How about our great President!!!
- Thread starter Mafesto
- Start date
Highly depends on their size.
For small ones, I'd agree.
Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
I believe Trump has said the following.
Who knew healthcare would be so complicated.
This job is harder than I thought it would be.
It is nice to see him admit that he is not a know it all. I think that is a first for him.
I know one thing for sure, critics and supporters want him to back off on the TWEETS!
Who knew healthcare would be so complicated.
This job is harder than I thought it would be.
It is nice to see him admit that he is not a know it all. I think that is a first for him.
I know one thing for sure, critics and supporters want him to back off on the TWEETS!
I disagree, the sun doesnt always shine and the wind doesnt always blow and until they can come up with a way to store their energy for when you need it now(extreme winters/summers) its useless & expensive.
Per the study, lets just talk wind vs coal(simply for length of discussion in this thread).
Let my start by saying "this study is inconclusive due to many other factors not considered and these numbers can be easily manipulated in either(s) favor."
Wind farms that are payed for/off CAN beat coals price. But things to consider:
1)Anytime a wind farm puts its power on the market it has to buy back up "spin" power which can double the price, as we know the wind can stop blowing as fast as it started.
2)On Lazard sheet 3 (k), "Does not include cost of transportation(power lines)." On average this is around $4.50 per MWh added cost.
3)Lazard fails to consider wind farms under 80MW that fall under the PURPA 1978 Act which basically allows them to force their power on the grid at whatever high cost to produce(payed by u&me), power price can be double the studys price.
I can go on but lets keep it short.
Coal:
1)Lazard sheet 3
, "Based on advanced supercritical pulverised coal. High end incorporates 90% carbon capture and compression." This is an expensive method used and if Lazard wanted to make coal look expensive this is how. Look at the Kemper Project, still the biggest fail in coal carbon capture, insanely expensive and still not operational.2)Lazard sheet 2 says coal "levelized cost" $65-150/MWh. In MT a coal plants incremental costs average around $25-28/MWh, which beats wind. Where the cost can be misconstrued is when the power is bought at $25/MWh and sold to the consumer(u&me) for .12 cents/KWh, $.12*1000=$120MWh. This is an example of why you should pay attention to your electric bill and what your Public Service Comission does as well as who is holding office.
Wanna see how the rest of the world views Donny and his supporters?https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U1mlCPMYtPk
Thank you for providing a well researched and reasoned rebuttal.Per the study, lets just talk wind vs coal(simply for length of discussion in this thread).
Let my start by saying "this study is inconclusive due to many other factors not considered and these numbers can be easily manipulated in either(s) favor."
Wind farms that are payed for/off CAN beat coals price. But things to consider:
1)Anytime a wind farm puts its power on the market it has to buy back up "spin" power which can double the price, as we know the wind can stop blowing as fast as it started.
2)On Lazard sheet 3 (k), "Does not include cost of transportation(power lines)." On average this is around $4.50 per MWh added cost.
3)Lazard fails to consider wind farms under 80MW that fall under the PURPA 1978 Act which basically allows them to force their power on the grid at whatever high cost to produce(payed by u&me), power price can be double the studys price.
I can go on but lets keep it short.
Coal:
1)Lazard sheet 3
2)Lazard sheet 2 says coal "levelized cost" $65-150/MWh. In MT a coal plants incremental costs average around $25-28/MWh, which beats wind. Where the cost can be misconstrued is when the power is bought at $25/MWh and sold to the consumer(u&me) for .12 cents/KWh, $.12*1000=$120MWh. This is an example of why you should pay attention to your electric bill and what your Public Service Comission does as well as who is holding office.
In my opinion, you've merely reinforced that wind is competitive, unsubsidized, in certain places.
I acknowledged that it's not better everywhere.
In my opinion, wind is also not the future. Solar is. Costs coming down drastically, fast. We do need better storage, but that will come.
Coal is going to die, of that I have very little doubt. The only question is how long it will take.
Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
I can only speak of our local electric cooperative, but I do know that the energy they buy produced by local wind farms costs them twice as much as the energy generated from the lignite plants.
Take carbon credits out of the picture and wind is not financially viable.
Take carbon credits out of the picture and wind is not financially viable.
I wouldn't say wind is competitive to coal, coal can meet on demand requirements 100% of the time while you might get 15-25% output of a wind generator and lets not forget the cost of reserve spin power having to back wind up everytime.
Solar is not the answer, they have made impressive improvements but nowhere near enough to be "the future." Besides solar is by far the biggest money pit we have, Ivanpah & Solyndra come to mind.
Wind & solar are non-flexible and non-dispatchable generating resources that contribute nothing to the inertia of the electric system and require the system to constantly offset their production in order to maintain load & generation balance.
We should all hope that we still have coal generation for when wind & solar cant produce, lives are at stake during extreme weather(cold/hot) and during black outs. To stay competitive on the global market we have to have it.
There is another hidden cost to burning coal. Acid rain. Those of us that live here in MN are all to familiar with it. Plain and simple. If we don't have an abundant supply of clean water we are all doomed. Can't put a price tag on that.
Trump has called for slashing federal funding entirely for the Great Lakes Restoration so he could pay for that stupid wall Mexico is going to pay for.
Thankfully there is bipartisan resistance to cut the funding for now.
20% of the worlds fresh water we have right here in the great lakes.
There are so many issues that need to be addressed across the country and all we hear from our fearless leader is is a bunch of crap on Twitter.
Trump has called for slashing federal funding entirely for the Great Lakes Restoration so he could pay for that stupid wall Mexico is going to pay for.
Thankfully there is bipartisan resistance to cut the funding for now.
20% of the worlds fresh water we have right here in the great lakes.
There are so many issues that need to be addressed across the country and all we hear from our fearless leader is is a bunch of crap on Twitter.
BLITZKRIEG said:1)Lazard sheet 3
The high end includes carbon capture. The low end doesn't. The high end of wind competes with the low end of coal on that scale. I'm not saying it's 100% accurate, and again, not in all places. But it's a pretty solid analysis. I found others that increase wind costs to ~$125/MWh on the high end, which is much higher than Lazards, but still comparable with high end coal. Once more, I'm not saying it's better in all respects. I'm saying it's competitive, unsubsidized, in many areas.
That's what "The Future" means. It's not the best option yet, but based on the cost and efficiency trajectory, and provided we develop good storage capability, it will be, IN THE FUTURE. That means it's an investment now, for payoff later. You sound like those in the 70s who said the computer would never amount to anything, or the late 80s/early 90s with computer networking.
Even given the need for backup sources, coal isn't the best option. Natural gas is. That's what's really killing coal in this country. Natural gas is cheaper to produce, burns more efficiently, emits less radiation, and is able to respond to changes in grid demand faster than coal is. Look at the chart again for gas, it's also better than coal (provided it's combined cycle).
Conservatives aren't swayed by health arguments. Beat them on monetary cost, or they don't care.
Last edited:
How about "US Americans"? That is what how I refer to people in the States.
And the name of your country is a description. I don't know of any other country that named themselves this way. Although we do have a Province named Newfoundland.
...
Glad you know more than the utilities installing it.
Nukes, sure. But there's so much red-tape with those, it's hard to be confident anything new would ever make money. Gas does just fine in many areas. There are big gas plants and small gas plants, just like coal.
Gas and automation are driving coal into the ground. Regulation is helping a bit, but it's mostly automation.
Believe it or not, I'm actually pretty familiar with the power industry. I've only worked in it for 10 years. I do power plant performance, and reliability monitoring. I work with Nukes, fossil plants of all sorts, wind, and gas, both simple cycle and combined cycle. I'm familiar with which plants are more efficient.
Big improvements in storage, and the ability to use that storage to perform the peaking function, are necessary to allow inconsistent sources (wind/solar) to replace all baseload generation. I agree with you there. Solyndra and SunEdison were failures, yes. There have been many other successful investments. Enough that they wipe out the losses from the failures. (I can get you a source on that if you can't find one.)
I'm not trying to demonize coal. But there are big downsides to it, and I'm not going to ignore them.
That was really hard to understand.... I feel dumber after reading that.
J
jerrydecoy
Well-known member
What part can I explain for you??? Reading the entire thread might help!
...and thenGlad you know more than the utilities installing it.
~The only thing they know is how to jump on the gov subsidy money train to build them for an agenda, I just see it.
Gas does just fine in many areas. There are big gas plants and small gas plants, just like coal.
~Not many gas plants are in the gigawatt range needed for base load, and again supply and demand once more gas plants are built gas will no longer be cheap.
Gas and automation are driving coal into the ground. Regulation is helping a bit, but it's mostly automation.
~Regulation IS running the show, at least until the don stepped in.
Believe it or not, I'm actually pretty familiar with the power industry. I've only worked in it for 10 years. I do power plant performance, and reliability monitoring. I work with Nukes, fossil plants of all sorts, wind, and gas, both simple cycle and combined cycle. I'm familiar with which plants are more efficient.
~I'm pretty familiar with the power industry too, I work at burger king, been there 2 years, i'd like to quit but i'm fawking the fry girl, sure she might be retarded but those titties aint retarded! (Dont freak out its just a JOKE meant to lighten this thread up, shes not retarted just slow).
Big improvements in storage, and the ability to use that storage to perform the peaking function, are necessary to allow inconsistent sources (wind/solar) to replace all baseload generation. I agree with you there. Solyndra and SunEdison were failures, yes. There have been many other successful investments. Enough that they wipe out the losses from the failures. (I can get you a source on that if you can't find one.)
~Im trying to respond proper but i cant shake the thaught of an awesome south park character "aging hippie liberal douche."
I'm not trying to demonize coal. But there are big downsides to it, and I'm not going to ignore them.
~Huge downsides like an abundance of power for the next several hundred years!.
