Originally Posted by radind

Just look at cost per KWH.
We have a different perception of Obama having a moderate point of view. I know that the Repblicans are part of the problem-I just don't think that the Democrats are blameless. I have issues with both parties.

Again I don't understand you. Obama talks about getting energy from all sources. That is identical to what you have been saying. I think it is incorrect. But it is better than the Republicans, whose only goal is to block any effort to move green so their clientele of big dirty companies keep their money, and to block anything Obama proposes so that he fails and loses the election.

Of course the Democrats are not blameless, but that's when they compromise too much with the corrupt system, and/or give in too much to the Republican and corporate bullies.

Again, the facts are that costs are coming down for solar and rising for oil and coal.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

I.e., forward thinking, Eric!

But, California uber alles, right?

Seriously, this regionalistic arrogance of yours that surfaces every so often, is seriously shooting yourself in the foot. Do you think people are simply going to bow to such arrogance, or resist it (and you and your ideas, even the good ones, in the process)?

I am fairly to the left, but that is one major critique I have of some of my most vocal fellows--although I think that is thankfully starting to diminish overall. At the very least, what has it gotten us?

(There are some on the right who also engage in this, making their own cracks about California and "Taxachusetts", Palin's remarks about "the real America", etc. But I haven't seen James50, and don't recall others on the right on this board, doing so. It's best that people realize that people everywhere are... people, just like you and I .)

Ah, I think you're confusing me with Eric.

I have a lot of in common with Eric on philosophical notions but not too enamored of his style particularly on display here. On the other hand, I have a lot of differences with James but share and admire his generally pragmatic way of looking at things. James was helping me out with a pragmatic question about financing nukes and I was responding, as a NYer, that it would be difficult for a relatively rich part of the country to financially undertake what they've done in GA. It was not meant as some sort of regional bragging rights. Given my views about Wall Street criminals and that they do their damage within walking distance of my home, I'm not one to brag so much about the place - outside of cultural advantages, of course!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Again I don't understand you. Obama talks about getting energy from all sources. That is identical to what you have been saying. I think it is incorrect. But it is better than the Republicans, whose only goal is to block any effort to move green so their clientele of big dirty companies keep their money, and to block anything Obama proposes so that he fails and loses the election.

Of course the Democrats are not blameless, but that's when they compromise too much with the corrupt system, and/or give in too much to the Republican and corporate bullies.

Again, the facts are that costs are coming down for solar and rising for oil and coal.

I don't see a robust plan from Obama. In my opinion, a push for modern nuclear plants could provide large amounts of power while the technology for solar develops. While all energy sources should be developed , I don't see the anything but nuclear and solar replacing the level of power provided from oil, coal, & natural gas .

Originally Posted by James50

Spend an evening listening to MSNBC, then come back and talk about who is loud and abrasive.

It all depends upon where one sets the volume.

If it s loud it had better be Mahler, Berlioz, Beethoven's Ninth. Tchaikovsky, maybe Nielsen.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

I.e., forward thinking, Eric!

But, California uber alles, right?

Seriously, this regionalistic arrogance of yours that surfaces every so often, is seriously shooting yourself in the foot. Do you think people are simply going to bow to such arrogance, or resist it (and you and your ideas, even the good ones, in the process)?

I am fairly to the left, but that is one major critique I have of some of my most vocal fellows--although I think that is thankfully starting to diminish overall. At the very least, what has it gotten us?

(There are some on the right who also engage in this, making their own cracks about California and "Taxachusetts", Palin's remarks about "the real America", etc. But I haven't seen James50, and don't recall others on the right on this board, doing so. It's best that people realize that people everywhere are... people, just like you and I .)

James makes a remark that "Georgia doesn't have enough wind and too much cloud cover to use green energy sources." He seemed to be speaking for his state, claiming what Georgia does or doesn't have enough of.

I said, assuming his estimate of opinion in Georgia is correct, it is in other things that Georgia is really lacking. That is not saying that Georgians are not people! Nor was I saying anything about California. Others are accusing me of regionalism; that is the only reason CA was mentioned. So just forget about California, OK? I have no particular reason to say anything at all about it.

Seriously, it is quite obvious that certain sections of this country are bound by backward thinking. The South has been so for a long time. I don't think this is news.

There is no need to correct me. It is obvious what I am saying is correct. It is obvious too that it is correctable, by the people in these regions, and that individuals everywhere may differ, and different regions have different virtues and vices, etc. etc. Must I continue to respond to this? Or will somebody get the point?

PS: horrible song!

Originally Posted by radind

I don't see a robust plan from Obama. In my opinion, a push for modern nuclear plants could provide large amounts of power while the technology for solar develops. While all energy sources should be developed , I don't see the anything but nuclear and solar replacing the level of power provided from oil, coal, & natural gas .

A push for nuclear power would not be "robust;" that would be a foolish and expensive boondoggle with lots to clean up. Obama has offered about as robust a push for clean energy as is possible in a time when Republicans still have so much power to block it.

And the fact is that the California ARB may already have made the decision for us. We will be converting, significantly so by the 2020s. I already posted the details about this, but most people don't seem to read my posts unless it is to misinterpret them.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It all depends upon where one sets the volume.

If it s loud it had better be Mahler, Berlioz, Beethoven's Ninth. Tchaikovsky, maybe Nielsen.

Or at least, The Who

Originally Posted by Alioth68

I.e. he already addressed Fukushima, in case you didn't know that.

Japan is pretty much screwed in the land-away-from-faultlines department, admittedly (and it was seismic activity that caused the tsunami--but inland on a fault line would also be dangerous). As is California. Most of the rest of the US? Not so screwed.

They keep telling us nuclear is safe, and I don't believe them. Nor should anyone. This is roulette; gambling with leaving wastelands for generations. And not necessary. Why is nuclear power such a shibboleth among people here on this forum?

And you're not even from Georgia, are you Alioth? no, a nice blue state. So what's your excuse?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm a cheerleader for the fastest reasonable build-out of renewables, but they don't scale well and they can't provide base load. They also must be sited in appropriate areas, and people tend to live in non-appropriate areas more often than not.

The facts are clear, and I have stated them over and over. Ever hear of the grid? It doesn't matter where people live. We have or can build power lines, a lot more easily than nuclear power plants, or even dams, sending energy from and to wherever needed.

Such skepticism (which you call "reasonable") is inappropriate in a 4T. I say get with it. Solar thermal power plants are huge, and they generate and store lots of energy. Millions of rooftops remain uncovered with solar panels. The only reason solar and wind "don't scale well," is that we have done virtually squat to scale them up, and the job has been left entirely to small start-up companies because the big ones are dinosaurs who won't do it, and who spend all their billions in money and manpower on finding and producing fossil fuels. A total area of 100 square miles of solar plants would power the entire nation. Let's do it, now! Get your own state to act.

If we can build more nuclear plants to meet our needs, we can build more solar power plants to meet our needs. The energy and resources devoted to the former, could just as easily (and more quickly) be transferred to the latter.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_p...xisting_plants


Scientific American editors say:

A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.
A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.
Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.
A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.
But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.
—The Editors

And I say, even sooner!

Financial analysts and industry experts expect the cost of solar power to fall below retail electricity rates in much of the country between 2013 and 2018.

from http://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables/solar.asp

Oh, and there's plenty of sun in Georgia:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...al_may2004.jpg

Oh, and how about we use energy more efficiently, and stop increasing our population?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Starting here -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...306#post419306

- I have provided a current status and prognosis for our economy over the next couple of years based on MMT's sector analysis of CBO projections of federal deficit spending. That analysis sees a sub-par economic growth (2.4%) GDP in 2012 that is barely able to sustain the current employment rate.

Good analysis. Some observations; the current right-wing congress has proven to be dangerous far beyond entertainment. They are very damaging, and have been able to extract many reductions in spending through blackmail. If they return, we can expect further pressure against economic recovery.

I wonder if the Fed or the Treasury could still do as you have recommended, and just decide to inject money into the economy (QE3?) Is this likely? How would this affect projections?

Given the normal business cycle that has already seen a recovery to GDP higher than 2.4%, I would think such a recovery would continue. Some see hope that manufacturing could revive here, given the increasing costs of hiring in China. The green industrial revolution will come along later this decade as well.

Using my crystal ball, it seems to me likely that the economy will do somewhat better, enough to bring down the unemployment rate somewhat, this year and the next few years. I also doubt there will be another economic crash like 2008.

Does that mean a mild 4T? I doubt it. There is lots of frustration with our current political stalemate, and economic growth is likely to remain sluggish because of it. America will continue to face decline in many ways until the stalemate is broken. The rest of the 4T is likely to be driven primarily by frustration over the stalemate. It is possible that another economic crisis could occur, but given the level of frustration and inaction, it might not have to be so severe to mobilize the people to action to break through the stalemate, once the 2020s come along. This is likely to require drastic action, not the election of a much hoped-for moderate.

We are entering a decade much like the 1850s. There will be economic problems, but the main problem will be political, and the main solution will involve changing the constitution and/or the boundaries of the country.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Yes they are. And more to the point, Navy reactors run on near weapons grade fuel, not the 5% enriched stuff used in commercial reactors. If anything qualifies as dangerous, it's a naval reactor, yet they have a great safety record.

OK then, if they are comparable, why aren't people hooking up power lines to Navy ships?

I thought you said they were safe? If they are dangerous, but have a great safety record, then it's only a matter of time before a bad accident happens.

South Carolina ahead of Georgia? How do you like them apples!

http://www.green-planet-solar-energy...-charging.html

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

They keep telling us nuclear is safe,

Who's talking about they? I look at the record for myself.

Badger did raise a valid concern in another thread though: the current anti-regulation political trend has given her pause about what should otherwise be the clearly sensible way to go (I think she and I generally agree on nuclear power in general, for the same practical concerns). But properly done (meaning in part, changing that trend, part of the work of the 4T), nuclear power is the best chance in the mid-term for reducing carbon and other greenhouse emissions while keeping up with at least somewhat-close-to-current energy demands (including those for industry, not just single homes). And sooner than 2050 (hence a "mid-term bridge"--solar may become dominant long-term). I would like us to be off of fossil juice long before then, as I'm sure would you.

and I don't believe them. Nor should anyone. This is roulette; gambling with leaving wastelands for generations. And not necessary. Why is nuclear power such a shibboleth among people here on this forum?

Again, look at deaths per kwh. Solar and wind are also fairly low, but nuclear's actually lowest. And one thing's for certain--fossil fuels are much, much worse in that department.

And you're not even from Georgia, are you Alioth? no, a nice blue state. So what's your excuse?

I have some familial roots (father and his side) in the Appalachian South. Much of my family still lives there. My sister also does. And she's probably more left than I am, but she loves living there, and not just for the family, but the whole social environment--imagine that! And you know, I can understand why too, having lived there myself for a time, and visiting her there and meeting some of the people she knows. Most of the people she knows and loves there are probably Republican, although the issue rarely ever comes up. I admire my little sister and her attitude very much, and have learned from it and put it to my own use. Everyone has something to offer, and at the end of the day politics really ain't that big a thing compared to the other things. Really, it isn't, passionate as I can get about it here on this board.

Edit: Addressing the time-frame stated in your cited Scientific American article. I'll give it a read. From what I understand, the issue mainly is cost-efficiency--but efficiencies for solar should continue to improve. But nuclear is definitely superior to fossils, and at this point I just want us to get off the fossils as quickly as possible without crashing the economy.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, I think you're confusing me with Eric.

I have a lot of in common with Eric on philosophical notions but not too enamored of his style particularly on display here. On the other hand, I have a lot of differences with James but share and admire his generally pragmatic way of looking at things. James was helping me out with a pragmatic question about financing nukes and I was responding, as a NYer, that it would be difficult for a relatively rich part of the country to financially undertake what they've done in GA. It was not meant as some sort of regional bragging rights. Given my views about Wall Street criminals and that they do their damage within walking distance of my home, I'm not one to brag so much about the place - outside of cultural advantages, of course!

Actually I was pointing at your quote and saying, "see, Eric?" (Although I know in this case, he and I disagree on what "forward" means.)

The idea that people will willingly put up with a rate hike for a mid-term future investment in alternative energy (and nuclear is "alternative" insofar as it's definitely part of any post-fossil fuel industrialized energy economy that would be anywhere comparable to this one) is something of an unusual thing these days, as I think you were implying. Hence forward-thinking, in a way. We need to at least start thinking more in the mid-term and not just the short.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

But properly done (meaning in part, changing that trend, part of the work of the 4T), nuclear power is the best chance in the mid-term for reducing carbon and other greenhouse emissions while keeping up with at least somewhat-close-to-current energy demands (including those for industry, not just single homes).

But it takes a long time to get nucs on-line, and they are very expensive. And the waste problem is insoluable, and after Fukushima, how can you trust it? Same ol questions.... Why not just put the money into more solar plants instead of nucs? We can build as many as we decide to build. The tech is available; it's only a question of the decision to invest and move forward. We have wasted over 40 years already since the first Earth Day. Why continue to waste even more time? That's what really baffles me. People talk about conversion by 2050 or later, and yet we could have done it all by now.

Again, look at deaths per kwh. Solar and wind are also fairly low, but nuclear's actually lowest. And one thing's for certain--fossil fuels are much, much worse in that department.

But potentially much worse, plus the factor of land ruined for generations like in Japan. Was Chernobyl factored into this stat, or excluded because it was a Soviet event? Many nucs in use in the USA today are designed on the same model as Fukushima. We ought to take the warning. We may have to shut down old ones at the same rate as we build new ones. It's really not worth it. We ought to go green instead and stop making excuses and believing the nay-sayers.

And then I read we have plenty of uranium, and then in the same article it says it will last "70 years". That's not "plenty." Coal will last much longer. If we ramp up nuclear, we will run out of uranium fast.

How can you get a "death" from solar and wind?

Everyone has something to offer, and at the end of the day politics really ain't that big a thing compared to the other things. Really, it isn't, passionate as I can get about it here on this board.

It's important, but there's lots of other important (maybe more important) things in life, and in society and culture-- although right now, our politics (the GOP) is a big stumbling block, and so it's a bigger crisis than usual, even though there are always crises going on. Everyone has something to offer, yes; but the Republican Party today has nothing to offer.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Was Chernobyl factored into this stat

Yes. Article here.

How can you get a "death" from solar and wind?

The stats figured in deaths from every aspect of the industry: occupational hazard (extraction, construction, and at the plants themselves), air-pollution related deaths (not sure what the standard for correlation is there, so these would be more like an estimate), and deaths in industries along the supply chain (materials used besides the fuel itself), as well as disaster deaths to the population (like Chernobyl). Solar deaths seemed to mainly involved construction accidents, people falling off roofs, etc. And compared to coal or oil, solar is definitely in the same ballpark as nuclear and I would deem it relatively "very safe" as well.

I want us off fossil fuels long before 2050, really by whatever means we can. I think nuclear is a key part of at least a quicker transition. It is much more efficient than solar (at present tech) for the cost. Again, the key thing is, it isn't fossil fuel. If it weren't for the moratorium on nuke plants, I think we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels now. And to think, we put up with hundreds of times more deaths per KWH from them because of sensationalized 70s hysteria.

I remember those Panasonic commercials (from the late '70s?) that featured the slogan, "Just Slightly Ahead Of Our Time."

Well the alternative-energy folks are way, way ahead of our time - and if the Democrats can't see this, they're turning what should be a fairly easy re-election bid for President Obama into a toss-up.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Yes. Article here.

I couldn't tell for sure if he had included Chernobyl or not. I got the impression it would have been 0.37 pkh if he had.

Solar thermal plants were not included; only rooftop solar.

I want us off fossil fuels long before 2050, really by whatever means we can. I think nuclear is a key part of at least a quicker transition. It is much more efficient than solar (at present tech) for the cost. Again, the key thing is, it isn't fossil fuel. If it weren't for the moratorium on nuke plants, I think we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels now. And to think, we put up with hundreds of times more deaths per KWH from them because of sensationalized 70s hysteria.

And we might have had lots more 3-mile Islands, and a lot more waste to clean up, with likely nowhere to put it.

If it weren't for the in-effect moratorium on solar, and the killing of the electric car, we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels now. The cost of solar is declining so fast, you can't really say nucs are cheaper. They are certainly very expensive, and slow to be built. Considering what happened in Fukushima, the 70s don't look so hysterical. I really don't get why people here are ignoring Fukushima. Miles and miles of land, ancestral and sacred land, made uninhabitable forever. Is that what we want? A little hysteria is in order here.

Again, we have more natural gas, and we have already-up and running other sources, to use for our transition, if we make our transition quicker instead of wasting time and money going nuclear.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

OK then, if they are comparable, why aren't people hooking up power lines to Navy ships?

I thought you said they were safe? If they are dangerous, but have a great safety record, then it's only a matter of time before a bad accident happens.

Now, that was a really stupid question, Eric. The one about why we're not hooking up our homes to Navy ships or their reactors. Now, if you asked whether or not military or naval land-based facilities are doing so, and if so, why not, you'd have a much better question. Anyone know the answer?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Now, that was a really stupid question, Eric. The one about why we're not hooking up our homes to Navy ships or their reactors. Now, if you asked whether or not military or naval land-based facilities are doing so, and if so, why not, you'd have a much better question. Anyone know the answer?

I notice from time to time Eric's waving of "the grid" as if transmission lines were a breed of oddly-shaped magic elves that make electricity disappear in one place and reappear somewhere else.

Wires are expensive, need maintaining (also not cheap), and capacity-limited.

In the case of why naval bases aren't hooking up to shipboard-type reactors, it's at least partly because the Rickover-types top out at ~150MWe (if I recall correctly). A standard land-based nuke power plant build at 500+MWe (though I think the current generation is on the scale of 1200+MWe).

Originally Posted by playwrite

Whoa, $14 billion! That would be tough financing/insuring even for NYC. Given today's financial risk aversion, I would think this is impossible.

Oh, and that pre-paying and taking the risk of failure, if that were presented to NYers, there would be a riot. How did they ever get that through? Wow.

By the way, I can't pin this down to a precise number but I remember when I looked into it once that something like 2/5 of the NRC regulatory review is about financial viability.

I'm still wondering if M&L's modular approach lowers the costs considerably, and now, if that was something GA Power is trying.

I know that going modular for water treatment (i.e. membrane filtration) has greatly lowered the cost and brought the highest technology available to even small water systems serving just a few hundred people.

Its really pretty simple if you are the one paying.

Cost per Megawatt-hr:

1. Advanced Coal - $109 with 85% capacity factor
2. Advanced Nuclear - $113 with 90% capacity factor
3. Solar thermal - $312 with 18% capacity factor
4. Solar PV - $210 with 25% capacity factor
5. Combined cycle Nat Gas - $103 with 30% capacity factor

The capacity factor is the killer as it means that you either have to add expensive storage or build units to backup the times when the power is not available. I don't believe Ga Power will ever build a new coal plant again for obvious reasons. There are new Nat gas plants being built because of their ability to quickly come on line when peaking occurs.

The reason the new nuclear plant had political support is that we can add and subtract. My take is that by being the first in line, GA Power has probably given the state of Georgia a significant boost up in economic development.

James50

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Again I don't understand you. Obama talks about getting energy from all sources. That is identical to what you have been saying. I think it is incorrect. But it is better than the Republicans, whose only goal is to block any effort to move green so their clientele of big dirty companies keep their money, and to block anything Obama proposes so that he fails and loses the election.

Of course the Democrats are not blameless, but that's when they compromise too much with the corrupt system, and/or give in too much to the Republican and corporate bullies.

Again, the facts are that costs are coming down for solar and rising for oil and coal.

Democrats are every bit as corrupt and corrupted as their GOP colleagues. Money is the problem, and we're not fixing that by firing one corrupt crew and installing another. As long as money runs the show, the show will favor money.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, I think you're confusing me with Eric.

I have a lot of in common with Eric on philosophical notions but not too enamored of his style particularly on display here. On the other hand, I have a lot of differences with James but share and admire his generally pragmatic way of looking at things. James was helping me out with a pragmatic question about financing nukes and I was responding, as a NYer, that it would be difficult for a relatively rich part of the country to financially undertake what they've done in GA. It was not meant as some sort of regional bragging rights. Given my views about Wall Street criminals and that they do their damage within walking distance of my home, I'm not one to brag so much about the place - outside of cultural advantages, of course!

H-m-m-m. I mentally had you in Tribeca. Close?

Originally Posted by radind

I don't see a robust plan from Obama. In my opinion, a push for modern nuclear plants could provide large amounts of power while the technology for solar develops. While all energy sources should be developed , I don't see the anything but nuclear and solar replacing the level of power provided from oil, coal, & natural gas .

The Great Plains are perfect for massive wind farms. Farming would hardly be affected, and we could dump the crop support programs entirely.

Originally Posted by James50

Its really pretty simple if you are the one paying.

Cost per Megawatt-hr:

1. Advanced Coal - $109 with 85% capacity factor
2. Advanced Nuclear - $113 with 90% capacity factor
3. Solar thermal - $312 with 18% capacity factor
4. Solar PV - $210 with 25% capacity factor
5. Combined cycle Nat Gas - $103 with 30% capacity factor

The capacity factor is the killer as it means that you either have to add expensive storage or build units to backup the times when the power is not available. I don't believe Ga Power will ever build a new coal plant again for obvious reasons. There are new Nat gas plants being built because of their ability to quickly come on line when peaking occurs.

The reason the new nuclear plant had political support is that we can add and subtract. My take is that by being the first in line, GA Power has probably given the state of Georgia a significant boost up in economic development.

James50

Thanks for the cost numbers. Here is another article that covers projected power generation costs.

Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2011

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ele...generation.cfm

..."This paper presents average national levelized costs for generating technologies that are brought on line in 20161 as represented in the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) as configured for the Annual Energy Outlook 2011 (AEO2011) reference case."...