SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Non-Tech : Alternative energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Archie Meeties who wrote (7738)4/5/2010 8:57:25 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16955
 
the numbers fluctuate real time but thermal (mostly coal) is not a high percent right now, actually very low .. Current government has hobbled Nanticoke.. largest coal fired plant in NA... opg.com

Our power is steady :O)

clicking on left side horizontal tabs shows breakdown.



To: Archie Meeties who wrote (7738)4/6/2010 10:26:04 AM
From: atticus4paws  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16955
 
Hundreds permitted. Sierra Club et al have done a good job of slowing down things as much as possible.



To: Archie Meeties who wrote (7738)4/6/2010 1:56:34 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16955
 
From the article you posted, on coal capacity additions in the U.S.:

"This report is intended to provide an overview of proposed new coal-fired power plants that are under development."

"The 2002 report listed 14,445 MW of proposed new capacity for the year 2005, when actually only 329 MW were constructed."

Actual capacity added, per year, was:
<1GW/Y 2000-2006
1.5GW/Y 2007-2008
3.2 GW/Y 2009 (the most since 1991)
(figure 2, page 9)

My comments:
Proposed plants have to get all the necessary permits, financing, and begin construction. Until that point, little money has actually been spent, and it is easy (and common) to abandon the project.

That upward trend in actual capacity additions surprised me, and bears watching. Thanks for posting it.