Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Not enough new power plants

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Re: Not enough new power plants

Unread postby TheDude » Wed 12 Mar 2008, 22:16:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sittinguy', 'H')e admits that the coal plants are very dirty, and fully contributes to GW, but says we will need the power one way or another, and we all know coal gives the best bang for the buck.


Coal is just the ticket for population reduction, too:

Chinese Air Pollution Deadliest in World

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Air pollution is estimated to cause approximately two million premature deaths worldwide per year," said Michal Krzyzanowski, an air quality adviser at the WHO Regional Office for Europe.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: Not enough new power plants

Unread postby LoneSnark » Wed 12 Mar 2008, 22:41:42

So, Newfie, a government entity has declared that insufficient resources are being made available to the government. What the hell would you expect them to say!?!?

Has a government entity ever, in the history of mankind, proclaimed that its work was done and should be disbanded?
User avatar
LoneSnark
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00

Re: Not enough new power plants

Unread postby Tyler_JC » Wed 12 Mar 2008, 22:50:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'S')o, Newfie, a government entity has declared that insufficient resources are being made available to the government. What the hell would you expect them to say!?!?

Has a government entity ever, in the history of mankind, proclaimed that its work was done and should be disbanded?


Haha, good point.

Anyone remember the big dig? It was supposed to be a cheap and effective way to improve traffic conditions in Boston. It was supposed to be completed a decade ago.

Instead it was billions upon billions of dollars overbudget and they still want to allocate more money to "improve" it.

As for Phoenix using natural gas to provide its baseload, I'm curious how they manage to keep prices so low despite using such an expensive source.

Granted, natural gas prices haven't seen even half of the run up that crude oil has seen since the 90s.
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Not enough new power plants

Unread postby roccman » Wed 12 Mar 2008, 23:37:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '
')
As for Phoenix using natural gas to provide its baseload, I'm curious how they manage to keep prices so low despite using such an expensive source.



Ummmm...went went through this already Tyler...remember you said that APS has a right to jack up prices...

Well they have - almost 30% in the last year alone.

Just all part of enslaving the population Tyler (wink wink)...surely you understand.
"There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
User avatar
roccman
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4065
Joined: Fri 27 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Great Sonoran Desert

Re: Not enough new power plants

Unread postby cube » Thu 13 Mar 2008, 00:11:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sittinguy', 'w')e all know coal gives the best bang for the buck.
Only if you socialize the costs and privatize the profits...
That is technically incorrect.

Coal power produces "cheap" electricity. We all benefit from cheap electricity: both rich man and poor. Perhaps the poor benefit more from cheap energy because a greater portion of their income goes to energy. Coal power also produces pollution and we all breathe the same air: both rich man and poor.

Coal == socialistic profits + socialistic cost

On the other hand if you said the financial system works on the principle of "socialize the costs and privatize the profits" than I'd agree whole heartily. But that's a different topic. :)
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Not enough new power plants

Unread postby aflatoxin » Thu 13 Mar 2008, 00:21:01

Combined cycle plants are run all of the time. Phoenix is ringed by them, and there are a lot more plants planned. This is why a new 36" gas pipeline is getting built from the 4-corners area to phoenix. Most of these are ~600 MW, Gila bend is the biggest one I've seen. At one point, there were plans for at least 20 Frame 7 turbines here.

There are a lot of simple cycle plants too. These things are a giant waste of energy.

Those in sunny Arizona are also going to get many more of the fancy solar thermal plants I'm told.
User avatar
aflatoxin
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Sun 31 Jul 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Not enough new power plants

Unread postby Starvid » Thu 13 Mar 2008, 01:23:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'H')as a government entity ever, in the history of mankind, proclaimed that its work was done and should be disbanded?
Actually, yes.

The Swedish State Cinema Agency (movie censorship agency) has been arguing for its own dismissal for years, with the chief censorship bureacrat considering censorship both immoral and impossible to do according to the scientific principles that should guide the agency.

Because of this, no censorship what so ever has been done since 1996, and not much before that either. :-D
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: Not enough new power plants

Unread postby Starvid » Thu 13 Mar 2008, 01:33:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sittinguy', 'w')e all know coal gives the best bang for the buck.
Only if you socialize the costs and privatize the profits...
That is technically incorrect.

Coal power produces "cheap" electricity. We all benefit from cheap electricity: both rich man and poor. Perhaps the poor benefit more from cheap energy because a greater portion of their income goes to energy. Coal power also produces pollution and we all breathe the same air: both rich man and poor.

Coal == socialistic profits + socialistic cost

On the other hand if you said the financial system works on the principle of "socialize the costs and privatize the profits" than I'd agree whole heartily. But that's a different topic. :)

Well...

The thing with coal is that it has very big external costs. Destroyed environment around mines, climate change, and most importantly the health hazards of air pollution. These costs are borne by everyone. That is, they become costs for us all as a collective because we all finance the health care of each others. Hence, the costs of coal are socialised.

The pros of coal is that it is cheap (on a monetary level, on a real level it's dead expensive cos of those externalities). The people who primarily profit from cheap coal power are big industrial power consumers, the coal mining companies and the coal power companies. These things are in private hands. If they were state owned, the profits would be socialised too.

Now, I'm not calling for widespread natioanlization of companies. I'm just saying coal should pay for all the damage it causes. The external costs should be internalised. This will result in higher power prices which will eventually eradicate coal burning as more competitive modes of generation will replace coal.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: Not enough new power plants

Unread postby cube » Thu 13 Mar 2008, 02:01:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '.')..
The pros of coal is that it is cheap (on a monetary level, on a real level it's dead expensive cos of those externalities).
...
I'm not questioning the "social" costs of coal. In fact I even stated in my previous post that it causes pollution.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '.')..
The people who primarily profit from cheap coal power are big industrial power consumers, the coal mining companies and the coal power companies. These things are in private hands. If they were state owned, the profits would be socialised too.
...
Coal power plants are privately owned therefore the profits are privatized. Using that argument it doesn't matter where the hell you get your energy from EVERYTHING will be based on privatized profits. If the government passed a law stating we will transition away from fossil fuels and choose renewable power who do you think will own all the new windmills and solar panels? Does Joe Sixpack own this windmill or some very large corporation with deep pockets. How's that any different then what we have now? Regardless of where we get our energy from I think society is just going to have to accept the fact that 10% will always own 90% of everything.
Image

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '.')..
Now, I'm not calling for widespread natioanlization of companies. I'm just saying coal should pay for all the damage it causes. The external costs should be internalised. This will result in higher power prices which will eventually eradicate coal burning as more competitive modes of generation will replace coal.
For better or worse the world is the way it is because that's what society chooses. 8)
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Not enough new power plants

Unread postby Starvid » Thu 13 Mar 2008, 02:28:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'C')oal power plants are privately owned therefore the profits are privatized. Using that argument it doesn't matter where the hell you get your energy from EVERYTHING will be based on privatized profits. If the government passed a law stating we will transition away from fossil fuels and choose renewable power who do you think will own all the new windmills and solar panels? Does Joe Sixpack own this windmill or some very large corporation with deep pockets. How's that any different then what we have now?

It doesn't have to be that way. In France, pretty much all generation is owned by EdF which is something like 80 % owned by the State. Of course, private companies can enter the market now that it has been deregulated. But they don't since there is no way in Hell they will generate power as cheap or cheaper than EdF.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'R')egardless of where we get our energy from I think society is just going to have to accept the fact that 10% will always own 90% of everything.

Now that is one depressed man. 8)

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
History, including US history, shows it didn't have to be like this. It didn't use to be like this. You are being ripped off.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'F')or better or worse the world is the way it is because that's what society chooses. 8)
Maybe the time has come to change how society make choices...
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: Not enough new power plants

Unread postby MrBill » Thu 13 Mar 2008, 07:08:11

How do you make public policy to address the differences between the top 0.1% and the bottom 99.9% when capital is mobile?

Judging from that time scale the USA is still just approaching income inequality associated with the early 1900s. But in the mean time standards of living for everyone in America have risen dramatically.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Further, in 1972-91, living standards were rising twice as fast as conventionally measured. Costa also finds that the primary beneficiaries of these newly measured gains in per capita total expenditures in both these periods were lower income households.

Source: Living Standards Rise Faster than Official Estimates

Of course, if anyone has better data or a graph I would like to see it? Thanks.

If you cannot stop the super wealthy from accumulating more wealth - next to impossible and should not be done - then good public policy is to make sure 'everyone else' is relatively better off if that can be realistically achieved.

I would not hold EdF up as an example of anything, but French exceptionalism. I certainly would not hold it up as an example of corporate transparency or good value for the French taxpayer or their power consumers.

They have resisted all attempts to open the French power market or divest of their assets inline with EU competition and EU wide power regulation. They are not good corporate citizens. And their dominant position is protected by an interventionalist French government that promotes national champions over genuine competition by blocking any foreign take-overs or mergers. GdF, Areva and Suez all share these French characteristics with EdF. Needless to say one reason why France (and Italy) are falling behind German productivity!
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
User avatar
MrBill
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Eurasia
Top

Re: Not enough new power plants

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 13 Mar 2008, 08:37:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'S')o, Newfie, a government entity has declared that insufficient resources are being made available to the government. What the hell would you expect them to say!?!?

Has a government entity ever, in the history of mankind, proclaimed that its work was done and should be disbanded?


LS, come on, read either my post or the report. I spoke of neither a "government entity" nor of "insufficient resources" in the context you imply.

The only "insufficient resource" alluded to would be the lack of natural gas. Or perhaps the ability to think and plan in the US.

This report is pretty much detailing the demise of our electric grid over the next decade. I suggested reading this in line with the stated topic "Not enough new power plants." It does convey valuable information which, in my opinion, should be viewed as the "best case scenario."

“It is wiser to find out than to suppose” - Mark Twain

NERC’s mission is to improve the reliability and security of the bulk power system in North America. To achieve that, NERC develops and enforces reliability standards; monitors the bulk power system; assesses future adequacy; audits owners, operators, and users for preparedness; and educates and trains industry personnel. NERC is a self-regulatory organization that relies on the diverse and collective expertise of industry participants. As the Electric Reliability Organization, NERC is subject to audit by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and governmental authorities in Canada.
When going through hell, keep going! Churchill
Nothing is ever lost by courtesy. It is the the cheapest of pleasures, costs nothing, and conveys much. E Wiman
I know there’s no solution, so I just enjoy what’s here and I enjoy the journey G Carlin
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean
Top

Re: Not enough new power plants

Unread postby LoneSnark » Thu 13 Mar 2008, 12:12:40

Ok, Newfie, my bad. NERC is not a government entity, but a quazi-government entity. Big difference.

The point is, it answers to the people which gain resources and power from scaring the public. As such, when it writes reports designed to scare the public I get skeptical.
User avatar
LoneSnark
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00

Re: Not enough new power plants

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 13 Mar 2008, 13:09:33

Great stats, starvid!

Back to the original topic of the thread--
Have you heard of global warming?

This isn't a "treehugger" thing--it's a matter of the future of the planet. If you don't give a hoot about that, say so. If you think AGW is made up, say so.

In fact what we need to do (or needed to do about 30 years ago) is shut down all the coal plants as soon as possible.

Utilities always project that need for their services is going to rise rapidly. (Or to paraphrase LS "Have you ever heard of a corporation that said that its services weren't important and that it should be closed down?")

Next question--Have you heard of the recession we're in and the depression we're entering?

What is that going to do to electricity demand?

Is sounds like your family member has drunk the corporate cool aid of what ever utility he works for.

We obviously have huge problems with our power infrastructure, but they mostly have to do with dirty sources of power, poor transmission abilities, and enormous waste at every level.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Not enough new power plants

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 13 Mar 2008, 15:13:45

LS,

OK and I too am frequently skeptical.

HOWEVER..................I do not believe that this is the intent of this report. If it is then it is the worst report I have ever read. Quite frankly it reads just the opposite, try to reassure without creating panic and not outright lying.

You would have to read at least the summary to get the gist of what I am trying to covey.

The points I summarized are what I took out of the report after a couple of hours trudging. That is my "take away" minus their sugar. A sour pill.

I'll tell you what, you read the summary, about 20 pages and then tell me what you think it says.
When going through hell, keep going! Churchill
Nothing is ever lost by courtesy. It is the the cheapest of pleasures, costs nothing, and conveys much. E Wiman
I know there’s no solution, so I just enjoy what’s here and I enjoy the journey G Carlin
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Not enough new power plants

Unread postby halcyon » Sun 16 Mar 2008, 10:17:46

US doesn't need any more new electricity capacity (not necessarily even renewing/replacement capacity at this scale).

The word is called:

Saving

90% of Americans should look it up in the dictionary, because they will have start learning in real life what it means.

Save energy, save fuels, save money.

You can't keep on spending forever what isn't there.

If US switched overt 100% to CFL lamps, cut down on house heating/cooling and turned off 50% of the advertisement lights during the night, this would reduce electricity need in spades and nobody would really suffer.

At least, not in the way if you get cascade blackouts in the next 10-15 years...
User avatar
halcyon
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Not enough new power plants

Unread postby mos6507 » Sun 16 Mar 2008, 18:13:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('halcyon', '
')If US switched overt 100% to CFL lamps, cut down on house heating/cooling and turned off 50% of the advertisement lights during the night, this would reduce electricity need in spades and nobody would really suffer.


Until population growth (much of it from illegals) eats up all that saved capacity.
mos6507
 
Top

Previous

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron