Welcome to the Energy Blog


  • The Energy Blog is where all topics relating to The Energy Revolution are presented. Increasingly, expensive oil, coal and global warming are causing an energy revolution by requiring fossil fuels to be supplemented by alternative energy sources and by requiring changes in lifestyle. Please contact me with your comments and questions. Further Information about me can be found HERE.

    Jim


  • SUBSCRIBE TO THE ENERGY BLOG BY EMAIL

After Gutenberg

Clean Break

The Oil Drum

Statistics

Blog powered by Typepad

« Worlds Largest, $1.8 Billion, 500 MW, Wind Farm to be Built off the Coast of UK | Main | The Return of The Energy Blog »

May 16, 2008

Comments

Clee

There's that old canard yet again. Even the Nuclear Energy Institute says that if you include all the life cycle costs of nuclear, it's more than 2 cents per KWH. See table at bottom of
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/costs/

Cyril R.

Duh, 2 cents is propaganda. Really tiresome to see people repeat this bullshit ad infinitum. Yet it's very pervasive in blogs.

Levelised cost of new nuclear in the US is at least 10 cents/kWh, and 12-15 is more likely all in cost (including back-end and transmission). This is slightly higher than onshore wind, although offshore tends to be a bit more expensive.

In general, worldwide, nuclear levelised cost is at least twice that of coal levelised cost, and nuclear is escalating. This suggest it will only work with high and constantly increasing carbon and/or pollution taxes, or of course under a moratorium on new coal.

Anyone who says wind is 75 percent efficient needs to get back and finish high school.

Dahun

The current federal tax credit for wind power is 1.9 cents per kwh. The total cost of nuclear power is less than this.
Wind is 25% efficient and requires pollution causing conventional power 75% of the time. Nuclear is 90% efficient.
Windfarms generally do not pay taxes. Each nuclear plants pays millions in taxes each year.
Wind power requires 3 times the capital costs per kw as nuclear. Maintenance and manpower required for wind power is one and one half times that of a nuclear plant. The life of a windfarm is 20 years at best. The design life of a nuclear plant is 60 years.
Nuclear plants are located near major usage areas and require little new power lines. Wind requires oversized power lines because of the wildly fluctuating nature of this power. Wind requires new expensive wiring to remote sites.
Nuclear plants are compact and require relatively little land area. Wind farms require huge acreages.
Why invest huge amounts of taxpayer and utility user monies into inferior technology?
Wind does not clean the air, cannot suppply to our needs and is simply a very expensive, wildly fluctuating alternative to less expensive far more reliable and in the case of nuclear is a far dirtier way to generate electricity. The only way it can be sold is when government mandates it's use. The common falicy repeated often is that wind saves oil. Since only 0.6% of of our oil usage is for power generation under very unusual circumstances there is no possibility of any savings in oil.
The only real purpose for wind projects is the generation of pork, not power.

Kit P.

The capacity factor for US wind power in 2007 was about 25%. Although wind power has yet to prove itself as a mature technology it is good policy to encourage new construction with a PTC to reduce the demand for natural gas. The same policy now applies to nuclear power for the first 6,000 MW of capacity.

We do not yet know what the cost of maintaining new wind systems but a low cost wind turbine has yet to be proven.

Cyril R.

The benefit of this site being dead is that we won't have to waste time educating delusional people and trolls like Kit P and Dahun.

Always look on the bright side of life.

Susan K

everything ok?

long time since you posted...

dahun

Mr. Pickens wants to build windmills as an answer to our energy problems. Please consider these facts:

•Wind power has three times the capital costs of building the equivalent power with nuclear power plants.
•The best wind installations are approximately 25% efficient which means they require back-up from other power sources 75% of the time.
•Wind power requires one and one half times the maintenance and operating costs of nuclear power.
•Wind is optimally located in areas of the country that are great distances away from the areas of greatest usage and would require huge investments in new power grids to transport this power.
•Wind power is subsidized by grants to build and is further subsidized by a 1.9 federal subsidy for every kwh (kilowatt hour) produced. The total cost of power from nuclear plants is less than this 2 cent federal subsidy. Wind power costs 10 cents per kwh and because of it’s very high cost it’s use has to be mandated.
•Nuclear power is 100% free of emissions. While there have been no new nuclear plants built in 30 years they now supply 20% of our electricity.
•After decades of grants and subsidies wind now produces a fraction of one percent of our power and we now spend 15 billion a year in subsidies for this wildly fluctuating power.
•Windmills have a maximum life of twenty years while new nuclear plants have a design life of sixty years.
•Adding more than 10% of wind power to any grid makes balancing out the wildly fluctuating power impossible.

Finally, since wind can only generate electricity and since there is no shortage of reasonably priced domestic fuels to supply power it fills no needs. Also, since only 0.6% of our oil usage is for power generation under very unusual conditions the use of oil will not be affected by any power generating source. This includes wind, solar and even nuclear.

In my opinion the use of plug-in hybrids is the answer to lessening our oil usage. Nuclear power will go a long way to provide power at practical costs to do this and to reduce the 1.1 billion tons of coal that we use each year for power and other energy uses. This will clean the air and even reduce the carbon usage more than any other source of power can.

Developing our domestic sources of energy then would easily give us energy independence for 100 years. Between shale oil (2 trillion barrels according to the DOE), ANWAR, Bakken Oil Fields, offshore and coal to oil we have oil reserves that will last us hundreds of years. We have more known energy resources than the rest of the world combined. There is no reason for us not to be energy independent.

Wind does not save any oil, does not clean the air to any great extent, is hugely expensive, is wildly fluctuating and cannot meet our needs. It seems Mr. Pickens wants to take advantage of this crisis and the tax advantages to enrich himself with this unworkable plan. We cannot wish away the energy crisis and Mr. Pickens’s plan is wishful thinking at best and more likely a grand plan for profiteering from our problems.

dahun

cyril R, your denigrating comments in lieu of any logical response shows how berift and non-existant your arguements must be. It is always the resort of someone who cannot defend one's argumemnt to resort to name calling. It is something learned in the third grade which most people as they mature outgrow. Some obviously do not.

Abu Rahim

The energy we consume cannot be stored and we guzzlers refuse to obviate our doomed. Nevertheless, there is no infinite supply of energy- least of all being fossil fuel. Even suns burn out, explode and are recycled to form more suns, more planets. Do humans really have preeminence over nature? Well, let us see.

If we totally convert to nuclear power, there is only so much uranium in the ground. Sun power will only work during daylight. Other methods being explored are contingent upon a limited amount of materials being produced from the soil. The very best we can do is conserve and hope like hell perpetual, alternate energy sources will be invented or found or brought down to us from the Gods. There is no mandate coming out of Washington, no high court decision, no Manhattan-style Project to solve this one.

President Jimmy Carter, in his infinite wisdom, warned us about our lavish, wasteful way with fuel and it cost him his day job. Well, conservation will only prolong the inevitable. We will run out! We are drinking all the wine (on a global level) and there is no way to grow more grapes. I personally believe no one wants to look realistically (some may say fatalistically) at our consumption habits and our inability to find perpetual energy sources. Here is a realistic thought. There may be none available! In our present cognitive and technological state we may lack the ability to develop a source for sustainable energy.

Who among us have the foresight to determine what to do before the last drop of oil drips? Yet, we grandstand and create pages of statistical nonsense as to which methods are best (solar, nuclear, bio…). All seem doomed to failure. Perhaps our total dependence on fossil fuel was a mistake. An economy dependent upon one product to sustain a way of life is subject to collapse. Without a doubt our dependence on the combustion engine (in the form of a car) as our primary method to transport one human was a mistake. Additionally, the type of vehicle one drives in America has always been directly related to a person social standing. For those who don't choose to drive a car but take the subway, ride a bike, the bus, in order to accommodate a life-style beyond the car, their names are carved lowest on the social totem poll. On the other hand, fuel conservation, alternative methods such as building up the infrastructural for public transportation has never been seriously contemplated.

As long as we continue to feed the automobile and waste precious resources, we expedite our own demise. Did we expect to enjoy cheap gas forever and not understand how oil is priced on the world market? Here is how the price of all commodities is driven upward. Most Americans are functionally illiterate as to how the process works although our hunger for oil persists. (close to 20 millions barrels a day- 25% of the world's total) and the supply is low. Before we actually run out of oil, the price will levitate and balance with the demand. Consider China and India for a moment. They are comparable to growing industrial babies and their desire for sweet crude (low sulphur) will become ferocious. But the world output for these little toddlers will not be able to satisfy their appetite. The cost of future crude is going to be enormous. (China, India, Russia and the Middle East for the first time will consume more crude oil than the U.S., burning 20.67 million barrels a day this year- April 21, 2008 Bloomberg)

As for an appetizer- prices for corn, chicken, pork and soybeans are predicted to double within a year. This will happen because we choose to feed grain to our insatiable hunger for the combustion engine- that stupid, so-called sexy, automobile- another mistake in progress. We can refer to this as the Dinosaur AFF-ect whereby they could not foresee their approaching doom.

Remember the good old days before 1973 when gasoline was cheap? We could drive around town in our air polluting V8, run low on fuel, simple drive up to the pump and yell, "filler up". Then alone came Yom Kippur. You remember them- Sadat, Meir, The Sinai, The Golan and the OPEC oil embargo against the US and other western nations. We thought the shortage of oil was them-dammed Arabs holding out on us. Well, the oil embargo is 30 years behind us. Why has oil gone form a simple shortage in 1973 at $12.00 a barrel to $25.00 a barrel in 2003 trading at over $140.00 a barrel in 2008 and headed toward $200.00 a barrel in just 5 years? The answer is we have nearly exhausted the only developed energy resource.

Now there are some questions we might want to ponder. Can oil producing countries become self sufficient and never purchase oil form the world market? Would that not disrupt the market itself? Are we isolated from the ebb and flow of an ocean we are deeply entrenched? (Answers) Any statement from Washington declaring our desire to be free from OPEC is nothing but political grandstanding. As long as oil is traded America will purchase it.

Enter our existing president. In his finite wisdom (Mr. Bush) wants to ripe out the wilderness of Alaska and drill beneath the tundra in order to exploit more of that Texas tea. Bush urged congress to allow the pristine remoteness of the Alaskan wilderness to be exploited for the benefit of the American people. What benefit? So Americans can become free from Middle Eastern oil and return to the days of cheap gasoline? Those days are gone! Even if all world governments subsidized their oil it puts nothings back into the ground and does nothing to locate alternative sources. It would be a foolish and futile attempt to satisfy and addiction that borderlines suicide. This ancient tradition of wastefulness confirms our lack of dominion over the natural world. Because nature is not wasteful, it is circular. It comes back to the starting point renewed, fresh, and invigorated. Even a ragging forest fire only destroy trees, the forest is then transformed. Yet Bush is willing to exploit the last great American wilderness because the single developed energy resource is being depleted. He and his oil-invested cronies, unlike the dinosaurs, know the end is near. Its profit now or never.

So if present trends continue- and they most likely will- the last few billion barrels of oil will not be traded on the open market. They will become the property of a military victor. Under the pretext of national security we will fight throughout the Middle East, drill beneath the tundra- off the coast of California and the Gulf of Mexico or anywhere to secure that last barrel of Oil. Within the lair of oil Gods they will plan for war under the pretext of anything imaginable to position themselves for that last taste of crude. The die is already being caste- invading Iraq when it was not a threat and al Qaeda was never there before the war- forming a pretext to invade Iran to stop it from developing nuclear weapons- wanting to place military bases throughout the Middle East…

When the human species are gone it will be to a large degree our own arrogant, ignorant, self-centered doing- the complete mismanagement of our meager resources. And the combustion engine and our love affair with the horseless carriage will go down as human's biggest blunder. Good luck to you all and you have my deepest sympathy.

dahun

Abu you have obviously not heard of recycling of nuclear fuel as done by the French or breeder reactors which also produce nuclear fuel. we are also decommissioning much of Russia's nuclear weapons and converting nuclear bombs to fuel. A good idea, I think.

Wishing for the good-old days of the Carter administration is like reminiscing about the good old Dark Ages or the days of the Black Death Plaque. The word's of Jimmy Carter's delightful mother said it best when she stated that if she had it to do over again she would have stayed a virgin.

With 2.2 trillion barrels of known oil in the US we are foolish to believe your doomsday scenario that we will run out soon. The amount of energy available from fossil fuels is many times this if known reserves of natural gas and coal are considered. We actaully have several hundred years of fossil fuels if we choose to use them. We can greatly reduce our use of oil and fossil fuels by using technology that is practical and that exists today. We can stop burning 1.1 billion tons of coal each year and really clean the air instead of pretending we do with 0.1% of our power supplied on a 25% efficiency basis. No nuclear plant has been built in 30 years and the existing plants supply 40 times the power that the heavily subsidized wind industry does and is done with 90% efficiency.
Blocking these real solutions and refusing to utilize our resources is causing the current speculation and high prices for eenergy. we need real solutions to the real problems not wishful thinking that old-failed technologies like wind can help. It cannot. Nuclear power can help supply energy for transportation and to clean the air. Blocking all workable solutions and suporting thiose things that have not and cannot work is a ploy to gain political power at our expense.

We can and must be enrgy independent. we need real solutions to the real problem. this problem was created by the people who have made a concious decision to stifle development of our resources and have tried to block workable technologies.
Wind and solar do not work. Nuclear has worked for fifty years and works today supplying 20% of our power. Plug-in hybrids do work. Fossil fuels do work and we need them and we have them in abundant quantities to fill our needs for over 100 years. we need to stop pouring money into worthless pork-barrel projects and get on with re-building our energy independence that has been stifled by thirty years of pandering to special interests to the great harm of our economic and national defense interests.
We can intelligently and in an environmentally sound way use our resources and our technology to be energy independent and have clean air.
Wind and solar power are a cruel and expensive hoax that can do neither.

Cyril R.

cyril R, your denigrating comments in lieu of any logical response shows how berift and non-existant your arguements must be. It is always the resort of someone who cannot defend one's argumemnt to resort to name calling. It is something learned in the third grade which most people as they mature outgrow. Some obviously do not.

Your posts contain so many errors (more than 90% of your statements are false), omissions, and flat out lies, that I will not even consider trying to educate you.

You are an obvious troll, and should be banned on all blogs.

Cyril R.

Or you are just reall stupid. In which case you should still be banned on all blogs.

dahun

Cyril, once again you use name calling instead of trying to put forth your ideas (if you have any). Please give your estimation of capital costs for wind per kwh. Please give your estimation of the on-line efficiency of wind farms. Please give actual costs of wind power.

Please do not include any federal subsidies or grants and give actual costs of material, labor, power line connections and full operating costs of existing plants. Please do not include any carbon credits given to falsely underestimate actual costs by deducting invented "costs" for carbon credits. Please do not include federal, state or any other subsidy for the cost of power generated.

When you have these actual figures then we can discuss the actaul value of wind power. If you do this instead of making unfounded accusations you will surely realize that wind is impractical and a failed technology.

Please educate yourself and stop making yourself look foolish by making statements you cannot substantiate. Your uneducated responses are quite boring.

I see that you would like to see me banned from posting views to which you do not subscibe. Interesting that someone that disagrees with you and presents arguements that you cannot refute should be banned.

Can't you defend your positions with any facts? Is your idea of discussion responding to facts presented with childish name-calling. I would suggest that if you do not have any reasonable response that you should not continually prove yourself ignorant of the facts by continuing to post personal attacks which you seem to think are a substititute for debate.

You should really excuse yourself from any discussion for which you have such a complete misunderstanding and lack of factual data. I hate to be personal, but I felt that you needed to have someone talk to you in language that you might understand with a little help.

If you continue I will have to resort to continual exposure of your lack of intellect. I would much prefer to be intellectually challeged but I am afraid that will not be forthcoming from you.

Kit P

The accuracy of statements made by both dahun and Cyril R is lower than if there writing was produced by a random phrase generator. Or about the same as a journalist at the NY Times. This is often the case in 'this' versus 'that' debates carried out by the clueless. The clueless debating with the clueless using information from the clueless.

Okay then what is an accurate picture for the United States. The electricity generating industry is building nuke and wind generation capacity as fast as possible. Some of the same companies are involved in both wind and solar. These companies know that that they can produced electricity cheaper than with with natural gas. These companies also know that that no one can develop wind and nukes fast enough to reduce electricity produced with natural gas.

However, my statement above was not true 10-15 years ago. Poorly operating nukes were being closed in favor of natural gas. The wind industry was stagnate with the older turbines too expensive to maintain. Governor Bush established a RPS for Texas (as did some other states) that reversed the trend and has now resulted in returning the US to world leadership in wind power.

President Bush promoted funding at a time when there was no market top build new nukes in the US to test the new licensing procedures developed my the NRC to promote a standard design. With the world demand for coal causing price increases, the market for baseload nukes is grater than 32 new plants in 2008 in the US.

Cyril R.

LOL, a gathering of trolls!

Seriously Dahun, Clee already provided you with a reference that proved you wrong. From a nuclear interest group no less!

And even then, you continue to spread lies. This is a commonly accepted definition of a troll. When it is established that someone is a troll, there is no obligation nor expectation for further rational debate.

Bloggers beware. Keep the names Dahun and Kit P on your mind, if you see them on other blogs, just ignore them.

Cave the trolls!

dahun

103 nuclear plants which are over 30 years old produce 20% of our electricity today. The cost per kwh of production is less than 2 cents. I know that kit and cyril are not good at math, but bear with me. 20% divided by the 103 yields a result of .19%. This represents the fact that each reactor produces .19% of the country's power.
"U.S. Capacity and Market Share by Fuel 2000
Wind
0.1% of power
6 billion kw

Nuclear
19.8% of power
1966 billion kw"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html

This proves that one nuclear power plant produces almost twice the power of all the wind farms in the US. Considering the fact that wind is only 25% efficient the actual production of a nuclear plant is approximately seven times all the wind power in the US. 75% of the time wind must be backed up by emission spewing conventional power.
We currently budget $20 billion each year for subsidies to "alternatives" The cost of a new nuclear plant (financed with private funds) is $5 to 6 billion. If we gave incentives of $20 billion for one year we could start 25 or 30 new nuclear plants. These plants could supply a minimum of 100 times the capacity of existing wind farms. These plants would produce power at a cost of less than 2 cents per kwh. The cost of wind per kwh is 10 cents and they have a 2 cent per kwh tax subsidy.

We can get 100 times the energy, 100% clean at less than 1/5 the cost.

We have a real crisis in this country and we need real solutions. The answer, my friend, is not blowing in the wind.

I refuse to stoop to the level of the above posters by making personal attacks. I will let the facts stand themselves. I would encourage anyone to check my sources and form their own opinion. I would also invite you to try and find where my detracters have given any sources.

Kit P

It looks likes dahun last statement is more accurate. However, dahun does not explain why we should not build both. Both are real solutions. And in fact both are being built as we can. The argument that there is a crisis and we should limit our options is not very practical.

The fist 6000 MWe of new nuke capacity will receive the same PTC for 10 years as wind is currently receiving. Since hundred of millions is being invested to design and license more than 32 new nukes, it would appear that the present incentives are sufficient.

There are 104 nuke plants operating in the US and some have been operating for more than 30 years with O&M costs at 1.2 cents per kwh. However, I can cite a utility that had lower O&M costs at their wind farm lower than their wind farm.

The point is that you can cherry pick numbers to support any position you want to win an argument but CEOs base decisions on experience and projections.

Mark

I thought I'd check back in after missing this for so long. Wow, somebody must have stolen lil Cyril's bottle. You bad boys Kit and dahun! Stop scaring the babies!!! Next time, bring Cookie Monster so he won't be so frightened.

Steve Salmony

Dear Al Gore and Friends,

Thanks for your steady and careful contributions to the work of this day, the work being ignored or else censored by most of our not-so-great, elder generation’s leaders. These “professional stonewallers” are readily identifiable: the talking heads in the mass media, the economic powerbrokers all of their minions and surrogates, and bought-and-paid-for politicians.

Please do “keep soldiering on.” Given the potentially catastrophic circumstances looming before the family of humanity, our ’soldiers’ will ultimately have to prevail, I suppose, because if ‘our side’ ahould somehow fail, then all is lost. That is to say, a colossal wreckage could occur on the surface of Earth, a unimaginable cataclysm the likes of which only the King of a thousand greedy little kings, Ozymandias, has seen.

Perhaps leadership in our time is doing a disservice to the human community, to life as we know it and to Earth’s body by maniacally pursuing a course of unbridled and unrelenting global economic growth. This “biggest business is best” growth madness appears to be a particularly foolish and soon to be destructive form of frenzy that will likely become as serious a threat to the human family in the days ahead as the elective mutism of our leaders is today.

Let’s keep going.

All my best,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001

Ames Tiedeman

Does everyone notice it is the Democrats and the Liberals doing all the talking and the Conservatives and Republicans actually taking action? Pickens is a life long REPUBLICAN. Why did Green Peace not do what Pickens is doing? Why are all the left wing liberal environmentalists only complaining and not coming up with or starting, solutions? Why are the leftists not raising billions, buying land and building solar and wind farms?

Ames Tiedeman

Steven:

Awareness Campaign on the Human Population?

Why are you not a member of the Minutemen? Why are you not speaking out against the Third Wold invasion of America that has destroyed California? Where were you in 1985 when people like me went to the Mexican border and demanded the fence be built? What do you think is ruing the Environment in California? Too man people!!!!!!

mjtimber

Perhaps because Greenpeace isn't worth several billion dollars? Because your average "leftist" is similar to your average "rightest". I don't see "billions" spent by average citizens on the cause du jour of the Republican party either. And finally, because both parties represent only themselves, and their interests (re-election) aren't served by mandating alternative energy!

Kit P

The problem I have with both sides is they that seem to not want to solve the problem because they would then have no reason to jump up and down in front of useful idiot caused journalists.

It would appear that mjtimber has failed to notice that alternate energy has been mandated, other incentives provided, and the industry is building alternative energy at capacity. At the same time the manufacturing capacity to increase the capacity to manufacture equipment is growing.

Now the way to get on TV and testify before congress is to make really, really, absurd claims about what we can achieve in the future. For example, I sat through the presentation by the CARB about the mandate for EVs in Southern California by 1998. I asked one question (the one I always ask), where is the electricity going to come from. The answer I got was that the man was lying or clueless. It does not really matter but indicated to me that they would fail.

So what is Pickens plan? He out bid some others to buy a large number GE wind turbines. No more wind capacity will get built in the US than if he had stayed out of the business of making electricity. Even if it was possible to lower the demand for natural gas it would be foolish to do this. When the price of natural gas goes down, profits from making electricity will go down. In fact Pickens is lobbying to increase demand for CNG for POVs.

I do not a problem with Pickens using his political influence to increase his profits, it is rather amusing to watch useful idiots fall in line.

JohnPeter JP

Nope Kit, I'm still around but a bit laid back last few weeks. Not too much activity in this blog, and that's a major shame.
I meant that whatever we do or don't do, we are of soon will be reaching a point in time that shortages are hitting hard. Fossils can also be used as a raw material for the production of plastics, you name it. Any combination of technologies that will reduce the burning of fossiles will be a positive thing; a focus on just one technology is killing. Take PV for instance: I would not be able to get sufficient light right now as we have had rain and clouds for almost a week; quite some wind though. However I understand that other parts of our globe have sunlight and heat in abundance.
So let's prevent ourselves from tribalizing towards one solution but keeping an open mind for all kinds of solutions, in all kind of sizes. Fighting between one another is just, well simply a waste of energy.

As for this blog, it's been two month since James made the last update. That's a very worrying thing because usually he informs us that he'll be less active for a while. I've sent an email as well butno reaction whatsover, which also unusual.
If anything has happened to him I hope he will be doing OK soon!

Clee

It's funny that Dahun says Cyril can't substantiate Cyril's statements, and yet Dahun substantiates only one of Dahun's many statements. (Though I do wonder where Cyril got the "10 cents/kWh" figure for new nuclear in the US.). Yes I agree with Dahun that nuclear power currently generates roughly 20% of the electricity in the US compared with less than 1% for wind power. That is the one and only claim Dahun gave a source for. Most of the other claims are baseless.

Here are my responses to Dahun's bullet points in
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/05/pickens-mesa-po/comments/page/5/#comment-122231140
Note that he gave no sources for his "facts" and I am giving sources for every point here.

1. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, on the table at the bottom of
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/costs/
Wind power construction costs are the same as for building the equivalent rated power with nuclear. Both are shown as $1,000-$2,000/KW(e)

2. Texas panhandle where Pickens is building, wind farms can get 35% to 44% capacity factor, according to slide 39 of
http://www.gulfcoastpower.org/default/11-06meeting-sloan-houston.pdf

3. Wind power requires half the maintenance and operating costs of nuclear power. $29.48/KW for wind vs $66.05/KW for nuclear.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf#page=3

Clee

(cont,)
5. The total life cycle cost of nuclear power plants 2.1 to 3.1 cents/KWH assuming a 5% discount rate, and 3 to 5 cents/KWH assuming a 10% discount rate. Does anyone actually get as low as 5% discount rates these days? In either case, the life cycle cost of nuclear is more than the 1.9 cent per KWH federal wind subsidy. A fact that Dahun persists in repeatedly ignoring. Again see the table at the bottom of
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/costs/

6. According to the World Nuclear Association, life cycle studies show wind generates 5.5 to 29 g/KWH of CO2, which is quite similar to the 6 to 26 g/KWH for nuclear.
http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html

7. The 1.9 cent/KWH does not put a drain on the US Treasury. It more than pays for itself in additional tax revenues to the US Treasury. The wind farms built in 2007 are estimated to carry a net present value benefit to the U.S. Treasury of $250 million. Yes, wind farm companies do pay federal taxes, just like nuclear plants do. If the wind farms didn't pay taxes, then there would be no taxes for the tax credits to be credited against.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52825

Clee

(cont.)
9. The US Department of Energy study reports that the US can reach 20% Wind Energy without requiring any technological breakthroughs and without wrecking the stability of the grid.
http://www.20percentwind.org/20percent_Wind_Flyer.pdf

I think it's pretty nice that even with the lower capacity factor and the shorter life span, the life cycle cost in cents/KWH for wind is only about twice that of nuclear. Wind at $45-$140/MWh and Nuclear at $30-$50/MWh assuming a 10% discount rate. Again the last table on
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/costs/

With improvements in wind power technology, the life cycle cost of wind power may continue to drop. I hoping the US will continue with improvements on nuclear plants and move to Generation IV designs rather than be stuck in the past.

I agree with JohnPeter JP. We should be open to multiple solutions. We will need many of them.

(I had to split the posts because of the spam filter)

Kit P

Good post Clee. One nit:

“rather than be stuck in the past”

Are you referring to the 104 operating nukes in the US that produce 70% of the carbon free electricity and are the most reliable source at the lowest cost to consumers. Coal is great too.

While there is an optimistic future for wind in Texas, you should not expect that the building of wind turbines to stem the appetite for making electricity with natural gas in the US as a whole.

Barry Bernsten

America needs to stay FOCUSED, AWARE and EDUCATED.

History reminds us that every time oil prices peak and the North American market/consumers start to discuss alternative energy sources, the oil exporting countries start to trim down their prices. History also tells us that the oil exporting nations have been very successful in the past and in fact, we have lost our enthusiasm and dropped many of our alternative energy initiatives after oil prices are reduced.

WE need to stay focused this time.

1) Al Gore and his energy initiative is on course.
2) T. Boone Pickens and his wind power initiative is on course.
3) BG Automotive Group’s mass production electric vehicle program is on
course.
4) Richard Branson from the UK is on course.
5) The Gas Reduction Act of 2008 might not be the most environmentally sound
solution, but yet it shows that Congress has finally realized that we have an
energy crisis (again), and a real threat to our national security.

The continued dependence on foreign oil is a threat to our long term democratic values. We must become an energy independent nation, and with this, some sacrifices will have to be made by the American consumer.

Be aware!!
We are exporting approximately USD $700 Billion dollars per year of U.S. currency. The majority of this money is being transferred to the Trillion dollar “sovereign wealth funds”. This is USD $700 Billion not being spent on America’s educational system, health care and security.

The “sovereign wealth funds” are directly buying major interests (large blocks of stock) in U.S. companies, including most of the major banks. Also, billions of dollars of “sovereign wealth fund” money is being invested in our hedge funds, private equity firms, and the investment banking industry. A few of these firms are directly and indirectly investing large sums of money into our “gas combustion” automobile industry. Do we want our auto industry in the direct or indirect control of the firms that are supplying us oil? This is an interesting topic for an investigative reporter.

There are automotive consulting companies in Michigan (heart of our auto industry), lobbying States and our Federal Government, NOT to subsidize the Electric Vehicle industry. The latter seems to be contradictory to what the American public would like to see from our automobile industry. After the billions (excess of $20 billion) the automotive companies have lost in the past 6 months producing gas combustion vehicles, you would think they too would change course. Changing course is not adding 2-4 miles per gallon w/Hybrids. Drastic measures in our auto industry must take place and NOW!

Do not let the temporary reduction in oil prices push us off course….AGAIN.

Read, Read, Read- Stay on top of the issues. Let’s not be fooled again.

STAY FOCUSED, AWARE and EDUCATED!

Fabio A.

Hey there!

What's happened to the blog? It's been 2 months since the last update... Hope everything is alright!

XonOFF

What's become of James?
This blog has become inactive.

Hope things are o.k.

Cleve D. LeClair

Hello Everyone,

It is going to take solar, wind, hydro, ocean current, and biomass stuffs like switchgrass. Corn gives one gallon of work for about one gallon of work, where as Switchgrass and a few others give one gallon of work and five gallons of work.

Not a one fix fixes all. Got it, Good.


Cleve D. LeClair
lcleve@uswest.net
Eugene, Oregon

Residential Wind Power

Nice Post!

Great to see an Oil Tycoon investing in renewable energy!

Now - if only the government would push the use of residential wind power - then we would see some real results.

JP

I'm afraid that this great blog, one of my all time favourites for some 2 years, has expired as it's creator and stimulator doesn't seem to be able to refresh things.
When reading his profile I can imagine age and time have gotten to him. As he normally should have been able to put some info on the blog I have to assume he's no longer with us on this planet.
If that would be the case I cannot but express my sadness to his friends and family but also express my sadness that somebody who has put so much energy in this blog appears to have no successor. A warning to us all that a two men weblog operation can keep things alive for a much longer time.
James, I wish you a great after-life in some kind of world of eternal happiness.
And, in case you get back, I'm sure I'm not tho only one who'd like to help you out with this blog.

David Latimer

Hello, I'd like to speak with you regarding your blog. Please Email me at your earliest convenience! Thanks! -Dave

David Latimer

Hello, I'd like to speak with you regarding your blog. Please Email me at your earliest convenience! Thanks! -Dave

David Latimer

Hello, I'd like to speak with you regarding your blog. Please Email me at your earliest convenience! Thanks! -Dave

Ambit Energy

Renewable resources are the way of the future. Bio-fuel plants that burn renewable resources like timber industry waste may also take their place beside windmills as viable renewable energy sources.

As with almost any new technology, there are heavy subsidies from the government. As a country we have to expect that and realize the benefits are much higher long term than the short term tax credits.

Think about how much money we have spent to go into space and lead the world in the space revolution. The energy revolution will be much larger than that and our children's future relies on alternatives to fossil fuels. It will be a long time before we match the money spent getting to space.

James

This blog is not dead. The owner will be back soon.

Sarah Miner

hey, interest post. i should come by here more often. you guys can check out my site if you want, it's a celebrity news siteon Kim Kardasian. http://kimkardasiansextape.wordpress.com

Paul Cummings

"This blog is not dead. The owner will be back soon." posted by "James." Have you been able to speak to Mr. Fraser, James? I certainly hope all has been well with him, and fervently hope he is able to return. I have been popping back a couple of times a week this summer to check- I miss his Blog very much, as do many others.

scott weitzman

Hi,
I am the creator of solarfeeds, which is a human edited solar news site. I would love to feature your solar articles on solarfeeds. Let me know if this is something that interests you. Thanks

http://www.solarfeeds.com

Scott

scott weitzman

Hi,
I am the creator of solarfeeds, which is a human edited solar news site. I would love to feature your solar articles on solarfeeds. Let me know if this is something that interests you. Thanks

http://www.solarfeeds.com

Scott

Daniel

Excellent blog, too bad that there have not been any updates since May.

Logan

Do It Yourself Renewable Energy Options For Home Owners

http://www.earth4energy.org

fg

what happened to this blog?

it was very popular and useful?

Giovanna

I would suggest to dd pictures on your blog.
Giovanna of http://energysave.altervista.org/

ken

This is brief note to introduce ROI.com.au, we are a leading search engine optimization company specializing in providing

ethical link building services to help all of our online stakeholders.

We are currently helping a large number of high quality businesses improve their search engine rankings in Google.

As part of this process, we are enquiring about the Paid link opportunity

on home page of your http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/ We currently are seeking paid link for http://www.solargen.org/ link on your site on monthly basis.

Our budget is $15/month.

If you could please let us know your best prices with pay pal information, it would

be most appreciated.

Looking forward to your reply

Kind Regards,
Ken

James

I work with this blog owners son. That is how I know he is okay.

dan

well tell him to get his butt back online will you? Its been 3 months and things are heating up!!!! :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

. .




Batteries/Hybrid Vehicles