Business

Business

New study by environmental group questions viability of coal-burning plants

The possibility of strict carbon emission standards has a group of environmentalists calling for power companies to abandon plans for two new coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas.

November 10, 2008

Advertisement

Related document

Report on Tri-State's coal plans ( .PDF )

— President-elect Barack Obama's stated goal of cutting climate changing carbon-dioxide emissions is just another reason that a proposal to build two 700-megawatt coal-burning power plants in southwest Kansas makes no sense, a group of environmentalists said Monday.

"The writing is very clearly written on the wall: Things are going to be done to regulate the emission of global warming" gases, said Tony Frank, renewable energy director for the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. "That doesn't bode well for utilities that heavily rely on coal," he said.

Frank and representatives of several other groups held a news conference via telephone to unveil a new report on the coal-burning project proposed by Colorado-based Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, and Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp.

The report states that the project faces regulatory and economic problems that will increase the cost of electricity and, therefore, hurt ratepayers.

"Current and future regulatory scenarios will undoubtedly add additional costs to coal-fired electricity and will hamper Tri-State's ability to deliver a cost-based electricity supply to its member owners," the report states.

The study was done by Innovest Strategic Value Advisors on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group that supports renewable resources.

Tri-State spokesman Lee Boughey disagreed with the report, saying that Tri-State analyzed its risks and still thinks the project is doable and needed.

He said as Obama and the Congress work on energy and climate policy, Tri-State would be "working to ensure that those policies ensure that electricity remains reliable and affordable and we as country continue to invest in new technologies."

Boughey added, "The bottom line is Tri-State looks at all the risks, including potential financial and regulatory risks associated with carbon regulations. We also look at not having enough energy to meet growing demands."

Tri-State has partnered with Sunflower Electric to build the plants near Holcomb. Under the proposal, 85 percent of the electricity would go to customers in Colorado and Texas.

The project was rejected by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' administration, citing environmental and health concerns because of the plants' proposed emissions of 11 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. State lawmakers passed several bills designed to overturn the decision. But each time, Sebelius vetoed the legislation and lawmakers were unable to override her vetoes.

Project supporters continue to fight for approval in administrative, legal and legislative arenas.

Comments

Sean Livingstone 6 years, 4 months ago

gr,"How much does your solar and wind power produce"Thanks for giving everyone the laugh. You do have to be very specific with your question.One, I don't "invent" or "produce" solar and wind power. So your question will have to be redrafted.Two, what do you mean? You mean, by one turbine? One panel? By location? Where is it going to be located? By what means? There are several types of solar energy, and wind energy sources. You do have to read a lot of books to get to the answer. It's not as easy as to reply you in one sentence.So would you redraft your question so that I can answer in this forum? If not, why don't you read the two articles that I've posted for you? They answer your question accurately, that I cannot spent hours and hours retype them on this forum.This is just another strategy to distract people when you're losing an argument.

Sean Livingstone 6 years, 4 months ago

gr (Anonymous) says:"Sounds like the writing on the wall is that if you invest in questionable things, you'll be wanting a government (taxpayer) bailout."What is questionable? You do have to define questionable. Technology is what drives a country economic strength. Back then, it was coal and oil. That was the power that drove US to the top. Since we no longer is the holder of oil, yes, gas and coal make some sense. But we do need to invest in future technology, and not get stuck by what we call "technology of the past", or what I call "common sense". Coal is good and bad.... not sure anyone has ever learned this lesson... there's something we call addiction. Common sense leads us to "addiction". Common sense is the short term planning. It's common sense now, it's not later. Of course, it's a balance between coal, wind, and solar. However, we're only harvesting 1.02% of the solar power! We're consuming 25% of the world's oil production, yet we only have 3% of these oil. These sources are not long lasting, but we'll use the easier ones up pretty soon, and we'll then come back to the same problem of rising gas prices, all over again. Have we ever learn from the 1970s? And again today? Common sense leads us to nowhere. Technology will lead us to somewhere.

gr 6 years, 4 months ago

stone, "How much does your solar and wind power produce?"By that I mean, how many total kilowatt hours for one month does your own solar and wind power produce for your own house or premises you reside at. I'm not sure how I can be any more specific.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

Your "analogy" would be appropriate if coal-burning power plants were as benign as someone running a foot-race, levi. But such is not the case, so your post is just silly.

Sean Livingstone 6 years, 4 months ago

devobrun,"We must maintain existing technologies because solar, wind, bio-fuel aren't viable."GM and Ford invested in Hybrid technologies back in the early 90s, and they even thought of spending monies on smaller cars to compete with Toyota and Honda. They stopped both programs because they found that most Americans buy SUVs, trucks and minivans, and that would be a waste of money. Of course, I totally agree with them. Investment on smaller cars didn't make any sense at all, and of course those stupid hybrids.This is what I call short-sightedness. There are many things in life that will never make sense right now, if we invest a lot of money in them. Wind, solar and bio-fuel are some of these. They cannot produce the black bottomline... when oil was first discovered, who the hell knew that it will power the entire world? When uranium was first discovered, did anyone know that it can kill million in a few seconds?And we will spent billions bailing out GM and Ford pretty soon.

devobrun 6 years, 4 months ago

Anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 production is fiction based upon computer programs and politics. It isn't science and it isn't engineering and it isn't math.It isn't rational, it is political.Thus, a study is made that anticipates an edict from the Imperial Wizard that will make coal expensive. More politics.The politicians have taken control of rational thought. Beware all. When "alternative energy" fails to materialize in a viable way, business will be blamed. Republican subterfuge will be claimed. Excuses will abound. The Potomac two-step will hide the bad science and nonexistent engineering. The faithful will remain true to the king and the west will sink further into oblivion. Demand better folks. Alternative isn't enough. It must work. So far none of the alternative systems of energy production are viable. We must maintain existing technologies because solar, wind, bio-fuel aren't viable. They don't produce a black bottom line in terms of joules of energy. They don't recover their investment in joules.At this time alternative energy is the energy of the future. It always has been, and always will be.

hipper_than_hip 6 years, 4 months ago

What's missing from the Innovest report is that Holcomb will shut down Unit 1 because it's old and inefficient when Units 2 & 3 come online. It's wrong thinking to believe that old expensive dirty units will continue to operate when newer cleaner units are brought online. Natural gas is too expensive to burn for electricity; it should be reserved for people to heat their homes.

snowWI 6 years, 4 months ago

"The writing is very clearly written on the wall: Things are going to be done to regulate the emission of global warming" gases, said Tony Frank, renewable energy director for the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. "That doesn't bode well for utilities that heavily rely on coal," he said."Good.We are finally starting to see some common sense trickling in.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

"What's missing from the Innovest report is that Holcomb will shut down Unit 1 because it's old and inefficient when Units 2 & 3 come online."Really? You'd think that Sunflower would be making a big thing of this if that were the case.

geniusmannumber1 6 years, 4 months ago

OnlyLawrenceRepublican--First sensible thing we've heard all day.

LogicMan 6 years, 4 months ago

Build 'em as nuclear plants instead. But make sure to install lots of extra line capacity for wind.

Sean Livingstone 6 years, 4 months ago

belexus73,Right, that's why they have "sustainable development", doing all the green stuffs without hurting the economy. There will always be skeptics around alongside treehuggers. Sad to say that they generate loudest (yet the most empty) noise. Best.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

"Anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 production is fiction based upon computer programs and politics. It isn't science and it isn't engineering and it isn't math."Quite correct, devobrun. The only solution is to begin an immediate crash program of terra-forming Mars to use as a laboratory so that "real" experiments can be run. I expect that all that would take is the entire gross production capacity of the entire world for the next thousand years or so to accomplish, but at least then we'll be sure whether or not the computer models can be trusted. Either that, or anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 production will have caused our and thousands of other species' extinction, in which case it nothing much at all will matter.Don't worry, be happy.

levicircle2 6 years, 4 months ago

"Current and future regulatory scenarios will undoubtedly add additional costs to coal-fired electricity and will hamper Tri-State's ability to deliver a cost-based electricity supply to its member owners,"The man came up to the track star, and glumly told him that he wouldn't be able to run in the 1000 meter race."But why not?", the runner objected. "I feel great!""Because I'm going to shoot you in the foot.", was the reply.

gr 6 years, 4 months ago

stone, I'm afraid I don't see the connection between disk storage and electricity generation. I also did not say technology is stagnant. Maybe it was a sidestep. How much does your solar and wind power produce?"not enough" is not a valid answer. How much? I want to know if you are using common sense or technology.

Bill Griffith 6 years, 4 months ago

"The politicians have taken control of rational thought." Frankly, I am relieved on the scattered occasions where they do embrace this feature. Let me also add that while I know there are folks out there chiming in on this topic who are climate skeptics and will probably remain so for their own reasons into the far distant future, I would like to see more conversations based on the assumption that a carbon cap will be implemented and the strategies needed to ameliorate costs and reduce the carbon footprint aggressively. So, for climate skeptics, if this is inevitable (the House wants to have a bill ready for the Senate by late summer, the Senate wants to have it done in time for the next global climate meeting in December), what choices are there out there for us to adopt? What is the time frame?

OnlyLawrenceRepublican 6 years, 4 months ago

"'That doesn't bode well for utilities that heavily rely on coal,'" he said." How about, "That doesn't bode well for customers who are served by coal, which accounts for 48.5% of the United States' net electricity generation."Renewables are not bad and they are viable. They are just not cheap. Also, generation resources are not fungible. Without tax incentives, wind and solar do not make sense. Not right now anyway. My point is that some people want to have an energy discussion, others want to have a political discussion, and Mr. Frank wants to have an environmental discussion. Talk about a shot in the foot, if you're not discussing all three you're not even at the table. That means there's a need for a balanced portfolio, the makeup of which cannot be determined by one interest.

Sean Livingstone 6 years, 4 months ago

OnlyLawrenceRepublican (Anonymous) says:"Renewables are not bad and they are viable. They are just not cheap. Also, generation resources are not fungible. Without tax incentives, wind and solar do not make sense."Driving is always more expensive than walking.... so why people invent cars? Why waste money on the military when all the dangers we face are a bunch of lunatics that suicide bombed our soldiers, and that none of our fighter jets can be accurate enough to target these lunatics? Why waste money on developing nuclear weapons during the arm race, and we use none of these nuclear weapon?My earlier example on GM... why is it facing crisis today? Simple, hybrid and small cars didn't make sense back in the early 90s. You should always be prepared for the worst. I thought that's the objective of being a conservative (I assume you're one since you're a Republican). Being conservative means that you're trying to protect yourself from the worst case scenario."Not right now anyway. My point is that some people want to have an energy discussion, others want to have a political discussion, and Mr. Frank wants to have an environmental discussion. Talk about a shot in the foot, if you're not discussing all three you're not even at the table. That means there's a need for a balanced portfolio, the makeup of which cannot be determined by one interest."If you don't take care of the environment, you shoot yourself in the foot in the long run. It's not the quick poison that kills most people, it's the slow "poison" like fats and not so obvious "poison" that kill most: Heart attack is the No. 1 disease, and road accidents..... yet, we spent billions and billions making bombs just to make ourselves "safe"... how about spending billions and billions to fight cancer? To fight poverty? To build our own economy, but making wind and solar better?Right now, solar and wind are not viable options, because there ain't sufficient research going on. You need incentives to make them viable. Investment now will yield money in the future. Back in the 60s, ask anyone if everyone will have a computer on their desk in 2000? The answer is "NO". Back in the 60s, no one ever needed a computer in your house. Now? When a PC cost $15,000 in the 80s, it wasn't viable. Now? I just bought a laptop for $599 that day over the internet.

Sean Livingstone 6 years, 4 months ago

gr,"stone, how much does your solar and wind power produce?"Now, not enough. With research and development? Plenty. It kindda shocked me that people, like yourself, think that technology is stagnant. Disk storage space progresses from 1.44 MB disk in 1986 to 1TB today. A short span of 20+ years, and a storage growth rate of over 10 zillion over. Imagine... research on wind and solar power. Remember, disk storage technology uses the same material as solar panel (silicon). Disk storage never uses another type of material, they stick to silicon. Remember!

Bill Griffith 6 years, 4 months ago

OLR, one point missing from your thoughts (and that most people tend to omit) is the cheapest and quickest form of new energy is energy efficiency. This is the low hanging fruit-and the best salve for rate increases. EE runs 2-4 cents per kilowatt hour (wholesale), coal is hovering around 7 cents without a cap. Nuclear is on the north side of 10 cents. The key concept we need to absorb is that while rates will increase over time for whatever reason, the amount you pay is the most important number. If a thoughtful and well-designed ee program is implemented by a utility with the oversight of the proper regulatory body or individuals and businesses just do it themselves, the amount they pay will go down significantly-which is what most people desire. The last two months I have paid less than 30 dollars per month on my electric bill to Westar. The other great thing about ee is that by investing in ee it becomes synergistic and more savings opportunities begin to appear down the road. The Kansas Corporation Commission will be announcing their regulatory format for ee sometime (I am told by one of the commissioners) between Thanksgiving and Christmas. This should be something we all can take advantage of.

Sean Livingstone 6 years, 4 months ago

gr (Anonymous) says:"Sounds like the writing on the wall is that if you invest in questionable things, you'll be wanting a government (taxpayer) bailout."If you don't invest in the future, you will need bailing out by government pretty soon. Not many businesses that plan for the future ever need bailing out. If GM and Ford spent 2-3% of their profits on the future, and report 2-3% less profit, they will be leaders in hybrid technology. If people live within their means, we won't be in this deep sh...t we're in right now.I don't even know what green businesses ever need government to bail out. Short sightedness, or what most normally call "common sense", is what that got us into this trouble. Mark my words.

Bill Griffith 6 years, 4 months ago

LogicMan, I appreciate your first salvo at solving this problem, but one nuclear plant takes seven years (or so) to construct and a massive amount of money. There is not the time, the local political will, nor the money to assemble roughly 40 new nuclear plants to take out working coal plants and some of the older nuclear facilities if we are working somewhat along the IPCC timetable recommended for displacing carbon (and Congress will be eyeing this document as they move forward this year). Your transmission point is well taken, if a carbon cap is put in place along with transmission, inevitably renewables will be the bulk of electrons flowing as we move forward.

Sean Livingstone 6 years, 4 months ago

gr,"I want to know if you are using common sense or technology."Of course, common sense sometimes has no common sense at all. As I've already discussed before, common sense at GM led to today's problem. If they went against their common sense, and develop hybrid technology further, Toyota will not be in today's position. Imagine! I'm talking about technology, you're talking about common sense.Technology has no boundaries, common sense has. Back in those days, internet was just a myth. In the future, solar and wind will generate 70% of the energy we will use. That's not common sense. That's technology.

gr 6 years, 4 months ago

"And we will spent billions bailing out GM and Ford pretty soon."Sounds like the writing on the wall is that if you invest in questionable things, you'll be wanting a government (taxpayer) bailout.

Sean Livingstone 6 years, 4 months ago

gr,Just some basic knowledge about solar and wind energy sources, before you redraft your questions:http://ezinearticles.com/?Types-of-Solar-Energy&id=263024http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/solar.html (Hey, this is for kids! Just like yourself).http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/wind.html (hey, this is also for kids!)

Sean Livingstone 6 years, 4 months ago

gr (Anonymous) says:"stone, I'm afraid I don't see the connection between disk storage and electricity generation. I also did not say technology is stagnant. Maybe it was a sidestep.How much does your solar and wind power produce?"not enough" is not a valid answer. How much? I want to know if you are using common sense or technology."It's kindda funny that you like to avoid history, and didn't understand technology. Of course, only looking at the United States, with your narrow microscope, you'll not see the whole picture.There are plenty of examples from Europe.... which have invested a lot in Renewable energy.Also, there's such a technology call computer, and it comes with a search engine if you have internet (that I presume you have). Why do I need to feed you with information?Read these yourself:http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/home--about-the-project.htmlhttp://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=45445We dropped off from the race in 1980s.... and of course, from your perspective, technology is stagnant, that's a safe assumption. And of course, you're also assuming that I only promote wind and solar, which I do not. Wind and solar could potentially generate 70% of all energy consume in this country.And there's always an internet to avoid being spoonfed.

gr 6 years, 4 months ago

"Common sense leads us to nowhere. Technology will lead us to somewhere."stone, how much does your solar and wind power produce?

average 6 years, 4 months ago

I agree with LogicMan that nuclear is probably the way to go. But, even then, not at Holcomb. Note that there is no great pressing demand for electricity in Western Kansas. Rather, 85% of the power from the proposed Sunflower plant was going to go to Denver and the Front Range. Power plants, coal and nuke both, need loads of water. Something sorely lacking in Finney County. A new nuclear plant is amortized over a 60-65 year lifespan. And even the most optimistic scenarios don't promise you can suck any amount of Ogallah water in 2070. No one would build one there. The coal plants would be paid off long before that and left to rust when the wells run dry.New nuclear, near steady water, and closer to the major demand (um, that'd be in Colorado) makes a whole lot of sense. Likewise for Kansas needs... again closer to major population. Transmitting 10MW a few hundred miles to rural needs loses a lot less than transmitting a gigawatt hundreds of miles to its primary demand.

gr 6 years, 4 months ago

stone, you are giving us a big laugh! The only information I want you to "feed" me is:How much does your solar and wind power produce?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

Nuclear power only exists because it's been so massively subsidized for so many decades. We'll probably have to live with existing plants for quite a while yet, but new nuclear plants, if subsidies are removed, are economically unfeasible.

Sean Livingstone 6 years, 4 months ago

gr,The information is all over the internet, search them yourself. But I want you to see how developing countries are exploiting solar and wind in their homes, and let data from them (hey, it's a backward country, and yet we don't think like them!):http://www2.china-sd.com/News/2006-12/18_410.htmlwww.chinaembassy.org.in/eng/sgxw/P020080318650103913699.ppthttp://www.china.org.cn/english/CAS-e/7008.htmhttp://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-11/23/content_6276089.htmSolar energy is not just the panel you put onto your roof, how have Americans become so dependent on everything else. It's also the passive solar energy that you can capture from your window to heat up your house, the heating you can capture for your heated water.

JSpizias 6 years, 4 months ago

Take a look at the report below from the US Energy Information Administration, an organization that has the responsibility for analyzing and developing projections of energy use. Chapter 5 on electricity generation is especially relevant. It shows clearly the lunacy of those like Gore who in a recent NY Times editorial put forth "a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09gore.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=gore%20energy%20opinion&st=cse&oref=sloginThis is absolutely nuts! Look at the data folks. Lots of coal will still be, and must be, used to generate electricity worldwide in 2030. Sebelius and other "greenies" may be willing to gut the Kansas economy in a quixotic quest to eliminate CO2 emissions but China and most of the rest of the third world are not. And it is far from clear that CO2 is the major driver of any climate change that is occurring. We don't even have good data on surface temperataure and that is the wrong metric to measure any change. http://www.surfacestations.org/The temperature of the oceans is what we need to be focused on.http://climatesci.org/2008/11/12/the-globally-averaged-surface-temperature-trend-incompletely-assessed-is-it-even-relevant-2/http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.htmlReport #:DOE/EIA-0484(2008) Release Date: June 2008 Next Release Date: May 2009 The International Energy Outlook 2008 (IEO2008) presents an assessment by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the outlook for international energy markets through 2030. U.S. projections appearing in IEO2008 are consistent with those published in EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (AEO2008), which was prepared using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). Errata as of 10/20/08 Highlights PrefaceChapter 1. World Energy Demand and Economic OutlookChapter 2. Liquid FuelsSpecial Topic: Defining the Limites of Oil ProductionChapter 3. Natural GasChapter 4. CoalChapter 5. ElectricitySpecial Topics: Mid-Term Prospects for Nuclear Electricity Generation in China, India, and the United States Uranium Supplies Are Sufficient To Power Reactors Worldwide Through 2030Chapter 6. Transportation Sector Energy ConsumptionChapter 7. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide EmissionsSpecial Topic: What Will It Take To Stabilize Carbon Dioxide Concentrations?

JSpizias 6 years, 4 months ago

Stone,You say:"There are many around:"Well who wrote the one you referenced and what are their credentials? In the case I referenced, one can see the qualifications of the climate scientist who wrote it. References to what his presentation is based on are at the end of the presentation where one can see the data for themselves. Did you look at it and the data supporting his presentation? Who wrote what you referenced and what are their credentials?If one is to be credible conclusions should be based on solid science. Below is a paper by Stott et al that appeared in Science in 2007, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It indicates that a significant warming of the earth preceded the rise of atmospheric CO2 by about 1000 years. How do you explain such data if CO2 is supposed to be the driver for climate change?Science 19 October 2007:Vol. 318. no. 5849, pp. 435 - 438Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical WarmingLowell Stott,1* Axel Timmermann,2 Robert Thunell3 ..."Deep-sea temperatures warmed by ~2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present (ky B.P.), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropicalsurface-ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep-water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19 and 17 ky B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing. Increasing austral-spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks appear to be the key factors responsible for this warming."

Sean Livingstone 6 years, 4 months ago

JS,http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/index_en.htmhttp://www.martinot.info/china.htmI'm beginning to think that some Americans are thinking like third world countries..... (hey, the third world uses dirty energy, we should too!).

JSpizias 6 years, 4 months ago

Take the quiz-it is from an interactive Power Point presentation by a climate science professor and provides some very interesting data. Dr. Richard Keen's "Global Warming Quiz"Filed under: Climate Science Reporting, Q & A on Climate Science - Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 amDr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (ATOC) at the University of Colorado has a very interesting set of questions that he has posted with respect to global warming. It can be viewed athttp://icecap.us/images/uploads/Globalwarmingquiz.pdfHis class website, which illustrates his expertise in atmospheric science, is at http://atoc.colorado.edu/wxlab/atoc1050/Syl1050F08.htmHis global warming quiz is quite informative.

jayhawklawrence 6 years, 4 months ago

I think I know where all the Big 3 profits went. I saw them on the Big Oil balance sheets with their record profits the last few years.We have been stalling on these energies issues for the last 30 years.Honda and Toyota just kicked butt on the US Car guys.I say let the free market rule and put a for sale sign on Detroit. Greed and politics spoiled the party and I don't feel like paying for it.

Mkh 6 years, 4 months ago

They already passed through the "Carbon Tax", it was stuck in the 'Banker Takeover Bill'. Pretty soon we will all be taxed for our Co2 "emmissions", which all the money will be given to the central banking families of the Elite who have pushed this "man-made global warming" myth for decades.PM Gordon Brown during his speech the other day calling for a "New World Order", stated that the World Bank would soon be used as the "environmental bank of the world", meaning that is who we will be paying our "carbon taxes" to.

gr 6 years, 4 months ago

"The information is all over the internet, search them yourself."stone, I was not aware that YOUR information on YOUR solar collectors and wind power were on the internet. Why don't you just tell us? Why are you hiding it? Are you ashamed of the amount of power you are generating? Looks like one who is an advocate, you would be happy to share with everyone how much power you generate. Why aren't you?"Solar energy is not just the panel"Kind of hard to run a computer from passive solar energy shining through my window. Why are you evading what I thought was so clear:stone, "How much does your solar and wind power produce?"By that I mean, how many total kilowatt hours for one month does your own solar and wind power produce for your own house or premises you reside at.I'm not sure how I can be any more specific.Ok, I'll try:How many total kilowatt hours for one month does your own solar collectors and wind power generators produce for your own house, or the premises you reside at, resulting in measurable and usable electricity? Wasn't that implied by using the term, kilowatt?

JSpizias 6 years, 4 months ago

Stone,you have previously made reference to China and its energy policy. Check out the report from the Energy Administration on world energy. Better look at the data. Below is some info on what is currently happening in China. Also take a look at what is happening in Italy.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/europe/23coal.htmlFrance, which generates 80% of its electricity by nuclear energy recently signed an agreement with the UK to build new nuclear plants there for power generation, and take this technology to the world. Patzek and Pimentel have it right in their paper on Biomass referenced below.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/22/nuclearpower.energy1From NY Times-October 24, 2007http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/business/worldbusiness/24power.html"China's Green Energy GapChina's increase has been the most substantial. The country built 114,000 megawatts of fossil-fuel-based generating capacity last year alone, almost all coal-fired, and is on course to complete 95,000 megawatts more this year.For comparison, Britain has 75,000 megawatts in operation, built over a span of decades."Thus, last year China built the equivalent of 163 power plants of 700 megawatts each, and will build almost this many again this year, almost all of them coal-fired.from the same article"The same big utility company building the green plant in Boxing, CLP, has just opened a coal-fired plant in southernmost China. On schedule and built for half what it would cost in the West, that plant will generate 1,200 megawatts of electricity - compared with 6 megawatts from the Boxing biomass plant. CLP is so impressed that it is bidding to build coal-fired plants in India with Chinese technology.These are the realities faced by companies seeking to make themselves more environmentally friendly in China, where coal is king. Coal-fired plants are quick and cheap to build and easy to run.The most talked-about alternative to coal in China involves plans to quadruple the country's share of power from nuclear energy by 2020. But the plan, which contemplates dozens of reactors, still amounts to just 31,000 megawatts of nuclear power over the next dozen years."petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS-BiomassPaper.pdf"We want to be very clear: solar cells, wind turbines, and biomass-for-energy plantations can never replace even a small fraction of the highly reliable, 24-hours a day, 365-days a year, nuclear, fossil, and hydroelectric power stations. Claims to the contrary are popular but irresponsible". These researchers feel, as do I, that along with conservation, a significant increase in nuclear power generation is the most sensible energy policy, given concerns about CO2 emissions.

gr 6 years, 4 months ago

Intersting no further comments from the stone.Lack of response makes one wonder if he really did not understand the question (which is a highly suspect idea) and now doesn't want to face it or that the question was finally worded in such a way he could not find any way to wiggle out of it. Either way, it is highly probable he does not have his own solar or wind power. One wonders, why not?Some of the reasons I don't have it is, because it costs more, not efficient, nor dependable. I expect livingstone doesn't have it for similar reasons. Could it be that he is using common sense?What shall we conclude from his statement: "Common sense leads us to nowhere. Technology will lead us to somewhere."

Commenting has been disabled for this item.