|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 2, 2012 16:42:53 GMT
Earlier you inferred wind farms were necessary to avoid the use of oil to generate electricity; a typical erroneous statement. Do you concede that point? You still have not given one single point of reference to support wind farms as being economically viable. That has been your argument from the start. You are very good at redirecting. I did not say anything about oil in the context you are claiming. I said avoid the use of fuel when wind was available, where fuel includes nuclear fuel, but i was mainly referring to oil and coal not being used when wind was available, with the assumption that nuclear would always remain on line with only a limited ability to be 'turned down', where in any case nuclear fuel is not a big deal in terms of the cost of the whole installation cost. You just seem unable or unwilling to engage with me on the point i raised which is how an electric supply industry/government manage electricity generation My argument has been that if a decision is made to use wind as part of the generating capacity it makes sense to use it when available. Normally speaking all other forms of electricity generation are not turned down when demand is low in the way you phrased it, where economics alone has not been the only factor in whether a unit is going to be running when demand is low since at least the time the nuclear generators went on line. Do you think nuclear is economic at current oil gas and coal prices given the extended costs so far into the future? What i said was what you were saying was not really correct meaning it was sort of not really totally correct. However if it is true that nuclear is left idle - despite it still producing megawatts of useable energy that is wasted to the atmosphere and rivers - in preference to wind it does make what you say more or less totally true. However is that really true or is just the nuclear energy industry lobbying for greater use of nuclear at a time when many people really do not like the idea of nuclear - particularly if it is within a few hundred miles of them. Obviously nuclear is in crisis. About oil you said: solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=168&post=84767Most of us do not want to live near any form of power generation where most of us would not want to be downstream of a large hydro dam or anything else.
But what do we do? Unless the rising price of oil is just a conspiracy where BP pretended to have difficulties drilling a mile under the sea to ramp up the price of oil, it appears energy is getting harder to find - and i do not rule anything out when it comes to oil companies. The first paragraph is about power generation, then the second transcends into oil, but oil is not used for electrical generation on a national scale to power the grid. Period. Stop trying to change what you wrote, or can we expect your posts to mysteriously disappear? Let us go back to my first post on this matter: I said: Part of the "free energy" scam aka wind farms in Michigan, and probably other states, is at night when demand goes lower the power plants turn the generators down. However, the wind turbines, if still turning, continue to run and the power companies must purchase the power regardless, and the wind turbine company gets additional subsidies, not to mention the "beneficiaries" (land owners) who signed their property rights and free speech away.
This is referred to as 'negative profits', and is sure to bankrupt the affected coal/NG/nuclear power plant, cause electricity rates to soar or both.
========================================= You replied: Wind has some issues but that interpretation is not really correct. ========================================== No Radiant, my statement was 100% correct and I gave you evidence. Stop lecturing and put some numbers down. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Nov 2, 2012 16:52:57 GMT
Sigh
If the price of oil rises so does the price of alternatives like coal.
You are continually looking for something that does not exist
As i pointed out before, after you and icefisher were so horribly toxic towards me and accused me of lying and more or less being a total c.unt i deleted the posts to get rid of the toxic influence you two had upon my life. Despite that you keep bringing it back up because you appear to enjoy questioning my honesty time and time again.
Subsequently it appears you have some issues related to honesty because you say your father used to beat you for lying. I am just an ordinary person who was accused of lying and being some kind of agent for the worst kind of slime ball organisations simply because you two were unable to understand some well established scientific principles.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 2, 2012 17:16:50 GMT
Sigh If the price of oil rises so does the price of alternatives like coal. You are continually looking for something that does not exist As i pointed out before, after you and icefisher were so horribly toxic towards me and accused me of lying and more or less being a total c.unt i deleted the posts to get rid of the toxic influence you two had upon my life. Despite that you keep bringing it back up because you appear to enjoy questioning my honesty time and time again. Coal is not an "alternative", it is our main source of electricity generation. The main reason coal prices rise is from regulations, not oil prices. Where do you come up with such nonsense? Once again, you are redirecting; there was not one mention of coal rising in cost due to rising oil prices in your reply to me. Excuse me, but it was you who first blew a nut, not us. Watching you and Numerouno argue is why I've kept out the discussions. Your motto's are "Once I thought I was wrong, but was mistaken". |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Nov 2, 2012 17:24:52 GMT
Sigh If the price of oil rises so does the price of alternatives like coal. You are continually looking for something that does not exist As i pointed out before, after you and icefisher were so horribly toxic towards me and accused me of lying and more or less being a total c.unt i deleted the posts to get rid of the toxic influence you two had upon my life. Despite that you keep bringing it back up because you appear to enjoy questioning my honesty time and time again. Coal is not an "alternative", it is our main source of electricity generation. The main reason coal prices rise is from regulations, not oil prices. Where do you come up with such nonsense? Once again, you are redirecting; there was not one mention of coal rising in cost due to rising oil prices in your reply to me. Excuse me, but it was you who first blew a nut, not us. Watching you and Numerouno argue is why I've kept out the discussions. Your motto's are "Once I thought I was wrong, but was mistaken". Please get a grip. Your own quote of my text shows that i was talking about the potential rising cost of energy where the blow out by BP a mile under the gulf, unless a conspiracy, and we might add the need to go to iraq to 'secure' the oil there, plus the threats to iran and Venezuela etc etc, suggest at least, rising future energy prices. I dont deny i blew a nut. I could not deal with you two being so disgusting towards me when i had only set out to help you understand some well established scientific principles. |
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Nov 2, 2012 18:38:56 GMT
Radiant said: I had only set out to help you understand some well established scientific principles.
Radient,
I don't have any skin in the game you are playing with Numerouno and Magellan. However, you are trying to lecture from a position of authority about things educated readers here might disagree with.
For starters, yes drilling for oil is hard. But it can be done in a safe manor. This is beyond dispute. Getting bean counters to follow rules they don't understand but are hideously expensive. Now that just might be impossible.
If you examine the BP disaster, there was a cascade of human error that led to the disaster. Not because of technical limitations. We could have an entire thread devoted to the disaster.
Your position about wind energy began with government intervention in the free market by supporting legislation requiring wind farms. On what planet has this EVER been a good idea! Any argument downstream of this failed position is inherently flawed. When wind energy can compete with coal and natural gas the free market will build wind farms. Right now, unfortunately wind is not even close, nor is it likely to be any time soon.
If you are talking about electricity, don't segue to oil. Oil and electricity generation and prices are only loosely related. You cannot justify high electricity prices by high oil prices.
I am wondering exactly what well established scientific principles you are trying to help me understand, can you sum them up for me?
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Nov 2, 2012 19:04:42 GMT
Radiant said: I had only set out to help you understand some well established scientific principles.Radient, I don't have any skin in the game you are playing with Numerouno and Magellan. However, you are trying to lecture from a position of authority about things educated readers here might disagree with. For starters, yes drilling for oil is hard. But it can be done in a safe manor. This is beyond dispute. Getting bean counters to follow rules they don't understand but are hideously expensive. Now that just might be impossible. If you examine the BP disaster, there was a cascade of human error that led to the disaster. Not because of technical limitations. We could have an entire thread devoted to the disaster. Your position about wind energy began with government intervention in the free market by supporting legislation requiring wind farms. On what planet has this EVER been a good idea! Any argument downstream of this failed position is inherently flawed. When wind energy can compete with coal and natural gas the free market will build wind farms. Right now, unfortunately wind is not even close, nor is it likely to be any time soon. If you are talking about electricity, don't segue to oil. Oil and electricity generation and prices are only loosely related. You cannot justify high electricity prices by high oil prices. I am wondering exactly what well established scientific principles you are trying to help me understand, can you sum them up for me? The reference to well established scientific principles was to do with an earlier conversation on radiation and the so called greenhouse effect. If you think that drilling for oil a mile under the sea is an indication of a similar ease to drilling for oil under the north sea or a similar ease for drilling for oil on land in texas 50 years ago we are unlikely to agree. Why are people even considering drilling for oil in the arctic?? |
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Nov 2, 2012 19:24:55 GMT
I didn't say drilling was easy, I said it was hard. I also said that the drilling can be done safely with current drilling technology, it has come a long way in the past 50 years.
As for drilling in the arctic. They are drilling in the arctic because they think they can make money doing it. On a side note, there are three sites in the arctic ocean (Here in Alaska) that they are currently TRYING to drill. In spite of the advertised record low ice pack up here, they have been having a terrible time with the ice. I am only aware of the details on one of the sites, Shell is keeping the other information close to it's vest. The site that I have information on is the easiest one to drill, it is just offshore, and in extremely shallow water. Shell thinks that there is 13 billion barrels of (recoverable) oil in that reservoir alone.
Another thing about drilling in the arctic. There is nothing there. Those pictures you have seen, That is not the arctic. There are thousands of square miles of tundra that is nothing but a mosquito infested hellhole. And that is in the summer. Pray you never have to go there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Nov 2, 2012 19:37:04 GMT
I didn't say drilling was easy, I said it was hard. I also said that the drilling can be done safely with current drilling technology, it has come a long way in the past 50 years. As for drilling in the arctic. They are drilling in the arctic because they think they can make money doing it. On a side note, there are three sites in the arctic ocean (Here in Alaska) that they are currently TRYING to drill. In spite of the advertised record low ice pack up here, they have been having a terrible time with the ice. I am only aware of the details on one of the sites, Shell is keeping the other information close to it's vest. The site that I have information on is the easiest one to drill, it is just offshore, and in extremely shallow water. Shell thinks that there is 13 billion barrels of (recoverable) oil in that reservoir alone. Another thing about drilling in the arctic. There is nothing there. Those pictures you have seen, That is not the arctic. There are thousands of square miles of tundra that is nothing but a mosquito infested hellhole. And that is in the summer. Pray you never have to go there. I am not talking about safety. It is the cost of drilling where clean up costs in our current legal situation could destroy a company Therefore it suggests energy is getting harder to find and will be more costly |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 2, 2012 20:28:04 GMT
My argument has been that if a decision is made to use wind as part of the generating capacity it makes sense to use it when available. You continue to miss the salient point Radiant. One botches up economics when there is a failure to look at the big picture carefully from an entity point of view. You say "when a decision has been made to use it, we should use it." Now to begin with that statement is completely unclear. If a decision has been made to use it why are we talking about making a decision if we use it? First decisions can be reversed. So you seem to say that if we made a bad decision to use wind we should never reverse it? LOL! Not smart! The problem here is as long as there is a decision to use it and wind power is uneconomical its basically a decision to throw money away. Pretty stupid! OK so you are looking at maybe after a decision has been made to use and there has been significant investment in developing it we should use it. Only problem with that is the question has not been answered as to if this new decision to continue to pursue wind power is going to be economical. It would be stupid to continue to throw money away no matter how much is invested. Thats called throwing good money after bad. Fact is Radiant how it works in the "ideal economic world" is power is purchased at whatever the lowest rate is. Pretty simple concept. If thats followed then the owners and investors in the wind power project need to make a decision if they are going to compete in that market or not. Perhaps they can retrieve some portion of their "sunk" investment if their equipment is new and maintenance costs are low. But as the clock ticks and as the equipment is used maintenance costs rise over time and they are providing at heart an uneconomic product, then they are looking at bankruptcy square in the face. Of course thats when effort is put into lobbying to try to rescue their investment by making the public pay for their inefficiencies. The smartest move for these investors might be to dismantle the new equipment and sell it into a "non-ideal market" where ignoramuses are deciding what power should be used. So very clearly your claim: "when a decision has been made to use it, we should use it." is completely unsupported by any financial analysis that might suggest thats the best course of action. Its how ignoramuses make decisions. Its identical to, as Magellan has claimed, to the ignorance of the original decision if not more ignorant because it suggests nothing has been learned from the bad decisions of the past. Businesses are constantly analyzing their opportunities. When one hires an appraiser to value commercial property they give you several forms of value. They give you depreciated cost value, replacement value, depreciated cost value, net operating income value, sales value, and highest and best use value. Each of those values are important to businesses in making economic decisions. They can then take each of these values and plug them into their models. Each of the values aid in understanding different returns like tax benefits, future maintenance costs, what a quck sale can bring and what might be achieved if investment is made to reform the property to highest and best use. The importance of each of those items in the list go from least important value to most important value. Your claim suggests the least important value as the most important value. The only way to make a worse decision is not consider any legitimate values or consider things using substantially wrong information. |
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Nov 2, 2012 20:49:04 GMT
I saw on the news that Mayor Michael Bloomberg is endorsing PBO because of the threat from global warming which he implies is responsible for Sandy. Now that really fits. This is the same senile old fart that said "Sandy" was not going to be as bad as "Irene". This is the same clueless local Mayor (remember that airhead that was mayor of New Orleans during Katrina?) that insists that the NYC Marathon should go on...as they check abandon houses for bodies...and kick out NY people, who no longer have homes, from hotels to make room for marathoner visitors. At least some capitalist hotel owners are balking at doing that!
Trofim Denisovich lives on and is an advisor to the Mayor of NYC.
I have to add a comment to this. Greg Gutfield (The Five) just reffered to Bloomberg as "ectomorphic flatulence".
|
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Nov 2, 2012 21:38:13 GMT
I didn't say drilling was easy, I said it was hard. I also said that the drilling can be done safely with current drilling technology, it has come a long way in the past 50 years. As for drilling in the arctic. They are drilling in the arctic because they think they can make money doing it. On a side note, there are three sites in the arctic ocean (Here in Alaska) that they are currently TRYING to drill. In spite of the advertised record low ice pack up here, they have been having a terrible time with the ice. I am only aware of the details on one of the sites, Shell is keeping the other information close to it's vest. The site that I have information on is the easiest one to drill, it is just offshore, and in extremely shallow water. Shell thinks that there is 13 billion barrels of (recoverable) oil in that reservoir alone. Another thing about drilling in the arctic. There is nothing there. Those pictures you have seen, That is not the arctic. There are thousands of square miles of tundra that is nothing but a mosquito infested hellhole. And that is in the summer. Pray you never have to go there. I am not talking about safety. It is the cost of drilling where clean up costs in our current legal situation could destroy a company Therefore it suggests energy is getting harder to find and will be more costly Radiant I'm having trouble understanding your position. On one hand, the government needs to force people to spend more money on Wind Power. On the other hand fossil fuel production is just soooo expensive we should switch to wind power. Which is it? Next, are you aware that after adjustments for inflation, and tax increases energy costs have not increased all that much. On the other hand Governments of the world are siphoning trillions of dollars in taxes and royalties from petroleum companies. There are other costs as well. Shell Oil, for the first time, had two drilling rigs in the arctic ocean off Alaska this year. They drilled two itty bitty holes, and were not allowed to drill to target depth due to government regulation. Total cost to Shell so far? Over 4 billion. How much of that cost was due to bureaucratic red tape? Over 4 billion. Any questions. |
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Nov 2, 2012 21:48:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Nov 3, 2012 6:04:45 GMT
I am not talking about safety. It is the cost of drilling where clean up costs in our current legal situation could destroy a company Therefore it suggests energy is getting harder to find and will be more costly Radiant I'm having trouble understanding your position. On one hand, the government needs to force people to spend more money on Wind Power. On the other hand fossil fuel production is just soooo expensive we should switch to wind power. Which is it? Next, are you aware that after adjustments for inflation, and tax increases energy costs have not increased all that much. On the other hand Governments of the world are siphoning trillions of dollars in taxes and royalties from petroleum companies. There are other costs as well. Shell Oil, for the first time, had two drilling rigs in the arctic ocean off Alaska this year. They drilled two itty bitty holes, and were not allowed to drill to target depth due to government regulation. Total cost to Shell so far? Over 4 billion. How much of that cost was due to bureaucratic red tape? Over 4 billion. Any questions. I agree that what I was talking about does not make sense if we are not facing an energy crisis. I agree it would be pointless to require companies to purchase wind if there was a long term secure future supply of cheap energy. And I agree that since the first indicators we might be facing an energy crisis surfaced that even more energy has been found to be available and in real terms energy is not particularly expensive if used appropriately - eg use electricity for heating if you have a well insulated house but otherwise use something like gas. |
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Dec 3, 2012 17:44:24 GMT
File this under the heading "Do not read without having a bucket to puke in!" www.sacbee.com/2012/11/27/5012386/2012-stephen-h-schneider-award.htmlKind of makes you think that even under Stalin and Beria, things like thought were a little more cleaner than what passes as science today. Even Shostakovich could compose some of the greatest music ever written. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 3, 2012 21:25:32 GMT
File this under the heading "Do not read without having a bucket to puke in!" www.sacbee.com/2012/11/27/5012386/2012-stephen-h-schneider-award.htmlKind of makes you think that even under Stalin and Beria, things like thought were a little more cleaner than what passes as science today. Even Shostakovich could compose some of the greatest music ever written. From the link: Climate One Climate One is the sustainability initiative at The Commonwealth Club of California,
That is Agenda 21. |
|
