Tweet
Originally posted by SHOCKvalue
View Post
-
We are ignoring the elephant. That’s why it’s important to discuss the total cost benefit ratio, even if there is reasonable disagreement.Livin the dream -
The newest gov paper says that the actual cost of fixing the environment doesn’t neutralize unless the highest outlier 100 year estimates double. That only involves dollars spent, but it’s an interesting starting point.Livin the dreamComment
-
If you've ever seen a nuclear power plant from a distance it's kind of ominous looking, otherworldly even. They need to redesign the cooling towers into something less intimidating. We have a very sensitive generation in our midst...
Whoops! Somebody already beat me to it!
T
...:cool:Comment
-
Okay ... the happy face with three eyes ... now that's funny!Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!Comment
-
jdshock said, “The only logical conclusion from this point is that solar and wind are therefore more costly than solar and wind which didn't need to be supplemented by other primary sources. You cannot logically conclude that solar and wind are necessarily more costly than a primary source. Think about it in an extreme, if solar and wind were 1 cent per kilowatt hour, and coal were 10 cents, you would still drive prices down by supplementing with coal but primarily relying on solar and wind. Maybe solar and wind are more expensive than coal period, but that's a different argument.”
Solar and wind are currently more expensive than fossil fuels, but more importantly, they are unreliable. Because they are unreliable, you have to have a reliable alternative built and ready to go. That requires additional infrastructure, which drives the price up.
If, for arguments sake, Wind costs $.010 per kw/hr and coal costs the same, then if you just ran coal, it would cost you 10 cents. If you ran wind, it would cost you 10 cents, plus the cost of maintaining a second source, so maybe 12 cents per kw/hr. There would be secondary benefits to producing less coal pollution, but those costs need to be taken into account.
Solar requires res silicon mining, and of a finite resource. Those pannels have to be disposed of at some point. That should also be considered.Livin the dreamComment
-
Again, to be clear, you're arguing about a cost that is higher than solar and wind that doesn't need backed up. If wind and solar is substantially cheaper than coal, using coal only for support still results in a cheaper overall cost than just using coal 24/7.
Again, maybe wind and solar aren't cheaper than coal. But that's a totally different argument. It's just math here. The fact that you have to have coal as support does not by definition mean that solar+wind+coal as support is more expensive than coal. It does not "drive the price up" higher than coal. It drives the price up over a perfect solar and wind technology that doesn't need support.
-
-
Finite resources (fossil fuels) aren’t as finite as we think. We keep discovering more and more deposits, and more efficient (and cleaner) ways to use them. Despite the concerns that some people had in the 70s, we have more oil available in the world today than ever before; and we are using it at a much faster pace.
Long term, we need to make investments in hydroelectric and nuclear power while primarily relying on fossil fuels and developing renewable sources. This should all be done in a conservationalist manner to mitigate pollution, but should also mitigate undue financial burden on the consumer...unless you’re French. Those bloody French need to curb their polluting habits!Livin the dreamComment
-
“ It does not "drive the price up" higher than coal. It drives the price up over a perfect solar and wind technology that doesn't need support.”
This is correct. Wind and solar are extremely unreliable by modern first world standards. They need to be either more reliable or cheaper.Livin the dreamComment
Comment