A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Maybe OT Tesla



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #261  
Old May 15th 18, 01:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 694
Default Maybe OT Tesla

Eric Stevens wrote:
, -hh wrote:
Whiskey-Dave writes:


If the “They” is referring to solar, it is clipping peak daytime demand,
and how many of those natural gas plants are needed.


Every one, if the weathere is bad.


Sure, if solar is the only ‘green’ alternative. There’s also wind on the rise,
and wind trends inversely to solar (ie, when it’s dark & stormy to reduce
solar output, the winds are up, etc).


There are power banking methods. One I read about a year or
two ago was a gravity train. Basic idea is when there’s surplus,
drive a heavy train up a mountain track grade...and when there’s
demand, gravity takes the train downhill, regenerating power.
It was being built somewhere out in the western USA.


A variation of pumped storage.


Yup.

Of horrendous inneficiency and of small output (unless you
plan to cover all the hills in the country with rail tracks).


Nope: it was being built because the business case said it was
good enough be *profitable*.

FWIW, here’s an article on it from Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/05/26/batteries-or-train-pumped-energy-for-grid-scale-power-storage/


Traditionaly power usesage is always greatest during the day.


Yup, and it’s demand fluxation is why what was the traditionally
more expensive natural gas was used.


Coal also worked quite well.


To a degree. Coal’s shortcoming is that it doesn’t ramp power as fast as
it’s competing technologies, which makes it less agile in fluctuating demand.

There's really no reason for buildings in my area to not have solar
panels on the roof. The payback time is fairly short, depending on your
usage and roof type. I chose the highest efficiency panels which were
more expensive per watt than the junky panels pushed at consumers from


It really comes down to cost per watt...if one can buy a 20% efficient panel
for $200 but a 22% on was $400, the better investment is the lower efficiency
one becais it’s cheaper per delivered Watt. Even before considering wear,
random breakage, etc.


But will it pay for itself before you have to dump it?


Run the cost analysis to see. Point being that the numbers are much better
today than fern or even five years ago. FYI, I found that a significant cost factor
for ROI was the State level energy credits, but that was over a decade ago.

And FWIW, another factor I’ve been kicking around is to set up an LLC which
actually owns the panels, from which I then rent them (or whatever - need to finish
thinking through this plan): basic idea is that as a homeowner, I can’t deprecate
the asset (panels), but if a corporation owns them, they can.


But they are developing better ones, I'll wait for those


Unless you’re launching a solar powered satellite into orbit, the cost per Watt as
installed the primary metric that matters. This also includes the cost of the touch
labor for installation based on its configuration, rebates, credits, etc, which primarily
contribute to the upfront costs for initial installation and ROI. Lifespan, breakage
resistance, etc, are also factors too, but are relatively secondary.


Also the rate of return you expect from your investments. You might be
better off putting your money in the bank.


One might, but in counterpoint, one also needs to think about the cost of energy
over time and how much it is going to change vs inflation or investments. If one
believes that energy costs are currently cheap and the market will correct upwards,
then the cost avoidance of significantly higher energy costs (or even just the mitigation
of this as a risk) can be a consideration as well. Again, it depends on one’s time scale, etc.


-hh
  #262  
Old May 15th 18, 02:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 324
Default Maybe OT Tesla

On 5/14/2018 8:39 PM, -hh wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
, -hh wrote:
Whiskey-Dave writes:


If the They is referring to solar, it is clipping peak daytime demand,
and how many of those natural gas plants are needed.


Every one, if the weathere is bad.


Sure, if solar is the only green alternative. Theres also wind on the rise,
and wind trends inversely to solar (ie, when its dark & stormy to reduce
solar output, the winds are up, etc).


There are power banking methods. One I read about a year or
two ago was a gravity train. Basic idea is when theres surplus,
drive a heavy train up a mountain track grade...and when theres
demand, gravity takes the train downhill, regenerating power.
It was being built somewhere out in the western USA.


A variation of pumped storage.


Yup.

Of horrendous inneficiency and of small output (unless you
plan to cover all the hills in the country with rail tracks).


Nope: it was being built because the business case said it was
good enough be *profitable*.

FWIW, heres an article on it from Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/05/26/batteries-or-train-pumped-energy-for-grid-scale-power-storage/

Hmm, I haven't seen anything in this thread about this analog to
train-pumped-energy-storage; flywheel-energy-storage.
No need to pump a gravity well with flywheel technology.
This technology would work quite well in flat lands.
What are the down sides of this technology vs train pumps?
very large snip


-hh

--
==
Later...
Ron C
--

  #263  
Old May 15th 18, 03:54 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,238
Default Maybe OT Tesla

On Mon, 14 May 2018 17:39:09 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
, -hh wrote:
Whiskey-Dave writes:


If the “They” is referring to solar, it is clipping peak daytime demand,
and how many of those natural gas plants are needed.


Every one, if the weathere is bad.


Sure, if solar is the only ‘green’ alternative. There’s also wind on the rise,
and wind trends inversely to solar (ie, when it’s dark & stormy to reduce
solar output, the winds are up, etc).


And yet, the wind has been known not to blow at night. It doesn't even
always blow just before dawn when everyone is getting up and having
breakfast. Weather systems tend to be large, too large to be supported
by the importation of power from outside a dark and windless area.
It's absolutely necessary to have a thermal plant withing reasonable
range, with the turbines and alternators already spinning at mains
frequency. Lacking a spinning reserve you risk the collapse of the
local grid with all the disaster that that entails.


There are power banking methods. One I read about a year or
two ago was a gravity train. Basic idea is when there’s surplus,
drive a heavy train up a mountain track grade...and when there’s
demand, gravity takes the train downhill, regenerating power.
It was being built somewhere out in the western USA.


A variation of pumped storage.


Yup.

Of horrendous inneficiency and of small output (unless you
plan to cover all the hills in the country with rail tracks).


Nope: it was being built because the business case said it was
good enough be *profitable*.


That is not the same as claiming it was efficient and of substantial
capacity.

FWIW, here’s an article on it from Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/05/26/batteries-or-train-pumped-energy-for-grid-scale-power-storage/


Alarm bells ring when I see "pumped-hydro provides 99% of our global
bulk storage capacity, or 127,000 MW". I'm not referring to the '99%'
but the "... bulk storage capacity, or 127,000 MW". If the author
doesn't understand that MW are not a quanity of electrical energy but
a rate of supply of energy, I wonder what else he hasn't understood.
Especially when he rambles on into the succeeding paragraph.

I love the illustration of the train. I wonder why the wagons have
such large fuel tanks if they are electrically powered?

At least he has got a realistic estimate of the efficiency of pumped
storage as being somehat lower that 80%. My experience is that it is
somewhat lower than even 50%, possibly even lower than 40%.

I love the though of the ARES discharging all of its energy in less
than a minute. The lights in city flare with blinding brightness and
then the city goes dark for the est of the night.

The author clearly has only partly digested public relations blurb
without giving it much effective thought.


Traditionaly power usesage is always greatest during the day.

Yup, and it’s demand fluxation is why what was the traditionally
more expensive natural gas was used.


Coal also worked quite well.


To a degree. Coal’s shortcoming is that it doesn’t ramp power as fast as
it’s competing technologies, which makes it less agile in fluctuating demand.


Most power generating boilers are vertica water-tube and will burn gas
or pulverized coal equally well and will ramp up steam generation at
much the same rate.



There's really no reason for buildings in my area to not have solar
panels on the roof. The payback time is fairly short, depending on your
usage and roof type. I chose the highest efficiency panels which were
more expensive per watt than the junky panels pushed at consumers from

It really comes down to cost per watt...if one can buy a 20% efficient panel
for $200 but a 22% on was $400, the better investment is the lower efficiency
one becais it’s cheaper per delivered Watt. Even before considering wear,
random breakage, etc.


But will it pay for itself before you have to dump it?


Run the cost analysis to see. Point being that the numbers are much better
today than fern or even five years ago. FYI, I found that a significant cost factor
for ROI was the State level energy credits, but that was over a decade ago.


I've been keeping occasional track of small solar energy economics for
some 40 years and in this part of the world it has never got near to
economic break even.

And FWIW, another factor I’ve been kicking around is to set up an LLC which
actually owns the panels, from which I then rent them (or whatever - need to finish
thinking through this plan): basic idea is that as a homeowner, I can’t deprecate
the asset (panels), but if a corporation owns them, they can.


Nevertheless they are still depreciating.


But they are developing better ones, I'll wait for those

Unless you’re launching a solar powered satellite into orbit, the cost per Watt as
installed the primary metric that matters. This also includes the cost of the touch
labor for installation based on its configuration, rebates, credits, etc, which primarily
contribute to the upfront costs for initial installation and ROI. Lifespan, breakage
resistance, etc, are also factors too, but are relatively secondary.


Also the rate of return you expect from your investments. You might be
better off putting your money in the bank.


One might, but in counterpoint, one also needs to think about the cost of energy
over time and how much it is going to change vs inflation or investments. If one
believes that energy costs are currently cheap and the market will correct upwards,
then the cost avoidance of significantly higher energy costs (or even just the mitigation
of this as a risk) can be a consideration as well. Again, it depends on one’s time scale, etc.

True. An important point.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #264  
Old May 15th 18, 12:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 694
Default Maybe OT Tesla

Whisky-dave wrote:
-hh wrote:
...
Sure, if solar is the only ‘green’ alternative. There’s also wind on the rise,


sorry that's the baked beans. Wind is also very expensive to harness and
you do know that those wind genrators need turning off in high winds and
when ther;e slittle wind they use deisei to keep them turing to stop them
seizing up and the one's off shore are very expensive to maintain.


Wind is on a cost curve similar to solar, for the same Catch-22 reason: it lacks
the cost savings from production scaling because of low demand, but the demand
is low because production hasn’t scaled to lower its costs. Government incentives
try to address this problem to speed adoption and manufacturing risks, but as we’ve
seen, an Administration change can sabotage prior strategic policy plans.

Wind also isn;t exactly safe.


Nothing is safe.

In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011.
If that would have been in mining or nuclear it would have been all over the news.


Except that there were mining deaths.

For example, the below cite states that there were 147 proven causal deaths in 2013
from what had been known as ‘Black Lung’ diseas:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35279977

A causal death is still a death, even if it wasn’t in a flashy headline-grabbing accident.

Nuclear killed no one in that time and produced far more power.


In the US, they priced themselves out of the market with excessive complexity from
a gross failure to standardize, resulting in rampant NRE expenses inflating the cost
of construction & plant certification. There’s been some talk/work done on a modular
“railroad car” reactor concept .. I personally expect the military to end up paying for it.

and wind trends inversely to solar (ie, when it’s dark & stormy to reduce
solar output, the winds are up, etc).


Problem with wind turbins is that they need to be higher up to get the best winds.


And favorable geography, etc. Again, nothing’s perfect.


To a degree. Coal’s shortcoming is that it doesn’t ramp power as fast as
it’s competing technologies, which makes it less agile in fluctuating demand.


Partly true but yuo can have other coal facilir=ties that are faster for short term.


Natural gas took this over ~2 decades ago (and reaped the low costs from fracking)

The advanatge of coal is it's relatively cheap so you can over produce and not worry about it.


Only when your cost of slag disposable is low. That’s one of the externalities I’ve alluded to.

But will it pay for itself before you have to dump it?


Run the cost analysis to see.


if you do you'll find out why renewable energy hasn't taken off.


Industrial scale is already cost competitive without government subsidies,
but it lacks power storage in that number.

And a “Carbon Tax” would definitively tilt the scales over to renewables,
even with the additional cost of storage.


-hh
  #265  
Old May 15th 18, 01:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 694
Default Maybe OT Tesla

Ron C wrote:

Hmm, I haven't seen anything in this thread about this analog to
train-pumped-energy-storage; flywheel-energy-storage.


Flywheel has its place, but has been mostly passed over as battery tech has
improved. IIRC, Porsche used one in one of their hybrid race cars ~2 years ago.

One of the problems with flywheels is that their materials get expensive for high
energy densities and as they scale up in total size, they become heavier and less
well suited for mobile applications - I can recall years ago hearing that the US Navy had
looked at a flywheel to replace steam catapults on their aircraft carriers, but they found that
it’s gyroscopic effect’s torque would react to each rise/fall of the ship’s bow, which with the
size of their flywheel would result in the aircraft carrier’s bow moving through (allegedly)
“nearly 45 degrees”. Suffice to say that this imparts huge stresses on the hull.

-hh
  #266  
Old May 15th 18, 03:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 882
Default Maybe OT Tesla

On 5/14/2018 8:39 PM, -hh wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:


snip



Also the rate of return you expect from your investments. You might be
better off putting your money in the bank.



If you look only ate the current rate of return, (no pun intended,) you
are right. Now compare it to the societal cost of lung diseases.


One might, but in counterpoint, one also needs to think about the cost of energy
over time and how much it is going to change vs inflation or investments. If one
believes that energy costs are currently cheap and the market will correct upwards,
then the cost avoidance of significantly higher energy costs (or even just the mitigation
of this as a risk) can be a consideration as well. Again, it depends on one’s time scale, etc.


Ocean generated wave production is still experimental, but is quite
feasible. The major problems are politics and cost. It is
technologically doable.


--
PeterN
  #267  
Old May 15th 18, 07:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 694
Default Maybe OT Tesla

Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 12:57:03 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:
-hh wrote:


Wind is on a cost curve similar to solar, for the same Catch-22 reason: it lacks
the cost savings from production scaling because of low demand,


Low demand has little to do with it, there is demand a huge demand for
'free' power, it's the cost that limits demand for these products and that is the point.


Agreed - which is not a technology barrier issue: it’s cost.


but the demand is low because production hasn’t scaled to lower its costs.


It won't it can't.


It already has effectively caught up. Problem is that it’s cost factor doesn’t
also include the cost of the power storage piece it needs.

Government incentives
try to address this problem to speed adoption and manufacturing risks, but as we’ve
seen, an Administration change can sabotage prior strategic policy plans..


Little to do with admin this time anyway.


Sorry, I’m in the USA and was making th comment in that context. There’s been a
lot of rollbacks in environmental rules which lowered the cost of coal, etc..

Wind also isn;t exactly safe.


Nothing is safe.


Nuclear had resulted in less deaths than coal or wind.


Hope so. In any event, Nuclear has the public health risk of a breach. Even though
the probability odds are low, the consequences factor can be high.

In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011.
If that would have been in mining or nuclear it would have been all over the news.


Except that there were mining deaths.


But few cared because it didn't and would afect them, unlike a nuclear accident.


Yet a death is a death is a death. From a national policy level it doesn’t...Well, it
_shouldn’t_ matter.

For example, the below cite states that there were 147 proven causal deaths in 2013
from what had been known as ‘Black Lung’ disease.


and none from nuclear. So is coal as safe ?


Maybe. Has the entire lifecycle been examined in detail?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35279977

A causal death is still a death, even if it wasn’t in a flashy headline-grabbing accident.


but no one will worry about it unless yuo work in the industry.
Do you worry how many fisherman die for your fish and chips ?


True, there is myopia, but from a public health & safety viewpoint, they all matter.

(and yes, I do care about the risks taken...which is why I don’t eat certain types of seafood).


Problem with wind turbins is that they need to be higher up to get the best winds.


And favorable geography, etc. Again, nothing’s perfect.


but some things have far more flaws than others.


Not flaws, but engineering constraints.

A similar one is a coal plant in an urban area: air pollution, congestion of
infrastructure to move fuel in and wastes out, etc.

The advanatge of coal is it's relatively cheap so you can over produce and not worry about it.


Only when your cost of slag disposable is low. That’s one of the externalities I’ve alluded to.


We have wales don't we


Or poor (often black) neighborhoods in the USA. There was a slag “mudslide” in the US
southeast a few years ago which killed some and created a toxic mess...

But will it pay for itself before you have to dump it?

Run the cost analysis to see.

if you do you'll find out why renewable energy hasn't taken off.


Industrial scale is already cost competitive without government subsidies,
but it lacks power storage in that number.


So it's not very good then is it and that is the problem.


Nope. The reason why coal has a cost edge is because it has never had to pay
for all of its externalities, and yet despite this, there’s already more solar jobs
today in the US than working in coal, which is indicative of the future direction.

And a “Carbon Tax” would definitively tilt the scales over to renewables,
even with the additional cost of storage.


So would executions but is that really the answer ?


For coal mine owners who have knowingly violated safety regulations and
have had fatalities of their employees? Hell yes.


-hh
  #268  
Old May 15th 18, 07:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 694
Default Maybe OT Tesla

FYI, on coal slurry environmental spills:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_County_coal_slurry_spill

300 million gallons spilled...and less than a $6000 fine.


-hh
  #269  
Old May 16th 18, 12:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,238
Default Maybe OT Tesla

On Tue, 15 May 2018 10:09:16 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/14/2018 8:39 PM, -hh wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:


snip



Also the rate of return you expect from your investments. You might be
better off putting your money in the bank.



If you look only ate the current rate of return, (no pun intended,) you
are right. Now compare it to the societal cost of lung diseases.


Do you mean lung diseases from coal dust or lung diseases from glass
and carbon fibre?


One might, but in counterpoint, one also needs to think about the cost of energy
over time and how much it is going to change vs inflation or investments. If one
believes that energy costs are currently cheap and the market will correct upwards,
then the cost avoidance of significantly higher energy costs (or even just the mitigation
of this as a risk) can be a consideration as well. Again, it depends on one’s time scale, etc.


Ocean generated wave production is still experimental, but is quite
feasible. The major problems are politics and cost. It is
technologically doable.


Cost again. It's always cost.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #270  
Old May 16th 18, 01:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 694
Default Maybe OT Tesla


4:03 AMWhisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 19:16:35 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 12:57:03 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote:
-hh wrote:

Wind is on a cost curve similar to solar, for the same Catch-22 reason: it lacks
the cost savings from production scaling because of low demand,

Low demand has little to do with it, there is demand a huge demand for
'free' power, it's the cost that limits demand for these products and that is the point.


Agreed - which is not a technology barrier issue: it’s cost.


which means it won't be solved.


If that were true, you would have never bought any PC...and even
if you chose to afford one, it would have 5.25” floppy drives, etc.

The facts of the matter are that continuing investments have driven
the cost curve down for these newer technologies. Just how far they’ll
go has yet to be determined; the learning curve is classically asymptotic
and it hasn’t flattened out yet, which is indicative that they are going to
continue to drop in cost. Considering how close they are to cross-over
right now, I’d bet large that they will indeed become cheaper. Probably
within five years; definitely within ten.

but the demand is low because production hasn’t scaled to lower its costs.

It won't it can't.


It already has effectively caught up. Problem is that it’s cost factor doesn’t
also include the cost of the power storage piece it needs.


which is why it's not very practical for most of the planet, or where the power is needed.


Wait and watch from the sidelines then. They’ve already taking up more adoption in
Africa, for example, since their localization also means that they’re cheaper to deploy
today to regions which lack grid infrastructure.

Government incentives
try to address this problem to speed adoption and manufacturing risks, but as we’ve
seen, an Administration change can sabotage prior strategic policy plans.

Little to do with admin this time anyway.


Sorry, I’m in the USA and was making th comment in that context. There’s been a
lot of rollbacks in environmental rules which lowered the cost of coal, etc.


Same for most countries and that is part of the problem.


A lot of the EU is less shortsighted than the US’s Republican Party..

The majority of us could use mostly renewable energy but at what cost.
I know someone that spent £10k on solar panlels for their boat, that's
something like 15 years of my electricity bills. For me this woulodnlt be
a good or sound investment.


And ROI’s are continuing to change (improve). Personally, I’d pay today
for a 7 year ROI if I was planning on staying in our current house that long.
Part of my concern is that I’d also want that to include off-grid contingency
operations. Locally, neighbors are paying $5K - $8K per household to have
a generator system installed (I have a tiny 2kW portable that cost only $2K).

Wind also isn;t exactly safe.

Nothing is safe.

Nuclear had resulted in less deaths than coal or wind.


Hope so. In any event, Nuclear has the public health risk of a breach. Even though
the probability odds are low, the consequences factor can be high.

In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011.
If that would have been in mining or nuclear it would have been all over the news.

Except that there were mining deaths.

But few cared because it didn't and would afect them, unlike a nuclear accident.


Yet a death is a death is a death. From a national policy level it doesn’t...Well, it
_shouldn’t_ matter.


How much more would safe renerable energy cost that is the point.
And the point with any energy production.


It’s another factor in the overall ‘benefits/costs to society’ spreadsheet
to incorporate into decision and policy making.

For example, the below cite states that there were 147 proven causal deaths in 2013
from what had been known as ‘Black Lung’ disease.

and none from nuclear. So is coal as safe ?


Maybe. Has the entire lifecycle been examined in detail?


It would be an impossble comparision to make.


Nonsense. No comparison is ever perfect, but they’re good enough to
assess the pro/con trades.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35279977

A causal death is still a death, even if it wasn’t in a flashy headline-grabbing accident.

but no one will worry about it unless yuo work in the industry.
Do you worry how many fisherman die for your fish and chips ?


True, there is myopia, but from a public health & safety viewpoint, they all matter.


But not to all equally it;s not lioke were musketeers.


Merely YA factor to be debated and weighting assign d in the analysis.

(and yes, I do care about the risks taken...which is why I don’t eat certain types of seafood).


And vegitarians don't eat animals...... so even less risk.


Not necessarily. There’s injuries/deaths incurred at farms too...

Problem with wind turbins is that they need to be higher up to get the best winds.

And favorable geography, etc. Again, nothing’s perfect.

but some things have far more flaws than others.


Not flaws, but engineering constraints.


same thing really.


Sorry, but no. The first requires breaking the laws of physics.
The second is merely a threat to break your wallet.

A similar one is a coal plant in an urban area: air pollution, congestion of
infrastructure to move fuel in and wastes out, etc.


What you do you put the urban area around the coal that is how it was done in the past.


No longer an option for existing modern cities.

The advanatge of coal is it's relatively cheap so you can over produce and not worry about it.

Only when your cost of slag disposable is low. That’s one of the externalities I’ve alluded to.

We have wales don't we


Or poor (often black) neighborhoods in the USA. There was a slag “mudslide” in the US
southeast a few years ago which killed some and created a toxic mess...


Had that here in wales some 50 years ago, that was the day my mum told me she no longer believed in God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster


Yup. Merely yet another example of where coal was allowed to have its cost to society (and similar
externalities) deferred for future generations to pay the price for, rather than its immediate beneficiaries
(Including the stockholder who are profiting today). It’s easy to live beyond your means when someone
else is helping to pay for it. /s

But will it pay for itself before you have to dump it?

Run the cost analysis to see.

if you do you'll find out why renewable energy hasn't taken off.

Industrial scale is already cost competitive without government subsidies,
but it lacks power storage in that number.

So it's not very good then is it and that is the problem.


Nope. The reason why coal has a cost edge is because it has never had to pay
for all of its externalities,


because it doesn't need many.


nope. Coal still doesn’t pay the full costs to society/environment for their waste stream (slag/slurry).

and yet despite this, there’s already more solar jobs
today in the US than working in coal, which is indicative of the future direction.


If there;s more people wiorking in it that is why it is more expensive as solar provides less
power than solar. There's loads of administarors to support with solar.


The jobs are in new system installations.

And a “Carbon Tax” would definitively tilt the scales over to renewables,
even with the additional cost of storage.

So would executions but is that really the answer ?


For coal mine owners who have knowingly violated safety regulations and
have had fatalities of their employees? Hell yes.


the same should go for al industries, you'd have though a new system of generating
power would be safer than digging coal out of mines or it wouldn't be used.


Yes, should....but the reality is that because of politics (lobbying dollars), it is currently *not* the case.

The grim reality is that when you don’t have to be held responsible and pay for the
deaths of your employees, or of the public, the market delivers these perverse results.


-hh
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.