101–110 of 176 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was thinking about this the other day, what's the loss factor in compressed air storage?
Quite high. When you compress air it heats up and that energy is lost. When you expand it it gets very cold and you lose pressure (you can wait a bit for the air to warm it up to regain some of what was lost).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I simply pointed out that by using prices that include taxes and incentives, this report artificially exaggerated the costs of coal and understated the true costs of solar/wind. They aren't really even close to being competitive in real terms, but this report falsely implies that they are. Bloomberg LLP, the company behind this report, is run by Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire radical environmentalist. Therefore it…
I simply pointed out that by using prices that include taxes and incentives, this report artificially exaggerated the costs of coal and understated the true costs of solar/wind. They aren't really even close to being competitive in real terms, but this report falsely implies that they are. How do you define "real" terms? Sure it's not the price that would emerge if those taxes/incentives didn't exist, but market pric…
The actual cost of production without artificial factors like taxes and incentives being included.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The report says that coal costs $75 per megawatt hour, while land-based wind costs $83 and solar comes in at a whopping $122. That's far from "almost competitive". $83 is close enough to $75 that tweaks to tax policy can now be used to make renewable energy investment over fossil fuel virtually a no brainer decision without adversely affecting overall energy production that much. Indeed, that's pretty much what Germ…
>$83 is close enough to $75 that tweaks to tax policy can now be used to make renewable energy investment over fossil fuel virtually a no brainer decision The tweaks to tax policy you're referring to have already happened, and they still haven't made wind and solar competitive. Taxes and incentives being included are the only reason that the numbers quoted in this extremely misleading report are even remotely close t…
They already did in the UK and Germany as the article points out.
The political weight of utilities and the oil/natgas industry is significantly higher in the US which is probably why the US hasn't followed in Germany/UK's footsteps. Too many Senate re-election campaign funds being paid for by Kochs, etc.
Wind and solar are still not competitive. The report says that coal costs $75 per megawatt hour, while land-based wind costs $83 and solar comes in at a whopping $122. That's far from "almost competitive". Also note that these are not costs of production , these are what people wind up paying for it. That means that the coal numbers include extensive taxes, while the solar and wind numbers include extensive tax disco…
What about the cost of cleaning up the emissions from the coal? Who pays for this?
1. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. 2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thor…
1. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. 2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thor…
You did miss two things - distribution networks and industrial customers. Those are the two problems that nobody seems to be solving yet. Basically, high-voltage electricity is distributed with networks that are dumb and old. The generation and usage is very carefully balanced with heavy users and large producers, because the network does not have storage capacity. It also has very little tolerance for power imbalanc…
Hydro and geothermal are 'green' solutions that can manage pretty constant power levels 24/7. Just make sure your factory is close to those type of power plants and you'll be fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I simply pointed out that by using prices that include taxes and incentives, this report artificially exaggerated the costs of coal and understated the true costs of solar/wind. They aren't really even close to being competitive in real terms, but this report falsely implies that they are. How do you define "real" terms? Sure it's not the price that would emerge if those taxes/incentives didn't exist, but market pric…
>How do you define "real" terms? The actual cost of production without artificial factors like taxes and incentives being included.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Holy strawman. Taxing fossil fuel now equals abandoning industrial civilization? But I agree on one point. When (not IF) the sea level rises, some people are bound to end up better off, by taking opportunities and exploiting all the other people who have to find new place to live. Some people will do absolutely anything to make money, and don't care how their action will affect people living now or a generation from…
Holy strawman. Taxing fossil fuel now equals abandoning industrial civilization? As of 2007, Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, leading opponent of the Keystone XL pipeline, wants taxes that will prohibit 80% of fossil fuel use. Since then, he has called for outlawing 90-95% if fossil fuel use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_McKibben If you don't believe this, there is a very famous article of his that Rolling St…
That will effectively mean leaving a lot of fossil fuels in the ground.
You'll have to pencil in the details for how this equals "abandoning industrial civilisation". Is this because of that EROI numerology thing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I simply pointed out that by using prices that include taxes and incentives, this report artificially exaggerated the costs of coal and understated the true costs of solar/wind. They aren't really even close to being competitive in real terms, but this report falsely implies that they are. How do you define "real" terms? Sure it's not the price that would emerge if those taxes/incentives didn't exist, but market pric…
>How do you define "real" terms? The actual cost of production without artificial factors like taxes and incentives being included.
That someone else is forced to pay to handle the effects of your pollution doesn't mean that this cost shouldn't be considered part of the cost of coal generated electricity.
Wind and solar are still not competitive. The report says that coal costs $75 per megawatt hour, while land-based wind costs $83 and solar comes in at a whopping $122. That's far from "almost competitive". Also note that these are not costs of production , these are what people wind up paying for it. That means that the coal numbers include extensive taxes, while the solar and wind numbers include extensive tax disco…
Islands that have to import oil to burn are ideal early markets for example.
And every solar panel or wind turbine reduces the price of the next, a positive feedback loop.
Every bit of coal or gas burned puts more CO2 in the atmosphere and increases the costs that governments will impose on production, a negative feedback loop.