating.Quote:
Wait a gal darn minute here.
Are you really proposing we compress air in order to use it to generate wind power?
I think that's the most laughable idea I've ever heard in years of arguing about energy policy.
Right, because China and India haven't begun production on dozens of nuclear reactors in the last decade. Nor is the expertise present anywhere else in the world to make nuclear energy financially viable. Not even in France, where they generate over 35% of their power that way.
So now we should start listening to France?
Paging Blurred Elevens...
And China and India, the models for a cleaner earth?
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by stupendous man
Clearly you've never taken a thermodynamics course in your life if you truly believe there is not a net energy loss in this process:
Generate electricity with wind (lose power to friction) -> Use electricity to compress gas (lose power to gases being imperfect, friction, and mechanical imperfections) -> Use compressed gas to generate more electricity (lose power to friction again)
Wonder when people will begin to see that reducing the MASSIVE OVER POPULATION is one huge area where we can have a drastic impact on our planets natural resources.
It'll never happen.....keep popping em out boys and girls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stupendous man
So when confronted with points that run contrary to your personal assumptions you a) refute them based on things you "know" while providing no evidence b) make half hearted slights at national stereotypes c) insult other (unrelated) aspects of a nation's track recordQuote:
Originally Posted by stupendous man
Good work, all you need to do next are add in straw men and ad hominem attacks and you're well on your way to winning.
An interesting, if harsh, truth is that AIDS is one of the few things that has kept enviromental damage in check in the last decade or two. By killing so many Africans and making it so difficult for the continent to develop it's prevented them (for the most part) from engaging in wholesale economic destruction ala India/China.Quote:
Originally Posted by montanaskier
Remember, enviromentalism is a privledge of rich nations.
you look fat in those pants. nice try, fatty. ;)
you're right, I am not an engineer. But since when does friction defeat massive waste and impossible economic costs, on top of uranium mining and pollution?
"LOL"
Seriously, if your arguments against my points are going to be (I'm rewording here) "OMG FRANCE SUCKS LOL" or "CHINA AND INDIA RAPE THE EARTH SO THEY DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER DUH"
What is the point in arguing with me?
Another fallacy. Population control is a bigger fantasyland than nuclear power, unfortunately.Quote:
Remember, enviromentalism is a privledge of rich nations.
Lets consider this radical and (probably) previously developed thought:Quote:
Originally Posted by stupendous man
Generate power with solar and wind generators. Store this power in batteries. Holy crap, now we can tap into that electricity even when it isn't being produced!!!!! And we don't have to lose energy to compressed air (I still can't consider this possibility without laughing).
The trouble is (as Tippster pointed out) that both of these processes require far too large a footprint to ever be truly viable.
Uh, enviromentalism is very much the privledge of rich nations. Developing nations do their own populace (and thereby themselves) a severe disservice by postponing or halting development in order to not damage the enviroment.Quote:
Originally Posted by stupendous man
Europe did it, America did it, USSR did it, Russia, India and China are doing it. Africa will too if they can ever pull themselves out of the AIDS epidemic.
stupendous man, I'm going to make this post and then get back to work for a bit. But here's a summary of your posting in this thread, seen through someone else's eyes. If you think it's hard to take you seriously, these are the reasons why:
You've posted no evidence to support your claims.
You've made ridiculous assertions about compressing air to run wind turbines that no rational engineer would believe for a nanosecond are reasonable.
You've claimed that it's a "fallacy" that enviromentalism is something only rich nations can/will take part in. (Do you know what a fallacy is?)
You've claimed that population control is also "fantasyland" despite a raging AIDS epidemic and more widespread and deadly diseases on the horizon.
And throughout the whole thing, your only retorts to facts which disputed what you said were (paraphrased), "LOL FRANCE" and "CHINA AND INDIA RAPE NATURE"
PV- You have posted no more facts than I have. You appear to be somewhat educated on the subject, but your characterizations of my argument are as wrong as your belief that you have somehow stated indisputable facts.
Modern developed nations got wealthy destroying the environment. That doesn't mean that environmentalism is the province of the well off. If equatorial developing nations invested in responsible development, utilizing new and renewable technologies in an efficient way, they would find themselves developing, and sustainably so. Did you read 'confessions of an economic hitman'. their problem comes from without, not their lack of destroying their own nest to be put on a richer playing field.
My assertions are real world activities from experience working in the field. Compressed air storage is happening, even if I described it poorly. My facts and numbers, and citations, have all been accurate.
I also debunked your industry biased source.
I lied, I don't have that much work to do ;)
You didn't "debunk" anything about what I posted. In fact, you quoted some parts that indicate the costs (after the initial generation) will be even less that what I quoted. So what if the costs include government subsidies to build a nuclear power plant? Those subsidies come from energy taxes, and there are plenty of tax incentives and subsidies given to power generating stations of all kinds if they are enviromentally responsible (clean coal, LNG, etc). Subsidizing part of the cost of a nuclear power plant isn't bad, if you feel it is, give us some reason... at least. Furthermore you've only speculated that subsidies are included in those costs, you've given nothing to indicate that they are (or aren't).
The reason developing nations don't invest in responsible development is simple: It costs more. If Panama has the option of building a coal powered plant that can power 10,000 homes, or building a solar power plant (for the same amount of money) that can power only 2,500 homes, it makes no sense for them to not build the coal plant. (An overly simplified analogy, but that is precisely why developing nations rape and pillage the Earth's resources).
And your "facts, numbers and citations" have all been accurate. Because you haven't posted any.
The only "facts" I've posted and not dug up sources for are: India and China are building over dozen new nuclear power plants. The EROEI of corn ethanol, sugarcane ethanol, and oil. France produces over 35% of their power by domestic nuclear power.
If you doubt any of these things I've posted, ask me, and I will give you some data to back it up.
If you're going to argue and say that I'm wrong, at least give me more than:
Quote:
Originally Posted by stupendous man
Quote:
Originally Posted by stupendous man
Quote:
Originally Posted by stupendous man
Look back one page for sources, numbers, and debunking. You look at that article you posted to prove your point of less costs. Look at the first paragraph, it bases its conclusions on impossible to achieve assumptions and has a primary source of an industry group.
I wish I could put together a thesis with a bibliography for you, but I'm not going to try. Maybe another intrepid poster has a good biblio on the value of subsidies given. There are several organizations dedicated to it.
The interesting point is what difference do subsidies make? For one, they make cost comparisons like yours into dribble. There is no level playing field to discuss. Take away the subsidies, and you see the real cost. Solar and wind, for example, have very little subsidization compared to nuclear and coal. However, they are cost-competitive even without it. The subsidies you speak of show up everywhere- who bears the cost for mine clean-up, remediation, protection, development of R & D for nuclear power? Hint, its not the companies and its not royalty payments, as you suggest. Its all of us. We pay. Economists like to call them "externalities".
Ethanol is a tough issue with valid points on both sides. I have not ventured there. I've been trying to argue against the value of pursuing nuclear power to solve climate change problems.
Thought i'd add my .02, but the increases in gas prices are primarily due to refinery capacity. while it is true that crude oil has increased in price over the last few years, it has fallen relative since all time highs, about a year ago. the cost increases seen at the pump are due to refineries running at ~90%.
for ref: http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/07/news...reut/index.htm
any shutdowns, or maintenence will cause decreases in supplies, seen dramatically when katrina hit the gulf and caused massive disruption in production and at the refineries. what really kills me is that the oil companies have been systematically shutting down many of the oil refineries since the 80's. you gotta feel that this is simply a forward looking plan by oil companies to artifically drive up prices. but that's simply my take. and i have no idea how to combat rising oil prices, or to solve our energy consumption problems.
Exactly- its going to cost money to develop anything for the future- govt subsidies happen in every industry, and it is a benefit to the masses anyway in the form of lower energy rates.Quote:
Originally Posted by ptavv
Or setting up 5,000,000 solar panels across the state of Arkansas vs. a nuke plant taking up 100 acres including all security features etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by ptavv
I see the point with the transport of fuels, but honestly I think thats a cost thats going to have to happen. Sure its dangerous to transport spent rods to a safe area (didnt they plan on storing this in a lode out in AZ or NV?) but it might be a necessary evil in order to power a country. Sure it would be nice to use less energy, but it doesnt seem like there is going to be any large scale decrease in energy use in the near future.
Its a heluva lot more likely than building more nuke plants.Quote:
Sure it would be nice to use less energy, but it doesnt seem like there is going to be any large scale decrease in energy use in the near future
What if those 5 million panels were on everybody's home and not in some uber-large field? That's no net space taken. Plus, 5 million panels would cause the market to dramatically lower the price of panels, if, let's say, they were required as part of responsible energy policy. Again, a lot less expensive than nukes. What if the 3-10 billion in nulcear subsidies (which are passed on to the consumer in numerous ways), were put into this "5 million roof" policy instead. At 1 kw a panel, that's 500,000 MW or enough to power 5-10 million homes.
Stupendous Man for President!
I read the paper you posted (read parts and skimmed the rest). Their main argument against nuclear power is that it takes too long to deploy, and most of their arguments are based on the fact that in North American and Western Europe (to a lesser extent) there haven't been many new reactors built, and there have been many decommissionings.Quote:
Originally Posted by stupendous man
The principal problem I have with the analytic methods is that they've limited them in scope to the US (for most of the analysis, they've included the UK and Euro-land in general in some). They appear to have completely ignored the resurgent nuclear industries of India and China.
In short, their principle argument is that nuclear power can't be deployed quickly enough to stem the impending global warming crisis. Which requires two important (and fallacious) presumptions. 1) The crisis is impending 2) They miss the point completely. Obviously nuclear power isn't a quick deploy golden panacea. It is, however, the only industrial scale production model which can continuously generate power for the next 30-50 years (China has designed their power plants to last/operate longer even).
Anyway, their principle assumption is that micro-scale power generation (solar fiels, wind fields, etc) will continue to grow at the current rate (I feel this is untenable because of a) demand growing faster than supply and b) the enormous footprint of these options, in addition to the limited geological locales they may be appropriate).