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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
$98 per barrel oil
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: wrote in : Thomas Borchert wrote: all those cost serveral times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of making the costs comparable to coventional methods is slim. To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there... Not really. With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of "alternate" sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited areas where the alernates are optimized, for example solar power in very sunny locations. The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your figures are incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't include the borrowing involved. "Fossil" fuels have nothing to do with nuclear energy. The cost of electric production by nuclear energy includes the total life cycle cost of a nuclear facility if the numbers are honestly derived. Nope. Yep. "Levelized life-cycle cost is the total cost of a project from construction to retirement and decommissinon, expressed in present value and the spread evenly over the useful output (kWh) of the project." From just one source, feel free to find a contradictory one. http://www.keystone.org/spp/document...F6_12_2007.pdf The total life cycle is everything from the first study to the last cleanup on shutdown. But not the storage of the fuel or the cleanup of the damage done by it. You don't store fuel and what damage are you talking about? And it does include the disposition of nuclear waste. Talk to me again if the experiment at Cadarache succeeds, otherwise, you can keep them. Your personal preferences have nothing to do with what it costs in the real world. And since you probably don't know, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires that the costs of disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste be borne by the parties responsible for their generation. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides for two types of fees to be levied on the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel: an ongoing fee of 1.0 mil (one tenth of one cent) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on nuclear electricity generated and sold after April 7, 1983, and a one-time fee for all nuclear electricity generated and sold prior to that date. Because the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel are required to pay the full costs of its disposal, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires an annual assessment of the adequacy of the 1 mil/kWh fee. http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/info_librar...s/ocrwm007.htm So the disposal cost is payed up front as an operating cost. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
$98 per barrel oil
Denny wrote in news:1194553620.452564.220860
@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com: Back on topic, the future of the USA is coal as the main source of energy... WIth some 200 years supply on hand, once oil hits some magic figure, say $300/bbl, those who's main concern is global warming, pollution and environmental protection will find themselves shouted down in the halls of congress by the majority Yep, that is what will happen. (it is a representational democracy after all) No, it isn't. who want warm houses and their porn movies at an affordable price... Cars will become electric for town with 300 miles being the norm for range (attainable right now in very small/light vehicles, much as 300 is the normal range for my 4X4 truck) and only use big vehicles burning expensive hydrocarbon fuels for the vacation and special events - with these big cars being rented or time share owned - We will begin small steps back into light electric rail in the heavily populated urban corridors sorrounding the big cities... It is good we have the highway system as we let the railroad right of ways get away... The rail systems will begin using the turn pike centers as the new rail system... And it is efficient because the turnpikes now go where we want to go, whereas the old rail right of ways no longer go where the population wants... House will begin shrinking after the bloat of the past 30 years... And on.... A few years back, roughly 3, I said in these forums that oil would be $100 within 5 years and I was snickered at... I now admit I was wrong .... it is sooner... Me, I'm backing lukewarm fusion. Bertie |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
$98 per barrel oil
Mxsmanic wrote in
: Gig 601XL Builder writes: Yes, in fact, history has proven they are. Really? How? The Inquisition? What, you woried abouta new one where they fry idiots at the stake? Does an idiot float? Bertie |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
$98 per barrel oil
("Thomas Borchert" wrote)
You don't remotely know me enough to be able to make that statement above. And it's a typical knee-jerk ugly American redneck reaction of you, too ;-) No need to start slinging the "r" word around. Montblack :-) |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
$98 per barrel oil
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: wrote in : Thomas Borchert wrote: all those cost serveral times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of making the costs comparable to coventional methods is slim. To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there... Not really. With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of "alternate" sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited areas where the alernates are optimized, for example solar power in very sunny locations. The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your figures are incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't include the borrowing involved. "Fossil" fuels have nothing to do with nuclear energy. The cost of electric production by nuclear energy includes the total life cycle cost of a nuclear facility if the numbers are honestly derived. Nope. Yep. "Levelized life-cycle cost is the total cost of a project from construction to retirement and decommissinon, expressed in present value and the spread evenly over the useful output (kWh) of the project." From just one source, feel free to find a contradictory one. http://www.keystone.org/spp/document...port_NJFF6_12_ 2007 The total life cycle is everything from the first study to the last cleanup on shutdown. But not the storage of the fuel or the cleanup of the damage done by it. You don't store fuel and what damage are you talking about? And it does include the disposition of nuclear waste. No, it doesn't. It does by law contrary to your full and explicit refutation. Talk to me again if the experiment at Cadarache succeeds, otherwise, you can keep them. Your personal preferences have nothing to do with what it costs in the real world. Really? What is the real world? If you think you know the answer to that you're part of the problem. Really. Sounds like MX; you don't like the answer, so attack the messenger. And since you probably don't know, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires that the costs of disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste be borne by the parties responsible for their generation. Right.... The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides for two types of fees to be levied on the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel: an ongoing fee of 1.0 mil (one tenth of one cent) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on nuclear electricity generated and sold after April 7, 1983, and a one-time fee for all nuclear electricity generated and sold prior to that date. Because the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel are required to pay the full costs of its disposal, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires an annual assessment of the adequacy of the 1 mil/kWh fee. http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/info_librar...lreports/96ar- c p/sections/ocrwm007.htm So the disposal cost is payed up front as an operating cost. And the disposed waste is where? Somewhere safe. "We could have saved the earth but we were too damned cheap" "They're stupid, they stink, I hate them" Fact is, when you start doing things that are stupid and you are affecting your neighbors, who haven't subscribed to your idiocy, you have to expect a bit of hostility at the very least. At the very most, you can expect some, um, unpleasantness. Non sequitur. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
$98 per barrel oil
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... Gig 601XL Builder writes: About 250,000. About fifty times less. Um.. That would be -12,250,000 How is that possible? |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
$98 per barrel oil
wrote in :
Bertie the Bunyip wrote: wrote in news:8n8c05-hnm.ln1 @mail.specsol.com: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: wrote in : Thomas Borchert wrote: all those cost serveral times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of making the costs comparable to coventional methods is slim. To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there... Not really. With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of "alternate" sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited areas where the alernates are optimized, for example solar power in very sunny locations. The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your figures are incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't include the borrowing involved. "Fossil" fuels have nothing to do with nuclear energy. The cost of electric production by nuclear energy includes the total life cycle cost of a nuclear facility if the numbers are honestly derived. Nope. Yep. "Levelized life-cycle cost is the total cost of a project from construction to retirement and decommissinon, expressed in present value and the spread evenly over the useful output (kWh) of the project." From just one source, feel free to find a contradictory one. http://www.keystone.org/spp/document...port_NJFF6_12_ 2007 The total life cycle is everything from the first study to the last cleanup on shutdown. But not the storage of the fuel or the cleanup of the damage done by it. You don't store fuel and what damage are you talking about? And it does include the disposition of nuclear waste. No, it doesn't. It does by law contrary to your full and explicit refutation. Talk to me again if the experiment at Cadarache succeeds, otherwise, you can keep them. Your personal preferences have nothing to do with what it costs in the real world. Really? What is the real world? If you think you know the answer to that you're part of the problem. Really. Sounds like MX; you don't like the answer, so attack the messenger. And since you probably don't know, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires that the costs of disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste be borne by the parties responsible for their generation. Right.... The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides for two types of fees to be levied on the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel: an ongoing fee of 1.0 mil (one tenth of one cent) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on nuclear electricity generated and sold after April 7, 1983, and a one-time fee for all nuclear electricity generated and sold prior to that date. Because the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel are required to pay the full costs of its disposal, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires an annual assessment of the adequacy of the 1 mil/kWh fee. http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/info_librar...lreports/96ar- c p/sections/ocrwm007.htm So the disposal cost is payed up front as an operating cost. And the disposed waste is where? Somewhere safe. Oh well., that's OK then. "We could have saved the earth but we were too damned cheap" "They're stupid, they stink, I hate them" Fact is, when you start doing things that are stupid and you are affecting your neighbors, who haven't subscribed to your idiocy, you have to expect a bit of hostility at the very least. At the very most, you can expect some, um, unpleasantness. Non sequitur. No, it isn't. Bertie |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
$98 per barrel oil
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote I've got some empty hanger space. But my bet is that at the first sign of next summer you'd be heading back to the UK. Why, just because the humidity makes the air so thick, you can slice it with a knife? Because the air is so hot that it feels as though you have opened the door to a blast furnace? And that is at 09:00! Or would it be because of the cockroaches the size of silver dollars, that can even fly, that everyone has to keep in control with chemicals, and this holds true even for people with clean houses in good neighborhoods? I'm sure you have more to add to these, if you were being honest! g -- Jim in NC |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
$98 per barrel oil
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
No, it isn't. Another 160+ line post to provide this full and complete retort with citations and references to support the position. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Myth: 1 G barrel rolls are impossible. | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 244 | June 22nd 07 04:33 AM |
barrel roll in 172 | Andrey Serbinenko | Piloting | 154 | August 20th 06 04:11 AM |
Bomb in a pickle barrel from 10,000 feet | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 15 | September 3rd 04 05:51 PM |
Barrel roll And g's Quest. | Robert11 | Aerobatics | 6 | July 16th 03 02:51 PM |
Barrel Roll And g's Quest. | Robert11 | General Aviation | 6 | July 12th 03 01:47 AM |