If it were not for the Prace-Anderson Act, nuclear operators would be required to obtain insurance on the open market. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this lack of subsidy would push the cost of nuclear electricity far over $0.22/kwh.
Quoting operating costs ignores all externalities, not just waste disposal and insurance.
The important point I would raise is that we need to get our local school and hospital funding models away from property taxes, which are almost always regressive, and into a progressive system such as Sweden's two-bracket income tax.
Thank you for your kind wishes.
Re:financial downside much larger
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 1
http://www.awea.org/faq/land.html They say to provide 20% of America's electricity, you'd need 0.6% of the land of the entire lower 48 states! That's 16,000 square miles.
I don't know what is the problem with the AWEA. They don't return my calls, and I don't know why. I am beginning to suspect that they have been infiltrated with shills.
Please read the FAQ from Denmark, where the most efficient turbines are designed and built these days.
9. Wind Energy Uses Land Resources Sparingly
Wind turbines and access roads occupy less than one per cent of the area in a typical wind park. The remaining 99 per cent of the land can be used for farming or grazing, as usual.
Since wind turbines extract energy from the wind, there is less energy in the wind shade of a turbine (and more turbulence) than in front of it.
In a wind park, turbines generally have to be spaced between three and nine rotor diameters apart in order not to shade one another too much. (Five to seven rotor diameters is the most commonly used spacing).
If there is one particular prevailing wind direction , e.g. West, turbines may be spaced very closely in the direction at a right angle to that direction, (i.e. North-South).
Whereas a wind turbine uses 36 square metres, or 0.0036 hectares to produce between 1.2 and 1.8 million kilowatt hours per year, a typical biofuel plant would require 154 hectares of willow forest to produce 1.3 million kilowatt hours per year. Solar cells would require an area of 1.4 hectares to produce the same amount of electricity per year.
we use nuclear plants for a lot of our power here in Ontario and our cost of power is about 4 cents per kWh Canadian
Does your government tell you how much of that they subsidize?
Correct me if I am wrong, but Canada provides government-sponsored insurance to nuclear facilities just like the U.S. does. My understanding is that if nuclear plants were forced to obtain market rate insurance, the cost of nuclear power would be very much over $0.20/kwh.
if the people who had invested in the stock market had bought money market securities (composed primarily of various Treasury department securities) instead of stock they would still have that $7 trillion and even be a little ahead on inflation.
And under that scenario, it would have been very difficult for companies to raise capital investment, and just as easy for Bush to slash veteran's benefits.
The financial industries don't need Treasury securities. If they become more scarce (expensive), then the same low risk capital flows into funds based on certificates of deposit and high quality corporate debt, and local communities and corporations respectivly benefit, unlike the situation with Treasury securities, where taxpayers have to foot the interest bill.
If lenders have so much faith in the U.S., why are currency traders dumping dollars for euros?
I'm guessing this is just herd behavior, with the captive penguins realizing, in their own small way, that they have nothing better to do, so they might was well do what all the other penguins are doing. Give it another couple months and they'll probably stop or move on to something else.
do you deny that there is a strong number of progressives who are considered mainstream who wish to ban handguns?
Well, if you divide the progressives up into pragmatists and idealists, I'd guess less than a percent of the former want to ban handguns, whereas perhaps half of the idealists do. But those are many of the people who say they want to legalize hemp to help the textile industry, if you get my drift. I'm not alone in my lack of trust of idealogues, be they progressive or otherwise, and they don't often get elected.
Most of the pragmatic progressives these days who care at all about gun issues are focused on things like making a chamber round indicator mandatory so kids don't keep shooting each other. We lose a whole lot of kids every year because they think ejecting a magazine unloads a gun.
As for things like registration, mandatory training and safety inspections, trigger locks, etc., that's another story, and very well within the meaning of the 2nd amendment's words, "well regulated." Even "The Brady Campaign works to enact sensible gun control legislation in the United States but does not seek to ban guns."
FOOTPRINT area
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Modern 2.5 MW turbines take 36 square feet at the base of their turbines. That doesn't mean that you can plant them adjacent to each other.
14,000 acres is the amount of land taken from use, not the area of the total land needed to accommodate the turbines.
The point being, that the land in between the turbines is still fully available for farming or pasture.
Will someone please get to work on a small battery with incredible storage capacity and quick charging? Or make a fuel cell....
Yes. Follow the stories about mass production of carbon nanotubes. In particular, the holy grail is making them conductive. As soon as you get a bag of reliably conductive nanotubes, you can store hydrogen at energy densities far exceeding that of fossil fuels -- which is difficult with even liquid hydrogen storage tanks, for a number of technical reasons (you need a double-walled thermos with an internal revacumation pump; that's expensive, and even then the hydrogen embrittles most inexenssive metals and leaks through inexpensive composites.)
There you have it: When automobile thefts go up and test scores go down in Sweden, then Swedish citizens start clamoring for more police and teachers. Here in the U.S., the same thing happens, and the entrenched right lets the asault rifle ban expire and tries to outlaw abortion.
Be thankful your government at least tells you what they could be doing better. In the U.S., treasury secretaries and budget directors who dare to speak the truth get fired and replaced with those who can take orders.
I'm not saying I agree with the cut, because I don't, but there is solid economic theory behind it.
Trickle down, supply-side economics is so solid that Ronald Reagan's original budget director, David Stockman, called it, "a torjan horse," designed to put so much deficit pressure on the budget that programs unwanted by the right-wing administration would be forced into cuts without debate.
The president's own father called it, "voodoo economics," when he ran against Reagan in 1980.
The only people who benefit from supply-side economics, other than the ultra-rich, are the P.R. flacks the Republicans hire to write ads and op-eds to convince you it is actually good for the economy.
Look at the unemployment rate, at a nine-year high. Trickle down is not working, because it is not solid. It is the grossest form of mass political deceit.
0.3 microns doesn't cut it
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 1
How much thorium dust measures 0.3 microns? You're lucky if you get more than a couple hundred atoms in a particle. The whole reason it's in coal in the first place is because it was absorbed by some plant matter from the atmosphere eons ago.
HEPA filters are fine for cat dander, but please find a better way to keep your radioactive dirt out of my lungs. Thanks.
Corporate income is taxed by the federal government, and then dividends paid by corporations to shareholders are taxed again. How does double taxation of that sort support your argument?
$44 trillion is PV of debt in perpetuity
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The $44 trillion figure is the present value of the national debt held by the public computed as a perpetuity.
We are not any worse off then we were in the '90s or the '60s.
Until the baby boomers retire, and then we're totally screwed.
The 2003 Senate Energy Bill [S.14] offers loan guarantees for the construction of 7 new nuclear reactors in the US
The heavily subsidized typical cost for U.S. nuclear power is around $0.12/kwh. That doesn't include the blanket insurance policy courtesy of the Price-Anderson Act, nor the cost of waste disposal and other externalites like terrorism and natural disaster vulnerability, which can not be measured until it's too late.
The unsubsidized, fully amortized cost of wind power is about $0.04/kwh. Most jurisdictions also apply a subsidy to wind.
The entire United States of America can be converted to wind powered electricity using only 14,000 acres of turbine footprint area on existing farmland, pasture, and prarie. That's about twice the area of the Stanford University campus, or about as much oak forest lost in California each year.
There is no reason that wind should not be the major U.S. source of electricity in 2018.
Please tell Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Based on his Energy Committee testimony last week, nobody has explained this to him yet. Please phone +1.202.452.3204 and ask for Michelle Smith or Andrew Williams.
wind farms work without killing birds
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 1
Trouble is, wind farms don't generate much electricity.
On the contrary, the entire United States of America can be converted to wind powered electricity using only 14,000 acres of turbine footprint area on existing farmland, pasture, and prarie. That's about twice the area of the Stanford University campus, or about as much oak forest lost in California each year.
The unsubsidized, fully amortized cost of wind power is about $0.04/kwh. Most jurisdictions provide a subsidy for wind. The more heavily subsidized typical cost for U.S. nuclear power is around $0.12/kwh. That doesn't include the cost of the blanket insurance policy courtesy of the Price-Anderson Act, nor the cost of waste disposal and other externalites like terrorism and natural disaster vulnerability, which can not be measured until it's too late.
More efficient omnidirectional prototypes were tested in the 1980's but they were banned because they tended to attract and kill birds.... There's also the liability problem of broken windmill parts falling on cattle (many windmills are on farms and ranches) or even people.
WTF? If it wasn't for your final paragraph, I would be sure you were a shill for the nuke industry. Your information is either very outdated or just plain wrong.
Yes; that, sir, is a thing of unparalleled beauty.
financial downside much larger
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
The only downside to Nukes is a Chernobyl-like operating mess.
The heavily subsidized typical cost for U.S. nuclear power is around $0.12/kwh. That's with a blanket insurance policy courtesy of the Price-Anderson Act, and doesn't include the cost of waste disposal and other externalites like terrorism and natural disaster vulnerability, which can not be measured until it's too late.
The unsubsidized, fully amortized cost of wind power is about $0.04/kwh. Most jurisdictions also apply a subsidy to wind.
The entire United States of America can be converted to wind powered electricity using only 14,000 acres of turbine footprint area on existing farmland, pasture, and prarie. That's about twice the area of the Stanford University campus, or about as much oak forest lost in California each year.
There is no reason that wind should not be the major U.S. source of electricity in 2018.
Please tell Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Based on his Energy Committee testimony last week, nobody has explained this to him yet. Please phone +1.202.452.3204 and ask for Michelle Smith or Andrew Williams.
The heavily subsidized typical cost for U.S. nuclear power is around $0.12/kwh. That's with a blanket insurance policy courtesy of the Price-Anderson Act, and doesn't include the cost of waste disposal and other externalites like terrorism and natural disaster vulnerability, which can not be measured until it's too late.
The unsubsidized, fully amortized cost of wind power is about $0.04/kwh. Most jurisdictions also apply a subsidy to wind. You do the math.
The entire United States of America can be converted to wind powered electricity using only 14,000 acres of turbine footprint area on existing farmland, pasture, and prarie. That's about twice the area of the Stanford University campus, or about as much oak forest lost in California each year.
There is no reason that wind should not be the major U.S. source of electricity in 2018.
Please tell Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Based on his Energy Committee testimony last week, nobody has explained this to him yet. Please phone +1.202.452.3204 and ask for Michelle Smith or Andrew Williams.
Coal - very seriously polluting
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 1
The plant's exhaust is 99.6% CO2 and H2O vapor, making it one of the cleanest in the world.
And how much of that 0.4% is microparticulate thorium and uranium? More than you think, I bet.
Give your plant's public relations lackies a round of applause. They have sure done a number on you.
The top one percent of U.S. taxpayers (annual income over $313,469) made 20.8 percent of the income earned in 2000 and paid 37.4 percent of the total federal individual income taxes collected that year. This fraction of the tax burden paid by the top one percent - well over a third of the total - is up from 25.1 percent ten years earlier in tax year 1990.
Slashdot Mirror
If it were not for the Prace-Anderson Act, nuclear operators would be required to obtain insurance on the open market. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this lack of subsidy would push the cost of nuclear electricity far over $0.22/kwh.
Quoting operating costs ignores all externalities, not just waste disposal and insurance.
On the contrary, we would need only 14,000 acres of turbine footprint area, using modern turbines, for all of the U.S. current electricity demand.
Please read the FAQ.
The important point I would raise is that we need to get our local school and hospital funding models away from property taxes, which are almost always regressive, and into a progressive system such as Sweden's two-bracket income tax.
Thank you for your kind wishes.
I don't know what is the problem with the AWEA. They don't return my calls, and I don't know why. I am beginning to suspect that they have been infiltrated with shills.
Please read the FAQ from Denmark, where the most efficient turbines are designed and built these days.
Does your government tell you how much of that they subsidize?
Correct me if I am wrong, but Canada provides government-sponsored insurance to nuclear facilities just like the U.S. does. My understanding is that if nuclear plants were forced to obtain market rate insurance, the cost of nuclear power would be very much over $0.20/kwh.
And under that scenario, it would have been very difficult for companies to raise capital investment, and just as easy for Bush to slash veteran's benefits.
The financial industries don't need Treasury securities. If they become more scarce (expensive), then the same low risk capital flows into funds based on certificates of deposit and high quality corporate debt, and local communities and corporations respectivly benefit, unlike the situation with Treasury securities, where taxpayers have to foot the interest bill.
If lenders have so much faith in the U.S., why are currency traders dumping dollars for euros?
Please tell me more.
I'm guessing this is just herd behavior, with the captive penguins realizing, in their own small way, that they have nothing better to do, so they might was well do what all the other penguins are doing. Give it another couple months and they'll probably stop or move on to something else.
Well, if you divide the progressives up into pragmatists and idealists, I'd guess less than a percent of the former want to ban handguns, whereas perhaps half of the idealists do. But those are many of the people who say they want to legalize hemp to help the textile industry, if you get my drift. I'm not alone in my lack of trust of idealogues, be they progressive or otherwise, and they don't often get elected.
Most of the pragmatic progressives these days who care at all about gun issues are focused on things like making a chamber round indicator mandatory so kids don't keep shooting each other. We lose a whole lot of kids every year because they think ejecting a magazine unloads a gun.
As for things like registration, mandatory training and safety inspections, trigger locks, etc., that's another story, and very well within the meaning of the 2nd amendment's words, "well regulated." Even "The Brady Campaign works to enact sensible gun control legislation in the United States but does not seek to ban guns."
14,000 acres is the amount of land taken from use, not the area of the total land needed to accommodate the turbines.
The point being, that the land in between the turbines is still fully available for farming or pasture.
I would have asked myself that same question a week ago, but they've been having him testify before the Energy Committee
Yes. Follow the stories about mass production of carbon nanotubes. In particular, the holy grail is making them conductive. As soon as you get a bag of reliably conductive nanotubes, you can store hydrogen at energy densities far exceeding that of fossil fuels -- which is difficult with even liquid hydrogen storage tanks, for a number of technical reasons (you need a double-walled thermos with an internal revacumation pump; that's expensive, and even then the hydrogen embrittles most inexenssive metals and leaks through inexpensive composites.)
Be thankful your government at least tells you what they could be doing better. In the U.S., treasury secretaries and budget directors who dare to speak the truth get fired and replaced with those who can take orders.
Trickle down, supply-side economics is so solid that Ronald Reagan's original budget director, David Stockman, called it, "a torjan horse," designed to put so much deficit pressure on the budget that programs unwanted by the right-wing administration would be forced into cuts without debate.
The president's own father called it, "voodoo economics," when he ran against Reagan in 1980.
The only people who benefit from supply-side economics, other than the ultra-rich, are the P.R. flacks the Republicans hire to write ads and op-eds to convince you it is actually good for the economy.
Look at the unemployment rate, at a nine-year high. Trickle down is not working, because it is not solid. It is the grossest form of mass political deceit.
HEPA filters are fine for cat dander, but please find a better way to keep your radioactive dirt out of my lungs. Thanks.
Funny you should ask.
Until the baby boomers retire, and then we're totally screwed.
The heavily subsidized typical cost for U.S. nuclear power is around $0.12/kwh. That doesn't include the blanket insurance policy courtesy of the Price-Anderson Act, nor the cost of waste disposal and other externalites like terrorism and natural disaster vulnerability, which can not be measured until it's too late.
The unsubsidized, fully amortized cost of wind power is about $0.04/kwh. Most jurisdictions also apply a subsidy to wind.
The entire United States of America can be converted to wind powered electricity using only 14,000 acres of turbine footprint area on existing farmland, pasture, and prarie. That's about twice the area of the Stanford University campus, or about as much oak forest lost in California each year.
There is no reason that wind should not be the major U.S. source of electricity in 2018.
Please tell Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Based on his Energy Committee testimony last week, nobody has explained this to him yet. Please phone +1.202.452.3204 and ask for Michelle Smith or Andrew Williams.
On the contrary, the entire United States of America can be converted to wind powered electricity using only 14,000 acres of turbine footprint area on existing farmland, pasture, and prarie. That's about twice the area of the Stanford University campus, or about as much oak forest lost in California each year.
The unsubsidized, fully amortized cost of wind power is about $0.04/kwh. Most jurisdictions provide a subsidy for wind. The more heavily subsidized typical cost for U.S. nuclear power is around $0.12/kwh. That doesn't include the cost of the blanket insurance policy courtesy of the Price-Anderson Act, nor the cost of waste disposal and other externalites like terrorism and natural disaster vulnerability, which can not be measured until it's too late.
WTF? If it wasn't for your final paragraph, I would be sure you were a shill for the nuke industry. Your information is either very outdated or just plain wrong.
Please read the FAQs.
Yes; that, sir, is a thing of unparalleled beauty.
The heavily subsidized typical cost for U.S. nuclear power is around $0.12/kwh. That's with a blanket insurance policy courtesy of the Price-Anderson Act, and doesn't include the cost of waste disposal and other externalites like terrorism and natural disaster vulnerability, which can not be measured until it's too late.
The unsubsidized, fully amortized cost of wind power is about $0.04/kwh. Most jurisdictions also apply a subsidy to wind.
The entire United States of America can be converted to wind powered electricity using only 14,000 acres of turbine footprint area on existing farmland, pasture, and prarie. That's about twice the area of the Stanford University campus, or about as much oak forest lost in California each year.
There is no reason that wind should not be the major U.S. source of electricity in 2018.
Please tell Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Based on his Energy Committee testimony last week, nobody has explained this to him yet. Please phone +1.202.452.3204 and ask for Michelle Smith or Andrew Williams.
The heavily subsidized typical cost for U.S. nuclear power is around $0.12/kwh. That's with a blanket insurance policy courtesy of the Price-Anderson Act, and doesn't include the cost of waste disposal and other externalites like terrorism and natural disaster vulnerability, which can not be measured until it's too late.
The unsubsidized, fully amortized cost of wind power is about $0.04/kwh. Most jurisdictions also apply a subsidy to wind. You do the math.
The entire United States of America can be converted to wind powered electricity using only 14,000 acres of turbine footprint area on existing farmland, pasture, and prarie. That's about twice the area of the Stanford University campus, or about as much oak forest lost in California each year.
There is no reason that wind should not be the major U.S. source of electricity in 2018.
Please tell Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Based on his Energy Committee testimony last week, nobody has explained this to him yet. Please phone +1.202.452.3204 and ask for Michelle Smith or Andrew Williams.
And how much of that 0.4% is microparticulate thorium and uranium? More than you think, I bet.
Give your plant's public relations lackies a round of applause. They have sure done a number on you.
On the contrary, Volvo is independent with nobody other than insiders owning more than 0.44%.
I'll see those (raw, unsummarized, and poorly formatted) rushlimbaugh.com figures, and raise you this easy-to-read analysis of the recent cuts.
That analysis completely ignores corporate income taxes.