The U.K. plans to invest in new nuclear power following France’s lead, but breaking ranks with Germany and the big Green pressure groups.
The U.K. Department of Energy & Climate Change published this infographic, but then took it down. Businesses reaping billions in subsidies from solar and wind deemed it “unhelpful.”
The facts according to the U.K. government?
Acres required to power 6 million homes:
Wind 250,000
Solar 130,000
Nuclear 430
The Daily Telegraph calls it “the infographic the U.K. government doesn’t want you to see.”
The U.K. should not only want you to see this, it should add in coal and gas as well.
Not verified but someone has pointed out this 430 acres include that used while building the plant, when complete the Hinkley Point footprint will fall to 160 acres
So it is smaller, who cares when nuclear cost more than Solar (of all flavors) and creates nuclear waste that must be dealt with for generations!
http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com/2013/10/hinkley-c-to-be-paid-more-than-twice-as.html
In short, nuclear energy transforms ratepayers into nuclear energy slaves!
Oh yippee! A blog. What a wonderfully viable source for reliable information. Please stop polluting the thread with your politics.
Joe Dick – No politics mentioned, just a little reality for all those that consider using ☢ is a good deal for anyone except the Utility and its shareholders! BTW: If you think the France and China are bending over backwards to help the UK Utilities provide energy are great prices then you must be receiving some form of Nuclear Payback*
* http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+payback
Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other “costs” are for others.
The link you provided was a blog, lacking in scientific content, and chock full of opinion.
I support nuclear energy, and I receive no support from the industry. Therefore your claim to that end is at best completely wrong, an in the end is libelous. You should mind what you type.
Urban dictionary as a reference. How quaint.
Meanwhile, again I ask: Do you have a degree in science? Engineering? Medicine? Economics perhaps? If not, yappy little dogs should stay on the porch; you don’t have the chops to run with the big dogs.
Type less, read more. Mind your baseless accusations.
Now, with respect to your concerns regarding cancer from radiation, fine. Solar panels involve extremely toxic carcinogens in their production, and contain these in and of themselves. Gallium arsenide, is but one of these.
All products of high technology depend on complex chemical and atomic interactions to which life as we know it has not evolved tolerance, resistance or immunity. To blithly state, as you have, nuclear = evil and solar = purity is either hypocracy or ignorance of the highest order.
To delve you you depths of distrust in a manner that treats both equally, which would you prefer? Three Mile Island or Love Canal? My answer is neither, and both, if managed properly, need not lead to such disasters.
Meanwhile, nuclear powerplants are profitable, and harvest enough energy to make multiple copies of themselves; but I have yet to see a solar panel go off the grid with its own product.
Here is an excellent 3 minute video on radiation dangers/non dangers from someone NOT in the nuclear industry. She holds to the LNT line but she puts it into perspective.
Why did Keawaunee did in a 14 cents per kwh retail enfvironment
Bye bye Yankee, and good riddance
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/09/29/closing-vermont-nuclear-bad-business-for-everyone/
seen this?
http://www.businessinsider.com/solar-panel-makers-grappling-with-waste-2013-2
@investigator, ya sure, I read everything that Conca writes…it is a hilarious simplistic playbook of the Bronto nuke industry. His shite was awesomely debunked too.
Could you provide the sources, easy to make claims, more difficult to back them up.
Perhaps it is just “shite” to you when the information doesn’t comport with your world view.
Conca debunked
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2014/08/science-and-governments-have-been.html
Conca debunked
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2014/12/31/why-closing-vermont-yankee-wont-raise-new-englands-power-bills/
Conca makes so many glaring errors it is amazing
steveo, given your scientific background, I am a little surprised that you would direct me to a link whose sole contribution to this discussion is comments by unknown persons of unknown qualifications…hardly convincing.
As to the Forbes article, here was my response to Paul Gunter, renewable energy guru and champion of anti-nuclearism:
“Paul, can you explain why the phenomenon Mr. Cooper described in his article promising that electric rates won’t rise as a result of VY closing didn’t occur when San Onofre shut down? Just a few weeks after the shut down was announced, the public was informed that their rates would rise, and rise they did. Also, old natural gas plants were fired up to help replace the generation thrown away when San Onofre shut down. Is this fine with you? Are you interested in reducing fossil fuel dependence or only anti-nuclear?”
Others pointed out the weakness of the argument that reducing generation available, ie., because of shutting down VY, will somehow reduce energy costs. What? A shortage of supply = less costs? I think you would agree that despite Cooper’s convoluted logic on this, which admittedly may appeal to those who are against nuclear power, is so weak as to hold no water. The proof is in the pudding.
The solar panel waste article says those disposal emissions are compensated for in 3 months, and solar is still a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural gas. It’s the best option short of local fusion and fission.
Wow. Aren’t you proud of your kind? You commented on Cleantechnica.com’s website and I thought maybe I could do there what you’ve done here. Nope! I’m banned from commenting on an article written by:
Cynthia Shahan is an Organic Farmer, Classical Homeopath, Art Teacher, Creative Writer, Anthropologist, Natural Medicine Activist, Journalist, and mother of four unconditionally loving spirits, teachers, and environmentally conscious beings who have lit the way for me for decades.
Wow. That’s telling. A website that caters to solar power and I’m banned from discussing anything? You with your all anti-nuclear agenda and you can’t say who you are, and I cant comment on a website that worships Elon Musk.
Let’s just think about how deep that rabbit hole goes…
Charles Manson much? :)
They banned me as well, at least I’m pretty sure it was cleantechnica. First time I posted, and I made a number of posts, I was booted pronto. No diversity of thought there.
Is the urban dictionary where you get your info from? It seems to be your favorite post, besides those bogus studies you like to hoodwink the unwary with.
Those who oppose nuclear because of their philosophy, automatically support coal. Nuclear saves lives by NOT burning coal.
So, Capt, care to comment on the fact that Soviet nukes (formerly aimed at us in America) were reprocessed and sold to America to use in our nuclear plants providing 10% of the electricity this country used? Was that a good thing? 10% from Soviet nukes, what is the grand total of solar and wind now?
Moses much? “Let my people go!” Where are the solar powered solar panel factories?
You still haven’t answered my question: If it was renewable energy, they’d be first off the grid.
Similarly, you haven’t answered my questions regarding your education. Science degree? Engineering degree? Economics? Chemistry? Medicine?
You have accused all who disagree with you to be in the pay of nuclear power. Who pays your salary? Do you even have a career? Are you a shill?
And you have yet to address the toxic agents and carcinogens associated with solar panel production…
You have enough time to sit around and wait for your computer to go “ping!” after not having commented on this for over a year that it really does beg the question of who you are and why you are so full of zealously. No, you probabably went find that on the “Urban Dictionary” website yet in the way I mean it: you are zealous about being jealous of those that take the time to genuinely understand things.
I pity people like you because you’re small. Its not your stature physically in life; it’s because you’re little in the mind. I recommend a bag of popcorn, a DVD of Cary Grant in “People Will Talk”, and a mirror to look yourself in the eye periodically throughout. If you don’t get it after that, you’re not ignorant, you’re just plain stupid – in which case, stand away from the internet access. Just walk away.
JoeDick – Solar R&D is still just getting started and in the time it takes to build even one new nuclear power plant Solar (of all flavors) will have evolved to the point that the nuclear energy will be far to expensive!
+
Try sticking to the topic and leave out all the other comments, they are not only incorrect but a waste of time.
Ah, just getting started? Wrong. Older than the hills, and the technology is pretty much at the limits that physics, chemistry, and engineering allow. Its mature. I know. The Missile Defense Agency hired me as a consultant, as has Lockheed and Alenia regarding their abilities and use.
If I told you more, as the saying goes, I’d have to kill you. If you went to real sources of information, like, um, I dunno, lemme see… College! instead of Wikipedia and new-age websites for your information, you’d have a clue about that.
Now take your lithium and quit bullying people that have their shit together on websites the world over with your ill-informed ramble.
Joe Dick RE Your statement:
“Older than the hills, and the technology is pretty much at the limits that physics, chemistry, and engineering allow.”
That sounds much more like all those pushing new nuclear and/or Thorium reactors both of which are not yet proven despite what the nuclear cheerleaders say!
BTW: New battery storage tech IS just getting started:
Tesla’s Battery Gigafactory May Achieve Nirvana: $100 Per Kilowatt-Hour, Report Says
Many within the electric car industry believe that $100 per kilowatt-hour will be the tipping point for elec . . .
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094102_teslas-battery- .
and There is yet another non Tesla BIG Factory going into production in Germany.
Oh hooray! Another news article that is little more than a press release. Gee whiz, they’re saying they will do a thing. Great. Call me from Missouri: Show me when it’s done. Until then you’re just a lot of hot air.
Spot on! I think I’m from Missouri. CaptDishonest is from space.
You have no idea of what you are saying.
A Siemens -designed nuclear reactor ran very successfully on thorium for around a couple of years before powering down to repair a mechanical problem to a non-nuclear related accessory. The powerful Green Party in Germany got it shut down permanently with a political campaign based on lies – but who cares, they know they cannot be wrong, so lies don’t count.
But someone should have cared, because Germany is now in serious trouble with its energy policy because its huge outlay on wind power is not providing enough energy, the Greens won’t let them build nuclear, so now they are having to re-start and even BUILD……..coal-fired power stations, just to keep their industry going and the lights on.
When these ignorant and self-regarding environmental groups start getting us all into trouble with their mad fantasies, it’s time to shut them out of policy-making discussions – for good.
RE “Siemens -designed nuclear reactor ran very successfully on thorium for around a couple of years before powering down to repair a mechanical problem to a non-nuclear related accessory.”
If it was so wonderful, why did Siemens not just build they in other Countries?
Could it be that it was not anything close to being a commercially viable reactor?
As usual, you avoid having to accede to an argument which clearly disproves your case by ranting on about new irrelevant claims as false as your original argument. It’s impossible to have a reasoned debate with you.
Your original claim was that “new nuclear and /or thorium reactors……are not yet proven”. When I present evidence that the thorium reactor is proven, you do not accept that you were wrong, you just spout more irrelevant and equally false rubbish.
In fact, many organisations round the world have bought licences from Siemens and a few have built successful demonstration reactors as proofs-of-principle as a basis for national power systems.
Why not take a few months off to really study the range of available nuclear technologies and the advantages, disadvantages and availability of possible nuclear fuels.
Here are some links for you:
http://theenergycollective.com/lindsay-wilson/279126/average-electricity-prices-around-world-kwh
http://notrickszone.com/2011/04/05/merci-france-germany-now-dependent-on-foreign-nuclear-power/
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/03/are-your-solar-panels-toxic
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/the-ugly-side-o.html
http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/2148016/do-terrorists-attack-nuclear-power-plants-every-couple-years-use-pseudo-sic
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZHH3UQ_Rw0
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/wind-energy-encounters-problems-and-resistance-in-germany-a-910816.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/commentary-why-germany-is-waging-its-green-revolution-wrong-a-929693.html
I’ve got many more should you need them. I’ve found that posting a few to illustrate or back up your point is helpful. As you’re no doubt aware, dishonest people, like CaptDishonest, often link to bogus studies that have been refuted.
Good Luck
investigator –
Many thanks for your references. If I were smart enough to have had them to hand I would have been much ruder in my post to CaptD. Some of the links you provided clearly show the sheer ignorance, verging on lunacy, of the Greens’ “policies” (!) on power generation and transmission. They seem to be carrying out an economic war on the ” ordinary hard-working families” they claim to support.
If these crazy people – the Big Greens – are not stopped, they will destroy the very society which gave them birth and financed their early laudable attempts to protect wildlife and the environment, before the organisation was hijacked by a left wing dictatorship and ousted its original founders.
Peter, have you seen Pandora’s Promise? It is a documentary by former anti-nukes, leaders in the environmental movement, that clearly shows nuclear is the only way to go. Their main point is that renewables just can’t do the job, that they produce such a tiny portion of the electricity that it is irresponsible to do away with nuclear.
If you want more links, I’ve got dozens including the refutation of CaptDishonest’s bogus posts regarding deaths at Chernobyl. He doesn’t even bother to defend his posts, he just slinks off to another site and reposts what he knows is crap.
investigator =
Many, many thanks, but I have files full of technical data – I have been a firm supporter of nuclear power for over 50 yrs and a protagonist of thorium PBRs since the Siemens thorium reactor went critical many years ago.
The lies being told about renewables are an insult to us all, but you can’t fool ALL the people all the time. The truth will out, eventually. Fight the good fight!
If solar is so great, how come it provides so LITTLE power in this country? Could it be it is not the panacea you believe it to be? They have been working on this for 40 years, where is it? Anybody seen the solar power yet?
My bill went from 600 a month to 17 using PV solar….
over 30 years it pencils out to 2.94 cents per kwh
Come back in 30 years and we’ll check those figures, and besides, what home owner makes an investment that takes 30 years to pay off?
So, because YOU have the money to install solar and the poor do not, the subsidies you received are like a regressive tax. The poor help pay for your subsidy through the paying of taxes, while they receive NO benefit from your subsidy.
Just how much did the government kick in to supply you with power? Are you sure those panels will last 30 years? What do you do with those panels when they lose their efficiency, ie., how do you dispose of them? Think of the millions of people who would have to have roof top solar so equal the amount of generation from one dual unit nuclear power plant and what do we do with all those panels full of toxic heavy metals?
The payback is 2.5 years, your talking points are already stale. they lose .25% per year.
Your metric of number of roof related to a $17B Vogtle farce is a no starter.
My subsidy is a reduction in the tax I pay. I generated $164,000 in tax revenue for govs last year…..and you bitch that I take $20,000 of my own money?
I am sticking to the topic. So should you: Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories? There are none because it would never work. If you’re anti-nuke, fine; but don’t sell snake oil as a “solution”. We get it: CaptD is anti-nuke. Fine. You’re entitled to your opinion. A lot of us don’t agree with you, and we’ll continue to support clean nuclear energy.
Joe Dick I guess you did not get the memos:
Tesla/SolarCity will build a new
major solar panel factory in NY State
and
Tesla’s Battery Gigafactory Will Achieve Nirvana: $100 Per Kilowatt-Hour, Report Says http://disq.us/8kbwdg
and
They (not Tesla) are also building a major battery factory in Germany!
and
Since you might like Nuclear-News:
International Energy Agency waking up to economy and efficiency of solar energy http://shar.es/1aFaGs
I guess you never studied physics or chemistry or engineering:
1. Gee, you can build solar panels.
2. No, solar panels don’t live long enough to make copies of themselves.
3. Tesla’s solar panel factory will not be powered powered with it’s own product, will not be off the grid (see items 1 and 2).
4. Tesla’s “Gigafactory” (…wait …trying …not …to …laugh ….BWAHAHAHAHAHA …whew …”Gigafactory” ..lol …okay) has yet to achieve this, and like most Musk promises is highly overstated.
5. Germany too? Good for them. I’m so happy.
Gee, you base all your sources on Eco-drivel websites and blogs …wait …trying …again …not …to …BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Wow. You are a real trip, man. You are a real trip. Get out of your mother’s basement much?
Joe Dick Where to begin…
RE: “Musk promises is (sic) highly overstated”
Musk is so fr ahead of the power curve that he does not need to answer to guys like you that are stuck in the nuclear is so wonderful 1950’s…
Battery storage will only increase the shift to Solar (of all flavors), since the Utilities are pricing themselves out of the marketplace with “old school” energy like nuclear that will be too expensive in 20 to 30 years.
I never said Musk has to answer to me, CaptSPIN. Musk has to answer to the limits of physics, and those of that get that are laughing our butts off.
Joe Dick When you and/or your “friends”(“and those of that get that”) become tech Billionaires, I bet people will start to listen to what you are saying, until then Zzzzzzz.
Wow. What a repost. Is that what it takes for you to respect a person. So you can be bought! And he didn’t even send you a check. You a funny man!!!!
In other words, you want a billionaire to pretend to save your butt so you can continue to kiss his nether regions in a subservient repose for accomplishing nothing but scraping pennies off, a transaction at a time with Pay Pal?
Hey, you never did get back to me on those numbers I responded with from the US Energy Information Agency and The Wall Street Journal, demonstrating that with subsidies, solar is almost a buck eighty a kWh, but nuclear is about two and a half cents per kWh. So solar is what, about eighty times more expensive? Good luck with that. Thorium rocks! :)
Seriously, you don’t get that Musk makes money on carbon credits? Pencil it out. Its not the cars…
Yea, Musk is stuck in the 1970s pie in the sky solar is our savior. What happened to that solar? Can’t make the sun shine during the night? Awe, nuclear works day or night, wind or no wind, it is cheap, safe, reliable, doesn’t pollute, no GHGs, it is our best energy source currently available.
Capt., what did you say the capacity factor for solar was? 20%? Nuclear is at 90%. You sure are barking up the wrong tree. If you weren’t so dishonest, I’d ask you to join me in supporting our best energy source.
Nuke is too expensive now, they are dropping like flies
Joe, the Capt. has trouble with the truth. He posts bogus studies he hopes nobody will catch him on, then when he’s caught, he simply slinks off to another site to post the same crap. He is absolutely shameless.
More excuses for solar. We’ve been hearing this crappola for 40 years from the likes of Ralph Nader et al. Wheres the beef?
Expend your efforts making solar power a reality, not attacking nuclear. Convey that message to your handlers in FOE, perhaps they may decide to contribute for the better of this nation instead of the reverse.
Nuclear has “attacked” US by not living up to their Industries “almost free SAFE” energy generation they promised us when they pushed it usage, instead it has turned out to be nothing but a Industry moneymaker that shifts all costs to their ratepayers who are “enslaved” because they have no choice but to pay for over priced ☢ Energy, then their is the cost of Long term Waste disposal and possible RISK of Fukushima to consider.
Ask The Japanese people how wonderful N☢ is longterm.
CaptD, you have stepped into your own doodoo.
Fukushima was NOT a nuclear catastrophe.. The reactors did not run up to a nuclear explosion even though the plant electricity supply failed and stopped the coolant pumps..
The plant should never have been built on a geological fault but even when an earthquake and a tsunami wrecked the plant, the built-in safe design prevented a nuclear explosion..
Ha Ha Ha
I guess you don’t consider the Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster a nuclear disaster, funny the Japanese people sure do!
BTW: Any idea where the 3 missing reactor corium(s) are that are helping pollute the Pacific Ocean with all the highly ☢ water they are using to try and keep them cool?
??????????? are you freakin serious? Get the facts, at least 3 meltdowns, at least 3 explosions and at least reactor 3 was a moderated prompt criticality, aka nuclear explosion.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2013/12/fukushima-was-nuclear-explosion-here-is.html
What a liar! Yea, ask the Chinese how they liked their river polluted by the local solar panel construction company.
Or here with ecological disaster caused by wind turbine blade manufacturing.
Ask T Boon Pickens about wind power where as he stated “I lost my ass in wind power.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/11/t-boone-pickens-ive-lost-my-a-in-wind-power/
Agreed, nuklear sucks more than the pronuke pimps on this board.
Just getting started? We’ve been hearing this crap since the 1970s don’t tell me this “still just getting started” baloney. Took them 40 years to get started? How long did it take France to ramp up its nuclear program? France builds 30 or 40 nuclear power plants and in that time solar is just getting its pants on. Yea, come back in 20 years, solar will have its shoes on then.
Ha Ha Ha
Better take another look, France (whose EDF nuclear industry is partially owned by the Gov’t.) is now even scaling back new French nuclear and is having problems funding decommissioning the one they have, which has required them to add an extra decommissioning tax to try and help pay the ever increasing bills.
Those Countries downwind from France are now worried that France is extending aged reactors usage too far and that could cause a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster like Fukushima in Europe!
CaptD I think you are wasting your time here, these gollums chasing their precious are lost for all causes.
Please CaptDishonest, take the clarifier’s word for it. You cannot hoodwink the audience here and your bogus studies won’t fly. Guess you’ll have to move on to greener and more gullible audiences.
“… just getting started…”
Just getting started? We’ve been hearing this solar fantasy since the 1970’s. Quit making lame excuses for solar’s failure to live up to the hype or the expensive we lavish on it.
What do we do with all those solar panels when they lose their efficiency?
Solar panels are lasting far longer than expected and like everything else (dry soon if not already) they will be recycled all without any radioactive waste or DANGER.
Seriously? You pounce within hours relative to your year off from this discussion. Engage m in discussion, prove you thesis, and bring your frontal lobes and your ballsy attitude to the party. My name is Joe Dick, and amongst the many things I’ve done to improve the world is to lay my cards and information on the world-wide table that is the internet by accepting Scientific American’s challenge to write a on their site, despite the name. I
Instead of running away, stand up like a man an defend your “position” whatever it may be. With all due respect to those who must be witness to this, your intrusion, and my now response to it, you are an intellectual pussy.
You have an argument and real data to support it? Bring it.
To go your attitude one better, meet me, online. I’m sure the folks ’round here can arrange a proper debate. A suppusedly unknown punk like you shouldn’t have a thing to loose!
To use the vernacular, “C’mon bitch! Get in the game!”. I am sick to death of pansy ass queers (hey queer means strange, sorry about your luck) saying shit they cannot back up. Go read ” Helium Hokum ” and quit taking the easy way out.
By the way, still waiting for your response in any level of detail; and you do know, one can readily chase your other commentary down an make you look a fool. So again, rise to the intellectual challenge. You said I was in the employ of the nuclear industry; I want everyone to see you as you are: in your mama’s basement or as a paid-for toll.
Bring it, you self-serving cunt. (Apologies to the viewers.)
Oh look, do respond to this! How is it that solar costs 82 cents per kilowatt-hour with subsidies of 90 cents on top of that for $1.72 per, and most of us pay less than a tenth of that, and would pay even less if we weren’t paying for one of your favorite causes. Get paid to propaganda much, you nameless f?
Nuclear and Coal are the kings of subsidies, when cradle to grave costs are included, nice try, peddle your Nuclear Baloney* (NB)
* http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+Baloney elsewhere!
LOL. Solar subsidies are 90 cents per kilowatt-hour and cost $1.72 per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear and Coal pay for themselves. Nuclear is the cheapest form of energy generation we have.
I gave you the references and asked the question multiple times. When you finally do respond, you’re the one that resorts to name-calling.
The information I provided is not “nuclear baloney”. Until you can carry on an enlightened discussion instead of spewing propaganda, why don’t you just shut the hell up and go the hell away? I’m laughing! At you!
“You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.”
hey shit for brains….Solar pencils out at 3 cents per kWH in Hawaii, nuclear is in the 62 to 92 cent range depending on how you handle long term storage.
You got game, bring it….with facts and links….
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/renewable-and-energy-efficiency.html
You call that link factual? It is crap! Considering the huge subsidies to solar, if it is so great, why isn’t everybody jumping on the band wagon?
Why is Ivanpah Solar Power Plant doing so poorly and burning NG more than 4 times what they initially claimed they would be doing? It is another solar LOSER!
It is not crap, this is real data.
Why lie about Ivanpah…..their NG usage is 60% more, spread out over 4 hours……so you lie….to protect your “precious”, god save you.
PS everyone is jumping on the solar bandwagon….hence the need for the nuke pimps to attack solar, got it, user
Yea, and they claimed they would only need to burn NG for an hour. 4 X 1 = 60% in your book? Not a math major are you.
Seen this Chinese city polluted by solar panel manufacturing…and the pollution is just from normal operations, no titanic natural disasters required.
http://www.businessinsider.com/a-chinese-solar-plant-is-shut-down-after-4-days-of-violent-protests-over-pollution-2011-9
How about the wind turbine blade manufacturing pollution? Would you like to turn our US cities into this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
http://tinyurl.com/q4r5cuz
http://tinyurl.com/kc5wx8r
http://tinyurl.com/oyka5l9
http://tinyurl.com/pmpxvqp
What are these wind company executives trying to hide? Seems wind driven profits, almost wholly from subsidies, trump transparency and the environment.
The solar panel manufacturing executives are just as evasive.
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/03/are-your-solar-panels-toxic
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/the-ugly-side-o.html
https://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/pdf/Solar_11.2.pdf
I was NOT initially against wind and solar power, but the dishonesty from their promoters, like CaptDishones here, have been driving me away from the UNreliables.
Yo asshat, read the resources, they applied for variance to buy 60% more Natty. got it? They thought they were going to burn 1 EFL hour, now they are 60% above that.
troll ye be
Spot On Comment.
Did you forget the part about:
“for the eight-month period from January through August, its three units generated 254,263 megawatt-hours of electricity, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data. That’s roughly one-quarter of the annual 1 million-plus megawatt-hours that had been anticipated.”
or this:
“They added that “auxiliary boilers typically need to operate an average of approximately 4.5 hours a day during startup (an increase from 1 hour daily average originally expected).”
or here:
“BrightSource can burn a total of 1,575 million standard cubic feet of natural gas every year. To get a sense of that volume, an average U.S. natural gas-fired power plant might be expected to produce about 200,000 MWh from 1,575 mmcf of gas, according to the EIA.”
or here:
“The article noted that the trio of Ivanpah owners had sought extensions on repaying their loans as they waited to receive a cash grant from the U.S. Treasury worth 30 percent of the plant’s cost…”
or here:
“That relatively small output, combined with the project’s $2 billion price tag, could no doubt hurt all three Ivanpah owners.”
or here:
“Power tower projects in the U.S. have been falling by the wayside; most recently, BrightSource shelved plans to build a single-tower, 500-megawatt plant in Palen, California with Abengoa, despite having waged a lengthy campaign to get the project approved. For now at least, there seems little appetite for such giant projects among the California utilities that were being counted on to buy their power.”
CaptDishonest can comment on this last one in respect to his mantra of “solar of all flavors.”
or here:
The Mojave Desert plant, built with the aid of a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee…its three units generated 254,263 megawatt-hours of electricity, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data. That’s roughly one-quarter of the annual 1 million-plus megawatt-hours that had been anticipated.
All this doesn’t paint a pretty picture of Ivanpah. I am for what works regardless of the source. However, I have consistently seen solar fantasy folks pushing our energy policy toward solar BEFORE it has proven itself. Indeed, that is precisely why FORMER anti-nukes wised up and left the solar fantasy for nuclear reality. For anti-nukes who may be reading this, remember, the makers of Pandora’s Promise, who were leaders in anti-nuclear community, were where you are now; perhaps some day soon you will be where they are.
The makers of Pandora Promise are lying manipulating asshats. They should be tried for a crime against humanity.
NUke lies,Nukes blows up and covers up. Nuke has a firm track history of failure.
When you combine humans and nuke you have a recipe for disaster.
Take a deep breath steveo, no need for hyperventilating. Did you watch the documentary or are you only repeating what you’ve heard from solar executives and faux environmentalists? If you have seen it, where are these former anti-nukes going wrong? They believed in the solar fantasy, just like you. They discovered that what they had formerly believed, was NOT true.
Not true, Iv guy, 3 cents per kWH with tax credits….if you make money to pay tax, you have to pay less.
So, did you watch the documentary or are you only repeating what you’ve heard from solar executives and faux environmentalists? If you have seen it, where are these former anti-nukes going wrong?
By supporting nuke, or yeah….and by pretending to present a balanced opinion, and then falling into all the classic lies of nuke 93 of them by my count.
steveo77/PacE/NukePro/Frank Energy and whatever other alias you are using today, using the same profanity tips people off who you really are, that and the fact you tend to send people to your personal website.. Avast ye, think I’ve located the one attempting to deceive people here… Maybe the fact you sell solar installations may be influencing your viewpoint, could that be why you accuse others of having ulterior motives? Is it a thought out tactic to accuse others in an attempt to avoid suspicion, or is it just an assumption that if you do it, everyone must be doing it?
Wow a motivated troll, replying to comments from 8 months ago.
Liars don’t deserve politeness, I’ll go all blanch on you.
I think you better stop drinking “FLUORIDE”
“… Solar pencils out at 3 cents per kWH in Hawaii… ”
You neglect to mention that most of the folks in Hawai’i with personally-owned solar panels on their homes are not allowed to connect their homes to the solar panels (already on their roofs) because the State-owned electric power company forbids them to. The latest excuse is that the digital power meters can’t function properly when the home owner is generating more electricity than they use.
Many folks (in the 48 continental States) that I know are checking out home solar panels. And, after having to spend tens of $1000s to have it installed, it turns out that they will save approximately $20 a month off their electric power bill.
Fantastic! Right?
Lest we not forget Spain; that Solar power plant our fearless leader has pushed the utility companies to model their own construction of… It is going bankrupt, or went bankrupt; and is causing even more disruption to the faltering Spanish economy. Is that the kind of successful Solar Power System we need here?
Well, there’s an intelligent way to address someone in a conversation. And I see that you chose to use a .blogspot as a source; that’s pretty reliable. I’ll stick with the Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2013/09/23/stop-subsidizing-solar-power/ Apparently your pencil needs sharpening. Solar gets 96 cents per kWh in subsidies, so if solar in Hawaii as you suggest costs 3 cents per kWh net, the real cost would be 3 cents + 96 cents = 99 cents per kWh.
You really are a dick. Read the data, or just spew ad hominems………….I know your choice
The data shows that in Hawaii solar gets a total 65% tax credit. That means that is the remainder is 3cents, that the 65% presents a 6 cents subsidy. Solar with no subsidies is then 9 cents, and it stays at 9 cents for 30 years.
And yes people are flocking to it.
Oh, now there is a truly intelligent response! I’m a “dick”. ROFLMAOCDBIGQ! Oh, in case you need a full translation, “rolling on floor laughing collecting dust bunnies in great quantities”. Try again, “Clarifier”. “Clarifier”. Wow. How… No, wait… no… Muahhhahahahhhahahahhahahahah.
Okay, try again, and please, use some intelligence. (Like that’s going to happen! HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAahhhahahhahahahhahahhahahahhhahahah!
Well, I provided a source with my data. Forbes, which backed up their data with sources.
If anyone is spewing anything here, it’s you. No sources for your numbers.
And gee, you still have my family name in your mouth. You must really like that.
So you are a dick and an asshole? I see, pro nuke, that radiation and heavy metals damage your ability to think.
I have provided my sources several times, here it is again asswipe
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/renewable-and-energy-efficiency.html
You call him a “dick” and “shit for brains” and then complain about ad hominem attacks?!?
Priceless.
Yes unfortunately we have these “Political correct” Bafoons, who watch too much Jewivision, The slave makers,
Nuclear is the most expensive. Nuclear cant’ run one second without gov protection from liability.
Where does solar get 90 cents? LOL!
The universe is laughing in your face.
You’re right. Solar doesn’t get 90¢ per kilowatt-hour. It gets 96¢. http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-258B-905
Sure it is. where? your document say nothing of the sort. At least the referenced one.
In fact, why don’t you read the comments to your link. They point out the logical errors the article made and you too.
Yawn. Demonstrate the errata, don’t claim it exists. Show me how you calculate the subsidies per kilowatt-hour. I dare ya. Or is that beyond your ability, lad?
BTW, in no way shape or form did they get a subsidies that was base on their KWH produced, that was 96 cents or anything like that.
You see, you lied, you try to deceive, and the WSJ helped.
Joe Dick, you live down to your name, yet again.
What a witty riposte! I am utterly defeated by your making fun of my name – not!
If you follow the links, it all leads back to Department of Energy data, and behind that the GAO. Sorry about your luck! Hate to cloud your issues with the facts!
Just list the reference., It’s not there. THE DOE is the old atomic energy commission and still 90% nuclear.
go ahead, you linked, you data is not there.
Try reading, and applying some basic math skills.
Sorry about your luck. Subsidies paid per kilowatt-hour produced are exactly what they say they are: Subsidies paid per kilowatt-hour. Sorry for you that you can’t get a simple thing like that.
Pity you don’t pay attention to the new posts.
Make that 96.8¢ per kilowatt-hour.
Energy Source Subsidy per kwh
Coal $0.0006
Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids $0.0006
Nuclear $0.0031
Renewables $0.0154
Biomass Power $0.0020
Geothermal $0.0125
Hydroelectric $0.0008
Solar $0.9680
Wind $0.0525
http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/which-energy-source-receives-the-largest-subsidy/#sthash.MVs0C4E0.dpuf
http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/which-energy-source-receives-the-largest-subsidy/
Your link divides subsidies by 1 year of solar pv system KWH that will produce by 30 years. so the real number is 3 cents. ops.
The information provided is clear. 96¢ paid per kilowatt hour produced.
BTW, did you know you link it so a bunch climate deniers?
Write complete sentences much? Yikes! LOL
Have another deep draw from that bong. Watch the pretty bubbles filled with smoke. Now hold it in. Hold it! Try not to cough! Okay, now exhale and try writing that sentence again. It will be even more spectacular, I’m sure. For us, not you.
Notice the nonsense reply.