Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Two inch exhaust pipes?:lipsrsealed:
U.N. AGREES WITH lonesomebob!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
You've got to die of something Nick..
In the meantime in tandem with being dependent on 'other' countries for our energy, we'll soon be buying our power at exorbitant tariffs from 1/3rd world countries with their own nuclear programs funded by Western Aid and Iranian/Chinese/N Korean technology.
Bloodless world coup anyone?
I read through the Time article and it seems to have some bias. It mostly talks about nuclear accidents and doesn't really talk about the 'cost' of the power in dollar terms.
Remember, Time is the same magazine that fell in love with the fanatic Cindy Sheehan. I don't think i can trust any source that creates a political darling like this; especially on the topic of nuclear power which seems to have a polarizing effect on people depending on their political affiliation.
I dont know if nuclear power is good or bad, but its hard to find out with all the agenda driven misinformation out there.
I don't think anyone really knows what a modern nuclear power plant would look like. But I would assume that it would be much safer than the 1950's designed Fukushima reactor. Therefore, I'm not ready to condemn nuclear power.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Loads of misinformation and bias and just incorrect stuff in this thread. The anti-wind circle jerk was most amusing....
Let's start where most in the US on this board probably agree: in my opinion, nuclear is a critical part of our grid going forward. This President believes that. John McCain did too. We are, for the first time in 20-30 years, actually building nuclear power plants again.
Nuclear is can be run safe and clean -- the French power some extraordinary portion of their grid (60%?) without incident. The new Westinghouse AP-1 design is much safer than Fukushima. It relies on convection to cool rather than electric water pumps, and thus doesn't lose cooling when the power goes out (the key problem at Fukushima).
The new B&W small modular reactor (TVA has a letter of intent in place to buy a buttload of them) will be the real revoluationary step forward if it works. These small reactors can be sed by coops and other local generators to power to small towns/cities and are much cheaper to build and operate.
All of that said, due to the costs and risks of nuke power (Nick's article is actually fairly accurate), nuke is not cheap. It's expensive and time consuming to build a nuke plant.
So the answer to the US grid's problems lies in three areas in my view;
1. Diversification. The US is blessed with a variety of power sources: wind (we are the Saudi Arabia of wind), natural gas, coal, nukes, hydro and to a lesser extent solar. A mixed grid like that proposed by President Bush, and President Obama makes sense. Laughing any of these sources out of the mix is a stupid mistake. Power sources have no politics. It's silly for Republicans to be pro-fossil fuels and anti- green power and just as silly for Democrats to be pro-green power and virulently anti-fossil fuel.
We clearly need to slide back the amount of coal plants we have; they are dirty and we are not accounting for the externalities, but clean coal and LNG (liquidfied natural gas plants) will continue to be a large portion of our grid driven by fossil fuels.
Note that some of the talk about wind and taxes and subsidies above is laughably incorrect. Wind is fairly cheap to install and the per kilowatt hour is within range of coal and LNG. Hydro is the cheapest, and nuke and solar the most expensive. Of all the green sources, solar is the most problematic because it is so difficult to generate a kilowatt of power.
Wind is presently 4% of the grid. DoE thinks it could be 20ish within 20 years. It's already a significant portion of the German, Spanish and Danish grids (and other European countries).
The only subsidy for it by the way is the wind tax credit, which doesn't kick in until the farm is up and running. Lots of people have made a lot of money off of wind farms and it has nothing to do with subsidies.
2. uSmart Grid. Having a grid where power can be wheeled from one RTO (region) to the other based on load data will help (a) eliminate stress and strain on our T&D system and (b) reduce the need for costly and redundant power generation.
3. Move to Underground Lines Mark noted this is happening in Europe. It's finally reached the US (and is a large part of the business I do). Underground cables, even over large distances (hundreds of miles) are now more economically feasible than overhead lines. They are easier to permit, and once installed require far less maintenance. They allow the use of HVDC technology to transmit power over long distances using DC current to avoid large transmission losses.
A diversified, connected, smart grid is the answer to cheap US power.
Let's start where most in the US on this board probably agree: in my opinion, nuclear is a critical part of our grid going forward. This President believes that. John McCain did too. We are, for the first time in 20-30 years, actually building nuclear power plants again.
Nuclear is can be run safe and clean -- the French power some extraordinary portion of their grid (60%?) without incident. The new Westinghouse AP-1 design is much safer than Fukushima. It relies on convection to cool rather than electric water pumps, and thus doesn't lose cooling when the power goes out (the key problem at Fukushima).
The new B&W small modular reactor (TVA has a letter of intent in place to buy a buttload of them) will be the real revoluationary step forward if it works. These small reactors can be sed by coops and other local generators to power to small towns/cities and are much cheaper to build and operate.
All of that said, due to the costs and risks of nuke power (Nick's article is actually fairly accurate), nuke is not cheap. It's expensive and time consuming to build a nuke plant.
So the answer to the US grid's problems lies in three areas in my view;
1. Diversification. The US is blessed with a variety of power sources: wind (we are the Saudi Arabia of wind), natural gas, coal, nukes, hydro and to a lesser extent solar. A mixed grid like that proposed by President Bush, and President Obama makes sense. Laughing any of these sources out of the mix is a stupid mistake. Power sources have no politics. It's silly for Republicans to be pro-fossil fuels and anti- green power and just as silly for Democrats to be pro-green power and virulently anti-fossil fuel.
We clearly need to slide back the amount of coal plants we have; they are dirty and we are not accounting for the externalities, but clean coal and LNG (liquidfied natural gas plants) will continue to be a large portion of our grid driven by fossil fuels.
Note that some of the talk about wind and taxes and subsidies above is laughably incorrect. Wind is fairly cheap to install and the per kilowatt hour is within range of coal and LNG. Hydro is the cheapest, and nuke and solar the most expensive. Of all the green sources, solar is the most problematic because it is so difficult to generate a kilowatt of power.
Wind is presently 4% of the grid. DoE thinks it could be 20ish within 20 years. It's already a significant portion of the German, Spanish and Danish grids (and other European countries).
The only subsidy for it by the way is the wind tax credit, which doesn't kick in until the farm is up and running. Lots of people have made a lot of money off of wind farms and it has nothing to do with subsidies.
2. uSmart Grid. Having a grid where power can be wheeled from one RTO (region) to the other based on load data will help (a) eliminate stress and strain on our T&D system and (b) reduce the need for costly and redundant power generation.
3. Move to Underground Lines Mark noted this is happening in Europe. It's finally reached the US (and is a large part of the business I do). Underground cables, even over large distances (hundreds of miles) are now more economically feasible than overhead lines. They are easier to permit, and once installed require far less maintenance. They allow the use of HVDC technology to transmit power over long distances using DC current to avoid large transmission losses.
A diversified, connected, smart grid is the answer to cheap US power.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Jeff,
Sanity at last, obviously all these energy sources have both good and bad characteristics. Thank you!
I have little to add, except that the folks who complain so bitterly about Wind and Solar subsidies conveniently forget about fossil fuel (Coal, Natural Gas) subsidies.
Sanity at last, obviously all these energy sources have both good and bad characteristics. Thank you!
I have little to add, except that the folks who complain so bitterly about Wind and Solar subsidies conveniently forget about fossil fuel (Coal, Natural Gas) subsidies.
Last edited:
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
I deal yearly (during each spring and fall) with the impacts of wind generation. Only recently are we able to dispatch them to a specific output, and that is generally a down-direction instruction (being one can't depend on the same reliance on wind to increase in speed when needed), and the responsive regulation required to counter their swings in output is being taxed even at today's 5-6% injection rate. Unless wind forecasting improves dramatically, and the rules governing wind output are greatly improved, any further injection of wind will require huge resources just to manage it. And the time when it is needed most (summer afternoon for example) is when the wind is statisticallly least likely to blow. So it is a huge challenge...but what significant change in energy wasn't in the beginning.
Now, if stored capacity and wind can be mated properly, you'll have a winning combination, but stored capacity is in it's infancy.
Regarding coal versus gas, gas has gotten so cheap now, our member's fleets are running down the coal, and ramping up the gas units (couldn't even have imagined that 10 years ago), but I'm afraid this will be a "fad" of sorts, and unsustainable. Yes, there are some who would argue that the EPA is the sole motive in forcing coal off-line, but the utilities are seeing the economic benefit of replacing some of their coal generation mix, with gas...regardless of how politicized this is being made. Sadly, I feel eventually, we'll be right back to a reliance on something other than gas, and even though coal seems to be a nice safety net, I'm ready for something a little less disruptive to the environment.
Now, if stored capacity and wind can be mated properly, you'll have a winning combination, but stored capacity is in it's infancy.
Regarding coal versus gas, gas has gotten so cheap now, our member's fleets are running down the coal, and ramping up the gas units (couldn't even have imagined that 10 years ago), but I'm afraid this will be a "fad" of sorts, and unsustainable. Yes, there are some who would argue that the EPA is the sole motive in forcing coal off-line, but the utilities are seeing the economic benefit of replacing some of their coal generation mix, with gas...regardless of how politicized this is being made. Sadly, I feel eventually, we'll be right back to a reliance on something other than gas, and even though coal seems to be a nice safety net, I'm ready for something a little less disruptive to the environment.
Last edited:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Absolutely. The interconnection issues have always been the biggest problem (assuming you roll the periodic nature of generation into the interconnect problem).
By responsive regulation you mean the reactive power you have to put on the grid to keep it up when the power coming from the farms drops? I suppose that should be taxed like all "used" power no?
I think the real solution to the unpredictability of wind generation will be greatly increased capacitor "capacity" and the ability to long term store power OR the ability to quickly wheel power from other areas to a section where a drop in wing threatens the utility's ability to meet the load demand.
Interesting stuff, and like you said, all sources of eletrical power have had their issues over time.
By responsive regulation you mean the reactive power you have to put on the grid to keep it up when the power coming from the farms drops? I suppose that should be taxed like all "used" power no?
I think the real solution to the unpredictability of wind generation will be greatly increased capacitor "capacity" and the ability to long term store power OR the ability to quickly wheel power from other areas to a section where a drop in wing threatens the utility's ability to meet the load demand.
Interesting stuff, and like you said, all sources of eletrical power have had their issues over time.
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
Correct. Most coal/steam plants cannot change their output as quickly as the wind does, so in order to maintain the balance of generation with load, other innovative methods of maintaining balance need to be considered. Fortunately, the cheap gas now days has promoted this increased mix, and as we all know, a gas turbine (jet engine) can ramp up and down fairly quickly to match the swings in wind.
Load demand response (controlling consumption on a broad level), stored capacity, and interestingly enough, so much wind that these resources are so spread out over such a large area, that those resources that experience an increase in wind (say a front moves into that area), make up for the wind resources hundreds of miles upwind where the wind is dying back down (days after the previous front moved through).
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o
></o>
Lastly our system, during disturbances, requires a certain amount of inertia to dampen these disturbances. The replacement of a huge mass of spinning steel (3600 rpm), by a lightweight, slower spinning wind turbine, no longer provides that inertia that our system protection has been designed around since the beginning of electrical power production. Thus, disturbances (large generator outages for example), will be more transparent over a larger area.
<o></o>
One of the greatest needs (as stated earlier in the string) is transmission. Fortunately, the investment in new and higher voltage transmission has finally broke from what seemed to be a quiet hiatus. If the new transmission construction continues, we will be in much better shape regarding all the issues discuss thus far in this string.<o></o>
Load demand response (controlling consumption on a broad level), stored capacity, and interestingly enough, so much wind that these resources are so spread out over such a large area, that those resources that experience an increase in wind (say a front moves into that area), make up for the wind resources hundreds of miles upwind where the wind is dying back down (days after the previous front moved through).
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o
></o>Lastly our system, during disturbances, requires a certain amount of inertia to dampen these disturbances. The replacement of a huge mass of spinning steel (3600 rpm), by a lightweight, slower spinning wind turbine, no longer provides that inertia that our system protection has been designed around since the beginning of electrical power production. Thus, disturbances (large generator outages for example), will be more transparent over a larger area.
<o
></o>One of the greatest needs (as stated earlier in the string) is transmission. Fortunately, the investment in new and higher voltage transmission has finally broke from what seemed to be a quiet hiatus. If the new transmission construction continues, we will be in much better shape regarding all the issues discuss thus far in this string.<o
></o>
Last edited:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Leading to another area of my expertise -- static var compensators. Many utilities and generators are moving to using these to "smooth" ups and downs on the grid and ensure that there is enough reactive power to keep the grid stable. A fairly recent technology and of tremendous use to grid owners.
LNG plants are, as you say, incredibly good at spinning up quickly and back down. Their problem is also initial capital cost. Way higher than wind.
Which again is all the more reason for a diversified grid.
Per output, how many wind generators does it take to match your average gas plant? and, how much land does it take?
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
<DT>[W]hen the Paris Exhibition closes electric light will close with it and no more be heard of. </DT><DT>- Erasmus Wilson (1878) Professor at Oxford University
<DT><DT>This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a practical form of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us. <DD>- Western Union internal memo, 1878
<DT><DT>A new source of power... called gasoline has been produced by a Boston engineer. Instead of burning the fuel under a boiler, it is exploded inside the cylinder of an engine. The dangers are obvious. Stores of gasoline in the hands of people interested primarily in profit would constitute a fire and explosive hazard of the first rank. [T]he cost of producing [gasoline] is far beyond the financial capacity of private industry... In addition the development of this new power may displace the use of horses, which would wreck our agriculture.
<DD>- U. S. Congressional Record, 1875.
<DD>
<DD>Sound Familiar?
</DD>
<DT><DT>This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a practical form of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us. <DD>- Western Union internal memo, 1878
<DT><DT>A new source of power... called gasoline has been produced by a Boston engineer. Instead of burning the fuel under a boiler, it is exploded inside the cylinder of an engine. The dangers are obvious. Stores of gasoline in the hands of people interested primarily in profit would constitute a fire and explosive hazard of the first rank. [T]he cost of producing [gasoline] is far beyond the financial capacity of private industry... In addition the development of this new power may displace the use of horses, which would wreck our agriculture.
<DD>- U. S. Congressional Record, 1875.
<DD>
<DD>Sound Familiar?
</DD>
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Per square foot, how much more expensive is an LNG plant versus a wind farm? Answer: ricidulously so.
Bob, all energy sources have pluses and minuses. Your politicaly driven, Limbaughhannitybeck fueled bizarre hatred of wind power (when I asked you months ago about all of these "subsidies" you claim wind farms get and how these projects are financed you had no fucking clue -- as in ZERO kilowatts -- as to the answer) is just that. Bizarre.
If someone is making money putting up wind farms, if utilities want to use wind farms as a clean means of helping to power the grid, and if there is a modest tax credit for those who successfull cmplete a farm and sell power, seriously, why do you care that this power comes from wind rather than LNG?
And LNG is great by the way. Cheap once built. Flexible. But good luck with the average Joe having the ability to finance one. A guy in Kansas with 50 acres can work a financed deal whereby he gets a $40 MUSD farm -- decent size -- and does well selling to a local utility on the interconnect agreement.
Why Limbaughhannitybeck hates this so much is beyond me.
Your Limbaughhannitybeck comments are getting trite. There not original enough to be offensive, they're just mundane at best. Just because liberals slavishly repeat everything they hear from MSNBCCNNHUFFPONYTIMESCBSNBCABCADINFINITUM, doesn't mean that Conservatives are so afflicted.
Limbaugh became a massive success because he saw that the opinions of half the country were being denigrated, swept aside, and dismissed. He gave voice to what we already believed.
In my case, my father's family was brutally murdered by a big government, and I've been against that form of government ever since.
Limbaugh became a massive success because he saw that the opinions of half the country were being denigrated, swept aside, and dismissed. He gave voice to what we already believed.
In my case, my father's family was brutally murdered by a big government, and I've been against that form of government ever since.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
My comments are 100% spot on. You simply regurgitate that crap here without having a clue about what you are talking about.
You didn't answer my question and instead started some big government diatribe. I'm sorry about the circumstances of your grandparents' death but I fail to see how they have anything to do with a discussion over US energy policy.
Now, some homework. Your assignment is a three paragraph summary of the cost per kilowatt hour of power generation in the US for coal, LNG, wind (assume onshore), hydro, nuclear and solar. You may break the summary into two categories, one that is direct cost only and the other that includes the cost of externalities.
No more Limbaughishms until we get you a basic educamachasion!
You didn't answer my question and instead started some big government diatribe. I'm sorry about the circumstances of your grandparents' death but I fail to see how they have anything to do with a discussion over US energy policy.
Now, some homework. Your assignment is a three paragraph summary of the cost per kilowatt hour of power generation in the US for coal, LNG, wind (assume onshore), hydro, nuclear and solar. You may break the summary into two categories, one that is direct cost only and the other that includes the cost of externalities.
No more Limbaughishms until we get you a basic educamachasion!
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Tom,
If you are looking for accurate data concerning the real cost of electric power, you may want to look somewhere other than the "Nuclear Fissionary",
Nuclear Fissionary........? Really?
If I put up data about the cost of energy from a Windmill or Solar panel marketing company, what would you say? Would you believe the data?
Just click on Nuclear Fissionary at the top of their site, you will see just how biased they are.
Now do not get me wrong, I also think that Nuclear energy is a good way to go, but Tom, if you want real believable data about the most efficient aircraft, would you go to the "Boing is Best" site?
If you are looking for accurate data concerning the real cost of electric power, you may want to look somewhere other than the "Nuclear Fissionary",
Nuclear Fissionary........? Really?
If I put up data about the cost of energy from a Windmill or Solar panel marketing company, what would you say? Would you believe the data?
Just click on Nuclear Fissionary at the top of their site, you will see just how biased they are.
Now do not get me wrong, I also think that Nuclear energy is a good way to go, but Tom, if you want real believable data about the most efficient aircraft, would you go to the "Boing is Best" site?
Last edited:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Some of his numbers are reasonably accurate although he underestimated the costs of nuclear externalities (that's a nuclear group position paper by the way).
Find more!
The gist of it is that wind, coal, nuke are all about the same kwh/hour cost within varoius ranges based on the factors used to calculate cost. Nuke gets higher if you calculate nonconstruction production costs and decommissioning. solar just isn't workable really.
There is a DoE study on this that is less biased, let me see if I can find that.
Find more!
The gist of it is that wind, coal, nuke are all about the same kwh/hour cost within varoius ranges based on the factors used to calculate cost. Nuke gets higher if you calculate nonconstruction production costs and decommissioning. solar just isn't workable really.
There is a DoE study on this that is less biased, let me see if I can find that.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Here it is:
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source
About halfway done is the forecasted cost broken out by cost item for most of the various types of generation. Very thorough. As you can see, wind is right up there with coal and various types of LNG for efficient power production. Solar stinks.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source
About halfway done is the forecasted cost broken out by cost item for most of the various types of generation. Very thorough. As you can see, wind is right up there with coal and various types of LNG for efficient power production. Solar stinks.
Similar threads
