Utopia Talk / Politics / Offshore wind

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Dec 09 16:44:54 This was actually a question I have been thinking about, do these massive windfarms effect the speed of the wind? The obvious answer is yes, you are sucking the energy out of the wind, but is it significant? A new study by the Swedish meterological institute shows significant impact on both the speed of the wind and subsequently the currents, temperature on the surface as well as the ocean floor, even salinity. The effects are measured upwards of 30 km outside the perimeters of the farms. Actual consequences of these effects on the ecosystems will be presented in 2024, but it’s obviously not going be good. Swedish article: http://www...lig-paverkan-pa-havet-1.202627 The natural follow up question is… what about solar?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Dec 11 03:31:14 This seems like the right thread, instead of creating a new one. Remember when I was explaining the resource problems of renewable/electrification? That even something as mundane as copper was foretasted for deficit over the coming 10 years? And resident experts in everything were telling me (citing miners and prospectors) was totally wrong, because they had watched a Ted talk and read an article in Wanker quarterly *cough* Sebgul / Daemon *cough*, or something Well apparently the forecasts were wrong, it's worse. Copper Mine Disruptions Wipe Out Forecast Market Surpluses — Market Talk After a steady first nine months of the year for copper supply, miners of the industrial metal have been recently grappling with increased disruptions and production misses, Jefferies analysts say in a note. "Forecasted market surpluses for 2024 have been wiped out, and a deficit market is now the most likely scenario as long as the U.S. economy avoids a nasty downturn," the analysts say. Since the start of the year, combined 2023 copper production guidance from miners Teck, Rio Tinto, Vale, Anglo American, First Quantum and Antofagasta has been cut by 8.0%, they say. That is based on the midpoint of guidance ranges and doesn't include the recent suspension of output guidance for First Quantum's Cobre Panama. (rhiannon.hoyle@wsj.com; @RhiannonHoyle) http://www.tradingview.com/news/DJN_DN20231210001109:0/ As the article says, this deficit doesn't include Cobre Mine, one of the largest mines in the world, shutting down.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 11 09:03:37 Solar would be a nightmare to keep clean. Salt spray leaves salt everywhere over time. Nearshore windmills are stupid. For reasons given. Actual offshore (tethered over deep waters) avoids many of the downsides, but is still in an early adaption stage. Renewable power sources do use raw materials. Like everything else on the planet. "The major applications of copper are electrical wire (60%), roofing and plumbing (20%), and industrial machinery (15%)." Wiki. Turbines would fall under "industrial machinery".
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Dec 11 11:50:40 Renewable power sources use *more* raw materials per unit of energy, including copper, not just for the machinery, but for all the wires that need to go from each turbines to the grid. The entire race for electrification will use lots and lots of copper. Every electrified version, for example EVs, uses many times more copper than the previous non electrical version. Duh. The reason copper came up, was because it is a ghetto mineral, it's relatively easy to come by, but even copper has turned into a bottle neck. "Actual offshore (tethered over deep waters) avoids many of the downsides, but is still in an early adaption stage." I mean, they still suck for all the reason previously explained inherent to resource, intermittency cost etc. Off shore wind turbines have considerably shorter technical lifespan (salt water) and all of them lose effect over the course of their life etc. just that those closer to shore suck even more environmentally, as it turns out. But you hang in there, maybe when your kids are your age, they have figures this out.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Dec 11 11:57:21 You are sweet though, to think building the turbines every further out to sea, thus requiring even more copper wires... People do crazy things to not realize sunk costs.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 11 14:26:34 At least my kids underestand levilized costs. http://www...velized-cost-of-hydrogen-2021/ Artisan NPPs are too expensive and that is the only kind of NPPs we can do in the west because of our values. They may work elsewhere in a competative way.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 11 14:27:43 I did not say they could spell levelized costs.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Dec 11 14:46:40 Been there done that, and I recently I even explained to seb why using Lazard as source was terrible. I know, I know if you type in google cost of nuclear, Lazard is the first search result. Lazy. Lazard uses 1 single US reactor design for their calculation. Happens to be the most expensive reactors design the US produced. It just so happens that Lazard is invested in "reneweables" and you have basically linked to one of their marketing pamphlets, explaining why everything else is expensive and a bad investment. lol :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Dec 11 14:47:56 The Vogtle-1 reactor if I remember correctly.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Dec 11 15:01:29 I have looked at every measure you like, even energy in - energy out. Taken as a whole, with everything taken into consideration, nothing beats nuclear for the foreseeable future. All the arguments against nuclear are fear based. There are some instances in time and space where other things are cheaper, like cheap gas, but that was always meant to be a transition, to what? Not wind and solar, not seriously. Maybe some day in the future, when we can mine asteroids for all the minerals we need.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 11 15:14:29 Nimi I dont think you have ever met a confirmation bias you did not like. But sure. Let the free market roar. Where are all these trepid capitalists with their venture capital all lined up to make a killing producing nuclear power plants that can compete with say hydro and other renewables. Nobody? I thought so :).
TheChildren Member	Mon Dec 11 15:29:10 "what about solar? " >> we stealin da energiez from da sun, that what up my nigga
Dukhat Member	Mon Dec 11 16:16:05 Nim is so stupid. Already has a conclusion in mind and is looking for "facts" to support it. IDIOT.
Seb Member	Mon Dec 11 17:17:28 Nim: I can't believe you are still raising the vogtle reactor as a win. Yes, it's the most expensive reactor made in the US. It's also the only one that's begun construction after 2010. That's the entire fucking point. Modern nuclear reactor designs are crazy expensive.
Seb Member	Mon Dec 11 17:21:00 "why aren't you assuming the costs for new nuclear are the 2020 dollar values of plants built in 1970 that there is literally impossible to build now due to the supply chain literally not existing and the designs being considered unsafe? Why are you unfairly using the cost of the only newly built powerplant using modern design and supply chain to benchmark cost of new build, that's so irrational!
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Dec 11 19:40:40 [jergul (cowardly slave)]: "Where are all these trepid capitalists with their venture capital all lined up to make a killing producing nuclear power plants that can compete with say hydro and other renewables." Gotta love when Jergul thinks he's found a clever "win" through deceptive wordplay. This is the kind of low-IQ "cleverness" he displayed when he thought that "illegal immigrants" didn't exist until they were outright captured and charged because of "innocent until proven guilty". It's not sincere; it's deranged thinking and red herrings designed to annoy people into getting out crayons to explain things at his sad sad level. In this case, at even an introductory level it's obvious that producing nuclear power requires government approval since nuclear energy is considered a national security concern. In our totalitarian/statist society, a titan of industry *cannot* simply start a nuclear plant in his garage and subsequently expand into the market. That didn't work for the fictional Paul Stephens in "The Manhattan Project" (1986) and it sure as fuck doesn't work now. The reality is that government "sustainability" programs intentionally prevent the market from using nuclear power. It *is* profitable to use nuclear — intensely so — since it can power the entire market and cause massive productivity gains in all downstream sectors. The reason that it is *not* done is due to traitorous Seb logic, where nuclear power takes away from the Chinese energy monopoly. These traitors will accept massive energy inefficiencies if it supports China, since their goal is not energy efficiency but the death of the West. It's not complicated. People such as Seb and Jergul want the West to fall. They are traitors. Everything else is window-dressing.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 11 21:17:31 Any electric power producing type can power the entire market and cause massive productivity gains in all downstream sectors. The problem with nuclear power is cost. Or massive energy inefficiencies. Oh and CC, by your criteria, Norway has won. 90% hydro power (which is virtually free from legacy dams) and a hefty production surplus.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Dec 11 21:43:57 [jergul (cowardly slave)]: "Any electric power producing type can power the entire market and cause massive productivity gains in all downstream sectors. "The problem with nuclear power is cost. Or massive energy inefficiencies." Absolutely false. Terrible attempt at copy&paste reformatting. The fact that your attempt to merely replace words created a complete lie only shows that you are willing to lie for power, which is consistent with your status as a traitor to the West. [jergul (cowardly slave)]: "by your criteria, Norway has won" False and liar-pilled. Norway is one of the most captured industries in the entire world market with a near-perfect E-Index and G-Index, meaning that their collapse will be one of the hardest-hitting. You are a traitor and your responses are the subversive-liar's poison. Your very existence writes itself as the betrayal of your people. Your destiny is enslavement and debases us all.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 11 21:55:35 CC Completely true on nuclear power. Sadly. Citation metrics?? Ohh, do elaborate on how that spells Norway's downfall. Norway is fully self-sufficient on extremely cheap to produce electricity. Did you not just argue that was key to empowerment?
jergul large member	Mon Dec 11 22:23:08 Ah, I see highly positive governance and economic freedom indices mean that Norway lacks the human and economic resources to weather black swan events. If only we had been like Eritrea. A global meltdown could happen and people there would not even notice.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 11 22:25:24 Incidentally, how do you combine being for nuclear power with also believing in total societal collapse. Are not anarchy and civil strife bad things to combine with rather finiky nuclear power plants?
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Dec 11 22:38:32 [jergul (cowardly slave)]: "Completely true on nuclear power. Sadly." False. Like so many similar Calvinists and Lutherans you're a liar, determinist, and lazy piece of shit with zero work ethic. Lazy pieces of shit such as yourself probably just Google "most efficient energy source" and see a bullshit chart saying, "Wind" or "solar", being too fucking stupid to recognize that you are being lied to by a government propaganda project which is selling Western energy independence away to China. Heavy subsidies which disguise huge inefficiencies are *not* efficient. Norway is *not* independent by their own reported indexes, since their "green" initiatives are nearly 100% reliant upon China's Belt-And-Road resource monopoly. The survival of the Nordic nations (near totally owned by their G-Indexes) is based on the fallacious belief that the owner of a resource monopoly will not drive up the cost once the market is terminally cornered. Those subsidies which hide these losses mean the massive debt of slavery upon the Nordic peoples. Norway is just to be another Chinese fiefdom, and traitors such as yourself are doing it not because of your stupidity but because you have an overt and malicious destroyer's ideology. [jergul (cowardly slave)]: *treasonous screeching* This comes to mind: "When we win, do not forget that these people want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it's funny" — Sam Hyde Traitors such as Jergul will play these idiotic word games for a glimpse of a liar's power, completely unable to hide their duper's delight as they lie and distort in their every argument. Sebbish peoples such as Jergul are traitors and nothing more. Their every word is poison.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 12 00:16:25 Completely true on nuclear power. The problem is Western national tribalism that blocks anything other than artisan cottage NPPs with inordinately high leveled costs due to low volume per design. Tell me I am wrong. That you would get behind the mass deployment of Siemens NPPs in the US so that volume production and streamlined logistics can drive down unit costs. I would never google most efficient energy source as that is actually a measure for input to output. A combustion engine having say 40% energy efficiency (turning 45% of energy in the fuel into mechanical energy, the rest wasted as heat mostly). Cost efficient was the term you were looking for. Nuclear power in the West is not cost efficient compared to other electricity types. Norway is energy independent. Perhaps you are thinking of your toxic hell hole of a country? Well, easy enough to fix. Support Siemens nuclear power for volume of scale. Unite behind a common design without your tribalism. Do you think global warming is a problem for Norway? Its cold here. The climate initiatives are on behalf of the rest of you. Screw it up. Give us warmer weather as you give us money for oil and gas. No skin off my teeth. But sure. A small country will always be a client state to someone even as we laugh all the way to the bank. What has the US done for me lately besides ban abortion and slip further and further away from Nordic social democratic ideals? And god damn, it looks like you will elect Trump too. Maybe he will orchestrate an irreversable clean break. Yay? Enjoy your two bedroom apartment. The woodshed is full. I need to think about exactly how large a potatoe field I want next year. Like is our rugged individualist wont.
Habebe Member	Tue Dec 12 01:43:27 Nuclear as the primary* power source (which is basically "renewable") and small amounts of other renewables wheree it makes sense,seems to be the most reasonable solution going forward. As for cost effective, if that was the sole issue than most "renewables" are atrocious, minus the subsidies and other preffered treatments. For all the chest thumping "renewable energy" does over cost, the market humiliates them with reality. Nuclear drawback is political largely, mixed with mass hysteria not so different from the perception of sharl attacks.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Dec 12 02:07:55 [jergul (cowardly slave)]: "Tell me I am wrong." You are wrong. You are a coward and a liar. You speak nothing but poison. Jergul's phrases are the opposites of the truth: • "Completely [false] on nuclear power." • "Norway is energy [dependent]." • "Like is our [slow and tame collectivist suicide]." Even as Jergul claims that Norway is not totally owned (it is), he says the words of the owned globalist: • "Do you think global warming is a problem for Norway?" (he accepts the UN/WEF narrative of enslavement) • "ban abortion and slip further and further away from Nordic social democratic ideals" (he accepts the UN/WEF eugenics plan for his people) He is so ideologically possessed that he cannot see outside of the lies of his owned oligarchs. He claims that he is not owned: • "A small country will always be a client state to someone even as we laugh all the way to the bank." And yet Norway's banks are *entirely* owned by the scheme. He laughs that Norway is a Chinese fiefdom! He does not care that he and his people are slaves! This is his morality! A slave's morality! Jergul is eating prison food and telling us how "great" the common slop of gruel tastes. This is his slave's vocabulary. Norway's politicians sold it out to the world, and he is telling us that slavery is great, actually! But outside of all of Jergul's constant lies, moral inversions, slavish vocabulary of opposites, and Lutheran deterministic-cowardice (another slavish/deterministic people who believe that even in total inaction they are 'special elect') are the objective metrics which prove Norway's terminal slavery: Norway's ESG Indexes (higher is more enslaved): E — 95.9% (4th in the world) S — 94.7% (7th in the world) G — 97.2% (3rd in the world) • E-Index: Norway is a world leader in accepting the globalist purchase of Chinese Belt-and-Road energy (E-Index rates nations higher for higher reliance on BRICS+ supply infrastructure) • S-Index: Norway is a world leader in social compliance; their population has most widely accepted slave morality and the propaganda of self-annihilation (e.g., LGBTQ2S+NAMBLA, sterilization/surgical-emasculation, dysgenics through abortion, medical euthanasia via "universal health care", collectivist Ice-Nine, racialist replacement) • G-Index: Norway is a world leader in copy&pasting Chinese governance frameworks over their own (former) national laws; their government is near totally captured (e.g., Net Zero, SDGs, 2030/2050 goals, Chinese supremacy) Jergul can lie, distort, and subvert all he wants, but Norway's indexes show a nation that is totally and completely captured by foreign powers. Some nations have high G-Indexes but low S-Indexes, showing that their people are individualistic and resist what their captured government is doing to them, but Norway's people near-unanimously support their foreign rulers with the 7th highest compliance rate **in the world**. They were born to be slaves, and those of them who resisted slavery mocked their passive brothers and were given lifetime day-care plans for it. Anders Breivik was Norway's last gasp and — despite killing 69 of Norway's Last Men nihilists in 2011 — was not even perceived as a killer by Norway's weakling psyche and thus gets to spend his time complaining to soy-faced day-care specialists who fetch him the latest PlayStation titles. Norway cannot even respond appropriately to someone who overtly kills its people! And that was 12 years ago! Jergul is a Nietzschean Last Man. • He will tell you that he must not be in danger because he is warm. And he blinks. • He is safe because he has children, and yet he agrees that the state can sterilize them if it so desires. And he blinks. • His world is small and he lives long. And he blinks. • "[Jergul has his] little pleasures for the day, and [his] little pleasures for the night, but [he has] a regard for health. 'We have discovered happiness,' — say the Last Men, and they blink." Jergul is so lost to his slavery that he cannot even feel the noose around his neck. He does not even see the executioner preparing to drop the floor out from beneath him. Chinese tourists flood Oslo to photograph a dying world that they now own. But Jergul has his potatoes. And he blinks.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Dec 12 03:01:38 Jergul That is a blizzard response to the fact that you are citing a source using flawed methodology. Your source is an ASSET MANAGER, they may be great at a lot of things, like managing assets, but their interests doesn't necessarily align with those of the long term health and viability of civilization. Seb http://www...Fi.redd.it%2F7ij2n7w2dqu71.jpg You are of course 100% wrong seb, Lazard has been issuing these papers for 16 years based on the Vogtle 1 and 2 from the 80's. It is fascinating that you somehow think you have salvaged your uncritical usage of Lazard, because there are 2 new Vogtle reactors. As I told you back then there are far better figure that take into account far more projects. Are you going to accept a study that compares the most expensive wind farm with all the other nuclear power plants, because the wind farm is recent? Do you doubt that I can make a comparison like? I find the most recent embarrassingly costly wind farm, whose operators have just gone bankrupt and I compare that with the UAE and South Korean reactors. Taaaddaaa I say, check mate seb. It is amazing that you write garbage like this seb, and hit reply, thinking it is a good idea. Hilarious that seb and jegul both, independently, have shown me Lazards figures, now accuse *me* of confirmation bias. lol :) I mean I am so familiar with the studies and papers, I KNOW that Lazard is a top google result. But upon reading one of Lazards older versions (years ago) where they had simply hidden their methodology as "proprietary" I abandoned it as of low quality and read other more serious and transparent studies. I have even emailed Lazard about the missing methodology, as I believe others have. This year they again detailed the fact that their cost estimated are based only on America and only on Vogtle reactors. Sebgul I understand guys, it is very embrassing to be citing figures from an asset managers, whose primary purpose is to convince rich people to invest in wind and solar. Instead of swallowing your pride, changing your position or at the very least dig up better figures to support your claims, you are going to die on the hill of Lazard and tell me *I* suffer from confirmation bias. You fucking clowns.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Dec 12 03:17:34 jergul large member Tue Dec 12 00:16:25 Completely true on nuclear power. The problem is Western national tribalism that blocks anything other than artisan cottage NPPs with inordinately high leveled costs due to low volume per design. You can keep saying this, but it is completely false. Tiny little Sweden did this and the entire thing has been really great for us. There is not a single nuclear power project that will ultimately have not been hugely profitable, they may have had longer ROI. As we are learning the technical lifespan of this stuff is longer than we thought like 80-100 years, contrast that with the lessons we are learning about wind, that their technical lifespan is shorter, not account for the *natural* loss in turbine effect. The question here which is missing is: should a nation/civilization accomodate asset manager trimeframes on ROI when planning it's energy infrastrcuture? I am sorry guys. I wish the stuff you had invested your heart and emotion into, was better, I truly do. You can find a post only a few years old where I say I love the sight of wind turbines in the sky, that it looks futuristic, I still do. I have nothing against the concept, but once you look at the cold hard facts, they just sucks in every way imaginable. Far from being "confirmation bias" I have been red pilled on wind and solar. Your problem is that you have invested your heart and soul, once again, into things that have empirical answers. Why on earth you guys want this stuff so bad, that you are willing to embarrass and keep embarrassing yourself with this Lazard paper, beats me.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Dec 12 03:39:43 CC "People such as Seb and Jergul want the West to fall." I genuinly try to give them the benefit of doubt, I really don't want to believe this. For Jergul, I admit it is much much harder, this guy has repeatedly compared the human race with a virus, told me XY chromosome is a defect and is deeply inspired by the likes of Paul Ehrlich, who said "children are garbage". A sentiment who resonates very well with what Jergul has said on the matter. He hate humans and see us as inherely malevolent. It resonates a lot with his perception of his pastoral nomadic ancestors, who live in harmony with nature and don't wage war. He lacks appreciation for all the other ancestors who invented algebra, the alphabet and computers, so he could sit here and talk about how great his people are for not behaving like a virus. He is an old version of a clueless gen-z, who lacks any and all appreciation for what keeps the lights on and puts food on the table.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Dec 12 03:54:21 To preempt Seb's tired and completely moronic idea about the supply chain and how it's impossible and will cost so much: when Sweden built the first reactors, it cost a lot and took a very long time. The last reactor was considerably cheaper and took much less time. This is how it works and how it will work. As I mentioned, there is no time like now, and, to the detriment of Sebgul's mental health, more and more countries are having a change of heart. Denmark and Australia have recently warmed up to the idea of nuclear power. Even countries that have been against it for a long time, including voices in Germany, have realized the folly. I take Jergul's comment in the other thread about how this isn't relevant for Europe as a hard cope. They just don't want a solution to our problems that doesn't involve bleeding out humanity. Have more kids. If you thought about having 1, have 2; if 2, have 3. It is the only solution to Sebgulism and simply survival of the fittest. People with certain proclivities will get distracted in this age, duped and convinced to follow this cult or other evolutionary dead-end cultural phenomena, ultimately deleting themselves from the gene pool. Don't cancel yourself.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 12 04:21:47 Nim: Lazard's first LCOE report was from mid 2000's. As far as I can tell, they started using Vogtle 3&4 forecasts and the references in v16 refer to the "then forecast costs" in prior versions. If they were using units 1 and 2, that were completed in 1987, why are they using forecasts? Lazard has always used vogtle 3&4 because they are the only reactor projects based in the US to use. You claim it's 1&2 - what evidence do you have? As for units 1 and 2 were driven by interest rate hikes to combat inflation.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 12 04:24:09 The vogtle 2&3 reactors have been an approved project about as long as lazards been doing these reports. That's where they are getting their financial data.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Dec 12 05:29:57 I could be wrong, but even if I am wrong, It does not matter which vogtle reactor they are using, they are using the most expensive reactors in the entire world to make their case, N=2 first-of-kind. There are many reasons why the Vogtle projects are bad. And you are using these exceptionally bad example to argue from. It is ignorant at best, manipulative at worse. You are not a serious actor in these threads. There is a reason you guys are dying on Lazard's hill and not using IAE figures, that employs all manners of domain experts and allows them to review each other in round the table talks and in an adversarial manner reach high quality conclusions. It's that "confirmation bias" that is being projected.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Dec 12 05:30:35 IEA*
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Dec 12 05:42:31 In these 16 years there have been dozens of less expensive reactors being built, that could have nuanced and colored Lazard's reports, but they have remained steadfast to the exceptionally bad Vogtle reactors. Which, btw, will repay themselves many times over, despite being bad examples of nuclear power, making this entire discussion about costs a complete red herring. Any sane person, that approaches this stuff with humility and intellectual honesty will realize that the discussions about costs are completely moot. Only of interest for managing assets and getting ROI for capitalists, not for the long term view a nation should take about something of such strategic importance as their energy infrastructure. Not to say there are not contexts where the market can solve this, but that is not what I would opt for right now.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Dec 12 06:26:03 Here is a link in my saved bookmarks, explaining many things not yet covered in this thread about the flaws in the Lazard paper. http://web...search/ANP193%20TR%20CANES.pdf Even the figures they have taken for the Vogtle plants are proprietary and unhinged when compared to other figures. "Nuclear power plant cost predictions and projections are currently subjected to high uncertainty as supported by existing literature. For instance, Lazard projects the capital cost of a nuclear power plant at $6,900 – $12,200/kW2 while OECD Nuclear Energy Agency projects the capital cost between $2,157-$6,920/kW.1 Back in 2004, Westinghouse estimated an AP1000 cost of $1,000/kW.3 Similar discrepancy is found for the noted Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) where the assumptions behind the levelization of the cost are not consistent" "However, the Lazard numbers are highly inflated based on the Vogtle AP1000 project (see Section III) and higher than nuclear industry realized fuel and O&M costs." "This means the total capital cost of $12,500/kW similar to the “high-end” projected overnight cost of latest Lazard report.2 However, this number includes both owner’s cost and financing cost. As such it is incorrect to be quoted as an overnight cost for an LCOE calculation. Particularly for the latter, the financing of the Vogtle project has been complex. For instance, Georgia Power that publishes detailed cost report only holds approximately ~47% share of the project." You can read section III detailing why Vogtle has been such a fuck up, and thus highly inappropriate to be used as some kind of benchmark, to then assume, not only that productivity gain will not be made, but that the fuck up will be repeated over and over. Only in clown world.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Dec 12 06:59:07 lets keep reading the Lazard paper: "Other factors would also have a potentially significant effect on the results contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this current analysis. These additional factors, among others, could include: implementation and interpretation of the full scope of the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”); *network upgrades, transmission, congestion or other integration-related costs*; permitting or other development costs" Anybody want to guess why *network upgrades, transmission, congestion or other integration-related costs* is important to highlight? Could it be because these costs are almost as large as the cost for the actual sources themselves when it comes to wind and solar? At this point it should be common knowledge for anyone LARPing expert in this domain, the surrounding costs per unit of energy is much larger for wind and solar than it is for any other type. Sweden is learning this the painful way. I created a thread not that long ago, about how I am installing a battery and solar panels, to capitalize on these instabilities. They are almost done installing it. I will be getting paid to supply my battery to stabilize the grid, that the wind turbines and deferred grid upgrades (needed as a result of more wind turbines) are creating. The total cost for these types of services have triples over the last 10 years. It's time to move on guys.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Dec 12 08:03:37 I can keep going on: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/nuclear-energy/nuclear-energy-and-renewables_9789264188617-en#page108 here is an OECD report from 2012,on page 106 it has a great graph of what I was telling Jergul yesterday, that is obvious to everyone, building offshore even further offshore makes it more expensive, require more resources. Duh. Anyway they go deep into an actual mapping of different costs to explain "system cost" and as I said earlier, these system costs are much larger for wind and solar. But guys, if you really really prefer asset managers to tell you what to think, here is JP Morgan, explaining for you why LCOE is misinformation. http://irp...organElephants-in-the-room.pdf Please come back with something of substance, next time I visit this thread. In one of my earlier thread with seb, I brought up Energy return on energy invested EROI. Maybe look there. It is not going to get any more fundamental than energy in - energy out. Such studies will show the inherent problems with wind and solar. Repeat after me: Anemic.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 12 09:24:19 Nimi Nuclear power truly sucks from an energy in energy out perspective. How much of the energy from the nuclear reaction do you think actually becomes electricity? That is what the term means in other words. You are misusing it in a different way than CC is misusing the term. A nuclear power reactor is not inherently different in grid requirements than a mature windfarm. Both should be overdimensioned to limit grid transmission losses. The OECD nuclear estimate is based on Nth of a NPP type and assumed development leading to the Nth has given dramatic system efficiencies. Why? Because a first of its type has prohibative leveled costs. The assumption is that non-existence of the problems I point to for explaining why new nuclear power is a no-go in the West. Citing estimate for mature nuclear power plant serial production is simply untrue because we have yet to develop mature serial production and the initial plants will in any even be extremely expensive. Wah, Sweden did it back then. Well, yes. Europe rolled out many plants over the course of relatively few years. It gained scale advantages and human knowhow. What you need to do to convince me is lay a credible roadmap for similar scale advantages. It can be done. Elsewhere. But can you prove it can be done here?
Seb Member	Tue Dec 12 10:14:21 Nim: I remind you again, Vogtle 3 and 4 are literally the only commercial nuclear power plants under construction in the US for pretty much the entire of the Lazard run of reports. The reports *primary* customers are interested in LCOE in the US. Using the historic costs of designs that are *no longer on the market*, or projects that are based on supply chains and capital costs a US based project cannot access would be - to use the technical term - fucking insane. They use Vogtle because it's until recently literally the only project in the US to use for benchmarking that would have any currency for new build. And yes, vogtle is incredibly expensive. Because new build nuclear power *is* in fact very expensive and that holds generally true except for a few places where cost of capital, supply chain and labour force is anomalously low cost.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 12 10:15:15 And Nim, I'm not the one bringing up Lazard, you are! And when I did bring up Lazard, it was one of many sources!
Seb Member	Tue Dec 12 10:16:57 "Which, btw, will repay themselves many times over" This is... kinda the requirement of any successful investment? The question isn't whether it pays itself back, the equation is what it costs compared to investing in other types of production.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 12 10:26:12 Jergul: "Wah, Sweden did it back then. Well, yes. Europe rolled out many plants over the course of relatively few years. It gained scale advantages and human knowhow. What you need to do to convince me is lay a credible roadmap for similar scale advantages. It can be done. Elsewhere. But can you prove it can be done here" Indeed and exactly. The problem is Nim wants to skip this part and pretend there's a shovel ready nuclear industry that we can just buy nuclear plants off-the-shelf from, if only regulations, the greens and the evil diversity and inclusion folks just stopped blocking it. Fundamentally, he's not a serious person. The blocker isn't green politics. The blocker is most often finance ministries that, in most countries, have no appetite to take a highly interventionist approach of direct funding an entire supply chain and having the state take on delivery risk. The best they will do is this stupid "we sort of like the technology from a climate and security risk, so we will sort of subsidise individual companies to build and operate nuclear plants in general, but they need to sort out finance, delivery and supply chain themselves because free-market orthodoxy says we shouldn't pick winners". Such a market will never produce the necessary standardisation and order pipeline to make nuclear cheap as it ought to be. We totally *can* do something like France did in the 70s/80s, but only by substantially restructuring the energy sector. Which we should totally do.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Dec 12 10:56:05 "because we have yet to develop mature serial production" Wrong. We had that and then anti-nuclear weenies sent us backwards. And yes wind turbines have a clear effect on the local environment.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 12 11:32:44 Sammy Don't be wierd. Had is not have.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 12 11:53:33 Sam: Having had a mature production line for obsolete reactor designs isn't the same thing as mature serial production of modern designs. In airplane terms, it would be daft to cite UK production capacity for spitfires in the 1930/40s as proof that we presently have the capability to churn out F-35s in the UK at will. It's also a bit of a myth that anti-nuclear weenies "sent us backwards". Orders for nuclear reactors tailed off largely linked to the withdrawal of state subsidies and spiking interest rates and cost of capital. What did for nuclear was actually Reganomics and Thatcherism. Western govts were still trying to push nuclear for some time into the 80s and 90s, they just systematically dismantled the policy framework and levers for doing so. The adoption of explicitly anti-nuclear politics is largely filling a vacuum left by the collapse of the industry once state support and low capital costs fell away. There's no real interest group with an incentive for nuclear. In short, look closer to home (above your sink) to find out who killed nuclear.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Dec 12 16:06:37 We dont have the assembly line built. With a very small amount of political will, we could very easily. There is no technical or economic reason not to do so. But nukes scare plebs, and most people are bad at thinking.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 13 02:33:22 Sam: What you describe as "small amount of political will" would be a complete repudiation of free market doctrine and the role of the state established since the 80s. It's the sort of industrial policy that you find on the left fringes of the Democrat party and the kind of things you typically describe as useless govt bureaucracy.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 13 02:45:29 Under the current consensus, you won't get a production line and workforce set up through free market forces: you need the demand and projected cash flow, which means multi decade long order books and no threat of competition. The three ingredients: 1. Cheap state backed borrowing 2. A single design or design family to standardise supply chain 3. Central planning of electricity production (you don't necessarily need to fully nationalise production but you do need an incredibly interventionist regulator setting quotas by generator type) This is very achievable, except that it runs against the core principles of the post thatcher/Reagan settlement, and of course it would add an enormous amount of debt onto national debt. Obviously this would more than certainly pay for itself but "debt baaaadmmkay". So it's not really such a small thing Sam. It's a violation of everything underpinning the sense of identity that binds you, your preferred party and the rest of their base together into an electoral coalition - and the bond markets perspective of what responsible governance looks like. Honestly, it's *far* easier to support wind, solar and other projects. Far far easier. And yes, that's because a bunch of people have delusions about what is sensible that are at odds with physical reality - but that's the problem. Those people have real power and can't be ignored. The thing is, you support this delusion. You lend them your power. It's a bit fucking late to complain about the "lack of political willpower" when you are part of that blocker.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 13 04:24:45 The only way it all could come together is State owned and operated NPPs. CC, what would you chose? State owned Nuclear Power Plants Or No Nuclear Power Plants?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 13 06:01:47 Seb "This is... kinda the requirement of any successful investment?" In the time frame set by an asset management firm, whose old and decrepit investors want to see ROI before they die? No. It will be in the time frame of building an infrastructure so that my children and grand children do not live in an energy anemic society. Frankly, this is not what you expect from someone who has a PhD in nuclear physics from one the best schools in the world, and whose current occupation has the word "policy" in the fucking title! There is no way you would do this at government institute you are working at, where your professional reputation is on the line, no way in hell you would come with this bullshit financial cycle mentality. Right seb? Right?? *montage of degraded and deteriorating western institutions, as thousands of tax funded Seb's are running in and out of meetings writting policy based on reports from asset management firms. Oh look, one of them goes, levelized cost of energy! How brilliant, another seb goes! A thousand disjointed smug voices repeat, "levelized cost of energy, how brilliant indeed!".* jergul "A nuclear power reactor is not inherently different in grid requirements than a mature windfarm. Both should be overdimensioned to limit grid transmission losses."¨ Not a single thing right, as explained by the OECD report I linked and every expert in electrical grids, among others Svenska Kraftnät, Vattenfall etc. and so on. It is really mind boggling how many technical things you managed to get wrong, in 2 sentences! You have earned yourself a life time ignore on this topic. Congratulations. Very disappointing guys, instead of coming back with facts, data and review papers and studies, you gave me more of your delusional navel gazing pseudo-intellectual garbage, contrary to every comprehensive analyses out there. I gave you an entire fucking day and all you managed to do was fellate each other. In conlusion: Lazard, is a financial advisory and asset management firm. Their reports on levelized cost of energy, are financial assessments and not any form of comprehensive energy policy analyses. I am interested in the latter. Financial assessments like those from Lazard, form but one part of a comprehensive review and even then you collect a multitude of them in any serious work. However, Lazard's report are so deeply flawed and biased towards the assets they manage that they are more or less useless to form the basis for such review, at least on their own. The end
Seb Member	Wed Dec 13 07:33:41 Nim: "In the time frame set by an asset management firm, whose old and decrepit investors want to see ROI before they die?" Right, but that's absolutely what lazards customers and who this report is aimed at. Getting mad at a deregulated, privatised energy market for making decisions that optimise for the players in a privatised, deregulated energy market is... Odd. The problem you have is you think Lazard is giving the wrong answer, but the answer you want it to give depends on a major rethink of the role of the state in energy sector - a rethink I happen to support have been pushing for most of my life. *However* you seem to want to pretend Nuclear is cheap and cost effective *without* that fundamental restructure and that anyone making decisions and recommendations based on the world as it is, rather than the world as it could be are stupid or evil.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 13 07:40:17 LCOE are considered by policy makers in Western countries where they except the premise that energy sector is a largely deregulated *market* and the states role is to try and guide private investment towards low carbon fuel. The nationalisation of the energy sector is a *fundamentally* different question. You wouldn't look at LCOE for that. It's a top tier political decision that would be made by a party during elections, it would trigger numerous trade disputes and legal challenges by operators. You are completely out of touch here. Lazards reports and anything like it play absolutely no role in deciding whether there's a state backed nuclear program. It plays a role for policy makers deciding how to maximise private investment in low carbon fuels, and in that it is largely right.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 13 10:29:58 Nimi I am entirely correct. You just do not understand the information you think you are cherry picking to support an idea you will never abandon anyway. In conclusion, you have a stake in the nuclear industry and provide inherently confirmation biased viewpoints because you literally stand to make money off mainstreaming your view. I will ask you too. What would you prefer. State owned nuclear industry, or no nuclear industry at all?
jergul large member	Wed Dec 13 10:31:26 Essentially no different that a bro micro-pushing bitcoins because he has a stake in it. You have not been pushing that recently. What happened?
Sam Adams Member	Wed Dec 13 10:36:55 Seb adds a whole fuckton of anti nuclear policies and lawsuits. Seb: removing these is anti-free market.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 13 11:10:58 Sammy The problem is that the free market is not up to the task. It never has been. Nuclear power is either a State prerogative, or it is state funded corporate wellfare.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 13 11:33:27 Sam: What are the key regulatory differences between the US, the UK and France in the 1970s? What were the specific new regulatory changes that killed nuclear in the US? There's a bit of regulatory burden. But what killed nuclear power in jurisdictions that year energy primarily as a market is the inability to make a massive investment in capital affordable when electricity sale price can't be guaranteed and interest rates are anything but rock bottom. It's no good if someone can come along and sell electricity below your breakeven price in 15 years if you don't start making money until year 20. The only deregulation I can't think of that would move the dial is to just remove the requirement for reinforced containment structures that withstand impact of an airliner. That would certainly reduce some of the capex! But hey, if you think that's a sensible move in a world of drones and weaponised air liners you are off your head.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Dec 13 14:02:12 "What are the key regulatory differences between the US, the UK and France in the 1970s?" Increased safety regulations and inspections(some of which are necessary) Outright bans in many locations. Many overlapping layers of regulations from state federal and local agencies. And the big one... lawsuits from nimbys and leftists.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 13 14:29:15 Sam: "ncreased safety regulations and inspections(some of which are necessary" That's just repeating the assertion. Specifically which ones? "Outright bans in many locations" Give specific examples. "lawsuits from nimbys and leftists." There's numerous lawsuits against all sorts of development, especially power plants, especially wind turbines. Strangely, this hasn't stopped those getting built.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 13 14:32:40 Give some actual examples of how US regulations go above the French ones and some quantification of how much extra burden they add. Because the impact of higher interest rates and the structural changes from marketisation of energy production are quantifiably enormous I'm terms of Value at risk and coat of capital in investment decisions.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Dec 14 14:52:36 I am not an expert on muclear safety regulations. Neither are you. Plenty of reports you can read about how there are too many regs. Even from the nrc itself. As for the outright bans: http://chi...-be-addressed-in-veto-session/ Just for a recent news example. Germany for an even larger and more retarded example. As for the lawsuits, windfarms face a few from nimbies. Nuke plants face a ton from nimbies AND lefty/green groups too. The two are not nearly equal.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 14 17:46:59 Sam: "Neither are you." True, I did a bit of it back in the day. But I often here this claim - notably never from actually those at a working level in industry or regulators - that the regulatory burden killed nuclear. But never what specifically changed, and what the differences are in jurisdictions where nuclear operated just fine. And from my experience looking at regulation in other sectors, industry always bitches about regulation as it effects margins which can have big %age terms increases in profits. But rarely are regulations actually existential and actually I don't buy the argument that the UK or US regulations are actually much tighter than in Japan and France or South Korea when they were still building nuclear and our industry was dying on its arse. If that was genuinely true you'd be able to point to specific regulatory requirements that were substantially different and you know what, nobody ever can. So instead, I look at the differences in financing and pricing and purchasing of capacity, and note that the correlation of cancelled projects and dry up in orders better fits cost of capital for construction projects. Re the ban you cite, seems highly relevant to the lack of nationalised industry. It's contingent on a facility for long term waste storage. Oh noes, privatised system for electricity production doesn't factor in the full fuel lifecycle.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 15 03:32:15 Feasibility study, Korean APR 1400 reactors for Netherlands. http://www...w-reactor-for-the-netherlands/ Also, California’s Diablo Canyon is getting lifespan extended. Historical pledge towards tripling nuclear energy at COP 28. Likely optimistic, but historical for the fact that nuclear is now included. It’s going to happen guys, and in about 10 years you will both, not only have completely changed your stance, but tell us that you never believed otherwise. I never said nuclear was too expensive! Nim you silly tit, I used to build reactors! -seb 2033 Of course offshore wind doesn’t work, saltwater is bad mkay? -jergul 2033 Waaaaa Jews! -Paramount
Seb Member	Fri Dec 15 06:14:30 Nim; This is what I mean. My position is far more nuanced than yours. Your only mode of discourse is in trying to create a false binary and then declaring one the winner. For example you keep turning my explanation of why nuclear plants are a poor product-market fit into some bullshit "nuclear is good it nuclear is bad" schtic. There are two ways you can address that poor product market fit: 1. Change the product (SMRs) 2. Change the market (de-marketise the energy sector) The whole nature of our disagreement is that I think you have misdiagnosed the problems facing the industry as a combination of anti-nuclear politics and overly tight industrial regulation. As evidence of your confused thinking, you are citing here the Netherlands scheme which may or may not work - but is at least addressing my diagnosis, as validating your position, which has always been about anti-nuclear political actors and regulation. If these were as important factors as you make them out to be, the Netherlands scheme wouldn't exist, and is still doomed to failure thanks to the Netherlands membership of Euratom.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 15 08:25:16 ”My position is far more nuanced than you” You mistake nuance for getting things right, or that nuancing every issue brings it to a closer approximation of reality. It does not. You have had plenty of opportunities to present something other than your self-referential garbage and Lazard. Nothing. SMRs are great, but you are still wrong. “the Netherlands scheme wouldn't exist,“ False. I have explained the variance in sentiment and specifically that Germany has uses their influence to sabotage in the EU. And as facts have changed I have mentioned them, like Denmark and Australia. What is true is that everywhere where it is banned it is because of politics/emotions/greens. Regulation is ofc downstream of that, whether outright bans or as in Sweden to bleed out nuclear. Zero things correct. ”doomed to fail” Dutch council of ministers have already approved plans for two new large reactors. Let’s see how your prediction ages. Doomed to fail is very strong conviction, as in no chance. Lets bet money, 100 to 1. Given your conviction this is easy money. I bet 100 euros, if/when construction starts you give me 10k euros. Deal?
Seb Member	Fri Dec 15 09:13:27 Nim: You might want to check out how nuclear regulation works in the EU. "Dutch council of ministers have already approved plans for two new large reactors" Yes. That's the easy part. What my position is "which may or may not work". What I said was that *if* regulation is the main or one of the most important reason modern reactors fail (a position you hold but that I do not) *then* the project is doomed to failure. Why do you think I would bet on a counterfactual position I've clearly said I do not hold? And starting construction is the most low bar success criteria I've ever fucking heard. The test would be when it starts delivering electricity to the grid on an operational basis. This is what I mean. You approach this from such an adversarial position you are incapable of even reading clear sentences, and just make up utter bullshit instead.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 15 15:14:40 In several months or years, Nim will insist that I said that the programme is doomed to fail, and he will accuse me of having Tik tok brain, even though it's a abundantly clear he just skimmed my post and fundamentally misunderstood it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Dec 18 09:07:32 "(a position you hold but that I do not)" The only person in this thread talking about regulation is you. I have never said, in this thread or other threads, that safety regulation is the main reason, the second reason, or even a reason. You are just making things up to hide the fact that you are confusing me with other posters. The decisions are political, with Sweden and Germany being the two examples I have talked about. When such political decisions are made, they result in some kind of regulation, either regulation that bans nuclear or, as in the case of Sweden, makes it more expensive without any justification. At the time, the greens told us it was because of increased costs of safety, but the fact that the special tax was removed many years ago suggests it was a lie, and it was. I am not part of your discussions on nuclear safety regulation with Sam Adams; it is, like the discussion around costs, another red herring. Again, you throw words around without appreciating that these words (regulation) can mean different things depending on context. Again, I am surprised and disappointed that someone who has a lifelong career in regulation and policy manages to botch basic concepts, confusing the person he is talking to and then calling the other person a moron for not understanding. You rape the precision in the English language, Seb, and then you blame me. Fucking wild. So, now that I have re-capitulated my position and given you feedback on your atrocious communication skills, do you have anything of substance about the impossible hurdle of scaling up the nuclear industry? And I am thinking this substance is in the form of a link and not your own personal musings.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 27 07:31:36 On topic again. Considering the massive windfarm projects on-going, planned and projected in the North Sea, you expect these impacts to match the scale of the misguided ambitions. http://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00625-0 The wind wake effect of offshore wind farms affects the hydrodynamical conditions in the ocean, which has been hypothesized to impact marine primary production. So far only little is known about the ecosystem response to wind wakes under the premisses of large offshore wind farm clusters. Here we show, via numerical modeling, that the associated wind wakes in the North Sea provoke large-scale changes in annual primary production with local changes of up to ±10% not only at the offshore wind farm clusters, but also distributed over a wider region. The model also projects an increase in sediment carbon in deeper areas of the southern North Sea due to reduced current velocities, and decreased dissolved oxygen inside an area with already low oxygen concentration. Our results provide evidence that the ongoing offshore wind farm developments can have a substantial impact on the structuring of coastal marine ecosystems on basin scales. *** We need to talk about these things as they have been unknown, due to how new the technology is or because snake oil salesmen (corporations and politicians) have sold these things to the public as a panacea.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 27 08:13:42 Nim: You spend far far far too much time whining other people. "as in the case of Sweden, makes it more expensive without any justification" Which regulation adds most expense and lacks justification?
Seb Member	Wed Dec 27 08:16:13 You don't m specifically mention regulation, then spell out that the political preferences you ascribe to are expressed in practice through regulation. So... you agree it's actually a conversation about regulation but are engaged that I make that explicit? I'd ask you what drugs you are on, but that would be redundant.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 27 08:19:05 "You rape the precision of the English language by precisely referring to the mechanism that turns political preferences into economic and commercial effects we are talking about". Let's be honest Nim, you are once again just running away from the reality that your vague generalities and platitudes (greens, politics!) dissolve when you start to look at the actual details. You want a simple narrative of a group of bad people to get angry with, not to look at what would actually structurally solve a problem.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 27 08:23:51 This thread is about the negative impact of off shore wind farms on the environment. Issues worth discussing and educating people about. The side effects of new technology are not always apparent, takes decades sometimes too figure out. Whining doesn't mean what you think it does. "Which regulation adds most expense and lacks justification?" You see the problem? I have to educate you, spoon feed you, information which I have already mentioned once, at the same time debate you. Basically debate myself, with you as some kind of retarded interpreter of things you should have known before you opened your mouth, but that I have to supply for you. It is a bizarre way to "debate". Yea, Nimatzo, please give me the facts, so I can endlessly debate you about this issues, that I *feel* I understand better.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 27 08:27:10 Seb "you are once again just running away from the reality that your vague generalities and platitudes (greens, politics!)" 2-3 times I have asked for substance in this thread and you have just produced a stream of your own thoughts. The last time, you didn't even come back, until I placed this thread back on topic, happy to just let go of you and ramblings. Running away you say? Have some shame and just shut the fuck up, I had let it go.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 27 08:56:03 Seb "So... you agree it's actually a conversation about regulation but are engaged that I make that explicit?" Ok so let's get this on paper and on the record. You believe that a conversation about the engineering, capital and resources challenges of different power sources, is conversation about regulation? You think that a political process which has different sides and facet about should we do this or the other, because the processes ultimately results in the signing of a paper (the regulation), *the conversation* *is* *about* _regulation_?
patom Member	Wed Dec 27 09:21:06 So Nimatzo, are you saying that the fish production is down in the North Sea due to all the windmills? Isn't it possible that fish production is effected more by the international fishing fleets ability to kill whole schools of fish. Thus ending any chance of producing more? Here in Maine we can't seem to even pick a port to act as a base for Wind Turbine installation and distribution.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 27 11:48:49 Patom I'm saying precisely what I have said, off shore wind farms have negative impact on the environment. The area is understudied, because the technology is relatively new and because a lot of money, including tax money incentivizes people on piles of money to sell this stuff as "free energy" or something delusional like that. We have done this stuff before, thought we found some magic bullet, sprayed the fields with toxins and then decades afterwards as those toxins accumulated, oh shit it kills the bald headed eagle, or something worse.
patom Member	Wed Dec 27 12:37:54 There is no such thing as 'FREE'. More inexpensive maybe but not FREE. The cost of fuel to generate electricity and the delivery of that fuel is part of the cost. To the best of my knowledge, there is no cost in the generation of the wind or the solar rays that fuel solar panel power. There is no infrastructure involved in the delivery of those two fuels to the windmills or solar panels. There is no cost in disposing of waste products left after generation. There are hydro generators that don't even require daming of waterways.
patom Member	Wed Dec 27 12:39:01 There is no such thing as 'FREE'. More inexpensive maybe but not FREE. The cost of fuel to generate electricity and the delivery of that fuel is part of the cost. To the best of my knowledge, there is no cost in the generation of the wind or the solar rays that fuel solar panel power. There is no infrastructure involved in the delivery of those two fuels to the windmills or solar panels. There is no cost in disposing of waste products left after generation. There are hydro generators that don't even require daming of waterways.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 27 13:03:37 Yes there are cost for retiring and deposing both wind turbines, their rotors blades, as well as PV panels. The irony being that rotor blades of wind turbines can not be recycled and have to basically be dug underground when their technical lifespan is up. Some of it you can use as filler material for concrete, maybe, but I mean that is a finite venue.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 27 13:53:07 They can actually be ground up and used as fuel with less emissions than coal.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 27 13:53:46 The blades. Turbines are recycled in the same way as any power plant.
patom Member	Wed Dec 27 15:33:58 Nimatzo, of course there are parts that wear out. What is the cost and how often is that cost incurred? How much does it cost to mine coal, grind it to the correct grain, and dispose of the ash? How much does it cost to drill for oil? What is the cost to the environment?
Seb Member	Wed Dec 27 16:18:43 http://rec...turbine%20blades%20per%20year.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 28 04:26:24 Well, that is better than burning them, for sure.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: