[Mazaholic]

http://willprice.blogspot.com/2007/0...e-reached.html
I can't even find anything about the cost of oil fired except..it's expensive.

1.5% from bio-mass
0.44% from wind
0.36% for geothermal
0.01% for solar power.

The other 97.7%?
49.7% coal-fired
19.3% nuclear
19.1% natural gas
6.5% hydro
3% oil-fired

Coal $0.0531 per kwh
Wind $0.0558 per kwh, or 1.051x coal
Natural Gas $0.0525 per kwh, or .98x coal
Nuclear $0.0593 per kwh, or 1.12x coal
Solar $0.30 per kwh, or 5.65x coal
Biomass $0.075 per kwh, or 1.41x coal
Geothermal $0.075 per kwh, or 1.41x coal

[dynosor]

1.5% from bio-mass
0.44% from wind
0.36% for geothermal
0.01% for solar power.

Coal $0.0531 per kwh
Wind $0.0558 per kwh, or 1.051x coal
Natural Gas $0.0525 per kwh, or .98x coal
Nuclear $0.0593 per kwh, or 1.12x coal
Solar $0.30 per kwh, or 5.65x coal
Biomass $0.075 per kwh, or 1.41x coal
Geothermal $0.075 per kwh, or 1.41x coal

What subsidies are applied to achieve these costs? It is not zero:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html


Executive Summary
A multi-billion-dollar government crusade to promote renewable energy for electricity generation, now in its third decade, has resulted in major economic costs and unintended environmental consequences. Even improved new generation renewable capacity is, on average, twice as expensive as new capacity from the most economical fossil-fuel alternative and triple the cost of surplus electricity. Solar power for bulk generation is substantially more uneconomic than the average; biomass, hydroelectric power, and geothermal projects are less uneconomic. Wind power is the closest to the double-triple rule....



Problems of Wind Power
Of immediate concern to eco-energy planning is wind power, beloved as a renewable resource with no air pollutants and considered worthy of regulatory preference and open-ended taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies. Despite decades of liberal subsidies, however, the cost of generating electricity from wind remains stubbornly uneconomical in an increasingly competitive electricity market. Many leading wind-power providers have encountered financial difficulty, and capacity retirements appear as likely as new projects in the United States without major new government subsidy.


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ergy+subsidies

[Mazaholic]

It does seem to be a little misleading.
The Texas Nuclear plant reports about 1.38 cents per Kwh operating cost.

What really concerns me about coal is diesel.
Much of the equipment is electric but the transportation isn't.
Are we headed for a brick wall?
I sure hope not.
Oil is hidden in every crevice of our lives.

[Geof]

I.....What really concerns me about coal is diesel.
Much of the equipment is electric but the transportation isn't.
Are we headed for a brick wall?
I sure hope not.
Oil is hidden in every crevice of our lives.

What will happen is that over a period of time, many decades, rail transportation will switch to electric power...from coal fired (and some nuclear powered) generating plants. This will happen as diesel, and all petroleum based fuels become more expensive.

Diesel can be synthesized from coal, it was done in Germany during the Second World War, and in South Africa during the apartheid embargo. It is more expensive than petroleum based diesel, but I have no idea where the break point is; gasoline can also be synthesized from coal. Both of these will be used for local transportation, (sell all your shares in Freightliner, in the future world big highway transporation rigs will not exist) and for personal transportation in the form of scooters or ultra small cars; maybe hybrids but I think eventually it will be realised they are mostly a sham. Eventually cities will rebuild in a manner that is conducive to mass transit. In some locations canal transport will become feasible again, it is very low energy.

The brick wall exists for trying to make changes on a time frame of a few years, or even one or two decades, as the global warming zealots claim is needed. In my view it is not needed, and will not work anyway...if global warming is being caused by our carbon dioxide emissions we are stuck with having to adapt to it, we cannot stop it.

Oil is in every crevice of our lives; actually fossils fuel are in every crevice of our lives, not just oil. Most of us only exist because of low cost abundant energy.

[dynosor]

Diesel can be synthesized from coal, it was done in...South Africa during the apartheid embargo.

Actually, South Africa is still building new coal to liquid fuel plants. They have plenty of coal, just like the US....

http://sasol.investoreports.com/saso...processes.html

http://sasol.investoreports.com/saso...sf_2007_11.php

http://sasol.investoreports.com/saso...es/pg6_big.gif

[Mazaholic]

What will happen is that over a period of time, many decades, rail transportation will switch to electric power...from coal fired (and some nuclear powered) generating plants. This will happen as diesel, and all petroleum based fuels become more expensive.

Diesel can be synthesized from coal, it was done in Germany during the Second World War, and in South Africa during the apartheid embargo. It is more expensive than petroleum based diesel, but I have no idea where the break point is; gasoline can also be synthesized from coal. Both of these will be used for local transportation, (sell all your shares in Freightliner, in the future world big highway transporation rigs will not exist) and for personal transportation in the form of scooters or ultra small cars; maybe hybrids but I think eventually it will be realised they are mostly a sham. Eventually cities will rebuild in a manner that is conducive to mass transit. In some locations canal transport will become feasible again, it is very low energy.

The brick wall exists for trying to make changes on a time frame of a few years, or even one or two decades, as the global warming zealots claim is needed. In my view it is not needed, and will not work anyway...if global warming is being caused by our carbon dioxide emissions we are stuck with having to adapt to it, we cannot stop it.

Oil is in every crevice of our lives; actually fossils fuel are in every crevice of our lives, not just oil. Most of us only exist because of low cost abundant energy.

Or bio diesel,but then we run into the same problem as we are with ethanol.
Of course we could get our bio from McDonald's.
You know...I'm surprised some trucker hasn't tried that yet.
I think your right,mass transit will take over city transportation and even city to city transportation.

[Geof]

Or bio diesel,......from McDonald's.
You know...I'm surprised some trucker hasn't tried that yet...

Google biodiesel and you will find a lot of info. You can even get kits to run your diesel car/truck on waste cooking oil. A disadvantage is that it gels at a higher temperature than regular diesel so you can't use it in cold weather. There was a news report this past winter about a school system in England that were running buses on biodiesel and they were all out of commision due to a cold snap.

The thing is the total amount of waste cooking oil is negligible compared with diesel consumption. It is another one of these things that can make a person feel warm and fuzzy doing it but in the greater scheme of things it is close to pointless.

[ImanCarrot]

Just a quick pooint of note- here in the UK if you run your vehicle on waste oil you need to keep a track of how much you use and pay tax on it (not kidding). Geof's right in that cold weather hampers these systems unless you use a pre- heater.

[NinerSevenTango]

And the price of oil drives it all.
So do we let ourselves be at the mercy of OPEC?
What it doesn't tell you is that engineers are also developing other sources of ethenol...switch grass,cane,using the entire corn plant as a source.
Kinda makes the electric car and air car look that much more promising.
No one said it's going to be easy,any solution won't be easy,it never has been.
But we can't just pick apart every idea and say.."thats too hard' life itself is hard..if it's easy for you,then it's probably hard on the people that make it easy for you.
Sorry,but thats life.

You are free to pursue all of those ideas, some of which might pan out economically. There is some very interesting research into algae that could digest poop to make energy. If the research comes up with good enough information, you might even be able to build homestead-size plants (if temperature control doesn't end up taking more energy than you get back).

You don't have my permission to tax the snot out of me to spend money on research, and you don't have my permission to force adoption of less-efficient energy sources by using government coercion.

And I agree about OPEC. We have more oil sitting here untouched than Saudi Arabia has. The cost of oil (besides the portion attributable to currency debasement, which is most of it) is being held artificially high by political considerations. The price of oil in gold coins has been fairly steady. We have plenty, and it is the enviro movement and their influence on politicians that keep it locked up at the expense of everyone in the country.


--97T--

[NinerSevenTango]

In the final analysis price is irrelevant; if your alternate sources cannot supply the amount of energy needed.

And besides the scale problem, it also depends on just how inefficient the technology is. For instance, the price of ethanol will track oil and other energy source prices because of the large amount of energy it takes to make ethanol. Ethanol is only as inexpensive as it is at present because you are being taxed on other activities to help keep the cost down, and because the price of oil is relatively cheap. If the raw materials for tractors, the fertilizer, the fuel for tractors and transportation, and most importantly the fuel for distillation were all required to come from ethanol in the first place, how many people would be in business making ethanol? Not very many, because ethanol is distilled solar power, and there is a goodly loss in the conversion from that low-density energy source. Whether it makes sense or not depends on comparing it to alternatives. If no other alternatives are available, it might make sense, but your standard of living is going to take such a hit that you might not be able to go into business making it, and not many people are going to be buying.

Mandating inefficient energy sources accomplishes the same result as taking a portion of your least expensive fuel and burning it in an open pit. Which might be less expensive.

--97T--

[NinerSevenTango]

You are really being stubborn.

Look at the numbers in the thing I quoted from the Paris Energy group or whatever it was. Or look up the numbers yourself; about 20% of the electricity supply in North America comes from nuclear, about 20% from hydro, wind, solar, and the rest from fossil fuels, oil, coal, gas.

To substitute nuclear for the fossil fuel means that three times as many new nuclear installations have to be built as already exist. Found out how many already exist and multiply by three then tell me how they are going to be built, by whom and out of what, and over how long.

And that only subsitutes for fossil fuel used for electricity generation, now you have to more or less double the electricity generating capacity to have enough electrical energy to charge up your air cars or battery cars. This means you need to build something like ten times as many new nuclear plants as already exist.

It is not going to happen.

If we DID go ahead and start building nuclear power plants, particularly ones that can recycle spent fuel, it should bring the cost of all energy sources down by reducing demand on oil, natural gas, and coal. And if the electricity generated therefrom were inexpensive enough, it might make sense to have an electric car for runabout town purposes. They are already in use where they make sense, like in golf carts and lift trucks. But politico-environmentalists aren't about finding real solutions. It's about controlling us, and we are much easier to control if they have their hand on the valve that supplies our energy. Because if they shut it off, we perish.

--97T--

[NinerSevenTango]

Here's a fitting example of why I don't like public transportation any more than I like public toilets. Fresh off today's Drudge Report:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05082008...ion_109879.htm

This is one aspect of the lowering of your standard of living -- with the loss of the use of your vehicle, not only do you lose the freedom to go where you want whenever you want, but along with your privacy you also lose control over the conditions you have to endure while getting there. You are at the mercy of a bureaucracy with a monopoly - never a good thing. The bigger it is, the worse off you are going to be.

That's my troll for the day.

--97T--

[NinerSevenTango]

Even Global Cooling doesn't stop the press from reciting the mantra. We are fortunate to have the internet, as this article demonstrates. The evidence for a cooling phase has become overwhelming. All the blather about CO2 and wasteful alternative energy scams are being shown for what they are: a megalomaniac scheme to control humans the world over.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../04/do0405.xml

--97T--

[fizzissist]

Here's a fitting example of why I don't like public transportation any more than I like public toilets. Fresh off today's Drudge Report:
--97T--

Another reason to eschew "public" transportation is not just the lack of privacy, but the lack of individual civil rights as well.

When you use public transportation, you abrogate your civil rights by allowing search and seizure, screening and questioning, forced undressing, and worse yet, the ability to even transport the most mundane essential goods.

Can anyone say air travel as a perfect example?

Trains are next on the list, with busses not far behind. Cabs will remain far distant (hopefully) only because of sheer logistics and the fact that cabs aren't a popular target for anyone but petty thieves.

Public busses are often NOT publicly owned, but merely contracted to a municipality...and as such they reserve the right to allow or disallow what you bring with you. That includes firearms. Even if you have a CCW, you may not carry on a bus here in Reno.

I don't want to hear the typical cries of "why would you need a gun on a bus" crap. Different subject, and not the point.

Why would you need 4 oz of toothpaste on an airplane?

[handlewanker]

You've only got to turn your back for five minutes and seven pages of posts slip by.

The whole point I made some time back was this, WE'VE GOT TOO MANY PEOPLE FOLKS,
that means TOO MANY, do I make myself clear, or are you all so far up yourselves you can't see daylight?

The problem is not just going to go away,and the fact that on average we shed all the present populatin every 72.25 years or so, by natural circumstances is irrelevent.

In between those years we're busy at it making up the loss, in the anticipation that the human race must be won at all costs.

Well it has cost a bob or two and now we are in a flat spin with all those extra mouths to feed, cars to fuel, places to go and politicians to vote for.

I have with great amusement viewed the attempts at solutions to the problem.

The sole solution all you pseudo economists and scientific pontificators are advocating is to race ahead of the population growth with more fancifull ideas to prolificate the need for more power producers so that the increased population sprawl can use up more power and resources.

I ventured then to state that what the world needed was a damm good global war to level the playing field a bit, make way for the regeneration of the species and clean out the cobwebs, but no it was a shock horror reaction, A WAR? that would mean some of us are going to get a shortened life expectancy, can't do it sport, the society for the prolificationof people or the SFTPP would never stand for that.

However we could tolerate a mass starvation in Africa, Asia and elsewhere along with a bit of arse kicking in Iraq as a helpfull solution but not nearly enough to make an impression on the head count.

All your ideas for a brave new world are slanted to a prolification of the energy consumption, leading to an increase in CO2, which means more effects due to global warming.

Never in all the existance of the human species has so much guff been spread by so few advocatees, all with the very best of intentions, but all with the hindsight of a blinkered blind man.

This is like inventing a better pair of sunglasses for a blind man, a total waste of time and inventiveness, unless you attack the problem that caused the blindness in the first instance.

The body count just cannot go on, soon we will be counting the worlds population in trillions once the term billions becomes obsolete.

If you can't see this you're all blind to reality, and deserve to inherit the disgust of your grandchildren (lots of them) for leaving them such a worthless inheritence.

I even remember on some post back a bit, that someone stated that the world as we know it was capable of supporting 45 billion people, can you imagine the thought process anyone would use to have arrived at that conclusion?

By all accounts the Iraq "war", (that is a laugh, no one declared war, either side, it just happened), wam, bang, thank you for nothing Uncle Sam, will soon be over, then unless someone dreams up a situation that has caused an offence, your military will grind to a halt, the machine will start to decay, the ordenance will become obsolete, and your powder will get a bit old and slow to burn, apart from the fact that the career generals will never fire another shot in anger or win any more campaign medals, (go back in time to the Roman peace of 200 years or so and see the effects it had on them).
Ian

[fizzissist]

We're all hoping you've done your part by not procreating.

I'd hate to think that you're just another big-mouthed hypocrite.

[Mariss Freimanis]

I posted the earth can sustain 45 billion people easily; the sources can be readily cited. What gets me about the "there are too many people" folks is their effete, monstrous and inhuman elitism. They take upon themselves the burden to determine how many people are enough and how many are too many. Some simple ones like you Whacker, drool at the prospect of war or other means to reduce the population you consider excessive. You are a ghoul and your wishes are hideous. Your smarter but like minded brethren (XYZ) are more circumspect because they at least can see the horror of any proposed remedy so they reticently don't propose one.

The earth will support as many people as it can support. If it's 45 billion, it will be 45 billion. Each one of these people is a human being with as many hopes, aspirations and talents as you, inestimable Whacker; a good billion or so exceed your considerable accomplishments. Every one of them contributes something to humankind. They are not cockroaches, they are human beings.

Why construct war as a machine de dieu to do your dirty work? Have the courage to just say you want to slaughter human beings until the number left agrees with your refined aesthetic sense of beauty and balance. If there are too many people, I would ask each of them to parade in front of you while you look them in the eye and say, "you die, you die; you the 100th one, you get to live". Disgusting.

Everyone of these "excess" people loves life as dearly as you and at least a billion of them are better than you or I. They make our global society possible with their and our industry. If you think there are too many people on earth, show the sincerity of your beliefs by removing yourself. You won't of course because of your elitism; your life is more precious and sacred.

Hating your own kind like this; only a nihilist would entertain such a repugnant ideal. You already expressed such a regard towards my family in an earlier post so this one only saddens but doesn't surprise me.

Mariss

[ynneb]

Nicely put, especially the invitation to lead by example "If you think there are too many people on earth, show the sincerity of your beliefs by removing yourself."

[Mariss Freimanis]

Benny,

It's the monstrousness of the solution that offends and frightens me to the core. If one accepts that premise then it's few short and quick steps to what was proposed. Some people for nearly similar reasons came to the same conclusion 65 years ago and actually put that remedy into effect.

It is the reason why I'm here today doing what I do today instead of being a potato farmer in Latvia as I would have been in a different world. For me it worked out very well, for the millions of others that died testing this premise it worked out less well. Just the vagaries of chance and unintended consequences placed me here instead of in a nameless child's grave.

It is obscene to talk of humans as if they were a swarm of cockroaches. To formulate a plan how best to extinguish them. Obscene beyond words.

Mariss

[Mazaholic]

Wow...And i thought the mere notion of "war for oil" was rather inhuman.
I wonder how handlewanker would feel if the powers in charge felt his contributions to mankind weren't worthy of life and he was put in the Russian roulette line.