How then, do we move backwards? How does a society, with most of the people having no clue of future events, move from being dependent on a vast and intertwined network of goods and services produced by the indigenous people of whereever, to a local resource and renewable energy based society, and do so in the timeframe available (20-30 years using the most liberal extimates, 10-20 with resonable estimates, 5-10 with worst case scenarios), all the while prices on everything increasing, world politics getting more militaristic, governments continuously reducing civil liberties, shortages of goods on the market and weather patterns resembling bad Hollywood movies?
Joined: Apr 27, 2007 Posts: 4236 Location: The Great Sonoran Desert
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: Re: Not enough new power plants
Tyler_JC wrote:
But they generally only throw the combined cycle gas plants on during times of high demand, right?
They aren't using gas for base load, I hope.
40% of phoenix electricity comes staight from the NG tap...baseload. _________________ "There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
"... hope is a rotten-thighed whore" Niko Kazantzakis
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2640 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject: Re: Not enough new power plants
Tyler_JC wrote:
But they generally only throw the combined cycle gas plants on during times of high demand, right?
They aren't using gas for base load, I hope.
Oh yes they are.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but peak load is usually not CC gas but more simple and inefficient gas plants? _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
This is the North American Reliability Corporation 2007 Reliability assessment. It takes a fair amount of reading to decode what they are really saying. But in short - we are screwed.
To paraphrase briefly and loosely (if you want the straight skinny read it yourself)
1 NY will be not have enough energy in 2014, other parts of US and Canada not to far behind.
2 Our projected electric energy needs surpass our projected growth by a pretty good margin.
3 We need to build out base load plants. Recent strategy has been to add smaller gas plants near the load. They take on 18 months to build but do not address the core problem.
4 We have insufficient transmission infrastructure to move the power around, and are not making good progress at planning more.
5 Our engineering work force is retiring and there are insufficient new engineers to replace them.
6 Environmental regulations will make the matter worse.
And this from a pretty conservative group who have their hands on the controls.
If I read the report correctly, and I am only working through it when I have time at work, then these are pretty much "best scenario" assessments. They do not take into account a disruption of the fuel supply, acts of terrorism, exceptional weather, or the like.
I find that the reading is difficult as the language is couched in such a was as to make it seem less threatening. So, to get the real meaning of what they are saying you need to do some work and read closely. Slow slogging. _________________ When going through hell, keep going! Churchill
Nothing is ever lost by courtesy. It is the the cheapest of pleasures, costs nothing, and conveys much. E Wiman
I know there’s no solution, so I just enjoy what’s here and I enjoy the journey G Carlin
Joined: Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 2791 Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: Re: Not enough new power plants
sittinguy wrote:
He admits that the coal plants are very dirty, and fully contributes to GW, but says we will need the power one way or another, and we all know coal gives the best bang for the buck.
Coal is just the ticket for population reduction, too:
"Air pollution is estimated to cause approximately two million premature deaths worldwide per year," said Michal Krzyzanowski, an air quality adviser at the WHO Regional Office for Europe.
_________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
Walter, there is an unspoken message here.
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: Re: Not enough new power plants
So, Newfie, a government entity has declared that insufficient resources are being made available to the government. What the hell would you expect them to say!?!?
Has a government entity ever, in the history of mankind, proclaimed that its work was done and should be disbanded?
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4359 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:50 pm Post subject: Re: Not enough new power plants
LoneSnark wrote:
So, Newfie, a government entity has declared that insufficient resources are being made available to the government. What the hell would you expect them to say!?!?
Has a government entity ever, in the history of mankind, proclaimed that its work was done and should be disbanded?
Haha, good point.
Anyone remember the big dig? It was supposed to be a cheap and effective way to improve traffic conditions in Boston. It was supposed to be completed a decade ago.
Instead it was billions upon billions of dollars overbudget and they still want to allocate more money to "improve" it.
As for Phoenix using natural gas to provide its baseload, I'm curious how they manage to keep prices so low despite using such an expensive source.
Granted, natural gas prices haven't seen even half of the run up that crude oil has seen since the 90s. _________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Joined: Apr 27, 2007 Posts: 4236 Location: The Great Sonoran Desert
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject: Re: Not enough new power plants
Tyler_JC wrote:
As for Phoenix using natural gas to provide its baseload, I'm curious how they manage to keep prices so low despite using such an expensive source.
Ummmm...went went through this already Tyler...remember you said that APS has a right to jack up prices...
Well they have - almost 30% in the last year alone.
Just all part of enslaving the population Tyler (wink wink)...surely you understand. _________________ "There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
"... hope is a rotten-thighed whore" Niko Kazantzakis
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: Not enough new power plants
Starvid wrote:
sittinguy wrote:
we all know coal gives the best bang for the buck.
Only if you socialize the costs and privatize the profits...
That is technically incorrect.
Coal power produces "cheap" electricity. We all benefit from cheap electricity: both rich man and poor. Perhaps the poor benefit more from cheap energy because a greater portion of their income goes to energy. Coal power also produces pollution and we all breathe the same air: both rich man and poor.
Coal == socialistic profits + socialistic cost
On the other hand if you said the financial system works on the principle of "socialize the costs and privatize the profits" than I'd agree whole heartily. But that's a different topic.
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:21 pm Post subject: Re: Not enough new power plants
Combined cycle plants are run all of the time. Phoenix is ringed by them, and there are a lot more plants planned. This is why a new 36" gas pipeline is getting built from the 4-corners area to phoenix. Most of these are ~600 MW, Gila bend is the biggest one I've seen. At one point, there were plans for at least 20 Frame 7 turbines here.
There are a lot of simple cycle plants too. These things are a giant waste of energy.
Those in sunny Arizona are also going to get many more of the fancy solar thermal plants I'm told.
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2640 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject: Re: Not enough new power plants
LoneSnark wrote:
Has a government entity ever, in the history of mankind, proclaimed that its work was done and should be disbanded?
Actually, yes.
The Swedish State Cinema Agency (movie censorship agency) has been arguing for its own dismissal for years, with the chief censorship bureacrat considering censorship both immoral and impossible to do according to the scientific principles that should guide the agency.
Because of this, no censorship what so ever has been done since 1996, and not much before that either. _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2640 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject: Re: Not enough new power plants
cube wrote:
Starvid wrote:
sittinguy wrote:
we all know coal gives the best bang for the buck.
Only if you socialize the costs and privatize the profits...
That is technically incorrect.
Coal power produces "cheap" electricity. We all benefit from cheap electricity: both rich man and poor. Perhaps the poor benefit more from cheap energy because a greater portion of their income goes to energy. Coal power also produces pollution and we all breathe the same air: both rich man and poor.
Coal == socialistic profits + socialistic cost
On the other hand if you said the financial system works on the principle of "socialize the costs and privatize the profits" than I'd agree whole heartily. But that's a different topic.
Well...
The thing with coal is that it has very big external costs. Destroyed environment around mines, climate change, and most importantly the health hazards of air pollution. These costs are borne by everyone. That is, they become costs for us all as a collective because we all finance the health care of each others. Hence, the costs of coal are socialised.
The pros of coal is that it is cheap (on a monetary level, on a real level it's dead expensive cos of those externalities). The people who primarily profit from cheap coal power are big industrial power consumers, the coal mining companies and the coal power companies. These things are in private hands. If they were state owned, the profits would be socialised too.
Now, I'm not calling for widespread natioanlization of companies. I'm just saying coal should pay for all the damage it causes. The external costs should be internalised. This will result in higher power prices which will eventually eradicate coal burning as more competitive modes of generation will replace coal. _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:01 am Post subject: Re: Not enough new power plants
Starvid wrote:
...
The pros of coal is that it is cheap (on a monetary level, on a real level it's dead expensive cos of those externalities).
...
I'm not questioning the "social" costs of coal. In fact I even stated in my previous post that it causes pollution.
Starvid wrote:
...
The people who primarily profit from cheap coal power are big industrial power consumers, the coal mining companies and the coal power companies. These things are in private hands. If they were state owned, the profits would be socialised too.
...
Coal power plants are privately owned therefore the profits are privatized. Using that argument it doesn't matter where the hell you get your energy from EVERYTHING will be based on privatized profits. If the government passed a law stating we will transition away from fossil fuels and choose renewable power who do you think will own all the new windmills and solar panels? Does Joe Sixpack own this windmill or some very large corporation with deep pockets. How's that any different then what we have now? Regardless of where we get our energy from I think society is just going to have to accept the fact that 10% will always own 90% of everything.
Starvid wrote:
...
Now, I'm not calling for widespread natioanlization of companies. I'm just saying coal should pay for all the damage it causes. The external costs should be internalised. This will result in higher power prices which will eventually eradicate coal burning as more competitive modes of generation will replace coal.
For better or worse the world is the way it is because that's what society chooses.
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2640 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:28 am Post subject: Re: Not enough new power plants
cube wrote:
Coal power plants are privately owned therefore the profits are privatized. Using that argument it doesn't matter where the hell you get your energy from EVERYTHING will be based on privatized profits. If the government passed a law stating we will transition away from fossil fuels and choose renewable power who do you think will own all the new windmills and solar panels? Does Joe Sixpack own this windmill or some very large corporation with deep pockets. How's that any different then what we have now?
It doesn't have to be that way. In France, pretty much all generation is owned by EdF which is something like 80 % owned by the State. Of course, private companies can enter the market now that it has been deregulated. But they don't since there is no way in Hell they will generate power as cheap or cheaper than EdF.
cube wrote:
Regardless of where we get our energy from I think society is just going to have to accept the fact that 10% will always own 90% of everything.
Now that is one depressed man.
History, including US history, shows it didn't have to be like this. It didn't use to be like this. You are being ripped off.
cube wrote:
For better or worse the world is the way it is because that's what society chooses.
Maybe the time has come to change how society make choices... _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
