Reply With Quote
Oh I see, wind power can't be subsidized like EVERY OTHER POWER SOURCE currently is?
Interesting question. I'm not going to bother going beyond saying fossil fuel is used to transport it. The bulk of it is probably transported by diesel hybrid trains, which get very good fuel economy. Far better ton-miles/gallon than any truck will ever get. I don't see such costs being any significant part of the coal fired plant costs.
Oh I see, wind power can't be subsidized like EVERY OTHER POWER SOURCE currently is?
The first two were right, the last was incorrect.
I understand that since you think you need to "stick it to the environmentalist whacos" or similar, you have to ignore the implication that if oil gets more expensive, so does coal, but let's assume you answered the last question correctly as well. I think you are quite capable of answering it correctly, if pressed to be entirely honest about it. (no offense intended in any of that)
It is not my contention that diesel will be "prohibitively" expensive any time soon, although that will happen at some point in my probable lifetime.
What will happen long before that though, is a subtle shift in the cost comparisons between energy sources.
The way free-markets work when it comes to interchangable items, and energy sources are, to a good degree, interchangable, is to ensure that there will be a mix, and the components of that mix will be dependant on their COMPARATIVE costs.
Oil is one of our primary sources of energy at the moment, because, RELATIVE to everything else it is fairly cheap.
As the relative costs change, so does the mix in a dynamic market, such as what we have globally.
It is also generally agreed by the people who really study energy, that long before you approach depletion of oil/coal, you will see price increases that are fairly rapid relative to the economy's ability to pay. This will not be a "skyrocket" scenario, but rather sustained increases faster than the rate of inflation, with the pace of those increases increasing itself over time.
When that happens COMPARED to things like renewables, fossil fuels will become more and more compe ive, and the mix WILL change.
The problem we face is that once you build a power plant, you lock yourself into that plant for the life of that plant, generally some 30 years.
Answer this then:
If, due to technological advances and sheer economies of scale, wind is coming down to a price that is approachign parity with that of coal, what does that imply about the future, if the price of coal will be going up faster than most expect?
You're only guessing and you don't know how it happens? Yes, I know. I can absolutely prove you wrong. Temperature inversions at low levels are formed by calm winds which prevent atmospheric mixing. However, seeing as how they form in calm winds I'm at a loss to figure out exactly how they would stop winds. Its the equivalent of saying that a burn on skin can start a fire.
Its not relevant to the discussion directly, but as much as you hounded fuzzy to answer you I find it ironic how quickly you forget to address questions directed at you. Its directly relevant to your credibility although with one read through this thread I'm not sure how anyone could find you credible when you are continuously proven wrong.
Here's an idea for you to carry forward. Don't call out others on subjects where they know far more than you. I realize your ego does not let you recognize that there are a lot of people who fit this bill but maybe after all the times you've been proven wrong something will sink in.
How is other power subsided? I am against subsidies. How.Oh I see, wind power can't be subsidized like EVERY OTHER POWER SOURCE currently is?
Yet you cannot prove me wrong.
Shut up or put up.
I have no need to "stick it to the environmental whackos". You REALLY don't know me and your post was offensive.The first two were right, the last was incorrect.
I understand that since you think you need to "stick it to the environmentalist whacos" or similar, you have to ignore the implication that if oil gets more expensive, so does coal, but let's assume you answered the last question correctly as well. I think you are quite capable of answering it correctly, if pressed to be entirely honest about it.
I answered the third correctly.
If you want to be against coal then just be against coal. Don't use the ridiculous and specious argument that the cost to transport it will make it prohibitively expensive in the future.
The simple fact is that if that actually becomes the case then millions of people will already be starving because that same fuel is integral to raising, harvesting, transporting, processing and packaging food for distribution to the consumer.
Is this a serious question? Coal Plants are subsidized, Gas Plants are subsidized, Nuclear plants are subsidized.
And this is just surface inversions. Winds happen under upper level inversion layers.Conditions that favor the development of a strong surface inversion are calm winds, clear skies, and long nights. Calm winds prevent warmer air above the surface from mixing down to the ground, and clear skies increase the rate of cooling at the Earth's surface.
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/slc/climate/...Inversions.php
This is what I mean, your ego prevents you from even considering you're wrong. Its amazing how myopic you are.
Relatively very little of our annual oil consumption goes to transporting coal, by my rough estimates.
Hard to find the cost of fuel, but there seems to be a lot of interesting information on the costs of shipping it:
Here is a couple of interesting articles:
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2010/01/25/2
http://chestofbooks.com/finance/econ...Of-Freigh.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/pa...esntrends.html
Ultimately though the data can be ferreted out of financial statements:
(pdf link follows to rail company financials)
http://www.bnsf.com/about-bnsf/finan...2008annrpt.pdf
Fuel is the largest single cost in 2008 to the comapany, representing 32% of the operating costs of BNSF. Infer this into the shipping costs, and you can probably arrive at a fair estimation. (pg 10)
The variable nature of these costs are readily seen in UP's 2009 financials where the cost of diesel fell by half:
http://www.up.com/investors/attachme...10k_021710.pdf
UP fuel costs only represented about 15% of their operating costs the next year with a fall off of fuel prices.
It was interesting to see how much the price of fuel could swing for the two railroad companies, between years.
I think it is safe to say that fuel represents a fairly substantial chunk of any rail company's expenses.
It would be possible to ferret out the exact rates and cost structure by reverse-engineering the financials, but I think we can all agree that:
Yes, the cost of a ton of coal is affected to a fair degree by the cost of fuel to move it. It is not the largest component of the cost of a ton of coal, but significant enough to affect then ending cost materially.
(edit)
The swing between the two companies represented the swing between years in the financials of the price of diesel. UP and BNSF paid roughly the same proportion, 33% of operating expenses, in 2008, so I assume their structures were fairly similar.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-06-2010 at 11:16 AM.
That does not disprove what I said and yes, I know what a temperature inversion is.
Idiot. Stop ASSuming. It does not disprove the effect over the top over a mountain range.
Again, put up or shut up.
An example of a capping inversion would be over San Antonio nearly all summer. And yet the average wind speed is 9mph through that period. This is why even with a large amount of heat and humidity San Antonio does not see large amounts of convection during the summer.
Never mind man. You've made up some imaginary effect and given it an imaginary effect of stopping wind while you admit you don't know how it works.
Inversions at the low level - this includes valleys and mountains - do not form in windy conditions. Nor do they form suddenly. Its not like one sec no inversion the next INVERSION TIME!
If you want to continue believing as you do in the absence of all proof then feel free. Ignorance is bliss, after all.
I know that you generally view environmentalists as being irrational.
I am not against coal, although I am against not being honest about the costs.
I have never said it would "prohibitively expensive" to ship coal. That is a distortion of what I said.
You are incorrect as to your answer being the right one.
The answer to the question:
What implication does this have on the costs of using coal, if the price of that fuel goes up faster than the price of coal?
Is simply:
"The cost of using coal goes up as the cost of transporting it goes up."
No more, no less. It was a really simple question, with a really simple answer.
That you wanted to read more into it and take it a step farther to distort what I am saying, so that you can dismiss what I am saying in an intellectually dishonest strawman attack is your business.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-06-2010 at 11:16 AM. Reason: removed snark.
double post
Before we get too far down the "i'm so mad at the other guy" road here:
I can provide some pretty fair data showing that, barring some technology unknown at this time, the price of oil 20-40 years down the road will be much higher than most people realize, if you wish.
I don't find the argument specious. I have some basis for thinking that transportation costs for bulky fuels will be fairly high.
Why you laughing?I didn't think Fuzzy would be able to find them.
Didn't you understand?
May as well laugh at yourself.
I have no idea why Nono's laughing but I know that if he's laughing I want to laugh too.
Which is why it might good to subsidize alternative energies, as if we're relying on businesses, there's a good chance they will milk the coal mines for all it's worth until they invest in a more expensive technology to produce energy, and by that time, it's too late.What implication does this have on the costs of using coal, if the price of that fuel goes up faster than the price of coal?
If it gets to the point that the cost of diesel to transport the coal is prohibitive then society as we know it will have already ceased to exist. HEB won't be able to put groceries on the shelf.
The whole point of the carbon it takes to transport coal was reallyj ust a sidebar introduced by DarrinS asinine question about transporting windmill blades.
Sorry about that. I backspace over a lot of angry words before posting them, but in this case it got through.
I edited it out immediately, becuase it was not really warranted and seemed disrespectful, but apparently not before you got it.
My apologies.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions