HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southeast > Atlanta


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted May 16, 2010, 8:58 PM
dante2308's Avatar
dante2308 dante2308 is offline
Man of Many Statistics
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Atlanta/Jamaica/S. Florida
Posts: 1,202
We have tons of coal too btw. Hell we could run our country on puppies, but why not just use the clean energy sources since they are just as cheap and we've been working for decades to make them renewable and available?
__________________
Where is the love? We've only got one world. Time that we share it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 16, 2010, 10:42 PM
cybele cybele is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308 View Post
Hell we could run our country on puppies
Well, what about all the sweet little babies out there looking for somebody to give them a chance. You bring a dog home and he will give you everything he's got for the rest of his life.

I am all for the renewables but you have to watch out with wood. I have heard of people using so much wood they wound up with no forests and the next thing you know it has blown away and you are stuck with a dessert.

Also with coal, have y'all seen what they do to a mountain. They just flat tear off the top and dump it in the valley. People need to learn to live with less, which is a source of energy itself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 1:08 AM
dante2308's Avatar
dante2308 dante2308 is offline
Man of Many Statistics
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Atlanta/Jamaica/S. Florida
Posts: 1,202
Wood is manageable. All you need is a good environmental scientist and a single lick of common sense.

On energy efficiency, I think there are consequences right now, but I'm all for high energy intensity once all our energy is infinite. I'll make the US competitive and our standard of living higher if everyone individually controls the power of small neutron star.
__________________
Where is the love? We've only got one world. Time that we share it.

Last edited by dante2308; May 17, 2010 at 1:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 11:54 AM
Fiorenza's Avatar
Fiorenza Fiorenza is offline
Reliable Source
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,551
You're kidding yourself.
__________________
Taze Me, Bro!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 3:14 PM
echinatl echinatl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308 View Post
France has less nuclear power than we do by a factor of two so lets not go there. I don't think you get that renewable + natural gas makes up a full 77% of the power plants under construction. And the greatest share of that at 42% was renewable. Where is the space for nuclear? You are basically advocating we replace renewable energy with nuclear power plants. Why, what on earth could possibly have you advocating we replace renewable with nuclear?
I could see why you don't want to go there. France has a population of 60 mil and has half as many reactors as a country with 300mil (that proves my point). They also produce almost 80% of their power from nuclear reactors and make 3 billion a year selling extra energy to other countries. I don't think that you get that the 42% of the renewable power plants you're talking about won't put a dent when you compare it to the amount of power we use. I'm not advocating we replace renewable energy with nuclear power plants, I'm advocating using Nuclear as a 0 emission crutch to be used in conjunction with other renewable energy resources to get us to 100% renewable energy land. What you are advocating just isn't possible. I don't want clean air in 2020+, I want a solution ASAP. What on earth could possible have you advocating we do something that just isn't possible in the near term?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308 View Post
I just don't get it. By the way wind is cheaper than nuclear.

New Nuclear power - 25-30 cents/kWh
Wind power - 5-6 cents/kWh

source for nuclear
source for wind
second source for wind

a table for you

At this point, I don't see a single reason on earth to go with nuclear over wind. What is the benefit?
I'm not really arguing about cost. The reason is the massive amount of power they generate compared to the space they take up and amount of pollution they produce. I never said go nuclear over wind, get it? The benefit is we get cleaner air and the power we need faster. There is your benefit. It also provides your baseload, the wind doesn't always blow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308 View Post
As for solar power, it is rapidly become cheaper and is already at parity in three states. It currently stands at 19.27 cents/kWh for industrial roof top installations. source For widespread power installation, the price is expected to be 10 cents/kWh by next year. Several sources agree with it coming in line with the entire grid average by 2015. Solar power capacity construction is up 259% from 2010 over 2009 in the US which is shattering cost.
I think this proves you're not reading my posts, which is fine because I write a lot. I think solar is going to be the future and replace everything eventually, even wind. It's easy to increase construction hundreds of percent when the starting amount is so low. So even though I think solar is the future, it's the far out future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308 View Post
Geothermal energy costs 5.5 cents per kWh. Enough said about that. source

Hydro is built out unfortunately and biomass costs are generally low but isn't done on a massive scale yet. I will look up some stats for that later. The point is that nuclear is more expensive than every single form of renewable energy I have listed here.
I think your info on costs are off too, I would stay away from those obviously biased sources. Here is an MIT study from 2009 that puts the cost at 8.4. PDF: http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/...update2009.pdf

The point is if we want to be an energy independent nation, and reduce pollution sooner rather than later I can not see how it happens without Nuclear and natural gas. If your argument is we become an energy independent nation and reduce pollution by 2050 than I'll agree with everything you've said.

Also STrek777, a 200 year supply can be considered infinite because we'll definitely have a power solution in place by then that will have solved the "problem".... as long as we haven't blown ourselves up by then! hah.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 7:17 PM
dante2308's Avatar
dante2308 dante2308 is offline
Man of Many Statistics
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Atlanta/Jamaica/S. Florida
Posts: 1,202
You have yet to describe a single advantage of nuclear over renewables built this very day. What exactly makes you think that these sources of energy are more than 10 years off? Do you have a single reason?

The problem with that 8.4 number that the study conjures is that it is neither historical nor anything but the best case scenario. This is the "disclaimer" from the very next line:

Quote:
The track record for the construction costs of nuclear plants completed in the
U.S. during the 1980s and early 1990s was poor. Actual costs were far higher
than had been projected. Construction schedules experienced long delays,
which, together with increases in interest rates at the time, resulted in high
financing charges. New regulatory requirements also contributed to the cost
increases, and in some instances, the public controversy over nuclear power
contributed to some of the construction delays and cost overruns.
Quote:
The 2003 report found that capital cost reductions and construction time
reductions were plausible, but not yet proven – this judgment is unchanged
today.
In the very best case scenario, nuclear is still more expensive than renewables. As for "base load," the cost is per kWh not kW which means total energy produced, not potential energy output when the wind is strong or the sun is shining. All you need is a buffer energy storage. Nuclear power plants are not good for base loads because their output cannot be modified except by wasting the heat of decay. This means that using nuclear as a backup makes them even more costly per kWh.

Lest you think energy storage is expensive it is not only worth the one time investment, already exists in vast quantities, and cheap as dirt in the form of compressed air based energy storage using formations like lakes and caves. Rather cheaper than dirt in fact.

Then on the land use issue. There isn't a lack of space to begin with and nowhere wants nuclear waste so I don't see the point.
__________________
Where is the love? We've only got one world. Time that we share it.

Last edited by dante2308; May 17, 2010 at 7:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 7:39 PM
dante2308's Avatar
dante2308 dante2308 is offline
Man of Many Statistics
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Atlanta/Jamaica/S. Florida
Posts: 1,202
By the way, what is this you keep going on about energy independence? What part of our electricity isn't independent?

The amount of wind power than came online in 2009 was the equivalent to 9.3 large 1GW nuclear power plants. If you don't think thats fast enough, it is far cheaper to expand investments into wind than to try to put up a single new nuclear power plant. And yes it did make a dent. The wind power that came online in the last two years was alone enough to power Georgia.

But none of this really matters because everything you have said is based on your assumption that renewables built today are invalid until 2050. What is possible reason have you been given to think this or are you just knee jerk skeptical? Are you sure you'd realize when "the future" we were promised arrived or is it always 10-20 years out?
__________________
Where is the love? We've only got one world. Time that we share it.

Last edited by dante2308; May 17, 2010 at 7:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 7:59 PM
cybele cybele is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,303
Well, didn't they shut down the nuclear after 3 Mile island.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 8:38 PM
echinatl echinatl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308 View Post
By the way, what is this you keep going on about energy independence? What part of our electricity isn't independent?
I talk about energy independence because for me personally that should be the #1 goal, a very close #2 goal is reduction in pollution. I think we need to get off oil and coal, and the only way to do that is elec cars, and build other sources of electricity to feed the ever increasing demand for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308 View Post

The amount of wind power than came on line in 2009 was the equivalent to 9.3 large 1GW nuclear power plants. If you don't think thats fast enough, it is far cheaper to expand investments into wind than to try to put up a single new nuclear power plant. And yes it did make a dent. The wind power that came on line in the last two years was alone enough to power Georgia.
So how many non renewable plants shut down because of them? I don't think it's fast enough at all. Do you think it's fast enough? Yea it's probably cheaper to add some turbines and add a few MW of capacity than building a 1.6GW generating plant. New nuclear plants generate 1.6GW of power, while the most powerful wind turbine generates 7mw, and that thing is a monster 413 feet high. China is building 20 nuclear power plants right now, if wind is able to take the lead and is cheaper over the life of service why aren't they just focusing on that? You and I aren't smarter than the guys that do this for a living, if you're the CEO of a power company and you can make more money with product X than product Y you're going to go with X. The reason why wind is moving so slowly is because it's not ready for prime time yet, that's just the facts and you haven't said a thing to disprove it. Saying total wind production for last year resulted in 9.3 GW, which i haven't verified, proves it's not going to cut it. Just like nuclear power plants cause controversy don't think wind turbines don't. I think cape cod just got approval to move forward with theirs, how long has that been in the works, 10 years? I wouldn't be surprised if something else came up that delayed it further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308 View Post
But none of this really matters because everything you have said is based on your assumption that renewables built today are invalid until 2050. What is possible reason have you been given to think this or are you just knee jerk skeptical? Are you sure you'd realize when "the future" we were promised arrived or is it always 10-20 years out?
Not invalid, but not going to take over, and everything you have said basically proves that my assumption is correct. The reason is because the amount of power needed now and in the future, combined with the hurdles and costs currently associated with wind and solar implementation (plus everything else) makes it not possible for renewables to take over the load. For me 70% clean domestic energy production would mean we arrived, and with your stance it's going to take 30 years to get there. Your data proves it.

And your numbers were best case scenario as well. And you can't just stick a hose in the ground to compress the air, you need certain geological formation to make it work. Pumping water up is often a better solution.

Right now wind power is not able to carry the load, and all of your figures prove it, what I suggest is utilizing nuclear power to allow us to generate the power we need cleanly/independently while continuing to refine and implement wind and other renewable technologies until they're ready to begin replacing non renewable forms of energy. That logic is flawless, you know it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 8:43 PM
echinatl echinatl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybele View Post
Well, didn't they shut down the nuclear after 3 Mile island.
I'm pretty sure the first reactor at 3 Mile Island is still operational, you'll want to check that though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 9:32 PM
cybele cybele is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,303
Well, I meant about building new ones.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 11:43 PM
dante2308's Avatar
dante2308 dante2308 is offline
Man of Many Statistics
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Atlanta/Jamaica/S. Florida
Posts: 1,202
Wind is cheaper than nuclear. If we were going to spend 10 billion dollars replacing coal, we'd replace more of it with wind than with nuclear. I still don't get why we need to invest hundreds of billions in the very worst energy option short of coal.
__________________
Where is the love? We've only got one world. Time that we share it.

Last edited by dante2308; May 18, 2010 at 12:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 1:17 AM
Fiorenza's Avatar
Fiorenza Fiorenza is offline
Reliable Source
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,551
Quote:
Wind is cheaper than nuclear.
Source?
__________________
Taze Me, Bro!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 2:44 AM
dante2308's Avatar
dante2308 dante2308 is offline
Man of Many Statistics
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Atlanta/Jamaica/S. Florida
Posts: 1,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiorenza View Post
Source?
This is a joke? Read page two.
__________________
Where is the love? We've only got one world. Time that we share it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 3:05 AM
Fiorenza's Avatar
Fiorenza Fiorenza is offline
Reliable Source
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,551
You're sourcing wind industry propaganda from Britain, no less. Fact is, the cost of constructing, collecting and distributing wind-generated electricity, is huge. The cost of building and maintaining each tower in relation to the power output over the life of the facility, is huge, The cost of running collecting lines to each tower in remote locations, is huge. The cost of distributing power from wind-favorable areas to the consumer thousands of miles away, is huge.

You're working with bogus, incomplete numbers put out by environmentalist wackos.

Natgas generators supplemented by nuclear is the way to go for the next several generations.
__________________
Taze Me, Bro!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 3:14 AM
dante2308's Avatar
dante2308 dante2308 is offline
Man of Many Statistics
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Atlanta/Jamaica/S. Florida
Posts: 1,202
Absolutely wind is impossible. It is all impossible. I'm bogus, the UK is bogus. Everything there can be an argument against is completely wrong. We might as well tow the sun down to Macon for the cost of wind.

Nuclear is God's gift to man. It is the only solution for what was it? Oh yes several generations, so what 75 years? Absolutely Nuclear power requires no maintenance, costs nothing to build, and the energy is transported via magic.
__________________
Where is the love? We've only got one world. Time that we share it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 2:12 PM
dante2308's Avatar
dante2308 dante2308 is offline
Man of Many Statistics
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Atlanta/Jamaica/S. Florida
Posts: 1,202
Fiorenza, I find it great that you demand a source, for which I provided three and you use the one from the UK as a launching point to call everything bogus and wacko. Then you launch a completely unsourced, factless assertion that wind in impossibly expensive compared to nuclear.

I mean what could be more complicated and expensive than a stick with three rotating blades? Nothing apparently. I mean the phenomenal continuing cost of a slowly rotating pinwheel compared to needing highly enriched uranium and disposing of highly radioactive decayed highly enriched uranium and using a steam turbine is your point right?

And then thousands of miles away? LA is 2,176 miles from Atlanta. Here I am talking about a wind farm in Savannah and your starting assertion is that wind must be shipped in from where? Guam?

Fiorenza, I did it so please provide a single source that suggests that nuclear is cheaper than wind. If you can't then I'll say it. Everything you said is completely bogus and really not worth the server space you used to post it. Go find something else to do.
__________________
Where is the love? We've only got one world. Time that we share it.

Last edited by dante2308; May 18, 2010 at 2:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 2:23 PM
dante2308's Avatar
dante2308 dante2308 is offline
Man of Many Statistics
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Atlanta/Jamaica/S. Florida
Posts: 1,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by echinatl View Post
Right now wind power is not able to carry the load, and all of your figures prove it, what I suggest is utilizing nuclear power to allow us to generate the power we need cleanly/independently while continuing to refine and implement wind and other renewable technologies until they're ready to begin replacing non renewable forms of energy. That logic is flawless, you know it
I still haven't heard you explain what exactly it is we are waiting for.

Tell me exactly what prevents us from implementing renewables today and exactly why they are unable to carry the load. It seems like everything you are saying is based on the assumption of an argument you forgot to actually make.
__________________
Where is the love? We've only got one world. Time that we share it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 2:37 PM
dante2308's Avatar
dante2308 dante2308 is offline
Man of Many Statistics
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Atlanta/Jamaica/S. Florida
Posts: 1,202
Video Link


Boy that was hard. Took almost 10 people almost three days to power 4,600 homes perpetually. Those people's grandkids are going to be up in arms when they find out that it was all imaginary and in fact, it is too soon for wind power. There is no time lapse for nuclear plant construction unfortunately. Probably because it happens so quickly despite the fact that there is nothing to hide about it and nothing complicated about it.

They should get a new slogan

Nuclear power: What's the worse that can happen?

Just like BP

Deep sea drilling: What's the worse that can happen?
__________________
Where is the love? We've only got one world. Time that we share it.

Last edited by dante2308; May 18, 2010 at 2:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 2:41 PM
echinatl echinatl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiorenza View Post
You're sourcing wind industry propaganda from Britain, no less. Fact is, the cost of constructing, collecting and distributing wind-generated electricity, is huge. The cost of building and maintaining each tower in relation to the power output over the life of the facility, is huge, The cost of running collecting lines to each tower in remote locations, is huge. The cost of distributing power from wind-favorable areas to the consumer thousands of miles away, is huge.

You're working with bogus, incomplete numbers put out by environmentalist wackos.

Natgas generators supplemented by nuclear is the way to go for the next several generations.
It's not propaganda but probably represents the costs associated with those projects. There are costs associated with building and maintaining the towers but those costs can be predicted accurately. What makes each installation different is the location. Land costs are different in each area, different tech can be used in different areas. Dante mentioned compressed air storage as a form of battery. That can only happen in areas with the right geological structures. Another type of "battery" is to pump water up when excess energy is produced and then let gravity drain it back down to power generators. Traditional batteries are also advancing rapidly so at some point you might not even need to look at those options.

I think we should put a huge focus on wind and solar right now, but it's going to take time before it's able to grow fast enough to replace existing power plants that aren't as efficient or clean. It's my opinion that we should build both nuclear, natural gas, AND wind, solar, and tidal power plants ONLY from now on. Now to handle growing energy demand, which I've read is expected to double by 2020, we will need to build all of the plants I noted above, because 1 single solution isn't available.. yet. It's also my opinion that over the next 5-10 years we'll see huge advances in renewable energy tech. I feel like I read about a new type of solar cell or wind turbine that's going to revolutionize the world every month, so we're definitely heading in the right direction.

I expect that by 2020 we'll be at a point where all new power plants will be from renewables, and then by 2025 we'll be able to replace existing non renewable infrastructures with them.

So Dante you're right, and Fiorenza you're right too, I just think both your timetables are wrong. BUT hey this is a discussion board so let's have a discussion and let me know why my timeline is wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southeast > Atlanta
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:45 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.