The environment thread

[lostfan]

Go green!

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090707/ap_on_...ens_wind_energy

 

Now if this were so promising, why would he cancel it? He says they got off the blocks too quick, but I call BS on that one, and furthermore, he's seen what's in the Cap and Trade (Tax and Kill) bill. It's all a big redistribution of wealth boondoggle. PERIOD.

 

But it's a "job creator". Uh huh, so how many millions of jobs are we going to kill to create a fraction of the green jobs?

I don't know what you're talking about here, what does Pickens's plan to build wind turbines have to do with cap and trade? He said he couldn't get financing and had problems building transmission systems to get the power to homes etc.

[kapkomet]

I don't know what you're talking about here, what does Pickens's plan to build wind turbines have to do with cap and trade? He said he couldn't get financing and had problems building transmission systems to get the power to homes etc.

But this whole market is so profitable, ripe for the picking!

 

Cap and Trade (Tax and Kill) is supposed to be the defining legislation that sets our energy policy as well, at least that's what the MSM is telling me.

 

*breathe out*

 

Oh s***, now I have to pay more.

 

[Balta1701]

The Pickens plan was pretty silly as originally proposed anyway. Everyone knew there'd be transmission problems until someone stepped in and built a legit "Smart grid". The fossil fuel energy price collapse was the final straw. But just wait, in a decade the area he wanted to develop as a wind farm will probably be developed as a wind farm. Everyone sort of tolerated him because it was kind of nice to have a fossil fuel baron arguing in favor of clean energy.

[NorthSideSox72]

Go green!

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090707/ap_on_...ens_wind_energy

 

Now if this were so promising, why would he cancel it? He says they got off the blocks too quick, but I call BS on that one, and furthermore, he's seen what's in the Cap and Trade (Tax and Kill) bill. It's all a big redistribution of wealth boondoggle. PERIOD.

 

But it's a "job creator". Uh huh, so how many millions of jobs are we going to kill to create a fraction of the green jobs?

The article answers your question:

 

In Texas, the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system, Pickens said in an interview with The Associated Press in New York. He'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems.

 

Further, he says in the article that wind isn't dead at all.

 

You are really reaching here.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Obama makes nuclear compromise to pass clean energy bill

 

The Obama administration endorsed a revival of America's nuclear industry yesterday in an effort to build forward momentum for climate change legislation before the Senate.

 

The seal of approval for nuclear power – a cause embraced by Republican senators – came on day one of a full-on lobbying effort by the White House for one of Obama's signature issues.

 

Obama sent four of his top lieutenants to the Senate – his secretaries of energy, interior, agriculture and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – to try to drum up support for a global warming bill.

 

The PR effort saw direct appeals to the farming and nuclear lobbies – some of the fiercest critics of Obama's clean energy agenda – with Steven Chu, the Nobel-winning energy secretary, calling for new nuclear plants to re-establish America's technological dominance in the world.

 

"I think nuclear power is going to be a very important factor in getting us to a low carbon future," Chu told the Senate's environment and public works committee. "Quite frankly, we want to recapture the lead on industrial nuclear power. We have lost that lead as we have lost the lead in many energy technologies and we want to get it back."

 

The endorsement of a nuclear revival – a generation after the last reactor was commissioned – suggests the Obama administration is open to further compromises as it seeks to find a path through the Senate. The House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate change bill late last month.

 

(more at the link)

[NorthSideSox72]

Obama makes nuclear compromise to pass clean energy bill

Glad to see Chu say this:

 

"Quite frankly, we want to recapture the lead on industrial nuclear power. We have lost that lead as we have lost the lead in many energy technologies and we want to get it back."

 

Exactly what I have been saying. I'm happy the administration agrees.

 

[Balta1701]

Glad to see Chu say this:

 

 

 

Exactly what I have been saying. I'm happy the administration agrees.

Nuclear power is a terrible idea. And that's just speaking economics; it costs vastly more than any other form of electricity generation out there right now. I'll guarantee you Chu knows this, and he's playing politics for potential votes here.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Nuclear power is a terrible idea. And that's just speaking economics; it costs vastly more than any other form of electricity generation out there right now. I'll guarantee you Chu knows this, and he's playing politics for potential votes here.

100% politics. Republicans, for what ever reason, see nuclear power as the holy grail of energy. No nuclear, no new energy policy. Boneheaded if you ask me. but anyways. If it takes a marginal investment in nuclear to convince the few that need convincing, then so be it. In the end, wind and solar will reign.

[HuskyCaucasian]

The Pickens plan was pretty silly as originally proposed anyway. Everyone knew there'd be transmission problems until someone stepped in and built a legit "Smart grid".

So, where IS a good spot to build this near transmission lines?

 

I did a quick google search and came up with a map of the power grid and a map of wind speeds over land, and merged them:

 

So, Kansas?

 

edit: made a better all encompassing map.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[Balta1701]

The problems are 2-fold. First, that's not the only map that matters; this map is also very important.

 

 

You don't just need transmission capacity, you need places where the wind blows with some regularity.

 

The other key detail with wind in particular is that you need the grid to be smarter, you need demand to actually be able to adapt to changing amounts of production given the fact that wind is not constantly blowing at the same rate. This requires a grid that is able to handle variable loads without crashing and which is intelligent enough to allow for pricing of electricity based on scarcity; if there's less power being generated or if the power is being offloaded to a more expensive natural gas fired plant, the price should increase so as to provoke a decrease in utilisation at that time. That also means that households and businesses need to receive the information about the balance between supply and demand.

 

Edit: impressive, you edited your map with the same information I was trying to post.

[NorthSideSox72]

Nuclear power is a terrible idea. And that's just speaking economics; it costs vastly more than any other form of electricity generation out there right now. I'll guarantee you Chu knows this, and he's playing politics for potential votes here.

I think you are missing my point. Chu's statement was about alt energy tech in general. Clearly, nuclear is the least ideal option of those available, but this was a compromise, and his statement indicates that this is among many of them they will push.

 

[BigSqwert]

Finally. Someone with common sense when it comes to the environment...

 

"The Earth has been here 6,000 years, long before anybody had environmental laws, and somehow it hasn’t been done away with. We need to get the uranium here in Arizona, so this state can get the money from it," - Arizona state Senator Sylvia Allen.

Edited July 8, 2009 by BigSqwert

[lostfan]

Finally. Someone with common sense when it comes to the environment...

This is a pretty good argument in favor of revoking free speech.

 

If this was a government official of another country saying this I would advocate nuking that country. That's a pretty good use for the uranium she wants, isn't it?

[StrangeSox]

Nuclear power is a terrible idea. And that's just speaking economics; it costs vastly more than any other form of electricity generation out there right now. I'll guarantee you Chu knows this, and he's playing politics for potential votes here.

 

If I'm remembering my coursework correctly, that simply is not true when you take into account all of the externalities, fuel costs and subsidies. edit: and the hypothetical carbon taxes/ costs.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_...t_per_kW.C2.B7h

Edited July 8, 2009 by StrangeSox

[KipWellsFan]

Go green!

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090707/ap_on_...ens_wind_energy

 

Now if this were so promising, why would he cancel it? He says they got off the blocks too quick, but I call BS on that one, and furthermore, he's seen what's in the Cap and Trade (Tax and Kill) bill. It's all a big redistribution of wealth boondoggle. PERIOD.

 

But it's a "job creator". Uh huh, so how many millions of jobs are we going to kill to create a fraction of the green jobs?

 

Tax and kill? That's just silly Kap. Cap and trade so far has not really worked at cutting greenhouse gas emissions. But these s***ty plans certainly haven't had much negative effect on economies.

[Balta1701]

Tax and kill? That's just silly Kap. Cap and trade so far has not really worked at cutting greenhouse gas emissions. But these s***ty plans certainly haven't had much negative effect on economies.

Are you certain about that? Because the European system is actually producing some pretty substantial cuts with a system that started off even weaker than the one we're working to pass.

The UK will today mark World Environment Day with the release of new data showing the country is on track to deliver emission cuts that are almost double its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

 

According to a new UN report, UK greenhouse gas emissions are expected to be 23 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010, far exceeding its official target of a 12.5 per cent reduction in emissions.

 

Climate change minister Joan Ruddock insisted that while there was plenty of work still to be done, the cuts delivered so far provided evidence that economies could continue to grow while delivering rapid cuts in carbon emissions.

[KipWellsFan]

Hmmm, going to have to look into it.

[StrangeSox]

A lot of the right-wing blogs out there are going around about Section 304 of the "cap-and-trade" bill. Here's the most prominent google search article on it. Basically, the argument is that you'll have to have a state-mandated energy audit before being able to sell your home.

 

One thing I noticed is that this actually seems to be in section 204, not 304. 304 is about building codes while 204 is about a labeling program. So, I tried reading Sections 204 and 304, but legalese isn't a natural language for me. Can someone else determine if the way they are characterizing it is correct or not?

 

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454...;nid=t0:rh:2317

[NorthSideSox72]

A lot of the right-wing blogs out there are going around about Section 304 of the "cap-and-trade" bill. Here's the most prominent google search article on it. Basically, the argument is that you'll have to have a state-mandated energy audit before being able to sell your home.

 

One thing I noticed is that this actually seems to be in section 204, not 304. 304 is about building codes while 204 is about a labeling program. So, I tried reading Sections 204 and 304, but legalese isn't a natural language for me. Can someone else determine if the way they are characterizing it is correct or not?

 

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454...;nid=t0:rh:2317

That page (opencongress) is running some script that is killing my browser, so, I can't open it fully.

 

But I can tell you right now that any restriction on selling a home due to energy issues under some sort of inspection scheme is simply not going to fly, unless the US government plans to pay you for the house, because its a clear violation of the takings clause of 5A.

 

[Balta1701]

There have been signs that its been building for about 2 months now, but it looks almost certain that we're going to have a major El Nino event this year.

 

Amongst the things this means are:

1. A weak hurricane season

2. Potentially catastrophic weather everywhere else.

3. Possibly a new global surface temperature record (passing 1998).

4. Possible breaking of some of the drought in California/Western U.S.

5. And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

[kapkomet]

There have been signs that its been building for about 2 months now, but it looks almost certain that we're going to have a major El Nino event this year.

 

Amongst the things this means are:

1. A weak hurricane season

2. Potentially catastrophic weather everywhere else.

3. Possibly a new global surface temperature record (passing 1998).

4. Possible breaking of some of the drought in California/Western U.S.

5. And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

#5, of course, is the most important.

 

[iamshack]

The problems are 2-fold. First, that's not the only map that matters; this map is also very important.

 

 

You don't just need transmission capacity, you need places where the wind blows with some regularity.

 

The other key detail with wind in particular is that you need the grid to be smarter, you need demand to actually be able to adapt to changing amounts of production given the fact that wind is not constantly blowing at the same rate. This requires a grid that is able to handle variable loads without crashing and which is intelligent enough to allow for pricing of electricity based on scarcity; if there's less power being generated or if the power is being offloaded to a more expensive natural gas fired plant, the price should increase so as to provoke a decrease in utilisation at that time. That also means that households and businesses need to receive the information about the balance between supply and demand.

 

Edit: impressive, you edited your map with the same information I was trying to post.

 

First off, Nuclear power is not the most expensive form of energy. Solar power is ridiculously expensive still. Some $65/hr a MW from our Solar One plant here in Nevada. I'm not sure what the costs are for nuclear, but I can tell you that the biggest player in the Northwest, the Bonneville Power Administration, has vast nuclear capacity and doesn't hesitate to run it. My guess is it is somewhere in the $25 MW/hr range.

 

As for your concerns regarding the grid, the problem is that our current grids are simply not required to deal with the volatility of huge wind projects. There are certainly some wind plants operating on the Western Grid, but keep in mind that wind power must be backed by fossil fuel power, so that if the wind generation suddenly varies, the fossil fuel power compensated for the loss. As it stands now, there is basically a "window" which exists in which fossil fuel sources adjust to smaller variations in wind power, and the current grid is able to windstand that. What it cannot withstand, is massive amounts of volatile wind power upsetting the balance of the grid. You summed this up fairly well in your explanation.

 

We can talk about building all the wind plants we can until we are blue in the face. But we need to rebuild our grids before the power system can adequately and reliably handle a significant amount of wind and solar power.

Edited July 10, 2009 by iamshack

[lostfan]

Balta, read this post for a laugh. He's never had much ability to think for himself.

 

[Balta1701]

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!

[Balta1701]

Developing world stands up to G8, requests significantly more restrictive CO2 regulation than any country in the G8 has been willing to consider (most notably the U.S., which is still behind the rest of the G8).