Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Obama to nuke coal power plants   (cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Obama, coal power plant, climate change skeptics, coal-fired power plants, senior administration official  
•       •       •

2421 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jun 2013 at 1:17 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



295 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-06-25 11:54:12 AM  
Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama
 
2013-06-25 12:03:41 PM  
Wonder what the Koch Brothers are thinking?
 
2013-06-25 12:07:39 PM  
i38.tinypic.com
 
2013-06-25 12:10:33 PM  
Free market competition from natural gas is doing a nice job of that already.
 
2013-06-25 12:12:31 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama


I thought they had all that Natural Gas production via fracking going on? Or are you just blowing smoke up my ass?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 12:13:48 PM  
Natural Gas is cheaper than coal anyway, so he is just encouraging the plant owners to do what they are already inclined to do.
 
2013-06-25 12:16:07 PM  
This reminds me how the end of WWII put all those people making zyklon B out of work.

Gotta Godwin this up.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 12:16:15 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama


No, just jobs being shifted from coal mining to fracking.
 
2013-06-25 12:25:47 PM  
This is terrible. We just need more clean coal at work. These guys can attest to that.

2media.nowpublic.net

rogerphilpot.homestead.com

sites.psu.edu

themileylegalgroup.files.wordpress.com

saferenvironment.files.wordpress.com

thinkprogress.org

Good ol clean coal.

THINK OF THE JOBS, NOBAMA! IT'S NOT POLLUTION IF WE EXPORT IT!
 
2013-06-25 12:26:31 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama


Yeah, I bet he doesn't even carry PA in 2016!
 
2013-06-25 12:28:08 PM  
somedude210:
I thought they had all that Natural Gas production via fracking going on? Or are you just blowing smoke up my ass?

Fracking is not without it's own set of problems, but yet there's PLENTY of that going on in PA.  Lots of trucks with TX plates carrying Halliburton equipment all day.  SOMEBODY is getting rich off of that, but it's nobody I know.  The nearest power plant to me (which I can see the steam plumes from) is supposed to be retrofitting to burn gas instead of coal.  It's the one Greenepeace scaled many years ago.
 
2013-06-25 12:35:26 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama


tought shiat, they can fark off.

Hydro, Nuclear (Gen III+, Thorium), Wind, Solar, Geothermal, etc all faaaaaar better. For environmental AND economic reasons.
 
2013-06-25 12:36:45 PM  
We need more solar and nuclear options.

Simple as that.

They are very clean. Solar is limitless energy and nuclear can power significant numbers.

Coal plants everywhere should be shut down
 
2013-06-25 12:38:28 PM  

somedude210: I thought they had all that Natural Gas production via fracking going on? Or are you just blowing smoke up my ass?


Ironically enough, the boom in Natural Gas production is hurting the Coal industry more than anything else. To make it worse, though, the boom in fracking has hurt the profit on natural gas production.

Still, mine owners like to scare mining towns shiatless about how the "ebil gub'ment is commin' to take der jobs away". It's like feudalism mixed with extortion.
 
2013-06-25 12:40:46 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: somedude210: I thought they had all that Natural Gas production via fracking going on? Or are you just blowing smoke up my ass?

Ironically enough, the boom in Natural Gas production is hurting the Coal industry more than anything else. To make it worse, though, the boom in fracking has hurt the profit on natural gas production.

Still, mine owners like to scare mining towns shiatless about how the "ebil gub'ment is commin' to take der jobs away". It's like feudalism mixed with extortion.


Still, a LOT of union miners who traditionally voted Democrat every single time were convinced that Obama was going to take their job, and Romney would be far better.  Not sure who convinced them of that.  OH did I mention that many of the executives at Consolidated Coal are Mormon?  I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
 
2013-06-25 12:41:33 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama


The coal miner vote.  Think of all the kids leaving school today that are just devastated that they can't work in a coal mine.
 
2013-06-25 12:42:47 PM  
but but buggy whips....
 
2013-06-25 12:44:31 PM  

nekom: Still, a LOT of union miners who traditionally voted Democrat every single time were convinced that Obama was going to take their job, and Romney would be far better. Not sure who convinced them of that. OH did I mention that many of the executives at Consolidated Coal are Mormon? I'm sure that's just a coincidence.


I'm less likely to believe that the executives supported Romney because they're all Mormon than I am to believe that the executives supported Romney because they're all rich and he would help make them richer.
 
2013-06-25 12:46:59 PM  
mrshowrules:
The coal miner vote.  Think of all the kids leaving school today that are just devastated that they can't work in a coal mine.

Starting salary of around $52,000 a year (40hr week, overtime available) would look pretty tempting to a kid fresh out of high school with no other prospects.  I used to know a mine electrician who made 6 figures by the time he was 25.  I'm claustrophobic so it wasn't for me, plus it's dirty and loud and I went to college, but they pay very nice, especially the union mines.  It's not 1910 anymore.
 
2013-06-25 12:51:17 PM  
I'm against coal burners too.
 
2013-06-25 12:54:23 PM  

somedude210: jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama

I thought they had all that Natural Gas production via fracking going on? Or are you just blowing smoke up my ass?


That's against EPA regulations.
 
2013-06-25 12:54:42 PM  

nekom: mrshowrules:
The coal miner vote.  Think of all the kids leaving school today that are just devastated that they can't work in a coal mine.

Starting salary of around $52,000 a year (40hr week, overtime available) would look pretty tempting to a kid fresh out of high school with no other prospects.  I used to know a mine electrician who made 6 figures by the time he was 25.  I'm claustrophobic so it wasn't for me, plus it's dirty and loud and I went to college, but they pay very nice, especially the union mines.  It's not 1910 anymore.


Salary is often good but it's the second most dangerous activity in the US (I think logging is the most dangerous) and that's probably not including illnesses from working in a mine.
 
2013-06-25 12:59:29 PM  
FlashHarry:

Yep. About damn time we stopped subsidizing them via pollution cleanup, health care costs, etc.
 
2013-06-25 01:01:07 PM  

cman: Coal plants everywhere should be shut down


Just when I've finally cornered the market in canaries?


/we need to move forward with all the alternative solutions
 
2013-06-25 01:12:00 PM  

bdub77: nekom: mrshowrules:
Salary is often good but it's the second most dangerous activity in the US (I think logging is the most dangerous) and that's probably not including illnesses from working in a mine.


It is, but it's better than it used to be.  The last fatality I remember at a mine we sell to was an industrial accident that could have happened anywhere, somebody fell off some machinery and was crushed, that could just as easily happen in a warehouse.  But then, we don't sell to any Massey mines at the moment, they have a rather deplorable record lately compared to Consol and Patriot.
 
2013-06-25 01:22:02 PM  
Why can't we do a Cash for Clunkers type thing, the government offers to invest in housing/commercial upgrades. Everyone that owns a home/building can have solar installed on their roofs, etc. and the government will pay the company for it.

It'd put a bunch of people to work and start changing over the economy to reduce energy consumption... (GOP does want to be "energy independent" right?)
 
2013-06-25 01:24:16 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama


Many of the power plants here have already switched to natural gas, because it is dirt cheap. Many homeowners have switched as well. Most of the coal being mined here is going overseas. If coal jobs are being killed, it is the Free Market doing it.

By the way, the GOP was running ads about Obama's "War on Coal" here in PA this past election. We know how that turned out.

/lives in a town founded by a mining company
//coal trucks go through town constantly
///trains loaded with coal go through town a couple times a day
 
2013-06-25 01:27:29 PM  

KellyX: Why can't we do a Cash for Clunkers type thing, the government offers to invest in housing/commercial upgrades. Everyone that owns a home/building can have solar installed on their roofs, etc. and the government will pay the company for it.

It'd put a bunch of people to work and start changing over the economy to reduce energy consumption... (GOP does want to be "energy independent" right?)


Cash for Clunkers was a financial and environmental disaster.
 
2013-06-25 01:31:58 PM  

netizencain: KellyX: Why can't we do a Cash for Clunkers type thing, the government offers to invest in housing/commercial upgrades. Everyone that owns a home/building can have solar installed on their roofs, etc. and the government will pay the company for it.

It'd put a bunch of people to work and start changing over the economy to reduce energy consumption... (GOP does want to be "energy independent" right?)

Cash for Clunkers was a financial and environmental disaster.


Citation?
 
2013-06-25 01:33:43 PM  
FTFA:  The administration has already issued standards for dangerous pollutants like mercury that also come from coal, like mercury.

They really like mercury.
 
2013-06-25 01:35:06 PM  
Article over at CNN said that 40% of US electricity is from coal, but I don't know if that's in terms of output or capacity.
 
2013-06-25 01:37:45 PM  

Bloody William: netizencain: KellyX: Why can't we do a Cash for Clunkers type thing, the government offers to invest in housing/commercial upgrades. Everyone that owns a home/building can have solar installed on their roofs, etc. and the government will pay the company for it.

It'd put a bunch of people to work and start changing over the economy to reduce energy consumption... (GOP does want to be "energy independent" right?)

Cash for Clunkers was a financial and environmental disaster.

Citation?


http://news.yahoo.com/why-cash-clunkers-hurt-environment-more-helped -0 24848694.html
http://pointsandfigures.com/2010/09/03/cash-for-clunkers-an-economic -d isaster/
 
2013-06-25 01:37:51 PM  
I don't care where the electricity to charge my Iphone and plug-in hybrid come from, as long as it is cheap and plentiful. .
 
2013-06-25 01:38:26 PM  

Bloody William: Citation?


Fartbongo was reelected. QED.
 
2013-06-25 01:39:37 PM  
Is Obama climate change agenda just a cover for war on coal?

***fox cover page of scarybama***

they're just asking questions.....
 
2013-06-25 01:39:49 PM  
Jobkillbama

yeah he's like a cancer on the economy of America isn't he
 
2013-06-25 01:40:30 PM  

Bloody William: netizencain: KellyX: Why can't we do a Cash for Clunkers type thing, the government offers to invest in housing/commercial upgrades. Everyone that owns a home/building can have solar installed on their roofs, etc. and the government will pay the company for it.

It'd put a bunch of people to work and start changing over the economy to reduce energy consumption... (GOP does want to be "energy independent" right?)

Cash for Clunkers was a financial and environmental disaster.

Citation?


Cash for clunkers funneled a bunch of money through dealers, all of which can barely tie their shoes when it comes to understanding tax accounting, and many of which were in the process of going belly up.  Two people I knew participated in it, and both had to take their clunkers back because of different glitches.
 
2013-06-25 01:41:40 PM  
Granted, tougher standards might put a few coal plants out of business.
 
2013-06-25 01:45:03 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama


They'll be too busy getting Obamacare for their black-lung disease. No biggie.
 
2013-06-25 01:45:06 PM  
I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.
 
2013-06-25 01:46:33 PM  

netizencain: And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.


You'll be happy to know that: Average U.S. residential summer 2013 electric bill expected to be lowest in four years
 
2013-06-25 01:46:43 PM  

netizencain: But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.


Bullshiat. You mean the market isn't "ready" (lol) with a CHEAP replacement.
 
2013-06-25 01:49:04 PM  

mrshowrules: The coal miner vote.  Think of all the kids leaving school today that are just devastated that they can't work in a coal mine.


Coal-mining is a wonderful thing father, but it's something you'll never understand. Just look at you!

i2.ytimg.com
 
2013-06-25 01:50:07 PM  
I hope he starts in Ohio. They deserve it.
 
2013-06-25 01:50:20 PM  
The trick will be in convincing America that it's the fault of Republicans when they have less energy and higher bills.
 
2013-06-25 01:50:38 PM  
President speaking now. Link
 
2013-06-25 01:51:26 PM  

netizencain: I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.


What are you talking about. I can get solar on my house nothing down and pay back payments for less than my electric bill to pay it of each month and when all is said and done after 20 years I pay half then what I would have on my electric bill. How in the fark is that not a viable replacement.
 
2013-06-25 01:51:46 PM  

netizencain: KellyX: Why can't we do a Cash for Clunkers type thing, the government offers to invest in housing/commercial upgrades. Everyone that owns a home/building can have solar installed on their roofs, etc. and the government will pay the company for it.

It'd put a bunch of people to work and start changing over the economy to reduce energy consumption... (GOP does want to be "energy independent" right?)

Cash for Clunkers was a financial and environmental disaster.


I only mentioned it because it was a government sponsored program, I'd much rather responses on the idea I proposed.
 
2013-06-25 01:51:51 PM  
Maybe he can use the money from fines to invest more in fracking since the administration is fine with fracking.
 
2013-06-25 01:52:02 PM  

nekom: mrshowrules:
The coal miner vote.  Think of all the kids leaving school today that are just devastated that they can't work in a coal mine.

Starting salary of around $52,000 a year (40hr week, overtime available) would look pretty tempting to a kid fresh out of high school with no other prospects.  I used to know a mine electrician who made 6 figures by the time he was 25.  I'm claustrophobic so it wasn't for me, plus it's dirty and loud and I went to college, but they pay very nice, especially the union mines.  It's not 1910 anymore.


If mine owners had their way it would be.
 
2013-06-25 01:54:22 PM  

KellyX: Why can't we do a Cash for Clunkers type thing, the government offers to invest in housing/commercial upgrades. Everyone that owns a home/building can have solar installed on their roofs, etc. and the government will pay the company for it.

It'd put a bunch of people to work and start changing over the economy to reduce energy consumption... (GOP does want to be "energy independent" right?)


The last time we tried something like that (weatherproofing houses for energy effecieny) it did not meet expectations. The only way you are going to get large scale change like you are talking about is through the market.
 
2013-06-25 01:56:07 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: President speaking now. Link


Ugh. 120hz. Soap opera style video. Please tell me we're not going in that direction.
 
2013-06-25 01:56:12 PM  

cman: We need more solar and nuclear options.

Simple as that.

They are very clean. Solar is limitless energy and nuclear can power significant numbers.

Coal plants everywhere should be shut down


Solar is a stupid idea, what are we supposed to do at night? Libtards!
 
2013-06-25 01:56:18 PM  
Speaking as an engineer who has kept up with the practicalities of energy generation:

Good.  Coal has been by far the least cost-effective means of industrial-scale industry production we've had since the '50s.  Even wind power is cheaper in materials and overall labor investment, and that's terrible.  The fact that we're using mined coal in anything but steel production is a piece of goddamned idiocy on par with if we required every automobile to be furnished with a buggy whip and a set of reins at all times.

whidbey: netizencain: But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.

Bullshiat. You mean the market isn't "ready" (lol) with a CHEAP replacement.


Even that... well, see above.  Nuclear, natgas, and hydro blow coal out of the water on basic cost-effectiveness really, really easily, and even wind (which is terribly inefficient) gives it a run for its money, and even SOLAR of all goddamned things is catching up.

And again, this is just labor and capital investment versus return, I'm not even thinking about environmental impact here.  The only reason coal is "cheap" in monetary terms is monopoly price-fixing and abuse of the labor force, plus monopoly obstruction of competing plants.  If that's really what you're into, you could do that with a nuke plant too, and it would be preferable.
 
2013-06-25 01:56:55 PM  

bdub77: Ugh. 120hz. Soap opera style video. Please tell me we're not going in that direction.


I don't know what this means.
 
2013-06-25 01:58:10 PM  

nekom: jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama

Yeah, I bet he doesn't even carry PA in 2016!


Midterm elections will be important for the Dems if they think they can get the House back.
 
2013-06-25 01:58:45 PM  

Corvus: netizencain: I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.

What are you talking about. I can get solar on my house nothing down and pay back payments for less than my electric bill to pay it of each month and when all is said and done after 20 years I pay half then what I would have on my electric bill. How in the fark is that not a viable replacement.


But you're not going to power a city with solar today.  Solar is fine for small solutions.  And it's great for off-setting some energy expenditures (solar water heating, etc)  But until it cant replace coal... there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid.  Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.
 
2013-06-25 01:58:50 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: bdub77: Ugh. 120hz. Soap opera style video. Please tell me we're not going in that direction.

I don't know what this means.


TV refresh rate. At least on my monitor that's how it's showing up.
 
2013-06-25 01:59:15 PM  

Fox doesn't even wait for Obama to finish before going to a climate change skeptic

- Sam Stein (@samsteinhp) June 25, 2013


Surprise.
 
2013-06-25 02:00:08 PM  
So let me get this straight. Like a zombie crawling out of a graveyard, the US economy is sluggishly digging itself out of a major recession. Millions of men, women, and children are now living below the poverty line. The problem? There are no jobs.

So...

Obama has decided to hack a sector of the economy that produces energy, thereby causing a loss of jobs and higher energy costs that will surely increase what Americans pay in utility bills, consumer goods and services.

All of this driven by the tenuous global warming theory and fueled by dubious and costly 'Green' technology.

Well, smack my arugula and call me Solyndra.
 
2013-06-25 02:00:12 PM  

netizencain: But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement. And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.


Which is why the energy industry puts CAPS on how much home electricity can be made by home solar in a state?

Right people don't want it so much that the energy industry has to make caps to not allow people to buy it.
 
2013-06-25 02:01:13 PM  

netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.

What are you talking about. I can get solar on my house nothing down and pay back payments for less than my electric bill to pay it of each month and when all is said and done after 20 years I pay half then what I would have on my electric bill. How in the fark is that not a viable replacement.

But you're not going to power a city with solar today.  Solar is fine for small solutions.  And it's great for off-setting some energy expenditures (solar water heating, etc)  But until it cant replace coal... there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid.  Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.


You have heard of natural gas, haven't you?
 
2013-06-25 02:01:30 PM  

netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.

What are you talking about. I can get solar on my house nothing down and pay back payments for less than my electric bill to pay it of each month and when all is said and done after 20 years I pay half then what I would have on my electric bill. How in the fark is that not a viable replacement.

But you're not going to power a city with solar today.  Solar is fine for small solutions.  And it's great for off-setting some energy expenditures (solar water heating, etc)  But until it cant replace coal... there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid.  Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.


You have no idea what you are talking about the solar I make at my home DOES go on the grid. Really shut the fark up because you have no farking idea what you are talking about.
 
2013-06-25 02:02:00 PM  

KellyX: netizencain: KellyX: Why can't we do a Cash for Clunkers type thing, the government offers to invest in housing/commercial upgrades. Everyone that owns a home/building can have solar installed on their roofs, etc. and the government will pay the company for it.

It'd put a bunch of people to work and start changing over the economy to reduce energy consumption... (GOP does want to be "energy independent" right?)

Cash for Clunkers was a financial and environmental disaster.

I only mentioned it because it was a government sponsored program, I'd much rather responses on the idea I proposed.


We had the weatherstripping and properly inflate your tires program.
How did those work out?

Many states do provide tax incentives for solar installations.  It was the only reason it was cost effective for us to put the panels up.
 
2013-06-25 02:02:16 PM  

Agneska: So let me get this straight.


I don't believe you accomplished this goal.
 
2013-06-25 02:02:19 PM  

KellyX: Why can't we do a Cash for Clunkers type thing, the government offers to invest in housing/commercial upgrades. Everyone that owns a home/building can have solar installed on their roofs, etc. and the government will pay the company for it.


OK a few issues: (1) In general, the energy companies wouldn't really want this, as it would create excess supply in the system and they'd have to shut down/idle plants; (2) it would be a logistics problem to service every solar panel if something went wrong; (3) there are already local programs that provide for housing rehabilitation, including upgrades like this; (4) older homes would not be suitable for such a program as they are structurally suspect and probably contain hazardous materials that other government regulations require homeowners receiving federal assistance to abate; (5) not all areas are suitable for solar power (e.g., those without a southern exposure); and (6) you really want the owner to bear a portion of the cost so that they have something invested into the program.

That's off the top of my head. Not to say that the goal isn't good, but there's probably a more delicate and targeted way to do it.
 
2013-06-25 02:02:30 PM  

netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.


Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.
 
2013-06-25 02:02:43 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Speaking as an engineer who has kept up with the practicalities of energy generation:

Good.  Coal has been by far the least cost-effective means of industrial-scale industry production we've had since the '50s.  Even wind power is cheaper in materials and overall labor investment, and that's terrible.  The fact that we're using mined coal in anything but steel production is a piece of goddamned idiocy on par with if we required every automobile to be furnished with a buggy whip and a set of reins at all times.

whidbey: netizencain: But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.

Bullshiat. You mean the market isn't "ready" (lol) with a CHEAP replacement.

Even that... well, see above.  Nuclear, natgas, and hydro blow coal out of the water on basic cost-effectiveness really, really easily, and even wind (which is terribly inefficient) gives it a run for its money, and even SOLAR of all goddamned things is catching up.

And again, this is just labor and capital investment versus return, I'm not even thinking about environmental impact here.  The only reason coal is "cheap" in monetary terms is monopoly price-fixing and abuse of the labor force, plus monopoly obstruction of competing plants.  If that's really what you're into, you could do that with a nuke plant too, and it would be preferable.


There hasn't been a new nuke plant in the US in almost 40 years. Same with LNG.
 
2013-06-25 02:03:29 PM  
The U.S. generated 730 million kilowatt hours of solar electricity in the first two months of 2013, 227% more than the same period in 2012, according to new EIA data.

Link

Clearly ruining the economy.
 
2013-06-25 02:03:36 PM  

Agneska: So let me get this straight. Like a zombie crawling out of a graveyard, the US economy is sluggishly digging itself out of a major recession. Millions of men, women, and children are now living below the poverty line. The problem? There are no jobs.

So...

Obama has decided to hack a sector of the economy that produces energy, thereby causing a loss of jobs and higher energy costs that will surely increase what Americans pay in utility bills, consumer goods and services.

All of this driven by the tenuous global warming theory and fueled by dubious and costly 'Green' technology.

Well, smack my arugula


Only if you pay extra.
 
2013-06-25 02:04:47 PM  
This doesn't go far enough, IMHO.  With clean natural gas so cheap and plentiful in the US, I personally would be in favor of a complete ban on coal power plants, nationwide.  The number of people who get sick (some who die) from pollution from coal power plants from such is extremely large.
 
2013-06-25 02:04:47 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.

What are you talking about. I can get solar on my house nothing down and pay back payments for less than my electric bill to pay it of each month and when all is said and done after 20 years I pay half then what I would have on my electric bill. How in the fark is that not a viable replacement.

But you're not going to power a city with solar today.  Solar is fine for small solutions.  And it's great for off-setting some energy expenditures (solar water heating, etc)  But until it cant replace coal... there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid.  Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

You have heard of natural gas, haven't you?


Funny, I just left Korea where I commissioned a new LNG Tanker.  So ya, I do know a little about LNG.
 
2013-06-25 02:04:54 PM  
I wish Obama was less passive aggressive sometimes. "Those vague people I've generalized behind me that suck, they don't know what they are talking about."

Just start naming who is being sold to the oil and gas industry - (hint: it's everyone). Start talking about the big companies doing this.
 
2013-06-25 02:05:01 PM  
Consider this: in the first three months of the year, the U.S. installed 723 MW, just under half of all new generation capacity installed across the country, and the best first quarter yet for solar.

The utility solar market scored big, with 318 MW installed under the direction and ownership of the electric utilities. However, the residential market saw 164 MW installed, with 53% year-over-year growth.

Link

Clearly ruining the economy.
 
2013-06-25 02:05:08 PM  

netizencain: There hasn't been a new nuke plant in the US in almost 40 years. Same with LNG.


But they are being planned. We just gave  around 40 BILLION in US guaranteed loans to the Nuclear companies because they said in congressional hearings that it was such a risky investment that they could not fund the plants without the government handout.
 
2013-06-25 02:05:54 PM  

vpb: jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama

No, just jobs being shifted from coal mining to fracking.


Killing off fracking is energy agenda item #3, right after making sure Keystone never gets built.
 
2013-06-25 02:05:58 PM  

netizencain: Funny, I just left Korea where I commissioned a new LNG Tanker. So ya, I do know a little about LNG.


And you have no farking clue how solar works. It's been going into the grid for decades.
 
2013-06-25 02:06:04 PM  
 
2013-06-25 02:06:18 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: The U.S. generated 730 million kilowatt hours of solar electricity in the first two months of 2013, 227% more than the same period in 2012, according to new EIA data.

Link

Clearly ruining the economy.


BUT...BUT....BUT...SOLYNDRA!
 
2013-06-25 02:06:56 PM  
"Ten years ago, there were less than 2,000 turbines, and today there are over 20,000. These are not your father's turbines. These are efficient and are driving down the cost of electricity," Guyette said.

The wind industry also is good for Texas, good for Houston.

A study released by the Waco-based Perryman Group in May 2010 estimates the wind industry is responsible for nearly 10,000 manufacturing, headquarters, construction, and maintenance and support jobs in Texas annually.

Link

Clearly ruining the economy.
 
2013-06-25 02:07:06 PM  

netizencain: Philip Francis Queeg: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.

What are you talking about. I can get solar on my house nothing down and pay back payments for less than my electric bill to pay it of each month and when all is said and done after 20 years I pay half then what I would have on my electric bill. How in the fark is that not a viable replacement.

But you're not going to power a city with solar today.  Solar is fine for small solutions.  And it's great for off-setting some energy expenditures (solar water heating, etc)  But until it cant replace coal... there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid.  Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

You have heard of natural gas, haven't you?

Funny, I just left Korea where I commissioned a new LNG Tanker.  So ya, I do know a little about LNG.


Then you might be aware that natural gas is a viable alternative to coal,.
 
2013-06-25 02:08:53 PM  

netizencain: There hasn't been a new nuke plant in the US in almost 40 years. Same with LNG.


Food I guess they don't need this 90 BILLION dollars in US tax payer money then:


In 2007 Congress authorized the Department of Energy to guarantee up to $18.5 billion of debt for nuclear power projects. In early 2010 President Obama proposed tripling that to $54.5 billion and also requested the $36 billion increase in the Administration's proposed 2012 budget.
 
2013-06-25 02:11:10 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Then you might be aware that natural gas is a viable alternative to coal,.


I doubt it, the idiot thinks you can put solar electricity on the grid or you can't use it to create power at night (which you can we have 24 hour solar plants that heat water during the day and run generators 24/7)

He has no idea what he is talking about.
 
2013-06-25 02:11:45 PM  

Corvus: netizencain: There hasn't been a new nuke plant in the US in almost 40 years. Same with LNG.

Food I guess they don't need this 90 BILLION dollars in US tax payer money then:


In 2007 Congress authorized the Department of Energy to guarantee up to $18.5 billion of debt for nuclear power projects. In early 2010 President Obama proposed tripling that to $54.5 billion and also requested the $36 billion increase in the Administration's proposed 2012 budget.


Those are just debt guarantees not grants.
 
2013-06-25 02:11:48 PM  

Corvus: Philip Francis Queeg: Then you might be aware that natural gas is a viable alternative to coal,.

I doubt it, the idiot thinks you can not put solar electricity on the grid or you can't use it to create power at night (which you can we have 24 hour solar plants that heat water during the day and run generators 24/7)

He has no idea what he is talking about.


FTFM
 
2013-06-25 02:11:58 PM  

Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.


I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.
 
2013-06-25 02:12:45 PM  

nekom: Still, a LOT of union miners who traditionally voted Democrat every single time were convinced that Obama was going to take their job, and Romney would be far better. Not sure who convinced them of that. OH did I mention that many of the executives at Consolidated Coal are Mormon? I'm sure that's just a coincidence.


The mining areas near me still vote D for a lot of state and local stuff, but they went R nationally with Reagan and haven't looked back.
 
2013-06-25 02:12:49 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Corvus: netizencain: There hasn't been a new nuke plant in the US in almost 40 years. Same with LNG.

Food I guess they don't need this 90 BILLION dollars in US tax payer money then:


In 2007 Congress authorized the Department of Energy to guarantee up to $18.5 billion of debt for nuclear power projects. In early 2010 President Obama proposed tripling that to $54.5 billion and also requested the $36 billion increase in the Administration's proposed 2012 budget.

Those are just debt guarantees not grants.


So was it for Solyndra. So you had no problem with that?

Yes and experts say half of those are going to fail which means that the US will be on the hook for 45 BILLION dollars.
 
2013-06-25 02:12:51 PM  

vpb: Natural Gas is cheaper than coal anyway, so he is just encouraging the plant owners to do what they are already inclined to do.


Yep.  WE Energies wants to convert the power plant a couple of miles away from me here in Milwaukee, they're just waiting on state approval.  Not only will it be cheaper to operate, but it will be much cheaper to meet environmental regulations just by the virtue of natural gas being so much cheaper.
 
2013-06-25 02:13:15 PM  

Corvus: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.

What are you talking about. I can get solar on my house nothing down and pay back payments for less than my electric bill to pay it of each month and when all is said and done after 20 years I pay half then what I would have on my electric bill. How in the fark is that not a viable replacement.

But you're not going to power a city with solar today.  Solar is fine for small solutions.  And it's great for off-setting some energy expenditures (solar water heating, etc)  But until it cant replace coal... there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid.  Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

You have no idea what you are talking about the solar I make at my home DOES go on the grid. Really shut the fark up because you have no farking idea what you are talking about.


He said you couldn't power a city with solar today, not that your excess solar power doesn't go to the grid. He also happened to be absolutely right. It's not feasible to power a city with solar power right now, at least not primarily with solar power.
 
2013-06-25 02:13:20 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: netizencain: Philip Francis Queeg: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.

What are you talking about. I can get solar on my house nothing down and pay back payments for less than my electric bill to pay it of each month and when all is said and done after 20 years I pay half then what I would have on my electric bill. How in the fark is that not a viable replacement.

But you're not going to power a city with solar today.  Solar is fine for small solutions.  And it's great for off-setting some energy expenditures (solar water heating, etc)  But until it cant replace coal... there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid.  Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

You have heard of natural gas, haven't you?

Funny, I just left Korea where I commissioned a new LNG Tanker.  So ya, I do know a little about LNG.

Then you might be aware that natural gas is a viable alternative to coal,.


Yep.  It is.  But America is not there yet.  We don't have the infrastructure like other countries do.  And I have no problem with the US government 'helping' motivate the market.
 
2013-06-25 02:15:06 PM  

netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.


Well you read from incorrect source and have no idea what your talking about my solar on my home goes on the grid. Plus southern California has solar plants since the 70s that go on the grid.

Also solar energy can run 24/7. You really have no idea what you're talking about?

What do you mean "a local issue" is my grid I pull power from different then the normal electrical grid?
 
2013-06-25 02:15:19 PM  

Corvus: netizencain: There hasn't been a new nuke plant in the US in almost 40 years. Same with LNG.

Food I guess they don't need this 90 BILLION dollars in US tax payer money then:


In 2007 Congress authorized the Department of Energy to guarantee up to $18.5 billion of debt for nuclear power projects. In early 2010 President Obama proposed tripling that to $54.5 billion and also requested the $36 billion increase in the Administration's proposed 2012 budget.


Existing nuclear plants have been expanded and upgraded.  Also, that money is in place to encourage the construction of new plants.  Had Fukashima not happened, probably new plant construction would have happened by now, but since then, the NIMBY fear factor has stalled things again.

Keep in mind that coal power plants kill and injure many, many more people than nuclear power plants do, but they do so at a distance without scary radiation.

However, like I said, we have so much natural gas right now that, combined with a little solar and wind, we don't even need nuclear to eliminate coal.  Coal could easily be phased out for the good health of the citizens of the nation if there was enough political will do to so (which there isn't because nobody wants to lose PA).
 
2013-06-25 02:15:42 PM  

netizencain: Philip Francis Queeg: netizencain: Philip Francis Queeg: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.

What are you talking about. I can get solar on my house nothing down and pay back payments for less than my electric bill to pay it of each month and when all is said and done after 20 years I pay half then what I would have on my electric bill. How in the fark is that not a viable replacement.

But you're not going to power a city with solar today.  Solar is fine for small solutions.  And it's great for off-setting some energy expenditures (solar water heating, etc)  But until it cant replace coal... there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid.  Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

You have heard of natural gas, haven't you?

Funny, I just left Korea where I commissioned a new LNG Tanker.  So ya, I do know a little about LNG.

Then you might be aware that natural gas is a viable alternative to coal,.

Yep.  It is.  But America is not there yet.  We don't have the infrastructure like other countries do.  And I have no problem with the US government 'helping' motivate the market.


www.eia.gov
 
2013-06-25 02:16:37 PM  
Oh yeah, and note that I'm ignoring the global warming problems of coal.  Even if global warming is a myth, frequent, common diseases caused by coal power plants certainly aren't.
 
2013-06-25 02:17:08 PM  
The entire world's energy needs can be met by a solar farm that would cover only half of New Jersey, still leaving room for Chris Christie.
 
2013-06-25 02:17:34 PM  

runin800m: He said you couldn't power a city with solar today, not that your excess solar power doesn't go to the grid. He also happened to be absolutely right. It's not feasible to power a city with solar power right now, at least not primarily with solar power.


No he did not he said it can't go on a grid, in fact he just said it again.

netizencain: I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.


Also even if it can't run everything on solar (which you could) why does that mean we shouldn't do more solar? It's a BS argument. Are you saying that if something isn't the 100% solution we should not help it? That's a stupid argument.
 
2013-06-25 02:19:11 PM  

Jim_Callahan: And again, this is just labor and capital investment versus return, I'm not even thinking about environmental impact here. The only reason coal is "cheap" in monetary terms is monopoly price-fixing and abuse of the labor force, plus monopoly obstruction of competing plants. If that's really what you're into, you could do that with a nuke plant too, and it would be preferable.


Also, because coal is essentially socialized risk and privatized profits.  The National Academy of Sciences concluded that coal plants pass on $62B annually to the  "people who breathe the air" demographic in the form of medical costs, damage to agriculture, etc.

Right now, the companies only pay for what happens within their walls.  They have to truck in the coal, burn it, haul away the ash, and bill the consumer by the Joule.  They don't pay for the cost of all the crap flying out of their smokestack.

This is why any of the "but, but free market!" people in this thread are ignorant or liars.  The free market only functions properly when externalities are priced in.  Coal is propped up by being allowed to pass hazards on to you and me, on top of the direct subsidies they already receive.
 
2013-06-25 02:19:57 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.


I would gladly give up PA's electoral votes in exchange for an actual legitimate War on Coal.
 
2013-06-25 02:21:10 PM  

FlashHarry: [i38.tinypic.com image 600x300]


THIS. (Good Cat)

Now can we license a few dozens new nuclear plants?  Pretty please?
 
2013-06-25 02:22:22 PM  

netizencain: I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid. What you're talking about is a local issue.


It's only existed since 1984 (sorry not the 70s) so I can see why to you it's so cutting edge that you would not know about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems

Yes and the power goes on the grid and things don't blow up like you seem to think.
 
2013-06-25 02:23:21 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: FlashHarry: [i38.tinypic.com image 600x300]

THIS. (Good Cat)

Now can we license a few dozens new nuclear plants?  Pretty please?


I'd like to see most of the Western World all invest heavily into a Manhattan style project to develop fusion reactors
 
2013-06-25 02:24:40 PM  

netizencain: I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid. What you're talking about is a local issue.


image.ec21.com

Like I said you really have no idea what you are talking about. You should stop now.
 
2013-06-25 02:24:49 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: The entire world's energy needs can be met by a solar farm that would cover only half of New Jersey, still leaving room for Chris Christie.


Leaving the debate about that statement alone, the problem with power systems is not solely in its generation, but in its distribution. Jersey-Sun Inc might be a viable business plan, for twelve hours a day, and for about a thousand line-miles in any direction. Past that, you're going to run into coverage and availability issues.
 
2013-06-25 02:25:35 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama


We could just build some nuclear plants in PA to balance it out. And everywhere else while we're at it.

/disappointed that headline was not literal
 
2013-06-25 02:26:00 PM  

netizencain: I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid. What you're talking about is a local issue.


Was it written on toilet paper by your elaborate wiping system?

Solar and wind are grid-connected all the time.  Denmark got 24% of its generation capacity from wind in 2008, and their plan is to hit 50% by 2020.  Spain gets more capacity from wind (20%) than it does from coal.  Germany's grid is already at 5% from PV, with a plan to go much higher, and they have shiatty weather.

Please expound upon the laws of physics and engineering that apply in Europe but not in the United States.  Is it the metric system?
 
2013-06-25 02:27:13 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: FlashHarry: [i38.tinypic.com image 600x300]

THIS. (Good Cat)

Now can we license a few dozens new nuclear plants?  Pretty please?


Cool can you pay the "nuclear decommission tax" I pay for energy I don't use and is not being generated?

It's fun paying for nuclear plants after they close for centuries.
 
2013-06-25 02:28:27 PM  

KellyX: AliceBToklasLives: FlashHarry: [i38.tinypic.com image 600x300]

THIS. (Good Cat)

Now can we license a few dozens new nuclear plants?  Pretty please?

I'd like to see most of the Western World all invest heavily into a Manhattan style project to develop fusion reactors


Most scientists these days think that practical fusion power plants are probably impossible.

Look, we have natural gas coming out of our fracking ears.  (Get it?  Fracking...never mind.)  It's almost as clean as nuclear/solar/wind and much cheaper than all of the above.  Substituting coal with natural gas is very doable with current technologies and would save the lives of thousands of people yearly.
 
2013-06-25 02:28:47 PM  
But don't expect the regulations to take effect anytime soon. Obama will direct the EPA to come up with a detailed draft proposal by June 2014, and a finalized version one year later.

*yawn*

Commence with the faux outrage, conservatives.
 
2013-06-25 02:31:09 PM  
Bad subby.

You had me thinking that Obama might actually follow through on something he said.

7/10, subster
 
2013-06-25 02:31:33 PM  
www.eia.gov

Coal has been on it's way out for quite a while now that NG it cheaper.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-25 02:32:06 PM  

chimp_ninja: netizencain: I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid. What you're talking about is a local issue.

Was it written on toilet paper by your elaborate wiping system?

Solar and wind are grid-connected all the time.  Denmark got 24% of its generation capacity from wind in 2008, and their plan is to hit 50% by 2020.  Spain gets more capacity from wind (20%) than it does from coal.  Germany's grid is already at 5% from PV, with a plan to go much higher, and they have shiatty weather.

Please expound upon the laws of physics and engineering that apply in Europe but not in the United States.  Is it the metric system?


I bet it is the Mexicans and urban populations (wink wink)
 
2013-06-25 02:33:00 PM  

Corvus: Also even if it can't run everything on solar (which you could) why does that mean we shouldn't do more solar? It's a BS argument. Are you saying that if something isn't the 100% solution we should not help it? That's a stupid argument.


I don't have any problem with solar and never made the argument that we shouldn't do more. I just said that we couldn't power a city off of solar, and went further to say that we couldn't even primarily power a city with solar power. That was not entirely fair because I'm sure there are some places, like Arizona, where you could feasibly power an entire city primarily with solar, but for most of population you wouldn't be able to primarily use solar power as the technology currently stands. They're making some great progress with solar thermal plants with their advances in heat storage for steam generation at night, which I think is very important and should continue to be advanced, but it's still a little ways away from being efficient enough to reliably provide continuous power 24/7. You would still, currently, have to rely on coal, natural gas, nuclear or something to maintain a sufficient and reliable base load. People won't tolerate the inconvenience of periodic outages. It will be there, probably fairly soon, and we should be moving towards that but it isn't fair to say that we're ready to make a switch today.

Corvus: No he did not he said it can't go on a grid, in fact he just said it again.


I never saw him say that it couldn't go onto the grid. As far as him saying that wind/solar don't play well, I have read of problems in Germany with their wind generators producing too much energy for the grid and causing damage. Perhaps that is what he was referring to. Not that I'm saying that is a huge problem, mind you. I have never heard of any such problem with solar, however.
 
2013-06-25 02:33:27 PM  

Hollie Maea: I would gladly give up PA's electoral votes in exchange for an actual legitimate War on Coal.


Seconded.

Tommy Moo: We could just build some nuclear plants in PA to balance it out.


Also a good idea.  Handles base load nicely, reduces need for storage, goes in places that are suboptimal for wind.

My order: Solar > wind > geothermal > biomass >  hydro > fission > gas > oil > anything else > coal.  We're pretty much maxed out on hydro, but the top four are ramping up exponentially, especially in countries where the House of Representatives is not staffed by inbred mouth-breathers who think their electricity is breathed into their homes by Jesus.
 
2013-06-25 02:33:32 PM  

Geotpf: Look, we have natural gas coming out of our fracking ears. (Get it? Fracking...never mind.) It's almost as clean as nuclear/solar/wind and much cheaper than all of the above.


If you have a way to produce power on a commercial scale from natural gas that doesn't result in the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide (the subject of TFA), I'll be more than happy to kiss your Nobel Prize.
 
2013-06-25 02:36:25 PM  

AndreMA: Geotpf: Look, we have natural gas coming out of our fracking ears. (Get it? Fracking...never mind.) It's almost as clean as nuclear/solar/wind and much cheaper than all of the above.

If you have a way to produce power on a commercial scale from natural gas that doesn't result in the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide (the subject of TFA), I'll be more than happy to kiss your Nobel Prize.


The amount of such produced by natural gas is much less than coal for the same amount of electricity generated.  It's greater than zero, of course.
 
2013-06-25 02:39:29 PM  

Geotpf: AndreMA: Geotpf: Look, we have natural gas coming out of our fracking ears. (Get it? Fracking...never mind.) It's almost as clean as nuclear/solar/wind and much cheaper than all of the above.

If you have a way to produce power on a commercial scale from natural gas that doesn't result in the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide (the subject of TFA), I'll be more than happy to kiss your Nobel Prize.

The amount of such produced by natural gas is much less than coal for the same amount of electricity generated.  It's greater than zero, of course.


No argument on that, but not "nearly as clean" as the other sources you cited.

Of course the lack of Mercury and radioisotopes (as well as the lack of fly ash to dispose of) makes NG superior to coal. Sorry for my snark.
 
2013-06-25 02:41:25 PM  

chimp_ninja: Hollie Maea: I would gladly give up PA's electoral votes in exchange for an actual legitimate War on Coal.

Seconded.

Tommy Moo: We could just build some nuclear plants in PA to balance it out.

Also a good idea.  Handles base load nicely, reduces need for storage, goes in places that are suboptimal for wind.

My order: Solar > wind > geothermal > biomass >  hydro > fission > gas > oil > anything else > coal.  We're pretty much maxed out on hydro, but the top four are ramping up exponentially, especially in countries where the House of Representatives is not staffed by inbred mouth-breathers who think their electricity is breathed into their homes by Jesus.


The thing is, costs are something like this:

Gas < coal < nuclear (expanding additonal plants, with very limited availablity) < renewables < oil < nuclear (building new plants)

The last two don't happen in the continential United States due to the high costs.  AFAIK, there are zero commercial oil power plants in the continential United States, and there hasn't been a new nuclear power plant built in many decades.
 
2013-06-25 02:42:10 PM  

netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.


The issue is load balancing, which comes in handy if you don't want infrastructure components damaged. Supply must equal demand, and variable sources of power require a very quick increase or decrease in base load generation, which is a real pain if you're not quick enough.
 
2013-06-25 02:42:16 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama


You think Democrats were getting a big chunk of votes from people even remotely related to the coal industry up to this point?
 
2013-06-25 02:43:27 PM  

runin800m: I just said that we couldn't power a city off of solar, and went further to say that we couldn't even primarily power a city with solar power. That was not entirely fair because I'm sure there are some places, like Arizona, where you could feasibly power an entire city primarily with solar, but for most of population you wouldn't be able to primarily use solar power as the technology currently stands.


Based on what?  Your gut feeling?

Let's take somewhere that's really awesome for solar, like southern Arizona.  Pretend I put in a properly tilted standard 1 m2 (~200W) panel there, and I measure how much electricity it makes over the course of a year.  This includes night, weather, seasons, you name it.  I'll get ~475 kW-hr.

I also put one somewhere really awful for solar, like Buffalo, NY.  I do the same measurement.  That same panel will give me ~307 kW-hr.

So there's a drop off, but it's about 1/3.  Take a gander at the NREL maps of how much sunlight hits the ground each year.  It's not such a radical difference.
 
2013-06-25 02:44:18 PM  

AndreMA: Geotpf: AndreMA: Geotpf: Look, we have natural gas coming out of our fracking ears. (Get it? Fracking...never mind.) It's almost as clean as nuclear/solar/wind and much cheaper than all of the above.

If you have a way to produce power on a commercial scale from natural gas that doesn't result in the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide (the subject of TFA), I'll be more than happy to kiss your Nobel Prize.

The amount of such produced by natural gas is much less than coal for the same amount of electricity generated.  It's greater than zero, of course.

No argument on that, but not "nearly as clean" as the other sources you cited.

Of course the lack of Mercury and radioisotopes (as well as the lack of fly ash to dispose of) makes NG superior to coal. Sorry for my snark.


Natural gas is a compromise solution.  I have nothing against expanding renewables; it's just that if you were to shut down all coal power plants within five years (my preferred solution), you'd need natural gas to replace them; renewables would cost way too much.
 
2013-06-25 02:45:35 PM  

runin800m: I just said that we couldn't power a city off of solar, and went further to say that we couldn't even primarily power a city with solar power.


That's not true. You can why do you think you couldn't don't you understand electricity once it hits the grid (inverted) it it the same electric as electricity made by coal or nuclear.

You saying something is true doesn't make it true. Why could a city not be 100% solar power for their grid?
 
2013-06-25 02:47:31 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama


What makes you think that most of Pa's coal goes to power generation

Dusk-You-n-Me: "Ten years ago, there were less than 2,000 turbines, and today there are over 20,000. These are not your father's turbines. These are efficient and are driving down the cost of electricity," Guyette said.

The wind industry also is good for Texas, good for Houston.

A study released by the Waco-based Perryman Group in May 2010 estimates the wind industry is responsible for nearly 10,000 manufacturing, headquarters, construction, and maintenance and support jobs in Texas annually.

Link

Clearly ruining the economy.


Don't worry, Perry will be sure to shut down those non-real American jobs.  Can't have them hippy communist socialism jobs going on in Texas.
 
2013-06-25 02:49:29 PM  

runin800m: They're making some great progress with solar thermal plants with their advances in heat storage for steam generation at night, which I think is very important and should continue to be advanced, but it's still a little ways away from being efficient enough to reliably provide continuous power 24/7.


So them existing NOW is we don't have the technology yet to you?

http://phys.org/news/2011-07-gemasolar-solar-thermal-power-hours.htm l

The argument he is making is solar can't work as a commercial alternative. If that's not your argument then stop defending it.

Don't defend it and then say it's not your argument. If you have a different argument I don't care because that's not the point I am arguing.
 
2013-06-25 02:51:27 PM  

Corvus: runin800m: I just said that we couldn't power a city off of solar, and went further to say that we couldn't even primarily power a city with solar power.

That's not true. You can why do you think you couldn't don't you understand electricity once it hits the grid (inverted) it it the same electric as electricity made by coal or nuclear.

You saying something is true doesn't make it true. Why could a city not be 100% solar power for their grid?


The only problem is energy storage for use when the sun isn't shining.
 
2013-06-25 02:52:18 PM  

Geotpf: chimp_ninja: Hollie Maea: I would gladly give up PA's electoral votes in exchange for an actual legitimate War on Coal.

Seconded.

Tommy Moo: We could just build some nuclear plants in PA to balance it out.

Also a good idea.  Handles base load nicely, reduces need for storage, goes in places that are suboptimal for wind.

My order: Solar > wind > geothermal > biomass >  hydro > fission > gas > oil > anything else > coal.  We're pretty much maxed out on hydro, but the top four are ramping up exponentially, especially in countries where the House of Representatives is not staffed by inbred mouth-breathers who think their electricity is breathed into their homes by Jesus.

The thing is, costs are something like this:

Gas < coal < nuclear (expanding additonal plants, with very limited availablity) < renewables < oil < nuclear (building new plants)

The last two don't happen in the continential United States due to the high costs.  AFAIK, there are zero commercial oil power plants in the continential United States, and there hasn't been a new nuclear power plant built in many decades.


Those costs are distorted by economies of scale and market inertia.  Coal is only cheap because we hide $62B/yr in our hospitals.  Fracking is only cheap if we pretend the water isn't impacted, and exempt them from regulations that every other industry has to comply with.  Neither prices in the climate impact.

Also, look at the cost of PV as a function of time:

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Think coal and gas are going to do that as we dig deeper and deeper for that next score?

What side of this curve do you want the United States on?

blogs.scientificamerican.com

All I'm hearing from the far right is to wait for the right half of that chart.  Except if we do that, we'll be importing all of our panels from countries with better foresight, and we'll be building our new grid while they're already profiting from their investment.

Or, you know, we can go the route of creating jobs and start pounding out panels right now.
 
2013-06-25 02:52:43 PM  

runin800m: never saw him say that it couldn't go onto the grid.


He did and that's what I am replying to. If you are going to jump in the middle of a conversation and defend someone it's your responsibility to understand what point you are defending.

He said that, you said he wasn't saying that and you were wrong. Now you are trying to make this about something different and to me I have no idea what your trying to make it about for sure.
 
2013-06-25 02:52:54 PM  

chimp_ninja: My order: Solar > wind > geothermal > biomass > hydro > fission > gas > oil > anything else > coal.


Not a bad list, but just recognize that your first two are not baseload and will need to have backup with items 3 though 8.
 
2013-06-25 02:55:01 PM  

simplicimus: Corvus: runin800m: I just said that we couldn't power a city off of solar, and went further to say that we couldn't even primarily power a city with solar power.

That's not true. You can why do you think you couldn't don't you understand electricity once it hits the grid (inverted) it it the same electric as electricity made by coal or nuclear.

You saying something is true doesn't make it true. Why could a city not be 100% solar power for their grid?

The only problem is energy storage for use when the sun isn't shining.


No that's not that big of a problem. Their are Bloom boxes and heating water to run generators, I have gone over this multiple times already.

But like I said it's a silly argument anyway no one is saying "We need to go 100% renewable now" it's a strawman argument.

Can I use this argument on other powers? Ok we can't go 100% X so lets never make a X plant!!! It's a bullshiat argument.
 
2013-06-25 02:56:08 PM  

Geotpf: Natural gas is a compromise solution. I have nothing against expanding renewables; it's just that if you were to shut down all coal power plants within five years (my preferred solution), you'd need natural gas to replace them; renewables would cost way too much.


I'm in basic agreement with you, but I favor nuclear using modern reactor designs. I believe this can be done safely and made much more cost effective than the traditional LWRs the US has relied on.

I'm not sure how to get past NIMBY though. Even though present nuclear power has caused far fewer deaths than coal, the deaths tend to be clustered, identifiable, and associated with newsworthy accidents -- not the random guy in Africa who develops lung cancer from Radon exposure that we can only infer statistically but not point to and say "it killed him!"
 
2013-06-25 02:57:24 PM  

AndreMA: Geotpf: Natural gas is a compromise solution. I have nothing against expanding renewables; it's just that if you were to shut down all coal power plants within five years (my preferred solution), you'd need natural gas to replace them; renewables would cost way too much.

I'm in basic agreement with you, but I favor nuclear using modern reactor designs. I believe this can be done safely and made much more cost effective than the traditional LWRs the US has relied on.

I'm not sure how to get past NIMBY though. Even though present nuclear power has caused far fewer deaths than coal, the deaths tend to be clustered, identifiable, and associated with newsworthy accidents -- not the random guy in Africa who develops lung cancer from Radon exposure that we can only infer statistically but not point to and say "it killed him!"


Well that and it destroyed like the entire fishing and farming industry for a region for maybe centuries. That is a little ignored in that calculation.
 
2013-06-25 02:59:54 PM  

netizencain: Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.


Citations needed.
 
2013-06-25 03:00:49 PM  
Only on FARK an can  people think the argument of "Solar power can't go into an electrical grid" is the same argument as "We don't have the technology to do 100% solar right now".

That's the "Oh, oh! Someone is saying something and I want to e involved, fark what actually people are saying!!"
 
2013-06-25 03:02:06 PM  

chimp_ninja: Hollie Maea: I would gladly give up PA's electoral votes in exchange for an actual legitimate War on Coal.

Seconded.

Tommy Moo: We could just build some nuclear plants in PA to balance it out.

Also a good idea.  Handles base load nicely, reduces need for storage, goes in places that are suboptimal for wind.

My order: Solar > wind > geothermal > biomass >  hydro > fission > gas > oil > anything else > coal.  We're pretty much maxed out on hydro, but the top four are ramping up exponentially, especially in countries where the House of Representatives is not staffed by inbred mouth-breathers who think their electricity is breathed into their homes by Jesus.


I like to be optimistic, but I think you meant 'incrementally', not 'exponentially'.
 
2013-06-25 03:03:00 PM  

simplicimus: The only problem is energy storage for use when the sun isn't shining.


US DOE has a few test sites for that.  They're using old salt and gypsum mines to compress air in when electricity is cheap or there's excess production and then bleeding off the air to spin turbines when there's increased demand.

(kinda the same concept/method that hydro dams use w/ water).
 
2013-06-25 03:04:24 PM  

chimp_ninja: All I'm hearing from the far right is to wait for the right half of that chart. Except if we do that, we'll be importing all of our panels from countries with better foresight, and we'll be building our new grid while they're already profiting from their investment.

Or, you know, we can go the route of creating jobs and start pounding out panels right now


They may end up cheaper than coal if you ignore solar's externalities
 
2013-06-25 03:04:26 PM  

Corvus: Only on FARK an can  people think the argument of "Solar power can't go into an electrical grid" is the same argument as "We don't have the technology to do 100% solar right now".

That's the "Oh, oh! Someone is saying something and I want to e involved, fark what actually people are saying!!"


It's either ignorance or outright laziness.

Yeah let's just turn to more non-renewable harmful solutions like fracking or building nuclear reactors. Because we're so 1970s in the 21st century.
 
2013-06-25 03:05:36 PM  

HeadLever: chimp_ninja: My order: Solar > wind > geothermal > biomass > hydro > fission > gas > oil > anything else > coal.

Not a bad list, but just recognize that your first two are not baseload and will need to have backup with items 3 though 8.


To an extent, but energy use also tends to track the sun's location-- peaks during the middle of the day when most businesses are operating, and declines at night when most people are sleeping.  As long as you're drawing less than ~20-25% of your power from PV, you can basically use it to absorb that "bump" with minimal storage.

Wind's intermittency is less of an issue if it's all grid-connected and you're smart about it, because the intermittency isn't nearly as synchronized, especially with a grid area as large as the US.  Again, multiple countries get 20%+ capacity from wind right now.  The engineering has been worked out.

We already get ~10% from hydro.  Throw in waste-derived biomass and a reasonable number of fission plants, and there's little need to go to fossil fuels.

There are also a lot of needs that could be reworked to use intermittency.  For example, pumping water is incredibly energy-intensive, but if you designed your system to work with an intermittent source, it would work out.  You'd pump more on a windy day, but with sufficient storage it was average out.  Ditto if you're dumping energy into making hydrogen for use in mass transit, agricultural machinery, etc.  (Hydrogen is a logistics disaster for individual motor vehicles, but makes sense for either big centralized stations, or very remote areas where you make it on site.)  That isn't most energy use, but it's another example of what you could do to fold in another 5-10% of intermittent resources without having to build chemical battery arrays and the like.

We're nowhere near that problem.  Worry about it when we get towards 25%.
 
2013-06-25 03:06:21 PM  
I am aware we will need things like natural gas to bridge the gap. And that we are not turning off all nuclear plants and coal plants tomorrow.

But to pretend that because solar and wind is not going to solve all out problems 100% by tomorrow is a bullshiat argument. Nothing is going to solve all our energy needs by tomorrow. But solar and wind works as a great solution for most things today, and every year it gets CHEAPER. Nuclear gets more expensive every year and so does most other forms of energy. So why should we as a nation invest in the future with energy that will cost us more and pollute when we can invest in ones that will become cheaper and stay clean?
 
2013-06-25 03:13:54 PM  
But Hannity tells me everytime gas goes up 10 cents a gallon that Obama pressed the EPA signal button in his office to bring about another round of "crushing regulations" on the energy industry...
 
2013-06-25 03:13:59 PM  

Saiga410: They may end up cheaper than coal if you ignore solar's externalities


Such as?  I can power my whole house on about 20L of silicon, and the panels come with a 25-year or 30-year warranty.

I did some math on that yesterday.  1L of solar-grade GaAs = 20 L of solar-grade Si = 114 metric tons of coal.  I guess the silicon panels need some wires and glass, but I think we can handle that part since coal needs giant rail cars.

So yeah, you have to mine some silicon to make some panels.  And that gets treated with some chemicals that aren't especially pleasant.

But compared to 114 metric tons of coal, that's a very easy decision.  And it's not like processing and using coal doesn't involve a lot of ugly waste products.  The main difference, of course, is that the coal by-products tend to take the form of a heated, useless, valueless aerosol, partially injected into the atmosphere.  The PV by-products are liquids and solids that are generated in a centralized facility that has tremendous financial incentive to recycle them.
 
2013-06-25 03:14:11 PM  
I didn't read TFA but if Obama wants to replace coal plants with nuclear plants, then I'm down.
 
2013-06-25 03:14:17 PM  

HeadLever: chimp_ninja: My order: Solar > wind > geothermal > biomass > hydro > fission > gas > oil > anything else > coal.

Not a bad list, but just recognize that your first two are not baseload and will need to have backup with items 3 though 8.


Power cells like bloom boxes, or heating up water to run generators can make them 24/7 power generation can solve much of that.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/22/first-large-scale-247-solar-plan t- to-be-constructed-in-u-s/


The SolarReserve power plant utilizes what is called thermal energy storage to store heat collected from the sun, which is then utilized by the power plant to boil water and produce steam. The steam then turns a steam turbine which generates electricity. This is a how a solar thermal power plant generally works, but keep in mind that there are different types of solar thermal power plants, some of which are not steam.

...

You might have guessed by now that this type of power plant is able to provide electricity at night, and all week, because it stores heat in the form of salt that is released in the evening so that the plant can continue to generate electricity when it is dark, cloudy, or stormy. "This solar technology is a genuine alternative to baseload coal, nuclear or natural gas burning electricity generation facilities," Kevin Smith, SolarReserve's chief executive, said in a statement.
 
2013-06-25 03:16:05 PM  

MyEnamine: I didn't read TFA but if Obama wants to replace coal plants with nuclear plants, then I'm down.


I'd love for this to happen but the overnight costs of nuclear power are very high. It looks like we're going to have to accept natural gas as a bridge between coal to whatever alternative energy becomes economically viable first. Could be worse.
 
2013-06-25 03:18:53 PM  

Corvus: The SolarReserve power plant utilizes what is called thermal energy storage to store heat collected from the sun, which is then utilized by the power plant to boil water and produce steam. The steam then turns a steam turbine which generates electricity. This is a how a solar thermal power plant generally works, but keep in mind that there are different types of solar thermal power plants, some of which are not steam. ...  You might have guessed by now that this type of power plant is able to provide electricity at night, and all week, because it stores heat in the form of salt that is released in the evening so that the plant can continue to generate electricity when it is dark, cloudy, or stormy. "This solar technology is a genuine alternative to baseload coal, nuclear or natural gas burning electricity generation facilities," Kevin Smith, SolarReserve's chief executive, said in a statement.


Yup.  Flywheels, making hydrogen, pumping water uphill (fake hydro), and various chemical batteries all do this job well enough.  You're generally looking at ~60-80% efficiency if you have to 'bottle' the energy somewhere, compared to directly using it, but that's not a showstopper.

Making-then-using hydrogen has additional appeal in places that need to desalinate water for drinking.
 
2013-06-25 03:19:22 PM  

nekom: jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama

Yeah, I bet he doesn't even carry PA in 2016!


Of course not. Do you have any idea how big Pennsylvania is?

Besides, the corners would keep catching on New Jersey, and he'd have to drop it. Bam! Counties everywhere!
 
2013-06-25 03:19:55 PM  

MyEnamine: I didn't read TFA but if Obama wants to replace coal plants with nuclear plants, then I'm down.


Yay ignorance.
 
2013-06-25 03:20:41 PM  
GOOD. I have asthma and I have a strong suspicion it's partially coal related, based on where I live.

Yes it costs more to tamp down on pollution, however keep in mind -- all you guys on my big health insurance plan are helping to pay for my inhalers and Singulair. Also I'm turning into a fatty partially because I can't exercise well due to asthma. You'll pay for the consequences down the road.

coal -> fatty -> profit?
diabeetus profit
 
2013-06-25 03:25:00 PM  

chimp_ninja: Wind's intermittency is less of an issue if it's all grid-connected and you're smart about it, because the intermittency isn't nearly as synchronized, especially with a grid area as large as the US. Again, multiple countries get 20%+ capacity from wind right now. The engineering has been worked out.


The problem with that is the line losses (transmission) really drives up the inefficiency of this issue.  Sure you can get the power from Wyoming if you want, but your losses might be as high as 50% or greater. That is why it is typically better to have some sort of baseload source as a backup.

Other than that, I mostly agree with your following points.  There are some great ways as to work around the intermittency issues, especially when considering the big electrical users.  However, the bottom line is that when the public flips on the light switch, they will expect it to work.
 
2013-06-25 03:29:00 PM  

Corvus: Power cells like bloom boxes, or heating up water to run generators can make them 24/7 power generation can solve much of that.


Which is my point of having to rely on other items to help with the non-baseload source.  Pumped hydro is another great example.  You are basically switching from wind/solar to hydroelectric generation.
 
2013-06-25 03:32:28 PM  

Corvus: Well that and it destroyed like the entire fishing and farming industry for a region for maybe centuries. That is a little ignored in that calculation.


Open pit coal mining isn't pretty either. Neither are the former residents of Centralia, PA terribly happy.
 
2013-06-25 03:39:18 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: But Hannity tells me everytime gas goes up 10 cents a gallon that Obama pressed the EPA signal button in his office to bring about another round of "crushing regulations" on the energy industry...


But gas prices have gone down for the last two weeks.  That means Obama is lowering them because he loves us, right?
 
2013-06-25 03:46:28 PM  

chimp_ninja: netizencain: I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid. What you're talking about is a local issue.

Was it written on toilet paper by your elaborate wiping system?

Solar and wind are grid-connected all the time.  Denmark got 24% of its generation capacity from wind in 2008, and their plan is to hit 50% by 2020.  Spain gets more capacity from wind (20%) than it does from coal.  Germany's grid is already at 5% from PV, with a plan to go much higher, and they have shiatty weather.

Please expound upon the laws of physics and engineering that apply in Europe but not in the United States.  Is it the metric system?


i-cdn.apartmenttherapy.com
 
2013-06-25 04:02:12 PM  

Corvus: runin800m: He said you couldn't power a city with solar today, not that your excess solar power doesn't go to the grid. He also happened to be absolutely right. It's not feasible to power a city with solar power right now, at least not primarily with solar power.

No he did not he said it can't go on a grid, in fact he just said it again.

netizencain: I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.

Also even if it can't run everything on solar (which you could) why does that mean we shouldn't do more solar? It's a BS argument. Are you saying that if something isn't the 100% solution we should not help it? That's a stupid argument.


that always seems to be a 'conservative' argument-
Welfare cheaters? Slash those benefits!
Food stamps traded for drugs? Screw little Sally, let's get rid of 'em!
Cash for Clunkers? Why, don't you know Herbert's cousin's wife's son's girlfriend tried to do that, and they rejected her! Something about improper filling out of forms. Farking bureaucrats!
 
2013-06-25 04:03:47 PM  

simplicimus: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.

The issue is load balancing, which comes in handy if you don't want infrastructure components damaged. Supply must equal demand, and variable sources of power require a very quick increase or decrease in base load generation, which is a real pain if you're not quick enough.


Yep.
 
2013-06-25 04:04:34 PM  
But we need coal to power our vast Naval Forces!
 
2013-06-25 04:04:36 PM  

netizencain: simplicimus: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.

The issue is load balancing, which comes in handy if you don't want infrastructure components damaged. Supply must equal demand, and variable sources of power require a very quick increase or decrease in base load generation, which is a real pain if you're not quick enough.

Yep.


Actually, we're still waiting on those citations asked of you.
 
2013-06-25 04:11:29 PM  

Corvus: HeadLever: chimp_ninja: My order: Solar > wind > geothermal > biomass > hydro > fission > gas > oil > anything else > coal.

Not a bad list, but just recognize that your first two are not baseload and will need to have backup with items 3 though 8.

Power cells like bloom boxes, or heating up water to run generators can make them 24/7 power generation can solve much of that.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/22/first-large-scale-247-solar-plan t- to-be-constructed-in-u-s/


The SolarReserve power plant utilizes what is called thermal energy storage to store heat collected from the sun, which is then utilized by the power plant to boil water and produce steam. The steam then turns a steam turbine which generates electricity. This is a how a solar thermal power plant generally works, but keep in mind that there are different types of solar thermal power plants, some of which are not steam.

...

You might have guessed by now that this type of power plant is able to provide electricity at night, and all week, because it stores heat in the form of salt that is released in the evening so that the plant can continue to generate electricity when it is dark, cloudy, or stormy. "This solar technology is a genuine alternative to baseload coal, nuclear or natural gas burning electricity generation facilities," Kevin Smith, SolarReserve's chief executive, said in a statement.


ah, I did not know how they were storing energy. Salts make storage. How farking cool is science?
 
2013-06-25 04:12:36 PM  

whidbey: Actually, we're still waiting on those citations asked of you.


He probably has you on ignore, sparky.
 
2013-06-25 04:13:14 PM  

whidbey: Granted, tougher standards might put a few coal plants out of business.


what are tens of thousands of people out of work when it serves the greater good!  besides, if each and every one of them quit their jobs and went on food stamps, it would stimulate the economy.
 
2013-06-25 04:17:44 PM  

Aarontology: Free market competition from natural gas is doing a nice job of that already.


Came to say this.

And given that the coal export terminals on the West Coast have the investors backing out left and right, I doubt the coal in the Powder Basin is destined for China after all.
 
2013-06-25 04:19:03 PM  

theknuckler_33: chimp_ninja: Hollie Maea: I would gladly give up PA's electoral votes in exchange for an actual legitimate War on Coal.

Seconded.

Tommy Moo: We could just build some nuclear plants in PA to balance it out.

Also a good idea.  Handles base load nicely, reduces need for storage, goes in places that are suboptimal for wind.

My order: Solar > wind > geothermal > biomass >  hydro > fission > gas > oil > anything else > coal.  We're pretty much maxed out on hydro, but the top four are ramping up exponentially, especially in countries where the House of Representatives is not staffed by inbred mouth-breathers who think their electricity is breathed into their homes by Jesus.

I like to be optimistic, but I think you meant 'incrementally', not 'exponentially'.


No, pretty sure he meant "exponentially".

www.renewableenergyworld.com
 
2013-06-25 04:20:27 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Granted, tougher standards might put a few coal plants out of business.

what are tens of thousands of people out of work when it serves the greater good!


Citation needed

and

Because jobs>health

got it.

besides, if each and every one of them quit their jobs and went on food stamps, it would stimulate the economy.

Yes we know you hate social services, especially those designed to make sure people have food to eat.

Did you actually have any real arguments to bring to the thread, or did you just feel especially petty and mean-spirited today?
 
2013-06-25 04:20:39 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Granted, tougher standards might put a few coal plants out of business.

what are tens of thousands of people out of work when it serves the greater good!  besides, if each and every one of them quit their jobs and went on food stamps, it would stimulate the economy.


How many jobs are you willing to trade your family's health for?
 
2013-06-25 04:20:50 PM  

TheMysticS: Salts make storage. How farking cool is science?


Yeah, molten salts can hold much more thermal energy than most other compounds as you need to get it to about 1200 degress C to melt it. With these elevated temps, you can use more efficient turbines for the re-generation process.  Problem is that insulation becomes very much an issue.  With the higher temps and the extended time storage considerations you will have higher termal losses if you don't design the containment insulation correctly.  It drives up the capital costs of these facilities but they are definatly pretty cool.
 
2013-06-25 04:22:04 PM  

chimp_ninja: Geotpf: chimp_ninja: Hollie Maea: I would gladly give up PA's electoral votes in exchange for an actual legitimate War on Coal.

Seconded.

Tommy Moo: We could just build some nuclear plants in PA to balance it out.

Also a good idea.  Handles base load nicely, reduces need for storage, goes in places that are suboptimal for wind.

My order: Solar > wind > geothermal > biomass >  hydro > fission > gas > oil > anything else > coal.  We're pretty much maxed out on hydro, but the top four are ramping up exponentially, especially in countries where the House of Representatives is not staffed by inbred mouth-breathers who think their electricity is breathed into their homes by Jesus.

The thing is, costs are something like this:

Gas < coal < nuclear (expanding additonal plants, with very limited availablity) < renewables < oil < nuclear (building new plants)

The last two don't happen in the continential United States due to the high costs.  AFAIK, there are zero commercial oil power plants in the continential United States, and there hasn't been a new nuclear power plant built in many decades.

Those costs are distorted by economies of scale and market inertia.  Coal is only cheap because we hide $62B/yr in our hospitals.  Fracking is only cheap if we pretend the water isn't impacted, and exempt them from regulations that every other industry has to comply with.  Neither prices in the climate impact.

Also, look at the cost of PV as a function of time:

[blogs.scientificamerican.com image 448x308]

Think coal and gas are going to do that as we dig deeper and deeper for that next score?

What side of this curve do you want the United States on?

[blogs.scientificamerican.com image 448x299]

All I'm hearing from the far right is to wait for the right half of that chart.  Except if we do that, we'll be importing all of our panels from countries with better foresight, and we'll be building our new grid while they're already profiti ...


We don't make money on the panels, we make money by selling the equipment the panels are manufactured on. http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/us-leads-china-in-sol a r-exports_100010480/
 
2013-06-25 04:23:41 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com

If your industry has the ability to do massive damage to yourself, your employees, and/or the surrounding environment/civilians, you should be regulated as hard as nuclear power is.

/TMI death toll: 0
//Meanwhile, 1 dead, 73 hurt in LA Chemical plant, 6/13/2013
 
2013-06-25 04:25:18 PM  

meat0918: chimp_ninja: Geotpf: chimp_ninja: Hollie Maea: I would gladly give up PA's electoral votes in exchange for an actual legitimate War on Coal.

Seconded.

Tommy Moo: We could just build some nuclear plants in PA to balance it out.

Also a good idea.  Handles base load nicely, reduces need for storage, goes in places that are suboptimal for wind.

My order: Solar > wind > geothermal > biomass >  hydro > fission > gas > oil > anything else > coal.  We're pretty much maxed out on hydro, but the top four are ramping up exponentially, especially in countries where the House of Representatives is not staffed by inbred mouth-breathers who think their electricity is breathed into their homes by Jesus.

The thing is, costs are something like this:

Gas < coal < nuclear (expanding additonal plants, with very limited availablity) < renewables < oil < nuclear (building new plants)

The last two don't happen in the continential United States due to the high costs.  AFAIK, there are zero commercial oil power plants in the continential United States, and there hasn't been a new nuclear power plant built in many decades.

Those costs are distorted by economies of scale and market inertia.  Coal is only cheap because we hide $62B/yr in our hospitals.  Fracking is only cheap if we pretend the water isn't impacted, and exempt them from regulations that every other industry has to comply with.  Neither prices in the climate impact.

Also, look at the cost of PV as a function of time:

[blogs.scientificamerican.com image 448x308]

Think coal and gas are going to do that as we dig deeper and deeper for that next score?

What side of this curve do you want the United States on?

[blogs.scientificamerican.com image 448x299]

All I'm hearing from the far right is to wait for the right half of that chart.  Except if we do that, we'll be importing all of our panels from countries with better foresight, and we'll be building our new grid while they're al ...


Ok, I misread something.

I reread my link. We make a lot of money from selling panels too.
 
2013-06-25 04:27:24 PM  

meat0918: And given that the coal export terminals on the West Coast have the investors backing out left and right, I doubt the coal in the Powder Basin is destined for China after all.


I sure hope so. Hadn't heard about investors backing out. Any info on that?
 
2013-06-25 04:28:12 PM  

HeadLever: Sure you can get the power from Wyoming if you want, but your losses might be as high as 50% or greater.


Like usual you are completely full of shiat.  Example: we currently ship 3.1 goddamn gigawatts from The Dalles, Oregon to Los Angeles, California at nearly 80 percent efficiency.
 
2013-06-25 04:32:10 PM  

whidbey: meat0918: And given that the coal export terminals on the West Coast have the investors backing out left and right, I doubt the coal in the Powder Basin is destined for China after all.

I sure hope so. Hadn't heard about investors backing out. Any info on that?


Most of the PNW terminal plans require trains full of coal to travel through Portland.  We have been steadfastly giving them the finger.  I think they are giving up.
 
2013-06-25 04:32:51 PM  

Ringshadow: If your industry has the ability to do massive damage to yourself, your employees, and/or the surrounding environment/civilians, you should be regulated as hard as nuclear power is.


Exactly.  Taco Bell should have 10 permits they have to obtain every day just to open thier doors.
 
2013-06-25 04:33:38 PM  

whidbey: meat0918: And given that the coal export terminals on the West Coast have the investors backing out left and right, I doubt the coal in the Powder Basin is destined for China after all.

I sure hope so. Hadn't heard about investors backing out. Any info on that?


The Coos Bay, OR ones did, as well as the Port of St. Helens, OR.
 
2013-06-25 04:36:00 PM  

Hollie Maea: whidbey: meat0918: And given that the coal export terminals on the West Coast have the investors backing out left and right, I doubt the coal in the Powder Basin is destined for China after all.

I sure hope so. Hadn't heard about investors backing out. Any info on that?

Most of the PNW terminal plans require trains full of coal to travel through Portland.  We have been steadfastly giving them the finger.  I think they are giving up.


Can't imagine why...

Oh wait, yes I can.

Didn't PDX already get burned once by the promise of a steady stream of income from exporting coal to Asia, only to get stuck with the cleanup after the market went bust last time?
 
2013-06-25 04:36:29 PM  

Hollie Maea: HeadLever: Sure you can get the power from Wyoming if you want, but your losses might be as high as 50% or greater.

Like usual you are completely full of shiat.  Example: we currently ship 3.1 goddamn gigawatts from The Dalles, Oregon to Los Angeles, California at nearly 80 percent efficiency.


And overall, Transmission and Distribution losses are only 6.1% nationwide.

http://www.nema.org/Products/Documents/TDEnergyEff.pdf

This might come as a shock to you, but we don't have to transmit at 120V like Edison used to do anymore.
 
2013-06-25 04:37:16 PM  

meat0918: whidbey: meat0918: And given that the coal export terminals on the West Coast have the investors backing out left and right, I doubt the coal in the Powder Basin is destined for China after all.

I sure hope so. Hadn't heard about investors backing out. Any info on that?

The Coos Bay, OR ones did, as well as the Port of St. Helens, OR.


Awesome. Now all we need is for the Kelso and Bellingham backers to go bust.
 
2013-06-25 04:38:51 PM  

meat0918: Hollie Maea: whidbey: meat0918: And given that the coal export terminals on the West Coast have the investors backing out left and right, I doubt the coal in the Powder Basin is destined for China after all.

I sure hope so. Hadn't heard about investors backing out. Any info on that?

Most of the PNW terminal plans require trains full of coal to travel through Portland.  We have been steadfastly giving them the finger.  I think they are giving up.

Can't imagine why...

Oh wait, yes I can.

Didn't PDX already get burned once by the promise of a steady stream of income from exporting coal to Asia, only to get stuck with the cleanup after the market went bust last time?


Yep.  Early 80s.
 
2013-06-25 04:43:44 PM  

whidbey: Now all we need is for the Kelso ... backers to go bust.


Unfortunately, that one has a bit better of a chance since I'm sure the mouthbreathers up in Vantucky would be thrilled to have coal rolling through town on the BNSF tracks up there.
 
2013-06-25 04:45:45 PM  

Hollie Maea: Like usual you are completely full of shiat. Example: we currently ship 3.1 goddamn gigawatts from The Dalles, Oregon to Los Angeles, California at nearly 80 percent efficiency.


Breaking out the ad homs I see.  The lossses are mostly a funtion of the voltange and load (amps) needed through the line.  If you having to buy power on a 345KV line with a 1000MW load, you losses can be 3 to 5 percent over 100 miles. It doesn't take too much distance to eat up 50% in that circumstance.
Just because one scenario is designed specifically for this type of transmission does not discount my point at all.

Average transmission losses in the US is typically in the neighborhood of 6.5%.
 
2013-06-25 04:51:34 PM  
I read the plan and I give it a rating of "meh". Better than nothing, probably about as much as could be realistically expected, almost certainly short of what's necessary, but it's okay I guess.
 
2013-06-25 04:52:05 PM  

Hollie Maea: And overall, Transmission and Distribution losses are only 6.1% nationwide.


Yep, that is due to the fact that most power is pretty well distributed evenly through the US.  It doesn't suprise me at all.
 
2013-06-25 04:54:58 PM  

Hollie Maea: whidbey: Now all we need is for the Kelso ... backers to go bust.

Unfortunately, that one has a bit better of a chance since I'm sure the mouthbreathers up in Vantucky would be thrilled to have coal rolling through town on the BNSF tracks up there.


And oil. I love having my illusions about Vancouver being a liberal city utterly destroyed.
 
2013-06-25 04:55:35 PM  

Agneska: So let me get this straight. Like a zombie crawling out of a graveyard, the US economy is sluggishly digging itself out of a major recession. Millions of men, women, and children are now living below the poverty line. The problem? There are no jobs.

So...

Obama Wilson has decided to hack a sector of the economy that produces energybuggy whips, thereby causing a loss of jobs and higher energy costs that will surely increase what Americans pay in utility bills, consumer goods and services.

All of this driven by the tenuous global warming theory and fueled by dubious and costly 'Green' technology.

Well, smack my arugula and call me Solyndra an asshole.


FTFY.

Claiming that "jobs" is the reason we can or can't do something is an ineffective argument, as not all jobs are created equal.  Factor in all the available externalities to determine the true costs of activities and you will find that there are certain jobs that are too expensive to have, either in a literal or moral sense, and others that return the investment many times over.

/Asshole.
 
2013-06-25 04:57:27 PM  

Hollie Maea: Vantucky


Oh. You meant OUR Vantucky, not the Canadians'...My bad.

Maybe they should just draw their wagons into a circle and revert to the name Fort Vancouver.
 
2013-06-25 05:00:39 PM  

FlashHarry: [i38.tinypic.com image 600x300]


I was going to post that in the SCOTUS/VRA thread.
 
2013-06-25 05:01:16 PM  

Hollie Maea: Example: we currently ship 3.1 goddamn gigawatts from The Dalles, Oregon to Los Angeles, California at nearly 80 percent efficiency.


Also, don't forget that the Pacific Intertie is DC and really helps with that section being so efficient.  AC typically has higher line losses.  So basically, you are cherry picking your example.
 
2013-06-25 05:16:20 PM  

HeadLever: Breaking out the ad homs I see.


You might want to look up the definition of ad hominem attack.

I'll save you the effort:

Example 1:  Your argument is invalid because you are stupid.

This is an ad hominem.

Example 2: You are stupid because you have a bunch of invalid arguments.

Not an ad hominem.
 
2013-06-25 05:21:09 PM  

HeadLever: Hollie Maea: Example: we currently ship 3.1 goddamn gigawatts from The Dalles, Oregon to Los Angeles, California at nearly 80 percent efficiency.

Also, don't forget that the Pacific Intertie is DC and really helps with that section being so efficient.  AC typically has higher line losses.  So basically, you are cherry picking your example.


Let's see...you said:

Sure you can get the power from Wyoming if you want, but your losses might be as high as 50% or greater.

Then, when I noted that it is possible to transmit long distances at very high efficiencies, you claim I am "cherry picking" by using a technology that is well suited to efficient long distance transmission. THAT'S THE FARKING TECHNOLOGY WE WOULD USE IN YOUR EXAMPLE YOU STUPID FARK.  "No fair using the best solution available for this problem that I claim can't be solved!" That's your argument?  Really?

You really truly are a profoundly stupid person.  Note: That wasn't an ad hominem.
 
2013-06-25 05:22:35 PM  

chimp_ninja: What side of this curve do you want the United States on?


Can I borrow your time machine? I assume you must have one to know the costs in 2030, and aren't doing anything as silly as wildly extrapolating into the future based on limited past trends.

Oh, and you'd be importing panels anyway. Having a head start means little - the West had a huge head start on industrialisation, but where does the mass manufacturing happen now?
 
2013-06-25 05:23:09 PM  

Hollie Maea: ad hominem. . .invalid arguments


Ad hominem is a personal attack, nothing more.  I notice you didn't actaully have the honesty to refute my actual point I made.  Mostly because you can't.  Again, your cherry-picked example used is not a valid rebuttal and my arguments are more valid than yours.
 
2013-06-25 05:26:49 PM  

Hollie Maea: THAT'S THE FARKING TECHNOLOGY WE WOULD USE IN YOUR EXAMPLE YOU STUPID FARK.


Really, we have high voltage DC lines all over?

www.cleanlineenergy.com
Looks like we better get busy installing more HVDC or all move to the west coast.  Lol, you are floundering a bit aren't you?
 
2013-06-25 05:28:16 PM  

HeadLever: I notice you didn't actaully have the honesty to refute my actual point I made.


You made two points.  First, you said that the high efficiency for a specific example I gave doesn't count because "cherry picking".  Then you argued that the high efficiency I gave for the whole country doesn't count because it's the whole country.

Here's an idea:  How about YOU show me a cite for a single transmission line that has losses of "50% or more".
 
2013-06-25 05:31:47 PM  

Hollie Maea: You really truly are a profoundly stupid person. Note: That wasn't an ad hominem.


Yep, still an ad hominem as my point still stands.  BTW, you debate like you are 10 years old.  The personal insults really don't make you point any more valid and just makes you seem - well - 10 years old.
 
2013-06-25 05:32:54 PM  

FlashHarry: [i38.tinypic.com image 600x300]


This image is as old and tired as...well, you.
 
2013-06-25 05:34:22 PM  

HeadLever: Really, we have high voltage DC lines all over?


Two things:

1.  I never said we have a lot of HVDC lines.  What I said is that this is what we would use if we wanted to transmit huge amounts of power long distances.  Because that's what they are best for.  Once again, your assertion was that we COULD build a big line to transmit wind power from the Midwest, but that if we did build such a line it would have high losses.  I gave a specific example of technology that could and would be used to do such a thing.  Do you really think that "we haven't built very many so far" is a real argument? Would you say that we can't build a Thorium fuel nuclear plant just because we haven't built very many of them yet?

2. You can get just as high efficiency with high voltage AC lines--you just have to have slightly bigger wires to account for skin effect.  For AC lines, the wires are a bit more expensive.  For DC lines, the transformers at each end are a bit more expensive.  So there is some length and some capacity at which DC becomes more cost effective.  Efficiency has nothing to do with it.
 
2013-06-25 05:35:36 PM  

whidbey: Yes we know you hate social services, especially those designed to make sure people have food to eat.


Actually I dont.  What i hate are people who make moronic assertions about them.  Since you admitted these coal miners are all out of jobs, perhaps you'd like to tell the class where you expect them to work.

Philip Francis Queeg: How many jobs are you willing to trade your family's health for?


Right, because taking people's jobs and (and thus healthcare) away is a great way for us to have a healthy society.
 
2013-06-25 05:37:25 PM  

HeadLever: Yep, still an ad hominem as my point still stands.


Nope.  You were wrong the first time and you are still wrong.  "Ad Hominem" doesn't mean that you insulted someone.  It means that you used an insult as a point of argument.

I have addressed your arguments with facts.  The insults are just a side observation that are not intended to bolster my argument.

Found a transmission line with 50% losses yet?
 
2013-06-25 05:37:48 PM  

chimp_ninja: Yup. Flywheels, making hydrogen, pumping water uphill (fake hydro), and various chemical batteries all do this job well enough. You're generally looking at ~60-80% efficiency if you have to 'bottle' the energy somewhere, compared to directly using it, but that's not a showstopper.



The numbers I have seen are more around the 80% mark.
 
2013-06-25 05:40:08 PM  

netizencain: simplicimus: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.

The issue is load balancing, which comes in handy if you don't want infrastructure components damaged. Supply must equal demand, and variable sources of power require a very quick increase or decrease in base load generation, which is a real pain if you're not quick enough.

Yep.


Yes and demand in the US peaks on hot sunny days. Which actually makes solar the best form of energy to meet demand. Solar both can make more during the highest demand AND can also be used to store power and run 24/7.
 
2013-06-25 05:40:44 PM  

Hollie Maea: First, you said that the high efficiency for a specific example I gave doesn't count because "cherry picking".


That is correct, because you are using HVDC for your tranmission example.  HVDC is not the standard transmission system used in this country (thought it should be considered more).

 Then you argued that the high efficiency I gave for the whole country doesn't count because it's the whole country

Strawman.  When did I say that it did not 'count'?  In fact one of my arguemnts agreed with that point.  However, that has nothing do do with the premis of my original agrument.
 
2013-06-25 05:41:40 PM  

Corvus: chimp_ninja: Yup. Flywheels, making hydrogen, pumping water uphill (fake hydro), and various chemical batteries all do this job well enough. You're generally looking at ~60-80% efficiency if you have to 'bottle' the energy somewhere, compared to directly using it, but that's not a showstopper.


The numbers I have seen are more around the 80% mark.


In general, most electromechanical conversion systems are around 80% efficient.  Once you start farking around with heat you immediately go down to 50% or worse.
 
2013-06-25 05:47:21 PM  

HeadLever: However, that has nothing do do with the premis of my original agrument.


Your original argument was that transmitting wind power from the Midwest would face 50% or greater transmission losses.  You have yet to come up with a single citation that remotely backs up such a claim.

Since then, your main argument has been that it's unfair to consider HVDC efficiency because we don't use it much.  In spite of the fact that when we use it, those are the types of applications we use it for.  And also in spite of the fact that HVAC vs HVDC is a cost consideration, not an efficiency consideration.  But just to put that argument to rest, Path 66, which is an AC line, actually carries more power than the Pacific DC Intertie, goes the same distance, and transmits at similar efficiency.
 
2013-06-25 05:48:47 PM  

Hollie Maea: Corvus: chimp_ninja: Yup. Flywheels, making hydrogen, pumping water uphill (fake hydro), and various chemical batteries all do this job well enough. You're generally looking at ~60-80% efficiency if you have to 'bottle' the energy somewhere, compared to directly using it, but that's not a showstopper.


The numbers I have seen are more around the 80% mark.

In general, most electromechanical conversion systems are around 80% efficient.  Once you start farking around with heat you immediately go down to 50% or worse.


Molten Salt biatches!!!!


Molten salt can be employed as a thermal energy storage method to retain thermal energy collected by a solar tower or solar trough so that it can be used to generate electricity in bad weather or at night. It was demonstrated in the Solar Two project from 1995-1999. The system is predicted to have an annual efficiency of 99%, a reference to the energy retained by storing heat before turning it into electricity, versus converting heat directly into electricity.
 
2013-06-25 05:53:44 PM  

Corvus: Hollie Maea: Corvus: chimp_ninja: Yup. Flywheels, making hydrogen, pumping water uphill (fake hydro), and various chemical batteries all do this job well enough. You're generally looking at ~60-80% efficiency if you have to 'bottle' the energy somewhere, compared to directly using it, but that's not a showstopper.


The numbers I have seen are more around the 80% mark.

In general, most electromechanical conversion systems are around 80% efficient.  Once you start farking around with heat you immediately go down to 50% or worse.

Molten Salt biatches!!!!


Molten salt can be employed as a thermal energy storage method to retain thermal energy collected by a solar tower or solar trough so that it can be used to generate electricity in bad weather or at night. It was demonstrated in the Solar Two project from 1995-1999. The system is predicted to have an annual efficiency of 99%, a reference to the energy retained by storing heat before turning it into electricity, versus converting heat directly into electricity.


Well, that's the efficiency of the storage.  I'm referring specifically to the step of transferring from heat to work or heat to electricity.  And with concentrated solar, you DO lose 50 percent of the solar energy when you run the turbine--but that's actually really good; much better than the 20% you get with PV.  But yeah, the molten salt is a perfect and ridiculously efficient storage medium.
 
2013-06-25 05:57:21 PM  

Hollie Maea: I never said we have a lot of HVDC lines


I know you didn't.  However, the premis of my argument was that we would use 'typical' AC transmission lines.  Therefore your example is not really representative of my original argument.

 Once again, your assertion was that we COULD build a big line to transmit wind power from the Midwest,

No it was not. My premis is that we would use what we currently have to transmit the power - namely, high voltage AC.

 I gave a specific example of technology that could and would be used to do such a thing.

Sure, we could use microwave transmission and have 0% losses, but that is beside my point.  Right now, that infrasttructure does not exist.

You can get just as high efficiency with high voltage AC lines--you just have to have slightly bigger wires to account for skin effect. For AC lines, the wires are a bit more expensive.

True and we are also going to even higher voltages to help in this regard. It is the ongoing capital cost vs loss analysis.  For short base-load systems, you really don't need it as losses are a small percentage.  However, when you are in Wyoming and shipping all your power 800 miles away, it makes much more sense. Problem is that the infrastructure is not easy to build
 
2013-06-25 05:57:56 PM  

Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: Corvus: chimp_ninja: Yup. Flywheels, making hydrogen, pumping water uphill (fake hydro), and various chemical batteries all do this job well enough. You're generally looking at ~60-80% efficiency if you have to 'bottle' the energy somewhere, compared to directly using it, but that's not a showstopper.


The numbers I have seen are more around the 80% mark.

In general, most electromechanical conversion systems are around 80% efficient.  Once you start farking around with heat you immediately go down to 50% or worse.

Molten Salt biatches!!!!


Molten salt can be employed as a thermal energy storage method to retain thermal energy collected by a solar tower or solar trough so that it can be used to generate electricity in bad weather or at night. It was demonstrated in the Solar Two project from 1995-1999. The system is predicted to have an annual efficiency of 99%, a reference to the energy retained by storing heat before turning it into electricity, versus converting heat directly into electricity.

Well, that's the efficiency of the storage.  I'm referring specifically to the step of transferring from heat to work or heat to electricity.  And with concentrated solar, you DO lose 50 percent of the solar energy when you run the turbine--but that's actually really good; much better than the 20% you get with PV.  But yeah, the molten salt is a perfect and ridiculously efficient storage medium.


Ah got ya!
 
2013-06-25 05:59:01 PM  

HeadLever: True and we are also going to even higher voltages to help in this regard. It is the ongoing capital cost vs loss analysis. For short base-load systems, you really don't need it as losses are a small percentage. However, when you are in Wyoming and shipping all your power 800 miles away, it makes much more sense. Problem is that the infrastructure is not easy to build


Which is another great thing about home solar you don't need to ship the power far like you need to do with other forms of power generation.
 
2013-06-25 06:00:05 PM  

Hollie Maea: Your original argument was that transmitting wind power from the Midwest would face 50% or greater transmission losses.


Nope: Sure you can get the power from Wyoming if you want, but your losses might be as high as 50% or greater.  Please try to pay attention next time or you end up arguing with a strawman again.
 
2013-06-25 06:02:57 PM  

HeadLever: However, the premis of my argument was that we would use 'typical' AC transmission lines.


OK.  No problem with that premise.  It'll be a bit more expensive than it needs to be, but certainly no technological problems.  There are a ton of examples of high efficiency high capacity long distance lines (built before HVDC was cost effective).  Path 46 and Path 66 are well known examples.

Still waiting for an example of a transmission line with 50% or more losses.
 
2013-06-25 06:04:25 PM  

Corvus: Which is another great thing about home solar you don't need to ship the power far like you need to do with other forms of power generation.


Yeah, with solar getting so damn cheap, solar could really be a savior to the grid.  WIth more and more decentralization you don't need as much of the transmission upgrades that you would typically see.  Hopefully, that trend continues.
 
2013-06-25 06:05:30 PM  

HeadLever: but your losses might be as high as 50% or greater.


OK.  You got me there.  I can't deny that it would be possible to build a line that would have 50% losses or greater.  It would be unprecedented, illogical, stupid, and would require all sorts of special engineering to deal with the heat it would generate, but why not...it might happen.

Hell, it might have losses greater than 99%, if they decide to transmit 10,000 amps at 120 volts across AWG 14 wire.
 
2013-06-25 06:11:08 PM  

o5iiawah: Philip Francis Queeg: How many jobs are you willing to trade your family's health for?

Right, because taking people's jobs and (and thus healthcare) away is a great way for us to have a healthy society.


So you won't mind you family's health being negatively  impacted as long as jobs are created for others.

So, if 1,000 people could get jobs but the result was your spouse contracts cancer, you'd accept that, right? How about for 100 jobs? 10? 1?
 
2013-06-25 06:14:36 PM  

Hollie Maea: Still waiting for an example of a transmission line with 50% or more losses.


Since the AC system is an interconnected grid, you won't.  However, if you want a facts on losses on a 345KV line that I posted earlier, here you go (page 4)
 
2013-06-25 06:25:41 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So you won't mind you family's health being negatively  impacted as long as jobs are created for others.

So, if 1,000 people could get jobs but the result was your spouse contracts cancer, you'd accept that, right? How about for 100 jobs? 10? 1?


So if 1,000 people lost their ability to earn, feed their families and take their families to the doctor to screen for things like cancer, you'd be okay with this?
 
2013-06-25 06:32:19 PM  

o5iiawah: Philip Francis Queeg: So you won't mind you family's health being negatively  impacted as long as jobs are created for others.

So, if 1,000 people could get jobs but the result was your spouse contracts cancer, you'd accept that, right? How about for 100 jobs? 10? 1?

So if 1,000 people lost their ability to earn, feed their families and take their families to the doctor to screen for things like cancer, you'd be okay with this?


No, i don't think the ability to get cancer screening should be dependent on your employment status.

I'm sure the thought of all the jobs saved will be a great comfort to your spouse as they deal with the months of agonizing pain.

Are you angry that people have lost jobs so that you can have clean drinking water? Are you angry that people have lost jobs so that your food isn't contaminated? Are you angry that people have lost jobs so that the paint in your house isn't filled with lead? Think of all the people who don't have healthcare so you wouldn't be exposed to those health hazards.
 
2013-06-25 06:34:55 PM  

HeadLever: However, if you want a facts on losses on a 345KV line that I posted earlier, here you go (page 4)


OK, so the worst case scenario is 4.2% loss per 100 mile.  Not sure how that helps your argument.  And don't try to pretend that there is anything unusual or exotic about 500kV lines.  The country is crawling with them.  And from your link, the losses for those are only 1.3% per 100 miles.  Again, that is run of the mill high voltage AC lines.  To get your 50% losses, you would have to go over 3800 miles, which is more than 50% farther than the distance from LA to New York.  There is no point in the contiguous United States that is anywhere near that far from Wyoming.  Again, that's using old school vanilla technology.  From your link, if we go up to 765kV, then the losses get down to .5% per 100 miles.  That means we could go 10,000 miles before we hit your 50% losses.  That is to say, we could transmit power from Los Angeles to London AND BACK AGAIN.  And that's not even using HVDC.

Bullshiat number was bullshiat.
 
2013-06-25 06:39:52 PM  

Hollie Maea: I can't deny that it would be possible to build a line that would have 50% losses or greater.


My point is not that you would construct this line, but that this would be the result of using the current infrastructure (of which ASCE has given us a D+ in this regard).
 
2013-06-25 06:45:46 PM  

HeadLever: My point is not that you would construct this line, but that this would be the result of using the current infrastructure


OK.  I will concede that if you build huge amounts of generation with no transmission that will be a problem.  Kind of a pointless argument, especially since WECC is already planning for the required transmission needed to bring 12+ GWh of wind each in Wyoming and Montana, as well as 12GWh of solar each in Montana and New Mexico.
 
2013-06-25 06:46:22 PM  

Hollie Maea: And don't try to pretend that there is anything unusual or exotic about 500kV lines.


Absolutely not.  The problem is that the grid is several decades behind the demand in this respect.
 
2013-06-25 06:47:43 PM  
 
2013-06-25 06:48:19 PM  

HeadLever: Corvus: Which is another great thing about home solar you don't need to ship the power far like you need to do with other forms of power generation.

Yeah, with solar getting so damn cheap, solar could really be a savior to the grid.  WIth more and more decentralization you don't need as much of the transmission upgrades that you would typically see.  Hopefully, that trend continues.


Already have a handful of states where solar has "grid parity" and every year it will add more as costs continue to go down.
 
2013-06-25 06:55:48 PM  

Corvus: netizencain: simplicimus: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.

The issue is load balancing, which comes in handy if you don't want infrastructure components damaged. Supply must equal demand, and variable sources of power require a very quick increase or decrease in base load generation, which is a real pain if you're not quick enough.

Yep.

Yes and demand in the US peaks on hot sunny days. Which actually makes solar the best form of energy to meet demand. Solar both can make more during the highest demand AND can also be used to store power and run 24/7.


You need to have a smart grid in place though.  I'm not talking about your house putting back a little bit of power locally..  I'm talking large scale, city powering solar farms.  You have to have a smart grid to handle the load balancing.  The US has a few smart grids but not to the scale needed. 

"Operators of power transmission systems are charged with the balancing task, matching the power output of all the generators to the load of theirelectrical grid. The load balancing task has become much more challenging as increasingly intermittent and variable generators such as wind turbines and solar cells are added to the grid, forcing other producers to adapt their output much more frequently than has been required in the past. "
 
2013-06-25 06:57:18 PM  

whidbey: netizencain: simplicimus: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.

The issue is load balancing, which comes in handy if you don't want infrastructure components damaged. Supply must equal demand, and variable sources of power require a very quick increase or decrease in base load generation, which is a real pain if you're not quick enough.

Yep.

Actually, we're still waiting on those citations asked of you.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678332   Does this help?
 
2013-06-25 07:00:23 PM  
My energy plan would be:
Build no more nuclear but keep the ones currently running.
Charge a CO2 tax that would slowly increase each year based on CO2 production.
Invest in renewable energy and conservation. (money could be used from CO2 tax)

Also I would charge more for companies getting oil from public land. It's dumb that they are the riches companies on earth and they get much of their product from the US public. Talk about a government hand out.
 
2013-06-25 07:04:29 PM  

Hollie Maea: Kind of a pointless argument, especially since WECC is already planning for the required transmission needed to bring 12+ GWh of wind each in Wyoming and Montana, as well as 12GWh of solar each in Montana and New Mexico.


Not necessarily as these types of project require a EIS which takes 2 to 5 years.  Add to that the environmental/NIMBY lawsuits, and these can take a decades to get constructed.  See my opposition link above (2013-06-25 05:57:21 PM ) that specifically deals with the Gateway West line.

For this line, the EIS was finsihed in 2011 and they don't expect construction until 2019. That is assuming that the Enviros/NIMBY's don't win any of their lawsuits.
 
2013-06-25 07:06:12 PM  

netizencain: You need to have a smart grid in place though. I'm not talking about your house putting back a little bit of power locally.. I'm talking large scale, city powering solar farms. You have to have a smart grid to handle the load balancing. The US has a few smart grids but not to the scale needed.

"Operators of power transmission systems are charged with the balancing task, matching the power output of all the generators to the load of theirelectrical grid. The load balancing task has become much more challenging as increasingly intermittent and variable generators such as wind turbines and solar cells are added to the grid, forcing other producers to adapt their output much more frequently than has been required in the past. "


THE US ALREADY HAS BIG SOLAR PLANTS THAT FEED THE GRID. (like I said before please stop talking you're embarrassing yourself) Reread the links where I have shown you they already exist!!!

Dude you didn't know you could put solar power on the grid why should anyone listen to you about anything on this subject? You are one of the least informed person on solar power I have ever meet.

You thought all solar power was "intermittent" and could not be possibly be put on the grid, even though it has been done for 30 years now. Please, please be quiet.
 
2013-06-25 07:07:22 PM  

Corvus: Already have a handful of states where solar has "grid parity" and every year it will add more as costs continue to go down.


Exactly, what is cool is that the price trend seems to not be slowing at all.
 
2013-06-25 07:10:19 PM  

netizencain: You need to have a smart grid in place though. I'm not talking about your house putting back a little bit of power locally.. I'm talking large scale, city powering solar farms. You have to have a smart grid to handle the load balancing. The US has a few smart grids but not to the scale needed.



Right it would be impossible to do it at a large scale to power the grid:

upload.wikimedia.org We've only been doing it for 30 years.

NextEra claims that the solar plants power 232,500 homes

Like I said please stop. You are embarrassing yourself.
 
2013-06-25 07:11:02 PM  

HeadLever: Corvus: Already have a handful of states where solar has "grid parity" and every year it will add more as costs continue to go down.

Exactly, what is cool is that the price trend seems to not be slowing at all.


Right it's been pretty linear and most people think it's got a long way to go.
 
2013-06-25 07:13:26 PM  

Corvus: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.

Well you read from incorrect source and have no idea what your talking about my solar on my home goes on the grid. Plus southern California has solar plants since the 70s that go on the grid.

Also solar energy can run 24/7. You really have no idea what you're talking about?

What do you mean "a local issue" is my grid I pull power from different then the normal electrical grid?


Your neighborhood operates on a closed loop between each house and a transformer... mostly on a per-street level depending on population density.  The excess power you create is sent to the local transformer and then to other people on your street to use.  The electric company can monitor your 'upload' and can pay your for generating electricity.  The power you generate via home solar does not go back to the the electric company let alone the national grid.  It's not carried by high voltage cables to neighboring cities. 

This is why you need an infrastructure upgrade or a smart grid to accept more and variable power sources.    Some coutnries and even some parts of the US have enabled intelligent systems but we're not there yet... which is my main point.  Coal plants are tied into the national grid, provide consistent power and are cheap.  I'm not saying that they are good or clean or anything else.  I'm just pointing out that you need a large infrastructure upgrade in order to implement any new and preferable clean alternative to Coal.  This is why I argued that simply closing down Coal plants is not a solution. Is this what you arguing with me over?
 
2013-06-25 07:15:51 PM  

Corvus: netizencain: You need to have a smart grid in place though. I'm not talking about your house putting back a little bit of power locally.. I'm talking large scale, city powering solar farms. You have to have a smart grid to handle the load balancing. The US has a few smart grids but not to the scale needed.


Right it would be impossible to do it at a large scale to power the grid:


I never said impossible.  You did.  These one-off projects are great and the government should sponsor and promote them.  But you can't simply turn off all the Coal plants and call the job done.  Solar currently can't meet the need today.
 
2013-06-25 07:16:36 PM  

netizencain: Your neighborhood operates on a closed loop between each house and a transformer... mostly on a per-street level depending on population density. The excess power you create is sent to the local transformer and then to other people on your street to use. The electric company can monitor your 'upload' and can pay your for generating electricity. The power you generate via home solar does not go back to the the electric company let alone the national grid. It's not carried by high voltage cables to neighboring cities.

This is why you need an infrastructure upgrade or a smart grid to accept more and variable power sources. Some coutnries and even some parts of the US have enabled intelligent systems but we're not there yet... which is my main point. Coal plants are tied into the national grid, provide consistent power and are cheap. I'm not saying that they are good or clean or anything else. I'm just pointing out that you need a large infrastructure upgrade in order to implement any new and preferable clean alternative to Coal. This is why I argued that simply closing down Coal plants is not a solution. Is this what you arguing with me over?


Their are so many incorrect points in this post I can't really point them all out.

Dude you didn't even understand that home solar goes back into the grid now you keep changing your statements (and still getting it wrong) to try to pretend you have not been totally wrong this entire time.

Stop it. You have no idea about what your talking about. Go be dumb somewhere else.
 
2013-06-25 07:20:04 PM  

Corvus: netizencain: Your neighborhood operates on a closed loop between each house and a transformer... mostly on a per-street level depending on population density. The excess power you create is sent to the local transformer and then to other people on your street to use. The electric company can monitor your 'upload' and can pay your for generating electricity. The power you generate via home solar does not go back to the the electric company let alone the national grid. It's not carried by high voltage cables to neighboring cities.

This is why you need an infrastructure upgrade or a smart grid to accept more and variable power sources. Some coutnries and even some parts of the US have enabled intelligent systems but we're not there yet... which is my main point. Coal plants are tied into the national grid, provide consistent power and are cheap. I'm not saying that they are good or clean or anything else. I'm just pointing out that you need a large infrastructure upgrade in order to implement any new and preferable clean alternative to Coal. This is why I argued that simply closing down Coal plants is not a solution. Is this what you arguing with me over?

Their are so many incorrect points in this post I can't really point them all out.

Dude you didn't even understand that home solar goes back into the grid now you keep changing your statements (and still getting it wrong) to try to pretend you have not been totally wrong this entire time.

Stop it. You have no idea about what your talking about. Go be dumb somewhere else.


Okay, you've lost me here.  Maybe we'll break it down to see where I'm messing up.

Your excess solar power does not go back to the national electric grid.  Does it?
 
2013-06-25 07:20:17 PM  

netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: You need to have a smart grid in place though. I'm not talking about your house putting back a little bit of power locally.. I'm talking large scale, city powering solar farms. You have to have a smart grid to handle the load balancing. The US has a few smart grids but not to the scale needed.


Right it would be impossible to do it at a large scale to power the grid:

I never said impossible.  You did.  These one-off projects are great and the government should sponsor and promote them.  But you can't simply turn off all the Coal plants and call the job done.  Solar currently can't meet the need today.


So you didn't say it would be impossible without a "smart grid" and the US doesn't have that infrastructure?

It is possible without a smart grid. I have explained this to you and so have others and you keep ignoring the facts.


SOLAR PLANTS DON'T HAVE TO JUST GENERATE ENERGY WHEN THE SUN IS UP.  IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE "INTERMITTENT".

How many times do we need this explained to you.
 
2013-06-25 07:21:46 PM  

netizencain: Your excess solar power does not go back to the national electric grid. Does it?


Actually NO.

First off it goes STRAIGHT into the grid and I get my power back off from the grid. I get charged/credit for the difference.

Another thing you got wrong that goes on to the list of about 20 things you have gotten wrong.
 
2013-06-25 07:23:14 PM  

netizencain: Okay, you've lost me here. Maybe we'll break it down to see where I'm messing up.

Your excess solar power does not go back to the national electric grid. Does it?


Here let me now ask you a question.

Why in the hell do you think solar needs a smart grid while everything else doesn't?
 
2013-06-25 07:23:19 PM  

Corvus: It is possible without a smart grid. I have explained this to you and so have others and you keep ignoring the facts.


Okay.  My understanding about this came from :  http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678332   Are you saying that the article is wrong?

I'm just trying to understand my wrongness.  Not trying to pick a fight.
 
2013-06-25 07:24:26 PM  

Corvus: SOLAR PLANTS DON'T HAVE TO JUST GENERATE ELECTRICITY WHEN THE SUN IS UP. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE "INTERMITTENT".


Here let me be more exact. yes it generates "Energy" when the sun is up but can generate "Electricity" at anytime.
 
2013-06-25 07:26:06 PM  

Corvus: netizencain: Your excess solar power does not go back to the national electric grid. Does it?

Actually NO.

First off it goes STRAIGHT into the grid and I get my power back off from the grid. I get charged/credit for the difference.

Another thing you got wrong that goes on to the list of about 20 things you have gotten wrong.


Take it easy.  Just trying to understand.  The maritime electrician next to me says the the transformer in your neighborhood is a closed loop system in that the power it distributes to your street is designed to prevent anything from feeding back out of it.  Thus, your excess can't leave your close loop.  If you can cite something different, I'd like to read it.
 
2013-06-25 07:29:28 PM  

netizencain: Corvus: It is possible without a smart grid. I have explained this to you and so have others and you keep ignoring the facts.

Okay.  My understanding about this came from :  http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678332   Are you saying that the article is wrong?

I'm just trying to understand my wrongness.  Not trying to pick a fight.


Can you point out where that article said all solar (including thermal) does not work unless you have a smart grid? Because scanning it I don't see it.
 
2013-06-25 07:32:48 PM  

Corvus: netizencain: Corvus: It is possible without a smart grid. I have explained this to you and so have others and you keep ignoring the facts.

Okay.  My understanding about this came from :  http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678332   Are you saying that the article is wrong?

I'm just trying to understand my wrongness.  Not trying to pick a fight.

Can you point out where that article said all solar (including thermal) does not work unless you have a smart grid? Because scanning it I don't see it.


They don't specific smart grid but when the article says, "The implication is that greater cooperation between grid operators, including new operating procedures, market rules and expanded transmission capacity, can do much to offset the variability of high levels of solar power. "  These are the components of a smart grid.
 
2013-06-25 07:34:04 PM  

netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: Your excess solar power does not go back to the national electric grid. Does it?

Actually NO.

First off it goes STRAIGHT into the grid and I get my power back off from the grid. I get charged/credit for the difference.

Another thing you got wrong that goes on to the list of about 20 things you have gotten wrong.

Take it easy.  Just trying to understand.  The maritime electrician next to me says the the transformer in your neighborhood is a closed loop system in that the power it distributes to your street is designed to prevent anything from feeding back out of it.  Thus, your excess can't leave your close loop.  If you can cite something different, I'd like to read it.


No you weren't "trying to understand" you came into this thread saying solar could not work based on all sort of wrong information.

So your getting help from others now?  Why the hell did you not find out what you were talking about when you started making all these incorrect statements about how solar can't possibly work?

Closed loop vs. I feed directly to my grid are two different things. Now your trying to pretend you were right (which you were not) by pretending we were talking about something else.

like I said please stop you are making it worse. If you want to actually learn why not leave and actually read links I shared? The reason you won't is because you are not trying to "just understand" you are just trying to cover up you're so clueless about this all.
 
2013-06-25 07:36:01 PM  

netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: Corvus: It is possible without a smart grid. I have explained this to you and so have others and you keep ignoring the facts.

Okay.  My understanding about this came from :  http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678332   Are you saying that the article is wrong?

I'm just trying to understand my wrongness.  Not trying to pick a fight.

Can you point out where that article said all solar (including thermal) does not work unless you have a smart grid? Because scanning it I don't see it.

They don't specific smart grid but when the article says, "The implication is that greater cooperation between grid operators, including new operating procedures, market rules and expanded transmission capacity, can do much to offset the variability of high levels of solar power. "  These are the components of a smart grid.


Yes they are talking photovoltaic. Not Thermal. See you have no idea what you are talking so much, you didn't understand the article you read.

If like now you admit you have no idea what you were talking about why did you come into this thread acting like you did?
 
2013-06-25 07:40:01 PM  
Corvus:

Another thing you got wrong that goes on to the list of about 20 things you have gotten wrong.

I'm still looking for the 20 things I got wrong.  So far:

Your home solar excess doesn't go back to the grid... it's stays withing your closed loop transformer system.  Perhaps grid was an ill-defined term.  Some people may see the grid as anything outside of their own circuit breaker.  Sorry about that.  I really meant the national system of electrical distribution.  I was trying to state that the current infrastructure does not  allow small solar solutions to feed into a large distributed system.

I said that the national infrastructure, on a whole is not designed for the variable output from wind and solar.  I think this statement as not been proved wrong.  Yes, we do have solar and wind farms.  Yes they tie into the national grid.  But smart grid as developed in some areas is not yet national, hence these green solutions can not be used to replace coal plants today.

I said that green technology was not a viable replacement to coal.  While for individual uses I was wrong.  And the government should promote these alternatives.  However, you can't replace coal with green on a national level today.

What other mistakes have I made... you mentioned 20.
 
2013-06-25 07:46:53 PM  
Solar porn thread!

i.imgur.com

This is a 5MW solar PV plant in San Francisco. It was built atop the roof of a giant cistern (the "Sunset Reservoir") that was formerly just a big concrete eyesore in the middle of an otherwise amazing view. At the time of construction a few of years ago it was the third largest PV system in the United States.

It went up amazingly quick once work began. From the time I first spotted rails being installed to the whole thing being covered in panels was the span of a few months.
 
2013-06-25 07:50:50 PM  

Corvus: . If you want to actually learn why not leave and actually read links I shared? The reason you won't is because you are not trying to "just understand" you are just trying to cover up you're so clueless about this all.


I read both articles.  They are new, developing solutions.  I actually drove place the Nevada plant during spring break... thanks for the link.

Corvus: No you weren't "trying to understand" you came into this thread saying solar could not work based on all sort of wrong information

....

Did you see my initial comment?  "But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement. "  It's not.  Not today.  And nothing you have said or links provided has changed that.  You can't turn off coal plants today and have enough solar or wind to support the market.

Is that comment wrong?
 
2013-06-25 07:53:41 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Yes we know you hate social services, especially those designed to make sure people have food to eat.

Actually I dont.


Then you need to drop the insulting point you made earlier about people on food stamps. It was not only uncalled for, but irrelevant to this discussion.

What i hate are people who make moronic assertions about them.  Since you admitted these coal miners are all out of jobs, perhaps you'd like to tell the class where you expect them to work.

Actually, I'm waiting for you to cite that " tens of thousands of people " would be out of work and not retrained for other jobs, that some of the workers at these plants could be union, etc.

You're the one making assumptions here. And it was also brought to your attention that even if we did put them out of work, the health issues associated with coal plants are ultimately more important than a job that we could find retraining for, or get the company who owns the plant to invest in the community.

So basically you just showed up in this thread to make two easily challenged "arguments" and then again, resorted to personal attacks when called out.

Honestly, I'm about to just put you ignore and be done with it.

Philip Francis Queeg: How many jobs are you willing to trade your family's health for?

Right, because taking people's jobs and (and thus healthcare) away is a great way for us to have a healthy society.
 
2013-06-25 07:55:47 PM  

netizencain: You can't turn off coal plants today and have enough solar or wind to support the market.


When did I or anyone else in this thread said this?
 
2013-06-25 07:56:38 PM  

netizencain: But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement [for coal]. "  It's not.  Not today.


Still waiting on citations for these claims.

And yeah at this point, I'm guessing I'm on someone else's ignore list, probably because I called them out for something equally disingenuous they kept stating as fact now for a 3rd time.
 
2013-06-25 07:57:15 PM  

netizencain: I'm still looking for the 20 things I got wrong. So far:


netizencain: The excess power you create is sent to the local transformer and then to other people on your street to use.


That statement is wrong. ALL the electricity I make goes there not the "Excess".
 
2013-06-25 07:58:42 PM  

netizencain: I said that the national infrastructure, on a whole is not designed for the variable output from wind and solar.


Citation needed.

I said that green technology was not a viable replacement to coal

Citation needed.

But smart grid as developed in some areas is not yet national, hence these green solutions can not be used to replace coal plants today.

Citation needed.
 
2013-06-25 08:02:48 PM  
Got to get home.
My apologies if you got upset.  You seemed to get mad and as your profile stated, you want people to be "ridiculed and to be shown to be wrong so others do not give validity to their made up arguments."

Again, I don't think I said anything wrong here.  You haven't presented anything that challenges my comments except for stating that I have 'no farking idea'. 

You took my initial comment of "But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement " and ran with it.  After that was just a lot of 'leave', 'go be dumb', etc...

Once again, current green technology and infrastructure can not replace coal power generation today.

I guess fark has ruined it for you.  You started off with 'I want to see your point of view' to 'let's ridicule people' without applying any context to who or what you were talking about.

Maybe I'll check when I get off my lousy commute (through a wind farm no less) and hopefully you can let me know where I messed up so I can make amends.
 
2013-06-25 08:04:00 PM  

whidbey: netizencain: I said that the national infrastructure, on a whole is not designed for the variable output from wind and solar.

Citation needed.

I said that green technology was not a viable replacement to coal

Citation needed.

But smart grid as developed in some areas is not yet national, hence these green solutions can not be used to replace coal plants today.

Citation needed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid#United_States
 
2013-06-25 08:04:29 PM  

netizencain: Did you see my initial comment? "But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement. " It's not. Not today. And nothing you have said or links provided has changed that. You can't turn off coal plants today and have enough solar or wind to support the market.

Is that comment wrong?


Yes because it's stupid circular logic. It's "We don't have it build already so it's not viable!!" "It's not viable, so we can't build it!!"

Well can we turn off all coal plants and take over with 100% nuclear tomorrow? NO - so you think that's also not a viable solution?

Can we turn off all nuclear plants and take over with 100% coal tomorrow? NO - so then you think that's also not a viable solution.

And no you first stupid statement was that it was impossible to put solar electric on the grid and that is untrue. You were wrong and embarrassingly wrong. And since then you have tried pretending you meant something else.
 
2013-06-25 08:04:42 PM  

Corvus: netizencain: I'm still looking for the 20 things I got wrong. So far:

netizencain: The excess power you create is sent to the local transformer and then to other people on your street to use.

That statement is wrong. ALL the electricity I make goes there not the "Excess".


Again, it stays local.  You're power generation doesn't go to the Oracle Arena.
 
2013-06-25 08:06:30 PM  

netizencain: Again, I don't think I said anything wrong here.


netizencain: But until it cant replace coal... there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.


That was wrong.

You saying I feed back my "excess energy" was wrong.
 
2013-06-25 08:07:09 PM  

netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I'm still looking for the 20 things I got wrong. So far:

netizencain: The excess power you create is sent to the local transformer and then to other people on your street to use.

That statement is wrong. ALL the electricity I make goes there not the "Excess".

Again, it stays local.  You're power generation doesn't go to the Oracle Arena.


OK fine, but it's not my EXCESS POWER. You are wrong when you said that.
 
2013-06-25 08:08:08 PM  

netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I'm still looking for the 20 things I got wrong. So far:

netizencain: The excess power you create is sent to the local transformer and then to other people on your street to use.

That statement is wrong. ALL the electricity I make goes there not the "Excess".

Again, it stays local.  You're power generation doesn't go to the Oracle Arena.


Neither does the nuclear power plant in my region so I guess according to you it's "local too"
 
2013-06-25 08:09:25 PM  

netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I'm still looking for the 20 things I got wrong. So far:

netizencain: The excess power you create is sent to the local transformer and then to other people on your street to use.

That statement is wrong. ALL the electricity I make goes there not the "Excess".

Again, it stays local.  You're power generation doesn't go to the Oracle Arena.


So does the SEGS also only feed to "local" power too? Wow 354MW is a big "local transformer"
 
2013-06-25 08:10:18 PM  

netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I'm still looking for the 20 things I got wrong. So far:

netizencain: The excess power you create is sent to the local transformer and then to other people on your street to use.

That statement is wrong. ALL the electricity I make goes there not the "Excess".

Again, it stays local.  You're power generation doesn't go to the Oracle Arena.


and you consider this "local" power generation too?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-25 08:11:59 PM  

netizencain: whidbey: netizencain: I said that the national infrastructure, on a whole is not designed for the variable output from wind and solar.

Citation needed.

I said that green technology was not a viable replacement to coal

Citation needed.

But smart grid as developed in some areas is not yet national, hence these green solutions can not be used to replace coal plants today.

Citation needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid#United_States


Can you point out where that actually says a smart grid is need for thermal solar plants. I didn't see it?
 
2013-06-25 08:13:17 PM  

netizencain: Again, I don't think I said anything wrong here. You haven't presented anything that challenges my comments except for stating that I have 'no farking idea'.


Well except I showed you a solar power generating plant that you have said can not exist in the US that has for 30 years.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-25 08:20:55 PM  
Um, did Obama just pit the Keystone Pipe folks against the coal folks? This ought to be interesting.
 
2013-06-25 08:26:16 PM  
You know what I love about these threads.
People who don't understand how base load and peak load works on the grid.

This is DC Cook:
upload.wikimedia.org
The plant produces enough electricity to meet the needs of a city 1.25 million people (by wikipedia).
It's 2110 megawatts generation capacity, between two units (only one unit goes into outage at a time, so half that is always running). Nuclear power covers the grid the majority of the time (95% or better online time).

Now, going to windmills on wikipedia,
.. the Enercon E-126 capable of delivering up to 7 MW ...
..interconnecting ten or more wind farms can allow an average of 33% of the total energy produced to be used as reliable ..

But evening assuming they're up all the time, that's still roughly 302 windmills to replace ONE two-unit nuclear plant!

And now, the concept of "NIMBY." Example: Vermont, where they won't allow windmills because it'll ruin the ski chalets, while trying to vote their nuclear plant into shutdown.

And in the end: Your solar and wind farms WILL NOT RUN MASS INDUSTRY.
Need proof? LOOK AT GERMANY. They pulled the plug on nuclear and companies closed shop and left as they couldn't be guaranteed base grid!

/reality
//it tramples on your little hippie dreams
 
2013-06-25 08:29:55 PM  

Ringshadow: And now, the concept of "NIMBY." Example: Vermont, where they won't allow windmills
because it'll ruin the ski chalets, while trying to vote their nuclear plant into shutdown.


Hey, leave the chalets alone man.

Behind the chalet my holiday's complete.  And I feel like William Tell.
 
2013-06-25 08:33:11 PM  

Ringshadow: And now, the concept of "NIMBY." Example: Vermont, where they won't allow windmills because it'll ruin the ski chalets, while trying to vote their nuclear plant into shutdown.


Right and everyone wants nuclear plants in their back yard.

I agree I don't want renewable energy in my back yard. THAT'S WHY IT'S ON MY ROOF!!! (sorry to blow your BS fantasy about liberals)
 
2013-06-25 08:39:14 PM  
Corvus:

Right and everyone wants nuclear plants in their back yard.

I agree I don't want renewable energy in my back yard. THAT'S WHY IT'S ON MY ROOF!!! (sorry to blow your BS fantasy about liberals)


I'm a liberal independent who works in nuclear power (in fact I'm a radiation protection contractor).
Your argument is invalid.

And I'll take a nuclear power plant as a neighbor anytime, over anything else (including a hospital, any other major industry, and a family with kids for that matter).

/your solution is great for peak load, in YOUR house, but guess what, the grid runs a lot more than that
 
2013-06-25 08:39:17 PM  

Ringshadow: Need proof? LOOK AT GERMANY. They pulled the plug on nuclear and companies closed shop and left as they couldn't be guaranteed base grid!


You mean the giant 3% of all energy by solar is way too much?

Germany is the world's top photovoltaics (PV) installer, with a solar PV capacity as of December 2012 of more than 32.3 gigawatts (GW).[2] [3] The German new solar PV installations increased by about 7.6 GW in 2012, and solar PV provided 18 TWh (billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity in 2011, about 3% of total electricity.

look how horrible it is:

Germany had not installed adequate storage to accommodate high percentages of wind and solar power and in 2012 is exporting peak generation to neighboring countries.

They are being forced to export all this power to countries like France who are based on nuclear.


Is that why France is getting rid of all their nuclear?

You also seem to have no understanding about thermal solar just like netizencain
 
2013-06-25 08:40:27 PM  

Ringshadow: And I'll take a nuclear power plant as a neighbor anytime, over anything else (including a hospital, any other major industry, and a family with kids for that matter).

/your solution is great for peak load, in YOUR house, but guess what, the grid runs a lot more than that


Yes and there are thermal solar system that run 24/7 for weeks without sunlight.

Obviously you don't understand much about solar.
 
2013-06-25 08:41:54 PM  

Ringshadow: And I'll take a nuclear power plant as a neighbor anytime, over anything else (including a hospital, any other major industry, and a family with kids for that matter).


I see so NIMBY for solar it's what some people felt in one area. However for nuclear it only depends on what you think?

Do you think an average person would rather be next to nuclear plant or solar? Or does that not matter anymore when it makes your argument bad?
 
2013-06-25 08:43:58 PM  

Ringshadow: I'm a liberal independent who works in nuclear power (in fact I'm a radiation protection contractor).


Great can you pay for my "nuclear dismantlement" tax that I am paying for using no electricity I don't create for a nuclear plant that no longer makes electricity?
 
2013-06-25 08:46:19 PM  

Corvus: Ringshadow: I'm a liberal independent who works in nuclear power (in fact I'm a radiation protection contractor).

Great can you pay for my "nuclear dismantlement" tax that I am paying for using no electricity I don't create for a nuclear plant that no longer makes electricity?


I meant "nuclear decommission" tax I don't want to use the wrong terminology.
 
2013-06-25 08:48:19 PM  
By all means, Corvis, keep going.

Explain how your efficient roof decor is going to keep major businesses running. Or hospitals. Or any other big-ticket items.

Renewable energy is great for lifting peak load, and even helping mitigate some base load, but in the end, you need some big boomers to hold down the foundations of the grid.

I support renewable energy, but I acknowledge that it has applications. You meanwhile have a hammer and have decided the entire world looks like a nail.

/I, meanwhile, acknowledge the world also needs powerdrills
 
2013-06-25 08:52:54 PM  

Corvus: Ringshadow: I'm a liberal independent who works in nuclear power (in fact I'm a radiation protection contractor).

Great can you pay for my "nuclear dismantlement" tax that I am paying for using no electricity I don't create for a nuclear plant that no longer makes electricity?


I don't know, if a screeching liberal falls over in the forest while debating solar technology, does anyone even care, much less hear it?
 
2013-06-25 08:53:40 PM  

Ringshadow: I'm a liberal independent who works in nuclear power (in fact I'm a radiation protection contractor).
Your argument is invalid.


I remember you guys here on FARK during the Fukushima disaster. You guys said it was "impossible" for any harmful of radiation to leak from the plant and any person to even question otherwise was a "scare monger" and they shouted down anyone in the thread even suggesting something bad could happen.

One other thing was funny is they said "Their reactors are like ours that can't leak" and then after everyone knew they leaked their argument changed to "Their reactors are NOTHING like ours".

You know what, I farking don't trust anything you say.
 
2013-06-25 08:56:21 PM  

Ringshadow: Explain how your efficient roof decor is going to keep major businesses running. Or hospitals. Or any other big-ticket item


Didn't said it would. That's why we need thermal solar electric plants too like I already have stated.

Are you going to pay for me "Nuclear decommission tax" that I pay on my electric bill every month even when I use no electricity for a plant that's not even producing electricity anymore?
 
2013-06-25 08:58:22 PM  

Ringshadow: And I'll take a nuclear power plant as a neighbor anytime, over anything else (including a hospital, any other major industry, and a family with kids for that matter).


As long as you have some old guys around so they can die from radiation to save everyone lives like happened in Fukusima right?
 
2013-06-25 09:02:21 PM  

Ringshadow: I support renewable energy, but I acknowledge that it has applications. You meanwhile have a hammer and have decided the entire world looks like a nail.


I love how to you everyone who believes something different has some characterture  simpleton concept of things. I guess that make it so you don't have to actually think. Just feel superior to everyone so you can ignore what everyone is saying.

Guess what I don't think every nuclear plant should be shut down. Sorry to burst your bubble. It's a technology that gets more expensive every year. The industry has lied again and again about safety and costs.

It makes much more sense to invest in technology that gets cheaper every year and is safe then something that is not and gets more expensive every year. It's purely logical.It's not because I am a "hippy" like you want to tell yourself.
 
2013-06-25 09:15:36 PM  

KellyX: Why can't we do a Cash for Clunkers type thing, the government offers to invest in housing/commercial upgrades. Everyone that owns a home/building can have solar installed on their roofs, etc. and the government will pay the company for it.

It'd put a bunch of people to work and start changing over the economy to reduce energy consumption... (GOP does want to be "energy independent" right?)


I'd be worried about unintended consequences. Cash for Clunkers screwed poor people pretty hard. Not only could they not afford the new vehicles, the program gutted the used car market, making it harder and more expensive to buy older vehicles.
 
2013-06-25 09:25:22 PM  
I power my house with thousands of hamsters running on wheels.
 
2013-06-25 09:34:14 PM  
FTFA: Proponents of the pipeline, many of them Republicans that Obama is looking to compromise with on key issues, say Keystone will enable U.S. energy independence, create jobs and develop important industrial infrastructure.

How will it lead to energy independence when it is imported from Canada?
 
2013-06-25 09:54:12 PM  

Hollie Maea: jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.

I would gladly give up PA's electoral votes in exchange for an actual legitimate War on Coal.


How about coal country giving you a real electoral vote? As in us coal crackers have had enough of your stupidity and your need to understand that COAL powers the world. To stop coal in its tracks will send our economy and most of the rest of the world into a tailspin that only the Muslim in office hopes for.
 
2013-06-25 09:55:44 PM  
Only if you generate more than you use. Get a clue
 
2013-06-25 09:59:04 PM  

Geotpf: KellyX: AliceBToklasLives: FlashHarry: [i38.tinypic.com image 600x300]

THIS. (Good Cat)

Now can we license a few dozens new nuclear plants?  Pretty please?

I'd like to see most of the Western World all invest heavily into a Manhattan style project to develop fusion reactors

Most scientists these days think that practical fusion power plants are probably impossible.

Look, we have natural gas coming out of our fracking ears.  (Get it?  Fracking...never mind.)  It's almost as clean as nuclear/solar/wind and much cheaper than all of the above.  Substituting coal with natural gas is very doable with current technologies and would save the lives of thousands of people yearly.


Tracking, destroying our aquifers one billion cubic foot at a time. What will you drink when deer park contains more methane than h2o?
 
2013-06-25 10:21:19 PM  

somedude210: jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama

I thought they had all that Natural Gas production via fracking going on? Or are you just blowing smoke up my ass?


He's an idiot.  There's almost no coal mining going on in PA at this point.  Most of the mines are in WVA and KY, which is why Sen McConnell behaved as if Obama had murdered his wife and raped his dog today.
 
2013-06-25 10:26:10 PM  

netizencain: whidbey: netizencain: I said that the national infrastructure, on a whole is not designed for the variable output from wind and solar.

Citation needed.

I said that green technology was not a viable replacement to coal

Citation needed.

But smart grid as developed in some areas is not yet national, hence these green solutions can not be used to replace coal plants today.

Citation needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid#United_States


Dude, if Wikipedia is the best you can do that I would suggest you also retract what you've posted here.
 
2013-06-25 11:00:38 PM  

whidbey: netizencain: whidbey: netizencain: I said that the national infrastructure, on a whole is not designed for the variable output from wind and solar.

Citation needed.

I said that green technology was not a viable replacement to coal

Citation needed.

But smart grid as developed in some areas is not yet national, hence these green solutions can not be used to replace coal plants today.

Citation needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid#United_States

Dude, if Wikipedia is the best you can do that I would suggest you also retract what you've posted here.


Here's a somewhat dated and slightly biased paper on Baseload, peakload and wind energy's role in the mix.
 
2013-06-25 11:10:02 PM  

Ringshadow: /reality
//it tramples on your little hippie dreams


You sound Republican.

And in the end: Your solar and wind farms WILL NOT RUN MASS INDUSTRY

Bullshiat.
 
2013-06-26 01:26:22 AM  
If the goal is limiting pollution from coal, then what do we do about the fact that China has absurd amounts of coal reserve, and a dramatically increasing energy demand? Dropping our output a few percent isn't going to do much if China fires up another 50 coal plants in the next 50 years, and I don't think there's much we can do to stop them.
 
2013-06-26 02:21:32 AM  

whidbey: Ringshadow: /reality
//it tramples on your little hippie dreams

You sound Republican.

And in the end: Your solar and wind farms WILL NOT RUN MASS INDUSTRY

Bullshiat.


Hi, I am a liberal independent who happens to work in the nuclear power industry and has some operations training.

Again: I support wind and solar IN PROPER APPLICATION. I am PRO WIND AND PRO SOLAR.

Not only that, I am pro regulation! I want coal and gas regulated as hard as nuclear, as well as chemical and any other collateral-damage industry!

/I am a pro nuclear pro gun liberal
//no one's on my side
 
2013-06-26 03:16:52 AM  

Ringshadow: I want coal and gas regulated as hard as nuclear


If you mean by "regulated" that any of the three are too expensive to use or too tied up in bureaucracy to be implemented because of a healthy history of activism, I fully agree.


Again: I support wind and solar IN PROPER APPLICATION. I am PRO WIND AND PRO SOLAR.


Could have fooled me. Most pro-wind pro-solar proponents aren't going to make fatalistic claims about their viability while zealously touting another non-renewable and frankly questionable source of energy like nuclear given the alternatives.
Also, nobody brought up guns. Not sure why you felt the need to mention them.
 
2013-06-26 07:56:59 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: No, i don't think the ability to get cancer screening should be dependent on your employment status.


Well obviously someone has to work in order to pay for cancer screenings. Either you conscript the doctors to provide it for free or you conscript others to work to pay for the doctors to screen people you just put out of work.

Mighty fine society you're building there.

Philip Francis Queeg: Are you angry that people have lost jobs so that you can have clean drinking water? Are you angry that people have lost jobs so that your food isn't contaminated? Are you angry that people have lost jobs so that the paint in your house isn't filled with lead? Think of all the people who don't have healthcare so you wouldn't be exposed to those health hazards.


I have clean air, water and food now.  This isn't 1898 anymore.
 
2013-06-26 09:25:08 AM  

o5iiawah: hilip Francis Queeg: Are you angry that people have lost jobs so that you can have clean drinking water? Are you angry that people have lost jobs so that your food isn't contaminated? Are you angry that people have lost jobs so that the paint in your house isn't filled with lead? Think of all the people who don't have healthcare so you wouldn't be exposed to those health hazards.

I have clean air, water and food now.  This isn't 1898 anymore.


Yep, and people lost their jobs so you could have those things. Isn't your selfishness disgusting.  Think of all the people who could be mining lead for your paint. Nope, those jobs don't exist because you value your kids health to much. For shame!
 
2013-06-26 09:40:46 AM  

runin800m: I never saw him say that it couldn't go onto the grid. As far as him saying that wind/solar don't play well, I have read of problems in Germany with their wind generators producing too much energy for the grid and causing damage.


They don't actually cause damage, but they make it very hard for the others to make money. If there are a lot of renewables on the grid, cheap inflexible energy sources are more expensive than expensive "dispatchable" energy sources.

Also solar is an attack on the utility's best friend, bills for air conditioning. Solar kicks in when air conditioning is needed, cutting lucrative demand at the peak price time slot.
 
Displayed 295 of 295 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report