Comments on: Cold Front Settles In Over Hell

By: MastadonPenis

MastadonPenis — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:17:25 +0000

“Meanwhile, whether we use them or not, the nuke plants keep nuking or it’s lights-out next Tuesday, or perhaps this Friday. Oh, and they need to get paid too, whether we use them or not…”

Exactly what the hell is this supposed to mean? Drop the rod and they’re done.

By: Joker

Joker — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:21:53 +0000

Andre, just adding to your post… These batteries typically need replacing every 2-3 years. Having enough storage to supply a steady demand for 2,3,4 or more days requires a huge battery bank, in need of scrapping every 2-3 years.
So, take profits of almost 0, subtract battery maintenance & replacement cost and what you have left is a brand new gov’t department in charge of propping up an ailing industry, paid for by you, me and the odd employed ‘green’ activist.
Meanwhile, whether we use them or not, the nuke plants keep nuking or it’s lights-out next Tuesday, or perhaps this Friday. Oh, and they need to get paid too, whether we use them or not…

By: Andre

Andre — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:08:00 +0000

‘Clean’ energy? The enviros like to ignore the complete system of energy delivery – wind and solar _require_ large banks of batteries to store the energy and meet peak, night, and cloudy / still days.

Last time I checked, the battery industry was responsible for massive amounts of contamination from lead, cadmium, and lithium.

So, how do they consider the ‘renewables’ clean? By ingoring part of the system.

By: Joker

Joker — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:45:45 +0000

Rich is right. You pretty much need the entire energy infrastructure to be up and running in case the winds aren’t strong or it’s cloudy.
The really funny part is that if wind turbines become the dominant power source, the market value of wind power on a windy day is almost nil…and on a calm day, it goes through the roof…but with no ‘product’ to sell, well..we all know how profitable something x 0 is.
Yeah, free markets would take care of this kind of business fairly quickly.
But then, we can always count on the government to come bailing out this industry. It being fashionable and all…

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:27:47 +0000

Wouldn’t “putting a price tag on [CONG's] health and environmental costs” be a sort of reverse subsidy for the renewables?

By: Billy Beck

Billy Beck — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:49:37 +0000

I don’t know exactly how to break this to you, kids, but there is nothing “free” about anything owned by a municipality.

Does anyone in this joint speak English?

Let me know on the day when you or I could set up our own generation in Bowling Green without having to plead for the city’s permission, and then something actually serious might be going on.

Sheesh.

By: Rich Casebolt

Rich Casebolt — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 19:08:08 +0000

The article misses one important point of comparison, however:

Reliability.

The increased complexity of an electrical grid dominated by low-capacity alternative sources works against the reliable delivery of power, and/or drives up its cost.

The more generation sources you have, the more protective gear you need … gear that must be coordinated with the rest of the grid, requires its own maintenance, and can cause loss of service if it malfunctions.

And, don’t expect to get rid of base-load fossil/nuke plants anytime soon, for you have to cover those cloudy and/or calm days … but do expect the costs for running these plants to go up, as they effectively become peaking providers to the system.

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:41:27 +0000

LOL. Ending all subsidies on all energy, why that’s leftist and environmentalist heresy! The editors will have to turn in their Noam Chomsky decoder rings for promoting the evils of bourgeoisie capitalism. Was I just reading MoJo or Reason. Doesn’t matter, great article.

Can anyone point me to info. on green and market friendly energy like this? Thanks.