Wind farm deal to boost CPS Energy’s renewable-energy profile

[kristopher]

CPS Energy has signed a 15-year agreement to purchase power from the new Papalote Creek wind farm, located in San Patricio County east of Corpus Christi.

The wind farm, owned by E.ON Climate & Renewables (EC&R) North America, will provide CPS with 115.5 megawatts of electricity and associated renewable energy credits. The project is still under construction and is expected to come online in the fall of 2009.

“CPS Energy is proud to rank No. 1 in the amount of wind energy capacity among the nation’s municipally owned utilities,” says Milton Lee, CPS Energy general manager and CEO. “Additional wind-generated electricity from Papalote Creek is another indicator of our aggressive efforts to add to our already substantial renewable energy capacity.”...

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/othercities/sanantonio/stories/2008/12/15/daily27.html

[Fledermaus]

1. CPS is great!

I pay a little less than 10 cents per kwh for wind, and I got a $375 rebate on my high efficiency AC and $100 rebate on my energy star washer.

[NNadir]

2. The unit of ENERGY is not the PEAK watt.

It's the kw-hr, or better, the joule.

In general, the anti-nuke scam besides consisting totally of a lack of any sense of scale, consists of stupid sleight of hand fraudulent remarks that obscure reality.

The capacity utilization of the grotesquely failed wind industry in this country is well less than 25%. This would make the wind plant if the wind plant were reliable - which it is not - the equivalent of a 30 MW continuous power plant.

For comparison purposes, the South Texas Nuclear Power plant - which does operate essentially as a continuous power plant, is a 2,560 MWe power plant.

This makes it the largest climate change gas free power plant in the entire state of Texas, although it is slightly smaller than the WA Parrish coal plant, about which you fucking couldn't care less, since by hyping unreliable wind toys, you are completely oblivious to the function of coal plants, which is to provide baseload power.

I would suggest learning some physics and/or math, but I know that the suggestion would fall on deaf ears and blind eyes. There is NOT ONE fundie anti-nuke on this website who has a capacity for either.

[kristopher]

3. Waaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaa

:nopity:

Poor little feller just ain't got clue...

No McCain, no nukes. Obama and the world won.

[Laelth]

4. Hear, hear. They do resemble religious fanatics.

Wind power BLOWS.

I am glad Obama won, and I am glad McCain lost, but kristopher is wrong about the world. If we try to rely on wind and solar power to provide us with energy and stop global warming, the world will lose. It's just not realistic in any way. T. Boone Pickens (and other Republicans) are going to get rich off of it at the public's expense, but wind and solar are doing nothing substantial to curb CO2 emissions or decrease our dependence on fossil fuels.

Their devotion to the religion of wind and solar power is quite sad, especially because it's allowing rich Republicans to get richer at the taxpayers' expense. It's very puzzling to me.

:shrug:

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[kristopher]

5. Another poor lost little feller that ain't quite right in the head...

This report is representative of the shared conclusions of virtually every academic energy expert around the world. You ain't doin' nuttin' but talking trash (and doing a miserable job of it, I might add). If you review the paper it takes everything but cost into account. And the cost figures (with carbon as a factor) also DRAMATICALLY favor solar, wind, wave/current/tidal, and geothermal.
You're wrong.

Courtesy of some argumentative dude in New Zealand, a link to the original paper: http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayHTMLArticleforfree.cfm?JournalCode=EE&Year=2009&ManuscriptID=b809990c&Iss=Advance_Article

And this link from Joshcryer to the slides that follow the paper. Worth the download.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/0810EnergySeminar.pdf.


Review of Solutions to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security 2

Mark Z. Jacobson
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,

Energy Environ. Sci., 2008, doi:10.1039/b809990C
In press, October 30, 2008

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to:
global warming,
air pollution mortality, and
energy security

while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on:
water supply,
land use,
wildlife,
resource availability,
thermal pollution,
water chemical pollution,
nuclear proliferation, and
undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-E85 and cellulosic E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Summary
This paper evaluated nine electric power sources (solar-PV, CSP, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with CCS) and two liquid fuel options (corn E85, cellulosic E85) in combination with three vehicle technologies (BEVs, HFCVs, and E85 vehicles) with respect to their effects on global-warming-relevant emissions, air pollution mortality, and several other factors.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type were considered in all. Among these, the highest-ranked (Tier 1 technologies) were wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. ]

Tier 2 technologies were CSP-BEVs, Geo-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.

Tier 3 technologies were hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.

Tier 4 technologies were corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs performed best in six out of 11 categories, including mortality, climate-relevant emissions, footprint, water consumption, effects on wildlife, thermal pollution, and water chemical pollution. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 5.5-6 orders of magnitude less than that for E85 regardless of its source, 4 orders of magnitude less than those of CSP-BEVs or solar-BEVs, 3 orders of magnitude less than those of nuclear- or coal-BEVs, and 2-2.5 orders of magnitude less than those of geothermal, tidal, or wave BEVs.

The intermittency of wind, solar, and wave power can be reduced in several ways:
(1) interconnecting geographically-disperse intermittent sources through the transmission system,
(2) combining different intermittent sources (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and wave) to smooth out loads, using hydro to provide peaking and load balancing,
(3) using smart meters to provide electric power to electric vehicles at optimal times,
(4) storing wind energy in hydrogen, batteries, pumped hydroelectric power, compressed air, or a thermal storage medium, and
(5) forecasting weather to improve grid planning.

Although HFCVs are less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs still provide a 39
greater benefit than any other vehicle technology aside from wind-BEVs. Wind-HFCVs are also the most reliable combination due to the low downtime of wind turbines, the distributed nature of turbines, and the ability of wind’s energy to be stored in hydrogen over time.

The Tier 2 combinations all provide outstanding benefits with respect to climate
and mortality. Among Tier 2 combinations, CSP-BEVs result in the lowest CO2e
emissions and mortality. Geothermal-BEVs requires the lowest array spacing among all options. Although PV-BEV result in slightly less climate benefit than CSP-BEVs, the resource for PVs is the largest among all technologies considered. Further, much of it can be implemented unobtrusively on rooftops. Underwater tidal powering BEVs is the least likely to be disrupted by terrorism or severe weather.

The Tier 3 technologies are less beneficial than the others. However,
hydroelectricity is an excellent load-balancer and cleaner than coal-CCS or nuclear with respect to CO2e and air pollution. As such, hydroelectricity is recommended ahead of these other Tier-3 power sources.

The Tier-4 technologies (cellulosic- and corn-E85) are not only the lowest in terms of ranking, but may worsen climate and air pollution problems. They also require significant land relative to other technologies Cellulosic-E85 may have a larger land footprint and higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Mainly for this reason, it scored lower overall than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality among all technologies, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-estimate risk of mortality due to the risk of nuclear attacks resulting from the spread of nuclear energy facilities that allows for the production of nuclear weapons. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest consumers are wind-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.

In sum, the use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, solar, wave, and hydroelectric to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs result in the most benefit and least impact among the options considered. Coal-CCS and nuclear provide less benefit with greater negative impacts. The biofuel options provide no certain benefit and result in significant negative impacts. Because sufficient clean natural resources (e.g., wind, sunlight, hot water, ocean energy, gravitational energy) exists to power all energy for the world, the results here suggest that the diversion of attention to the less efficient or non-efficient options would represent an opportunity cost that will delay solutions to climate and air pollution health problems.

The relative ranking of each electricity-BEV option also applies to the electricity source when used to provide electricity for general purposes. The implementation of the recommended electricity options for providing vehicle and building electricity requires organization. Ideally, good locations of energy resources would be sited in advance and developed simultaneously with an interconnected transmission system. This requires cooperation at multiple levels of government.

[madokie]

6. You know Kristopher I just realized the good these guys are doing

Actually they ask and state the right things for you, and there's others here too, who are more versed on these things and more inclined too, to dig a little deeper and post for us that aren't really wired to do all the research ourselves to read, sometimes to study even. The more good honest information we all have the better decisions we all can make as I feel education is the secret to solving all our problems no matter how small they be or how big they are. Thanks for your efforts :hi:

In a lot of ways you are a lot like an encyclopedia, albeit a little short tempered sometimes but considering the tone set by others here that part is very understandable.

I hope you and yours have a great Christmas experience.

Peace

My apologies if this is in any way embarrassing to you, me, I could care less as my purpose here is to better educate myself.


add: a comma

[Laelth]

10. Noble sentiments.

Only because you are truly interested in becoming educated on this subject, I will post the following from this site: http://www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/faqs.html

Excerpted from the link above:

Wind Energy is a Failed Technology – evidence from around the world

* Germany (size of Montana ) is the world's largest user of wind technology. Over the last 20 years, Germany has erected 18,000 wind turbines that have only been able to generate 6% of the country's total electricity supply.

* In Feb. 2005, the German Government's energy agency released a report that concluded that wind plants were an expensive and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy and also had serious environmental effects.

* This same report suggested reduction of greenhouse gases could be more effectively and cheaply reduced by simply installing filters on existing fossil-fuel plants.

* Denmark has 6000 wind turbines; in 2003 that country's greenhouse gas emissions increased 7.3% over 2002 levels.

* Despite being blanketed with wind turbines, Denmark has not been able to shut down one single conventional power plant.

* Development of onshore wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped. The Government has canceled plans for three offshore wind plants for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies for existing sites.

* The California Energy Commission reported that the state's 14,000 turbines produced half of one percent of their electricity in 2002. Extrapolating this record to the U.S. as a whole, it would take over 100,000 wind turbines spread over 10 million acres of land (costing $150-300 billion) to produce 5% of the country's electricity.

* Kansas politician Frank Miller was quoted in a press release stating wind plants in Kansas were only expected to supply 1% of the energy used in the state.

* The Wind Industry is meeting much public resistance in Europe, especially in Germany and Denmark , the inefficiency has become apparent and people are angry at the cost of wasted resources. The industry is searching for a bigger market in the U.S. to replace lost sales in Europe.

Wind Energy – Inefficient and Unreliable

* Because of its inherent technical limitations and the fluctuating nature of its power source, no other type of industrial power generation has such poor performance.

* Wind Developers often dwell on wind turbines' installed capacity ; they provide facts and figures based on what the turbines can produce at 100% capacity.

* Because of the fluctuating nature of wind, the amount of energy produced by wind plants is expressed as an average annual output called capacity factor. Research proves that average annual capacity for wind plants is only 15-30% of their installed capacity.

* Due to the intermittency of wind power, all wind turbine plants must have stand-by generators that are powered by fossil fuels. These backup generators must idle 24 hrs a day (emitting considerable amounts of greenhouse gases for nothing) in order to be ready to generate electricity when the wind turbines aren't functioning – wind energy is not clean.

* In a 2003 study, the California Energy Commission studied 3 wind plants and estimated that they had an average capacity credit of 23.9%. The estimated capacity credit for wind energy in the state will be 5%.

* Evidence available from California, Texas, and Ontario suggests that many wind facilities sited on land will achieve capacity credits averaging only in the single digit range.

* A study in Germany proved that for more than half the days in 2004, the sum of wind plant output to the grid was lower than 11% of its capacity.

* In the U.K. 1,010 wind turbines produced 0.1% of their electricity in 2002.

* It would take over 2000 large wind turbines (with a generous capacity factor of 30%) spread over hundreds of miles to equal the power of one 1600 MW conventional power plant situated on a few acres.

* Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. They don't produce power until wind speed reaches 8 mph; reach rated capacity around 33 mph, and shut down at 55 mph because of possible damage to the blades. Their output is intermittent, volatile, and unpredictable.

* This unpredictability causes “grid instability”. Electricity grids must be kept in balance (supply & demand, voltage, frequency) which is why wind power must have back up generators to ramp up and down to balance the unreliable output from wind turbines.

* Many Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind generated power they buy because of the grid instability they cause.

* For the same reason, in Dec. 2003, Ireland halted all new wind power connections to the national grid and have plans to end state supported subsidies.

* In 2005, Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections and in 2006 Spain ended all subsidies.

* In 2004, Australia reduced the amount of wind power that utilities are required to buy bringing wind projects to an almost stand still.

* Switzerland is also cutting subsidies as too expensive for the lack of significant benefit from wind power.

* It must also be noted that months of peak demand for electricity (summer months) coincide with months of low or no wind.

The Winners & The Losers – huge tax breaks for the Wind Industry while the taxpayers and electric customers pick up the tab.

* On a per kilowatt basis, no other form of industrial energy has recently received higher public subsidy than wind.

* Wind plants are now being built primarily for tax avoidance purposes, not because of their environmental, energy, or economic benefits.

* The tax breaks and subsidies have more value to wind plant owners than the revenue from the sale of the small amount of electricity they produce.

* The big winners are the Wind Industry, the Wind Developer, and a few landowners who lease their land. Electric customers and taxpayers are the big losers.

* Many states have approved Renewable Portfolio standards (RPS) that force utility companies to purchase electricity from wind plants at extremely high prices – this cost is passed on to the consumer.

* Publicly funded tax schemes (production tax credits and double-declining depreciation) reimburse as much as 75% of the wind plant owner's capital cost for each of the $1.65 million wind turbines. You, the taxpayer, are practically paying for the wind plants and will also be paying higher prices for the expensive, small amount of electricity wind turbines produce.

* According to Citizens for Tax Justice, Florida Power and Light Group, (FLP) (largest owner of wind capacity in the U.S. ) paid NO federal income taxes in 2002 and 2003 while reporting net income of more than $2 billion. Those were the years that FLP invested heavily in wind plants. They took more than $1.2 billion in depreciation in those years.

* The Wind Industry has powerful lobbyists in Washington , D.C. placing intense pressure on our politicians. In the not so distant future, if the Wind Industry and Wind Developers are successful, hundreds of thousands of massive turbines will dominate our landscapes while doing virtually nothing to solve the problems of fossil fuel dependency. Subsidies given to industrial wind technology diverts money that could be used in research for other more reliable forms of alternative energy.

* Despite the facts, its unclear if legislators, local government officials, and regulators will temper enthusiasm for wind energy, since so many have accepted the false claims and inaccurate information distributed by the wind industry and advocates. Also, they are well aware of wind industry lobbying power and campaign contributions.

* Wind Developers claim that they increase the local tax base. Research proves those gains are more than offset by the loss of open land, loss of tourism, the decrease in property values, and the taxes and fees consumers must pay to subsidize the industry.

* A survey of property assessors in the UK found that a nearby wind facility lowers property values by up to 15% per year for 2 years.

* In the discussion of property values, it must be remembered that in most places values increase steadily. So any slowing down of that normal rise because of wind power facilities is in fact a loss of value.

* The Wind Industry also claims to create many jobs - a typical wind plant requires one low paid maintenance worker.

Collateral Damage – wind energy is NO FRIEND to the environment

* Ordinary citizens are beginning to realize that wind plants are not environmentally benign. Instead, wind energy has high economic, environmental, ecological, scenic and property value costs.

* Wind plants cause considerable environmental damage to the surrounding countryside. Each wind turbine requires the clear-cutting of at least 4 - 6 acres and another 35 - 75 acres for infrastructure support, i.e. access roads, tensions lines, substations, pool-size irremovable concrete bases, etc.

* Often it is necessary to blast through bedrock, potentially disrupting water flow to existing wells downhill.

* Adverse impacts include erosion, destruction of wildlife habitat, interference with bird migration paths, massive bird kills, destruction of scenic vistas, noise, lowering of property values, distracting blade flicker and aircraft warning lights.

* We must take into consideration the greenhouse gases that are produced by the construction and installation of wind plants: the manufacture of steel, the concrete bases, asphalt for roads, the fuel burned by earth-moving equipment, production of tension lines, pylons, substations, and back-up generators – all for a technology that performs at 15 -30% capacity. It's clear that no real savings will be achieved in greenhouse gas emissions.

* At the Buffalo Mountain wind plant in Tennessee , each turbine foundation is 30 ft deep and contains approx. 3,500 cubic yards of concrete. Concrete production is one of the biggest sources of CO2 emissions.

* It has been estimated that a wind plant must be in production for seven years to offset the carbon emissions created in the manufacture of just the concrete needed for their placement.

* A wind plant stands to be seen from at least 20 miles around, meaning it has the potential of degrading the scenery of 1,256 square miles. Western N.C. economies are dependent on the vacation home business and tourists that are attracted to the area for its scenic views, and natural undisturbed environment.

* Then there is the bird problem. The California Energy Commission reported that in 1989 the wind turbines in Altamont Pass killed 60 golden eagles and 300 redtail hawks, not to mention smaller birds.

* Norway researchers Winkleman and Karlsson counted 49 birds killed by a single turbine during one night of migration.

* The U.S Fish and Wildlife Services estimate that European wind power kills 37 birds per turbine per year. Extrapolating that figure to 50 turbines equals the potential for a small wind plant to kill almost 20,000 birds over a 10 year period.

* At least 2000 bats were killed on Backbone Mountain in West Virginia in just 2 months during their 2003 fall migration.

* A 2002 study in Spain estimated that 11,200 birds of prey, 350,000 bats, and 3,000,000 small birds are killed each year by wind turbines and their power lines.

Enter at Your Own Risk - Noise, Fire, and Health Hazards

* The Wind Industry typically plays down the noise problem but it is widely known that in the leases between land owners and developers there is a “noise easement” to protect the wind company from liability. Any complaints or lawsuits would be against the land owner.

* The noise problem is well documented – in Oct. 2005, Germany hosted the First International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise and discussed perspectives for noise control.

* The European Union published results of a 5 year investigation into wind power and found noise complaints to be valid, and that noise levels could not be predicted before developing a site.

* A Meyersdale, Pa resident, Bob Laravee, who lives 3000 ft. from a wind plant, documented noise levels over a 48 hr. period. The results showed an average reading of 75 decibels. According to the EPA, 45 decibels disturb sleep.

* It is difficult to predict noise levels in mountainous terrain. Only a “swishing” may be heard directly underneath a turbine, but farther away the resulting sound of several turbines together has been described to be as loud as a motorcycle or a jet engine.

* In March 2006, Dr Nina Pierpont testified before the N.Y. State Legislature Committee about “Wind Turbine Syndrome” which affects many people living in the vicinity of wind turbines, This syndrome includes chronic sleep problems, severe headaches, dizziness, concentration problems, inner ear problems, etc. People with a history of car sickness, migraines, and inner ear problems are more susceptible.

* Dr. Pierpont also reported that some people feel disturbing pulsations in their chests and ears even when they can't see or hear the wind turbines. Sensitivity to low frequency vibration is highly variable in people and poorly understood. The strobe effect of turbines can also provoke seizures in people with epilepsy.

* Wind turbines are subject to metal fatigue and the effects of ice and wind, parts and whole blades have torn off because of malfunction, flying as far as 8 kilometers and through the window of a home in one case. Whole towers have collapsed in Germany (as recently as 2002) and the U.S.
(e.g. Oklahoma, May 2005).

* California reports 35 turbine generated fires per year due to short circuiting and lightning. A single turbine may contain up to 200 gallons of oil; the transformer at the base of each turbine may contain another 500 gallons of oil. In rural areas even a spark can easily develop into a large fire before discovery is made and fire fighting can begin.

* There are currently many lawsuits around the world due to wind plant noise, lowered property values, and negative health effects. Communities are angry at being forced to become live-in power plants.

The above was posted so that readers of DU could read an alternative opinion to wind industry propaganda. Again, I invite you all to research the matter for yourselves.

:dem:

-Laelth

[kristopher]

11. Well there it is...

What should people believe?

[kristopher]

12. Thank you. nt

[Systematic Chaos]

19. You are most definitely edumacating yourself.

You might even be edjukating yourself, or ejookating yourself....

But I promise you, you're not educating yourself, unless education is now synonymous with delusion.

[Dead_Parrot]

13. According to that paper...

...Cape Wind went fully operational in 2003.

That's the problem with carefully selecting your data - It results in bullshit.

[kristopher]

14. What are you blabbering about now?

[Dead_Parrot]

15. Depends...

Are you ignorant about the paper you're quoting, or ignorant about Cape Wind?

[kristopher]

16. Neither.

What are you blathering about?

[Dead_Parrot]

17. OK...

...so you know that the main advantage of wind (according to the paper) is it's low "opportunity cost", with large plants completed in 2-5 yrs.

And you know that Cape wind was proposed in 2001 and is not completed. Or even under construction.

I am assuming you are aware it is now the end of 2008 - maybe that's where I'm going wrong?

Yet, you still don't what I'm blathering about.

Do you need help with the big numbers? :shrug:

[kristopher]

18. Like I said the other day

You have a real problem with intellectual integrity. 1) The numbers provided by Jacobson are an average and 2) Cape Wind is an exceptional case because the proposal sought to develop a resource that had no regulatory framework in place to guide the approval process. The efforts of Jim Gordon, president of Cape Wind, are largely responsible for the legislature taking action to charge the Minerals Management Service (under the Interior Dept) with responsibility to establish a fast track permitting process for offshore wind - a process that is presently in the last stages of development.

So yes, blabbering.

Added on edit: That is hardly the "main advantage" of wind. Wind scores high in most categories.

[Dead_Parrot]

21. Actually, I think the reason he didn't include Cape Wind...

...is becasue lifted the figures straight off van de Wekken's article without checking. Lazy, especially compared to the effort he put in for hydro where he was happy to consider a number of individual projects.

However, that does still not excuse massaging the figures:

The range of values he uses for Geothermal is 3-6yr. The range of values he uses for wind is 2-5yr, the average (which you claim he is using) of which is 3.5: Translated into his oppertunity costs, these roll out as:

3.0 years: cost 1 (geo low end)
3.5 years: cost 0 (wind average)
6.0 years: cost 7 (geo high)
8.0 years: cost 31. This is both the quoted low end for hydro, and Cape Wind to date.

It is not dishonest to point out errors in a paper. It's not necessarily dishonest to include errors in a paper, as mistakes can and do happen. But it is dishonest to continue to cite a paper when you know there are serious problems with it: It seems to come naturally to you, and I have to wonder why.

[kristopher]

22. He is neither lazy nor incorrect

Which is much more than I can say about you.

The reason he didn't use Cape Wind is that it is an obvious outlier; in no way can it be considered a "typical" wind project.

In so far as planning, permitting and construction requirements, CSP, solar PV and wind are extremely comparable types of projects, including the time from planning to operation. What would be surprising is if there were a significant divergence in their time lines to completion. I'm happy to talk about "massaging figures" though; you are right, there is no excuse for it. For example, the reason that you want to pull an unrepresentative sample lake Cape Wind into the discussion is what? As I've already pointed out, it certainly isn't relevant to determining the normal time for planning to completion of wind, so why do you want to insert it as if it is meaningful?

The answer to that is simple: Your entire presentation is meaningless and conveys nothing useful; it is nothing but an exercise in line with the old adage "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit".


"the range of values he uses for Geothermal is 3-6yr. The range of values he uses for wind is 2-5yr, the average (which you claim he is using) of which is 3.5: Translated into his oppertunity costs, these roll out as:

3.0 years: cost 1 (geo low end)
3.5 years: cost 0 (wind average)
6.0 years: cost 7 (geo high)
8.0 years: cost 31. This is both the quoted low end for hydro, and Cape Wind to date."

Readers can compare Jaobson's numbers to your attempt to muddle the issue:

Technology .....Lifecycle .......Opportunity cost emissions......total planning-to-operation period .
Solar PV .......19–59...................0...........................2-5 yr
CSP ............8.5–11.3................0...........................2–5 yr
Wind.............2.8–7.4................0...........................2–5 yr
Geothermal.......15.1–55................1–6.........................3–6 yr
Hydroelectric.....17–22................31–49........................8–16 yr

What I really don't understand is your overt dishonesty and your obsession with trying to discredit valid information that you simply don't like. It is getting to the point of being creepy.

[Dead_Parrot]

23. Ahh right

So again, the moment you can't follow some high-school math you resort to "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit"

[kristopher]

24. You didn't present any math, Sean.

You never do. All you did was pull out some non-representative numbers and throw them together as if they make an argument. They don't. If you are trying to show some inconsistency between the planning-completion number and the values he assigned, I suggest you note that there is more involved in the calculations. He also considers longevity of the facilities and down time for replacement or refurbishment over a 100 year time frame.

[Dead_Parrot]

25. Oh, I'm sorry, which bit did you miss?

the average of 2 and 5? That's pretty tricky, I guess. Or maybe it's the "3.5 is bigger than 3"

Shall I get you some beads?

[kristopher]

26. Sean Hannity is one of the world's worst numbnuts

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2008

Initial Assessment of Submissions
RSC Publishing's Journal Editors are committed to publishing very high quality new work which makes a significant contribution within the scope of the journal in question. In order to meet this aim, and to provide the quickest service for authors and avoid the over-burdening of referees, submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the professional RSC Editors to ensure they meet essential criteria for publication in the journal. Only those manuscripts which pass this initial review process will be forwarded to referees for further review.
http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/ReSourCe/AuthorGuidelines/JournalPolicy/initialassessment/index.asp



Energy & Environmental Science is a high-quality international journal for the publication of original research papers, Reviews and Communications in all areas of the chemical sciences relating to energy conversion and storage, alternative fuel technologies and environmental science. The journal is published monthly, and there is no page charge for articles published in Energy & Environmental Science.

The journal recognises the complexity of issues and challenges relating to energy and environmental science and therefore particularly welcomes work of an interdisciplinary nature across both the (bio)chemical sciences and chemical engineering disciplines.

Topics include:

* Solar energy conversion and photovoltaics
* Fuel cells
* Hydrogen storage and (bio) hydrogen production
* Materials for energy systems
* Carbon capture and storage
* Catalysis for a variety of feedstocks (e.g. oil, gas, coal, biomass and synthesis gas)
* Biofuels and biorefineries
* Global atmospheric chemistry
* Climate change
* Artificial photosynthesis
* Life cycle assessment
* Chemicals from carbon dioxide
* Energy systems and networks
* Nuclear power including fusion technologies

Papers must report very high quality new work which makes a significant contribution within the scope of the journal. Fragmentation of a substantial body of work into a number of short publications is strongly discouraged.

Further notes on RSC policy on the initial assessment of submissions, and details of criteria for publication, can be found on ReSourCe.
http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/ReSourCe/AuthorGuidelines/JournalPolicy/EE/sect1.asp

In addition to the peer review process associated with publication in this journal, the acknowledgment for the paper is almost certainly a list of peers who reviewed the paper prior to submission:
Acknowledgment I would like to thank Cristina Archer, Ben Carver, Ralph Cavanagh, Bethany Corcoran, Mike Dvorak, Eena Sta. Maria, Diana Ginnebaugh, Graeme Hoste, Holmes Hummel, Earl Killian, Jon Koomey, Gilbert Masters, Eric Stoutenburg, Ron Swenson, John Ten Hoeve, and Joe Westersund for helpful suggestions and comments. This work was not funded by any interest group, company, or government agency.

But our own Sean Hannity is going to discredit the paper by irrelevantly averaging two numbers taken totally out of context.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. What a dipshit.

[Dead_Parrot]

27. That's one of the things I've noticed about you, Kris

When ever you get hauled up on a point of fact (such as build times for wind, or the ionisation power of lithium, or the available geothermal resources of the US) you never actually argue the facts or the math: You invariably go for the Ad Hominem and Ad Verecundiam.

At least you're consistent.

lol. TTFN...

[kristopher]

28. You don't argue facts

You throw out a few facts and pretend they are an argument. You say nothing of substance, instead relying on creating the impression of doubt where none exists. It isn't a personal attack to point out that you are using the most popular tactic of rightwing cretins like Hannity. It is nothing more than adhering to accuracy to, after repeatedly pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of this tactic, note that someone who uses such an approach to try and discredit a thoroughly peer reviewed paper in a well respected academic journal is a dipshit.

Neither is it a false appeal to authority to point to the peer review process that your irrelevancies (which started with your failure to understand opportunity costs) are attempting to challenge. Sure, articles in journals are there to be challenged. But is what you are doing through the use of Hannity's methods a legitimate challenge? Nope.

:freak:

[Dead_Parrot]

29. Yeah, well...

If you do find any facts that support your beliefs, let me know.

[kristopher]

30. Yeah, well..

Review of Solutions to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security 2

Mark Z. Jacobson
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,

Energy Environ. Sci., 2008, doi:10.1039/b809990C
In press, October 30, 2008

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to:
global warming,
air pollution mortality, and
energy security

while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on:
water supply,
land use,
wildlife,
resource availability,
thermal pollution,
water chemical pollution,
nuclear proliferation, and
undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-E85 and cellulosic E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Summary
This paper evaluated nine electric power sources (solar-PV, CSP, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with CCS) and two liquid fuel options (corn E85, cellulosic E85) in combination with three vehicle technologies (BEVs, HFCVs, and E85 vehicles) with respect to their effects on global-warming-relevant emissions, air pollution mortality, and several other factors.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type were considered in all. Among these, the highest-ranked (Tier 1 technologies) were wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. ]

Tier 2 technologies were CSP-BEVs, Geo-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.

Tier 3 technologies were hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.

Tier 4 technologies were corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs performed best in six out of 11 categories, including mortality, climate-relevant emissions, footprint, water consumption, effects on wildlife, thermal pollution, and water chemical pollution. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 5.5-6 orders of magnitude less than that for E85 regardless of its source, 4 orders of magnitude less than those of CSP-BEVs or solar-BEVs, 3 orders of magnitude less than those of nuclear- or coal-BEVs, and 2-2.5 orders of magnitude less than those of geothermal, tidal, or wave BEVs.

The intermittency of wind, solar, and wave power can be reduced in several ways:
(1) interconnecting geographically-disperse intermittent sources through the transmission system,
(2) combining different intermittent sources (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and wave) to smooth out loads, using hydro to provide peaking and load balancing,
(3) using smart meters to provide electric power to electric vehicles at optimal times,
(4) storing wind energy in hydrogen, batteries, pumped hydroelectric power, compressed air, or a thermal storage medium, and
(5) forecasting weather to improve grid planning.

Although HFCVs are less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs still provide a 39
greater benefit than any other vehicle technology aside from wind-BEVs. Wind-HFCVs are also the most reliable combination due to the low downtime of wind turbines, the distributed nature of turbines, and the ability of wind’s energy to be stored in hydrogen over time.

The Tier 2 combinations all provide outstanding benefits with respect to climate
and mortality. Among Tier 2 combinations, CSP-BEVs result in the lowest CO2e
emissions and mortality. Geothermal-BEVs requires the lowest array spacing among all options. Although PV-BEV result in slightly less climate benefit than CSP-BEVs, the resource for PVs is the largest among all technologies considered. Further, much of it can be implemented unobtrusively on rooftops. Underwater tidal powering BEVs is the least likely to be disrupted by terrorism or severe weather.

The Tier 3 technologies are less beneficial than the others. However,
hydroelectricity is an excellent load-balancer and cleaner than coal-CCS or nuclear with respect to CO2e and air pollution. As such, hydroelectricity is recommended ahead of these other Tier-3 power sources.

The Tier-4 technologies (cellulosic- and corn-E85) are not only the lowest in terms of ranking, but may worsen climate and air pollution problems. They also require significant land relative to other technologies Cellulosic-E85 may have a larger land footprint and higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Mainly for this reason, it scored lower overall than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality among all technologies, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-estimate risk of mortality due to the risk of nuclear attacks resulting from the spread of nuclear energy facilities that allows for the production of nuclear weapons. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest consumers are wind-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.

In sum, the use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, solar, wave, and hydroelectric to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs result in the most benefit and least impact among the options considered. Coal-CCS and nuclear provide less benefit with greater negative impacts. The biofuel options provide no certain benefit and result in significant negative impacts. Because sufficient clean natural resources (e.g., wind, sunlight, hot water, ocean energy, gravitational energy) exists to power all energy for the world, the results here suggest that the diversion of attention to the less efficient or non-efficient options would represent an opportunity cost that will delay solutions to climate and air pollution health problems.

The relative ranking of each electricity-BEV option also applies to the electricity source when used to provide electricity for general purposes. The implementation of the recommended electricity options for providing vehicle and building electricity requires organization. Ideally, good locations of energy resources would be sited in advance and developed simultaneously with an interconnected transmission system. This requires cooperation at multiple levels of government....

DS

[Dead_Parrot]

32. Very good point

I forgot the "Endlessly cut-and-paste complete bollocks on the grounds it might make a point" approach.

Thanks for reminding me. :thumbsup:

[Fledermaus]

31. Where in the paper does it refer to Cape Wind being fully operational in 2003?

I can't find it.

[jpak]

9. Pray tell - and what is your solution??

:popcorn:

[Systematic Chaos]

20. Clearly, at times like these, the only way to cope is with plenty of...

... dipshit emoticon parentheticals!

Sadly, they forgot to send those along with my last shipment of basic logic and common sense. Guess I'll have to leave the dipshit emoticon parenthetical part to you.

[jpak]

8. The make-believe charlatan New Jersey Molten Salt Breeder Reactor is a fraud

Fairy TAALEs can come TRUUE - it can happen it YOUuuu....it's MAAgic...

:rofl:

[jpak]

7. I can say from experience that Corpus probably has the most reliable wind regime in the country

any time of year - and especially in the summer.

It is very rare to have a day with light or no wind.