Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 326 to 350 of 480
  1. #326
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Solar is probably a good investment for the southern states, as the usage is more in line with air conditioning usage for load needs. Not so usable in places that need more heating in the winter than cooling in the summer.

    Still....

    I say no subsidies. No tax breaks. Let the product pay it's own way.
    I agree, and so do many in the industry.

    What I do want is an incubation period, that has a definite end, in which there are subsidies and infrastructure investments to get the industry on its feet.

    I would point out that wind in the winter balances a lack of solar. The two compliment each other well.

  2. #327
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I was never able to read your mind, this is correct. If you stated your argument sooner I could have refuted it for you immediately so you did not have to go through two days of falsely believing you made a relevant point.
    "Look at how much the government is spending on future power generation! I divided by the spending on future power generation by this years total generation of power."

    That is, in essence, what you said.

    Your number is meaningless, unless you could break it down into how much installed capacity went in.

    Even then, you really need an NPV value to get anything really worth while, simply because the patterns of the cash flows is so divergent between forms.


    Let's break out all the spending in 2010 on future generation we will call it "X", and divide that by the amount of power generated in 2010 by those planned projects, and not constructed in the year the funds were allocated:


    X/0

    Is this operation going to get you a relevant bit of data to decide on the ultimate efficacy of the investment?

  3. #328
    The D.R.A. Drachen's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    11,214
    "Look at how much the government is spending on future power generation! I divided by the spending on future power generation by this years total generation of power."

    That is, in essence, what you said.

    Your number is meaningless, unless you could break it down into how much installed capacity went in.

    Even then, you really need an NPV value to get anything really worth while, simply because the patterns of the cash flows is so divergent between forms.


    Let's break out all the spending in 2010 on future generation we will call it "X", and divide that by the amount of power generated in 2010 by those planned projects, and not constructed in the year the funds were allocated:


    X/0

    Is this operation going to get you a relevant bit of data to decide on the ultimate efficacy of the investment?
    For every number I sub for "X" my calculator tells me "E" do I need a better calculator?

  4. #329
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,319
    I checked it out. As far as I am concerned financially it's a push even with the federal and CPS rebates. Plus CPS funded the first round with stimulus money and is trying to figure out how to fund a continuing program.
    Did you get a whiff of the insurance piece?

  5. #330
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,319
    For every number I sub for "X" my calculator tells me "E" do I need a better calculator?
    n00b!

  6. #331
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    U.S. Coal Generation Drops 19 Percent In One Year, Leaving Coal With 36 Percent Share Of Electricity



    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...f-electricity/

    Will the US govt stop BigCoal from ripping up USA to ship coal (usa natural resource often mined from US taxpayer-owned property) overseas?

    See recent battles on NW Pacific coast for coal export seaport.

  7. #332
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Manmade Pollutants May Be Driving Earth’s Tropical Belt Expansion And Subtropical Dust-Bowlification

    Climate science has long predicted an expansion of the tropical belt (colored band in figure below), which we’re now observing. At the same time, also as predicted, the subtropical dry zones are shifting poleward and getting drier (see for instance, this study and this one). And that means more “Dust-Bowlification,” which is a grave threat to food security. This observed expansion is happening faster than the climate models projected. A new study in Nature (subs. req’d) offers one possible explanation for this. What follows is a news release on the study.

    by Iqbal Pittalwala, via UCR Today

    Black carbon aerosols and tropospheric ozone, both manmade pollutants emitted predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere’s low- to mid-la udes, are most likely pushing the boundary of the tropics further poleward in that hemisphere, new research by a team of scientists shows.

    While stratospheric ozone depletion has already been shown to be the primary driver of the expansion of the tropics in the Southern Hemisphere, the researchers are the first to report that black carbon and tropospheric ozone are the most likely primary drivers of the tropical expansion observed in the Northern Hemisphere.

    Led by climatologist Robert J. Allen, an assistant professor of Earth sciences at the University of California, Riverside, the research team notes that an unabated tropical belt expansion would impact large-scale atmospheric circulation, especially in the subtropics and mid-la udes.

    “If the tropics are moving poleward, then the subtropics will become even drier,” Allen said. “If a poleward displacement of the mid-la ude storm tracks also occurs, this will shift mid-la ude precipitation poleward, impacting regional agriculture, economy, and society.”

    Study results appear in the May 17 issue of Nature.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...bowlification/

  8. #333
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    If you listen only to the propaganda machine of the Koch Brothers, the power companies and the "clean coal" industry, solar power is only desirable to a white rich ex-hippie with a Malibu beach house.

    Their latest tactic is to paint local clean energy, such as rooftop solar, as an elitist energy source that low-income Californians and people of color are subsidizing.

    A 2011 poll by the Public Policy Ins ute of California found that 79% of Asians, 83% of Blacks and 88% Latinos think that climate change is a serious threat to the economy and their quality of life. That same poll found that people of color believe more strongly than the general population that it is necessary to take steps immediately to counter the effects of climate change. People of color are the strongest supporters of a clean energy and climate change fighting agenda in California.

    When it's done right, low-income Californians and people of color have more to gain from the widespread adoption of local clean energy than anyone else. The more solar power that comes online, the faster we will be able to turn off the dirtiest power plants -- "peaker" plants -- which are the most polluting, least efficient and most expensive source of power we have.?

    Most "peaker" plants are located in our poorest communities. If there are subsidies that need to end, it's the subsidies to dirty energy producers and the heavy price poor Californians pay with their health as a result of last century's pollution based power system.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-jo...=Daily%20Brief

  9. #334
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    [Interesting observation how you are defending the sock puppet]

    I do no such thing, nor do I skim anything. So far your assumption about subsidies being reduced has been found to be based on bull and so has your argument for levelized costs,



    2016 Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources from the Annual Energy Outlook 2011 (EIA)


    * The costs of wind and solar are inaccurate as do not reflect the fact that they are intermittent and require standby power generation.

    * The coal numbers are imaginary as they are inflated for CO2 regulations that do not exist,


    Oh wait, you did not think I researched this too?

    Researched, yes. Kept current, no. Nor, it seems, have you done some appropriate critical thinking.

    Your table from 2010, showing LEC costs based on 2009 prices, has had a few key assumptions change.

    Partially:


    Increased generation from renewable energy in the electric power sector, excluding hydropower, accounts for 33 percent of the overall growth in electricity generation from 2010 to 2035. Generation from renewable resources grows in response to Federal tax credits, State-level policies, and Federal requirements to use more biomass-based transportation fuels, some of which can produce electricity as a byproduct of the production process. Near-term market growth in some sectors, such as solar energy, is projected to result in significantly reduced costs in the AEO2012 Reference case, increasing the projected growth for those resources as compared with the AEO2011 projections. More retirements of coal-fired capacity are expected in the AEO2012 Reference case than were projected in AEO2011 because of slower growth in electricity demand, continued compe ion from natural gas and renewable plants, and the need to comply with new environmental regulations. Growth in renewable generation is supported by many State requirements, as well as new regulations on CO2 emissions in California. The share of U.S. electricity generation coming from renewable fuels (including conventional hydropower) grows from 10 percent in 2010 to 16 percent in 2035. In the AEO2012 Reference case, Federal subsidies for renewable generation are assumed to expire as enacted. Extensions of such subsidies could have a large impact on renewable generation.
    If one bothers to look, the 2035 projections for the cost of coal went up. The 2010 and 2011 projections for the costs of coal were both far too low. I can't imagine why.

    If anybody cares to look, PopTech's "research" appears to include, based on the revealing URL for his happy fun graph, the "www.ins uteforenergyresearch.org" , a website with a rather decided bias. Shocker.

    Read through the Ins utes "Hard-Facts" report in 2012, and the ultimate source that is telling PopTech what his opinion is, becomes clear.

    PopTech has swallowed a line of propaganda, hook, line, and sinker, without doing the critical thinking necessary when viewing obviously biased source material.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-23-2012 at 11:11 AM.

  10. #335
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    If you listen only to the propaganda machine of the Koch Brothers, the power companies and the "clean coal" industry, solar power is only desirable to a white rich ex-hippie with a Malibu beach house.

    Their latest tactic is to paint local clean energy, such as rooftop solar, as an elitist energy source that low-income Californians and people of color are subsidizing.

    A 2011 poll by the Public Policy Ins ute of California found that 79% of Asians, 83% of Blacks and 88% Latinos think that climate change is a serious threat to the economy and their quality of life. That same poll found that people of color believe more strongly than the general population that it is necessary to take steps immediately to counter the effects of climate change. People of color are the strongest supporters of a clean energy and climate change fighting agenda in California.

    When it's done right, low-income Californians and people of color have more to gain from the widespread adoption of local clean energy than anyone else. The more solar power that comes online, the faster we will be able to turn off the dirtiest power plants -- "peaker" plants -- which are the most polluting, least efficient and most expensive source of power we have.?

    Most "peaker" plants are located in our poorest communities. If there are subsidies that need to end, it's the subsidies to dirty energy producers and the heavy price poor Californians pay with their health as a result of last century's pollution based power system.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-jo...=Daily%20Brief
    Pretty much. Coal and other forms of fuel burning power have benefitted historically from the ability to shift the true costs of their product onto others, i.e. "negative externalities". "Nevermind this toxic soup of coal ash, or the arsenic in the mine trailings", etc. This is, in effect, a huge hidden subsidy, that you won't find anywhere.

    When you force theses costs back on them, they scream bloody murder and tell you ad nauseum how "unfair" it is.

  11. #336
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Researched, yes. Kept current, no. Nor, it seems, have you done some appropriate critical thinking.

    Your table from 2010, showing LEC costs based on 2009 prices, has had a few key assumptions change.
    I am dealing with reality not your future fantasies. The irrefutable fact is that Coal and Natural Gas are the two cheapest forms of electrical generation.

    If anybody cares to look, PopTech's "research" appears to include, based on the revealing URL for his happy fun graph, the "www.ins uteforenergyresearch.org" , a website with a rather decided bias.
    Thanks for demonstrating you are incompetent at doing research. That is the same exact chart from the EIA,







    Read through the Ins utes "Hard-Facts" report in 2012, and the ultimate source that is telling PopTech what his opinion is, becomes clear.

    PopTech has swallowed a line of propaganda, hook, line, and sinker, without doing the critical thinking necessary when viewing obviously biased source material.
    The IER's Energy Primer is excellent and all of their facts are fully cited and sourced. There is no propaganda just inconvenient truths,

    Hard Facts: An Energy Primer (PDF) (68pgs) (Ins ute for Energy Research, 2012)
    Last edited by Poptech; 05-23-2012 at 10:36 PM.

  12. #337
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    The irrefutable fact is that Coal and Natural Gas are the two cheapest forms of electrical generation.
    You didn't read the notes to those tables, did you?

  13. #338
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I am dealing with reality not your future fantasies.

    "Look at how much the government is spending on future power generation! I divided by the spending on future power generation by this years total generation of power."

    That is, in essence, what you said.

    Your number is meaningless, unless you could break it down into how much installed capacity went in.

    Even then, you really need an NPV value to get anything really worth while, simply because the patterns of the cash flows is so divergent between forms.


    Let's break out all the spending in 2010 on future generation we will call it "X", and divide that by the amount of power generated in 2010 by those planned projects, and not constructed in the year the funds were allocated:


    X/0

    Is this operation going to get you a relevant bit of data to decide on the ultimate efficacy of the investment?

  14. #339
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    That is the same exact chart from the EIA,
    I understand that, goober.

    What you missed is that it represents a very selective presentation of data. THat is what propaganda does, and a good critical thinker should recognize when it is being done, as you did not. I will get to that in a bit.

  15. #340
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I am dealing with reality not your future fantasies. The irrefutable fact is that Coal and Natural Gas are the two cheapest forms of electrical generation.

    Thanks for demonstrating you are incompetent at doing research. That is the same exact chart from the EIA,...
    You stopped at the first graph.



    Let's examine regional variances, since no utility operates on a national average.

    Tell me, according to this table, what is the minimum LEC cost for:

    conventional coal based on 2009 prices per mWh?

    For wind?

  16. #341
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I also spent several posts outlining a recent run up in coal demand, from China, and why this demand will likely cause price pressures on coal going forward, especially after the west coast coal exporting facility is completed.

    http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/...83er(2012).pdf

    The EIA's 2012 reference cases have incorporated this, among other things, into their overall reference cases.

    Their projected coal prices for 2025, seen on page 12

    "Domestic coal at minemouth"
    (dollars per short ton)
    When you do those LEC's, and you have long tailed assumptions for fuel, you can't rely on 2009 data to make decisions about what to build in 2012 or 2015.

    Would you would recommend to a utility company CEO that he rely on 2009 prices, Poptech?
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-23-2012 at 10:02 PM.

  17. #342
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    The wind costs are bogus and the coal costs inflated based on imaginary nonsense, here is the real levelized costs,

    Federal Tax Policy Towards Energy (PDF) (pg. 22) (Gilbert E. Metcalf, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, MIT)

    Real Levelized Costs of Electricity:

    $3.79 Conventional Coal
    $4.37 Clean Coal
    $5.61 Natural Gas
    $5.94 Nuclear
    $6.64 Wind
    $18.82 Solar Thermal
    $37.39 Solar Photovoltaic

    Is this what you would recommend to a utility company CEO, Poptech?
    I would always recommend the most economically viable sources of electrical generation, coal and natural gas.

    Why would I lie to a utility company CEO about emotional energy sources like Wind?

    Wind Energy: The Truth Blows (Energy Tribune, October 20, 2010)
    Last edited by Poptech; 05-23-2012 at 10:03 PM.

  18. #343
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    The wind costs are bogus and the coal costs inflated based on imaginary nonsense, here is the real levelized costs,

    Federal Tax Policy Towards Energy (PDF) (pg. 22) (Gilbert E. Metcalf, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, MIT)

    Real Levelized Costs of Electricity:

    $3.79 Conventional Coal
    $4.37 Clean Coal
    $5.61 Natural Gas
    $5.94 Nuclear
    $6.64 Wind
    $18.82 Solar Thermal
    $37.39 Solar Photovoltaic


    I would always recommend the most economically viable sources of electrical generation - coal and natural gas.
    So, the EIA tables were good enough for you before, but not good enough to answer my question?

  19. #344
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Do you support killing birds? Is this the new green?



    Enviro Group Sues Wind Farm to Stop Bird Deaths (The Heartland Ins ute, March 1, 2004)
    Coastal wind farm would destroy bird haven say protesters (The Daily Telegraph, UK, August 1, 2004)
    Wind Turbines Taking Toll on Birds of Prey (USA Today, January 4, 2005)
    Wind Farm 'Hits Eagle Numbers' (BBC, June 23, 2006)
    Sea Eagles Being Killed by Wind Turbines (The Daily Telegraph, UK, June 27, 2007)
    Rare Bird Killed By Wide Turbine (BBC, July 10, 2007)
    Wind Turbines Hazardous to Birds, Bats (UPI, November 12, 2007)
    Eagles Killed By Wind Farm Blades (The Daily Telegraph, UK, January 6, 2008)
    Wind Farm Threat to Bird Species (BBC, February 19, 2008)
    Wind Farms May Threaten Whooping Cranes (USA Today, February 28, 2008)
    Altamont Pass Settlement Fails to Reduce Bird Kills (The Heartland Ins ute, March 1, 2008)
    Windmills slaughter endangered birds (The Modesto Bee, August 21, 2008)
    Bird Kills? What Bird Kills? (Energy Tribune, September 11, 2009)
    Bird deaths present problem at wind farms (USA Today, September 22, 2009)
    Wind power might blow a hole in bird populations (L.A. Times, November 2, 2009)
    Bird Deaths from Wind Farms to Continue Under New Federal Voluntary Industry Guidelines (American Bird Conservancy, February 8, 2011)
    The green killer: Scores of protected golden eagles dying after colliding with wind turbines (Daily Mail, UK, June 6, 2011)
    Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power Development (Fox News, August 16, 2011)
    Wind farms under fire for bird kills (The Washington Post, August 28, 2011)
    Massive Bird Kill at West Virginia Wind Farm Highlights National Issue (American Bird Conservancy, October 28, 2011)
    Wind turbines threaten swans, says bird expert (CBC News, February 21, 2012)
    Eagle deaths investigated at LADWP wind power generation site (L.A. Times, April 2, 2011)
    Windfarms: bird mortality cover-up in the UK (Save the Eagles International, April 16, 2012)
    Lawsuit says wind energy industry hurts condors (Mercury News, April 22, 2012)

  20. #345
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    The wind costs are bogus and the coal costs inflated based on imaginary nonsense, here is the real levelized costs,

    Federal Tax Policy Towards Energy (PDF) (pg. 22) (Gilbert E. Metcalf, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, MIT)

    Real Levelized Costs of Electricity:

    $3.79 Conventional Coal
    $4.37 Clean Coal
    $5.61 Natural Gas
    $5.94 Nuclear
    $6.64 Wind
    $18.82 Solar Thermal
    $37.39 Solar Photovoltaic
    That is a paper from 2007, with data based on 2006 prices for most things and 2004 or older for others, and even older than the other table you posted.



    So you want a utility company CEO to make decisions in 2012 based on your 2007 data now?
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-25-2012 at 12:09 PM.

  21. #346
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Do you support killing birds?
    yeah. Gimmie the electricity.

    You are ignoring my questions. Why is that?

  22. #347
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    The irrefutable fact is that Coal and Natural Gas are the two cheapest forms of electrical generation.
    You stopped at the first graph.



    Let's examine regional variances, since no utility operates on a national average.

    Tell me, according to this table, what is the minimum LEC cost for:

    conventional coal based on 2009 prices per mWh?

    For wind?

  23. #348
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    That is 2007 data, and even older than the other one.
    It properly calculates in real costs not imaginary ones.

    You are ignoring my questions. Why is that?
    I am not ignoring anything. The EIA's Coal numbers are ridiculously inflated which they explicitly admit,

    However, in the AEO2011 reference case a 3-percentage point increase in the cost of capital is added when evaluating investments in greenhouse gas (GHG) intensive technologies like coal-fired power and coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants without carbon control and sequestration (CCS). While the 3-percentage point adjustment is somewhat arbitrary, in levelized cost terms its impact is similar to that of a $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fee when investing in a new coal plant without CCS, similar to the costs used in simulations that utilities and regulators have used in their resource planning. The adjustment should not be seen as an increase in the actual cost of financing, but rather as representing the implicit hurdle being added to GHG-intensive projects to account for the possibility they may eventually have to purchase allowances or invest in other GHG emission-reducing projects that offset their emissions. As a result, the levelized capital costs of coal-fired plants without CCS are higher than would otherwise be expected.
    My point for using the EIA was to show that even the government has determined Solar to be worthless and using bogus numbers they are attempting to make Wind look much better than it actually is and Coal worse than it is.
    Last edited by Poptech; 05-23-2012 at 10:34 PM.

  24. #349
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Do you support killing birds?
    yeah. Gimmie the electricity.
    Here is a timeless quote.

  25. #350
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Coal prices, 2007 from the eia:

    http://205.254.135.7/coal/data.cfm#prices

    24.65 price in 2005 dollars for a short on of coal in the US.

    Same table gives the price in 2010 at 32.20

    http://205.254.135.7/totalenergy/dat...df/sec7_21.pdf

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
  •