Page 1 of 14
1
2
3
11
... LastLast
  1. #1

    Environmentalists will need to fix these charts before green energy is worth it.

    If the charts aren't showing for you, click the following link: http://www.businessinsider.com/peopl...nergy-2012-11#

    Here are some charts I found re: Green Energy. They include total startup costs, costs of operation and costs passed to the consumer as well as efficiency (Which is actually reflected in the cost/kWh).

    Without further ado...










    Solar must reach 10 million megawatts of capacity to become cost competitive. The additional solar power panels would cover 2.25 New Jerseys

    There are several others here.

    Suffice it to say that the cheapest green energy is far more expensive than the cheapest fossil fuels.

    The only exception seems to be nuclear power where costs of generation are competitive with fossil fuels (right around NatGas). If you want renewable energy, however... you're kinda fucked. Not only have solar companies been shitting the bed, current efficiencies (Generally 10-12%) don't allow for extremely efficient use of the land they occupy. Wind turbines seem pretty good, but only onshore and not all areas are suitable for wind power.

    If you want clean energy, your best bet is nuclear. Right now solar and other "green" sources can go get fucked with the kinds of prices they're running.
    Last edited by Laize; 2013-01-09 at 02:50 AM.

  2. #2
    Banned This name sucks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    A basement in Canada
    Posts
    2,725
    Your pictures are all dead.

    And they give me a 403

    But nuclear (or hydrogen if we ever solve the whole electrolysis problem) is the future.

  3. #3
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    11,193
    This is a good reason for more research to be done to make green energy more cost efficient.
    “…the whole trouble lies here. In words, words. Each one of us has within him a whole world of things, each man of us his own special world. And how can we ever come to an understanding if I put in the words I utter the sense and value of things as I see them; while you who listen to me must inevitably translate them according to the conception of things each one of you has within himself. We think we understand each other, but we never really do.”
    XKCD is always relevant. Always.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Methanar View Post
    Your pictures are all dead.

    And they give me a 403

    But nuclear (or hydrogen if we ever solve the whole electrolysis problem) is the future.

    Odd... working just fine for me still

  5. #5
    Legendary! Quetzl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Mass, US
    Posts
    6,904
    Yeah with time that'll change. Cost of fossil fuels will go up with scarcity, and cost of green energy will go down with availability (and more research). Well, it'll go down if we invest in it at least.

    Edit: can't see the pics either

  6. #6
    I am Murloc! Tiili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    5,404
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Odd... working just fine for me still
    That's because they're in your cache.
    Close your eyes and smile.
    [15:53] <PizzaSHARK> you have such a cute accent! ^_^

  7. #7
    Merely a Setback Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    25,119
    Costs of solar and wind are plummeting at the moment. With research and more technological advances, it will only continue to fall.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.

    Cycling Logs: 2012, 2013, 2014 (YTD-9.30).

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    This is a good reason for more research to be done to make green energy more cost efficient.
    Well as far as I'm aware, solar photovoltaic is the only one that can be made more efficient. I'm not sure of the others, but I know Denmark and one of the other Scandinavian nations has dumped oodles of cash into offshore wind. The costs to produce that power remain well above the most expensive fossil fuels.



    I'm really not sure what everyone's beef is with nuclear. It's clean, efficient and safe.

  9. #9
    Thorium nuclear energy is the way to go. No risk of meltdown, much less radiation output which requires a much smaller shielding facility, also thorium is (I think) 8-10 times more abundant than uranium, and thorium cannot be used to make nuclear weaponry. Yet no one in the U.S. government is even openly discussing the possibility of it. My thought is that they don't want to talk about it because it's "nuclear".

    Edit: Also cannot see your pictures so, just decided to add my two cents on the subject.

  10. #10
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    11,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post

    I'm really not sure what everyone's beef is with nuclear. It's clean, efficient and safe.
    And incredibly expensive to get up and running, even if its cost afterward is relatively good.
    “…the whole trouble lies here. In words, words. Each one of us has within him a whole world of things, each man of us his own special world. And how can we ever come to an understanding if I put in the words I utter the sense and value of things as I see them; while you who listen to me must inevitably translate them according to the conception of things each one of you has within himself. We think we understand each other, but we never really do.”
    XKCD is always relevant. Always.

  11. #11
    Over 9000! Gheld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,506
    Quote Originally Posted by Methanar View Post
    Your pictures are all dead.

    And they give me a 403

    But nuclear (or hydrogen if we ever solve the whole electrolysis problem) is the future.
    If by electrolysis problem you mean second law of thermodynamics, I'm afraid that's here to stay.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiili View Post
    That's because they're in your cache.
    *CTRL+F5*
    *Command+R*

    Nope. Still working.

  13. #13
    Banned This name sucks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    A basement in Canada
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Well as far as I'm aware, solar photovoltaic is the only one that can be made more efficient. I'm not sure of the others, but I know Denmark and one of the other Scandinavian nations has dumped oodles of cash into offshore wind. The costs to produce that power remain well above the most expensive fossil fuels.



    I'm really not sure what everyone's beef is with nuclear. It's clean, efficient and safe.
    Nuclear propaganda, people shitting their pants for no reason from the Japanese disaster. Like germany france and belgium all cancelled plans to build new nuclear plants because they were afraid of a possible accident. (despite they weren't even going to be built in a fucking earthquake/tsunami zone)

  14. #14
    Are the fossil fuels you are comparing subsidized by the government? Are the green fuels equally subsidized? Do you expect fossil fuel costs to stay stagnant? To increase? To decrease? Do you expect green energy costs to increase? decrease? stay the same?

    In the short term, fossil fuels remain the cheaper alternative. In the medium to long term, even "energy" companies (ie - oil companies) know the smart move is to be diversified and start developing alternatives sooner rather than later. Today's investments will may alternative energy sources cheaper, either relatively or absolutely, in the future.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by geewhiz80 View Post
    Thorium nuclear energy is the way to go. No risk of meltdown, much less radiation output which requires a much smaller shielding facility, also thorium is (I think) 8-10 times more abundant than uranium, and thorium cannot be used to make nuclear weaponry. Yet no one in the U.S. government is even openly discussing the possibility of it. My thought is that they don't want to talk about it because it's "nuclear".

    Edit: Also cannot see your pictures so, just decided to add my two cents on the subject.
    Or because it just recently became a nascent technology in China.

  16. #16
    If people only realized just how much oil was subsidized in the US, they'd be screaming for their hard earned tax dollars to be going somewhere else.

    Fuel is subsidized to make you continue to believe it's cheap. You really should take some time to research where your tax dollars go and how much you're ACTUALLY spending at the pump.

    Other countries are beating us to cheap renewable alternatives and it's already become reality in most of those countries, meanwhile we continue to appease a fuel addiction and treat progress with apathy.
    Quote Originally Posted by supertony51 View Post
    I'm probably the nicest person on this whole damned forum, and you can make a sig from that.
    Quote Originally Posted by TZK203 View Post
    Just have a sig that says "I'm Batman."

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by klimon View Post
    Are the fossil fuels you are comparing subsidized by the government? Are the green fuels equally subsidized? Do you expect fossil fuel costs to stay stagnant? To increase? To decrease? Do you expect green energy costs to increase? decrease? stay the same?

    In the short term, fossil fuels remain the cheaper alternative. In the medium to long term, even "energy" companies (ie - oil companies) know the smart move is to be diversified and start developing alternatives sooner rather than later. Today's investments will may alternative energy sources cheaper, either relatively or absolutely, in the future.
    There is a table depicting total subsidies granted to different energy types compared to how much of that money wound up creating how much new energy capacity.

    Wind was one of the most heavily subsidized fuels on there and still produced about 1/3 of the energy per $ spent than coal or other fossil fuels.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-09 at 02:34 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    And incredibly expensive to get up and running, even if its cost afterward is relatively good.
    Actually if you look at the chart, nuclear is cheaper to get up and running than coal.

    Advanced coal has a Levelized Capital Cost ($/mWh) of $93.

    Advanced Nuclear is $88.8.

    Total system levelized costs (which include fuel) are even lower still.
    Last edited by Laize; 2013-01-09 at 02:37 AM.

  18. #18
    The costs to produce that power remain well above the most expensive fossil fuels.
    After factoring health costs?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  19. #19
    Merely a Setback Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    25,119
    Laize was that the DOE chart by chance?
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.

    Cycling Logs: 2012, 2013, 2014 (YTD-9.30).

  20. #20
    The Lightbringer KingHorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in KY, USA
    Posts
    3,742
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    There is a table
    The table is a lie.

    Seriously, no working charts still. I'd love to contribute something useful, but not at the cost of bothering to look up the info on my own =P
    I don't argue to be right, I argue to be proven wrong. Because I'm aware that the collective intelligence of the community likely has more to offer to me by enlightening me, than I do to an individual by "winning" an argument with them.
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    I don't always wear tennis shoes, but when I do, I speak Russian. In French.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •