re: Wijnand Schouten and renewables. You express faith that these technologies will pay for themselves in the long run and that the cost of oil will keep going up, neither of which is likely. But few burn oil for electricity, so it isn’t even oil that wind farms are replacing. Because when the wind does not blow and at night when there is no solar energy and because there is no mass storage available (in spite of what you say, the power companies can not store electricity and pumped water storage is a rare thing and takes lots of land) the building of wind and solar does NOT allow you to close any power plants. They must all remain for when the “renewables” don’t deliver. This fixed cost raises the price for renewables because you must build both wind farms and a coal or nuclear plant, not just one of them. If renewables cost 6 times as much without the subsidies (and subsidies mean someone is paying via taxes) you aren’t saving anything vs importing coal (not oil). You are just switching a cost you can see for one that is hidden. An additional cost for both wind and solar is that they take up lots of land and must have transmission lines built out to them, which is expensive and again takes up land. It is also becoming apparent that the lifetime for both solar and wind installations is much shorter than the claimed, which again raises the costs. Why might a windmill work for a farmer? Because getting water pumped into basins or tanks only when the wind blows is ok, but you don’t see farmers with a chicken coop running the coop on wind or solar because they need electricity 24/7. I recently read that fire departments won’t send firemen onto the roof if it has solar because the firemen can get electrocuted. The house may then burn down. Swell. And did I mention how having too much wind power disrupts the power grid? This can cause blackouts. Not something I want.
beng
September 23, 2013 8:17 am
***
Roger Sowell says:
September 22, 2013 at 2:25 pm Energy density is meaningless.
***
Hilarious. You were joking, right?
Wijnand Schouten says:
September 23, 2013 at 5:06 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You’ve conflated a large number of issues. For starters, a regulatory requirement to acquire a given % of electricity on the part of the power utility from “green” sources artificially raises the price. It is a different way of accomplishing the same thing and the end result is you are paying 23 c/kwh for something that should be costing you 10 c/kwh. Now run your ROI calculation and suddenly your 1.75 years is 4 years. Actually longer because your panels will lose efficiency every year and may not make it to 4 years in the first place. Second, your car’s cost is subsidized. The auto manufacturer earns carbon credits for producing an electric car which they then sell to other auto manufacturers. Without this your car would cost more, a LOT more, and you have to add that amount of money into your ROI calculation as well. Rough guess you are up to 7+ years return on your solar panels except you’ll never achieve it because they won’t last that long. Third, while your electric car may be fine for short commuter trips, it is useless for longer trips, and for larger vehicles. Electric just isn’t a substitute that is practical for trucking, rail, or heavy industry, and that is where the vast bulk of imported oil is going.
Lastly, you have this fantasy that keeping the money local is somehow good for the economy. This is muddled thinking that is based on multiple fallacies. For starters, the middle east countries import everything from food to computers to heavy machinery with money they earned from oil revenues. Its not like every dime that goes their way disappears forever into their pockets. More importantly, even if every dime disappeared forever, if we followed your advice, it would decimate your local economy. Industry burdened with 3X to 5X the energy costs of imported oil still collapses. That the money earned by wind mill operators is “local” makes no difference to energy intensive industries which will collapse regardless of their energy dollars being sent off shore or on shore. Their energy costs force them to close shop or outsource their activities to off shore firms. Those middle east countries you are trying to cut out of the pitcure will gladly sell their oil to China instead, or host the factories themselves so that they get both the oil revenue and the manufacturing jobs.
Subsidies, feed in tariffs, regulatory requirments for a given percentage of energy to be sourced from specific sources, carbon credits and trading all serve to distort the market and produce ROI calculations that look good on paper but have nothing to do with reality. The end result is that every action you take to achieve your goals in such an environment will almost always have unintended consequences worse than the problem you were trying to fix in the first place.
Wijnand Schouten
September 23, 2013 11:36 am
[quote]
Third, while your electric car may be fine for short commuter trips, it is useless for longer trips, and for larger vehicles
[/quote]
It’s useless to repeat views on certain matters. I am fine with everyones opinion. However one thing should be said. The Opel Ampera ( the EU style volt ) can drive 80 KM electric, then it switches to the range extender, using 1 liter fuel per 20 KM. ( 47 miles a gallon ). So in total the distance is 500 KM ( 310 miles ) without refill. If i need to go further, i just stop at the gas-station and pull my wallet like anyone else, so this car is far from useless.
The great advantage here is that the 80 KM ( 50 miles ) is enough to do my home / work / supermarket and other things. My average ( Gas + electric ) is 1.4 liter / 100 KM. ( 170 miles a gallon ). Second great advantage is that the fuel sucking inefficient cold engine for short distance/aka normal car is a thing of the past. The third great thing is that the Gas engine always runs at it’s optimal point , filling the battery’s or directly connected to the wheels for optimum efficiency.
For the rest, it’s just a super driving and nice and looking car. The car ain’t subsidized, i just pay less tax for owning it here.
Again … this is going back to the first reason i responded in this thread. WUWT is super and great for those people who actually have brains and think about climate + what’s going on in the world. It makes me sad that those people are very narrow in their views and not really open to new things in life 😉 … as soon as they hear Volt / Windturbine or Solarpanel they have their opinion ready. True … there is enough BS said from AGW people and left wing politicians , but if you look at this from above, with a cooling planet ahead and AGW people screwed.. the Opel Ampera can go back to the garage if we do not let the link AWG renewables / new technique go….. This site set’s opinions and makes a difference, also in the near future. That would be a real waste of knowledge / efforts / money and possibility’s.
Wijnand Schouten:
In your post at September 23, 2013 at 11:36 am you say
Again … this is going back to the first reason i responded in this thread. WUWT is super and great for those people who actually have brains and think about climate + what’s going on in the world. It makes me sad that those people are very narrow in their views and not really open to new things in life 😉 … as soon as they hear Volt / Windturbine or Solarpanel they have their opinion ready.
A more clear example of psychological projection is hard to imagine.
You have come here spouting nonsense which has no relationship to reality. In replies you have been provided with information, arguments and references which demonstrate your “narrow views” are nonsense. For example, did you read the link I provided in reply to your first post? It is at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
And now you say of your electric car
The car ain’t subsidized, i just pay less tax for owning it here.
Clearly, Wijnand, you don’t know what a subsidy is.
Richard
Richard Vada
September 23, 2013 12:23 pm
Indeed.
====
Wijnand Schoutem says:
September 22, 2013 at 8:02 am
“I sound silly…”
Richard_Vada
September 23, 2013 12:40 pm
Schouten you’re schouten to the wrong crowd. What YOU need is bunch of hicks who can’t read or write to preach your energy apocalypse energy religion to.
People like that are called “liberals.”
Wijnand Schouten says:
September 23, 2013 at 11:36 am
the Opel Ampera ( the EU style volt ) can drive 80 KM electric, then it switches to the range extender, using 1 liter fuel per 20 KM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, exactly as I said, the electric car is useless for longer trips, you just happen to have one that can be converted to fossil fuel on the fly. Doesn’t change the fact that electric car mode is useless for longer trips, in fact you’ve just stipulated to exactly that. As Richard has already pointed out, there’s no difference between a tax break and a subsidy. They are both price reductions ultimately funded by the tax payer.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer, richardscourtney, and any others who buy into the energy density concept:
You apparently do not understand energy nor economics. But first, energy is dense, in relation to what? Is it Btu per pound? If that is the meaning, then natural gas is more energy dense than coal. Yet, coal provided more electric power – by far – than natural gas in the US until very recently. Economics is the reason.
Natural gas was priced higher than coal for many years. But, economics-driven technology provided abundant natural gas so that now, gas is preferred over coal. Also, technology of gas turbines improved so that the plant efficiency is better with natural gas. The overall gas-power economics are much better now than 50 years ago.
If your argument is valid, and energy density is important, why and how was coal the primary energy provider for all those many decades, until very recently? Did natural gas recently increase in energy density?
Your argument is absurd.
As to wind, it is noteworthy that wind farms are located where wind speed is adequate. Pumped storage with wind-generated power as the pumping energy is more than economic. This is widely known as a form of piwer storage and time-shifting the power to a better economic period, day-time peak power.
If your argument is valid, a wind-powered pumped storage power plant shoud be impossible.
We have multiple such pumped storage plants in California.
Roger Sowell;
If your argument is valid, and energy density is important, why and how was coal the primary energy provider for all those many decades, until very recently?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Economics is a function of cost versus results not one or the other. Are you done making yourself look stupid for the day?
Robert Scott
September 23, 2013 1:42 pm
JA said at September 22, 2013 at 8:22 am
Prior to Mann’s Hockey Stick, was there any doubt whatsoever about the existence of the Medieval Warming Period?
Good question. It seems to me that the science on the subject had been settled for years. Until, of course, Dr Mann came along and said it wasn’t but when he did nobody accused him of being a denialist or sceptic. Why’s that?
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer,
You Attacked the messenger, but cannot refute the message. This is a sure sign you have lost the argument. You are indeed a loser!
Argue the facts, sir!
Was or was not coal a greater provider of electric power than was natural gas in the US, until very recently?
You have lost, again.
Roger Sowell:
davidmhoffer gave you a factual answer to your silly and ignorant question; i.e.
Economics is a function of cost versus results not one or the other.
He then offered you some helpful advice in the form of a question; i.e.
Are you done making yourself look stupid for the day?
Clearly, your answer at September 23, 2013 at 1:43 pm says, ‘No’ you wanted to make a fool of yourself again. So, I will spell out what davidmhoffer told you.
Energy density is one of the factors which affects both costs and results.
Now, have you at last done making yourself look stupid for the day?
Richard
Oh come on Roger, I did argue the facts. Coal was cheaper than natural gas by a factor large enough to more than compensate for the difference in energy density. At price parity, energy density wins. The larger the disparity in energy density, the larger the price difference must be to compensate and make the economics of the low density source viable. If you do not understand this simple concept you are certainly not qualified to make disparaging remarks about other’s understanding of economics, and you are in fact making yourself look stupid once again. I’m not attacking you, I’m trying to help you understand how you are coming across to anyone who actually thinks about it for a moment or two.
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 23, 2013 3:16 pm
From Roger Sowell on September 23, 2013 at 1:04 pm:
You apparently do not understand energy nor economics. But first, energy is dense, in relation to what? Is it Btu per pound? If that is the meaning, then natural gas is more energy dense than coal. Yet, coal provided more electric power – by far – than natural gas in the US until very recently. Economics is the reason.
…
If your argument is valid, and energy density is important, why and how was coal the primary energy provider for all those many decades, until very recently? Did natural gas recently increase in energy density?
Coal became king because it’s transportable by open cars, trucks, in sacks. You can pile it up and use it when you get around to it. No pressurized tanks, no transporting in pipelines. It will not leak into the air and make an explosion hazard, it will not leak onto the ground and be a fire hazard that pollutes the ground.
It’s just rocks, about as safe as it gets. The greatest risk is that of combustible dusts, well known, and as opposed to flour you can spray it down to take care of the dust. The other common solid fuel that’s piled up, wood and wood chips, can rot and may spontaneously combust. If your furnace doesn’t fire off, just try harder, no need to ventilate explosive fumes from the house and combustion chamber first.
That’s why coal is king, it’s safe and waits until it’s used, and provides much energy for its weight and volume.
Which brings up other economics. Steel tanks and pipelines cost money. It takes money to build and maintain a local natural gas distribution network. They also need dedicated distribution systems, a tank for compressed natural gas isn’t used for fuel oil, etc.
But for coal, the same railroad cars transporting it can go right to transporting crushed stone and other cargo. Many people take home a load of coal with their pick-up trucks. Plus the inspection requirements for coal transportation are much easier, there isn’t an imminent threat of fiery death if a few pieces of coal leak out of the containment. You don’t need testing and re-certification of a patched coal bucket.
And you can set up a coal-fired power plant virtually anywhere, in places that won’t have natural gas pipelines for many decades, if ever.
Cheap to get, cheap to transport, cheap to store, cheap to use. That’s economics. Easily transportable in quantities from small to large with no special equipment, it can go anywhere people can go, and provide reliable energy. That’s convenience. No other energy source can do what coal does. None.
And especially not windmills.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer, richardscourtney,
You lose, as you must. If your argument is valid, then nuclear power from uranium fission would be the most economic power source, given its “energy density”. The Btu content from a pound of uranium is far greater than that from a pound of oil, gas, or coal. Wind energy is not suitable to energy density measurement, unless you can go outside and weigh up a ton of wind, then measure the Btu content.
But, the Figure 7 at the link below puts the lie to your argument. Nuclear power costs are far greater than costs from natural gas, wind, and gasified coal. How can that be, since nuclear fuel is the most “energy dense”?
You should alert the Califirnia Energy Commission and inform them that you, as world-class experts in energy economics, can show that energy density proves them horribly wrong. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-017/CEC-200-2009-017-SF.PDF
Good day, losers. This has been great fun, but I have things to accomplish.
One more thing… If California Energy Commission is not to your liking, then please explain why the proposed 2,200 MWe nuclear plant expansion in South Texas was abandoned when the cost to construct was revealed to be greater than $17 Billion. Please, you two geniuses, go inform the Texans how wrong they are, because your superior knowledge of energy density puts nuclear power as the preferred power plant.
Seriously! “energy density”. I can hear the Texans laughing at you, from here.
Roger Sowell:
In your latest example of your foolishness at September 23, 2013 at 3:39 pm you say
Good day, losers. This has been great fun, but I have things to accomplish.
I assume that you are off “to accomplish” the removal of your foot from your mouth.
Richard
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 23, 2013 4:06 pm
From Roger Sowell on September 23, 2013 at 3:39 pm:
One more thing… If California Energy Commission is not to your liking, then please explain why the proposed 2,200 MWe nuclear plant expansion in South Texas was abandoned when the cost to construct was revealed to be greater than $17 Billion.
For one thing, it was never abandoned, despite your assertion:
NRC shoots down Texas nuclear plant expansion
By James Osborne
…
12:04 pm on April 30, 2013
Plans to build two new reactors at the South Texas Project nuclear facility outside Bay City hit a road block Tuesday.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruled that a partnership between NRG and Toshiba Corp. through the holding company Nuclear Innovation North America violated a U.S law prohibiting foreign control of nuclear power plants.
“At this point NINA from our perspective is foreign owned, controlled or dominated,” said NRC spokesman Scott Burnell. “Until such time as NINA can come up with a different corporate ownership structure we would not be able to approve their license.”
…
Regulators took issue with NRG’s decision two years ago to pull back its investment in expanding the existing two reactors at the South Texas Project facility. At the time electricity prices were falling rapidly with the tapping of vast domestic reserves of natural gas.
Since then the licensing process, which takes years to complete, has been wholly funded by Toshiba in the form of a loan, an NRG spokesman said.
But Houston-based NRG has not completely dismissed the project, at least in concept.
“It is unknown where natural gas prices will be in the future,” said spokesman David Knox. “At some point it’s very possible new nuclear will be economically viable.”
…
Great job there at confirming the facts before you presented your case, lawyer.
Roger Sowell;
You should alert the Califirnia Energy Commission and inform them that you, as world-class experts in energy economics, can show that energy density proves them horribly wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Neither Richard nor I said that energy density was the sole arbiter of economics. You’ve not only managed to make yourself look stupid, you’ve taken to outright obfuscation to support your stupidity. Piss off.
Jeff Crowder
September 23, 2013 5:07 pm
@climatereason
Thanks for the link. I may very well do the research and if I do, I’ll report my findings. But I’d be most satisfied if I could break my friends climate conditioning. He’s a smart guy and a good neighbor so I really don’t want to defeat him per se. But I would like him to understand why it’s important to be skeptical.
My usual advice for those less familiar with the subject of climate change (I’m well read but no expert) is to be wary of anyone trying to frighten you with Climate Change. I take more of the Freeman Dyson approach…there are many benefits to a warmer world and very little benefit to a colder one. Colder times throughout history have always been riddled with strife. So I’d like to see him become skeptical…just a little wary…and a little more aware.
He’s a smart guy and a good neighbor so I really don’t want to defeat him per se.
Smart, and beautifully put. In fact I suspect it’s impossible to change anyone’s mind this late in the debate so long as we view it as a form of combat. On the contrary, you might find that rhetorical “disarmament” is the first step (for both yourself and your friend).
Just out of anthropological curiosity, is your friend by any chance:
1. oriented leftward in his politics
2. an educated person, but without any tertiary science training? And therefore, presumably, unequipped to distinguish science from ecneics, through no fault of his own?
(Sorry if you’ve already spoken to those questions—I haven’t yet read the whole thread.)
But I would like him to understand why it’s important to be skeptical.
Please keep us posted on how it goes.
Brad
PS I don’t advocate pacifism when it comes to the ringleaders. They get no mercy from me. Only the rank and file deserve our tolerance, because they’re victims of the scam just as much as we are.
Sorry, Kadaka, wrong on your part. The financial backers had already withdrawn their support, before the date (April 30) of your citation above. It does, indeed, help to have one’s facts in order. Which you, obviously, do not.
“NRG pulls financial support for South Texas nuclear plant expansion” — April 20, 2013 http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/nrg-pulls-financial-support-for-south-texas-nuclea/nRZLD/
And another source, April 19, 2013:
“NRG Energy Inc. officially ended plans to build more nuclear power reactors in Texas.
The second-largest power generator in the state said Tuesday it will stop spending money on plans to build two more reactors at the South Texas Project, outside of Houston. The project was doomed when a financial partner, Tokyo Electric Power Co., saw its reactors in Japan explode after the earthquake. “We have concluded that, financially, this is the end of the line for us,” said NRG chief executive David Crane. And even if the project is resurrected, “it will have to be fueled by somebody else’s financial resources.” ” (bold added) http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/20110419-nrg-ends-project-to-build-new-nuclear-reactors.ece
Really, Kadaka, please try to have your facts straight.
ENSO data (and hence the WUWT ENSO meter) remains boring. Which is getting rather interesting. Oh wait a minute, last night’s update ran fine, but the data isn’t new. I’ll look into it closer tonight.
re: Wijnand Schouten and renewables. You express faith that these technologies will pay for themselves in the long run and that the cost of oil will keep going up, neither of which is likely. But few burn oil for electricity, so it isn’t even oil that wind farms are replacing. Because when the wind does not blow and at night when there is no solar energy and because there is no mass storage available (in spite of what you say, the power companies can not store electricity and pumped water storage is a rare thing and takes lots of land) the building of wind and solar does NOT allow you to close any power plants. They must all remain for when the “renewables” don’t deliver. This fixed cost raises the price for renewables because you must build both wind farms and a coal or nuclear plant, not just one of them. If renewables cost 6 times as much without the subsidies (and subsidies mean someone is paying via taxes) you aren’t saving anything vs importing coal (not oil). You are just switching a cost you can see for one that is hidden. An additional cost for both wind and solar is that they take up lots of land and must have transmission lines built out to them, which is expensive and again takes up land. It is also becoming apparent that the lifetime for both solar and wind installations is much shorter than the claimed, which again raises the costs. Why might a windmill work for a farmer? Because getting water pumped into basins or tanks only when the wind blows is ok, but you don’t see farmers with a chicken coop running the coop on wind or solar because they need electricity 24/7. I recently read that fire departments won’t send firemen onto the roof if it has solar because the firemen can get electrocuted. The house may then burn down. Swell. And did I mention how having too much wind power disrupts the power grid? This can cause blackouts. Not something I want.
***
Roger Sowell says:
September 22, 2013 at 2:25 pm
Energy density is meaningless.
***
Hilarious. You were joking, right?
Wijnand Schouten says:
September 23, 2013 at 5:06 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You’ve conflated a large number of issues. For starters, a regulatory requirement to acquire a given % of electricity on the part of the power utility from “green” sources artificially raises the price. It is a different way of accomplishing the same thing and the end result is you are paying 23 c/kwh for something that should be costing you 10 c/kwh. Now run your ROI calculation and suddenly your 1.75 years is 4 years. Actually longer because your panels will lose efficiency every year and may not make it to 4 years in the first place. Second, your car’s cost is subsidized. The auto manufacturer earns carbon credits for producing an electric car which they then sell to other auto manufacturers. Without this your car would cost more, a LOT more, and you have to add that amount of money into your ROI calculation as well. Rough guess you are up to 7+ years return on your solar panels except you’ll never achieve it because they won’t last that long. Third, while your electric car may be fine for short commuter trips, it is useless for longer trips, and for larger vehicles. Electric just isn’t a substitute that is practical for trucking, rail, or heavy industry, and that is where the vast bulk of imported oil is going.
Lastly, you have this fantasy that keeping the money local is somehow good for the economy. This is muddled thinking that is based on multiple fallacies. For starters, the middle east countries import everything from food to computers to heavy machinery with money they earned from oil revenues. Its not like every dime that goes their way disappears forever into their pockets. More importantly, even if every dime disappeared forever, if we followed your advice, it would decimate your local economy. Industry burdened with 3X to 5X the energy costs of imported oil still collapses. That the money earned by wind mill operators is “local” makes no difference to energy intensive industries which will collapse regardless of their energy dollars being sent off shore or on shore. Their energy costs force them to close shop or outsource their activities to off shore firms. Those middle east countries you are trying to cut out of the pitcure will gladly sell their oil to China instead, or host the factories themselves so that they get both the oil revenue and the manufacturing jobs.
Subsidies, feed in tariffs, regulatory requirments for a given percentage of energy to be sourced from specific sources, carbon credits and trading all serve to distort the market and produce ROI calculations that look good on paper but have nothing to do with reality. The end result is that every action you take to achieve your goals in such an environment will almost always have unintended consequences worse than the problem you were trying to fix in the first place.
[quote]
Third, while your electric car may be fine for short commuter trips, it is useless for longer trips, and for larger vehicles
[/quote]
It’s useless to repeat views on certain matters. I am fine with everyones opinion. However one thing should be said. The Opel Ampera ( the EU style volt ) can drive 80 KM electric, then it switches to the range extender, using 1 liter fuel per 20 KM. ( 47 miles a gallon ). So in total the distance is 500 KM ( 310 miles ) without refill. If i need to go further, i just stop at the gas-station and pull my wallet like anyone else, so this car is far from useless.
The great advantage here is that the 80 KM ( 50 miles ) is enough to do my home / work / supermarket and other things. My average ( Gas + electric ) is 1.4 liter / 100 KM. ( 170 miles a gallon ). Second great advantage is that the fuel sucking inefficient cold engine for short distance/aka normal car is a thing of the past. The third great thing is that the Gas engine always runs at it’s optimal point , filling the battery’s or directly connected to the wheels for optimum efficiency.
For the rest, it’s just a super driving and nice and looking car. The car ain’t subsidized, i just pay less tax for owning it here.
Again … this is going back to the first reason i responded in this thread. WUWT is super and great for those people who actually have brains and think about climate + what’s going on in the world. It makes me sad that those people are very narrow in their views and not really open to new things in life 😉 … as soon as they hear Volt / Windturbine or Solarpanel they have their opinion ready. True … there is enough BS said from AGW people and left wing politicians , but if you look at this from above, with a cooling planet ahead and AGW people screwed.. the Opel Ampera can go back to the garage if we do not let the link AWG renewables / new technique go….. This site set’s opinions and makes a difference, also in the near future. That would be a real waste of knowledge / efforts / money and possibility’s.
Wijnand Schouten:
In your post at September 23, 2013 at 11:36 am you say
A more clear example of psychological projection is hard to imagine.
You have come here spouting nonsense which has no relationship to reality. In replies you have been provided with information, arguments and references which demonstrate your “narrow views” are nonsense. For example, did you read the link I provided in reply to your first post? It is at
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
And now you say of your electric car
Clearly, Wijnand, you don’t know what a subsidy is.
Richard
Indeed.
====
Wijnand Schoutem says:
September 22, 2013 at 8:02 am
“I sound silly…”
Schouten you’re schouten to the wrong crowd. What YOU need is bunch of hicks who can’t read or write to preach your energy apocalypse energy religion to.
People like that are called “liberals.”
Wijnand Schouten says:
September 23, 2013 at 11:36 am
the Opel Ampera ( the EU style volt ) can drive 80 KM electric, then it switches to the range extender, using 1 liter fuel per 20 KM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, exactly as I said, the electric car is useless for longer trips, you just happen to have one that can be converted to fossil fuel on the fly. Doesn’t change the fact that electric car mode is useless for longer trips, in fact you’ve just stipulated to exactly that. As Richard has already pointed out, there’s no difference between a tax break and a subsidy. They are both price reductions ultimately funded by the tax payer.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer, richardscourtney, and any others who buy into the energy density concept:
You apparently do not understand energy nor economics. But first, energy is dense, in relation to what? Is it Btu per pound? If that is the meaning, then natural gas is more energy dense than coal. Yet, coal provided more electric power – by far – than natural gas in the US until very recently. Economics is the reason.
Natural gas was priced higher than coal for many years. But, economics-driven technology provided abundant natural gas so that now, gas is preferred over coal. Also, technology of gas turbines improved so that the plant efficiency is better with natural gas. The overall gas-power economics are much better now than 50 years ago.
If your argument is valid, and energy density is important, why and how was coal the primary energy provider for all those many decades, until very recently? Did natural gas recently increase in energy density?
Your argument is absurd.
As to wind, it is noteworthy that wind farms are located where wind speed is adequate. Pumped storage with wind-generated power as the pumping energy is more than economic. This is widely known as a form of piwer storage and time-shifting the power to a better economic period, day-time peak power.
If your argument is valid, a wind-powered pumped storage power plant shoud be impossible.
We have multiple such pumped storage plants in California.
Roger Sowell;
If your argument is valid, and energy density is important, why and how was coal the primary energy provider for all those many decades, until very recently?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Economics is a function of cost versus results not one or the other. Are you done making yourself look stupid for the day?
JA said at September 22, 2013 at 8:22 am
Prior to Mann’s Hockey Stick, was there any doubt whatsoever about the existence of the Medieval Warming Period?
Good question. It seems to me that the science on the subject had been settled for years. Until, of course, Dr Mann came along and said it wasn’t but when he did nobody accused him of being a denialist or sceptic. Why’s that?
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer,
You Attacked the messenger, but cannot refute the message. This is a sure sign you have lost the argument. You are indeed a loser!
Argue the facts, sir!
Was or was not coal a greater provider of electric power than was natural gas in the US, until very recently?
You have lost, again.
High energy density
vs
Low energy density.
Take your pick…
Roger Sowell:
davidmhoffer gave you a factual answer to your silly and ignorant question; i.e.
He then offered you some helpful advice in the form of a question; i.e.
Clearly, your answer at September 23, 2013 at 1:43 pm says, ‘No’ you wanted to make a fool of yourself again. So, I will spell out what davidmhoffer told you.
Energy density is one of the factors which affects both costs and results.
Now, have you at last done making yourself look stupid for the day?
Richard
Oh come on Roger, I did argue the facts. Coal was cheaper than natural gas by a factor large enough to more than compensate for the difference in energy density. At price parity, energy density wins. The larger the disparity in energy density, the larger the price difference must be to compensate and make the economics of the low density source viable. If you do not understand this simple concept you are certainly not qualified to make disparaging remarks about other’s understanding of economics, and you are in fact making yourself look stupid once again. I’m not attacking you, I’m trying to help you understand how you are coming across to anyone who actually thinks about it for a moment or two.
From Roger Sowell on September 23, 2013 at 1:04 pm:
Coal became king because it’s transportable by open cars, trucks, in sacks. You can pile it up and use it when you get around to it. No pressurized tanks, no transporting in pipelines. It will not leak into the air and make an explosion hazard, it will not leak onto the ground and be a fire hazard that pollutes the ground.
It’s just rocks, about as safe as it gets. The greatest risk is that of combustible dusts, well known, and as opposed to flour you can spray it down to take care of the dust. The other common solid fuel that’s piled up, wood and wood chips, can rot and may spontaneously combust. If your furnace doesn’t fire off, just try harder, no need to ventilate explosive fumes from the house and combustion chamber first.
That’s why coal is king, it’s safe and waits until it’s used, and provides much energy for its weight and volume.
Which brings up other economics. Steel tanks and pipelines cost money. It takes money to build and maintain a local natural gas distribution network. They also need dedicated distribution systems, a tank for compressed natural gas isn’t used for fuel oil, etc.
But for coal, the same railroad cars transporting it can go right to transporting crushed stone and other cargo. Many people take home a load of coal with their pick-up trucks. Plus the inspection requirements for coal transportation are much easier, there isn’t an imminent threat of fiery death if a few pieces of coal leak out of the containment. You don’t need testing and re-certification of a patched coal bucket.
And you can set up a coal-fired power plant virtually anywhere, in places that won’t have natural gas pipelines for many decades, if ever.
Cheap to get, cheap to transport, cheap to store, cheap to use. That’s economics. Easily transportable in quantities from small to large with no special equipment, it can go anywhere people can go, and provide reliable energy. That’s convenience. No other energy source can do what coal does. None.
And especially not windmills.
[Awed silence.]
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer, richardscourtney,
You lose, as you must. If your argument is valid, then nuclear power from uranium fission would be the most economic power source, given its “energy density”. The Btu content from a pound of uranium is far greater than that from a pound of oil, gas, or coal. Wind energy is not suitable to energy density measurement, unless you can go outside and weigh up a ton of wind, then measure the Btu content.
But, the Figure 7 at the link below puts the lie to your argument. Nuclear power costs are far greater than costs from natural gas, wind, and gasified coal. How can that be, since nuclear fuel is the most “energy dense”?
You should alert the Califirnia Energy Commission and inform them that you, as world-class experts in energy economics, can show that energy density proves them horribly wrong.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-017/CEC-200-2009-017-SF.PDF
Good day, losers. This has been great fun, but I have things to accomplish.
One more thing… If California Energy Commission is not to your liking, then please explain why the proposed 2,200 MWe nuclear plant expansion in South Texas was abandoned when the cost to construct was revealed to be greater than $17 Billion. Please, you two geniuses, go inform the Texans how wrong they are, because your superior knowledge of energy density puts nuclear power as the preferred power plant.
Seriously! “energy density”. I can hear the Texans laughing at you, from here.
Roger Sowell:
In your latest example of your foolishness at September 23, 2013 at 3:39 pm you say
I assume that you are off “to accomplish” the removal of your foot from your mouth.
Richard
From Roger Sowell on September 23, 2013 at 3:39 pm:
For one thing, it was never abandoned, despite your assertion:
Great job there at confirming the facts before you presented your case, lawyer.
Roger Sowell;
You should alert the Califirnia Energy Commission and inform them that you, as world-class experts in energy economics, can show that energy density proves them horribly wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Neither Richard nor I said that energy density was the sole arbiter of economics. You’ve not only managed to make yourself look stupid, you’ve taken to outright obfuscation to support your stupidity. Piss off.
@climatereason
Thanks for the link. I may very well do the research and if I do, I’ll report my findings. But I’d be most satisfied if I could break my friends climate conditioning. He’s a smart guy and a good neighbor so I really don’t want to defeat him per se. But I would like him to understand why it’s important to be skeptical.
My usual advice for those less familiar with the subject of climate change (I’m well read but no expert) is to be wary of anyone trying to frighten you with Climate Change. I take more of the Freeman Dyson approach…there are many benefits to a warmer world and very little benefit to a colder one. Colder times throughout history have always been riddled with strife. So I’d like to see him become skeptical…just a little wary…and a little more aware.
Jeff Crowder:
Smart, and beautifully put. In fact I suspect it’s impossible to change anyone’s mind this late in the debate so long as we view it as a form of combat. On the contrary, you might find that rhetorical “disarmament” is the first step (for both yourself and your friend).
Just out of anthropological curiosity, is your friend by any chance:
1. oriented leftward in his politics
2. an educated person, but without any tertiary science training? And therefore, presumably, unequipped to distinguish science from ecneics, through no fault of his own?
(Sorry if you’ve already spoken to those questions—I haven’t yet read the whole thread.)
Please keep us posted on how it goes.
Brad
PS I don’t advocate pacifism when it comes to the ringleaders. They get no mercy from me. Only the rank and file deserve our tolerance, because they’re victims of the scam just as much as we are.
Sorry, Kadaka, wrong on your part. The financial backers had already withdrawn their support, before the date (April 30) of your citation above. It does, indeed, help to have one’s facts in order. Which you, obviously, do not.
“NRG pulls financial support for South Texas nuclear plant expansion” — April 20, 2013
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/nrg-pulls-financial-support-for-south-texas-nuclea/nRZLD/
And another source, April 19, 2013:
“NRG Energy Inc. officially ended plans to build more nuclear power reactors in Texas.
The second-largest power generator in the state said Tuesday it will stop spending money on plans to build two more reactors at the South Texas Project, outside of Houston. The project was doomed when a financial partner, Tokyo Electric Power Co., saw its reactors in Japan explode after the earthquake.
“We have concluded that, financially, this is the end of the line for us,” said NRG chief executive David Crane. And even if the project is resurrected, “it will have to be fueled by somebody else’s financial resources.” ” (bold added)
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/20110419-nrg-ends-project-to-build-new-nuclear-reactors.ece
Really, Kadaka, please try to have your facts straight.
Ric Werme says:
September 23, 2013 at 6:09 am
Just late, my updater ran again, successfully, the meter is back to zero:
Opening http://nomad1.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=oiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&day=24&month=aug&year=2013&fday=23&fmonth=sep&fyear=2013&lat0=-5&lat1=5&lon0=-170&lon1=-120&plotsize=800×600&title=&dir=
Found target /tmp/CTEST137995560116793.txt
Opening http://nomad1.ncep.noaa.gov//tmp/CTEST137995560116793.txt
Data file
data from 00Z24AUG2013 to 00Z23SEP2013
“———-”
-0.331909
-0.00674132
0.112998
0.101078
0.0172623
Length of data file 102, most recent value: 0.0172623
file_last 0.101078
anomaly +00