TimG Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Really? Where did you find the numbers for the additional power line charges relating to these prices?You can try the UK report on wind energy:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/07/wind_power_how_much/page2.html Hughes calculates that the national and EU policies favouring wind will incur an additional cost to citizens of £120bn for the turbines, and the backups they require, to meet carbon dioxide emissions targets, when the same electricity could be generated for just £13bn if the UK used open cycle gas plants instead.So I was wrong. Not double. 10x the cost of the fossil fuel equivalent once the true cost of a building a grid that can handle wind power is included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Seems like the spin cycle in the climate denial laundryroom is working at high speed these days.Judth Curry is a hurricane researcher with plenty of peer reviewed papers on the topic. Yet you dismiss her claims because they do not pander to your end of the world mythology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Wait a minute...you think an 8 year old document is still valid on the topic of price?! The article I referenced was printed last week and it lists actual price quotes for new coal (97-120 cents per kwh) and new wind (89 cents per kwh). http://www.iol.co.za...35#.UJFqk2_BF8H 8 years really isn't that long pal. It's not like in that time period they've reduced the cost in half. Here's a paper explaining some of the problems with wind generation: http://docs.wind-wat...s-windpower.pdf Here's another interesting article: http://www.energytri...-when-cold-hits explaining Britain, Europe's leading supporter of wind power, and they're poor experience. There's also: http://www.energytri...-when-cold-hits explaining that when it gets cold the wind turbines basically shut down! That's a great idea for Canada isn't it!?! I'll ask this question again though, and let's see if you answer it this time: If wind power was economically feasible at the moment, why does it need to be subsidized so heavily? For Ontario, here's a little tidbit from a the environmental commissioner from Ontario telling us that $0.02 of our $0.13 cost per kwh (15% of our energy bill) was the cost of subsidizing renewable energy for Ontario in 2010. Guess how much power wind and other renewals generated out of Ontario's total bill? About 3.5%. http://www.eco.on.ca...d-conservation/ http://www.ieso.ca/i...a/md_supply.asp Do the math. We paid a 15% premium on our overall energy bills to subsidize 3.5% of our energy consumption. You don't need any more proof than that. Edited October 31, 2012 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 8 years really isn't that long pal. Considering the cost of wind power has fallen by 1/3 over the past 4 years...8 years is a long time. Pal. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 tim is getting caught up in jis conflicting evidence , a couple pages back he posts a link that claims hurricanes are increasing naturally over the last 600 yrs...then he later claims there are no trends ...and has claimed the timeline is to short for any accurate projections but on this page he supports a claim for fewer hurricanes hitting the US, how long a trend was that based on tim? ...suddenly short trends which you claim don't exist are now valid wtf!...tim flip- flops more than mitt romney... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Considering the cost of wind power has fallen by 1/3 over the past 4 years...8 years is a long time. Pal. and none of the costs take into account how much global warming is costing everyone...warming seas produce stronger hurricanes because that's where they draw their energy, if the storms end up more powerful, longer lasting and further reaching the cost property damage is very significant, a cost that must be factored in with carbon based energy use... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 but on this page he supports a claim for fewer hurricanes hitting the US, how long a trend was that based on tim?It all supports my assertion that we nothing about what is likely to occur in the future and that the projections of climate models are no better than guesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) and none of the costs take into account how much global warming is costing everyone.Prove it. What costs have occurred that would not have occurred otherwise? All of the experts agree that Sandy would have occurred without climate change so you can't claim that all the damage of Sandy was "caused" by climate change. Edited October 31, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Considering the cost of wind power has fallen by 1/3 over the past 4 years...8 years is a long time. Pal. Uh huh...care to give us a credible source on that? While you're at it, try addressing some of the other links I posted, particularly the cost of renewable subsidies in Ontario on the average energy bill. Either you put your head in the sand and didn't want to read them, or you didn't like the conclusions drawn for them and just don't want to discuss them. It's pretty interesting how you skipped all of that. Like I said already, by all means let's spend the money on renewables. Take the money we're wasting on the useless tech we're currently running, however, and spend it on researching materials and methods to MAKE renewables efficient. I don't have a problem with the aim of the programs in place, nor the amount of money we're spending. I have a problem with throwing the money down the toilet on an almost certain failed outcome. Edited October 31, 2012 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 and none of the costs take into account how much global warming is costing everyone...warming seas produce stronger hurricanes because that's where they draw their energy, if the storms end up more powerful, longer lasting and further reaching the cost property damage is very significant, a cost that must be factored in with carbon based energy use... First, that's the whole point of shifting to renewables. We wouldn't even be entertaining them as an option if not for that. I'm willing to accept those costs, but they have no bearing on whether we should be going nuclear or pissing away money on useless wind/solar equipment. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) a cost that must be factored in with carbon based energy use... A cost that is negligible even if factored in in the most unfavorable possible ways. World power production is ~15 TW. That's 131400 TWh / year. Even if you assume that 100% of storm damage is due to global warming (that no storm damage would ever happen without it), and count annual storm damage at 5x the cost of Sandy (for example), you get a cost of $100 billion/year. That's $760k/TWh, or 0.076 Cents / kWh. An entirely negligible cost. Annual storm damage costs would have to be at least 100x higher than they are to make a real impact on the calculation of energy costs from different sources. Edited November 1, 2012 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I have to go back to my last post: Ontarians pay a 15% premium on their overall energy bill to subsidize the 3% of their total electricity that's generated by wind/solar. That's insane. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 - Just for fun. Ha, he's awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 How about that the alantic is warming and the pacific is cooling and like in the 50's, and it will take 10-15 years to change back. And we have wasted billions on it and all it did was break everyone. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Ontarians pay a 15% premium on their overall energy bill to subsidize the 3% of their total electricity that's generated by wind/solar. That's insane. In your opinion are all subsidies wrong? Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Not at all. This one, however, is a giant failure. Try to wrap those numbers around your head. 15% of my electricity bill was to subsidize 3% of what I actually used. Did this lower our carbon emissions noticeably, or even statistically relevantly? Nope. I paid a 15% premium on my energy bill to support the wind/solar lobby and the wealthy individuals/corporations like Samsung who were smart enough to see there was money in it and that it would be easy to dupe our politicians and brainwashed electorate. Regardless, the point of the post was to show you how BS the numbers you were claiming actually are. Wind/Solar is NOT cost-competitive right now. Wind isn't even close, and Solar is so far off the mark that it's not even in the same dimensional plane. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 We are also subsidizing very profitable, mature, fossil fuels right now. Do you disagree with that as well? Do you believe that renewable energy generation is a requirement going forward? Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 We are also subsidizing very profitable, mature, fossil fuels right now. Do you disagree with that as well?In Canada, we mostly aren't. This is a myth spread by the environmental movement.Do you believe that renewable energy generation is a requirement going forward?If someone develops a way to create renewable power economically then it makes sense. Until then its use should be limited to locations where there is no grid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 In Canada, we mostly aren't. This is a myth spread by the environmental movement. This seems like a good topic for a new thread - what do you think ? http://www.pembina.org/blog/339 It says $2B per year here. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I don't disagree with subsidies in theory. Fossil fuels are subsidized when the market (ie. energy prices etc) doesn't support profitable business. The idea is that a utility provider isn't going to build a natural gas plant unless they can run a profit. Why would they bother? The alternative to this is to re-privatize the power industry. Given the 'debt-retirement' surcharge added to my electricity bill every month, that doesn't seem any better. Your implication, however, is inane. The subsidization of fossil-fuel electricity generation is a variable that will increase or decrease depending on energy prices and market forces. The subsidies can end up being insignificant or non-existant, and even in a worst case scenario, the amount of subsidy required is nowhere NEAR what's required for wind or solar. By nowhere near I mean not even in the same ballpark, or even approaching that ballpark. Do I believe that renewable energy is a requirement going forward? I've already gone over that with you. I do believe that, but only when the tech is available to make it work. Spend the money we're pissing away on subsidies and direct to research instead. I don't care. The overall goal and the amount of money being spend is NOT my issue. My issue is the idiotic insistence on spending billions on USELESS tech. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) It says $2B per year here.First, there is a huge difference between a tax credit and a subsidy. For starters the former is only worth something if the venture makes a profit. Second, oil and gas exploration generate revenue via royalties. These royalties must be subtracted from any tax credits (if a renewable energy source generates income for the government then it would be subtracted as well), Alberta alone collected $4 billion in oil royalties.last year which makes fossil fuels a net revenue generator for government.IOW - my claim that there are no fossil fuel subsidies in Canada is correct. Edited November 1, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) People are still trying to equate oil & gas tax breaks to green energy subsidies? Edited November 2, 2012 by CPCFTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 I don't disagree with subsidies in theory.....Do I believe that renewable energy is a requirement going forward? I've already gone over that with you. I do believe that, but only when the tech is available to make it work.[/Quote] Great. You believe coal should be phased out, renewables are a requirement and are not opposed to subsidies. What is the point of subsidies for industry? To encourage or catalyze the production or use of something desirable that is not yet cost effective. Getting the new tech to market is important, and we're doing it. The subsidies are doing exactly what they are designed to do. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 Ummm anyone considered the idea of nuclear power? Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 Ummm anyone considered the idea of nuclear power? Yes. Unfortunately, "environmentalists" tend to reject the idea of nuclear power for dubious unscientific reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.