How do you think current herbivores and vegans live and grow? There are a bajillion ways to get proteins and amino acids without grinding up existing meat.
I said 'boilogical input', I did not say 'meat'. All of those bajillion ways have some form of biological feed input. Be it plants, or plankton or whatever. So, you did not help answer the question. You need to get the nutrients from somewhere.
Growing plants also requires nutrients, typically from soil. Land growing of plants is the most economical form, so that would not reduce land required by 99%.
The article says it would cut down land use for farm animals by 99%, but you can't make meat without some raw materials. Its hard for me to imagine they don't require some equivalent biological feed into the process, so that matter has to come from somewhere. Fish?
But actually that is not the boiling point equation, which is much more complicated because of different substance properties, but the major factors are still T and P.
You compared the building costs of a plant that produces x GW power with "something else" and claimed you need to use energy instead of power.
Don't be an idiot. My fist entry to this thread I said; "Even high end cost estimates from critics are under $100/Mwh, which equates to $0.0096/Wh, and is lower than many other sources." The ensuing discussion was entirely about cost of energy.
Just because I showed explicitly how wrong you were, you decided to twist reality and deflect. How pathetic.
In this case it is two separate plants. Two completely separate structures. In fact, each plant is composed of a 4 separate structures. If I build two houses on a single lot, would you call that 'one object'? I guess you might if it suited your agenda. How far apart would they need to be to be considered two?
There are two-unit nuclear plants in existence. Where they are all in one main building, and in that case it would be one plant, but that is not the case with Hinckley Pt.
One could make the argument that a properly trained fuel pumper doing deliveries will be less likely to spill than Joe Driver filling up in a hurry, and that there are simple ways you could design a spill catch that could be place just below the tank nozzle.
Or maybe you know more than them. Methinks you just want to avoid proper comparisons.
If you want to compare the cost of energy, use MWh. A MW is not energy. A MWh is energy.
And finally, a nice easy to read statement from wikipedia;
In electrical power generation, the distinct ways of generating electricity incur significantly different costs. Calculations of these costs at the point of connection to a load or to the electricity grid can be made. The cost is typically given per kilowatt-hour or megawatt-hour. It includes the initial capital, discount rate, as well as the costs of continuous operation, fuel, and maintenance. This type of calculation assists policy makers, researchers and others to guide discussions and decision making.
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a measure of a power source which attempts to compare different methods of electricity generation on a comparable basis. It is an economic assessment of the average total cost to build and operate a power-generating asset over its lifetime divided by the total energy output of the asset over that lifetime. The LCOE can also be regarded as the minimum cost at which electricity must be sold in order to break-even over the lifetime of the project.
If you want to refute, provide a source instead of meandering rationalizations.
You can't just say, "Oh, if they wanted to, they could figure out some way to do it." They can't.
I certainly didn't, and wouldn't say that. In fact that thought would be directly counter to may point regarding education, which I still think is a bigger element than money & time. Again, even a lot of those parents that have time available, yet are uneducated, don't do very well either.
Its not simply about them having better jobs and more money. Income correlates to education and ability, and to some extent desire. Educated parents naturally are better equipped to help their children succeed, and they'll naturally have better jobs and more income. A mother can't teach her kids nearly as effectively if she isn't educated, and yes its worse if she is a single mother and has little time. There are plenty of non-working parents who are not exactly helping their kids succeed. OTOH, many well-off parents work 60-70 hour weeks. There certainly is a viscous cycle, one that simply injecting more money to is not sufficient, and attempts to do that have not been successful
There need to be some way of helping kids in their formative years when the parents are not able, and sometimes not willing. But that's heading down a very controversial path.
Cost per Wh is the cost of producing each single Wh depending on its fuel costs.
No, fuel cost is just one component. You also include O&M, capitalization/amortization, expected capacity factor, and any other costs involved in owning and operating the facility,r based on the operating life. For renewables, the fuel cost is zero, so they have a big advantage in that line item. But they have high capitalization. Wind has high O&M. For gas, fuel is super cheap. Nuclear has higher insurance and waste assessment costs, but also very high capacity factor and reasonable fuel costs. They are all included to get the proper $/MWh for comparison. That is referred to the 'levelized cost of energy", and it is done in $/MWh. Any credible organization that does these comparisons uses this approach.
Yes, for this plant, there will be many refurbishments along the way, however the highest cost components such as the RPV will not be replaced. That cost is included in the lifetime O&M cost profile, so be careful not to double dip and add it again on the side. It is certainly an important factor to consider, and is included the levelized energy cost evaluations.
Historically, your doubts are proven wrong as refurbishment of existing nuclear has payed off greatly.
Of course you consider capacity when sizing the source, I never said you would not. In fact, for small portable generators the only thing people often care about is capacity, as cost of operation isn't so much of a concern.But even then you don't start with $/KW. You just start with the size of the plant. This was not a discussion about how you select and size a plant. It was a discussion on how to evaluate cost of energy. In fact, in your statement you never even used $/KW, which was my point, it is not very useful.
I can tell you for certain that any utility that has ever added a generating asset has evaluated the cost of energy that will be produced, in $/MWh, not $/KW.
If you haven't noticed, there are a LOT of people right here on slashdot that think $/KW reflects energy cost, not to mention PRs that take advantage of that confusion.
Anyhow, you seem to have backed up my point that the actual energy cost is evaluated in $/MWh, not $/KW, which is my only point.
^This. It starts and ends with qualified and enthusiastic teachers. But its not just teachers. The real challenge is parents. Without involved parents there is only so much even a great teacher can do with limited time to individually attend to a kid. All the computers and internet access in the world won't matter. Most kids have sufficient access to internet. Shiny new buildings or new stuff in classrooms are low on the scale of things that make a big difference. Sometimes its a cover up, a way to claim progress.
Yes, plants are listed at full capacity ratings in MW, but that does not tell us the cost of energy, so that is not used to compare the cost of energy. You CAN compare capacity, but that is of little use, on its own, when comparing different energy sources because of the exact variables you stated. And while plants are and will always have KW capacity ratings, the measure for comparing energy cost is, has been, and will always be $/MWh.
Which is why any credible reference for energy cost uses $/MWh.
I could provide many more examples. Maybe you should write to all these and tell them they don't know what they are doing. Note that some of these references are renewables organizations. Now, please provide one credible reference that uses $/MW to compare energy cost. (Not some article written by some ignorant yahoo). But instead, I expect you will just blabber on about how using $/MWh is some sort of anti-renewable conspiracy.
No, it is not two reactors in the same plant. It is two completely different and separate plants, built next to each other on the same site. Entirely separate structures. In reality, one plant is also several separate structures (EDG buildings, etc), so the headline is inaccurate in that manner as well.
I never said renewable were bad. You fabricated that. Then later you were calling me a liar, but you never actually specified the lie you accuse me of. I guess it was just name calling.
You have your own little interpretation of the energy measurement that seems to suit your vision of the world. Sorry, but methods don't change just because you like one thing or another.
Energy costs never were, and never will be, in $/kW because kW is not energy. Is the cost of car usage discussed in $ per horsepower? No, because it doesn't make sense. You might compare two cars' power capacity in horsepower, just like two power plants in kW, and you can even compare them in $/HP, but that would be pretty useless because of all the other variables. Horsepower and kW are both the RATE of energy delivery or production, neither is energy.
The cost of energy is expressed in $/MWh, because a MWh defines a specific amount of energy. kW is capacity, not energy. The kW rating for a power plant is the highest energy production rate the plant can achieve, or the 100% rating. So, a 1 kW solar panel can deliver energy at a rate of up to 1 kW in full sunshine, which is its maximum capacity. A 1 MW gas plant can produce energy at a rate of up to 1 MW, a 50 MW wind turbine can generate energy at a rate of up to 50MW.
And, in order to calculate the cost of energy and compare different types, since there are a lot of different variables like O&M, capacity factor, fuel, capitalization, etc, you need to levelize the cost, which again can only be done over time. Google "levelized cost of energy", you will see MWh as the unit used. And, once again, that it because a MW is not energy, MWH is energy.
You do care about the cost of energy right? Or is there something else you are trying to talk about?
Yes, plants are rated in KW, that is the max rate at which they can produce energy. Ratings don't reflect actual production, just the possible rate of production. That is why it is w=joules per second. You care about cost per joule, not cost per joule per second, when discussing the cost of energy.
I am not sure if you can comprehend this, but if I operate at 1 KW for 4 hours a day, I produce less energy than if I operate at 1KW for 22 hours a day. If my plant is rated at 1 kW, that is the highest rate at which it can produce.
If you do a little reading you'll see that energy cost comparisons between different types of generation are done in MWh. I guess you should tell the DOE that they don't know what they are doing.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you think current herbivores and vegans live and grow? There are a bajillion ways to get proteins and amino acids without grinding up existing meat.
I said 'boilogical input', I did not say 'meat'. All of those bajillion ways have some form of biological feed input. Be it plants, or plankton or whatever. So, you did not help answer the question. You need to get the nutrients from somewhere.
Growing plants also requires nutrients, typically from soil. Land growing of plants is the most economical form, so that would not reduce land required by 99%.
Hey, that would be a great idea for a movie. I'd call it something like, The Roast.
MMMMM, man made manufactured monkey meat.
The article says it would cut down land use for farm animals by 99%, but you can't make meat without some raw materials. Its hard for me to imagine they don't require some equivalent biological feed into the process, so that matter has to come from somewhere. Fish?
Innovation is not making something slightly thinner or lighter or faster or missing a port or with a better screen.
It is if you charge enough for it.
But actually that is not the boiling point equation, which is much more complicated because of different substance properties, but the major factors are still T and P.
This is not intuitively obvious to people who memorized PV = nRT in grade school *HOW*?!?
Who was this exactly a mystery *from*?
Well there's the submitter, who stated temperature wasn't a major factor in the boiling. So we've got one person.
temperature was not the major factor in this boiling water, it was due to the pressure of the atmosphere
Facepalm material.
You compared the building costs of a plant that produces x GW power with "something else" and claimed you need to use energy instead of power.
Don't be an idiot. My fist entry to this thread I said; "Even high end cost estimates from critics are under $100/Mwh, which equates to $0.0096/Wh, and is lower than many other sources." The ensuing discussion was entirely about cost of energy.
Just because I showed explicitly how wrong you were, you decided to twist reality and deflect. How pathetic.
In this case it is two separate plants. Two completely separate structures. In fact, each plant is composed of a 4 separate structures. If I build two houses on a single lot, would you call that 'one object'? I guess you might if it suited your agenda. How far apart would they need to be to be considered two?
There are two-unit nuclear plants in existence. Where they are all in one main building, and in that case it would be one plant, but that is not the case with Hinckley Pt.
And, may I ask, what is your point?
Its refreshing to here simple logic. THANK YOU.
One could make the argument that a properly trained fuel pumper doing deliveries will be less likely to spill than Joe Driver filling up in a hurry, and that there are simple ways you could design a spill catch that could be place just below the tank nozzle.
Exactly my point. Hence kWh is useless for what you seek.
Tell all of these organizations that their approach is useless;
https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/...
http://energyinnovation.org/20...
http://www.renewable-energysou...
http://about.bnef.com/press-re...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=...
Or maybe you know more than them. Methinks you just want to avoid proper comparisons.
If you want to compare the cost of energy, use MWh. A MW is not energy. A MWh is energy. And finally, a nice easy to read statement from wikipedia;
In electrical power generation, the distinct ways of generating electricity incur significantly different costs. Calculations of these costs at the point of connection to a load or to the electricity grid can be made. The cost is typically given per kilowatt-hour or megawatt-hour. It includes the initial capital, discount rate, as well as the costs of continuous operation, fuel, and maintenance. This type of calculation assists policy makers, researchers and others to guide discussions and decision making.
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a measure of a power source which attempts to compare different methods of electricity generation on a comparable basis. It is an economic assessment of the average total cost to build and operate a power-generating asset over its lifetime divided by the total energy output of the asset over that lifetime. The LCOE can also be regarded as the minimum cost at which electricity must be sold in order to break-even over the lifetime of the project.
If you want to refute, provide a source instead of meandering rationalizations.
You can't just say, "Oh, if they wanted to, they could figure out some way to do it." They can't.
I certainly didn't, and wouldn't say that. In fact that thought would be directly counter to may point regarding education, which I still think is a bigger element than money & time. Again, even a lot of those parents that have time available, yet are uneducated, don't do very well either.
Its not simply about them having better jobs and more money. Income correlates to education and ability, and to some extent desire. Educated parents naturally are better equipped to help their children succeed, and they'll naturally have better jobs and more income. A mother can't teach her kids nearly as effectively if she isn't educated, and yes its worse if she is a single mother and has little time. There are plenty of non-working parents who are not exactly helping their kids succeed. OTOH, many well-off parents work 60-70 hour weeks. There certainly is a viscous cycle, one that simply injecting more money to is not sufficient, and attempts to do that have not been successful
There need to be some way of helping kids in their formative years when the parents are not able, and sometimes not willing. But that's heading down a very controversial path.
Cost per Wh is the cost of producing each single Wh depending on its fuel costs.
No, fuel cost is just one component. You also include O&M, capitalization/amortization, expected capacity factor, and any other costs involved in owning and operating the facility,r based on the operating life. For renewables, the fuel cost is zero, so they have a big advantage in that line item. But they have high capitalization. Wind has high O&M. For gas, fuel is super cheap. Nuclear has higher insurance and waste assessment costs, but also very high capacity factor and reasonable fuel costs. They are all included to get the proper $/MWh for comparison. That is referred to the 'levelized cost of energy", and it is done in $/MWh. Any credible organization that does these comparisons uses this approach.
Yes, for this plant, there will be many refurbishments along the way, however the highest cost components such as the RPV will not be replaced. That cost is included in the lifetime O&M cost profile, so be careful not to double dip and add it again on the side. It is certainly an important factor to consider, and is included the levelized energy cost evaluations.
Historically, your doubts are proven wrong as refurbishment of existing nuclear has payed off greatly.
https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/...
Of course you consider capacity when sizing the source, I never said you would not. In fact, for small portable generators the only thing people often care about is capacity, as cost of operation isn't so much of a concern.But even then you don't start with $/KW. You just start with the size of the plant. This was not a discussion about how you select and size a plant. It was a discussion on how to evaluate cost of energy. In fact, in your statement you never even used $/KW, which was my point, it is not very useful.
I can tell you for certain that any utility that has ever added a generating asset has evaluated the cost of energy that will be produced, in $/MWh, not $/KW.
If you haven't noticed, there are a LOT of people right here on slashdot that think $/KW reflects energy cost, not to mention PRs that take advantage of that confusion.
Anyhow, you seem to have backed up my point that the actual energy cost is evaluated in $/MWh, not $/KW, which is my only point.
^This. It starts and ends with qualified and enthusiastic teachers. But its not just teachers. The real challenge is parents. Without involved parents there is only so much even a great teacher can do with limited time to individually attend to a kid. All the computers and internet access in the world won't matter. Most kids have sufficient access to internet. Shiny new buildings or new stuff in classrooms are low on the scale of things that make a big difference. Sometimes its a cover up, a way to claim progress.
Yes, plants are listed at full capacity ratings in MW, but that does not tell us the cost of energy, so that is not used to compare the cost of energy. You CAN compare capacity, but that is of little use, on its own, when comparing different energy sources because of the exact variables you stated. And while plants are and will always have KW capacity ratings, the measure for comparing energy cost is, has been, and will always be $/MWh.
Which is why any credible reference for energy cost uses $/MWh.
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/t...
https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.renewable-energy-ad...
I could provide many more examples. Maybe you should write to all these and tell them they don't know what they are doing. Note that some of these references are renewables organizations. Now, please provide one credible reference that uses $/MW to compare energy cost. (Not some article written by some ignorant yahoo). But instead, I expect you will just blabber on about how using $/MWh is some sort of anti-renewable conspiracy.
No, it is not two reactors in the same plant. It is two completely different and separate plants, built next to each other on the same site. Entirely separate structures. In reality, one plant is also several separate structures (EDG buildings, etc), so the headline is inaccurate in that manner as well.
I never said renewable were bad. You fabricated that. Then later you were calling me a liar, but you never actually specified the lie you accuse me of. I guess it was just name calling.
You have your own little interpretation of the energy measurement that seems to suit your vision of the world. Sorry, but methods don't change just because you like one thing or another.
Energy costs never were, and never will be, in $/kW because kW is not energy. Is the cost of car usage discussed in $ per horsepower? No, because it doesn't make sense. You might compare two cars' power capacity in horsepower, just like two power plants in kW, and you can even compare them in $/HP, but that would be pretty useless because of all the other variables. Horsepower and kW are both the RATE of energy delivery or production, neither is energy.
The cost of energy is expressed in $/MWh, because a MWh defines a specific amount of energy. kW is capacity, not energy. The kW rating for a power plant is the highest energy production rate the plant can achieve, or the 100% rating. So, a 1 kW solar panel can deliver energy at a rate of up to 1 kW in full sunshine, which is its maximum capacity. A 1 MW gas plant can produce energy at a rate of up to 1 MW, a 50 MW wind turbine can generate energy at a rate of up to 50MW.
And, in order to calculate the cost of energy and compare different types, since there are a lot of different variables like O&M, capacity factor, fuel, capitalization, etc, you need to levelize the cost, which again can only be done over time. Google "levelized cost of energy", you will see MWh as the unit used. And, once again, that it because a MW is not energy, MWH is energy.
You do care about the cost of energy right? Or is there something else you are trying to talk about?
Yes, plants are rated in KW, that is the max rate at which they can produce energy. Ratings don't reflect actual production, just the possible rate of production. That is why it is w=joules per second. You care about cost per joule, not cost per joule per second, when discussing the cost of energy.
I am not sure if you can comprehend this, but if I operate at 1 KW for 4 hours a day, I produce less energy than if I operate at 1KW for 22 hours a day. If my plant is rated at 1 kW, that is the highest rate at which it can produce.
If you do a little reading you'll see that energy cost comparisons between different types of generation are done in MWh. I guess you should tell the DOE that they don't know what they are doing.