- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 10, 2012 at 4:36 am #769783
kootchmanMemberYea… gonna put that in boxes or barrels to ship it here?
September 10, 2012 at 5:37 am #769784
JanSParticipantSeptember 10, 2012 at 5:40 am #769785
JanSParticipantSeptember 10, 2012 at 12:25 pm #769786
redblackParticipantkootch:
1 gigawatt of wind energy consumes 152 square miles of land.
explain that.
Amazing isn’t it… we defund fast breeder reactors to give a second shot at spent uranium but subsidize windmills. That’s not economics.. that’s pandering.
neither wind turbines nor windmills kill people.
fission does.
hmm. doing some homework on energy subsidies. well, well, well. can you guess who the subsidy kings are? nuclear power would not exist without federal subsidy.
The bill’s biggest winner was probably the nuclear industry, which received billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks covering almost every facet of operations. There were subsidies for research into new reactor designs, “fusion energy,” small-particle accelerators and reprocessing nuclear waste, which would reverse current U.S. policy. Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Tex.) even inserted a $250,000 provision for research into using radiation to refine oil.
The bill also included $2 billion for “risk insurance” in case new nuclear plants run into construction and licensing delays. And nuclear utilities will be eligible for taxpayer-backed loan guarantees of as much as 80 percent the cost of their plants.
http://www.webcitation.org/5xdD09vZ8
another notable quote from one of the bean counters at API, and this one is actually pretty funny. it should debunk the myth that private money does all the R and D in america:
“If you don’t provide the relief, nothing will happen,” said John Felmy, the American Petroleum Institute’s chief economist. “The start-up costs are just too massive.”
the dude was not talking about wind turbine energy.
last question, since you probably won’t read the article:
when was this bill written, and who controlled congress?
September 11, 2012 at 3:49 am #769787
kootchmanMemberHow many deaths have been attributed to a US Nuclear plant? A fast breeder reactor meets the best intent of green energy, reduce, resuse and recycle. It even has the “green” stamp of approval. Better to destruct the plutonium and reuse it than try to find a home for the thousands of tons of uranium waste. Oh yea… it also takes the plutonium dioxide out of the terrorist hands.
windmills do kill too…
27 deaths in just the USA installing or deconstructing
18 deaths in operations and maintenance
Physics… it also include the subject of gravity.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/30/fast-breeder-reactors-nuclear-waste-nightmare
Plutonium is the nuclear nightmare. A by-product of conventional power-station reactors, it is the key ingredient in nuclear weapons. And even when not made into bombs, it is a million-year radioactive waste legacy that is already costing the world billions of dollars a year to contain.
And yet, some scientists say, we have the technology to burn plutonium in a new generation of “fast” reactors. That could dispose of the waste problem, reducing the threat of radiation and nuclear proliferation, and at the same time generate vast amounts of low-carbon energy.
There ya go redblack….
September 11, 2012 at 3:59 am #769788
redblackParticipantkootch:
where do i go?
two words:
1. fukushima.
2. detroit.
[edit: oh, wait.
3. chernobyl.
4. three mile island.
and before you say it, you know yucca mountain lies on a fault line. right?]
i’ll bet you don’t know about detroit. you should do some research.
but i challenge you to show me how nuclear power would exist without the subsidy of the u.s. government.
after you do that, you can continue whining about “windmills.”
until then, your tenure is suspended.
September 11, 2012 at 4:00 am #769789
kootchmanMemberSimple question Jan.. how many btu’s are produced per square acre? Beautiful on the pristine coastline? Not. Tolerabele in zoned industrial areas? Sure.
September 11, 2012 at 4:04 am #769790
redblackParticipantkootch:
wait, wait, wait. hold the freaking phone and stop taunting jan.
you skated past my first question. (and you thought you could b.s. your way past a couple of follow-ups. FAIL.)
explain the 1,000 MW/152 square mile wind turbine claim.
September 12, 2012 at 3:52 am #769791
kootchmanMemberwe wouldn’t need Yucca Flats … if we had fast breeder reactors.
Oooooh it’s so scary.. …it;s science and engineering.. let’s ask a vast electorate with the lowest basic science knowledge base int he G-20 to vote on it … in fact don’t even place in the top 20 … France has been running FBR’s for decades.
Here ya go buddy…..
How much land does 1 gigawatt of wind energy require?
One estimate indicates that a gigawatt of wind energy requires 200 square miles / 480 square kilometers. What is that actual number? What are the nuances? How is this best calculated?
http://www.quora.com/How-much-land-does-1-gigawatt-of-wind-energy-require
September 12, 2012 at 4:23 am #769792
redblackParticipantyou can’t be serious.
The good news is that the land (or sea) is not ‘used’, it can be used for other things eg agriculture, and in the case of the sea both for fish and further power generation eg from currents.
come on, kootch. i expect so much more from the conservative perfesser of WSB forums.
re: nucular:
it;s science and engineering.. let’s ask a vast electorate with the lowest basic science knowledge base int he G-20 to vote on it …
better yet, let’s ask that same electorate about the efficacy of drilling for oil and the associated risks!
yeah. that nucular science and engineering – heck, even the meager amount of power it produces per cost per kWh! – would not be possible or sustainable without federal subsidy. and that federal subsidy is about a zillion times more than we, the people, have given to wind turbine R and D.
and when there is a nucular disaster, who picks up the cost of mitigating the billions upon billions of dollars in damage? BP? exxon? GE? goldman sachs? B of A?
bain capital?
let’s see the “free” market do better.
come on, man. you can do better.
let’s have it.
and please back up that 152 square mile/GW claim – preferably with something other than a facebook page.
September 12, 2012 at 10:08 pm #769793
kootchmanMemberWhat billion dollar disaster have you cleaned up in the USA? It’s not risk free to be sure. But the greatest oil disasters? Transitting or drilling in the marine environment. If it was efffcient and lower cost .. it would be in the market mix.. by choice. You give subsidy to anything and there goes tax code reform.
September 13, 2012 at 5:03 am #769794
redblackParticipantwell, here are a few oil spills cleaned up by taxpayers:
http://www.infoplease.com/science/environment/largest-oil-spills-united-states.html
and here are few radiation leaks “cleaned up” by taxpayers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents
Benjamin K. Sovacool has reported that worldwide there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants from 1952 to 2009 (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage, the amount the US federal government uses to define major energy accidents that must be reported), totaling US$20.5 billion in property damages.[5] Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and almost two-thirds (56 out of 99) of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA.
chernobyl was bad, and who knows what fukushima will ultimately cost the global economy?
but here are some notable billion-dollar highlights in america:
three mile island, PA, 1979 – $2.4 billion.
athens, AL (twice!) 1984-1985 – $2 billion.
plymouth, MA, 1986 – $1 billion.
and there are a few others that cost us a little bit less than a billion dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_accidents_in_the_United_States
how is that not taxpayer subsidy? the only american entity that insures nucular plants is the filthy communist federal government.
There have been comparatively few fatalities associated with nuclear power plant accidents.
well, i guess there’s some light at the end of the nucular rainbow.
or here’s an idea:
evolve.
September 13, 2012 at 5:21 am #769795
miwsParticipantMaybe kootch’ll let the Postal Service stay in business, if they convert all of their facilities and vehicles to run on nuculer power.
Mike
September 13, 2012 at 5:24 am #769796
redblackParticipantnah, mike. he’ll just insist that USPS vehicles run on wind power and wind power alone.
and that they grind corn or pump water at the same time.
September 14, 2012 at 12:43 am #769797
kootchmanMemberSince 1954 you can cite 99 accidents with a threshold of 50K …. and not one loss of life in the USA? Pretty efficient. And those are GLOBAL incidents AND include military reactors.. also includes not just the actual costs… but the costs of .. litigations, fines, evacuations.etc… your case is exaggerated. Yea, you can use Chernobyl … but see, we don’t use carbon stack (graphite) reactors. only the ones in Oak Ridge for nuclear weapons development.. too dangerous. Yep.. the nuclear industry pays into a national insurance fund… I sure hope it is on hand and is not like the Social Security trust fund… spent with IOU’s… ya think? If the Postal Service can make money doing it miws…. let er’ rip. BP is still writing checks for their Gulf Coast clean-up… all the more reason to tap ole’ terra firma sources… deep water drilling risks are higher. Athens AL (Browns Ferry) had no nuclear leaks… there were two shutdowns… one for tornado damage to the transmission lines and the back up generators worked as planned and pulled the core rods .. and a fire started when an inspector started an insulation fire. 1.8 billion was spend to upgrade the plant … fix fire damage… not a drop of nuclear contaminant.. so much for that fairy tale. BTW… every commercial building in the country got the same upgrade… and every public school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browns_Ferry_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Pilgrim Plant? Not a drop of nuclear contaminants. Not one “accident” .. shutdowns as per routines and protocols for pressure vessel variances… why redblack.. your union brothers and sisters even say it is safe to operate… no union would allow their workers to work in an unsafe work environment would they?
“We have finally emerged with an agreement that has important protections for the hardworking men and women who safely operate this 40-year-old nuclear power plant on a daily basis,” Local 369 President Dan Hurley said in a statement released this morning
I guess that leaves Three Mile Island… the of your crown jewels.. not one fatality.
Within hours of the accident the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began daily sampling of the environment at the three stations closest to the plant. By April 1, continuous monitoring at 11 stations was established and was expanded to 31 stations two days later. An inter-agency analysis concluded that the accident did not raise radioactivity far enough above background levels to cause even one additional cancer death among the people in the area. The EPA found no contamination in water, soil, sediment or plant samples
It was a serious operator error, not a question. But .. no damage or ill health ever attributed. Safest source of electric power we have. Now… do the smart thing.. get rid of all that fissionable waste… the thousands of tons, and run them through FBR…
September 16, 2012 at 5:31 pm #769798
redblackParticipantSafest source of electric power we have.
must be why no one but the federal government will insure them.
but look. why are we picking winners and losers here by subsidizing nuclear power and fossil fuels with tax money? but not wind power?
come on. let the nuke plants be owned and operated by private companies and succeed or fail on their own merits.
now, can you please give me a cite for that 152 quare mile/gigawatt of wind power claim?
September 16, 2012 at 8:18 pm #769799
kootchmanMemberAgain?
http://www.quora.com/How-much-land-does-1-gigawatt-of-wind-energy-require
You are not subsidizing either nuclear or fossil fuels… dude… you BUY them as either rate payers …. or producers.. in kwh, tons, barrels, cubic meters, etc. They do succeed or fail on their own…they can, and do sell industrial revenue bonds…but those bonds are purchased by GASP….mostly private or institutional investors. Aren’t you glad? Remember WPPS? !!!! Far as I know .. other than some older legacy reactors… most nuke plants and fossil fired plants are utility owned. The defaulted WPPS plants are BPA owned and TVA still has operation reactors. Easy to check…. the NEI web site has all the owners and holding companies listed.
or
http://www.exeloncorp.com/performance/investors/overview.aspx
September 16, 2012 at 8:58 pm #769800
DBPMemberkootch, have I told you how much I love you?
I mean . . . today?
Thanks for providing us with the links needed to refute your arguments. Here’s a quote from the first link you provided above:
The actual land taken up [for a wind farm] is about the same as a nuclear power plant of similar power rating, but you can walk right up to wind turbines and lean against them without armed guards getting perturbed.
The land around the wind turbine is suitable for grazing cattle, growing crops, growing Christmas trees, riding ATVs, etc. In other words, just about anything it could have been used for before.
Arguing that wind turbines take up too much land is like saying power distribution substations take up too much land; you have to be hunting for an argument to make against wind turbines to take it seriously.
Again, thanks for the link.
♥ DBP ♥
September 16, 2012 at 9:11 pm #769801
DBPMemberNow here’s something you get with N-plants that you don’t get with wind farms . . . You get these swell evacuation maps that tell you how far away you have to stay following a disaster.
Why, just look at all the pretty colors!
Imagine if your home was in the Fukushima area. You could impress all the kids in your new hometown by showing them this map and pointing out where you once lived.
See that big red circle? That’s where my town used to be.
September 17, 2012 at 9:10 am #769802
kootchmanMemberHUH? DPB… add it up…
First… an NPP is a reliable base load. So even IF the land use is the same… wind is not base load stable…. you have to over build for redundcy… that alone kills your land use argument.
A nuclear power plant is considered “base load” power, meaning that it operates around the clock all year round. In the United States, nuclear power has a capacity factor of 95% (operating at 100% power 95% of the time). No other technology produces this level of performance.
n 2011, the “average” nuclear power plant in the United States generated about 12.2 billion kilowatt-hours … now 12 gig plant occupies what? 400 – 800 acres..? Including the security zone?
Second, we still have expanded uranium to dispose of …thousand upon thousands of tons of it.. France does use FBR …. or I suppose we can use the spend rods for more depleted uranium ammunition… and just scatter it around middle eastern countries instead of Yucca Flats.
The land around the wind turbine is suitable for grazing cattle, growing crops, growing Christmas trees, riding ATVs, etc. In other words, just about anything it could have been used for before.,,, same as a nuclear plant. like this?
and of course… it is a water purification treatment source.
September 17, 2012 at 12:57 pm #769803
redblackParticipantwhat do you mean “again,” kootch? i told you, that link is like some kid’s face book page. did you even read it?
you probably didn’t read my earlier link, either, about who pays for the construction of nuke plants.
The bill also included $2 billion for “risk insurance” in case new nuclear plants run into construction and licensing delays. And nuclear utilities will be eligible for taxpayer-backed loan guarantees of as much as 80 percent the cost of their plants.
how is that NOT subsidy?
at this point, it looks like you’re basically sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “la la la la la la laaaa!”
September 17, 2012 at 2:13 pm #769804
kootchmanMemberA subsidy is a check dude..a check.. cash. .. your boss or whomever he subs to, purchases surety bonds for any major projects. the owner can collect on that surety bond if the GC has a failure to perform and there is a delay in revenue… ie .. occupancy of tenants… No plant ever gets constructed for a utility unless there is a customer base. It’s no more of a subsidy than your favorite… Fannie Mae or Student Loans…. except they have a better credit record and default rates are less…it costs the taxpayer nothing..unless the borrower defaults… then it does…then it is a taxpayer subsidy.. you BUY the insurance… WPPS was a major instigator … it was in part AEC change orders and delays that helped that fiasco…it is the government insuring the utility that in the middle of a project if they delay licensing and the utility revenue stream…. they have to step in and pay for the delay. Ditto with industrial development bonds… for say… toll bridges..your city needs a bridge but can;t afford it . or their bond rating sucks so bad so they allow a private company to build the bridge and collect the tolls…. if the state grants an I DB bond, they have to insure to the developer that if they delay the construction schedule or licensing… they will make good on that delay. That ain’t a subsidy. I would never build a 50 billion plant unless I was indemnified against a license or start-up delay due to government action or inaction… that would be crazy. Industrial development bonds are world wide and common as dirt. The rate payers ultimately pay off the capital costs of a new plant… utility companies don’t build multi-billion dollar plants for fun… and if you are Charleston SC and you NEED power for growth and development … you may have to underwrite the cost … that is not a cash transfer or payment… you, are in effect the cosigner on the loan. Or… go without a new plant. You get it now? No cash gets transferred … unless the muni defaults.. say it doesn’t buy all the power it committed to…the utility may have to sell the surplus capacity at a lower rate… the muni pays the difference. NOT ONE DIME… unless the muni defaults or the feds delay licensing or construction. The contractor buys a surety bond … to deliver the project on time and within budget…. the government has to also indemnify the utility…. if they issue new change orders, or regulations .. that delay the project completion date or add costs.. they have to indemnify the utility…… see how that works? Everyone does what they say they are going to do… no harm no foul. If you approve a plant (fed govt) and halfway through the project you refuse to license it because you need a different pipe grade or pump control,… your action delayed completion of a previously approved design…. and you will pay for that delay. It is getting very common in large civil projects to issue design, build, operate contracts.. they are cheaper for the muni than to operate it, maintain it, themselves… to attract investors… that classification of IDB may be tax free… to increase the investor yield and lower the cost to the city. Your famous bullet train was headed down that path… when CA decided to take it over…problem is CA bond rating sucks so bad… they can’t attract investors who fear a default… soooo the feds approved IDB’s .. in fact CA is so f..d up they even allow IDB to build private manufacturing plants… to try and retain the torrent of businesses that are fleeing the state. The federal government and IRS allow it for those votes baby!
September 17, 2012 at 2:40 pm #769805
redblackParticipantA subsidy is a check dude..a check.. cash.
is it? looks to me like it’s a tax credit, just like nuclear and fossil fuels get. that liberal rag, WSJ, seems to agree.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443659204577575203384685874.html
then there’s this:
The wind industry is big business in Nolan County, where Sweetwater is located. The tax base has grown from about $500 million in 2000 to $3 billion today. Besides making some ranchers rich, the money has pumped dollars into rural school districts where some new schools have been built for the first time in nearly a century.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/08/24/3776822/texas-wind-energy-boom-may-go.html#storylink=cpy
8.5 percent of texas’ grid is powered by wind. looks like some trickle-up economics at work in texas – which, by the yea, is right there at the federal pork trough that you hate so much.
note that john cornyn (R-TX) and chuck grassley (R-IA) support extending the wind energy tax credit.
so if the fossil fuels and nuclear industries need their federal tax incentives to be competitive and viable, why isn’t the same true for other forms of energy production?
September 17, 2012 at 2:58 pm #769806
kootchmanMemberwell if wind is that good… why subsidize it? See the “bonanza” is forcing consumers to buy the most expensive mix of energy blended in with lower cost energy… like adding ethanol to gasoline… it makes no economic sense… lowers mpg but is a farm subsidy…. so of course it gets support. Ig it can;t stand on it’s own …. and needs a 50 per cent subsidy to live … kill it. I don’t support corporate farms getting more subsidy for wind energy investment tax credits… You just linked to two articles that say the business model for renewables with vaporize without tax subsidy or special tax credits…. that doesn;t help your argument. Take away that subsidy and there is no 3.5 cent per kwh wind power… is there?
September 17, 2012 at 3:27 pm #769807
redblackParticipanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#US_Department_of_Energy_estimates
read ’em and weep, kootch. no federal subsidies, tax incentives, or tax breaks are included in the costs in that table.
hey, by the yea, what does the fuel that powers a wind turbine cost?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.