BF2S Forums Estimated power generation costs

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

When one is making an argument for green energy, if the argument doesn't involve both emissions (total emissions) and money, then it's a fail from the start...which is a major reason why the arguments haven't been compelling to date: they are incomplete.

The argument is basically that conventional power plants are allowed to pollute for free - imposing the costs of global warming, acid rain, mercury, arsenic, heavy and radioactive metal poisoning on the rest of us. They effectively receive an undefined subsidy to their profit making activity.
The people making the argument are saying there needs to be a level playing field - put a cost on CO2, SO2 etc and then we'll see how the figures work out. Until then neither side can say their energy is either cheaper or more efficient. In all probability nuclear might come out best.

And, again, the problem with this position is that green advocates ignore the capital and environmental costs of production, sustainment, and disposal of their technologies. They only do comparisons of operating margins, and they lose on efficiency and cost (obviously, as they are tied together). So they scream they should win on environmental grounds, but then ignore environmental costs associated with their technologies (rare earth metals and the like). It is not as simplistic as the environmental lobby would have you believe.

VWTs. Was talking about them before. Really good for personal home use, prefer it over solar myself.

Dilbert_X wrote:

CK wrote:

Alternatively try going to an energy company and making a pitch "You need to tear down this power station and replace it with a new one that is 60% efficient instead of 40% efficient. Its going to cost you ~£1,000,000,000 and the pay back period is 50 years."

And if the payback period is 10 years with lower emissions?

Then people would jump at the chance to promote their company as being green and environmentally friendly and all the other marketing bumpf that goes with it. The fact is that the payback isn't 10 years. The energy companies aren't evil people just polluting for the sake of it, it is currently by far the most economical way of doing things, and soon as an alternative becomes viable it will be latched onto.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Money? It boils down to money? If we threw enough money into production all the other myriad problems would melt away? Energy storage would fix itself? Transmission would fix itself? Costs would come down? What kind of retarded monkey are you?

No, you can compare the relative benefits by looking solely at the investment cost, payback period and price of energy. You'd understand this kind of thing if you weren't so busy looking for insults.

This was done in the OP but you did not like the numbers.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

When one is making an argument for green energy, if the argument doesn't involve both emissions (total emissions) and money, then it's a fail from the start...which is a major reason why the arguments haven't been compelling to date: they are incomplete.

The argument is basically that conventional power plants are allowed to pollute for free - imposing the costs of global warming, acid rain, mercury, arsenic, heavy and radioactive metal poisoning on the rest of us. They effectively receive an undefined subsidy to their profit making activity.
The people making the argument are saying there needs to be a level playing field - put a cost on CO2, SO2 etc and then we'll see how the figures work out. Until then neither side can say their energy is either cheaper or more efficient. In all probability nuclear might come out best.

They receive and undefined subsidy? Who from? I'm not sure I agree with that assessment tbh.

The problem with the suggested green taxes is that the greenies want to increase the cost of all technology that they dont support thereby making their tech no more expensive than anybody else's. The correct way of doing it would be to improve their tech so that it doesnt cost anymore than the current solutions but as they cannot demonstrate their viability on a level playing field they need it to be significantly skewed in their favour.

Essentially all you are doing is increasing energy costs. Who will end up paying for this? The consumer. Because energy prices are so low at the moment this wont be a problem right?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

You don't seem to understand or care that the quality of life experienced by everyone on the planet is in direct correlation to the amount of electricity they have and the efficiency with which it is produced.

LOL OK. Depends what you mean by 'quality of life' I guess.

Nicely leads on from my point above. Quality of life is pretty much defined by energy use, not directly but as a necessary factor which allows everything else to occur.

How many countries have a low energy use but high production? How many countries have a great healthcare system but no power plants? How would your quality of life improve if you stayed away from anything with an engine? Who has the better quality of life, somebody who has had their gas and electric cut off or somebody with more than they can use?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Who says they 'ignore environmental costs associated with their technologies'?
Thats factored into the capital cost, as they would pay for the mining, processing etc - not that most green tech actually needs rare earths or anything with a large environmental cost.

The problem is coal and other conventional systems don't factor in costs which most other technologies do, and their unfactored costs are huge.

Source?

Green tech doesnt use rare earths or anything with a large environmental cost? Are you going to stand by that?

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-05-18 04:28:18)

FEOS wrote:

Wrong. Check to see how the component elements of anything are taken out of the ground and processed into usable components, Dilbert. It's not with oompa loompas.

Which applies to the constituent components of any generation system, not just those materials required for 'green-tech'.
Some pretty exotic materials go into nuclear stations besides the fuel, is that factored in do you think?

FEOS wrote:

Wrong again. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The greenies factor in all costs associated with current tech, but then ignore those same costs when it comes to their own "solutions." Hence the failure of their comparisons due to the unlevel playing field in their argument.

For example?
The table quoted in the OP includes the cost of storing waste nuclear fuel, buiilding 'green' plants but not the environmental cost of mining coal or emitting all the pollutants.
How is that a level basis for comparison?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-05-19 01:19:05)

Whatever, saying coal is best because its cheapest - although massive costs are not included - while green tech is bad because its apparently more expensive - although some costs and benefits are not included - is simply daft.

Its like saying an apple is better than an orange, there is no basis for comparison.

Here's a great example of green technology having environmental impacts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13451528 wrote:

Top leaders say the project has led to environmental problems and issues involving relocating 1.3m people.

The Three Gorges is the world's largest dam and could have cost up to $40bn. This appears to be the first time that central government leaders have admitted to problems with the project.

Note that even Fukushima only caused 80,000 people to be relocated. Which is being labelled as the biggest international disaster though?

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

To compare Apples with apples the pound note costs of each power generation method has been compared in the OP. You did not like the results so want to implement some sort of bias on to the figures which will make your favorite technology appear cheaper and your least favorite tech more expensive.

You have an apples v apples comparison you just don't like the answer.

No really, its like burning down rainforest to plant orange groves compared with just picking apples off the tree and then not including the cost of the lost rainforest in the price of an orange.

Spark wrote:

Like what? Name some. No coal fan obviously but unless you're a complete moron, it simply isn't possible to argue that as it stands right now, it's the cheapest power source. Not the best long-term, god no. But right now it's cheap.

Thats the point... short term cost vs long term cost.

Spark wrote:

I'm aware of that but the whole point of the original table is the cost right now. The costs of associated with digging up the coal, maintaining the power plant etc. etc., as opposed to digging up the palladium, the nickel, the silicon, the silver etc that goes into a PV solar cell. That is rather important, you know, as people do kind of need to pay power bills.

The table is fine. It's comparing the current cost of building/maintaining a certain power source against the electricity generation. That's completely separate from the long term environmental cost which no one but insurance hacks would bother to try and quantify right now.

Insurance hacks, and people with a vested interest in seeing solar overtake other forms of power. I commend you and cheeky, you've done a fantastic job arguing this topic. The fact that Dilbert is trying to whip out environmental costs and carbon taxes in response just shows how terrible the technology really is. If it's not competitive on its own merits, its not worth talking about.

Jay wrote:

If it's not competitive on its own merits, its not worth talking about.

You have a different definition of merits, thats the thing.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Wrong. Check to see how the component elements of anything are taken out of the ground and processed into usable components, Dilbert. It's not with oompa loompas.

Which applies to the constituent components of any generation system, not just those materials required for 'green-tech'.
Some pretty exotic materials go into nuclear stations besides the fuel, is that factored in do you think?

Zirconium, Boron, Uranium or Thorium, maybe Plutonium which is acquired through reprocessing spent fuel. The rest being lots of concrete and steel + some graphite to my knowledge.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Wrong again. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The greenies factor in all costs associated with current tech, but then ignore those same costs when it comes to their own "solutions." Hence the failure of their comparisons due to the unlevel playing field in their argument.

For example?
The table quoted in the OP includes the cost of storing waste nuclear fuel, buiilding 'green' plants but not the environmental cost of mining coal or emitting all the pollutants.
How is that a level basis for comparison?

Well I think everyone knows that coal is generally a bad idea.

And it's not like they just put nuclear fuel in a mine and never look at it again, people are actively trying to solve the waste problem. Making MOX fuel is one way of re-using spent fuel. Transmutation reactors are another option, and, if it's ever going to work, fusion reactors can transmutate some of the waste materials as well.

I don't understand why you argue for solar this much, either. It's by and large the worst power source of all green technologies.

Hydropower seems to be a problem as well, due to the many dams in Turkey the Euphrates and Tigris rivers have almost stopped flowing, leading to massive problems downstream in other countries all throughout the middle east.

That leaves wind, which is terribly inefficient.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-05-19 06:23:09)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

You have a different definition of merits, thats the thing.

You're right. I care about peoples quality of life. You care about some green utopia.

Quality of life is built on the back of power generation. All that free time you have to sit on the computer or read a book is provided to you by electricity. How you say? By performing tasks for you which would take many hours more if done the old fashioned way, with horses. The combustion engine allows a farmer to plow and reap a field in hours instead of weeks. It allows him to pump water long distances to water his crops. It allows people to get to and from work. It allows cheap baubles to travel from China and be sold in our stores for next to nothing. And, it allows doctors to have the instruments they require to make sure that our children are born healthy. The fact that we are able to have free time every day instead of working in the fields from sunup to sundown.

You're thinking of oil, not electricity.

Without electricity we wouldn't have oil. Certainly not in the modern sense.