Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

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

I agree with you. Develop the wind farms and drop crop supports. We need to sharply prioritize all federal spending .

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

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.

You missed the point that 99% of non-depletables (rather than simply renewables) are incapable of providing power on demand. Hydro can, but many hydro projects are being removed for environmental reasons and no new ones are coming along. Geothermal can, but it's pretty limited by geography and, frankly, cost. Other base load options, like bio-mass and conversion crops, are trade-offs between food and fuel I doubt we can make.

None of the others can provide on-demand power. Solar is great where the sun shines. It's best in the desert, where no one lives. Wind is good, but the best locations are offshore (expensive) and in the Great Plains, where demand is very low. The sun shines in the daytime; wind blows off-and-on.

Unless I missed something, I don't see a solution here. The real solution is fusion, and it's 50 years from being a major component of the grid. That's how long a bridge we need.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

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.

Ah, I re-read your second response and finally got it.

We're in synch.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

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? [IMG]file:///C:\TEMP\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png[/IMG]

The worst nuclear disaster of all time is certainly Chernobyl. Right now, the land around the sarcophagus has become a nature preserve. No one tried to do that. It just happened. If Chernobyl didn’t create a wasteland, I don't see one in the offing.

And not to minimize the impact, even Fukishima, with all those failed reactors in close proximity, will be mitigated in the next year or two. 10 years form now, the area will recover. 20 years from now, people will be living there as they have in the past. There have already been lives lost and serous illnesses triggered by that event, and more will occur in the future. Now, compare that to he deaths and illnesses caused by coal's routine use. Neither is good, but coal is far worse.

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.

An aircraft carrier is a small town afloat, so that's been done. There are also cases where a nuclear vessel has provided shore power, so that's been done too. The real reason it isn't done is much simpler. They are war fighting vessels. When they have to go, they have to go.

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

From your Wikipedia link:

"The cost is normally stated in units of local currency per unit of electricity, for example cents-per-kilowatt-hour for small numbers, or dollars-per-megawatt-hour for larger quantities. The calculation does not include wider system costs associated with each type of plant, such as long distance connections to grids, balancing and reserve costs, and does not include externalities such as health damage by coal plants, decommissioning costs of nuclear plant."

You're against leaving big debts to future generations, right? So why do you want cheap energy if the long term cost leaves future inhabitants with the liability of cleaning up the mess and dealing with the health consequences?

Anyway, the capacity of solar cells is growing quickly, so it won't be much of an issue for long. But sooner is still better than later.

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

Those numbers are, of course, when everything is up and running, and the only risks are operational.

However -

"It's a Long Way to Tipperary" - to get the financers to bite the bullet on mega-projects that take years to complete particularly for technology a couple notches up from laying asphalt, and every imaginable govt agency overlooking each and every bolt - 3 to 7 times each.

The intriguing element of GA Power is putting the upfront (and by far, the most uncertain) financial risks completely on the rate payers. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find some NYers, probable former Lehman Brothers' employees, behind that very "innovative" approach.

For a rather balance viewpoint of solar and nuke financing viability, a good place to start is here with the links that it provides -

http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/2...wer/singlepage

The Truth About Nuclear Power
Separating economic myth from economic fact

Or simply –

"Nine times out of ten, if you follow the money you will get to the truth." – Jake Gittes

Originally Posted by Alioth68

... 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.

What created the hysteria, and that's the correct word for it, was the release of the major motion picture China Syndrome just 12 days before the Three Mile Island accident. I can't see how this could have been worse for the industry or better for the movie.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You missed the point that 99% of non-depletables (rather than simply renewables) are incapable of providing power on demand. Hydro can, but many hydro projects are being removed for environmental reasons and no new ones are coming along. Geothermal can, but it's pretty limited by geography and, frankly, cost. Other base load options, like bio-mass and conversion crops, are trade-offs between food and fuel I doubt we can make.

None of the others can provide on-demand power. Solar is great where the sun shines. It's best in the desert, where no one lives. Wind is good, but the best locations are offshore (expensive) and in the Great Plains, where demand is very low. The sun shines in the daytime; wind blows off-and-on.

Unless I missed something, I don't see a solution here. The real solution is fusion, and it's 50 years from being a major component of the grid. That's how long a bridge we need.

In general I agree with you, but expect that solar will be a major player( maybe even #1) in 50 years. Solar plus fusion should provide a solid foundation to meet our energy needs.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

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

Ah, you caught me.

Close in someways but not geographic. It's U.E.S.

yea, it's a long walk to WS, but I can take the 4/5/6 trains and be there in 10-15 minutes!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The worst nuclear disaster of all time is certainly Chernobyl. Right now, the land around the sarcophagus has become a nature preserve. No one tried to do that. It just happened. If Chernobyl didn’t create a wasteland, I don't see one in the offing.

And not to minimize the impact, even Fukishima, with all those failed reactors in close proximity, will be mitigated in the next year or two. 10 years form now, the area will recover. 20 years from now, people will be living there as they have in the past. There have already been lives lost and serous illnesses triggered by that event, and more will occur in the future. Now, compare that to he deaths and illnesses caused by coal's routine use. Neither is good, but coal is far worse.

Here are some great wildlife pics from Chernobyl -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...Chernobyl.html

- some pretty amazing wild boar ( they make our voracious American versions seem like fat tame pigs).

I'm trying to get Justin to leave his magic ponies and go with me on a hunting trip there - with just cameras,.... for now

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, you caught me.

Close in someways but not geographic. It's U.E.S.

yea, it's a long walk to WS, but I can take the 4/5/6 trains and be there in 10-15 minutes!

Nice neighborhood, but a shorter walk to the Theater District than WS.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The intriguing element of GA Power is putting the upfront (and by far, the most uncertain) financial risks completely on the rate payers.

I am not sure that "completely" is the right word to use. I am not familiar enough to know what the risk Ga Power (and the other electric coops involved) are taking themselves. I am sure the Ga Legislature was paying attention to that. Besides being able to add and subtract, the legislators I am sure would not want to be flim-flammed. No doubt they were sure to leave sufficient risk with Ga Power to keep them properly motivated while at the same time being sure the plant got built.

Of course, with a regulated monopoly like Ga Power, where they are guaranteed a return, the rate payers are always hostage to its decisions.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I am not sure that "completely" is the right word to use. I am not familiar enough to know what the risk Ga Power (and the other electric coops involved) are taking themselves. I am sure the Ga Legislature was paying attention to that. Besides being able to add and subtract, the legislators I am sure would not want to be flim-flammed. No doubt they were sure to leave sufficient risk with Ga Power to keep them properly motivated while at the same time being sure the plant got built.

Of course, with a regulated monopoly like Ga Power, where they are guaranteed a return, the rate payers are always hostage to its decisions.

James50

You may be right, but I remember similiar thoughts about those smart safe bankers back in the Summer of 2008.

I think this applies -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmg86CRBBtw

Originally Posted by Justin '77

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.

But they exist, and they already supply our needs. What we need is a smarter grid (so they say), and a change in what supplies the grid, and of course some lines to link the new power plants to this grid.

I wonder if they are any more expensive than the huge rail lines we put up for the largest conveyor belt in the world, that shuffles tons of coal from places like Wyoming to places east and south?

Originally Posted by radind

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

Solar power in India:

India's panel price crash could spark solar revolution - environment - New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...evolution.html

"SOLAR power has always had a reputation for being expensive, but not for much longer. In India, electricity from solar is now cheaper than that from diesel generators. The news - which will boost India's "Solar Mission" to install 20,000 megawatts of solar power by 2022 - could have implications for other developing nations too."...

...: Even in India, solar electricity remains twice as expensive as electricity from coal, but that may soon change. While the price drop in 2011 was exceptional, analysts agree that solar will keep getting cheaper. Suntech's in-house analysts predict that, by 2015, solar electricity will be as cheap as grid electricity in half of all countries. When that happens, expect to see solar panels wherever you go."...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

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.

Money runs the show, but the two parties have different policies. The policies and the ideologies behind them are the point, not whose money pays them. Democrats may take the money too, but they make different decisions. They are reasonable and moderate ones; the Republican policies are extreme, dogmatic, and reactionary. That's the obvious point. Bringing up the money factor, while I totally agree about it, is here used to obfuscate the point about the GOP. Money alone does not make one a believer in the religious right or in trickle-down economics. Ideology is behind that. Folks like JPT and Weave are not paid for; they are hooked. Most people who vote Republican vote against their economic interests, as Thomas Frank pointed out.

Republicans are dead set against any change in the money system, as illustrated by their supreme court appointments that gave us Citizens United, and by their bowing to Wall St. to oppose Dodd Frank. They think money is speech and that any interference with the power of money is "big government." Democrats must use the current money system, but are willing to change it. You have to have a political starting point before anything can be done about corruption. As I have pointed out countless times here, you can't change the money in politics until you change who is driving our politics. We can't even do state constitutional conventions, because the idiot GOPPERS dominate state legislatures too in the wake of the Nov.2010 mad red tide. The red tide must be rolled back, and kept at bay, or we are stuck indefinitely in reverse gear on every issue.

And yes, voting out the GOP is a starting point, not the goal. Partially corrupted is better than totally corrupted and reactionary, but not good enough.

Originally Posted by radind

Solar power in India:

India's panel price crash could spark solar revolution - environment - New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...evolution.html

Excellent radind; now I think you're on the right track

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The worst nuclear disaster of all time is certainly Chernobyl. Right now, the land around the sarcophagus has become a nature preserve. No one tried to do that. It just happened. If Chernobyl didn’t create a wasteland, I don't see one in the offing.

And not to minimize the impact, even Fukishima, with all those failed reactors in close proximity, will be mitigated in the next year or two. 10 years form now, the area will recover. 20 years from now, people will be living there as they have in the past. There have already been lives lost and serous illnesses triggered by that event, and more will occur in the future. Now, compare that to he deaths and illnesses caused by coal's routine use. Neither is good, but coal is far worse.

Maybe some bears can be allowed to live in these places, but not people. Recovery will take a lot longer than you say in both places, from what I've heard.

Let's do what is good; not choose between alternatives, "neither is good."

Just to re-cap -

Originally Posted by playwrite

... I have provided a current status and prognosis for our economy over the next couple of years

... my pre-election speculation lays out that Obama will be desperate to increase net federal deficit spending by at least $150 billion ...


Here, I like to speculate on what the Nov. 2012 election results will mean for the economy, post-election, ...

… The two primary scenarios are, of course, whether Obama or the GOP nominee gets re-elected. Both scenarios assume that neither party will capture the necessary super-majority in the Senate and, therefore, the gridlock situation we have today will continue. Whoever captures the House is essentially irrelevant other than for entertainment value.

The two primary scenarios can each be further sub-divided ...

I've done some further thinking, but still remain not ready to put it entirely pen to paper. However, I've decided to further simplify the possible scenarios - reduce them to just two, but in a somewhat alarming manner.


If you recall, I suggested not much real difference between which GOP candidate is the nominee. Even if 'moderate' Romney gets the nomination, he will be driven to the Right but to the very same point that a deadlocked (see Senate filibuster) would clip the wings of any of the GOP candidates. I did come up with two sub-options for a return of Obama - (a) the more-of-the-same, too-quick-to-compromise Obama or (b) a new take-no-prisoner Obama attacking the likely do-nothing Congress.

I've decided for brevity, but also likely reality, to combine the first Obama (i.e. more-of-the-same) with the GOP option. I had been considering this earlier but felt in some way that it was preposterous. However, in the end, when looking at actual outcomes regarding the consequences to the economy, there really wasn't any discernable difference outside of how I would be shouting at the TV during cable news presentations of our worsening conditions and what the feds were (not) doing about it. I was holding onto the quaint notion that there actually may be a discernable difference in our politicians as they are today.

What triggered my coming to this final realization were two recent Krugman posts -


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...rse-than-club/

The Worse-than Club

- which presses his point that the economic contraction in Britain and other Euro-land has now surpass that of the Great Depression.

and this one -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...rity-memories/

Austerity Memories

A further thought on the observation that Britain’s slump has now gone on longer than the slump in the 1930s: it’s worth remembering the rapturous reception the Cameron austerity program received here, not just from the right, but from centrists. Here’s David Broder:

Cameron and his partners in the coalition have pushed ahead boldly, brushing aside the warnings of economists that the sudden, severe medicine could cut short Britain’s economic recovery and throw the nation back into recession.

Heh heh, silly economists. Broder went on to urge Obama, after his salutary midterm defeat, to “do a Cameron” and agree to sharp cuts in the welfare state.

It’s kind of remarkable how none of the Very Serious People even considered the possibility that people like me might be, well, right.

It is quite clear that the Obama that we have mostly seen over the last 3 years really has no clue about the role of federal deficit spending in maintaining our economy in the deleveraging environment that has befallen us. He is just as wedded to moronic memes of deficit/debt reduction as the most idiotic Austrian School flake like Paul Ryan. Things will have to get really, really bad before Obama as well as the rest of our society is shaken out of its ignorance slumber, and along the way, I have little doubt that the European austerity model (no matter how much in fails in that laboratory) will be fully adopted here as the flawed panacea before people belatedly wake up.

So, you don't yet get my full thoughts on the two scenarios to come, but, as I said, this simplification is pretty alarming.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=18007

Bank of England money supply data paints a grim picture
Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2012 by bill

Just as the recent monetary data from the Eurozone has revealed the parlous state of demand there, the money supply data released by the Bank of England yesterday revealed a collapsing borrowing by households and firms in Britain scale not previously seen. It is clear that the December data shows that households are deleveraging (paying credit cards down) and business firms are now in full retreat similar to the worst of the recent downturn in 2009. The evidence for that conclusion is to be found in the fact that the Bank of England’s broad money supply measure contracted by 1.4 per cent in December, which the Bank noted was the largest single month contraction on record (shared with December 2010). Just like the latest ECB monetary aggregates are showing what the real situation is like in the Eurozone, the Bank of England’s data is painting a very grim picture of life in Britain as the draconian fiscal austerity drives that economy into the ground. The data also provides a continued rejection of mainstream macroeconomic theory, which is an interesting aspect in its own right.

The Bank of England data also shows that consumer credit (everything except housing mortgages) fell by £377 million in December 2011 (to a level of £207 billion) which is the largest monthly decrease since the data was first compiled in 1993.

The other point to note is that it is the first time on record that households have actually paid off debts in a December month. The Christmas spending surge typically sees the opposite.

Further, business firms also reduced their borrowing in December 2011.

The consistent trend is now for less private spending growth, which is exactly the opposite to what the British government, under the influence of mainstream macroeconomic thinking, claimed would happen.

The British people were told that if the government cut its deficit then their tax burdens would be lower and that they would be able to spend more freely as a consequence.

All this is the Ricardian equivalence nonsense. Please read my blog – The impossible equation – for more discussion on this point in relation to the UK.

The reality is that households will not expand spending while unemployment is high and rising and business firms will not increase investment while the outlook is so bleak and they can meet all the current demand for goods and services with the existing capital stock.

It was just blind ideology that suggested it would be a private sector led spending surge to replace the contraction in demand as a result of [what] the fiscal austerities stop[ped]...

[Note - Bill is an Australian; they have some issues as well with the English language sometimes. ]

It's decisions and policies like this that illustrate what I mean about the Repubs:


quote:

Obama took veiled aim at the Republican front-runner on a potent issue for voters in Nevada. In October, when asked what should be done about the housing crisis, Romney told the Las Vegas Review-Journal: "Don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom."

The president, not mentioning Romney's name, told an audience in Falls Church, Va.: "It is wrong for anybody to suggest that the only option for struggling, responsible homeowners is to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom. I refuse to accept that, and so do the American people."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2242057.story

Boehner said the same thing yesterday. Trickle-down economics ideology prevents them from doing anything to require banks to clean up the mess they caused and help the people. We must let things take their course. Don't interfere with the free market. This is ALL the Republicans offer, and they don't offer it just because someone pays them money to offer it. They offer it because they are hooked on Reagan ideology and think it works to their political advantage.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm trying to get Justin to leave his magic ponies and go with me on a hunting trip there - with just cameras,.... for now

Prior to things going tits-up in late 2008, that kind of a trip was exactly what we had planned on doing with my dad on his next visit. For now, we're on delay. But I very much want to wander Pripyat when I get the chance. I know it's a purely-scientific zone and they strictly forbid tourists, but getting into places you're not allowed is one of the basic skillsets out that part of the world. So that won't be a problem.

“This president has been on the attack and has been a job killer,” GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney

“Either the president’s economic policies are killing this economy, or his lack of leadership,” Rick Santorum said in September. “Either way, President Obama is to blame.”

Republican lie all the time about everything.

Hey, and maybe I was being to rough on Obama in the previous post.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Excellent radind; now I think you're on the right track

Thanks. I have been in favor of solar power development for some time. This was posted earlier-just curious if you saw this one:
Power paradox: Clean might not be green forever - environment - 30 January 2012 - New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328491.700-power-paradox-clean-might-not-be-green-
forever.html?page=1

I am also a proponent of a strong military for national defense and want the USA to be independent from foreign governments to meet our energy needs. Therfore, I would like to include a near term push to develop available oil, coal & natural gas energy sources until we can get suffient nuclear and solar power sources on line.
At least we seem to agree on one thing-- the development of solar power.