Oil is dead

[UCF w00t]

Originally Posted by MrIcky

Part Deux (explained yet again): Top trading partner for oil? Canada. By a lot.

And if people don't believe you, http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html

[BigRigMike]

Originally Posted by MrIcky

Here are the absolute facts as of 2009:

Nuclear, Natural Gas, and Hydroelectric are the 3 cheapest most efficient ways to get electricity. All 3 are now starting to be considered evil. So what's left is expensive and inefficient. IMHO wind power is pollution too, it's the ruination of thousands of acres of land to power hundreds of acres of city.

I would have thought that coal would be in the top three.

[MrIcky]

Originally Posted by BigRigMike

I would have thought that coal would be in the top three.

Interesting that you mention this, because I would have thought so too. And it was in the past. But to build a new plant (which I was getting at) the technology that's required to make the plant meet all the new regulations is fearsomely expensive. There's was a lot of movement on new 'clean coal' plants but they effectively got regulated out of the planning stage.

(edit) which is making me perturbed. There is clearly a concerted effort to almost shutdown any actual cost effective source of energy in lieu of all this green technology that isn't robust enough yet. It seems the nation is conflicted, they want an electric transportation economy and smart grids but they don't want to increase electricity with the tech we have now to fill the need.

Considering how a smart grid works, it seems that they should bring up new coal/ng/nuclear now and replace the aging old coal infrastructure- then plug in green technologies as they become robust enough to make a significant dent. I have nothing against green technology per se, it's just being pushed before it's ready.

[MrIcky]

Here's the basic costs I found NOT including regulatory requirements for building new plants:

Solar (voltaic)- $6000-$10000 per KWP with a very low maintenance factor. Large footprint per watt. Variable output.

Microturbines (can burn any liquid or gas petrochem) $1000-1500 per KWP. Low maintenance (overhaul every 4th year), small footprint per watt.

Fuel Cell-$3000-4000 per KWP. Moderate maintenance. small to moderate footprint per watt.

Wind Turbine- $1500-$3000 per KWP. Moderate maintenance. Very large footprint. Placement critical. Energy output is variable so requires other/backup generation sources that are in addition to those KWP.

Internal Combustion $400-$900 per KWP. Moderate maintenance. Small footprint. Can use Gas, Diesel, Liquid Natural Gas- so it's flexible and can be plumbed to use whatever source is cheapest at the time.

Fossil Fuel/Coal $500-$1000 per KWP + additional costs for 'clean coal'. Moderate maintenance. Small footprint. (huge hurdles legally)

Nuclear has been very expensive based on the American Model however the smaller footprint models Europe has been using have been much cheaper. Westinghouse quotes a price of $1400 per KW for the first plant and $1000 for subsequent plants and it's modular. The American Model has been the big plants like you see in pics of 3 mile island. Here is the Westinghouse model http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/.

*Edit: and on hydroelectric, I couldn't find a good summary like this. However it's traditionally considered very cheap overall. They have high initial costs but no further fuel required. You can say that's the same for solar and wind, but water tends to be much more effective and more consistant.

*Edit #2, I found the direct info on Coal Cost I was looking for from the Connecticut Integrated Resource Plan:

Overnight capital cost (2008 $/kw) Electricity cost (cents/KWh)

nuclear ............................. 4038................ 8.34
supercritical coal ................ 2214............... 8.65
supercritical coal +CCS......... 4037.................. 14.19

As you can see, Coal is cheap up front, but then the ongoing cost of fuel plus Carbon Capture and Storage technologies really pushes coal through the roof.

[AJC]

Fusion Power from the Moon

http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html

[UCF w00t]

Originally Posted by AJC

Fusion Power from the Moon

http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html

Gonna be hard to do while we're busy trying to blow the moon up.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/09...f-Ice?from=rss

[AJC]

Unbelievable - blow everything up is the answer.

[Georgie]

Originally Posted by UCF w00t

Gonna be hard to do while we're busy trying to blow the moon up.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/09...f-Ice?from=rss

hilarious

[SleepWarz]

Originally Posted by MrIcky

Have you actually seen a major wind or solar power installation? This always pops out, but unless you've actually seen one you have no idea what a blight they are on the natural landscape. Acre upon acre of strut towers soaring into the sky or focusing panels and a huge phallic tower.

If by water you mean hydroelectric? Kills the salmon, dams are going away-not being put in. If by water you mean tidal? possibilities exist, expect outrage from anyone having to live near it.

If by water you mean fuel cells, it takes as much power to provide the hydrogen as you get out of the system. A fuel cell is nothing more than an open battery which produces electricity by consuming a reactant. All of the reactants take energy to produce, including Hydrogen. Although Hydrogen produces clean electricity- you have to either use electricity to get your hydrogen -OR- you use a fuel processor, which is much more efficient but it uses fossil fuels and produces Carbon Dioxide as a gas.

Here are the absolute facts as of 2009:

Nuclear, Natural Gas, and Hydroelectric are the 3 cheapest most efficient ways to get electricity. All 3 are now starting to be considered evil. So what's left is expensive and inefficient. IMHO wind power is pollution too, it's the ruination of thousands of acres of land to power hundreds of acres of city.

Saying that there is enough energy in Water, Solar, and Wind is meaningless without a plan to get it. There is enough ambient energy caused by the constant motion of molecules to power everything too, but I can't get to it so it doesn't matter. So hey, you could just let people like me do your research for you or you could do some research yourself and come back with something better than telling us we waste our money on alchohol.

A blight on the natural landscape lol. Somebody sound cheap. Like our rows of ugly houses and malls are not? I personally think wind and solar farms look cool. Much more interesting than a city filled full of annoying people. Hydro electric killing salmon... maybe with your lack of standards in the states but in canada there are very strict enviromental laws to do with habitats and introducing industry into them.

Thanks for proving that were too CHEAP to stop pumping into our atmosphere.

Not that I really care about the environment but its gonna suck for the future.

[blaSSt]

Originally Posted by SleepWarz

A blight on the natural landscape lol. Somebody sound cheap. Like our rows of ugly houses and malls are not? I personally think wind and solar farms look cool. Much more interesting than a city filled full of annoying people. Hydro electric killing salmon... maybe with your lack of standards in the states but in canada there are very strict enviromental laws to do with habitats and introducing industry into them.

Thanks for proving that were too CHEAP to stop pumping into our atmosphere.

Not that I really care about the environment but its gonna suck for the future.

They may look cool to you, but I don't like all the birds they kill: astounding facts about wind turbines and why they kill eagles