Ok so lets be fair the oldest coal plants in the US have been around since 1921. That is 90 years of operation. Lets assume 15 years on life of a solar farm.
250,000,000,000/90 = $2,777,777.78/yr cost (this is using your numbers on one of the longest running cole fired plants in the USA - Marshall Plant in Milam County, Texas)
20,000/15 = $1,333.33/yr cost @ 90 years = $119,999.70.
2,777,777.78/119,999.70 = 23.14 times more expensive on a yearly basis.
1.50/.50 = 3 times the energy production.
So using your factual numbers it costs 23.14 times more money per coal plant over a lifetime, then a single solar plant, for 3 times the energy production. Why you could have 7 solar farms for every 1 coal plant, and pay the exact same price. (using your numbers of course.)
and this will only get cheaper and more efficient as the product becomes more and more common place.
(edit ****** up the numbers for solar should be 1,333.33*6 not 90 (as 90/6 is 15), am not going to change it as it will solidify my point even more.)
Edited, Oct 21st 2011 10:42pm by rdmcandie
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- World Population Reaches 7 Billion
World Population Reaches 7 BillionFollow
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Nilatai wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Tidal turbines make fish move, oil wipes them out, take your pick.
It makes for good TV.
Eh, it's that lull between seasons. Autumn TV sucks balls.
Here in the real world, autumn is when all the new shows start. Some of them are actually good.
rdmcandie wrote:
So using your factual numbers
Wrong. My numbers weren't factual. That's what "suppose" and "let's say" are meant to convey, which you clearly missed. The whole point of my argument was to show that there is absolutely no conceptual or theoretical basis for your ridiculous idea that solar energy is cheaper by virtue of the simple fact that it has less annual costs. If you want to go look up real numbers for coal plants and solar panels, be my guest. I simply posted to rebut the idea that somehow, given a horizontal line and a line with positive slope, the horizontal line is always below the line with positive slope.
aka Gbajiing out your ***.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
You're the one who made the claim. Don't cry when it's so easily rebutted.
im sorry what? non-accurate numbers being passed of as accurate, then being slammed into the ground is being easily rebutted? If anything it makes you and Gbaji look even more like idiots, considering neither of you have yet to actually refute the claim with valid numbers and or accurate and substantiated support.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
You made the claim that solar must be cheaper than coal because coal has recurring costs which solar does not. I demonstrated that this was false through a counterexample. You somehow believed this to be my attempt to run the numbers using factual data, despite the lack of any citations or claim that these numbers were factual. I could easily have written by posts using X, Y, and Z, but I doubted you'd understand the point with placeholder variables, so I went with a concrete example instead. The whole point was to rebut your ridiculous claim that solar must be cheaper due to its being a single upfront cost.
Sorry Rdm, Gbaji is wrong about many things, but you are wrong about this.
Check here if you want the stats, it includes all the factors mention as well as investment resources tied up, costs of capital based on risk, etc.
Edited, Oct 22nd 2011 12:10am by Timelordwho
Check here if you want the stats, it includes all the factors mention as well as investment resources tied up, costs of capital based on risk, etc.
Edited, Oct 22nd 2011 12:10am by Timelordwho
Just as Planned.
why counter example with false information. At least Gbaji understands that presently alternative energy sources are more expensive but over the long term are cheaper. What Gbaji fails to realize is how limited his country has made expansion of alternative sources, when countries with (at the present) more stable and attractive economies are increasing and supporting the production and use of alternative energy sources.
You offered nothing but a personal opinion with unsubstantiated "proof" to back it up. Hell the only one arguing with me already made the concession that over the long term alternative solutions are better, you provided nothing.
The real question is, why not get the costly portions out of the way now. It is clear fact that renewable energy sources out pace the competition in terms of overall costs. Every other major economy in the world is supporting this venture except the USA, which also happens to be the largest oil dependent nation in the world. You do the math.
You offered nothing but a personal opinion with unsubstantiated "proof" to back it up. Hell the only one arguing with me already made the concession that over the long term alternative solutions are better, you provided nothing.
The real question is, why not get the costly portions out of the way now. It is clear fact that renewable energy sources out pace the competition in terms of overall costs. Every other major economy in the world is supporting this venture except the USA, which also happens to be the largest oil dependent nation in the world. You do the math.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
God, you're thick. I'm not arguing against alternative energy. I think alternative energy sources are a fantastic research avenue and one that needs looking into. What I'm arguing against is the very specific claim you made that I restated in my post above, which is a mathematical claim and does not require any form of factual numbers. I can't make things any clearer than this.
Quote:
The real question is, why not get the costly portions out of the way now. It is clear fact that renewable energy sources out pace the competition in terms of overall costs. Every other major economy in the world is supporting this venture except the USA, which also happens to be the largest oil dependent nation in the world. You do the math.
Right but building infrastructure now does not equate to having pertinent infrastructure for next gen production. Tech investment is the correct plan. The US does invest a decent chunk into various ventures. Gbaji&co were even raging about one of these ventures the other day.
Honestly, probably the most brutally efficient way to do this would be to buy/otherwise coerce a large pile of (smart) scientists into Govt funded R&D and then passing the tech to its interests, sorta like the atomics program. You could even back subsidize this program after the fact, assuming successful leveraging.
Just as Planned.
Nadenu wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Tidal turbines make fish move, oil wipes them out, take your pick.
It makes for good TV.
Eh, it's that lull between seasons. Autumn TV sucks balls.
Here in the real world, autumn is when all the new shows start. Some of them are actually good.
Well the BBC has some pretty good programmes on right now. Everyone is talking about X-factor, though. Which gets boring after the audition stage...
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Timelordwho wrote:
Honestly, probably the most brutally efficient way to do this would be to buy/otherwise coerce a large pile of (smart) scientists into Govt funded R&D and then passing the tech to its interests, sorta like the atomics program. You could even back subsidize this program after the fact, assuming successful leveraging.
AFAIK most of our best tech comes from the Navy and Air Force. Those planes
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
rdmcandie wrote:
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
The reason that coal and oil have been used for so long is that governments make it cheap to do so.
Sigh. No. They are cheaper. Period. Governments don't have to do anything to make them so. I'm not sure how we can have an intelligent conversation about alternative energy if you're unwilling to accept even the most basic facts about energy generation itself.
Agreed it is impossible to to converse with someone who thinks the sun costs more money as an energy source then oil or coal. Last I checked we don't have people harvesting the sun, people transporting the sun, people refining the sun. But because I know you well enough that your opinion won't change Ill just say whatever you say sport and leave it at that.
The thing is, coal and oil are made from 300+ millions years worth of sun. To argue that fossil fuels - which take 300 million years to make, shouldn't be priced higher than wind power - is absurd.
The entire fossil fuel paradigm is based on this idea that a private company shouldn't have to pay anything (or almost anything at all) to extract and sell a limited resource that represents hundreds of millions of years of stored energy.
So yes, in that way fossil fuel is cheap, because all future generations (if there are any) are being ripped off. But that doesn't make it cheap in any real sense.
Edited, Oct 22nd 2011 7:45pm by Olorinus
Olorinus wrote:
But that doesn't make it cheap in any real sense.
Except, of course, in the only really important sense, which is economically. But it's much easier to talk about how fossil fuels aren't renewable and the only way forward is solar and wind, than it is to actually examine the factors that have made fossil fuels into an economic powerhouse.
Majivo wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
But that doesn't make it cheap in any real sense.
Except, of course, in the only really important sense, which is economically. But it's much easier to talk about how fossil fuels aren't renewable and the only way forward is solar and wind, than it is to actually examine the factors that have made fossil fuels into an economic powerhouse.
Because money now is more important than stable energy options in the future, amirite?
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Nilatai wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
But that doesn't make it cheap in any real sense.
Except, of course, in the only really important sense, which is economically. But it's much easier to talk about how fossil fuels aren't renewable and the only way forward is solar and wind, than it is to actually examine the factors that have made fossil fuels into an economic powerhouse.
Because money now is more important than stable energy options in the future, amirite?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Nilatai wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
But that doesn't make it cheap in any real sense.
Except, of course, in the only really important sense, which is economically. But it's much easier to talk about how fossil fuels aren't renewable and the only way forward is solar and wind, than it is to actually examine the factors that have made fossil fuels into an economic powerhouse.
Because money now is more important than stable energy options in the future, amirite?
There sure is an awful lot of missing the point in this thread. No, because developing stable energy in the future is going to be a lot more difficult if all anyone can say is "HURR DURR COAL IS RUNNING OUT" instead of looking at why coal is so successful. If we can't get the cost per energy down to around the same price as fossil fuels by the time we have to make the switchover, the global economy is going to suffer a hell of a shock as energy prices increase by 20-30% worldwide.
But yeah, let's just keep saying "Coal isn't cheap! Look at what it does to our planet!!" and ignore the real world.
Majivo wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
But that doesn't make it cheap in any real sense.
Except, of course, in the only really important sense, which is economically. But it's much easier to talk about how fossil fuels aren't renewable and the only way forward is solar and wind, than it is to actually examine the factors that have made fossil fuels into an economic powerhouse.
Because money now is more important than stable energy options in the future, amirite?
There sure is an awful lot of missing the point in this thread. No, because developing stable energy in the future is going to be a lot more difficult if all anyone can say is "HURR DURR COAL IS RUNNING OUT" instead of looking at why coal is so successful. If we can't get the cost per energy down to around the same price as fossil fuels by the time we have to make the switchover, the global economy is going to suffer a hell of a shock as energy prices increase by 20-30% worldwide.
But yeah, let's just keep saying "Coal isn't cheap! Look at what it does to our planet!!" and ignore the real world.
Coal is successful because it's easy. Fuel + Heat + Oxygen, that's really all there is to it. We already have the infrastructure for processing fossil fuels, so there's no start up cost. The energy/kg of fuel yield is high.
All of this doesn't really matter though, fossil fuels are running out. It's just plain retarded to not start preparing for when they do as soon as possible.
Also, you know, global warming.
Edited, Oct 24th 2011 7:29am by Nilatai
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Majivo wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Because money now is more important than stable energy options in the future, amirite? 
There sure is an awful lot of missing the point in this thread. No, because developing stable energy in the future is going to be a lot more difficult if all anyone can say is "HURR DURR COAL IS RUNNING OUT" instead of looking at why coal is so successful. If we can't get the cost per energy down to around the same price as fossil fuels by the time we have to make the switchover, the global economy is going to suffer a hell of a shock as energy prices increase by 20-30% worldwide.
This. We really aren't doing ourselves any favors by pushing for the implementation of alternatives, and then subsidizing them in order to make them appear to be more cost competitive. As I've argued earlier in this thread, I believe this actually hurts us in the long run (and the whole "saving the planet" bit is a long run issue, isn't it?). We need to focus on developing better means of utilizing those alternatives so that they naturally meet the existing power sources economically at some point and *then* we can switch over without having to engage in false "feel good" shenanigans.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Because money now is more important than stable energy options in the future, amirite?
There sure is an awful lot of missing the point in this thread. No, because developing stable energy in the future is going to be a lot more difficult if all anyone can say is "HURR DURR COAL IS RUNNING OUT" instead of looking at why coal is so successful. If we can't get the cost per energy down to around the same price as fossil fuels by the time we have to make the switchover, the global economy is going to suffer a hell of a shock as energy prices increase by 20-30% worldwide.
This. We really aren't doing ourselves any favors by pushing for the implementation of alternatives, and then subsidizing them in order to make them appear to be more cost competitive. As I've argued earlier in this thread, I believe this actually hurts us in the long run (and the whole "saving the planet" bit is a long run issue, isn't it?). We need to focus on developing better means of utilizing those alternatives so that they naturally meet the existing power sources economically at some point and *then* we can switch over without having to engage in false "feel good" shenanigans.
I think many of the people who are in favor of switching sooner are under the impression the world will be in worse shape than they'd like by the time it's cost-effective.
Add in that predicting climate change is an imperfect science, predicting when future technology will be cost-effective is even more dicey (fusion power is only 50 years away!) and people have different opinions of how 'bad' is bad. If the planet does warm there will be winners and losers. If you live in central Alberta you're likely to get a longer growing season for your crops. If you live on an atoll in the Pacific, well it sucks to be you pretty much.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
gbaji wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Because money now is more important than stable energy options in the future, amirite?
There sure is an awful lot of missing the point in this thread. No, because developing stable energy in the future is going to be a lot more difficult if all anyone can say is "HURR DURR COAL IS RUNNING OUT" instead of looking at why coal is so successful. If we can't get the cost per energy down to around the same price as fossil fuels by the time we have to make the switchover, the global economy is going to suffer a hell of a shock as energy prices increase by 20-30% worldwide.
This. We really aren't doing ourselves any favors by pushing for the implementation of alternatives, and then subsidizing them in order to make them appear to be more cost competitive.
Aside from the fact there is an inherent subsidization of fossil fuel generation (since companies are paying nothing or next to nothing for the pollution they make, and not paying a reasonable price for the irreplaceable resource they are using up) - I live in a jurisdiction that has no coal power, and uses natural gas only as backup generation, and our power is cheaper than in any jurisdiction I know of that relies on coal and other fossil fuels. We run on hydro and our current industrial rate is around $40 MWh
Nevermind that if we put a $500 tonne carbon tax in place (and put the money aside to be used to build the best dykes around our coastal cities possible and their upkeep etc, and other climate change related infrastructure) - coal wouldn't look cheap to anyone. Instead - society will eat the costs of extreme weather events caused by climate change - and the companies that profited while making the pollution will pay nothing (or no more than every other sector of the economy).
It is hard to believe anyone could agree that fossil fuels are a limited resource which we will not be able to use forever (unless we go extinct before running out of them) - and then simultaneously argue we shouldn't get to work developing alternatives.
Yes, the energy intensity of alternatives is lower. 300 million years of sunlight baked into a little rock is really energy intensive, and I am pretty sure that no alternative is going to match that intensity. That's not going to change, even with technological advances. If we are sitting around waiting for wind to be hard power with the same energy intensity as coal, we will be waiting forever, because it is not going to happen.
However, it is imperative that we start the technology train rolling, and get alternatives out there and into the grid so that we can learn how to make them better.
The energy mix in a grid has an impact on how well different energy sources feed into the grid. For example - a grid that is primarily wind and coal faces a lot of challenges around peak load (and overload) because coal is hard power (on or off) that doesn't scale well. You're either burning it, or not burning it - so it is incredibly difficult to not either burn out your grid or have brown outs - because wind is so intermittent.
Wind and hydro, however, can work beautifully together - because, at least here anyway, we have a central control that can increase or decrease the amount of hydro energy flowing into the grid - unlike coal power - hydro power can scale up and down with the amount of water which is let through the dam.
You need to have wind in the grid to start identifying those problems/solutions/advantages/disadvantages and working on solutions. Yeah, Germany has had some hiccups feeding wind into its mostly hard power grid - but they have learned from them and the technology is getting better. That doesn't happen unless we prioritize developing the technology (which has an initial cost that is unavoidable no matter when we engage in it).
Also the idea that we should wait till the downslope of peak oil/peak gas etc to develop alternatives (cause we don't need energy to make solar panels, amirite) is hilarious
#149REDACTED,
Posted: Oct 25 2011 at 11:12 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Making up arguments again, nice. As both gbaji and I have said, we should be (and are) developing alternatives right now. It's when we should deploy them that is being argued. These are vastly different.
Majivo wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
It is hard to believe anyone could agree that fossil fuels are a limited resource which we will not be able to use forever (unless we go extinct before running out of them) - and then simultaneously argue we shouldn't get to work developing alternatives.
Making up arguments again, nice. As both gbaji and I have said, we should be (and are) developing alternatives right now. It's when we should deploy them that is being argued. These are vastly different.
Ah, so we should wait until some magic moment and then instantly transition all of our grids without testing anything in real world situations (with real grid demands) first. Gotcha.
Olorinus wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
It is hard to believe anyone could agree that fossil fuels are a limited resource which we will not be able to use forever (unless we go extinct before running out of them) - and then simultaneously argue we shouldn't get to work developing alternatives.
Making up arguments again, nice. As both gbaji and I have said, we should be (and are) developing alternatives right now. It's when we should deploy them that is being argued. These are vastly different.
Ah, so we should wait until some magic moment and then instantly transition all of our grids without testing anything in real world situations (with real grid demands) first. Gotcha.
Apparently that's the only reasonable thing to do, Olo. That way we can squeeze a decade or so more out of fossil fuel profits while we set up the new grids!
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Recent Visitors: 327
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (327)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- World Population Reaches 7 Billion
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC