73
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 06:33 pm
Oh, christ on a crutch. The point is that the city of Houston, the veritable hub of oil and gas power in our country, seems to be getting a good deal on wind power, enough so that they are buying into it in part. This is a major purchase of wind energy and a Big Deal; if the program is succesful, it will serve as a model for other large cities.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 06:41 pm
And it looks like Solar will get the opportunity to grow after all.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/news/2008/jul/02/blm-lifts-solar-moratorium-21-months-early/

BLM lifts 22 month solar energy moratorium today!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 06:41 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Oh, christ on a crutch. The point is that the city of Houston, the veritable hub of oil and gas power in our country, seems to be getting a good deal on wind power, enough so that they are buying into it in part. This is a major purchase of wind energy and a Big Deal; if the program is succesful, it will serve as a model for other large cities.

Cycloptichorn


I actually conceded that point, Cyclop, for which I got no credit from OE who seems to have some kind of burr under his saddle re me these days.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 06:44 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Oh, christ on a crutch. The point is that the city of Houston, the veritable hub of oil and gas power in our country, seems to be getting a good deal on wind power, enough so that they are buying into it in part. This is a major purchase of wind energy and a Big Deal; if the program is succesful, it will serve as a model for other large cities.

Cycloptichorn


I actually conceded that point, Cyclop, for which I got no credit from OE who seems to have some kind of burr under his saddle re me these days.


Well heck, you like to argue minutiae and small points, almost as much as I do! Smile

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 06:56 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Oh, christ on a crutch. The point is that the city of Houston, the veritable hub of oil and gas power in our country, seems to be getting a good deal on wind power, enough so that they are buying into it in part. This is a major purchase of wind energy and a Big Deal; if the program is succesful, it will serve as a model for other large cities.

Cycloptichorn


I actually conceded that point, Cyclop, for which I got no credit from OE who seems to have some kind of burr under his saddle re me these days.


Well, okay....

I should have said that I give you credit that, apart from nitpicking possible misinterpretations, you also grudgingly acknowledged it as a significant accomplishment.

Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 06:59 pm
Part of the beauty of solar is in the micro-applications.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/07/01/solar.textiles/index.html

Solar curtains. Could be used to power a LOT of smaller devices or lights around the home. Batteries sewn into the hem.

Every watt of power generated by solar panels like this is one less the grid has to provide.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 02:52 am
parados wrote:
Quote:
Under a five-year contract, Houston will pay a fixed price of 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour for the wind-generated electricity, 21% lower than the 9.5 cents per kilowatt hour it pays for conventional power. The city will buy half the wind power through Goldman Sachs and half through Reliant Energy, said Issa Dadoush, director of the city's department of general services.

http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2008/7/2/151318/9555

What you omit to mention parados is "in that case that Goldman Sachs and Reliant will also get an extra 2c/kWh in Production Tax Credits, the federal mechanism used to support wind."
And 9.5 c/kWh for a huge contract while average industrial retail price for the US is around 6 c/kWh, not really a bargain, is it ? (source eia : http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html )
Pesky numbers Wink

Thank you CH & parados for unveiling the innovation : our green experts have found smart ways to make wind "competitive" : subsidize wind and regulate fossile fuel to make its life and price hellish.

Some people call the scheme extorsion, others call it going green. Pick your choice.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 07:08 am
You mean that the power company is getting 9.5 cents for wind power and 9.5 cents for non wind power. Sounds like wind power isn't 4 times as expensive as other kinds of power.

Yeah, those pesky numbers Minitax. Are you telling us that the city of Houston is industrial as opposed to commercial or residential?
The average for ALL in Texas is 10.1/kwh and the commercial rate in Tx is 10.08.

Meanwhile the average for KWH in the US is not 6 cents. The average for commercial is 9.53 and the average for all is 8.1 cents

Those pesky numbers minitax. You really shouldn't have tried to tell us that a city would get the "industrial" rate for electricity without showing evidence of other cities getting those rates.




By the way, if you want to see some more pesky numbers, this site lists costs to produce wind generated electricty.
http://www.awea.org/faq/cost.html
Quote:
Overall, Wiser and Kahn estimate wind power costs, depending on ownership and financing method, as follows:

Private ownership, project financing: 4.95 cents/kWh including PTC, 6.56 cents/kWh without PTC.
IOU ownership, corporate financing: 3.53 cents/kWh including PTC, 5.9 cents/kWh without.
Public utility ownership, internal financing: 2.88 cents/kWh including REPI, 4.35 cents/kWh without.
Public utility ownership, project financing: 3.43 cents/kWh including REPI, 4.89 cents/kWh without.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 01:08 pm
parados wrote:

By the way, if you want to see some more pesky numbers, this site lists costs to produce wind generated electricty.
http://www.awea.org/faq/cost.html
Quote:
Overall, Wiser and Kahn estimate wind power costs, depending on ownership and financing method, as follows:

Private ownership, project financing: 4.95 cents/kWh including PTC, 6.56 cents/kWh without PTC.
IOU ownership, corporate financing: 3.53 cents/kWh including PTC, 5.9 cents/kWh without.
Public utility ownership, internal financing: 2.88 cents/kWh including REPI, 4.35 cents/kWh without.
Public utility ownership, project financing: 3.43 cents/kWh including REPI, 4.89 cents/kWh without.

Parados, you're mixing retail and production price, and when you quote production price for wind, you "forget" to mention the production price for coal, it's not very honnest.

In fig 1 of this document from the British Royal Academy of Engineering, production prices is 5.4 to 7.5 for wind and just 2.2 for coal (values in pences/kWh, 2004). So yes, like it or not, wind is 2 to 4x more expensive than coal, even for non coal producing GB. Wind has become "competitive" because of state intervention based on preferential deals, regulations, subsidies especially if "the climate protection" swindle is morphed into laws, not because it has become market-competitive. Claiming otherwise is spinning and propaganda based on lying by omission.

Pesky numbers indeed. When you show them, please, show ALL of them.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 01:50 pm
miniTAX wrote:

Parados, you're mixing retail and production price, and when you quote production price for wind, you "forget" to mention the production price for coal, it's not very honnest.
Mixed them? I think I clearly stated it was production prices for wind in the end of my post. ("cost to produce" means production cost where I live.) It's dishonest to not list the production price for coal? WTF is that? So then that means you are not honnest [sic] for not listing the price for natural gas and hydro and solar and nuclear? You are so full of BS miniTAX.


Quote:

In fig 1 of this document from the British Royal Academy of Engineering, production prices is 5.4 to 7.5 for wind and just 2.2 for coal (values in pences/kWh, 2004). So yes, like it or not, wind is 2 to 4x more expensive than coal, even for non coal producing GB. Wind has become "competitive" because of state intervention on regulations, subsidies and preferential deals, not because it has become market-competitive. Claiming otherwise is spinning and propaganda based on lying by omission.
Look at the numbers in the report miniTAX. The numbers you listed are NOT the numbers actually in the report. (reading graphs can be difficult, I guess.)
Quote:
Gas-fired CCGT 2.2
Nuclear fission plant 2.3
Coal-fired pulverised-fuel (PF) steam plant 2.5
Coal-fired circulating fluidized bed (CFB) steam plant 2.6
Coal-fired integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) 3.2


______________Without standy / With standby generation
Quote:


Onshore wind farm 3.7 5.4
Offshore wind farm 5.5 7.2


7.2 is NOT 3 times larger than 2.5. Plus you failed to mention that the 7.2 number is NOT solely the production number for wind but includes standby generation and is only for offshore wind farms. Onshore is only double the cost of the cheapest coal if you include standby generation.

Quote:

Pesky numbers indeed. When you show them, show ALL of them.
You might want to start with being accurate on the ones you do show before you attack others for not showing them all.

By the way, providing only one outdated source is NOT the same thing as showing all the numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
Quote:
A British Wind Energy Association report gives an average generation cost of onshore wind power of around 3.2 pence per kilowatt hour (2005).[57] Cost per unit of energy produced was estimated in 2006 to be comparable to the cost of new generating capacity in the United States for coal and natural gas: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MWh, coal at $53.10/MWh and natural gas at $52.50.[58] Other sources in various studies have estimated wind to be more expensive than other sources (see Economics of new nuclear power plants, Clean coal, and Carbon capture and storage).
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 02:52 am
parados wrote:

7.2 is NOT 3 times larger than 2.5.
Wow Rolling Eyes
You should enlist for the Nitpicker of the Year contest.
BTW, hearing from a nitpicking champion that "wind is ONLY double the cost of coal" is like "my loaf of (same) bread is only double the cost of yours". Priceless, sort of.

parados wrote:

By the way, providing only one outdated source is NOT the same thing as showing all the numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
Relying on the estimates of cost of Wind from a Wind energy association is not exactly what I would call a real search for truth. If it should show something, it's that your argument is sloppy.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 05:52 am
miniTAX wrote:
parados wrote:

7.2 is NOT 3 times larger than 2.5.
Wow Rolling Eyes
You should enlist for the Nitpicker of the Year contest.
BTW, hearing from a nitpicking champion that "wind is ONLY double the cost of coal" is like "my loaf of (same) bread is only double the cost of yours". Priceless, sort of.
In case you forgot miniTAX, you claimed it was 4 times the cost. Not quite 3 times means it can't be 4 times. I wasn't exactly nitpicking by showing it wasn't 3 times let alone the 4 times you claimed. "double the cost of coal" comes from YOUR source. For someone that has thrown out statements like "spinning" and "propaganda based on lying by omission" you seem to be doing a lot of your own spinning.

Nitpicking would be your claim I was not honnest [sic] for not providing coal numbers. Nitpicking would be your claim I was confusing retail and production numbers even though I was pretty clear on the two. I don't think I have a chance to get nitpicker of the year. You have it sown up already.


Quote:

parados wrote:

By the way, providing only one outdated source is NOT the same thing as showing all the numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
Relying on the estimates of cost of Wind from a Wind energy association is not exactly what I would call a real search for truth. If it should show something, it's that your argument is sloppy.

Thank you nitpicker of the year. I guess one source is better than 3 if you don't like the numbers provided by the other 2. Of course, we have 3 sets of comparison numbers and the actual payments by Houston. So.. lets see, 2 sets of numbers and the Houston payments all show wind to not be 2 times as expensive as coal let alone 4 times. One set of numbers shows almost 3 times if you compare the cheapest coal to the most expensive wind.

To further complicate your argument miniTAX you didn't report the numbers accurately from the one source you used . You had to change them from what they actually reported to try to get to the 4x. But then I suppose wanting you to be honest is nitpicking because you certainly don't think what you did was spinning or propaganda or an outright lie.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 10:20 am
parados wrote:
In case you forgot miniTAX, you claimed it was 4 times the cost.
No, I did NOT. Stop your straw man and take your pills, buddy.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 10:25 am
[URL=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3299965#3299965]miniTAX[/URL] wrote:
Wind power kWh is 3 to 4 times more expensive than coal.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 10:31 am
Yeah, I said "3 to 4x" , not 4x.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 10:53 am
miniTAX wrote:
Yeah, I said "3 to 4x" , not 4x.


Sure. But so far you've even failed to come up with numbers that show how wind is 3 times more expensive than coal.

Also, a British study in 2004 may have yielded different results than what we're currently seeing in Texas. Renewables are highly dependent on geography. Goes without saying.

And the price of coal has gone up quite a bit - roughly 25% for steam coal between 2004 and 2006 alone (which is already more than the 20% margin in the British study).

Wind, on the other hand, still costs just as much as in 2004.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 12:39 pm
old europe wrote:

And the price of coal has gone up quite a bit - roughly 25% for steam coal between 2004 and 2006 alone (which is already more than the 20% margin in the British study).

Wind, on the other hand, still costs just as much as in 2004.


Well, since nit picking appears to be the principal occupation here, old europe's conclusion is also misleading and demonstrably false.

The "cost" of wind power is the amortized cost of the equipment and installation, plus the current operating cost for maintenance and repair -- all in constant dollars. Clearly that has risen in the last several years in exactly the same way, and for the same reasons, as had the cost of coal generated power.

The essential point here is that advocates of solar & wind power are all united in their advocacy for government mandates for a specified share of total production, or other equivalent subsidies, in order to force their use in the absence of a natural economic incentive to do so. The reason for this is simple -- on average, they cost a lot more. Many advocates of "green" energy are either self-deluded or deliberately deceptive about the cost impact - often going to great lengths to hide it through mandates or taxes on existing alternatives.

Energy is such a significant driver in a modern economy that its cost must be considered seriously. Even a 20% increase in the average cost could have profound, far-reaching and unanticipated effects on the economy and the society that employs it.

old europe is entirely correct in noting the strong potential of local variables to significantly affect the sweeping comparisons being cast abvout here. The wind doesn't blow with predictable consistency anywhere, but some areas are much more favorable for wind turbines than others. Similarly, the quality and delivery price for coal (and even natural gas) are highly variable.

It may well be that in northern Germany there is a favorable wind/coal tradeoff due, in part to the relatively low quality of European brown coal and favorable wind conditions. The United States is blessed with ample reserves of high quality (heating value/ton), low sulfur coal in several areas of the country. This makes it hard for wind to compete except in areas where local contitions may be particularly favorable.

There are lots of opportunities for misleading statistics here. A 1.0 MW capacity wind turbine installed even under very favorable conditions would do well to produce even 1/3rd of its maximum capacity over an extended period due simply to wind variations. Conversely, a 1,000MW coal or nuclear plant can easily average 85% of rated capacity over long periods, independently of external conditions.

I'm all for greater use of wind and solar power as they are improved and made more effective. However, I am very suspicious of those who favor government mandates to force their use on me in the face sound economic reasons to do otherwise.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 12:58 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Well, since nit picking appears to be the principal occupation here, old europe's conclusion is also misleading and demonstrably false.

The "cost" of wind power is the amortized cost of the equipment and installation, plus the current operating cost for maintenance and repair -- all in constant dollars. Clearly that has risen in the last several years in exactly the same way, and for the same reasons, as had the cost of coal generated power.



Nah. I was not talking about "wind power", I was only referring to "wind". As in the fuel needed to power those plants.

The British study miniTAX has cited earlier calculated the cost of generating electricity with a margin of 20% change in fuel prices:

http://i26.tinypic.com/sbltop.gif

That's what I was referring to when I said that the cost of wind has not changed.


From that angle I'd even dispute your claim that the operating cost for wind power stations has gone up. If anything, it has been shown over the last couple of years that wind power plants are, to a degree, indeed scalable. The world's largest wind turbines produce something in the range of 6 - 7MW. Blade designs and other design features are still being optimized, resulting in higher efficiency and better performance. And producers have gained knowledge in mass producing and installing turbines - all of which is rather bound to bring down prices.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 01:13 pm
The cost of "wind" itself is rather meaningless. If that was your point it was, at best, trivial. However, I will concede that improvements in turbine design & installed efficiency are indeed occurring - just as are improvements in the design of nuclear power plants. None of this, however, affects already built and operating facilities - wind or nuclear. They are stuck with the technology they were built with. If your intent was to compare the latest conceptual innovation for wind turbines with (say) a 30 year old conventional plant, then I would suggest you are being deceptive.

Anyway, if you are correct, the world will soon be awash with giant wind turbines. I will await this eventuality with great interest.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 03:10 pm
Meanwhile as more and more scientists jump the CO2-as-the-primary-driver- of-global-warming ship, the search continues for a new crisis. Will our nifty new HD television sets be the next target?

Plasma, LCDs blamed for accelerating global warmingUpdated Thu Jul 3, 2008

Audio: Flat screen TVs 'contribute to global warming' (The World Today) A gas used in the making of flat screen televisions, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), is being blamed for damaging the atmosphere and accelerating global warming.

Almost half of the televisions sold around the globe so far this year have been plasma or LCD TVs.

But this boom could be coming at a huge environmental cost.

The gas, widely used in the manufacture of flat screen TVs, is estimated to be 17,000 times as powerful as carbon dioxide.

Ironically, NF3 is not covered by the Kyoto protocol as it was only produced in tiny amounts when the treaty was signed in 1997.

Levels of this gas in the atmosphere have not been measured, but scientists say it is a concern and are calling for it to be included in any future emissions cutting agreement.

Professor Michael Prather from the University of California has highlighted the issue in an article for the magazine New Scientist.

He has told ABC's The World Today program that output of the gas needs to be measured.

"One of my titles for this paper was Going Below Kyoto's Radar. It's the kind of gas that's made in huge amounts," he said.

"Not only is it not in the Kyoto Treaty but you don't even have to report it. That's the part that worries me."

He estimates 4,000 tons of NF3 will be produced in 2008 and that number is likely to double next year.

"We don't know what's emitted, but what they're producing every year dwarfs these giant coal-fired power plants that are like the biggest in the world," he said.

"And it dwarfs two of the Kyoto gases. So the real question we don't know is how much is escaping and getting out."

Dr Paul Fraser is the chief research scientist at the CSIRO's marine and atmospheric research centre, and an IPCC author.

He says without measuring the quantity of NF3 in the atmosphere it is unclear what impact it will have on the climate.

"We haven't observed it in the atmosphere. It's probably there in very low concentrations," he said.

"The key to whether it's a problem or not is how much is released to the atmosphere."
ABC LINK
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 07/12/2025 at 01:12:37