Cain might be right on renewable energy, but not why he thinks he is (maybe?).

A wind power project is set to begin in my city. The city got a $600K grant from the state (MA) for it.

*It was planned at 400 feet; however, our city's entire airspace is an entry point to Logan International Airport and so the FAA shot down the idea, giving a maximum of 254 feet at the proposed location. The 400 feet turbine would have produced more power at a somewhat smaller cost (about 4% less) per kW than the 250 turbine. The margin is somewhat slim because of this. Even with this, without the $600K grant the estimated NPV (net present value) was calculated as slightly negative. That's not even counting the cost of the loan from the government ("Certified Renewable Energy Bonds") for this, which is 0%!!!

*Surrounding towns to the north and east have much stronger wind currents because their beaches are exposed more fully to the ocean (whereas we are less exposed due to an obstructing island and an unlucky wind direction), and it is estimated that they have many spots with 50-70% more wind than any place in our city. Plus, they don't have to worry as much about FAA restrictions. However, they are much more affluent and they do not have a pre-existing apparatus that could have initiated the project. (in our city's case, it was the large water treatment facility)

So you see, this is not a market-oriented solution. Sure, it has a greater than 50% chance of being profitable for the city (but not the state), and the proposed site sits very close to several large industrial buildings, thus reducing the inefficiency caused by energy transmission loss. However:

* The project is heavily subsidized via interest-free bonds and the ~$600K grant.
* No one really knows how this will affect the seagulls and the geese that currently sometimes fly over the site in transit between various forested areas and fields somewhat near the site. There would be potential view or even (though improbable) noise concerns.
* There is a power line relocation project which will create potentially many businesses or upscale condos south of the project site.
* It could have been built somewhere else--in another city with more wind power-- where there is more wind power, but the reality of how these projects are hatched and funded intervened.
* And of course, the biggie: if the winds aren't flowing "just right" the power generation could fall considerably.

Linqs:
http://www.masstech.org/project_detail.cfm?ProjSeq=50
http://www.masstech.org/Project%20De...lity_Study.pdf

Nuclear or orbital solar. Wind is a nice supplement, but it's no solution.

That's pretty much why I don't think it "works," actually... it's woefully inefficient, and thus our current energy paradigm of burning long dead life forms is a better way to go.

I'm not anti-renewable energy or anything - for example, my Western bunker complex I use to plan my overthrow of the government grow crops for my retirement uses solar and wind energy, but there's a big difference between using solar panels to reduce personal energy costs and the laughable fiction of pollution-free energy independence through the use of centuries old energy harvesting technologies.

Personally, I blame the j00s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Nuclear or orbital solar. Wind is a nice supplement, but it's no solution.

---

Nuclear power doesn't work either. It's also way to expensive to be viable (not to mention even less efficient than wind or solar), so we're left with burning dead life forms as a better option. :|

Obama, for example, has set up a federal program to guarantee 80% of the costs of any new nuclear power plants. Number of takers: 0. That pretty much says it all, when it's cheaper to pay for 100% of current energy generation technologies than it is to pay 20% for nuclear. And orbital solar is decades away, at least, from viability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Nuclear power doesn't work either. It's also way to expensive to be viable (not to mention even less efficient than wind or solar), so we're left with burning dead life forms as a better option. :|

---

The cost of nuclear is artificially high. That can and (I predict) it will be fixed.

Burning dead things is fucking everything up. There are better ways.

Orbital solar's the way to go. IMHO.

Quote:

---

And orbital solar is decades away, at least, from viability.

---

Too much money up front for us idiot Americans. Someone else will do it while we continue our decadent slide into 3rd world oblivion.

PREDICTION: I am officially forcasting - - - - nothing. We will continue to burn coal and oil in too great a quantity until its way too late -- too late timing = a decade ago, so... -- and the nasty effects of Global Warming will hug the world tight and ugly and what will be will be. Things will change and we'll adapt. It will happen slow enough most people won't understand how much everything changed and even if they do the history books will hide how fucking stupid we were. Everyone's happy. Life goes on. The Money will flow.

Cain, the wind power turbine isn't inefficient .. it is just the placing. If it had been placed in a spot with a lot more wind, the NPV would be much better. Political considerations prevent that from happening, however: NIMBY, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

The cost of nuclear is artificially high. That can and (I predict) it will be fixed.

---

Oh? What's artificial about its high cost? Sure, there's a lot of red tape to jump through, but it's a drop in the pan compared to what it actually costs to build these things.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/bu...nt/29nuke.html

Hell, at least for the reactors made in the 80's, the cost per kWh was over $1000. (Don't have more recent stats, but that's just... stratospheric.) Gotta drop that a couple orders of magnitude before nuclear even approaches economic feasibility. Better to burn fossil fuels or natural gas.

Wind turbines don't scale really well though. Providing a good bit of power to a remote location, or supplementing an existing grid is fine. But you aren't going to fesably get enough mass power-generation.

The issue with nuclear energy is more than just price efficency though. It's capital required and scale, unless you build it really big it's going to be obsolete quickly, and if you do biuld it big it will take a while for demand to catch up and give you a return on your investment. Simpler plants can be popped down whenever wherever.

Hydroelectric is really "The best power" but is limited to a finite number of viable sites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Better to burn fossil fuels or natural gas.

---

What do you think its going to cost to build dikes around - or relocate - every coastal city in the world? More than $1000k a kwh?

Note: the above isn't entirely a fair comparison since we're more or less committed to the coastal flooding right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

What do you think its going to cost to build dikes around - or relocate - every coastal city in the world? More than $1000k a kwh?

Note: the above isn't entirely a fair comparison since we're more or less committed to the coastal flooding right now.

---

Pffft. Even if I believed that horseshit for a second (which I don't), that's a hundred+ years off, even according to environmental scare mongers like Al Gore. It seems pretty foolish (and anti-historical) to assume there won't be a solution by then.

But back to my question - what is "artificial" about the high costs of nuclear power? Seems to me that virtually all the costs associated with nuclear power are a simply a result of how expensive and difficult it is to get a bunch of radioactive metals together to heat enough water to generate large amounts of energy. :| Wee, 20th century steam engines!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Pffft. Even if I believed that horseshit for a second (which I don't), that's a hundred+ years off, even according to environmental scare mongers like Al Gore. It seems pretty foolish (and anti-historical) to assume there won't be a solution by then.

---

We've already had those "100 year" floods and levees/dikes failing. I think he meant the money we pump into coastal ports we currently use for importing and refining oil. :noob:

I think, but am not certain, that Cain is wrong about the high cost of nuke power compared to fossil fuels.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/images/...powercosts.jpg

What does that "Generation Costs without investment subsidy and the return of electricity tax (wood and wind) mean?

It means the cost is calculated without reference to government subsidies &c, i.e. the actual cost of producing energy through that method.

Yes, but that means it's a misleading chart, since those variables would matter to actual costs and bottom lines.

Also, the real interest rate @ 0.5% and March '03 prices?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Pffft. Even if I believed that horseshit for a second (which I don't), that's a hundred+ years off, even according to environmental scare mongers like Al Gore. It seems pretty foolish (and anti-historical) to assume there won't be a solution by then.

But back to my question - what is "artificial" about the high costs of nuclear power? Seems to me that virtually all the costs associated with nuclear power are a simply a result of how expensive and difficult it is to get a bunch of radioactive metals together to heat enough water to generate large amounts of energy. :| Wee, 20th century steam engines!

---

God there's just too much here to argue about. :mad: And I don't have enough interest to really argue it. :mad:

Whatever. From what I understand with nuclear power much of the costs are in way overkill redundant safety systems and construction standards that come from the hysteria of the 3 Mile Island era. I'm sure the insurance costs are astronomical too. If I get time I'll try to find something more concrete.

BTW - your beloved fossil fuels are all steam technology too, silly. What's your beef against steam?

This could turn into a cherry picking expedition. Just like me picking at Steely's chart. :(

I'm in the danger zone of TMI, they're still only running one tower that I know of. People get freaked out about storing the waste, potential core meltdowns like Chernobyl, terrorists taking out a chunk of our power grid, etc. Operating costs are big due to the NRC and OSHA safety rules (and unions, too).

I still think "costs" of drill baby drill are short-sighted. If not environmentally then as a global security cost. I don't like it when gas goes up 0.8 cents/gallon it means another few billion bucks goes to the middle east. Then we spend another few billion bucks in military operations and send troops in harm's way. Then the vets have a trillion dollars in post-war needs and Arlington head stones.

It's a short-sighted stupid energy policy, for a nation addicted to electricity and *cough* power.

Steely Glint:

I'm not really feelin' your chart, because each power generation method creates different negative externalities. Nuclear creates the externality of "taking up space to store the waste", though.. somewhat different from "too much carbon and polluted air" for coal and "noise/dead birds/sometimes unsightly look" for wind. Would be interesting to see a study that monetizes these externalities.


Also: would be interesting to see another chart with an overlay of current federal interest-free loan and averages of state grant subsidies... or any sort of comparison between unsubsidized and subsidized energy costs.

Nuclear waste doesn't take up that much space. Not compared to coal ash which is loaded with heavy metals and thus toxic. That has to be landfilled.... and all landfills leak. Eventually. Been reading a little about nuclear waste reprocessing which, as far as I can tell, is all about reducing the half-life and volume. The US isn't working on a reprocessing facility, however. The Japanese have been building one though, and its way way over budget and way overdue...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Whatever. From what I understand with nuclear power much of the costs are in way overkill redundant safety systems and construction standards that come from the hysteria of the 3 Mile Island era. I'm sure the insurance costs are astronomical too.

---

Partly that, but there's also a lot to be said in terms of nuclear infastructure. You can't just dig up some uranium and throw it into a reactor, you need tonnes of refining plants and enriching facilities, you need to staff these and provide security, and unlike in the case of fossil fuels vast amounts of this infastructure does nto exist, it needs to be built.

As I said before, the big cost hurdle for nuke power is the rediculous capital cost and rediculous time it takes to build a plant, people don't like to invest in things that will start showing returns from many decades down the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cracky

Partly that, but there's also a lot to be said in terms of nuclear infastructure. You can't just dig up some uranium and throw it into a reactor, you need tonnes of refining plants and enriching facilities, you need to staff these and provide security, and unlike in the case of fossil fuels vast amounts of this infastructure does nto exist, it needs to be built.

As I said before, the big cost hurdle for nuke power is the rediculous capital cost and rediculous time it takes to build a plant, people don't like to invest in things that will start showing returns from many decades down the road.

---

According to Steely's chart, the fuel cost for Nuclear's pretty low. I'm not sure the hold up is building mining and fuel processing infrastructure. I'm guessing that's all dual use technology and so over the years we've build quite a lot of it. And its not like we're not fueling our current nuclear plants today...

The capital costs and timing to build the plants are in part dependant on the extraordinary safety standards. On the one hand, you obviously can't short safety with nuclear since the costs of an accident are so high, but there's a good argument we went way too far with the 70's / 80's hysteria. At least in the US, anyway.

Last if you factor in the costs associated with warming the entire planet as a result of using fossil fuels, nuclear's probably a deal. Hell, orbital's probably a deal in that cost/benefit analysis. Unfortunately we have a habit of "socializing" the costs of pollution instead of assiging the responsibility to polluting industries so fossil fuels look a lot cheaper than they actually are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Last if you factor in the costs associated with warming the entire planet as a result of using fossil fuels

---

Quick question about global warming - is it like the new ice age we were headed for back in the 70's, or the projections that all the rainforests were supposed to cut down by 2010?

Until the "green" movement actually gets one right, it's beyond stupid to base any important decisions on their propaganda.

The deforestation is still real, but there's a lot more awareness by the public (ie: in Brazil) and many more laws. A lot of these things.. like deterioration of the ozone layer... are stopped by people being aware and active to reverse the damage. So, you could say that the scare mongers were wrong, but you would just be ignoring their success

.In this case, the reversal is as yet technically impossible, so according to the scare mongers all we can do is move to higher ground -- stopping emissions immediately won't stop the "damage" that has already been done from progressing.

In this case, if they are right, it won't be like the ozone depleting, or whales dying out, or the rainforests being cut down to zero-- nothing came of any of these because people responded. If they are right, you will actually see the terrible results with or without action. It's just that with action, it might not be so terrible...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Quick question about global warming - is it like the new ice age we were headed for back in the 70's, or the projections that all the rainforests were supposed to cut down by 2010?

---

Do you think the knowledge of and techniques of climate science have improved at all since the 1970s? Do you know that the 'ice age' theory wasn't broadly supported by the evidence and was subsequently discarded -- you know, like how the scientific method is supposed to work? And do you know bringing that up is completely and totally irrelevant to the fact of global warming? You disappoint me - usually you don't make such stupid mistakes in your arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

In this case, the reversal is as yet technically impossible, so according to the scare mongers all we can do is move to higher ground -- stopping emissions immediately won't stop the "damage" that has already been done from progressing.

In this case, if they are right, it won't be like the ozone depleting, or whales dying out, or the rainforests being cut down to zero-- nothing came of any of these because people responded. If they are right, you will actually see the terrible results with or without action. It's just that with action, it might not be so terrible...

---

Or last as long. Its a question of how bad it will get now. An irony is if we did make significant changes now and, say, after a hundred years the climate begins to cool, it will likely cause all sorts of difficulty for civilization which has gotten used to and settled into a warmer world....

"orbital solar power" is more moronic than all the other options. The solar cells would still be limited by their conversion efficiency thus putting them in orbit would not ramp up gains as much as some people here obviously expect, I've seen a mere factor of 2 in related studies. Furthermore, you have the costs of putting the things into orbit in the first place, repairs would be hideously complicated and transfer of power down to the ground hideously inefficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

"orbital solar power" is more moronic than all the other options. The solar cells would still be limited by their conversion efficiency thus putting them in orbit would not ramp up gains as much as some people here obviously expect, I've seen a mere factor of 2 in related studies. Furthermore, you have the costs of putting the things into orbit in the first place, repairs would be hideously complicated and transfer of power down to the ground hideously inefficient.

---

Its feasability is rated the same as fusion power by people who know something about both - at least that's what Scientific American claims. :downcast: The cheif advantages of orbital, beyond the lack of emissions, are the roominess of space, the elimination of weather effects, and of day/night cycles. It is also much more efficient, contrary to your claim. I assume those efficiency claims come from actually experience with space craft. Also, light weight thin film solar panels are under development that are much lighter weight and more suitable for launching. Lastly, orbital would be a nice impetus for developing a real space industry - a stepping stone to removing our eggs from this one basket; and that's universally good.

Sorry, dude, but if you actually compare the real-world costs of a single launch then you will see that orbital vs ground based solar panels differ by three(3) orders of magnitude.

It would be much cheaper to pave the Sahara with solar panels than launch the stuff into space.

And that still hasn't solved the problem of how to get the energy from orbit down to the ground. Yeah, I know, microwave beams to a ground station - yeah, that will be efficient.

And, elimination of day/night cycle? That you'll have to explain to me. Y'know, for some kind of energy transfer via beams you'll have to have a ground station. Which, by the way, has a day/night cycle due to it being a bit stationary. Or you switch targets every hour which makes the whole thing very convenient when your orbital stations are over the Pacific. Or the targetting system breaks down and fries Hawai'i.

In short, it's a pipe dream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Sorry, dude, but if you actually compare the real-world costs of a single launch then you will see that orbital vs ground based solar panels differ by three(3) orders of magnitude.

---

That's because we don't have a real space industry. Develop a space industry and the cost per launch drops.

Quote:

---

It would be much cheaper to pave the Sahara with solar panels than launch the stuff into space.

---

Except that you have no idea what the ecological effect of paving half a continent with reflective material would be. I can tell you what the ecological effect of having twice that surface area in space: nothing.

Quote:

---

And that still hasn't solved the problem of how to get the energy from orbit down to the ground. Yeah, I know, microwave beams to a ground station - yeah, that will be efficient.

---

I don't know what the efficiency is off hand - do you have anything on it? In any case, the efficiency becomes less important in light of the goals, which are to move this shit into space because there's not enough surface area on the Earth - that we'd be willing to cover over - to meet our energy needs and because we need a reason to start a real space industry.

Quote:

---

And, elimination of day/night cycle? That you'll have to explain to me. Y'know, for some kind of energy transfer via beams you'll have to have a ground station. Which, by the way, has a day/night cycle due to it being a bit stationary. Or you switch targets every hour which makes the whole thing very convenient when your orbital stations are over the Pacific. Or the targetting system breaks down and fries Hawai'i.

---

I'm sure given the space available and the use of an orbital relay network it would be easy to provide uninterupted power.

Quote:

---

In short, it's a pipe dream.

---

In short, I disagree.

Quote:

---

Develop a space industry and the cost per launch drops.

---

And it really is that easy, folks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

That's because we don't have a real space industry. Develop a space industry and the cost per launch drops.

---

Great. So it costs only 500 times as much instead of 1,000 times. That still won't be worthwhile.

Quote:

---

Except that you have no idea what the ecological effect of paving half a continent with reflective material would be. I can tell you what the ecological effect of having twice that surface area in space: nothing.

---

You've just shown that you have no idea how a solar cell works. Hint: It ain't working by reflection.
Secondly: Either you heat the area by heating the ground or the solar panels. Yeah, that will make a huge ecological difference in the Sahara. How much ecology are we talking about there anyway? I mean, the place is called a barren wasteland for a reason.

Quote:

---

I don't know what the efficiency is off hand - do you have anything on it? In any case, the efficiency becomes less important in light of the goals, which are to move this shit into space because there's not enough surface area on the Earth - that we'd be willing to cover over - to meet our energy needs and because we need a reason to start a real space industry.

---

I beg to differ: Efficiency is the primary and most important motivator in the energy creation business. And there's more than enough surface area on Earth.

Quote:

---

I'm sure given the space available and the use of an orbital relay network it would be easy to provide uninterupted power.

---

That still does not answer how you'll create those relay stations in the Pacific.

I mean, the whole thing is a geek's dream. However, it won't come about before Fusion power and the Space Lift are available. And by then, there's really no point anymore.

How does one get energy collected by solar cell in the Sahara to, say, Baltimore?