Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The California Energy Crisis - Information & Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (495)	6/13/2001 10:01:48 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1715

Wind energy is cheap and it is clean Everyone seems to say that wind energy is cheap, but I don't see it. Can you provide some documentation that is credible, with regard to the cost/benefit of wind? After all, if it were so "cheap" why don't we have them all over the place already?? Just because it may cost .7-12/kwhr, doesn't mean that there aren't other hidden costs. For one, to produce even 10 percent of the power California needs using the wind mills they currently have at Altamont, they would need over 130,000 of these things, all located on individual stands, with power lines hooked up to each, with environmental impact statements (EIS)on each site, and they would be limited to areas where the winds are favorable (also a choice hang-out for condors and other soaring birds). It's kinda like Nuclear power. We can produce HIGHLY efficient and safe nuclear plants now with improved safety and technology. But we can't plan for the associated costs of bulldozing through the bureaucracy. But at least we only need a few EIS reports, and they can be located where they are most needed. Furthermore, by locating them close by, they save tremendous power that is lost just through transport alone (some 60% of power transmitted over long distances is lost I've read somewhere). And Nuclear, stripping away the endless bureaucracy that creates massive cost overruns, would be more profitable than wind, and last for a longer period of time. ans.neep.wisc.edu It is difficult to convince people to stop believing an assertion they have heard over and over again, no matter how false the statement is. One of these false statements is that nuclear electricity is more costly than fossil generated electricity. One must understand that there are 109 different nuclear power plants operating in the U.S. Each of them is unique. They were designed by one of four different companies. They were built over a 30 year period. They were built in various locations under the supervision of different architect /engineers. They are being operated by a over a dozen companies with variations in management skills, operator training programs and contractor support. The best nuclear plants in the country are quite competitive with the best fossil plants in the country. In a recent five year survey by the Utility Data Institute, five of the top 25 electrical power plants in the country are heated by uranium fuel. All of the other plants on the list are coal burning plants located west of the Mississippi. Most of them are located near a source of low-sulfur coal. Not a single plant on the list is heated by natural gas or oil. Btw, the next time folks bring up how much toxic waste is produced by nuclear plants, ask them how it compares to other more toxic chemicals we produce every year: jamesphogan.com And Solar is just ridiculous until we see conversion rates in excess of 30-50% for solar cells. And then they can only work 1/2 the day (until the sun goes down). The materials required (steel, aluminum, and massive acreage) make the cost of solar prohibitive on a large scale. But I'm all for incorporating passive solar into every new building. Hawk