It is a new book apparently. I have found the major points worthwhile of consideration, and it is indeed needed to view issues from both sides. We may very well need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels but that doesn't change the fact that the efficiency they provide has been unsurpassed and they made the well-being of today's world possible.
Quote•"[M]ore energy means more ability to improve our lives; less energy means less ability—more helplessness, more suffering, and more death" (p. 39).
•"n providing the fuel that makes modern, industrialized, globalized, fertilized agriculture possible, the oil industry has sustained and improved billions and billions of lives. If we rate achievements by their contribution to human well-being, surely this must rank as one of the greatest achievements of our time" (p. 83).
•"It is only thanks to cheap, plentiful, reliable energy that we live in an environment where the water we drink and the food we eat will not make us sick and where we can cope with the often hostile climate of Mother Nature" (p. 86).
•"[W]e don't take a safe climate and make it dangerous; we take a dangerous climate and make it safe. High-energy civilization, not climate, is the driver of climate livability. No matter what, climate will always be naturally hazardous—and the key question will always be whether we have the ability to handle it or, better yet, master it" (p. 126).
•"For years, actually centuries, opponents of fossil fuels . . . have said that using [them] is unsustainable because we'll run out of them. Instead, we keep running into them. The more we use, the more we create" (p. 178).
•"We need to say that human life is our one and only standard of value. And we need to say that the transformation of our environment, the essence of our survival, is a supreme virtue" (p. 201).
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/11/alex-epsteins-moral-case-fossil-fuels/?utm_source=TOS+Commentary+&+Announcements
What concerns me here is the perceived need to refute the assertion that modernity is bad.
Quote from: Viking on November 19, 2014, 06:25:30 AM
What concerns me here is the perceived need to refute the assertion that modernity is bad.
Well, there is that assertion in a considerable part of first world population IMHO
The problem with all such simplistic statements as "[W]e need to say that human life is our one and only standard of value" is that it gets us nowhere. "Life" isn't a value, it is a condition. And even if we get more sophisticated than this writer, and say something like "qualify of human life is our standard of value," we still end up asking "what qualities? which humans?" There is always a tradeoff between the present and the future, between today's human lives and future human lives, and pretending that there isn't doesn't at all advance the debate.
In short, this is a list of tautologies and meaningless buzz phrases. There is a debate to be had, but it needs to be an intellectual one, and this list isn't an intellectual list.
I think of fossil fuels as stored energy. They are basically a incredibly useful way to store really impressive amounts of energy in a form that is relatively easily turned into power.
It is like we humans have found a shitload of batteries lying around waiting for us to use.
The problem is there are a finite number of these batteries, and a finite amount of energy stored in them. Their existence has radically improved the human condition, without question, since they are "free" energy.
The problem is that now our standard of living is basically reliant on all this free energy, and it cannot last forever. And it seems very unlikely (but not impossible) that we will find a way of obtaining a replacement for all that energy before we run out of batteries. And we've created a society that likely cannot function at its current level without access to that kind of readily available energy.
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2014, 07:36:18 AM
The problem with all such simplistic statements as "[W]e need to say that human life is our one and only standard of value" is that it gets us nowhere. "Life" isn't a value, it is a condition. And even if we get more sophisticated than this writer, and say something like "qualify of human life is our standard of value," we still end up asking "what qualities? which humans?" There is always a tradeoff between the present and the future, between today's human lives and future human lives, and pretending that there isn't doesn't at all advance the debate.
In short, this is a list of tautologies and meaningless buzz phrases. There is a debate to be had, but it needs to be an intellectual one, and this list isn't an intellectual list.
Or indeed there is a trade off between quality of human life for people living in one place vs people living in another.
A better moral argument, imo, is that by eschewing fossil fuels, the developing world will have a much harder time catching up with the developed world (which took full advantage of fossils during its own development period). I think this conundrum can only be answered by setting different standards for different countries - an idea politically toxic for any Western politician.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2014, 07:37:15 AM
I think of fossil fuels as stored energy. They are basically a incredibly useful way to store really impressive amounts of energy in a form that is relatively easily turned into power.
It is like we humans have found a shitload of batteries lying around waiting for us to use.
The problem is there are a finite number of these batteries, and a finite amount of energy stored in them. Their existence has radically improved the human condition, without question, since they are "free" energy.
The problem is that now our standard of living is basically reliant on all this free energy, and it cannot last forever. And it seems very unlikely (but not impossible) that we will find a way of obtaining a replacement for all that energy before we run out of batteries. And we've created a society that likely cannot function at its current level without access to that kind of readily available energy.
This is the kind of intellectual argument we should be having. I'd go further and argue (similar to Marti) that a morally superior use for the remaining easily-accessed fossil fuels would be to raise the standard of living of the poorest third of the population by 100%, rather than raising the standard of living of the richest third by 5%. That is, of course, presuming that morality is an actual concern and not just a smokescreen, and that our values do have something to do with "human life" as opposed to
a human life (one's own).
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2014, 07:55:59 AM
A better moral argument, imo, is that by eschewing fossil fuels, the developing world will have a much harder time catching up with the developed world (which took full advantage of fossils during its own development period). I think this conundrum can only be answered by setting different standards for different countries - an idea politically toxic for any Western politician.
Good point.
But if I am not mistaken the developing third world largely ignores western concerns about this. eg. look at pollution levels in China and India.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2014, 07:37:15 AM
The problem is that now our standard of living is basically reliant on all this free energy, and it cannot last forever.
It will last longer than our lifetimes. But there are many other sources of "free energy" out there: the sun (through sunlight), atoms, among others.
There is certainly a valid case for fossil fuels, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is moral.
The premise is ridiculous. Fossil fuels are an instrumentality. You can't make a moral case for them any more than you can make a moral case for ball bearings or concrete. The question is simply cost and benefit. Climate change is significant because it is a cost with quite a lot risk attached. So the cost of using fossil fuels has to incorporate those risks, and once those costs are incorporated, then the cost advantage of fossil fuels against available alernatives does not look so compelling.
The only moral question raised by all this is - per Martinus and grumbler - distributional. Namely how do we distribute costs and benefits across geographies (e.g. low lying areas of Bangladesh or Pacific islands) and levels of economic development.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2014, 07:37:15 AM
I think of fossil fuels as stored energy. They are basically a incredibly useful way to store really impressive amounts of energy in a form that is relatively easily turned into power.
It is like we humans have found a shitload of batteries lying around waiting for us to use.
The problem is there are a finite number of these batteries, and a finite amount of energy stored in them. Their existence has radically improved the human condition, without question, since they are "free" energy.
But this is wrong.
There is a virtually unlimited amount of batteries that exist. The question is "how much do you want to pay to extract these batteries"? And as technology improves, the cost of extracting these batteries decreases.
There are some very good reasons to limit our use of fossil fuels. But "we're going to run out" is not one of them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2014, 10:28:20 AM
The premise is ridiculous. Fossil fuels are an instrumentality. You can't make a moral case for them any more than you can make a moral case for ball bearings or concrete. The question is simply cost and benefit. Climate change is significant because it is a cost with quite a lot risk attached. So the cost of using fossil fuels has to incorporate those risks, and once those costs are incorporated, then the cost advantage of fossil fuels against available alernatives does not look so compelling.
The only moral question raised by all this is - per Martinus and grumbler - distributional. Namely how do we distribute costs and benefits across geographies (e.g. low lying areas of Bangladesh or Pacific islands) and levels of economic development.
The premise is not original to the author though. There are many in the green movement that argue quite loudly that fossil fuel use is 'unethical', so it's quite natural some more rational people would want to make the counter-argument.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2014, 07:37:15 AM
The problem is that now our standard of living is basically reliant on all this free energy, and it cannot last forever. And it seems very unlikely (but not impossible) that we will find a way of obtaining a replacement for all that energy before we run out of batteries. And we've created a society that likely cannot function at its current level without access to that kind of readily available energy.
We have quite a lot of batteries. The amount of proven reserves has increases steadily since coal and oil first began to be used in the 19th century. In other words, for the last 100 years, our "store" of batteries has been filling up faster then we can use the batteries. What has happened over the past decade or so is that the cost to make the newer batteries has gone up and is likely to keep going up. So again this is really more of cost issue than a problem of literally running out.
On the other side, we do have plenty of replacements - nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, geo. For some of them - namely solar - costs have been declining nicely and are likely to continue to do so. There are technical problems involved with much wider or ubiquitous use of clean options. But if the world HAD to make the transition quickly it could be done. Again the question is simply cost.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2014, 10:35:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2014, 07:37:15 AM
I think of fossil fuels as stored energy. They are basically a incredibly useful way to store really impressive amounts of energy in a form that is relatively easily turned into power.
It is like we humans have found a shitload of batteries lying around waiting for us to use.
The problem is there are a finite number of these batteries, and a finite amount of energy stored in them. Their existence has radically improved the human condition, without question, since they are "free" energy.
But this is wrong.
There is a virtually unlimited amount of batteries that exist. The question is "how much do you want to pay to extract these batteries"? And as technology improves, the cost of extracting these batteries decreases.
There are some very good reasons to limit our use of fossil fuels. But "we're going to run out" is not one of them.
As the author himself points out, we simply discover new batteries. HEY LETS SEE IF THIS BURNS
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2014, 10:36:11 AM
The premise is not original to the author though. There are many in the green movement that argue quite loudly that fossil fuel use is 'unethical', so it's quite natural some more rational people would want to make the counter-argument.
I've never found fight stupid with stupid to be convincing.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 19, 2014, 10:01:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2014, 07:37:15 AM
The problem is that now our standard of living is basically reliant on all this free energy, and it cannot last forever.
It will last longer than our lifetimes.
Maybe true, but not necessarily. Besides, some of us are capable of concern beyond ourselves.
Quote
But there are many other sources of "free energy" out there: the sun (through sunlight), atoms, among others.
Those other things are not free though, since we cannot actually exploit them at the moment. So relative to the cost of fossil fuels, they are actually very expensive.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 19, 2014, 10:01:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2014, 07:37:15 AM
The problem is that now our standard of living is basically reliant on all this free energy, and it cannot last forever.
It will last longer than our lifetimes.
Maybe true, but not necessarily. Besides, some of us are capable of concern beyond ourselves.
Quote
But there are many other sources of "free energy" out there: the sun (through sunlight), atoms, among others.
Those other things are not free though, since we cannot actually exploit them at the moment. So relative to the cost of fossil fuels, they are actually very expensive.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2014, 10:39:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2014, 07:37:15 AM
The problem is that now our standard of living is basically reliant on all this free energy, and it cannot last forever. And it seems very unlikely (but not impossible) that we will find a way of obtaining a replacement for all that energy before we run out of batteries. And we've created a society that likely cannot function at its current level without access to that kind of readily available energy.
We have quite a lot of batteries. The amount of proven reserves has increases steadily since coal and oil first began to be used in the 19th century. In other words, for the last 100 years, our "store" of batteries has been filling up faster then we can use the batteries. What has happened over the past decade or so is that the cost to make the newer batteries has gone up and is likely to keep going up. So again this is really more of cost issue than a problem of literally running out.
On the other side, we do have plenty of replacements - nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, geo. For some of them - namely solar - costs have been declining nicely and are likely to continue to do so. There are technical problems involved with much wider or ubiquitous use of clean options. But if the world HAD to make the transition quickly it could be done. Again the question is simply cost.
Granted - my use of the term "free" is probably better defined as "A hell of a lot cheaper than the alternatives" or even "really damn cheap relative to what you get out of it".
Compared to, for example, the cost of nuclear energy, fossil fuel energy is really damn cheap (as long as we are ignoring external costs, of course, which we mostly do).
And yes, the amount of batteries we find certainly does keep going up, but that is to be expected, since we haven't looked everywhere yet, and our ability to look in otherwise unknown places improves. But that cannot go on forever either - there is a finite number of places to look, even if we haven't defined what that finite number is...
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2014, 11:12:18 AM
Those other things are not free though, since we cannot actually exploit them at the moment. So relative to the cost of fossil fuels, they are actually very expensive.
Nuclear power plants have extraordinary build costs and initial capital requirements, but once they're online and running, they're practically free money compared to fossil fuel generation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2014, 11:20:21 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2014, 11:12:18 AM
Those other things are not free though, since we cannot actually exploit them at the moment. So relative to the cost of fossil fuels, they are actually very expensive.
Nuclear power plants have extraordinary build costs and initial capital requirements, but once they're online and running, they're practically free money compared to fossil fuel generation.
Yeah, if we ignore the incredible costs, then they are practically free.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2014, 11:12:18 AM
Those other things are not free though, since we cannot actually exploit them at the moment. So relative to the cost of fossil fuels, they are actually very expensive.
The EIA puts numbers on these things (levelized costs) that include capital construction costs. In levelized kwh equivalent all in:
Combined cycle gas (no carbon capture etc): 65
Hydro: 84
Conventional coal: 95
"Advanced" nuclear: 96
Onshore wind: 85
Offshore wind: 204
Solar Photovoltaic: 130
You can see right away why coal is doomed . . .
The EIA doesn't say exactly how they calculated the construction cost on nuclear and since there has been so little new build that is obviously an area to question. But if the US decided to get back to mass build of nuclear those costs could probably settle down.
Onshore wind is already quite competitive.
Solar PV is still double cost of the FF alternative, but these costs are steadily declining. For its 2040 estimate, EIA is guessing gas costs go up to the high 78-80 and solar PV down to 110.
So yes we would have to pay more to go more renewable but it would not be cripplingly ruinous.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2014, 11:12:18 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 19, 2014, 10:01:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2014, 07:37:15 AM
The problem is that now our standard of living is basically reliant on all this free energy, and it cannot last forever.
It will last longer than our lifetimes.
Maybe true, but not necessarily. Besides, some of us are capable of concern beyond ourselves.
I don't understand why I am getting a snide remark like that.
Lets suppose fossil fuels last for 50 more years, still within the life span of some of us. Why worry about something so distant? We went from WWI biplanes to the moon in roughly that time period. Technology is increasing incredibly quickly and alternative fuels are a major focus of research, and as MM is posting they are already increasing affordable.
Natural selection.
Those who refuse to to use fossil fuel shall serve those who don't.
Until the next energy revolution.
Right now the West is being slowly selected out.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2014, 11:22:43 AM
Yeah, if we ignore the incredible costs, then they are practically free.
Over 100 nuclear reactors in this country are making very good money for their masters, with substantial lower operational costs than ripping off mountain tops and poisoning aquifers. Douchebag attitude duly noted, however.
Noting that if you ignore how much things cost, they are practically free is a "douchebag attitude"? Harsh.
Nuclear energy is the wave of the future.
To the Singulaty, March!
Stop hating nuclear power, B.
Stop rooting for nuclear power, Siege.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2014, 11:58:50 AM
Stop hating nuclear power, B.
Stop rooting for nuclear power, Siege.
You never fucking happy with nothing, are you?
I don't hate nuke power at all. I am a big supporter, in fact, and find it ridiculous that we don't use a lot more of it.
I just think comments like "Hey, if you ignore how much it costs, and yeah, that is A LOT!!!!!, then nuke power is practically free!" are funny enough to be worth poking you on.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2014, 12:05:19 PM
I just think comments like "Hey, if you ignore how much it costs, and yeah, that is A LOT!!!!!, then nuke power is practically free!" are funny enough to be worth poking you on.
It's not a matter of ignoring it, it's a matter of getting companies to grow the balls to invest. But that irks shareholders something fierce.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2014, 12:11:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2014, 12:05:19 PM
I just think comments like "Hey, if you ignore how much it costs, and yeah, that is A LOT!!!!!, then nuke power is practically free!" are funny enough to be worth poking you on.
It's not a matter of ignoring it, it's a matter of getting companies to grow the balls to invest. But that irks shareholders something fierce.
I think it is more a fear of the political mess behind it, and uncertainty around such an investment.
What about the Lockheed Compact Fusion Reactor?
That thing looks promissing...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.singularityhub.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F11%2Flockheed-martin-compact-fusion.jpg&hash=bb81930e2c170ea5c8f187dfbcb2728d313a896b)
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2014, 12:16:37 PM
I think it is more a fear of the political mess behind it, and uncertainty around such an investment.
Shareholder Value, Inc. turned down $12B in federal loan guarantees to build a third reactor because it would've required a $150M marker, all because they determined they could make more in LNG futures in the next 5 years. So now Georgia gets to build them.
Political messes and uncertainty have nothing to do with it. It's about the making the most profits in the shortest term possible, and within that context the shareholders are right: the less generation assets you have to put on the grid, the more you can charge per kilowatt hour.
The unfortunate aspect of all this is, when you've got companies deciding that they can make more money the next 5 years on fossil fuel speculation than choosing to invest in an energy solution that can make more money at less cost for the next 50 years--and all the additional positive economic impacts that comes with it--you've got a broken energy model on a national level.
CDM it is a lot simpler than that.
Gas is cheaper to build, operate and maintain than nuclear on a per kwh basis, period. So as long as build decisions are entrusted solely to private enterprise, in the absence of subsidies to nuclear or taxes on carbon, nuclear won't get built. It would be burning money.
And here comes Minsky with his usual anti-free market retoric.
Quote from: Siege on November 19, 2014, 12:49:29 PM
And here comes Minsky with his usual anti-free market retoric.
A>B is a mathematical relation, not rhetoric.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2014, 12:53:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 19, 2014, 12:49:29 PM
And here comes Minsky with his usual anti-free market retoric.
A>B is a mathematical relation, not rhetoric.
A+B however was pure rhetoric. :nerd:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2014, 12:47:36 PM
Gas is cheaper to build, operate and maintain than nuclear on a per kwh basis, period.
Two things, however: gas by itself is not the only factor in the kwh equation, and it is severely exposed to market volatility. Nukes will win the cost per kwh every time.
QuoteSo as long as build decisions are entrusted solely to private enterprise, in the absence of subsidies to nuclear or taxes on carbon, nuclear won't get built. It would be burning money.
Which is why the French do it better.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2014, 01:07:34 PM
Two things, however: gas by itself is not the only factor in the kwh equation, and it is severely exposed to market volatility. Nukes will win the cost per kwh every time.
Gas supply can be hedged.
The problem for nuclear is that construct cost is about five times higher and annual admin and maintenance is about six times higher. So fuel costs have to go way up and stay up for it to be breakeven.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2014, 01:19:11 PM
The problem for nuclear is that construct cost is about five times higher and annual admin and maintenance is about six times higher. So fuel costs have to go way up and stay up for it to be breakeven.
Where are you getting these figures? Links, plz.
At least in Sweden fossil fuel energy production doesn't have to take care of its own fuel waste, which makes it harder to compare costs to nuclear. And obviously a significant part of the costs for nuclear are driven by safety regulations that are, from a safety standpoint, quite completely insane.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2014, 01:30:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2014, 01:19:11 PM
The problem for nuclear is that construct cost is about five times higher and annual admin and maintenance is about six times higher. So fuel costs have to go way up and stay up for it to be breakeven.
Where are you getting these figures? Links, plz.
EIA
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
Quote from: Tamas on November 19, 2014, 05:32:25 AM
It is a new book apparently. I have found the major points worthwhile of consideration, and it is indeed needed to view issues from both sides. We may very well need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels but that doesn't change the fact that the efficiency they provide has been unsurpassed and they made the well-being of today's world possible.
Would not "The Moral Case For Not Wanting To Be Responsible For The Consquences Of Ones Own Actions" be an more honest endeavour on the part of the OP article's author?
Some odd articles on that pay website, including "Obama: Admin Seeking to Reestablish Funding for Evil UNESCO" :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2014, 01:05:30 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2014, 12:53:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 19, 2014, 12:49:29 PM
And here comes Minsky with his usual anti-free market retoric.
A>B is a mathematical relation, not rhetoric.
A+B however was pure rhetoric. :nerd:
I guess a joke that revolved around knowing the principals of Social Credit ideology was a bit too obscure even for languish. :(
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2014, 03:06:53 PM
EIA
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
QuoteLevelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies. It represents the per-kilowatthour cost (in real dollars) of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle. Key inputs to calculating LCOE include capital costs, fuel costs, fixed and variable operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type.3 The importance of the factors varies among the technologies. For technologies such as solar and wind generation that have no fuel costs and relatively small variable O&M costs, LCOE changes in rough proportion to the estimated capital cost of generation capacity. For technologies with significant fuel cost, both fuel cost and overnight cost estimates significantly affect LCOE. The availability of various incentives, including state or federal tax credits, can also impact the calculation of LCOE. As with any projection, there is uncertainty about all of these factors and their values can vary regionally and across time as technologies evolve and fuel prices change.
Forecasted LCOE? For 2019? So in other words, "Magic 8 Ball says, 'Cannot predict now'." :P
And even with the higher fixed O&M for nukes, it's is still better deal with the Variable O&M compared to fossils (gas + coal). Not to mention how many Katrinas we could have between now and 2019 that would blow those projections all to hell anyway, while nuclear power just hums right along, all nice and warm.
You can't hug a child with nuclear arms.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2014, 03:34:14 PM
Forecasted LCOE? For 2019? So in other words, "Magic 8 Ball says, 'Cannot predict now'." :P
It's 2019 because it assumes new build. If you start a nuclear project now, completion by 2019 would be splendid achievement.
There is an element of estimation but that does not work in favor of nuclear at all. On the contrary, because combined cycle gas is now so common, construct costs can be estimated fairly accurately. But nuclear is a lot more risky. Right now there are two significant nuke construction projects, and both have suffered significant delays (1 yr) and overruns (around $1 billion or so each). And both have a good deal more time to go.
QuoteAnd even with the higher fixed O&M for nukes, it's is still better deal with the Variable O&M compared to fossils (gas + coal). Not to mention how many Katrinas we could have between now and 2019 that would blow those projections all to hell anyway, while nuclear power just hums right along, all nice and warm.
OA&M doesn't include fuel costs - that is separate. OA&M is pretty cheap and predictable for gas.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2014, 04:38:37 PM
OA&M doesn't include fuel costs - that is separate. OA&M is pretty cheap and predictable for gas.
So, where the "Variable O&M (including fuel)" for Advanced Combined Cycle, Natural-Gas Fired is $45.5 per MWh and the "Variable O&M (including fuel)" for Advanced Nuclear is $11.1 per MWh in 2012 dollars, it should really say "Not Variable O&M (including fuel)"?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2014, 04:56:57 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2014, 04:38:37 PM
OA&M doesn't include fuel costs - that is separate. OA&M is pretty cheap and predictable for gas.
So, where the "Variable O&M (including fuel)" for Advanced Combined Cycle, Natural-Gas Fired is $45.5 per MWh and the "Variable O&M (including fuel)" for Advanced Nuclear is $11.1 per MWh in 2012 dollars, it should really say "Not Variable O&M (including fuel)"?
Fixed O&M is the one I referred to above.
The one cost advantage nuke has is fuel costs. Assuming uranium stays cheap. And assuming the US gov't can figure out a way to make the nimbys go yucca themselves for disposal.
But from the POV of an investor, that big capital hit up front is a killer. And just as big is the very long lead time before completion. That is lots of time with a big negative number carrying interest and lots of time before any revenue flows in. It is the antithesis of the usual investment model for these kinds of projects where the goal is to get the revenue flow ASAP.
Practically what it means is you want nuclear you either need a state backed entity or some real carbon taxation.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2014, 10:28:20 AM
The premise is ridiculous. Fossil fuels are an instrumentality. You can't make a moral case for them any more than you can make a moral case for ball bearings or concrete. The question is simply cost and benefit.
Yeah, that's true. The point that "M]ore energy means more ability to improve our lives; less energy means less ability—more helplessness, more suffering, and more death" is basically correct--the standard of living of a society is largely a function of its energy usage--use more energy per capita, and you can provide people with a higher standard of living. And I think most of us would agree that providing people with a higher standard of living is a desirable goal. But the source of that energy is mostly a technical, not moral, issue.
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2014, 05:58:06 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2014, 10:28:20 AM
The premise is ridiculous. Fossil fuels are an instrumentality. You can't make a moral case for them any more than you can make a moral case for ball bearings or concrete. The question is simply cost and benefit.
Yeah, that's true. The point that "M]ore energy means more ability to improve our lives; less energy means less ability—more helplessness, more suffering, and more death" is basically correct--the standard of living of a society is largely a function of its energy usage--use more energy per capita, and you can provide people with a higher standard of living. And I think most of us would agree that providing people with a higher standard of living is a desirable goal. But the source of that energy is mostly a technical, not moral, issue.
I don't think "the source of energy" is a technical issue. What if you fuel your power plant with puppies?
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2014, 06:09:38 AM
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2014, 05:58:06 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2014, 10:28:20 AM
The premise is ridiculous. Fossil fuels are an instrumentality. You can't make a moral case for them any more than you can make a moral case for ball bearings or concrete. The question is simply cost and benefit.
Yeah, that's true. The point that "M]ore energy means more ability to improve our lives; less energy means less ability—more helplessness, more suffering, and more death" is basically correct--the standard of living of a society is largely a function of its energy usage--use more energy per capita, and you can provide people with a higher standard of living. And I think most of us would agree that providing people with a higher standard of living is a desirable goal. But the source of that energy is mostly a technical, not moral, issue.
I don't think "the source of energy" is a technical issue. What if you fuel your power plant with puppies?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cdn.tripadvisor.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto-s%2F02%2F49%2F9c%2F81%2Fwatch-the-puppies-run.jpg&hash=d334797036347d009b1bfe8f80fa6c9ce3039ee4)
?
Coal is dead.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/solar-has-won-even-if-coal-were-free-to-burn-power-stations-couldnt-compete
Quote
Solar has won. Even if coal were free to burn, power stations couldn't compete
As early as 2018, solar could be economically viable to power big cities. By 2040 over half of all electricity may be generated in the same place it's used. Centralised, coal-fired power is over
Giles Parkinson
theguardian.com, Monday 7 July 2014 02.53 BST
Jump to comments (1129)
Last week, for the first time in memory, the wholesale price of electricity in Queensland fell into negative territory – in the middle of the day.
For several days the price, normally around $40-$50 a megawatt hour, hovered in and around zero. Prices were deflated throughout the week, largely because of the influence of one of the newest, biggest power stations in the state – rooftop solar.
"Negative pricing" moves, as they are known, are not uncommon. But they are only supposed to happen at night, when most of the population is mostly asleep, demand is down, and operators of coal fired generators are reluctant to switch off. So they pay others to pick up their output.
That's not supposed to happen at lunchtime. Daytime prices are supposed to reflect higher demand, when people are awake, office building are in use, factories are in production. That's when fossil fuel generators would normally be making most of their money.
The influx of rooftop solar has turned this model on its head. There is 1,100MW of it on more than 350,000 buildings in Queensland alone (3,400MW on 1.2m buildings across the country). It is producing electricity just at the time that coal generators used to make hay (while the sun shines).
The impact has been so profound, and wholesale prices pushed down so low, that few coal generators in Australia made a profit last year. Hardly any are making a profit this year. State-owned generators like Stanwell are specifically blaming rooftop solar.
Tony Abbott, the prime minister, likes to say that Australia is a land of cheap energy and he's half right. It doesn't cost much to shovel a tonne of coal into a boiler and generate steam and put that into a turbine to generate electricity.
The problem for Australian consumers (and voters) comes in the cost of delivery of those electrons – through the transmission and distribution networks, and from retail costs and taxes.
This is the cost which is driving households to take up rooftop solar, in such proportions that the level of rooftop solar is forecast by the government's own modellers, and by private groups such as Bloomberg New Energy Finance, to rise sixfold over the next decade. Households are tipped to spend up to $30bn on rooftop modules.
Last week, the WA Independent market Operator forecast that 75% of detached and semi detached dwellings, and 90% of commercial businesses could have rooftop solar by 2023/24.
The impact on Queensland's markets last week is one of the reasons why utilities, generators and electricity retailers in particular want to slow down the rollout of solar.
The gyrations of wholesale power prices are rarely reflected in consumer power bills. But let's imagine that the wholesale price of electricity fell to zero and stayed there, and that the benefits were passed on to consumers. In effect, that coal-fired energy suddenly became free. Could it then compete with rooftop solar?
The answer is no. Just the network charges and the retailer charges alone add up to more than 19c/kWh, according to estimates by the Australian energy market commissioner. According to industry estimates, solar ranges from 12c/kWh to 18c/kWh, depending on solar resources of the area, Those costs are forecast to come down even further, to around 10c/kWh and lower.
Coal, of course, will never be free. And the rapid uptake of rooftop solar – dubbed the democratisation of energy – is raising the biggest challenge to the centralised model of generation since electricity systems were established more than a century ago.
Network operators in Queensland, realising the pent up demand for rooftop solar, are now allowing customers to install as much as they want, on the condition that they don't export surplus electricity back to the grid.
Households and businesses have little incentive to export excess power. They don't get paid much for it anyway. Ergon Energy admits that this will likely encourage households to install battery storage.
The next step, of course, is for those households and businesses to disconnect entirely from the grid. In remote and regional areas, that might make sense, because the cost of delivery is expensive and in states such as Queensland and WA is massively cross-subsidised by city consumers.
The truly scary prospect for coal generators, however, is that this equation will become economically viable in the big cities. Investment bank UBS says this could happen as early as 2018.
The CSIRO, in its Future Grid report, says that more than half of electricity by 2040 may be generated, and stored, by "prosumers" at the point of consumption. But they warn that unless the incumbent utilities can adapt their business models to embrace this change, then 40% of consumers will quit the grid.
Even if the network operators and retailers do learn how to compete – from telecommunication companies, data and software specialists like Google and Apple, and energy management experts – it is not clear how centralised, fossil-fuel generation can adapt. In an energy democracy, even free coal has no value.
Supporters of solar energy seem to believe that availability of solar power is the same across the globe. :huh:
no, solar is not a replacement for baseline electricity generation, even if it were cheaper, it would not work for the simple reason that it varies with weather and it is very very very difficult to store.
If coal is dead then Shale Gas killed it.
I just love how Greens constantly use Fukushima as an argument against building nuclear plants in Europe. Idiots or populists?
Quote from: Viking on November 20, 2014, 07:12:32 AM
no, solar is not a replacement for baseline electricity generation, even if it were cheaper, it would not work for the simple reason that it varies with weather and it is very very very difficult to store.
If coal is dead then Shale Gas killed it.
Yeah that's what I said in the post right before yours.
Energy is the main reason I am so reluctant to vote for Green parties. Especially in Europe, they are playing right into the hands of Putin.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 20, 2014, 07:00:35 AM
Coal is dead.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/solar-has-won-even-if-coal-were-free-to-burn-power-stations-couldnt-compete
Quote
Solar has won. Even if coal were free to burn, power stations couldn't compete
As early as 2018, solar could be economically viable to power big cities. By 2040 over half of all electricity may be generated in the same place it's used. Centralised, coal-fired power is over
Giles Parkinson
theguardian.com, Monday 7 July 2014 02.53 BST
Jump to comments (1129)
Last week, for the first time in memory, the wholesale price of electricity in Queensland fell into negative territory – in the middle of the day.
For several days the price, normally around $40-$50 a megawatt hour, hovered in and around zero. Prices were deflated throughout the week, largely because of the influence of one of the newest, biggest power stations in the state – rooftop solar.
"Negative pricing" moves, as they are known, are not uncommon. But they are only supposed to happen at night, when most of the population is mostly asleep, demand is down, and operators of coal fired generators are reluctant to switch off. So they pay others to pick up their output.
That's not supposed to happen at lunchtime. Daytime prices are supposed to reflect higher demand, when people are awake, office building are in use, factories are in production. That's when fossil fuel generators would normally be making most of their money.
The influx of rooftop solar has turned this model on its head. There is 1,100MW of it on more than 350,000 buildings in Queensland alone (3,400MW on 1.2m buildings across the country). It is producing electricity just at the time that coal generators used to make hay (while the sun shines).
The impact has been so profound, and wholesale prices pushed down so low, that few coal generators in Australia made a profit last year. Hardly any are making a profit this year. State-owned generators like Stanwell are specifically blaming rooftop solar.
Tony Abbott, the prime minister, likes to say that Australia is a land of cheap energy and he's half right. It doesn't cost much to shovel a tonne of coal into a boiler and generate steam and put that into a turbine to generate electricity.
The problem for Australian consumers (and voters) comes in the cost of delivery of those electrons – through the transmission and distribution networks, and from retail costs and taxes.
This is the cost which is driving households to take up rooftop solar, in such proportions that the level of rooftop solar is forecast by the government's own modellers, and by private groups such as Bloomberg New Energy Finance, to rise sixfold over the next decade. Households are tipped to spend up to $30bn on rooftop modules.
Last week, the WA Independent market Operator forecast that 75% of detached and semi detached dwellings, and 90% of commercial businesses could have rooftop solar by 2023/24.
The impact on Queensland's markets last week is one of the reasons why utilities, generators and electricity retailers in particular want to slow down the rollout of solar.
The gyrations of wholesale power prices are rarely reflected in consumer power bills. But let's imagine that the wholesale price of electricity fell to zero and stayed there, and that the benefits were passed on to consumers. In effect, that coal-fired energy suddenly became free. Could it then compete with rooftop solar?
The answer is no. Just the network charges and the retailer charges alone add up to more than 19c/kWh, according to estimates by the Australian energy market commissioner. According to industry estimates, solar ranges from 12c/kWh to 18c/kWh, depending on solar resources of the area, Those costs are forecast to come down even further, to around 10c/kWh and lower.
Coal, of course, will never be free. And the rapid uptake of rooftop solar – dubbed the democratisation of energy – is raising the biggest challenge to the centralised model of generation since electricity systems were established more than a century ago.
Network operators in Queensland, realising the pent up demand for rooftop solar, are now allowing customers to install as much as they want, on the condition that they don't export surplus electricity back to the grid.
Households and businesses have little incentive to export excess power. They don't get paid much for it anyway. Ergon Energy admits that this will likely encourage households to install battery storage.
The next step, of course, is for those households and businesses to disconnect entirely from the grid. In remote and regional areas, that might make sense, because the cost of delivery is expensive and in states such as Queensland and WA is massively cross-subsidised by city consumers.
The truly scary prospect for coal generators, however, is that this equation will become economically viable in the big cities. Investment bank UBS says this could happen as early as 2018.
The CSIRO, in its Future Grid report, says that more than half of electricity by 2040 may be generated, and stored, by "prosumers" at the point of consumption. But they warn that unless the incumbent utilities can adapt their business models to embrace this change, then 40% of consumers will quit the grid.
Even if the network operators and retailers do learn how to compete – from telecommunication companies, data and software specialists like Google and Apple, and energy management experts – it is not clear how centralised, fossil-fuel generation can adapt. In an energy democracy, even free coal has no value.
You resurrected an article thoroughly discussed when it came out in order to justify making a stupid assertion? Well-done, Not even you can out-Timmay you.
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2014, 07:14:50 AM
I just love how Greens constantly use Fukushima as an argument against building nuclear plants in Europe. Idiots or populists?
Ideologues, it's an article of faith for most of them. However some of 'us' realise all pragmatic solutions need to be tried.
Nuclear power is a prevalent technology with a huge amount of additional potential fuel supplies just lying around that needs to be dealt with. Why not continue to use it and make it part of a mix of energy sources to reduce pollution?
Quote from: mongers on November 20, 2014, 07:26:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2014, 07:14:50 AM
I just love how Greens constantly use Fukushima as an argument against building nuclear plants in Europe. Idiots or populists?
Ideologues, it's an article of faith for most of them. However some of 'us' realise all pragmatic solutions need to be tried.
Nuclear power is a prevalent technology with a huge amount of additional potential fuel supplies just lying around that needs to be dealt with. Why not continue to use it and make it part of a mix of energy sources to reduce pollution?
At first, I read it "population", not "pollution". :D
I think it's very moral for us to be using fossil fuels. We're just cleaning up the planet's garbage. After all, if you were the planet would you want dead plant carcasses and stuff stuck in every crevasse all over your body? :)
Quote from: Viking on November 20, 2014, 07:12:32 AM
no, solar is not a replacement for baseline electricity generation, even if it were cheaper, it would not work for the simple reason that it varies with weather and it is very very very difficult to store.
If coal is dead then Shale Gas killed it.
This.
According to the EIA numbers the cost differential is about 50% and that is before you start talking about "clean coal" or CCS technologies which would drive those numbers apart a lot more.
But solar even now can be a useful adjunct. Every few percent counts.
Quote from: Viking on November 20, 2014, 07:12:32 AM
no, solar is not a replacement for baseline electricity generation, even if it were cheaper, it would not work for the simple reason that it varies with weather and it is very very very difficult to store.
If coal is dead then Shale Gas killed it.
Gas is the big deal right now. We were using gas for most of our energy in Texas in the 70s but Congress passed a bunch of laws and made us build a bunch of coal plants (because coal is so cheap and economically superior it needed massive congressional intervention). Now we are going back.
But the storage thing may not be as impossible as you think. Or at least maybe Texas is going to be building some big battery arrays to better use its vast wind resources, we have been waiting on it until it became economical to do so and that time looks to be soon. I mean we have a pretty sweet arrangement where our coastal winds blow during the day and the desert winds blow at night but there are those times when both blow at the same time and it would be nice to better use it.
As far as the morality of fossil fuels, I want to add that not using them drives the costs down and it was low fossil fuel prices that brought down the Soviet Union and which would bring down Putinstan and Wahhabistan. Just saying. On the other hand my family makes a nice bit of cash from oil and gas on our farmland in Oklahoma so...think of me and use fossil fuels.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2014, 02:27:01 AM
But from the POV of an investor, that big capital hit up front is a killer. And just as big is the very long lead time before completion. That is lots of time with a big negative number carrying interest and lots of time before any revenue flows in. It is the antithesis of the usual investment model for these kinds of projects where the goal is to get the revenue flow ASAP.
Practically what it means is you want nuclear you either need a state backed entity or some real carbon taxation.
The same argument can be made about our refinery capacity, which hasn't seen a single refinery capable of 6 digit barrel capacity in United States come online since the early 1970s. Imagine what the fuel costs would be if we didn't have to ship it overseas and back. It costs investment money to make long term money. But no, energy politics has been translated out of the national security discussion, because national security does not translate into shareholder value. The GOP barks about energy independence, but like so much other Big Business Bullshit they spout, it's just that: bullshit.
NATIONALIZE EXXON MOBIL NOW
Quote from: Caliga on November 20, 2014, 07:56:37 AM
I think it's very moral for us to be using fossil fuels. We're just cleaning up the planet's garbage. After all, if you were the planet would you want dead plant carcasses and stuff stuck in every crevasse all over your body? :)
Gaya.
EDF is having terrible trouble building a replacement nuclear power station in the UK (despite huge govt. support) - the EPR technology seems to be impossibly expensive and prone to delays in implementation. EDF can't get funders interested in the project.
Quote from: Gups on November 20, 2014, 11:39:58 AM
EDF is having terrible trouble building a replacement nuclear power station in the UK (despite huge govt. support) - the EPR technology seems to be impossibly expensive and prone to delays in implementation. EDF can't get funders interested in the project.
We didn't help them: they were becoming positioned to enter the NA market with the new reactor push, had bought into 50% of the company's nuke generation, and we took the carpet from under them by selling out to their biggest competitor. A massive fuck over. Yay for fossil fuels.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2014, 12:47:36 PM
CDM it is a lot simpler than that.
Gas is cheaper to build, operate and maintain than nuclear on a per kwh basis, period. So as long as build decisions are entrusted solely to private enterprise, in the absence of subsidies to nuclear or taxes on carbon, nuclear won't get built. It would be burning money.
Add to that cost of project/construction delays because of protests and potential opposition from various levels of government and not building become even less attractive.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2014, 11:42:17 AM
The EIA puts numbers on these things (levelized costs) that include capital construction costs. In levelized kwh equivalent all in:
Combined cycle gas (no carbon capture etc): 65
Hydro: 84
Conventional coal: 95
"Advanced" nuclear: 96
Onshore wind: 85
Offshore wind: 204
Solar Photovoltaic: 130
Do you know if the solar and wind figures incorporate the necessary backup fossil fuel generation?
Haven't read whole thread; sorry if already covered.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2014, 02:30:45 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2014, 11:42:17 AM
The EIA puts numbers on these things (levelized costs) that include capital construction costs. In levelized kwh equivalent all in:
Combined cycle gas (no carbon capture etc): 65
Hydro: 84
Conventional coal: 95
"Advanced" nuclear: 96
Onshore wind: 85
Offshore wind: 204
Solar Photovoltaic: 130
Do you know if the solar and wind figures incorporate the necessary backup fossil fuel generation?
Haven't read whole thread; sorry if already covered.
You mean the necessary nuclear base power?
Quote from: The Brain on November 20, 2014, 11:33:31 AM
Quote from: Caliga on November 20, 2014, 07:56:37 AM
I think it's very moral for us to be using fossil fuels. We're just cleaning up the planet's garbage. After all, if you were the planet would you want dead plant carcasses and stuff stuck in every crevasse all over your body? :)
Gaya.
I see. No worries, it's cool now. :hug:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2014, 01:49:11 PM
Add to that cost of project/construction delays because of protests and potential opposition from various levels of government and not building become even less attractive.
Costs of protests? Really?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2014, 10:58:59 AM
The same argument can be made about our refinery capacity, which hasn't seen a single refinery capable of 6 digit barrel capacity in United States come online since the early 1970s. Imagine what the fuel costs would be if we didn't have to ship it overseas and back. It costs investment money to make long term money. But no, energy politics has been translated out of the national security discussion, because national security does not translate into shareholder value. The GOP barks about energy independence, but like so much other Big Business Bullshit they spout, it's just that: bullshit.
So there have been refineries built, just not ones that meet some arbitrary standard, and so they are ignored? What fuel gets shipped overseas and then returned? What percentage of the costs of fuel in the US come from the costs of shipping fuel overseas and then back again?
Or is this just bullshit rhetoric, and the US has, in fact, plenty of refinery capacity and so hasn't needed to build any new ones except for boutique products?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2014, 02:57:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2014, 01:49:11 PM
Add to that cost of project/construction delays because of protests and potential opposition from various levels of government and not building become even less attractive.
Costs of protests? Really?
Costs of delays caused by protests.
Yes, really.
As just one example (in another energy sector). This protest may result in Kinder Morgan missing a regulatory deadline for submitting a revised report to the regulator which will result in further delay and cost.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/protesters-arrested-at-burnaby-mountain-anti-pipeline-demonstration/article21668755/
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2014, 02:59:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2014, 10:58:59 AM
The same argument can be made about our refinery capacity, which hasn't seen a single refinery capable of 6 digit barrel capacity in United States come online since the early 1970s. Imagine what the fuel costs would be if we didn't have to ship it overseas and back. It costs investment money to make long term money. But no, energy politics has been translated out of the national security discussion, because national security does not translate into shareholder value. The GOP barks about energy independence, but like so much other Big Business Bullshit they spout, it's just that: bullshit.
So there have been refineries built, just not ones that meet some arbitrary standard, and so they are ignored? What fuel gets shipped overseas and then returned? What percentage of the costs of fuel in the US come from the costs of shipping fuel overseas and then back again?
Or is this just bullshit rhetoric, and the US has, in fact, plenty of refinery capacity and so hasn't needed to build any new ones except for boutique products?
Expansion of existing facilities or little hole-in-the-wall operations wasn't what I was aiming at, but that the same claim can be made about refineries that CC is making about nukes (that start up costs are prohibitive as an excuse not to build them) is bullshit.
But I'm not even talking to you, so go ply your Jedi PickAFight Mind Tricks with someone else.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2014, 03:24:55 PM
Costs of delays caused by protests.
Yes, really.
As just one example (in another energy sector). This protest may result in Kinder Morgan missing a regulatory deadline for submitting a revised report to the regulator which will result in further delay and cost.
That's in Canada, a foreign country. People here haven't handcuffed themselves to shit in protest of construction in the energy sector since California in the '70s, and most of those hippies are Baby Boomer sellout shareholders by now anyway.
Stop trying to introduce alien Weenie concepts from foreign lands into the exceptionalism of America, dammit. Green is just a lawn color here.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2014, 03:35:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2014, 03:24:55 PM
Costs of delays caused by protests.
Yes, really.
As just one example (in another energy sector). This protest may result in Kinder Morgan missing a regulatory deadline for submitting a revised report to the regulator which will result in further delay and cost.
That's in Canada, a foreign country. People here haven't handcuffed themselves to shit in protest of construction in the energy sector since California in the '70s, and most of those hippies are Baby Boomer sellout shareholders by now anyway.
Stop trying to introduce alien Weenie concepts from foreign lands into the exceptionalism of America, dammit. Green is just a lawn color here.
:lol:
I'll not be easy to avoid using that line, but don't worry I'll credit you. :)
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2014, 03:35:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2014, 03:24:55 PM
Costs of delays caused by protests.
Yes, really.
As just one example (in another energy sector). This protest may result in Kinder Morgan missing a regulatory deadline for submitting a revised report to the regulator which will result in further delay and cost.
That's in Canada, a foreign country. People here haven't handcuffed themselves to shit in protest of construction in the energy sector since California in the '70s, and most of those hippies are Baby Boomer sellout shareholders by now anyway.
Stop trying to introduce alien Weenie concepts from foreign lands into the exceptionalism of America, dammit. Green is just a lawn color here.
:lol:
And guess what? That color is a petroleum by-product!
http://www.lawnlift.com/
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2014, 02:30:45 PM
Do you know if the solar and wind figures incorporate the necessary backup fossil fuel generation?
Haven't read whole thread; sorry if already covered.
I don't think so, but that is not unique to solar/wind. Because demand is variable there is often a need for "peaker" plants even if you are using gas or oil or coal. One nice thing about solar, especially as you go South, is that there is good correlation between summertime generation and demand.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2014, 07:12:09 PM
I don't think so, but that is not unique to solar/wind. Because demand is variable there is often a need for "peaker" plants even if you are using gas or oil or coal. One nice thing about solar, especially as you go South, is that there is good correlation between summertime generation and demand.
I wasn't thinking so much of peak demand as I was about no sun and no wind.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2014, 05:13:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2014, 03:35:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2014, 03:24:55 PM
Costs of delays caused by protests.
Yes, really.
As just one example (in another energy sector). This protest may result in Kinder Morgan missing a regulatory deadline for submitting a revised report to the regulator which will result in further delay and cost.
That's in Canada, a foreign country. People here haven't handcuffed themselves to shit in protest of construction in the energy sector since California in the '70s, and most of those hippies are Baby Boomer sellout shareholders by now anyway.
Stop trying to introduce alien Weenie concepts from foreign lands into the exceptionalism of America, dammit. Green is just a lawn color here.
:lol:
And guess what? That color is a petroleum by-product!
http://www.lawnlift.com/
That shit is good when the house you are flipping has a shitty brown lawn and you don't want to spend the bucks on landscaping.