Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 480
  1. #251
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    Saying you believe "they are at the point where they need less and less in the way of intervention," could be construed as an assumption -- one for which Poptech rightly points out there is no support.
    I guess it could be construed if you believe the words "I think" means "I assume".

    But if you wish, here are some of the built in assumptions for the 2010 LEC costs, and you may find some of this familiar:

    •Coal & Nuclear: The updated overnight capital cost estimates for coal and nuclear power plants are 25 to 37 percent above those in AEO2010. The higher cost estimates reflect many factors including the overall trend of rising costs of capital intensive technology in the power sector, higher global commodity prices, and the fact that there are relatively few construction firms with the ability to complete complex engineering projects such as a new nuclear or advanced coal power plant. The study assumes cost-sharing agreements between the project owner and the project construction contractors are reflective of those recently observed in the marketplace. As shown in Table 1, dual unit coal and nuclear plants generally have lower overnight costs per kilowatt than single-unit plants, reflecting their ability to take advantage of redundancies and scale economies in onsite infrastructure such as wastewater management and environmental controls to reduce the estimated total per-kilowatt cost of the project.
    •Natural Gas: The updated cost estimates for natural gas combined cycle and combustion turbines generally remained similar to those of AEO2010

    •Solar: The overnight capital costs for solar thermal and photovoltaic technologies dropped by 10 percent and 25 percent, respectively. The decrease in the cost of photovoltaics was due to the assumption of larger plant capacity and falling component costs.

    •Onshore Wind: Overnight costs for onshore wind increased by about 21 percent relative to AEO 2010 assumptions. This is based on a specification for a new, stand-alone wind plant including all owners' costs and may differ from other reported costs in the literature, which are not fully characterized and may include sites that are built along side existing plants (and are thus able to avoid some amount of infrastructure costs).
    •Offshore Wind: While offshore wind plants have been built in Europe, there have only been proposals in the United States, with final permitting only recently issued on the first of these proposals. The updated costs, some 50 percent higher than AEO 2010 estimates, are consistent with substantial first-of-a-kind costs that would likely be encountered when building projects in the United States, which largely lacks the unique infrastructure, needed to support this type of construction.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-21-2012 at 01:53 PM.

  2. #252
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    Just as your assumption the water for extracting all the oil out west will be available -- there is no support for it.
    Yes.

    It is worth bearing in mind that the recent shale boom is possible in the US, because the US has some large deposits of shale energy that is particularly accessible to current technology.

    The shale in the OP is not that kind of shale, and is similar in charactor to the types of formations seen in Europe, which is partly why there is no similar boom in Europe.

    The West has increasingly tight water supplies, and this is a huge obstacle to getting at the energy noted in the GOA report. You could with enough energy/money overcome this, but by the time you do, other forms of energy will become far more cost-compe ive.

    That is *IF* you could get Westerners in the US to go along with the ecological damage that would be one of the not-inconsiderable by-products of strip-mining.

    They might vote Libertarian or lean Republican in some ways, but threaten their mountains... they go Democrat real quick, in my experience.

  3. #253
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    I guess it could be construed if you believe the words "I think" means "I assume".
    Actually, the words, "I think" means you assume there are factor existent that make your belief correct. That you think doesn't equal an assumption -- it's the factors that make you think so that are the assumption. Factors Poptech challenged are countered by current reality.

  4. #254
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    The difference in our assumptions is the petroleum and coal industries (fossil fuel industries, if you will) have proven over the past century plus, they are innovative and can improvise solutions at a rate and on a scale not enjoyed by renewable or green energy proponents.

    Two recent incidents come to mind.

    1) The manner in which the deep sea well blowout was finally brought under control was proposed early on in the disaster but rejected by the government. Ultimately, it was what was used to stop the spill.

    2) Some American mining engineer adapted his contraption to rescue those Chilean miners from certain death.

    I put my money on the companies that know how to exploit our natural resources over those who continue to tinker with impractical PV panels and bird-killing propeller farms.
    Last edited by Yonivore; 05-21-2012 at 02:21 PM.

  5. #255
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    * The costs of wind and solar are inaccurate as do not reflect the fact that they are intermittent and require standby power generation.
    This is a very important consideration to power companies.

    It is also an old assumption that is changing.

    Car companies, laptop companies, cell phone companies, and utilities all are pushing the limits of battery technology.

    There is a river of R & D money moving into this technology sector.

    As we have noted here in this board, the Envia consortium has discovered a type due to bring costs down by more than half:
    http://gizmodo.com/5889295/new-elect...and-halve-cost


    Other types of battery innovations are also on the immediate horizon:
    http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardwar...battery-tech/1

    while CLBattery is forging ahead with a commercial implementation, it's going to be a while before your laptop or smartphone sees the benefit. The company's first product built around the technology is designed for use in grid energy storage and electric vehicle applications
    Related bit, not coverd above:
    The upshot: laboratory tests showed that new batteries produced with this material could be rejuvenated to 50 percent of their maximum charge in less than 30 seconds. This was accomplished by replacing conventional graphite anodes with anium nanotube andodes
    http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/07/n...ly-fast-recha/

    The problems of storage and recharging for all sorts of applications are being overcome.

    Even the DOD is getting into it.

    As these battery technologies bring down costs, and infrasctructure investments are made, it increases the value of intermittant sources immensely.

    Furthermore, large scale utility size battery banks offer some very important stability to powergrids. They can supply, instantly, load power to cover failures.

    No other form of energy can do that, not even coal/gas, that have to be spun up, even from standby.

    You can not assume that the problem of intermittancy will still be a problem in 10-20 years.

    As I said, things are changing.

  6. #256
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    Actually, the words, "I think" means you assume there are factor existent that make your belief correct. That you think doesn't equal an assumption -- it's the factors that make you think so that are the assumption. Factors Poptech challenged are countered by current reality.
    I think you should go soak your head.


    When you couple "I think" with "should", it is generally considered by most non-sophists to be an expression of opinion.

    See how that works?

  7. #257
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    I think you should go soak your head.


    When you couple "I think" with "should", it is generally considered by most non-sophists to be an expression of opinion.

    See how that works?
    Not the argument I was making.

    That you "think" government subsidies "should" recede isn't borne out by the factual record (as demonstrated by Poptech) and, therefore, must be based on assumptions made by you.

    Again, assumptions not supported by current reality.

  8. #258
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    The difference in our assumptions is the petroleum and coal industries (fossil fuel industries, if you will) have proven over the past century plus, they are innovative and can improvise solutions at a rate and on a scale not enjoyed by renewable or green energy proponents.

    Two recent incidents come to mind.

    1) The manner in which the deep sea well blowout was finally brought under control was proposed early on in the disaster but rejected by the government. Ultimately, it was what was used to stop the spill.

    2) Some American mining engineer adapted his contraption to rescue those Chilean miners from certain death.

    I put my money on the companies that know how to exploit our natural resources over those who continue to tinker with impractical PV panels and bird-killing propeller farms.
    I don't assume that they won't.

    I assume they will find new reserves.

    Based on how fields play out though, I assume costs will go up, quite markedly, as do the companies themselves, if you drill into their annual reports, and read what the people who know the business most say.

    Output from several small to medium fields, requires more equipment (read: capital) than from one larger fields, for any given level of output/flow.

    The larger a field is, the more likely it has been discovered already, and the odds that a new one will be found in the future go down.

    Oil, coal, natgas, will have long flat tails because of this, and we will not see the civilization threatening collapse that some "peak oil" conspiracy theorists insist is around the corner.

    Production prices will rise, limiting supply somewhat, and at the same time demand will increase from the developing world.

    The price point, i.e. intersection of the two curves, will go up.

    These higher prices will push the subs ution effect, driving demand for things that either avoid the expense, or cheaper alternatives.

    As infrastructure for rewewables gets built, you get a synergistic decline in prices, adding to technological advances, pushing up the supply curve, and driving prices/profits for renewable energy along with the rises in oil prices and profits for the oil companies.

    These are all pretty broad trends, widely covered.

  9. #259
    The D.R.A. Drachen's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    11,214
    you are arguing against "I think they are" when he said "I think they should"

  10. #260
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    Not the argument I was making.

    That you "think" government subsidies "should" recede isn't borne out by the factual record (as demonstrated by Poptech) and, therefore, must be based on assumptions made by you.

    Again, assumptions not supported by current reality.
    What will the subsidy rate be in 2020?

  11. #261
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    you are arguing against "I think they are" when he said "I think they should"
    No.

    "I think they are," should be supported with facts evident to all.

    "I think they should," can be based on assumptions.

    The argument is that his assumptions are evident in current reality.

    Why make a big deal out of it?

  12. #262
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    you are arguing against "I think they are" when he said "I think they should"
    He is trying to make Poptech sound less foolish for misunderstanding me.

    Go team.

    Yoni is smarter than Poptech, and should know better.

  13. #263
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    What will the subsidy rate be in 2020?
    if I know.

  14. #264
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    He is trying to make Poptech sound less foolish for misunderstanding me.

    Go team.

    Yoni is smarter than Poptech, and should know better.
    I just have more faith in the fossil fuel industry to keep us in cheap fuel than the Solyndras of the the pie-in-the-sky left.

    That's all.

    Prove me wrong but, do it with someone else's money.

  15. #265
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,698
    I just have more faith in the fossil fuel industry to keep us in cheap fuel than the Solyndras of the the pie-in-the-sky left.

    That's all.

    Prove me wrong but, do it with someone else's money.
    It's not like the oil industry doesn't use your money.

    If you have an idea where they will get the water, post it.

  16. #266
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    It's not like the oil industry doesn't use your money.
    Take their subsidies, as well. They'd do fine without them.

    If you have an idea where they will get the water, post it.
    I'm not a petrochemical engineer. They'll figure it out...there's a lot of water on this planet if, in fact, water is what is finally used.

  17. #267
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,698
    Take their subsidies, as well. They'd do fine without them.
    Not according to them. Are you calling them liars?


    I'm not a petrochemical engineer. They'll figure it out...there's a lot of water on this planet if, in fact, water is what is finally used.
    So your energy policy is faith based.

    You're no different from a green energy backer.

  18. #268
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,319
    It's not like the oil industry doesn't use your money.

    If you have an idea where they will get the water, post it.
    "Prove me wrong but, do it with someone else's water."

  19. #269
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,698

  20. #270
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    "I have more faith..."



    When I point out the trends of the industries and the technologies it does not require faith. Its called proof.

  21. #271
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    That you "think" government subsidies "should" recede isn't borne out by the factual record (as demonstrated by Poptech) and, therefore, must be based on assumptions made by you.

    Again, assumptions not supported by current reality.
    What will the subsidy rate be in 2020?
    Neither do I.

    But, if "current reality" were as important to starting assumptions as you claim, you should know, right?

    Let me state one final time, just so it is clear:


    I think that subsidies for renewables should come down. This is what I want to happen.

    I don't know what WILL happen, any more than you do.

    I'm not making any predictions. Please stop trying to spin this any other way, as that was not in any sense what I meant.

    Poptech read one thing, and it got shoved through his mental filters to be something else far different than what I meant.

    Honestly, I get the feeling you are trolling me on this, as you like to do.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-21-2012 at 03:27 PM. Reason: backspace is your friend, as frustrating as it is dealing with ideologues.. be nice.

  22. #272
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    I'm not a petrochemical engineer. They'll figure it out...there's a lot of water on this planet if, in fact, water is what is finally used.
    Petrochemical engineers generally don't bother much with how to find water.

    There are other types of geologists for that.

    Your starting assumptions here don't match the current reality of petrochemical engineering.

  23. #273
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    We'll see which energy source is still around and cheapest in 10 to 20 years.

  24. #274
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,319
    You could've saved alot of time and face by just posting that statement.

  25. #275
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,319
    Oil reserves/royalties are the basis of my retirement...which pretty well guarantees that oil will be gone in 10 years.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •