Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 521
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:09 pm

I saw a slide like this showing a couple trans-oceanic trips plus 3-4 cross country truck trips from farming fiber to the final sale of a pair of jeans which stated 6 tons.
.
food takes 12 calories to put 1 calorie on your plate. Mostly crude oil used one way or another. How much to send apples from New Zealand to NY in refrigerated containers.
.
.
http://i.vimeocdn.com/video/587280640_1280x720.jpg
.
.
Image
.
.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 575
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:24 pm

sendler2112 wrote:Bid prices do not tell the whole story of included rebates and subsidies.
Very true. Which is why I included several countries in that list. (Including Saudi Arabia, which does not subsidize utility purchases of solar.)
And do not mean that the construction of the facility will not go ever budget leaving investors or governments holding the bag for the loss.
Also true - and that's true of all forms of power. Right down the beach from me there's a nuclear power plant that went $4 billion over budget before it produced its first kilowatt. Then its heat exchanger failed - and now it's going to cost another $4.4 billion to decommission it. In South Carolina, two reactors were just abandoned after spending $9 billion on them.

Compared to those sorts of expenses, having a $200 million solar project go $50 million over budget seems like less of a big deal.
--bill von

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 521
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:43 pm

So what do you say about EIA.org stating $2.50 per Watt for solar in November, 2016?

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4233
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 8:16 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:54 pm

sendler2112 wrote:I saw a slide like this showing a couple trans-oceanic trips plus 3-4 cross country truck trips from farming fiber to the final sale of a pair of jeans which stated 6 tons.
More quick googling: A an average large container ship emits 150gm CO2 per 20ft shipping container per nautical mile sailed: http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-i ... -emissions

It's 10,000km / 5400nm from Tianjin, China to Long Beach, Ca, 5400 x 0.15 = 810kg of CO2 to transport hundreds of pairs of jeans halfway around the world.

Are you sure it wasn't 6tons of *water* used in the manufacture of a pair of jeans? The Levi's example is 3,781 for the entire life-cycle (including domestic washing).

The first link above gives two interesting examples:
The wine industry recently examined this issue and found that a bottle of French wine served in a New York restaurant will have a lower carbon transportation footprint than a bottle of California wine served in that restaurant.
and
the entire container voyage from China to Europe is equaled in CO2 emissions by about 200 kilometers of long-haul trucking in Europe.
It turns out large container ships are the most efficient method of transporting goods and long supply chains are not necessarily less efficient than more local producing. I have read previously that flying fresh fruit into the UK from warmer countries uses less energy than growing them locally in heated greenhouses.

User avatar
wineboyrider
100 MW
100 MW
Posts: 2923
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:08 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by wineboyrider » Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:52 pm

Punx0r wrote:
sendler2112 wrote:I saw a slide like this showing a couple trans-oceanic trips plus 3-4 cross country truck trips from farming fiber to the final sale of a pair of jeans which stated 6 tons.
More quick googling: A an average large container ship emits 150gm CO2 per 20ft shipping container per nautical mile sailed: http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-i ... -emissions

It's 10,000km / 5400nm from Tianjin, China to Long Beach, Ca, 5400 x 0.15 = 810kg of CO2 to transport hundreds of pairs of jeans halfway around the world.

Are you sure it wasn't 6tons of *water* used in the manufacture of a pair of jeans? The Levi's example is 3,781 for the entire life-cycle (including domestic washing).

The first link above gives two interesting examples:
The wine industry recently examined this issue and found that a bottle of French wine served in a New York restaurant will have a lower carbon transportation footprint than a bottle of California wine served in that restaurant.
and
the entire container voyage from China to Europe is equaled in CO2 emissions by about 200 kilometers of long-haul trucking in Europe.
It turns out large container ships are the most efficient method of transporting goods and long supply chains are not necessarily less efficient than more local producing. I have read previously that flying fresh fruit into the UK from warmer countries uses less energy than growing them locally in heated greenhouses.
Most of the French wine we get here in NM sucks balls! I will never give up my low water usage crop and drink that crap....ever! Locally produced crops is where it's at.
ES IS SAVED! THANK YOU JUSTIN.

User avatar
TheBeastie
1 MW
1 MW
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:31 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:17 pm

They have been decommissioning the SA coal-power stations for a while now but they just blew up the Northern Power Station in Port Augusta.
This time it was power-station boilers blown up and videoed it for your entertainment!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 6ddab14639
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 51a0d90c0f

I guess I now know kind of what these people feel in a kind of pseudo sense https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmLfCHF3skk

I could have sworn someone posted about the dodgy carbon tax rorting in Australia and money going offshore but its totally disappeared. Anyway thats one of the reasons I am so critical of wind and solar is that its just opens the door to rorting, taxpayers being robbed with dodgey projects and schemes for something that is quite literally impossible for them to make a difference in the global scheme of it all.
http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am ... ed/9132748

As the Australian government has been historically such an easy target for stealing money normally with minimal repercussions if you get caught. The Australian government even once allowed a terrorist funding group to rort $27 million of taxpayer money with a fake childcare set up. The money was sent overseas and will never come back.
The network has claimed nearly $27 million in government subsidies since 2012 and employs nearly 600 home providers of family day care.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-15/m ... ck/7736054
sendler2112 wrote:You guys are going to love this presentation. Ozzie Zehner: "Green Illusions" | Talks at Google
.
https://youtu.be/v6uVnyjTb58
Looks very interesting, will check it out.
While most on here seem to never look at the links provided and read the absolute bare minimum of someone else's post just so they can attack it I tend to look at most stuff on here, at least what you post anyways.
Some on here seem to work in the same fashion as someone whos just about politics than anything else.
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles range http://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Beware of dodgy 18650 cells! youtu.be/eOshOXcSkDA
Consider PAS as your only throttle http://goo.gl/m17J9j
CO2 is core to Photosynthesis https://youtu.be/ca83RXuSjXw
Check out the Bill Gates nuclear reactor https://goo.gl/Rtky9q
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 521
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:48 am

There really is a blind faith mechanism at play here in which all contrary thinking must be wiped away as dangerous to the magic spell which will drag their dream into existence through wishful thinking.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8296
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:28 am

Hanssing wrote:
Hillhater wrote:Denmark and Germany also have significantly higher power prices than other countries.
They also depend on their international grid links for stability and security.
For DK: No!
Grid-prices are low!
Look at the graph on page 3, you fact resistant old man :roll:

We have highest home-prices, low buissness end-prices (as the dont pay the electric taxes, and only pay PSO), and very low and stable distribution-cost (In DK). FTFA:..
Yes... Industry is subsidised by the public taxes. That doesnt mean the power is cheap !
Grid prices are NOT the full cost of the power, the taxes and rebates are all part of that also.
And i repeat, without the international grid links, the DK grid would have major problems maintaining stability.
You seem to be the one refusing to accept what is universally known..DK and Germany have by far the the highest power prices. Why does that upset you ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8296
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:18 am

billvon wrote:
Really, ? being fully honest with all costs, including cost of finance, installation , 24hr supply, etc.....not a DIY set up.
..... The system as a whole is saving us at least $2K a year. To install it new, today, would cost about $27K, for a ~15 year payback.
A 15 year payback is not a saving at all.
What would $27k invested sensibly , be worth in 15 yrs ?..$40+k ?
And most people do not stay in the same property for 15 yrs to recover even part of that cash investment.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8296
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:26 am

billvon wrote:
For some reason CA is building out far more natural gas plants than they need. They are on track to have 20% more capacity than they need by 2020 - and only now are regulators starting to put the brakes on the buildout. The very low prices for natural gas have created an "irrational exuberance" for natural gas plants, and they are building (and paying for) a lot of unneeded capacity as a result.
..
Currently, CA is hugely under resourced in power generation, having to import 20+% of its needs.
Again ...these are "bid" prices, with no relavence to the actual final retail cost of power supply !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4233
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 8:16 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:58 am

So rather than look at the wholesale cost directly from the source, you want the inefficiencies, mark-ups and taxes between source and consumer included? How does including local effects on price help make a global comparison of different means of generating electricity?
Hillhater wrote: A 15 year payback is not a saving at all.
What would $27k invested sensibly , be worth in 15 yrs ?..$40+k ?
And most people do not stay in the same property for 15 yrs to recover even part of that cash investment.
1) Yes it is, both on a domestic scale and certainly on a commercial or utility scale
2) Reduce the merit of the investment idea by accounting for inflation i.e. consider the value of $40k in 2030 dollars, not 2017 dollars. By contrast, the savings from home RE will increase over time.
3) Even if they don't, it potentially increases the value of their home when selling it
Hillhater wrote: Yes... Industry is subsidised by the public taxes. That doesnt mean the power is cheap !
Do you actually know this or are you speculating? Even if there was a subsidy to industrial consumers that doesn't mean that money is being given to RE generators.
Hillhater wrote:Grid prices are NOT the full cost of the power, the taxes and rebates are all part of that also.
Your issue is that when solar or wind grid prices look cheap compared to fossil fuels so you complain the price doesn't include RE subsidies (if they actually exist). The problem with that argument is the fossil and nuclear prices sat alongside the RE prices are also benefiting from subsidies! Either accept all the prices at face value or dismiss them all and accept a meaningful comparison cannot be made because they are all unreliable.

Hanssing
10 mW
10 mW
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 6:57 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hanssing » Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:47 am

Hillhater wrote:
Hanssing wrote:
Hillhater wrote:Denmark and Germany also have significantly higher power prices than other countries.
They also depend on their international grid links for stability and security.
For DK: No!
Grid-prices are low!
Look at the graph on page 3, you fact resistant old man :roll:

We have highest home-prices, low buissness end-prices (as the dont pay the electric taxes, and only pay PSO), and very low and stable distribution-cost (In DK). FTFA:..
Yes... Industry is subsidised by the public taxes. That doesnt mean the power is cheap
Yes - the power is dirt cheap.... As in teh spot-price.
Our average sport-price is very low because the consumers pay the PSO, and the grid is cheap.
Grid prices are NOT the full cost of the power, the taxes and rebates are all part of that also.
But we we're talking about grid prices and stability, and out grid is rockstable and cheap. Conveniently you try to misdirect.
And i repeat, without the international grid links, the DK grid would have major problems maintaining stability.
Thats you *oppinion* but it not rooted anywhere in fact!
We would need gas-peakplants yes - instead choose to use out big hydro-battery to the north instead.
You seem to be the one refusing to accept what is universally known..DK and Germany have by far the the highest power prices.
Aheem, I think I wrote that we have high end-usecost... Please try to write what others actually put up, instead of just assuming something.
I completely accept that we have the higest end-user home-prices of electricity. But only because TAX'es unrelated to RE are added. We are also teh most heavily taxed people in the world - not a record I like or is proud of.

But if you remove normal-taxes from the equation and clean the numbers we do not have the higest cost - and these are the numbers we should be looking at, when we discuss RE.
Our energy-cost are very low, and our grid is very stable, and cheap as documented. Less so when you add PSO (the cost of RE) but still very cheap.
As a Dane I accept this, because on a National scale its good buisness for us - we are producers of windmills you see :D
We are producing a lot of kWh using our own workforce, that we would need to buy coal for instead, and we do not have any coal. So its simply good buisness now, on national level.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 575
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:46 am

Hillhater wrote:Again ...these are "bid" prices, with no relavence to the actual final retail cost of power supply !
Interesting claim. Do you think that the purchase price of an apple has no relevance to the actual final retail cost of the apple?
--bill von

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4233
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 8:16 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:08 pm

Hanssing wrote:I completely accept that we have the higest end-user home-prices of electricity. But only because TAX'es unrelated to RE are added. We are also teh most heavily taxed people in the world - not a record I like or is proud of.
True, but Denmark does have a comprehensive social security system, one of the highest per-capita GDPs in the world and is also ranked as one of the happiest places to live: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

Investing in growth industries like wind turbines is also sensible, rather than declining, increasingly obsolete ones like coal mining.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8296
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:39 pm

billvon wrote:
Hillhater wrote:Again ...these are "bid" prices, with no relavence to the actual final retail cost of power supply !
Interesting claim. Do you think that the purchase price of an apple has no relevance to the actual final retail cost of the apple?
It costs nothing to produce an apple,..nature does that for us.
What the farmer sells it for..( purchace price. ? .)... is dictated by the market forces..(supply vs demand etc)
Then there is transportation, storage , handling, packing , costs etc to add before the wholesale price is approached...
......then again the market steps in and dictates what you pay for it retail.
So no...the retail price of an apple is not related to the price the farmer gets paid for it.....ask any farmer !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 575
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:34 pm

Hillhater wrote: So no...the retail price of an apple is not related to the price the farmer gets paid for it.....ask any farmer !
OK then; so in your world, an intermediate price is unrelated to the final price.

In that case, it doesn't matter what solar or storage costs; just pass a law to make power cheap, and another law to mandate that solar plus storage replace fossil fuels. Problem solved, and our dependence on scarce and dirty fossil fuels is ended.
--bill von

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 521
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:03 pm

Wealth inequality. Easy 6 minute watch.
.
https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM
.

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4233
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 8:16 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:33 am

Hillhater wrote:It costs nothing to produce an apple,..nature does that for us
So in your world apples are free at the orchard gates?

For one thing, edible apples are not grown from seed but from graftings. Nature doesn't do this, someone is paid to.

Then there is the cost of planting the trees, watering them, eliminating pests, pruning and thinning, fertilising, providing pollinisers and harvesting.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 521
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:22 am

The bicycle can be considered the greatest invention. Hour long presentation about population but a good watch. Starting at 33:00 shows the importance of a bicycle. Ebikes in areas with electricity amplify the effectiveness and bring it very close to the utility of a motorbike.
.
https://vimeo.com/79878808#t=1980s
.

User avatar
Dauntless
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 1:49 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Dauntless » Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:41 pm

sendler2112 wrote:There really is a blind faith mechanism at play here in which all contrary thinking must be wiped away as dangerous to the magic spell which will drag their dream into existence through wishful thinking.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Th ... &q&f=false

Image
Any sufficiently advanced technology is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC!
- Arthur C. Clarke

User avatar
TheBeastie
1 MW
1 MW
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:31 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:01 am

sendler2112 wrote:There really is a blind faith mechanism at play here in which all contrary thinking must be wiped away as dangerous to the magic spell which will drag their dream into existence through wishful thinking.
Yeah.
I thought I would break down this guys speech and bookmark it at some of its more interesting points.

Toxic stuff that goes into Solarpanels and how its going to require a lot of effort and energy to dispose of old solar panels when the day comes.
https://youtu.be/v6uVnyjTb58?t=8m45s

Problems with a solar farm environment dust on panels etc, solar panels degrade at around 1% per year. Frequent replacement of large inverters during a solar panel array lifetime.
https://youtu.be/v6uVnyjTb58?t=10m25s

Solar power lifetime comparison of energy produced vs its total greenhouse gases saved and (emitted from solar panel production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_ ... nhouse_gas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_he ... nhouse_gas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluor ... al_effects
) vs spending the same amount of money elsewhere on lowering greenhouse gases (like planting trees).
https://youtu.be/v6uVnyjTb58?t=12m13s
The fact with this is why can't we now point the finger at solar panel manufacture everytime see a global warming temperature increase claim/chart than co2? Especially considering the fact that increase co2 ppm levels past a certain point doesn't increase its greenhouse effect anymore due to the fact co2 only absorbs a certain spectrum of the suns energy. Its like sticking your arm in a bucket of water after a while the bucket can't get any warmer.

Talks about the madness of chopping down trees to erect solar panel array. None of these solar projects of replacing trees with solar panels will offset the co2 debt instead it just makes it worse.
https://youtu.be/v6uVnyjTb58?t=14m43s

People aren't logical, a client wanted to chop down his trees to put in solar panels when the speaker tried to tell him its fact that he's not helping the world if he wants to remove trees for solar panels the client then fired him.
https://youtu.be/v6uVnyjTb58?t=17m55s

Never enough energy, instead of practical projects, "alternative-energy temples" are being built, alternative energy (wind/solar) are just really "rebranded fossil fuels". Alternative-energy fetishes.
https://youtu.be/v6uVnyjTb58?t=21m21s
https://youtu.be/v6uVnyjTb58?t=27m1s

Media, when oil doubled for every mention of increased oil price the coverage of alternative-energy increased 400% or 4x times.
https://youtu.be/v6uVnyjTb58?t=25m24s

Always needing more energy for increasing population. If the entire worlds women population were entitled to civil/economic rights who are in control of their own bodies can enjoy the freedom of bearing children at their own rate tends to be a rate that's far more sustainable (Japan).
https://youtu.be/v6uVnyjTb58?t=30m45s
https://youtu.be/v6uVnyjTb58?t=57m48s
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles range http://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Beware of dodgy 18650 cells! youtu.be/eOshOXcSkDA
Consider PAS as your only throttle http://goo.gl/m17J9j
CO2 is core to Photosynthesis https://youtu.be/ca83RXuSjXw
Check out the Bill Gates nuclear reactor https://goo.gl/Rtky9q
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8296
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:56 am

Punx0r wrote:
Hillhater wrote: A 15 year payback is not a saving at all.
What would $27k invested sensibly , be worth in 15 yrs ?..$40+k ?
And most people do not stay in the same property for 15 yrs to recover even part of that cash investment.
1) Yes it is, both on a domestic scale and certainly on a commercial or utility scale
2) Reduce the merit of the investment idea by accounting for inflation i.e. consider the value of $40k in 2030 dollars, not 2017 dollars. By contrast, the savings from home RE will increase over time.
3) Even if they don't, it potentially increases the value of their home when selling it......
The $40k ? Was ment as a question rather than a definitive value. But as you insist i will let Google answer it .. $27k invested for 15yrs in a 8% fund would yeild $86k.....i suspect that would more than offset currency revaluation !
And i thought your belief was that Utilities changing to RE sources will make Utility power cheaper over the next 20 yrs ?
If so, that would reduce the savings from home RE over time .
How much more would you pay for a home with 10 yr old solar system installed ?

Hillhater wrote: Yes... Industry is subsidised by the public taxes. That doesnt mean the power is cheap !
.....Do you actually know this or are you speculating? Even if there was a subsidy to industrial consumers that doesn't mean that money is being given to RE generators....
The simple fact that industry doesent pay the same price, effectively means they are being subsidised by the higher tax payers.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8296
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:48 pm

Punx0r wrote:
Hillhater wrote:It costs nothing to produce an apple,..nature does that for us
So in your world apples are free at the orchard gates?
For one thing, edible apples are not grown from seed but from graftings. Nature doesn't do this, someone is paid to.
Then there is the cost of planting the trees, watering them, eliminating pests, pruning and thinning, fertilising, providing pollinisers and harvesting.
The fact that it may cost $X toget an apple to the farm gate, does not mean the farmer will be paid $X for it !
...ask the farmers, many are going broke growing fruit they cannot sell at cast price.....even when those apples sell retail for $3X-$4X !
Its called a market economy......or Wholesaler + retailer profiteering !
Production costs are rarely related to final retail costs
In industry,the commercial /financial business plan is a very complicated mix of material and production costs, negotiated contracted "factory gata" prices, rebates, volume discounts, grants, etc.
Specifically, those listed RE "bid" prices, are simply that....a negotiating "bid" price that is unrelated to the actual cost of producing that power. Its just a way a securing access to the market, ( obviously at a loss making price for a specific supply quantity).. Knowing that there are opportunities in that market to gain other financial benefits from rebates, " Green credits, Carbon certificates, Peak power prices, etc etc)
It the case of South Australias contract for the Thermal Solar plant, most of those hiddem financial benefits have been explained previously.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8296
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:20 pm

I have been travelling a lot last week or two, ....sitting in airports and on long haul flights watching movies etc.
Took the time to watch Al Gores sequel to "Inconvenient truth."
Nothing new threre, but it revealed an interesting point related to the Paris Agreement on CChange....
The conference was locked in disagreement because India refused to be forced to adopt. "Unafordable RE technologies" , ...which would effectively deprive much of their growing population of access to power,.... over the cheaper Conventional generating technologies. ( those are Gores words !)
Gore used all his influence to convince US VP J Kerry, to get Obama to authorise financial support for India... " To make Solar power competitive with conventional power"... ,!
He also tried to get Solar City to give India free access to panel tecnology for self manufacture, to try to improve the cost issue fo india.
Without that financial " support" ( undisclosed ?) , india would not have signed the Paris Agreement, which may well have then been pointless.
I wonder if Trumps stance on the Paris Agmt will have any impact for India plans ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
Dauntless
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 1:49 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Dauntless » Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:34 pm

Hillhater wrote: "Unafordable RE technologies" , ...which would effectively deprive much of their growing population of access to power,.... over the cheaper Conventional generating technologies. ( those are Gores words !)
So were those people who were then without electricity, or was what they currently had going to be taken away? Long the argument, 'We're a developing country who NEEDS more electricity.' But if the people are doing just fine without it at the moment, why the rush to get electricity to them that they have no idea that they need?

Meanwhile, there may be no grid, but those backward areas often have all sorts of electricity. Some of it solar or wind, some of it their own personal gas generators. How many families can have electricity on the convention emissions to match one family with that generator? But that's too hard to measure, nobody really knows how many backwoods families are using those generators to watch television. Convention powerplants might actually bring some improvement. But we'll never know.

Kerry was Secretary of State, not VP. Too bad HE wasn't president.

Image
Any sufficiently advanced technology is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC!
- Arthur C. Clarke

Post Reply