NationStates Jolt Archive

We interupt this commercial:sniper:

...Due to mixed reports from the Far East.

Recently I have heard that China is the fastest growing, green energy country in the world. I have also recently heard that they are still starting a new coal plant every other week and still the dirtiest country in the world.

Posting this thread in hopes somebody will get a lucky swing in a goggle-fu battle.
:D

Here in New Mexico, we ask, "green or red?" Rarely does anyone answer, "Both!"

Here in New Mexico, we ask, "green or red?" Rarely does anyone answer, "Both!"

Except at Christmas.

The answer, Dragontide: As far as I know, a resounding no.

Here in New Mexico, we ask, "green or red?" Rarely does anyone answer, "Both!"

I rarely get to NM so I would want both. :p (City of Rocks is one of the most uber sights in the world)

China is green for foreign reporters and when they want to shame the US. Otherwise they are not. The best word to describe the Chinese is pragmatic. Who but but the Chinese would describe their current economy as communist?

I thought China was traditionally red? :confused:

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2008/04/24/svCHINA_wideweb__470x325,0.jpg

:tongue:

I thought China was traditionally red? :confused:

:tongue:

In the immortal words of Colonel Flagg:

"You took a yellow red in front of a white American and that's pretty pink of you!"

China is green for foreign reporters and when they want to shame the US. Otherwise they are not. The best word to describe the Chinese is pragmatic. Who but but the Chinese would describe their current economy as communist?

That's pretty much what I was thinking too.

I guess we will have to take the good with the bad. We owe China tons of money. We could pay part of that debt off with green energy products when we get them into mass production. (finally something we can make here and sell to the rest of the world)

That's pretty much what I was thinking too.

I guess we will have to take the good with the bad. We owe China tons of money. We could pay part of that debt off with green energy products when we get them into mass production. (finally something we can make here and sell to the rest of the world)

They don't want the debt paid off. They use it to stabilize their currency.

That's pretty much what I was thinking too.

I guess we will have to take the good with the bad. We owe China tons of money. We could pay part of that debt off with green energy products when we get them into mass production. (finally something we can make here and sell to the rest of the world)

Wait, we're going to pay China back?

They don't want the debt paid off. They use it to stabilize their currency.

Yea they want to juice us like in the Sopranos. We can't afford that. But hey, China is a very large place. They will need a LOT of green energy and the US is definatly leading the way in new innovations.

Wait, we're going to pay China back?

Yes. With money from Russia, Austrailia, South America....

Green will sell.

Yea they want to juice us like in the Sopranos. We can't afford that. But hey, China is a very large place. They will need a LOT of green energy and the US is definatly leading the way in new innovations.

They don't need any green energy because they don't give a fuck. Green energy is an expensive luxury for rich people who are worried about the pygmies and shit.

China's biggest concern is maintaining industrial growth at a sufficient level to prevent angry peasant mobs roaming the countryside causing havoc. So they'll take whatever is cheapest.

Yea they want to juice us like in the Sopranos.

It is more along the lines that if they didn't hold our debt their currency would be unstable. Then investment would leave China and then domestic owned factories would close as a currency fluctuation can turn anticipated profit into a loss.

It is why they bitch about our Federal reserve policies and our spending so much. As the fluctuations in our currencies hurt them a lot. It is also another reason they call for a world wide currency.

It would be better to go back to the gold standard but oh well.

It would be better to go back to the gold standard but oh well.

Do we even have that much gold? I mean I thought the Deficit was in the Trillions these days, how much is that in gold anyway?

It is more along the lines that if they didn't hold our debt their currency would be unstable. Then investment would leave China and then domestic owned factories would close as a currency fluctuation can turn anticipated profit into a loss.

It is why they bitch about our Federal reserve policies and our spending so much. As the fluctuations in our currencies hurt them a lot. It is also another reason they call for a world wide currency.

It would be better to go back to the gold standard but oh well.

They are buying up commodities like a motherfucker, setting up currency swaps with all their trading partners (non US), and licking their chops about the coming gold liquidation from the IMF.

Now that doesn't necessarily mean they are planing to abandon their US debt backed currency (tho' their run to shorter maturities is something to think about), but it doesn't look like they are 100% wedded to the fucking idea either.

Tho' I think that the UK went on S&P ratings watch negative tonite may buy us more valuable time while we finish our golem army. LOL.

Austrailia, .

huh so that what you doing with our money

They are buying up commodities like a motherfucker, setting up currency swaps with all their trading partners (non US), and licking their chops about the coming gold liquidation from the IMF.

Now that doesn't necessarily mean they are planing to abandon their US debt backed currency (tho' their run to shorter maturities is something to think about), but it doesn't look like they are 100% wedded to the fucking idea either.

Tho' I think that the UK went on S&P ratings watch negative tonite may buy us more valuable time while we finish our golem army. LOL.

The thing is with the debt to China, they have what they need. They have been telling us for years they are about done buying our debt. They told Clinton this when she visited China, and she gave a speech on China need to buy our debt.

The way I see it we haven't managed our currency since the second half of Clinton's presidency. So 12 years of poor currency management yeah they seem to be getting tired of holding our currency.

So yes they might be looking to get out of our currency. They might be the ones that starts the world back on the Gold standard. Which if they do expect them to be the world's financial leader for at least 50 years after that.

huh so that what you doing with our money

It's what he wants to do. I favor the huge golem army myself.

Let's face it, unless it involves blowing something up, spying on someone, dropping some shit from space, or jamming fraudulent financial products, the US generally isn't very good at it. I mean, when did you last go to europe and hear people say: "oooh I can't wait for my new american car and new american tv, those guys are the tits!!!!": No, that sort of stuff just doesn't happen.

And even if by some miracle this whole thing isn't just a huge excuse to give General Electric a lot of money, and something actually useful comes out of it, well then, the germans will just steal the idea, give it flush door handles and charge twice the price.

Whatever the underlying merits of green energy, this whole plan has disaster written all over it.

The thing is with the debt to China, they have what they need. They have been telling us for years they are about done buying our debt. They told Clinton this when she visited China, and she gave a speech on China need to buy our debt.

The way I see it we haven't managed our currency since the second half of Clinton's presidency. So 12 years of poor currency management yeah they seem to be getting tired of holding our currency.

So yes they might be looking to get out of our currency. They might be the ones that starts the world back on the Gold standard. Which if they do expect them to be the world's financial leader for at least 50 years after that.

Yah. Really though, we haven't managed our currency since the early eighties. We sucked japan dry, and then china came along to supplement. All very nice. Very copacetic.

But the thing of it is, they can only buy out of the surplus we send them. And our 'needs' are going up. But we are sending them less. (Check out the trade deficit). And so they are now caught in a position where they have to either demand dollars from other trade partners against the where the RMB basket wouldn't ('cos remember it's not solely US dollars, they have many fingers in many pies), which isn't good. Or they have to not fund us, and watch the value of their US holdings go down and down. (No doubt part of the reason for hitting the short end, to minimize this risk).

The way I see it, they are sort of hoping that the US may pull off a quick recovery, in which case the trade gap returns and they can go back to business as usual (because life is easier when your own currency is an FX algorithm). But in case that doesn't happen they are making their little escape pod ready.

I tend to think it will be the latter situation, and within four or five years the RMB will be convertible.

Long term, china is either a zero or a super hero. If they can navigate the collapse of the western consumer economies without major civil problems, then they will be the first super-duper power.

Good food though, and I like their aesthetics, so it's not that bad. I mean, imagine the nightmare if denmark or someshit was next up to bat.

Yah. Really though, we haven't managed our currency since the early eighties. We sucked japan dry, and then china came along to supplement. All very nice. Very copacetic.

But the thing of it is, they can only buy out of the surplus we send them. And our 'needs' are going up. But we are sending them less. (Check out the trade deficit). And so they are now caught in a position where they have to either demand dollars from other trade partners against the where the RMB basket wouldn't ('cos remember it's not solely US dollars, they have many fingers in many pies), which isn't good. Or they have to not fund us, and watch the value of their US holdings go down and down. (No doubt part of the reason for hitting the short end, to minimize this risk).

The way I see it, they are sort of hoping that the US may pull off a quick recovery, in which case the trade gap returns and they can go back to business as usual (because life is easier when your own currency is an FX algorithm). But in case that doesn't happen they are making their little escape pod ready.

I tend to think it will be the latter situation, and within four or five years the RMB will be convertible.

Long term, china is either a zero or a super hero. If they can navigate the collapse of the western consumer economies without major civil problems, then they will be the first super-duper power.

Good food though, and I like their aesthetics, so it's not that bad. I mean, imagine the nightmare if denmark or someshit was next up to bat.

I find the currencies well managed in the 1980's. One of the things Reagan did right. It is why demand shot up for US currency as a reserve currency. Prior to in the 70's no one knew what to back the currencies in. The loose money policies of LBJ,Nixon, and Carter nearly ruined the world's economy.

I find the currencies well managed in the 1980's. One of the things Reagan did right. It is why demand shot up for US currency as a reserve currency. Prior to in the 70's no one knew what to back the currencies in. The loose money policies of LBJ,Nixon, and Carter nearly ruined the world's economy.

The US currency shot up because volker was a fucking mentalist about the money supply. But after 82, the US found that they could jam the bonds on the japanese - and they were all ubar paranoid about the yen - so it became a sort of self sustaining myth.

But you have to remember it was in 86 that the G-5 was formed at the plaza accords, and the subsequent deliberate 40% (? don't have exact number at hand) devaluation was done. In the aftermath you saw cable nearly at parity, chaos and shit ensued, leading to the 87 crash. Then Greenscum mismanaged that (understandably).

And so here we are today.

I can honestly say that I don't believe that there has been anything like fiscal or monetary responsibility anywhere in the world since the collapse of bretton woods. (minority view I kno' but there it is).

I sort of think that the gold standard is bollocks, but it does mean that there are capital controls. Such things prevent the epic imbalances that fed the bubbles that lead to collapse.

The US currency shot up because volker was a fucking mentalist about the money supply. But after 82, the US found that they could jam the bonds on the japanese - and they were all ubar paranoid about the yen - so it became a sort of self sustaining myth.

But you have to remember it was in 86 that the G-5 was formed at the plaza accords, and the subsequent deliberate 40% (? don't have exact number at hand) devaluation was done. In the aftermath you saw cable nearly at parity, chaos and shit ensued, leading to the 87 crash. Then Greenscum mismanaged that (understandably).

And so here we are today.

I can honestly say that I don't believe that there has been anything like fiscal or monetary responsibility anywhere in the world since the collapse of bretton woods. (minority view I kno' but there it is).

I sort of think that the gold standard is bollocks, but it does mean that there are capital controls. Such things prevent the epic imbalances that fed the bubbles that lead to collapse.

The plaza accords were not a favorite of mine, and Id like to shoot Vockner for going along with it, but that was late 80's
All Vockner did from the 1980's on until the Plaza was watch the price of gold. When Gold went up he raised the interest rates. When gold went down he lowered them.

The plaza accords were not a favorite of mine, and Id like to shoot Vockner for going along with it, but that was late 80's
All Vockner did from the 1980's on until the Plaza was watch the price of gold. When Gold went up he raised the interest rates. When gold went down he lowered them.

Plaza was 85, and currency abuse was a big thing before then causing the lead up. So it wasn't a late eighties things.

See, I would say that Volcker made a mistake by pretending he was artificially trying to peg, because everything was floating. So you had a big deficit with japan, and they didn't want to sell back into the dollar so as to keep their currency weak, and so they started to fund the US gov deficits. This drove down government borrowing costs, and so since everything floated rather than being really pegged - which would have required proper capital controls - the price of gold wasn't a true indicator. (Gold being moved all over the place, and also coming off a generational bubble). Moreover, the interest rate moves were more coincidental than intentional, no matter what people read into them.

And so the problem with Western European currencies, leading to Plaza.

It really was a cluster fuck of the highest order.

Plaza was 85, and currency abuse was a big thing before then causing the lead up. So it wasn't a late eighties things.

See, I would say that Volcker made a mistake by pretending he was artificially trying to peg, because everything was floating. So you had a big deficit with japan, and they didn't want to sell back into the dollar so as to keep their currency weak, and so they started to fund the US gov deficits. This drove down government borrowing costs, and so since everything floated rather than being really pegged - which would have required proper capital controls - the price of gold wasn't a true indicator. (Gold being moved all over the place, and also coming off a generational bubble). Moreover, the interest rate moves were more coincidental than intentional, no matter what people read into them.

And so the problem with Western European currencies, leading to Plaza.

It really was a cluster fuck of the highest order.

I find the problem more was they were concerned about the trade deficits. they are not inherently bad.

But we should stop, before we start arguing 1980's economics, which I would lose because I am not there in my economic history course.

But we should stop hijacking the thread over the 1980's.

I find the problem more was they were concerned about the trade deficits. they are not inherently bad.

But we should stop, before we start arguing 1980's economics, which I would lose because I am not there in my economic history course.

But we should stop hijacking the thread over the 1980's.

Fair enough. Though this was a lot more edifying than the china green bollocks.

And I sort of agree about trade deficits, but you need some mechanism to prevent artificially created structural currency imbalances - like capital controls under a proper gold standard - otherwise it works as a de facto non tariff barrier.

No, China is not green. And the west would be wise not to waste money and resources trying to cut down on 'global warming' when other poorer nations will simply keep on polluting. China is smart in not caring about environmental or labor issues.

The only 'green' project that should be underway is finding the alternative renewable energy resource that will replace oil for when it runs out.

huh so that what you doing with our money

Actually, the oil companies should pay for a green Australia JUST because of black saturday.

They don't need any green energy because they don't give a fuck. Green energy is an expensive luxury for rich people who are worried about the pygmies and shit.

China's biggest concern is maintaining industrial growth at a sufficient level to prevent angry peasant mobs roaming the countryside causing havoc. So they'll take whatever is cheapest.

Mass production = cheapest and a lot of Americans need jobs. As more windmill, solar and sea farms sprout up, everybody will be able to see the benifit of using free, natural forces.

Fair enough. Though this was a lot more edifying than the china green bollocks.

And I sort of agree about trade deficits, but you need some mechanism to prevent artificially created structural currency imbalances - like capital controls under a proper gold standard - otherwise it works as a de facto non tariff barrier.

I admit I do love a currency debate. But hijacking a thread about China with one is a little rude.


So on topic sort of.
I kind of understand China's reluctance to jump right in the green energy with more then a symbolic gesture. Look at population growth. We nagged China for years to slow their population growth, and when they did we get all mad and call their method morally wrong.

Mass production = cheapest and a lot of Americans need jobs. As more windmill, solar and sea farms sprout up, everybody will be able to see the benifit of using free, natural forces.

Oh for god's sake, we can't even build a high speed train between NYC and DC. What the fuck are the chances of actually coming up with a brand new free natural forces energy based mass production job creation doodad.

Oh for god's sake, we can't even build a high speed train between NYC and DC. What the fuck are the chances of actually coming up with a brand new free natural forces energy based mass production job creation doodad.

Not to mention the cost of upgrading then maintaining the grid makes wind significantly less then free.

Not to mention the cost of upgrading then maintaining the grid makes wind significantly less then free.

The last time I looked, though it might have changed now, a wind power grid produced less energy across its lifecycle than was required to build it.

Even if it's improved 100% by now - or even 200% - it won't produce the type of return on energy investment to build more. It's a big Xeno hole.

On the other hand, all this money will stand in well with Jeff Immelt at GE. So job done. (And he owns NBC and shit, so you'd better be nice to him).

Sad bit is, there are other technologies that could be tried. But people won't listen. Seventeenth century, here we come.

Not to mention the cost of upgrading then maintaining the grid makes wind significantly less then free.

As compared to what? The high dollar techs and security that a nuke plant needs? (even when they are offline) It costs over a billion dollars, everytime a nuke plant has to be restarted. The wind farms of Denver seem to be working great. The overall costs will be even cheaper than coal.

What the fuck are the chances of actually coming up with a brand new free natural forces energy based mass production job creation doodad.

That number has been changing a lot lately and looking better every day.

As compared to what? The high dollar techs and security that a nuke plant needs? (even when they are offline) It costs over a billion dollars, everytime a nuke plant has to be restarted. The wind farms of Denver seem to be working great. The overall costs will be even cheaper than coal.

Right...

Finance isn't your strong suit is it?

Right...

Finance isn't your strong suit is it?

Well yes. Sometimes it does take up to 3 billion to restart a nuke plant. Sorry for the confusion.

Well yes. Sometimes it does take up to 3 billion to restart a nuke plant. Sorry for the confusion.

Okay, when, exactly does it take 3 billion to do that? And after restart what is the ROI?

Look, lead us down the merry hell all you want. But if you think the power of positive thinking is going to create a worldwide hegemony of american windmills and candy shitting unicorns you are sadly mistaken.

Right now. At this moment. As we speak. There are thousands of wall street lobbyists in DC fucking around with cap and trade, trying to create another bullshit market for themselves.

Yeh, you'll get your green energy. But it is going to be about as interesting to the rest of the world as North Korea's entertainment industry. Stop thinking that just because you wish something, or time magazine tells you, it can happen.

The country is bankrupt.

Well yes. Sometimes it does take up to 3 billion to restart a nuke plant.
If you're building a new one, yes. It costs 3 billion to build a two-reactor (or heavy single-reactor) plant.

If you're building a new one, yes. It costs 3 billion to build a two-reactor (or heavy single-reactor) plant.

I swear, people think "the electricity" is some magic right bestowed on them from god.

And then they get sniffy about where it comes from.

If you don't like it, don't use it. Otherwise ...

As compared to what? The high dollar techs and security that a nuke plant needs? (even when they are offline) It costs over a billion dollars, everytime a nuke plant has to be restarted. The wind farms of Denver seem to be working great. The overall costs will be even cheaper than coal.

with the cost of commissioning waste storage and decommissioning nuclear runs 11.1 to 14.5 cents per Kwh.
Wind runs 4.0 to 6.0 per Kwh. However it is only 30% reliable(the wind doesn't blow or other problems). So you have to build redundancy into the system To make it easy math we will say 3X. That right there raises cost to 12.0 to 18.0 cents per hour.
Then it get more expensive in that you have to spread wind power out over a geographic area. You have line losses and a need to vastly expand the grid to handle the load. The Pickens needed somewhere on the order of 1 trillion dollars to cover grid expansion and this would only provide 20% of the Nation's electricity.

And don't get me wrong there are uses for wind energy. Used as the 1st 10% of a city's energy supply it actually lowers cost. Because 10% is normally something you can adjust your more stable energy producers such as coal and nuclear to use more or less fuel as wind picks up or dies down.

Right now for "green energy" nuclear is the way to go. Solar has some prospects once they get process down for artificial silicon. But I am not holding my breath on it.

Okay, when, exactly does it take 3 billion to do that? And after restart what is the ROI?


Here's one that costs more than that:
LINK (http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:UIYohWl2TWkJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Nuclear_Generating_Station+nuclear+power+plant+restart+costs+3+billion&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
In the autumn of 2005, Bruce Power and the Government of Ontario committed to return units 1 and 2 to service, in order to help meet increasing energy demand in the province of Ontario.[2] The project was originally estimated to cost $4.25 billion.[3]

In 2006 and 2007, the restart project was judged to be the largest infrastructure project in Canada by ReNew Canada Magazine.[4] Estimated cost for the project later grew to $5.25 billion


Look, lead us down the merry hell all you want. But if you think the power of positive thinking is going to create a worldwide hegemony of american windmills and candy shitting unicorns you are sadly mistaken.
Those folks that work in think tanks are not cheerleaders saying "we can do it, siss boom bah!"

Right now. At this moment. As we speak. There are thousands of wall street lobbyists in DC fucking around with cap and trade, trying to create another bullshit market for themselves.
A minor setback. Green energy will not have usage limits so cap & trade will not apply.


Yeh, you'll get your green energy. But it is going to be about as interesting to the rest of the world as North Korea's entertainment industry. Stop thinking that just because you wish something, or time magazine tells you, it can happen.

Wind, solar, hydro, hydrogen, biofuel, lithium batteries and the like have been featured in a lot more than just Time Magizine.

The country is bankrupt.
So it's a good thing we have a president that is trying to lower our future utility bills.

I swear, people think "the electricity" is some magic right bestowed on them from god.

And then they get sniffy about where it comes from.

If you don't like it, don't use it. Otherwise ...

Another problem with "going Green" is all we do is lower the price of Coal and Gas. Then China and India use that much more. That's globalization and free markets.

So it's a good thing we have a president that is trying to lower our future utility bills.

What part of destroying the coal industry is lowering our utility bills.

What part of destroying the coal industry is lowering our utility bills.

Coal the one energy source the US has the most of in the world.

Coal the one energy source the US has the most of in the world.

Also using coal lowers the gini co-efficient. But no-one really gives a fuck about poverty, so screw that.

Also using coal lowers the gini co-efficient. But no-one really gives a fuck about poverty, so screw that.

Feeling good is sometimes better then doing good.

What part of destroying the coal industry is lowering our utility bills.

Because the combination of Wind, solar, hydro, hydrogen, biofuel, lithium batteries and the like will produce cheaper energy than coal. This can work just about anywhere in the world.

China just needs a shit ton of energy no matter where it comes from. They just have the good sense to find some alternatives before the acid rain gets strong enough to eat away at most of downtown Beijing...

Because the combination of Wind, solar, hydro, hydrogen, biofuel, lithium batteries and the like will produce cheaper energy than coal. This can work just about anywhere in the world.

Good. So then there is no need for cap and trade because the new magical technologies will quickly squeeze nasty old coal out of business.

China just needs a shit ton of energy no matter where it comes from. They just have the good sense to find some alternatives before the acid rain gets strong enough to eat away at most of downtown Beijing...

I see you havent been to downtown Beijing after the Olympics left.

Good. So then there is no need for cap and trade because the new magical technologies will quickly squeeze nasty old coal out of business.

Its because businesses naturally use the most expensive wasteful means to produce electricity.

I see you havent been to downtown Beijing after the Olympics left.

After? It was bad enough during them...

After? It was bad enough during them...

For the Olympics they shut off the coal power plants around Beijing for a good 6 months prior. They even refused to turn them on again when massive blizzards hit all of north China and a great many people froze to death in their homes.
What ever you saw during the Olympics it is 10 times worse now. Ive chatted to locals that say they can count the number of Blue sky days per year on one hand.

What ever you saw during the Olympics it is 10 times worse now. Ive chatted to locals that say they can count the number of Blue sky days per year on one hand.

Oh yeah, it's a nightmare. Of course, it doesn't help that Mao's bright ideas annihilated the forests and ground cover north of Beijing, producing atrocious dust storms that continue to the present day...you get brutal air pollution and noxious dust at the same time.

Oh yeah, it's a nightmare. Of course, it doesn't help that Mao's bright ideas annihilated the forests and ground cover north of Beijing, producing atrocious dust storms that continue to the present day...you get brutal air pollution and noxious dust at the same time.

I don't think Mao directly said get rid of the Forrest, more like he told the peasants to make steel in their back yards. You either need coal or Charcoal charcoal is easier to get if their are trees around.

Good. So then there is no need for cap and trade because the new magical technologies will quickly squeeze nasty old coal out of business.

Cap & trade would not have been necessary if Reagan had not brought the EPA to a standstill and the transition would have gone much smoother.

Watch how green this country gets when a hurricane takes out a few hundred offshore oil rigs and gas becomes 15 bucks a gallon. Dont forget, when only 10 of them were damaged last year it brought gas lines to the Southeast, which caused a huge drop in commerce because nobody wanted to go anywhere because we didn't know where our next tank of gas was coming from!

prc china is so very not green.

but it was (and remains) america's example it learned to not be from.

(cap and trade is not THE solution, but it is one means of, hopefully, encouraging movement in the direction of one)

They don't need any green energy because they don't give a fuck. Green energy is an expensive luxury for rich people who are worried about the pygmies and shit.

China's biggest concern is maintaining industrial growth at a sufficient level to prevent angry peasant mobs roaming the countryside causing havoc. So they'll take whatever is cheapest.

Exactly, I went there three times from 98-2002 on business in industrial zones and not for tourism. All three times I thought this has to be the most polluted I had seen a country. They are far from green. The US, Canada and most of Western Europe are vastly cleaner than China. People hound on the US however traveling around this globe I see filth and pollution.

with the cost of commissioning waste storage and decommissioning nuclear runs 11.1 to 14.5 cents per Kwh.
Wind runs 4.0 to 6.0 per Kwh. However it is only 30% reliable(the wind doesn't blow or other problems). So you have to build redundancy into the system To make it easy math we will say 3X. That right there raises cost to 12.0 to 18.0 cents per hour.
These figures are quite a way off for both.
Here are some more precise figures:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Or, just, for the cost:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/images/info/finlandpowercosts.jpg


Basically, the complete marginal cost for nuclear is about 3.1c/kWh, for wind 2.0c/kWh (1 Eur/MWh ~= 0.07c/kWh) if it worked full-time. For the practical cycle, these costs change to 3.4c/kWh for nuclear and 7.14c/kWh for wind.

Marginal cost is the cost paid for extending the capacity by a unit, it's more correct for comparison as it ignores the sunk costs.

---

BTW, Dragontide has already been throwing the same weird anti-nuclear propaganda in the last discussion about the same: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570393&highlight=nuclear&page=2 (note the bit with "2-billion restarts").

These figures are quite a way off for both.
Here are some more precise figures:
.

I can't help but think the "World Nuclear Association" may have a vested interest in presenting the most favourable studies / figure sets on their website.

What about the fact that uranium is still a finite resource? There's 80 years worth of fuel at current levels of use... So if everyone started using it they had better hope they discover a lot more and quickly. It's a stopgap, but no more than that.

I can't help but think the "World Nuclear Association" may have a vested interest in presenting the most favourable studies / figure sets on their website.
It does. These are, however, correct and general figures, and they haven't been cherry-picked. If cherry-picked, they'd look way better.


What about the fact that uranium is still a finite resource? There's 80 years worth of fuel at current levels of use...
And if we start building pebble-bed reactors, it will be 30 years worth of fuel. Current designs only burn up between 0.4% and 1.3% of the energy contained in the fuel, the rest remains in the solid waste. That energy is used with an efficiency between 30% and 40%, commonly 32-35%.

We should implement more fuel-efficient designs, that utilize a continuous uranium-plutonium-thorium liquid fuel cycle, with burnup close to 75%, and efficiency of 50-65%. Such designs exist, and, although they aren't as safe as PBR, they're safer than the current average. An alternate, extremely safe, but hard to make to work design is a traveling wave reactor, that utilizes a hybrid cycle with burnup up to 40%, and 25-35% efficiency within a solid, lifetime fillup of fuel.

---

BTW, Dragontide has already been throwing the same weird anti-nuclear propaganda in the last discussion about the same: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570393&highlight=nuclear&page=2 (note the bit with "2-billion restarts").

Becuse that's about what it costs. I remember that thread. You made the claim windpower was extremely intermittent. Yet the system is working just fine in Denver.

Becuse that's about what it costs. I remember that thread.
Or, maybe, because it doesn't, or you have occasionally misread "m" as "b"? The figure you claim is not only ridiculous, it doesn't add up - a nuclear reactor has at least 10 stops and restarts in its lifetime, yet none has managed to accumulate anything near 20 billion in operating costs. As a matter of fact, the whole lifetime operations and maintenance cost of a reactor is less than 2 billion.

Do you have a source for your 2 billion figure? I have for mine.


You made the claim windpower was extremely intermittent. Yet the system is working just fine in Denver.
It is intermittent. By design. It's not supposed to deliver more than 20% rated output average, hence, working intermittently is working fine for wind power.

Or, maybe, because it doesn't, or you have occasionally misread "m" as "b"? The figure you claim is not only ridiculous, it doesn't add up - a nuclear reactor has at least 10 stops and restarts in its lifetime, yet none has managed to accumulate anything near 20 billion in operating costs. As a matter of fact, the whole lifetime operations and maintenance cost of a reactor is less than 2 billion.

Do you have a source for your 2 billion figure? I have for mine.



It is intermittent. By design. It's not supposed to deliver more than 20% rated output average, hence, working intermittently is working fine for wind power.

How much does this cost?
Nuclear Reactor Shutdown List (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/shutdown.html)

Wind wins on Yahoo!
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080604175030AAhDCqZ
Nuclear power's biggest problems are economic: it is simply no longer competitive with other, newer forms of power generation. The final 20 U.S. reactors cost $3 to $4 billion to build, or some $3,000 to $4,000 per kilowatt of capacity. By contrast, new gas-fired combined cycle plants using the latest jet engine technology cost $400-$600 per kilowatt, and wind turbines are being installed at less than $1,000 per kilowatt.

Windmill power contracts were signed with power sold at three (3) CENTS per Kw-hr. Less than half the price of the most efficient solar cell panels.

How much does this cost?
Nuclear Reactor Shutdown List (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/shutdown.html)
Yes, how much does this cost? This is a list of decommissioned obsolete nuclear power plants, which has nothing to do with restarts, and doesn't even mention any costs anyway.
Have you actually clicked your own link?


Wind wins on Yahoo!
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080604175030AAhDCqZ
Wow, Yahoo answers! One hell of a source.
Modern wind turbines cost $16 million for a 6-MW unit, and more with construction and installation. Wanna a link? Got'em. It's the manufacturer-claimed figures I cite.
And it would still be great, if only they produced these 6 MW. But they don't. Well, they do, but only when the wind is just right, just 0.1 mph short of their safety shutdown limit. And the rest of the time, they produce just a tiny fraction of this power. Year-round, they produce about 20%-30% of rated output.


Natural gas fired plants are great. Cleaner than any others, including wind and solar (polluting when being built), cheap. There's only one problem with them: they burn natural gas. Which is expensive, limited, has much better uses, and produces CO2, of course. These plants aren't even used for base load, they're used to keep the grid alive during peak consumption hours.

Oh come on! Wind, solar, all of if is dropping in price like a rock. Mass production FTW!!!

Oh come on! Wind, solar, all of if is dropping in price like a rock.
Wrong. Wind power today costs pretty much the same as 50 years ago, even adjusted for overall inflation and refinement. Some costs have been lowered through building bigger turbines, but that's a result of the demand.


Mass production FTW!!!
These are skyscrapers with blades. You can mass-produce cars, but you can't mass-produce skyscrapers.

Wrong. Wind power today costs pretty much the same as 50 years ago, even adjusted for overall inflation and refinement. Some costs have been lowered through building bigger turbines, but that's a result of the demand.



These are skyscrapers with blades. You can mass-produce cars, but you can't mass-produce skyscrapers.

All I can seem to find are great results from wind:
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/filter_detail.asp?itemid=1204

Four years of intense wind energy marketing to developers in eight states paid off when Cascade County won national praise for becoming home to one of the state's first utility grade wind farms, Horseshoe Bend Wind Park. This wind farm was installed for United Materials of Great Falls, Inc., which is the County's 24th largest taxpayer employing over 125 people. United Materials is the first major industrial customer in the state, if not the nation, who will be able to displace its entire electrical power (diesel) load because of wind-based energy generation.

Wind Powering America recognizes the critical facilitator role that county commissioners can play in getting wind projects properly sited and deployed and has initiated a partnership with the National Association of Counties (NACo) to develop a Wind Energy Guidebook for County Commissioners (PDF 1.1 MB) Download Adobe Reader.

All I can seem to find are great results from wind:
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov
That's because you're only looking at websites that are designed to advocate wind power.

That's because you're only looking at websites that are designed to advocate wind power.

Lets see you start a website called windSUX.gov

Lets see you start a website called windSUX.gov
http://www.ne.doe.gov/

http://www.ne.doe.gov/

Dont see anything there that says nuke is better tha wind.

Of course China aren't going green. There are more blast furnaces in China than in the rest of the world combined, and they are industrialising incredibly quickly.