Heating, Electricity Rates Rising As Prices For Natural Gas Surge

[RandomGuy]

I'm not assuming it is an easy target, dumbass.

I am saying it is expensive to guard the things.

Actually, you never said anything about expense until that particular post.

You sure about that?

[RandomGuy]

Again, when did I say 100's of gaurds PER plant?


See, I can use big fonts to point out that you're an a-hole too.

...sooo when you said "100's of guards" you meant what, 200 total guards for 200 plants?

What exactly did you mean?

[spurster]

Nuclear is far from perfect, but seems to be the only non-CO2 option at this point that can provide steady and on-demand energy. I don't see the logic of stating one risk (more nuclear waste on the road) and then claiming that it's no good. Everything has risks and benefits. It's a matter of trying to rationally pick the best rather than going hysterical when you hear the N word.

"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien." - Voltaire

[RandomGuy]

Nuclear is far from perfect, but seems to be the only non-CO2 option at this point that can provide steady and on-demand energy. I don't see the logic of stating one risk (more nuclear waste on the road) and then claiming that it's no good. Everything has risks and benefits. It's a matter of trying to rationally pick the best rather than going hysterical when you hear the N word.

"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien." - Voltaire

That's pretty much what I said, or at least what I tried to say before getting roundhoused...

Security risk is ONE reason why I don't like nuclear.

Other reasons:

From what I understand they use a LOT of water. This will make them much less efficient and attractive as water gets scarcer, as water is doing already.

Massive cost overruns. As I have already alluded to. These cost overruns are far and away over other construction projects.

Cost of security. As I have already stated.

NIMBY. Adds to costs and makes it all the less feasible.


None of this is really enough to totally rule nuclear out, as it still has some strong benefits.

BUT

When one weighs this against other forms/methods of power production, nuclear becomes much less compe ive economically, and politically, versus the alternatives.

Do not confuse me with someone who is "hysterical" about nuclear power. It simply doesn't stack up well.

[1369]

From what I understand they use a LOT of water. This will make them much less efficient and attractive as water gets scarcer, as water is doing already.

Depends on what system they use for cooling water. A "closed circuit" system only needs to replace what is lost through evaporation after the initial charge of the cooling water lake. On the other hand a "once through" system, if located near the coast, can use the heated water in a desal system.

[RandomGuy]

Depends on what system they use for cooling water. A "closed circuit" system only needs to replace what is lost through evaporation after the initial charge of the cooling water lake. On the other hand a "once through" system, if located near the coast, can use the heated water in a desal system.

(nods)

I kinda figured that they could probably do some kind of work around for that.

One thing to bear in mind is that a lot of forms of electrical generation use heat to turn water into steam in order to turn a turbine that generates the electricity.

If you use the water just once, and let the steam escape, your cost of generating is linked to the cost of the water.

If you can re-use the water somehow by naturally cooling the steam and getting it back into liquid water, then you have reduced your exposure to the cost of water.

[johnsmith]

(nods)

I kinda figured that they could probably do some kind of work around for that.

Then why did you bring it up as an issue?

Oh yeah, talking out of your ass and claiming "expert" on every subject............my bad.

[RandomGuy]

Then why did you bring it up as an issue?

Oh yeah, talking out of your ass and claiming "expert" on every subject............my bad.

Speaking of talking out your ass:

I'm not assuming it is an easy target, dumbass.

I am saying it is expensive to guard the things.

Actually, you never said anything about expense until that particular post.

You sure about that?

[RandomGuy]

Who said hundreds of guards per plant?

Show me where I said that and I'll re-think it.

Now, answer my ing question you spineless . Have you been to one or are you just assuming they are an easy target?

Black Hawks stationed at the plant. Air Force on constant alert near the plant. 100's of guards armed with M-16's and very ty sense of humors.

So what did you mean by "100's of guards"?

100's of guards at the airforce base?
100's of gaurds total spread out among all nuclear plants?

When you say "at the plant" twice that pretty much implies that the third thing on your list of security measures was also "at the plant" doesn't it?

[RandomGuy]

[Randomguy] , you never said anything about expense until that particular post [i.e. before post #36 of this thread].

Post #17 of this thread:

Further adding to the problems going forward with nukes is the matter of security.

In the past nuclear plants have had some security, but post 9-11 a lot of them have had to ramp up procedures, and any future plants will have to be even more expensive due to security considerations.

If you try to make a facility safe from 15-20 guys who arent' afraid to die, with explosives, large trucks, and assult rifles, you have added a lot of expense.

If you try to make fuel and waste shipments safe from a similar profile of attackers, you have added a LOT more expense.

How do you keep a semi-tractor trailor filled with radioactive waste/fuel safe from even one suicidal nutjob with a rental truck loaded with 5-10 tons of explosives intent on ramming it?

If you think nuclear is the way to go, you MUST answer this question. I await the response.

I noticed I never got an answer to my question, either.

Who is talking out their ass again?

[johnsmith]

Ok, you're right, you mentioned expenses before that, and I missed it.

As for the 100's of guards, I probably meant throughout the US.

Now, none of that was talking out of my ass like you do EVERY DAY ON THIS FORUM.

Even Boutons, Dan, Yoni and everyone else that posts links at least acknowledge that they are expressing opinion.

You do nothing but spout off misinformation, call it "fact", and then get mad and go in circles when called out on it.

Now, since I answered your question, why don't you answer mine:

(nods)

I kinda figured that they could probably do some kind of work around for that.

Then why did you bring it up as an issue?

[RandomGuy]

Ok, you're right, you mentioned expenses before that, and I missed it.

As for the 100's of guards, I probably meant throughout the US.

Now, none of that was talking out of my ass like you do EVERY DAY ON THIS FORUM.

Even Boutons, Dan, Yoni and everyone else that posts links at least acknowledge that they are expressing opinion.

You do nothing but spout off misinformation, call it "fact", and then get mad and go in circles when called out on it.

Now, since I answered your question, why don't you answer mine:
(why did you bring it up as an issue)

Because it is still an issue that must be addressed.

You will notice that I put "to my understanding", indicating that to the best of my knowledge, water was and is an issue, but holding out the possibility that I could be less than 100% informed on it.

Despite what you seem to think, I always try to state my level of certainty as to any given information.

I do make mistakes from time to time, but 100% pony up when I do.

I have a high level of comprehension and a pretty good memory for what I read, but I do occasionally mis-remember things. If I can't find a good source or link, I try to never present any "fact" as a fact.

Please show where I spout off misinformation as "fact". One example. Put up or shut the up.

[johnsmith]

Because it is still an issue that must be addressed.

You will notice that I put "to my understanding", indicating that to the best of my knowledge, water was and is an issue, but holding out the possibility that I could be less than 100% informed on it.

Despite what you seem to think, I always try to state my level of certainty as to any given information.

Please show where I spout off misinformaiton as "fact".

No, I'm done with this conversation just as I am done with you. I can only point out your horse for so long before I grow tired of the arrogance and the political forum in general.

Take care.

[RandomGuy]

No, I'm done with this conversation just as I am done with you. I can only point out your horse for so long before I grow tired of the arrogance and the political forum in general.

Take care.

Translation:

"I can't put up so I am shutting the up."

(shrugs)

If all I do is "spout misinformation" then it should be easy to do. If it is easy, and you dont do it, then you are simply lazy.

If what I say is generally correct then you can't do it, and you are wrong.

So... by not providing an example when asked, you are either lazy or wrong.

[johnsmith]

Translation:

"I can't put up so I am shutting the up."

(shrugs)

If all I do is "spout misinformation" then it should be easy to do. If it is easy, and you dont do it, then you are simply lazy.

If what I say is generally correct then you can't do it, are you are wrong.

So... by not providing an example when asked, you are either lazy or wrong.

I guess I'm just lazy then.

You see, you and Boutons have a lot in common. You're both reasonably intelligent people that are just an annoyance because "you're always right", just ask, you'll tell us.

(shrug)

You're a bag, and like I said before (nod), I'm tired of you and this discussion.

[RandomGuy]

I guess I'm just lazy then.

You see, you and Boutons have a lot in common. You're both reasonably intelligent people that are just an annoyance because "you're always right", just ask, you'll tell us.

(shrug)

You're a bag, and like I said before (nod), I'm tired of you and this discussion.

Spoken like a true bag.

"You're wrong"

"How am I wrong?"

"You just are, 'cause I don't like you."

Sorry I don't let you bully me around. You're not in 7th grade anymore, stop acting like it.

[Winehole23]

Storing the power will be where fuel cells will come into their own, especially for larger buildings. Charge more for peak power, as WILL happen, and these fuel cells will be economical, assuming energy gets more expensive.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...-money/281194/

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/...-in-california

[boutons_deux]

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...-money/281194/

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/...-in-california

Germany is moving hard to distributed electrical storage. It's coming, but the centralized electricity companies will fight it hard, even try to penalize it, like AZ trying to penalize its residential solar customers for using the grid to feed in electricity.

SA's muncipally owned CPS Energy isn't being aggressive at all, but of course the city PROFITS from revenue from CPS, so I don't expect the mayor/manager/council to lean hard on CPS to promote distributed electricity generation.

Cut $200B from the corrupt, wasteful DoD corporate-welfare to finance a Manhattan project for energy storage and increasing solar panel efficiency.

[boutons_deux]

Germany Finances Major Push Into Home Battery Storage For Solar

At its disposal is the giant state-owned but independently run development bank KfW. It performs in the clean energy space a similar function to Australia’s recently created and imminently doomed Clean Energy Finance Corp, but at such a scale that is not contemplated in most countries, possibly with the exception of China.

It has assets of more than €500 billion, and lent €73 billion last year – with one-third of that targeted at renewables and climate investments. Over the past three years it provided €24 billion in loans for energy efficiency investment in homes, leveraging a total investment of €58 billion, helping insulate and seal more than 2 million homes, employing 200,000 people a year and saving more than 150 million tonnes of carbon.

Six months ago, it began a new program to finance the introduction of battery storage into homes and small business, which it says is absolutely essential if the “energiewende”, the German expression for its energy transition – is to successfully move to the next phase and beyond 40 per cent renewable penetration.
The energy storage financing program has generated a higher than expected response. Already 1,900 homes and small businesses have put their hands up for loans and grants (provided by the Environment Ministry) to install new solar systems and a battery storage system in their home. Around €32 million in loans has already been allocated and €5 million in grants, about 10 per cent of the sums allocated in the initial phase of the program.

Unlike the subsidised uptake of solar PV enabled by the deployment of generous feed-in tariffs, the support mechanism for energy storage is more cautious. Indeed, KfW is looking for investors who are willing to take a loss on their investment.

“The market for energy storage systems is very young … batteries are still very expensive … and the economics don’t yet work,” program manager Dr Holger Papenfuss, told RenewEconomy in an interview in KfW’s sprawling headquarters in Germany’s financial centre of Frankfurt this week.

In fact, even with the assistance of the loans and grants, it is still not economically viable. Which is why KfW has stepped in to ensure that the commercial banks provide the funds for development.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/11/...storage-solar/