Saving lives and money: the potential of solar to replace coal

June 1, 2017 by Allison Mills, Michigan Technological University
By transitioning to solar photovoltaics (PV) in the US, up to 51,999 American lives would be saved at $1.1 million invested per life. Credit: Sarah Bird/Michigan Tech

By swapping solar photovoltaics for coal, the US could prevent 51,999 premature deaths a year, potentially making as much as $2.5 million for each life saved.

In a new study published in Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, a team from Michigan Technological University calculated the cost of combusting coal in terms of human lives along with the potential benefits of switching to solar.

Health Impacts

Tens of thousands of Americans die prematurely each year from -related diseases associated with burning coal. By transitioning to (PV) in the US, up to 51,999 American lives would be saved at $1.1 million invested per life.

"Unlike other public health investments, you get more than lives saved," says Joshua Pearce, a professor of materials science and electrical engineering at Michigan Tech. "In addition to saving lives, solar is producing electricity, which has economic value."

Using a sensitivity analysis on the value of electricity, which examines the different costs of electricity that varies by region throughout the country, saving a life by using also showed potential to make money—sometimes as much as several million dollars per life, says Pearce.

"Everybody wants to avoid wasting money. Just based off the pure value of electricity of the sensitivities we looked at, it's profitable to save American lives by eliminating coal with solar," he explains.

Pearce worked with energy policy doctoral student Emily Prehoda on the study, and their main goal was to better inform health policy. They gathered data from peer-reviewed journals and the Environmental Protection Agency to calculate US deaths per kilowatt hour per year for both coal and solar. Then they used current costs of solar installations from the Department of Energy and calculated the potential return on investment.

Pearce and Prehoda also analyzed the geographic impact of coal-related deaths. "Here, we have solid numbers on how many people die from air pollution and what fraction of that is due to coal-powered plants in each state."

Certain geographic regions are harder hit by coal-related deaths from air pollution, shown by calculating US deaths per kilowatt hour per year. Credit: Emily Prehoda/Michigan Tech

Power of Solar

To fully replace all the in the US with solar PV, it would take 755 gigawatts—a significant increase compared to the 22.7 gigawatts of solar installed in the US currently. The total cost of installing that much solar power totals $1.5 trillion, but that investment is figured into Pearce and Prehoda's calculations, and is a profitable investment.

As Pearce sums it up: "Solar has come down radically in cost, it's technically viable, and coupled with natural gas plants, other renewables and storage, we have ways to produce all the electricity we need without coal, period."

He says resisting the rise of solar energy is akin to if computer manufacturers kept using vacuum tube switches instead of upgrading to semiconductor transistors.

"My overall take away from this study," Pearce says, "is that if we're rational and we care about American lives—or even just money—then it's time to end coal in the US."

Next Steps

The World Health Organization reports that millions die each year from unhealthy environment, air pollution notably the largest contributor to non-communicable diseases like stroke, cancers, chronic respiratory illnesses and heart disease. Future work can expand this study globally.

"There's roughly seven million people who die globally from air pollution every year, so getting rid of coal could take a big chunk out of that number as well," Pearce says, adding that another goal of future research is to dig deeper into the life cycles of production as this study only looked at air pollution related deaths. Doing so will continue to illuminate the multiple positive impacts of solar power and its potential to do more than keep the lights on.

Explore further: Coal to solar: Retraining the energy workforce

More information: Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.119

Related Stories

Plug in for renewable energy

December 5, 2016

A new study shows a huge US market for plug and play solar energy, with billions of dollars in retail sales and energy savings. So what's holding up widespread use?

Recommended for you

Apple closing iPhone security gap used by law enforcement

June 14, 2018

Apple is closing a security gap that allowed outsiders to pry personal information from locked iPhones without a password, a change that will thwart law enforcement agencies that have been exploiting the vulnerability to ...

128 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RichManJoe
3 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2017
51,999? Is that followed by a decimal point and two zeros, or three.
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2017
Solar is not replacing coal; natural gas/fracking is that is replacing coal; solar and wind are unable to replace fossil fuels; on the contrary, intermittent renewables have strong dependence on fossil fuels to mine, manufacture, transport and to keep lights on when sun is not shining or wind is not blowing or during prolonged droughts because cost-effective batteries do not exist and are ever far from becoming reality.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2017
Renewables (which includes solar) certainly are replacing coal. This is one example - https://www.nytim...tml?_r=0 The cost of wind and solar are dropping like a brick - so this is just the first crack in the dike.
Eikka
3 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2017
Renewables (which includes solar) certainly are replacing coal. This is one example - https://www.nytim...tml?_r=0 The cost of wind and solar are dropping like a brick - so this is just the first crack in the dike.


It isn't about just the direct cost, but about the secondary cost to actually make it work.

That 755 GW of solar power is not online all the time because the sun isn't up all the time, and the capacity factor of solar power varies along the north-south axis, and it's only 7- 15%

So you got a HUGE expense in dealing with a power supply that makes close to a terawatt of power for a few hours when the sun is shining, and then nothing, in and out every day. There exists no technology on the market, or in the research labs, to actualy pull it off.

Solar and wind also compete against each other for space on the grid, because if one is producing then the other can't, but you can't control that.
Eikka
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2017
Germany is already at the point where they're starting to have too much solar power, because at peak times the output exceeds the whole grid demand - yet on average they're getting about 4% of the total power demand from solar. Building more doesn't help, because it will simply mean more excess which can't be put anywhere, and goes unused, so the extra panels become more and more just a waste of effort.

That's why it hardly matters how cheap the solar power itself becomes - it's still practically unusable in the large scale.
greenonions1
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2017
Thanks Eikka - we know that renewables are intermittent - you accomplish nothing by saying the same thing over and over. Willie said that solar is not replacing coal. This is a lie - solar is replacing coal. Many countries are on track to replace their coal plants - and one of the technologies in the new mix is solar. The big question - is at what point will you anti progress folks be ready to give up pushing your false information. Will we be at 99% renewables - and you still keep howling. The point is that every Kwh of power generated by renewables, is a step in the right direction. Showing you that China is cancelling such a large number of coal plants - is just one example of the transition that is under way.
Eikka
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2017
you accomplish nothing by saying the same thing over and over.


Apparently so, because the message isn't getting through: solar is not replacing coal because it physically can't.

There exists no technology for any of the renewables to ultimately displace coal or fossil fuels in general from the market, and arguing over some percentage points that solar or wind power can displace is just meaningless feelgood propaganda.

Willie said that solar is not replacing coal. This is a lie - solar is replacing coal.


As I have pointed out many times now, the renewables are largely not what's replacing coal. 90% of what's replacing coal is transition to gas and reduction in energy consumption. The renewables are barely making a mark.

China too made a $400 billion deal for natural gas with Russia:
https://www.nytim...eal.html

greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2017
Eikka - Germany is currently getting closer to 7% of their electricity from solar. https://en.wikipe..._Germany Their goal is 80% renewables by 2050. The larger point is that they are on a journey - and the end point will be cleaner/cheaper/home sourced power.
Eikka
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2017
Eikka - Germany is currently getting closer to 7% of their electricity from solar.


Makes little difference. It's still neglible, and the problems over peak oversupply are getting more and more.

The larger point is that they are on a journey


Into a brick wall.

you anti progress folks


Not anti-progress - anti-bullshit.
Eikka
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2017
Besides, greenonions, you don't seem to even read the articles you're referring to. The wikipedia article contains a few gems like:

Germany has about the same solar potential as Alaska, which has an average of 3.08 sun hours/day in Fairbanks.


And the chart:
https://en.wikipe...dded.png

Which shows that the investment in solar panels is going down exponentially since 2012 when the subsidies began to drop, and new investment is petering to a halt because of it.

So how does that fit the argument? Solar power is displacing coal, but oh, people haven't been buying solar panels for years now. The transition is going in the -opposite- direction than what you believe. Governments are dropping costly subsidies because they can't afford it anymore, and as a result investments in renewables is closing down because they're not cost-competitive without such crony capitalism.
Eikka
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2017
Here's an example of the kind of troubles that Germany is making with their renewables when they're' pushing the excess onto others:

http://www.reuter...20140212

Weather-driven surges of German solar and wind power may lead to higher costs for Austria as its grid is forced to take measures to avoid breaking down, a Austrian energy regulator said, calling for a region-wide solution to excess flows.

Martin Graf, who shares leadership of the Vienna-based E-Control authority with Walter Boltz, said Austria already must deal with a constant unwanted supply of 2,000 megawatts of power from northern Germany that flows into its grid via Poland and the Czech Republic

Loop flows, which are most acute in the windy autumn and early winter, can knock out transmission systems and cause blackouts.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2017


The big question - is at what point will you anti progress folks be ready to give up pushing your false information.

They have been asked time and again for a threshold or some other criterion. You never get an answer. Pretty much tells you all you need to know about their mental state (or whether arguing makes any sense).
People who cling to dogma will just die off of their own accord eventually.

As the article notes:
if we're rational

...there seems to be the main problem.
UKCatFan
5 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2017
While I agree that the logistics is a huge problem yet to be resolved, there is yet another financial problem that is almost always ignored. In the USA, it is the FERC regulations on the cost recovery of the assets. The regulations say that any regulated utility (investor owned, coops, municipals) get to recover 100% of the historical costs for any assets approved to be built regardless of if they are still being used. So, all those remaining net book values of the coal assets will still be recovered as part of the customer's electric rates even if they are shut down early and replaced with renewables. Then customers are also paying for those new assets. Many of the fossil assets in this nation still have remaining book lives for 40 more years from now. This is a many billion dollar problem! The scientists either do not understand it or are ignoring it.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2017
Eikka
greenonions, you don't seem to even read the articles you're referring
I do read the articles Eikka - and a shit load more - every day. I think I have a fairly good - lay persons understanding of the energy situation. Here is my synopsis.
Many of us are very concerned about climate change - and the possible disruption we could face if our world keeps warming. Many of those folks are in positions that give them great credibility - such as Elon Musk, Richard Branson, Rex Tillerson etc. - https://hbr.org/2...e-accord I am also concerned about the pollution caused by our mining of fossil fuels - and could show you pictures of oil spills, the tar sands, the Niger Delta etc. etc. I am further concerned about the stupid society I live in and could talk at length about Syria, Yemen, Gun violence, prison populations, poverty, the wealth gap etc. etc. cont.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2017
cont. So my refuge in the face of all this shit that I get to look at every day - is the hope that as technology and science advance - we will develop the resources to break out of the cycle of violence, pollution, war, crime, poverty etc. I and many others see renewable energy as the best fit for killing several birds with one stone. So the world has clearly begun a process of transitioning to a low carbon energy world. This has many benefits for the human race. Yes - there are challenges - such as how to integrate intermittent energy sources onto a grid that is built for dispatchables. We know about that Eikka - and the engineers say we can do it. It may take 100 years - but the journey has begun. France has just announce 17 gigawatts of near term renewables, and 70 gigawatts of long term. Given all of that information - perhaps you can understand why many of us are angry at the anti science crowd - who seem to be willing to do anything to kill progress.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2017
Many of us are very concerned about climate change...
Low-carbon renewable energy is a lie, it takes several years to pay back the energy consumed from fossil fuels employed to mine, manufacture and to transport the wind/solar/battery components, aside fossil fuel needed to compensate intermittencies.
If faux-greens were really very concerned about Climate Change, they would not be fighting vigorously to shut down reliable sources of carbon-free nuclear energy to give place to bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers backed up by fossil fuels.
Faux-greens don't care if "71% of climate experts agree that nuclear power essential to climate stabilization."
https://pbs.twimg...JF_V.jpg
Climate Change has become just another ideological flag to lure the taxpayer to waste their hard-earned money on 100% renewable placebos pipe dreams.
Dingbone
Jun 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jun 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jun 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jun 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2017
@eikka There exists no technology on the market, or in the research labs, to actualy pull it off.
Actually a new technology was invented specifically to utilize these terrawatts

They describe the phenomenon as "rush hour"
kochevnik
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2017
It's because the renewable energy needs copper, steel, aluminum and concrete, which simply have no cheaper replacement.
Wrong. Dark matter reactors only need a modicum of silver and other materials and operate standalone for 10 years
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2017
Wille
Low-carbon renewable energy is a lie
Which is why countries all across the world are shuttering coal plants - and building out alternatives - which includes renewable energy. Wow - that lie was pretty easy to rebut.
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2017
WillieWard:
Low-carbon


Low carbon tech takes typically 3 years for its generation to equal its "embodied energy": the energy consumed to make and deploy it. Then that tech generates for another 15-25 years. So 6-9x as much energy out as energy in.

You are the liar. For example, if you cared about killing birds you'd spend your time trolling cat lover discussions because, while wind turbines kill maybe up to 330,000 birds a year, cats kill about 3 BILLION birds a year. You are the liar.
greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2017
Dingbone
It's because the renewable energy needs copper, steel, aluminum and concrete,
And of course - nukes/gas/coal/oil etc. don't need copper, steel, aluminum, or concrete - they are built from magic mushrooms. Fact is that all energy sources have an environmental cost. The big question is - which has the least environmental cost - when you look at the cradle to grave picture. Maybe you want to live in Beijing - I will take renewables any day. Bigger point is that it does not matter what you or I think - the transition is well under way.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2017
Low-carbon renewable energy is a lie
Which is why countries all across the world are shuttering coal plants - and building out alternatives - which includes renewable energy. Wow - that lie was pretty easy to rebut.
Renewable is always a lie. Most of coal plants are being replaced mostly by natural gas/fracking to keep lights on when wind is not blowing or sun is not shining or during prolonged droughts. Germany has shut down some of their old coal plants just to replace them by new ones to compensate intermittencies of renewables.
http://www.power-...r-plant/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2017
wind turbines kill maybe up to 330,000 birds a year, cats kill about 3 BILLION birds a year
"a greater harm does not excuse a lesser harm"
"4 Reasons Why it's a Bad Argument to Say Cats Kill More Birds Than Wind Turbines"
https://www.kcet....turbines
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2017
Nope. I already showed you at least one facility contracted to produce PV plus storage at 4.5 cents! That is one-third the cost of power from the threatened Vogtle plants we guaranteed.

You already lost, Willie.
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2017
Fact is that all energy sources have an environmental cost.
Renewables are the costliest per gigawatt-installed and carbon-free nuclear power one of the cheapest.
https://pbs.twimg..._SzY.jpg
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2017
Renewable is always a lie.
Yeah Willie - we know. And wind turbines kill whales, and the Daily Mail is your source for science. You have no concept of the long game Willie. We have never been at a moment when wind and solar are as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels. So the future is not the same as the past. This is an interesting projection. https://www.bloom...-in-2031 Written by people who actually study the topic - rather than getting their science from the Daily Mail.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2017
Nope. I already showed you at least one facility contracted to produce PV plus storage at 4.5 cents!
"$2 trillion invested globally into renewables and the energy contribution is almost nothing."
https://pbs.twimg...obp4.jpg
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2017
Well, gosh, my own alternative energy investment is paying off handsomely at 22% ROI.

How about yours?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2017
wind and solar are as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels
sunshine and breeze are for free and even so these medieval technologies were replaced by fossil fuels and nowadays are not replacing fossil fuels nowhere, not in Germany, not in California, nowhere, even after trillions of dollars spent.
https://uploads.d...bf7f.jpg
https://i0.wp.com...wind.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...fLGs.jpg
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2017
and nowadays are not replacing fossil fuels nowhere
You're just wrong -and a liar.
In 2015 renewables surpassed coal to become the largest source of global electricity capacity
from - https://electrek....apacity/
source article - https://www.iea.o...ear.html
Dingbone
Jun 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2017
You're just wrong -and a liar.
True liars love to call other liars.
Even backed up by fossil fuels and trillions dollars spent, wind and solar are almost irrelevant. Most of renewable energy is from hydro and biomass, and biomass is worse than coal in terms of CO2 emissions and also cannibalizes food production, and hydro dams cause huge ecological impacts and emits methane worse than CO2.
http://www.ogj.co...ergy.png
http://www.burnsm...Type.png
http://www.burnsm...nsights/
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2017
"True liars love to call other liars"
----------------------
This is about energy, not Trump.

Tell us about the four Summer and Vogtle plant expansions, Willie.

It can divert attention from Fukushima.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2017
Dingbone - https://www.iea.o...ear.html
I already linked the source document - but happy to give it again. The Telegraph picked up the story - this is a neat article http://www.telegr...solar-p/ Yes - I read the article - and I know that coal still produces more electricity - due to difference in power factor. The point is that the balance is shifting - and renewables are replacing coal. It is just a lie - just counterfactual to state otherwise.
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2017
True liars love to call other liars.
You said that wind turbines kill whales. That is not true. That makes you a liar. You sourced that rubbish from the Daily Mail. That makes you ignorant. Please show where I have lied. Demonstrating that Trump is a liar - is like taking candy from a baby. Just use google.
MR166
3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2017
Onions your poster child, Germany, is constructing many gigawatts of new coal plants to replace nuclear and backup renewables. They would not be doing this if renewables were a viable alternative.

http://institutef...rn-coal/
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2017
Also, one of the reasons Germany and Europe are able to utilize renewables is the fact that the Scandinavian countries export hydroelectric power to fill the gaps. This is not without cost. The impellers in these plants are breaking because of the constant cycling caused by the intermittent loads.
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2017
As I have said many times before, until there is a cost effective way to store renewable energy in some form it will always be a minor source of power.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2017
As I revealed before, PV + Storage had already been contracted out at 4.5 cents/kWh, for 24-hour continuous power.

I suggest 166 get into the 21st Century.
MR166
3 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2017
I suppose that there is some sort of lower limit where one can guarantee that a certain amount of renewables will be available on a 100% predictable basis. The power in excess of that needs to be turned into something useful like fuel. The plant that does this needs to be able to scale production to fit the supply of non-committed energy. As an example a solar to fuel process would be very useful.
EmceeSquared
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2017
MR166:
I suppose


That's what is meant by "energy storage". There are lots of different methods, starting with batteries that are relatively simple but waste by charge/discharge cycles or just discharge while sitting, or wear out, or just don't have enough capacity for economical physical sizes. Cracking H2O or CO2 is also inefficient and hard to scale, with some leakage, while even if some energy is consumed after cracking to stabilize in larger molecules (eg. ethanol) there's similar problems.

Another option is to retool industrial consumption to be ready to quickly increase in response to quickly increasing supply, like making extra stuff when there's more (so cheaper) energy available. Realtime pricing and process automation helps here.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2017
MR166
Onions your poster child, Germany, is constructing many gigawatts of new coal plants to replace nuclear and backup
No they are not - you are like Willie - hell bent on finding any information you can to support your anti progress agenda. But you are wrong. Show me the power plants that are currently under construction - as your statement asserts. Read this article - and you will understand that Germany is playing the long game. https://energytra...l-plant/ I would not have shut down nukes if I were King - but that was their choice - and a very high percentage of Germans (it is in the 80 - 90 percent range) still strongly support the Energiewende. Unlike you - they are interested in facts - and progress.
Dingbone
Jun 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2017
There are lots of different methods, starting with batteries that are relatively simple...
"Our Energy Problem: Putting the Battery in Context"
http://www.visual...context/
"the current cost of battery technology is 27 times higher than what's needed for battery storage to be economically viable."
http://www.powerf...storage/
"Study: Batteries For Wind And Solar Do 'More Harm Than Good' For Environment"
http://climatecha...ronment/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2017
As I revealed before, PV + Storage had already been contracted out at 4.5 cents/kWh, for 24-hour continuous power.
If it were possible to convert the faux-greens' lies into electricity, it would power the entire world uninterruptedly 24/7/365
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2017
Solar and wind are replacing coal nowhere, they are almost irrelevant even after trillions of dollars spent. Coal and other fossil fuels are backup for intermittent renewables.
"Global primary energy consumption, 1800-2015" - "pass your mouse over"
https://ourworldi...800-2015
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2017
Fukushima.

Clean it up before you talk, Willie.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2017
" It's a hoax, it's a religion of people who cannot calculate,"
-----------------------------------'
Having been in the utility business, I think I understand how the system works.

My PV system pays back at a 22% rate as it provides both house and horsepower. We have had it for 16 months. How long before the power is free for me, for both house and automobile?

greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2017
If it were possible to convert the faux-greens' lies into electricity, it would power the entire world uninterruptedly 24/7/365
And it will - unless some better tech comes along in the mean time. It may take us 100 years to totally get there - but fossil fuels have been around for many hundreds of years.
MR166
3 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2017
"As I revealed before, PV + Storage had already been contracted out at 4.5 cents/kWh, for 24-hour continuous power.

I suggest 166 get into the 21st Century."

Gkam how many gigawatt hours are these storage facilities supplying at the current time?

When you can give me a figure that actually makes a difference I will stop commenting about storage.
Dingbone
Jun 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EmceeSquared
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2017
WillieWard:
"a greater harm does not excuse a lesser harm"


It's not that the greater harm excuses the lesser harm. It's that the lesser harm is negligible. Cats kill 10 thousand times as many birds, and we're not prioritizing that. Partly because minimizing the Greenhouse catastrophes is extremely important.

But more importantly in this discussion, in which the wind industry doesn't have to read your posts but we do, you obviously don't actually care about birds. Because if you did you'd care about the nearly 10 thousand times as many birds killed by cats. You'd troll cat blogs, but you don't. Which demonstrates that you're just a troll, using a negligible bird problem to troll.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2017
It would still pay off handsomely if there were no subsidies. But ALL power sources get subsidies.

Have you googled "fuel subsidies" yet?
EmceeSquared
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2017
WillieWard: [qRenewables are

Renewables don't bear anywhere the externalized costs of carbon pollution: Greenhouse catastrophes; geopolitical catastrophes and global security to manage them; health catastrophes from the entire fuel lifecycle, etc.

Nukes meanwhile are so costly they can't even get insurance, so the public pays for it. In NYC where they're finally shutting down the leaky reactor past its license span, they're already admitting it will take up to 60 years cleaning the site (on the Hudson River, a couple dozen miles upstream from Manhattan) before anything else can be done with the site. That's over 25% longer than the plant was generating for, and just the first admission that it's a disaster area. We're talking about something like 100 thousand NYC suburban homes with property values severely harmed for over a century. That's extremely costly, in just one narrow cost area.
EmceeSquared
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2017
WillieWard:
True liars love to call other liars.


Maybe true liars love to call others liars - you're the liar, so you should know, not me. But since you're a liar, I'm not bothering to think about your empty platitudes. Not when I've just proved you a liar with your own words, as people do in these discussions regularly.

You're a liar. Why do you bother? Do you get paid by the word? Or are you pathological enough to post only to see your lies in print? Because you're not convincing anyone of anything. Because you're a liar.
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2017
They are closing Indian Point Nuclear which is located about 50 miles north of NYC. BUT, (big but ) they have no idea how to replace all of those missing KWHs. Everybody in the surrounding area will be victims of a feel good government.

Gkam if they can really sell stored electricity for 4.5c/KWH AND MAKE AN UN-SUBSIDIZED PROFIT you and I will dance the happy dance together. It would make a fantastic investment opportunity!!!!!
EmceeSquared
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2017
MR166:
They are


You don't know anything about Indian Point.

It's in Buchanan, NY which is only 26 miles of river North of the Bronx boundary of NYC, and another 2 miles along the Hudson to Manhattan. Not 50 miles. The max 2GW are already replaced by 500 MW reduced consumption, and 1.5GW additional grid connected supply mostly from Canadian hydropower but also Northeastern wind and some upstate natgas.

The 50 million people that Indian Point would nuke (not to mention the deaths and havoc in the impossible "evacuation" emergency) in the surrounding area will be spared the experience.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2017
...minimizing the Greenhouse catastrophes is extremely important.
Bird-choppers backed up by fossil fuels are not reducing greenhouse emissions even after billions and billions spent, not in Germany, not in California, and nowhere. Carbon-free nuclear power is the only proven way.
"Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources... I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy... We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources." - James Lovelock(environmentalist)
https://pbs.twimg...49zc.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...b7SI.jpg
gkam
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2017
Give it up, Willie.

Baghdad Bob had more credibility.
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2017
"Germany has shown that the more renewable you put does not relate to reduction of CO2 emission in fact it has the opposite effect which is as also shown in California."
"...German electricity is consider among the dirtiest in Europe not only that but to make thing much worse in the past 5 years after the implementation of Energiewende, German electricity tariff has double making it the most expensive in Europe and is not affordable to some German."
"Basically, what McKinsey is saying that Energiewende is a 500 Billion Euro disaster."
"In fact, Nuclear produces more than 60% of zero carbon electricity in the world."
"So in the end, if the discussion on climate change does not include Nuclear on the table then the Billion Dollar Question is: are they seriously want to fight climate change or just being anti-nuclear ?"
https://medium.co...f53d5e1e
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2017
" It's a hoax, it's a religion of people who cannot calculate,"
-----------------------------------'
Having been in the utility business, I think I understand how the system works
Yeah if I remember correctly that was that sanitation 'engineer' position you got fired from right?

You could pump it and shovel it but you just couldnt flush it.

Thats the problem with self-educating.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2017
Uh oh george is hovering again. You hovering again george? Still waiting for someone to say 'wow what an amazing mensch you are!'

Youve been waiting -what- 3 years for that already?

Anything yet?
greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2017
Willie -
are they seriously want to fight climate change or just being anti-nuclear ?"
Perhaps the goalS - are to reduce pollution/reduce green house gas emissions/and transition the world to cheap/distributed/renewable energy. We have of course begun that journey - and still have a loooong way to go. Your pro nuclear blog was total rubbish. Yes Germany shut down their nukes, and had to fall back on coal - for the short term. We know that - just repeating information - makes you a troll. C02 emissions in California are falling - despite shutting down a nuclear power plant/losing a lot of hydro due to the drought/and expanding their economy.
California's 2015 greenhouse gas reporting data earlier this month showed another year of carbon pollution decline
Keep lying Willie....http://blogs.edf....falling/
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2017
C02 emissions in California are falling
Most of carbon reductions is mainly due to replacement of coal by natural gas/fracking.
https://energyind...-CO2.jpg
https://energyind...tion.jpg
"Natural gas critical to reducing California greenhouse gas emissions"
http://theamerica...-07mar15
"The plants that we're building, the wind plants and the solar plants, are gas plants." – Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Environmental activist
https://www.youtu...1gmPL50s
Keep lying
Faux-greens are experts in this matter.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2017
Most of carbon reductions is mainly due to replacement of coal by natural gas/fracking.
Perhaps true - but you notice you use the word 'most.' Which means that 'some' were due to other factors - such as renewable energy. So you are a liar. Also - your blog - stated that emissions in California were not going down. That is easily proven false - and I provided a link to that effect. The cost of wind and solar continue to fall - so it is a very good prediction that as we move forward - more and more emissions reductions will be due to renewables - which is why renewables are the number 1 new generation - https://www.eia.g...id=25492
EmceeSquared
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2017
greenonions1:
Perhaps true


WillieWard is nothing but a nukes fetishist troll. They will say anything (starting with "electricity too cheap to measure", through "it's perfectly safe") to wank on their fantasy of magic power with no gotchas. Lying comes easy after 3/4 of a century being wrong.
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2017
renewables are the number 1 new generation
"generation capacity" = "installed capacity" ≠ "energy produced"
https://en.wikipe...capacity
https://www.eia.g...&t=3
To fool the poor taxpayers with fantasy of "cheap magic power", faux-greens love to mix up gigawatt-installed with gigawatt-produced, intermittent/unreliable energy with reliable energy. Misinformed public are not aware that in the end what matters is the "capacity factor", and that more than 70% of the energy is provided by natural gas/fracking which makes the fossil fuel barons happier and wealthier.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2017
o fool the poor taxpayers...faux-greens love to mix up gigawatt-installed with gigawatt-produced
I understand the units very well. When we talk about the cost of a Kwh of power from Hinkley Point (18 cents) vs. the cost of a Kwh from wind or solar (currently around 3 cents) we are comparing apples to apples. Assuming the general public is as misinformed as you about these topics is sadly probably a fair assumption. After all - you think the Daily Mail and Brietbart are science sources. You also believe that wind turbines kill whales. In the words of our great president - 'sad.'
EmceeSquared
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2017
WillieWard:
"installed capacity" ≠ "energy produced"


Nameplate capacity is used to describe all generating plants, whether solar, gas, or nukes. People actually thinking about the energy generated apply the capacity factor.

WillieWard is a nuke fetishist troll, so they attack solar and wind with strawmen of their own creation like "cheap magic power" that only they say it is. They're not interested in anyone actually thinking, they must protect their fetish no matter what lies they spew.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2017
My panels work so well providing both house and horsepower, I may call up the solar company and suggest they rename themselves "Unicorn Energy"!

Thanks, Willie!
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2017
Renewables (which includes solar) certainly are replacing coal.
It's a blatant lie.
The potential of solar/wind to replace coal is almost ZERO.
"2 trillion bucks invested in the last 2 decades in renewables and you can barely spot them. What a complete waste of resources. Imagine that magnitude of investment in nuclear power, probably the recent bump in coal would have not been there, but rather replaced with a similar huge bump in nuclear."
https://uploads.d...eac3.jpg

Carbon-free nuclear power is worth the price as the only proven way to curb CO2 emissions.

WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2017
My panels work so well providing both house and horsepower
You could call your energy company and ask them to disconnect your house from the grid, so you can go 100% off-the-grid with your "Unicorn Energy".
If wind and solar are so great, why aren't they used to recharge batteries of electric cars?
https://pbs.twimg...sio1.jpg
https://uploads.d...f818.jpg
http://jonova.s3....-web.jpg
https://uploads.d...0954.jpg
EmceeSquared
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2017
WillieWard:
It's a blatant lie


More blatant lies from a nukes fetishist troll. Nuke electricity costs more than double the CO2e pollution of PV or any other sustainable energy source (except geothermal which is just a little more than half of nukes):
https://en.wikipe...r_power.

I suppose the 60 years of Entergy cleaning up its Indian Point nuke plant just outside of NYC, or managing all the nuke waste for millennia, won't emit any Greenhouse pollution.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2017
Ask Willie how many Btu to clean up Fukushima?
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2017
The potential of solar/wind to replace coal is almost ZERO.
Keep it up Willie - everyone can see you are just a troll. Wind and solar most certainly do have the potential to replace coal. Just one example of many for you - http://renewecono...r-52554/
Did I mention the fact that you think that wind turbines kill whales?
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2017
In practice, what matters is that nuclear power really curbs CO2 emissions, while intermittent renewables have failed miserably even after trillions of dollars spent.
"If you think renewables will stop coal mining you are seriously delusional...in fact expanding RE will VASTLY increase coal mining"
https://pbs.twimg...dTkz.jpg
Numbers don't lie.
https://uploads.d...bfe4.jpg
https://actinidea...info.png
https://pbs.twimg...Uh8B.jpg
http://www.tandfo..._oc.jpeg
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2017
In practice, what matters is that nuclear power really curbs CO2 emissions, while intermittent renewables have failed miserably even after trillions of dollars spent.

In practice, what matters is multi layered. I have a dear friend dying of cancer - in practice, what matters to us - is that the medical profession may be able to pull some magic juju - and invent a cure in the next year. But what matters to us - does not change reality. Wind and solar do curb C02 emissions, as does nuclear. Saying different over and over and over - just makes you a troll - who does not know the facts. Personally I would not have shut down German nukes. But that was their choice - and they are good with it. The problems are multi layered. Safety, and cost, and waste disposal, and decommissioning plants, and centralized vs distributed - are all factors in the mix. The transition has started - and you ar just howling at the moon - Mr. troll.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2017
Willie - very interesting that you post a link to Sweden - showing that they have accomplished economic growth, at the same time as reducing C02. Your link - http://www.tandfo..._oc.jpeg From my link -
More than half of Sweden's national energy supply comes from renewables
https://sweden.se...-change/ You should read that web site - it talks a lot about innovation, and renewables etc.
WillieWard
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2017
The transition has started...
...and has failed.
Sweden
Hydro has geographical limitations and ecological disruption and emits methane, and biomass is worse than coal in terms of CO2 emissions.
"100% renewables" have nothing to do with greenhouse gas reduction. Nuclear power is the only realistic way to stop climate change.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2017
Nuclear power is the only realistic way to stop climate change.
No it is not. See - I can make declarative statements - without any support too. Of course - one could present plenty of support - for the reality that the world can be run on renewables - and it is a pretty good projection that some day it will be. https://www.ecowa...049.html
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2017
"100% renewables" have nothing to do with greenhouse gas reduction.
"Instead of the '100% renewables' mantra, we should instead be chanting '0% carbon'."
https://conservat...-carbon/
"If you're a millennial, and you care about the environment of where you live locally and of the world, then you need to be for nuclear energy," Perry said. "Zero emissions."
https://pbs.twimg...fTaP.jpg
http://www.dailym...ate.html
https://japantoda...ironment
"A zero emission power source that produces whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining or not." "zero-emission" should be the target.
gkam
2 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2017
Here you go, Willie:
https://www.thegu...al-boost

"Renewable energy capacity around the world was boosted by a record amount in 2016 and delivered at a markedly lower cost, according to new global data – although the total financial investment in renewables actually fell.

The greater "bang-for-buck" resulted from plummeting prices for solar and wind power and led to new power deals in countries including Denmark, Egypt, India, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates all being priced well below fossil fuel or nuclear options."

Nukes are SO 20th Century.
EmceeSquared
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2017
WillieWard:
"Instead


The nukes fetishist troll continues to lie about nukes having zero emissions, along with everything else. That's how trolls roll.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2017
Willie
A zero emission power source
So building a nuke - with all that concrete - and mining all that uranium - and then figuring out what to do with the waste - is 0 emissions????
Perhaps a cheap/abundant/low carbon/distributed energy system should be the goal instead.
MR166
5 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2017
"The greater "bang-for-buck" resulted from plummeting prices for solar and wind power and led to new power deals in countries including Denmark, Egypt, India, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates all being priced well below fossil fuel or nuclear options.""

It seems to me that a desalinization plant would be be an ideal use for intermittent power. I am assuming that these plants can be powered up and down at will. Also it could power small well pumps in remote villages.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2017
I like it.
It might depend on the technology.
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2017
"Renewable energy capacity around the world was boosted by a record amount in 2016...
"installed capacity" ≠ "energy produced"
What matters is the CO2 avoided per trillion-dollar invested, and this requisite, intermittent renewables are a huge waste of money.

Solar cells are SO 19th Century, and Windmills are SO Dark Ages.
- First solar cell 1877;
- First windmill generator 1887
https://pbs.twimg...bIaW.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...A4Q1.jpg
MR166
3 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2017
Good point Willie. A kw of hydro installed capacity could produce all of that with enough water whereas a kw of solar could produce about 1/3rd of that.
MR166
3 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2017
Thus Gkam's last link is very misleading unless you are aware of the fine points. But, isn't that always the way when liberal media is reporting about renewables. The devil is always in the details.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2017
In the fight against Climate Change, there is only a champion that can be scaled up quickly: low-carbon nuclear energy.
"Solar and wind cannot entirely replace fossil fuels, making nuclear power an essential part of the fight against climate change"
"Vermont and California and were replaced almost entirely with natural gas, which increased emissions."
"renewables received 114 times more than nuclear per unit electricity in 2016, and similarly high amounts since 2005."
"solar and wind only provide 10 to 30 percent of their rated power during the year, depending on location, nuclear reliably provides electricity day and night, rain or shine, for over 90 percent of the year."
"Paris, Nukes Are More Crucial Than Ever" - June 6, 2017
https://blogs.sci...an-ever/
"How quickly has nuclear power scaled up?"
https://pbs.twimg...Uh8B.jpg
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2017
Hey, 166, which link is misleading? Give us your "fine points".

So far, you have been wrong.
MR166
5 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2017
Here you go GK

https://www.thegu...al-boost

Comparing the installed capacity of solar and wind to that of hydro is unfair since hydro can be 24/7.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2017
Well, gosh, how about solar plus storage at 4.5 cents? That's 24/7.
AGreatWhopper
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2017
Bottom line is, as long as the "debate" looks as sad as this, nothing positive will come of it. It will all end in tears.

What is wrong with respecting your opponent in the interest of the greater good? Yeah, that's really this issue, is it? More ego identity wars.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2017
MR166
Thus Gkam's last link is very misleading
How so MR? Nowhere in that article did they compare the installed capacity of renewables - with other fuel types. The information in that article - is accurate, and not at all misleading. Wind and solar are becoming the cheapest option - and thus installed capacity is going up - which is good for the pocket book, and good for the environment. I know you conservatives love big government - and want to see Hinkley Point - at 18 cents a Kwh - imposed over and over around the world. You all love free markets, until you dont!!!!
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2017
a
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2017
Wind and solar ... good for the environment
No way, bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers are not good for the environment, they are a large-scale ecological tragedy for natural landscapes, bird and bats, and wildlife habitats.
Wind and solar are becoming the cheapest option - and thus installed capacity is going up ...
It is is irrelevant. Without cost-effective batteries, wind and solar are just placebos backed up by fossil fuels to compensate intermittencies.
"New York Times Admits Batteries Necessary For Green Energy Don't Yet Exist"
http://dailycalle...t-exist/
"The Biggest, Strangest 'Batteries' " - June 3, 2017
https://www.nytim...ies.html
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2017
"Vermont and California and were replaced almost entirely with natural gas, which increased emissions."

No, Willie.

Did you get that from the Enquirer? Infoworld? Der Sturmer?

What did we replace with natural gas to increase emissions?

Sorry,but we are not allowed to increase emissions, but must take the cleanest approach, by state law.

Why do you just copy nonsense and paste it here?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2017
There is no noticeable CO2 reduction.
"California Nuclear Closures Resulted in 250% Higher Emissions from Electricity"
http://www.enviro...missions
"Ivanpah solar plant, built to limit greenhouse gases, is burning more natural gas"
http://www.pe.com...pah.html
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2017
WillieWard:
http://www.pe.com/articles/plant-823670-gas-ivanpah.html


Don't bother posting sources like pe.com , which are unknown. Some of these little news sites might have accurate reporting, but they're indistinguishable from fake news sites. They're totally useless to back up any legitimate point.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2017
Ask Willie how many Btu to clean up Fukushima?
Ask george kamburoff the lying cheating psychopath/engineer the difference between btus and calories. Duh.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2017
California Nuclear Closures Resulted in 250% Higher Emissions from Electricity
But also from your article Willie
The utilities involved in the [Bolsa Island] project claimed that they cancelled the plant owing to its poor economics.
Hinkley Point would certainly reinforce the concern about the cost of electricity from nukes (18 cents Kwh). Of course Willie supports this kind of project - http://www.theene...ar-plant over safer/cleaner/cheaper renewables.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2017
Good reference. I like the part which says:
"For a case study in how bad the economics of nuclear have become, one need look no further than South Carolina and Georgia, and the disastrous efforts of utilities SCANA and Southern Company to build the Summer and Vogtle nuclear plants. Construction is three years behind schedule and more than a billion dollars over budget, plagued by missteps that caused the bankruptcy of developer Westinghouse Electric Co. and threaten the survival of its parent Toshiba Corp.

The chairman of the Georgia Public Utilities Commission is questioning whether work on the Vogtle plants should even continue, given the escalating costs and the availability of lower-priced natural gas and renewables. Southern's CEO recently told investors it may not be able to complete the project. Meanwhile, South Carolina customers have already seen their rates rise 20% to pay for the Summer plants, and SCANA is considering abandoning the project."
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2017
Also ask George kamburoff the lying cheating psychopath why he continues to say things like
Hey, Burner, some of us back then went on to get graduate degrees. My MS is in Environmental Management, and I suggest you get educated
-when the evidence he's provided tells us that he never got an undergrad degree? Crapped out of 3 colleges doncha know-
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2017
Intermittent renewables: "expensive energy that doesn't even reduce CO2 emissions."
https://pbs.twimg...ttMz.png
It is why fossil fuel barons love and support renewables, because they know that intermittent placebos will never replace fossil fuels, hilariously Greenpeace protests against fossil fuels aboard their diesel-burning ships and motorboats.
"the climate movement has nothing to do with reducing CO2 , its anti-human progress at heart"
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2017
Sorry, Willie, but PV plus storage got contracted recently for 4.5 cents/kWh for 24 hour power. Meanwhile most nukes now are asking for even more subsidies to stay in operation.

The Tipping Point has been passed.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2017
its anti-human progress at heart"
Safe/clean/cheap/abundant/home grown energy - is anti progress? In 2016 the U.S. imported 5 billion barrels a day more oil than it exported. But that is what Willie wants to see continue. Or maybe he would prefer 18 cents a Kwh power from thousands of Hinkley Points around the world - and then the tax payers can pay to store the waste. Look at this mess - http://www.theene...ar-plant
EmceeSquared
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2017
WillieWard:
Intermittent renewables: "expensive energy that doesn't even reduce CO2 emissions."
https://pbs.twimg...ttMz.png


The nukes troll posts a Tweeted image of a graph without even a citation. The graph shows the US solar increasing as oil/gas jumps up and down in overall decline. None of the troll's quotes are cited, certainly not in that linked image. Nor their unquoted assertion.

It's pure trollery, to defend the troll's nukes fetish. They can't get off without nukes, so they're committed even as they post nothing but trolls.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2017
Anyone who contradicts eco-nuts's beliefs by showing the reality has a risk of being labeled as "troll".
The reality: intermittent renewables are astonishingly costly(financially and ecologically) and even so extremely ineffective to curb CO2 emissions.

https://flowchart...2016.png
https://flowchart...s/energy
http://energyliteracy.com/
gkam
2 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2017
Gosh, I got four ones for this:

"PV plus storage got contracted recently for 4.5 cents/kWh for 24 hour power. Meanwhile most nukes now are asking for even more subsidies to stay in operation. The Tipping Point has been passed."

Do the snipers have better numbers, or is it a matter of emotion?
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2017
WillieWard:
Anyone who contradicts eco-nuts's beliefs by showing the reality has a risk of being labeled as "troll".


Another classic troll fallacy is "anyone who says X is called a troll". No, trolls are very clearly defined for decades:
http://www.catb.o...oll.html
"designed to attract predictable responses or flames"

Trolls aren't interested in discussion. They ignore facts or logic posted in reply to them.

WillieWard is a troll, as can be seen in their every post. Posting a tweeted graph image and several quites without even any citations is not "reality", it's trolling. Responding to being told it's trolling by posting an assertion with new links that don't back the assertion just proves it's trolling.

WillieWard is a hopeless troll, a nukes fetishist who is fact proof, posting just to get their jollies regardless of how useless it is to an actual discussion.
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2017
Anyone who contradicts eco-nuts's beliefs by showing the reality
What 'beliefs' are you talking about here Willie? What is an eco-nut? Do you deny the reality of 18 cents Kwh from Hinkley Point - that is going to shoved down the throats of the British tax payer? I want clean/cheap/abundant/home grown electricity, and a world left in good shape for our kids - does that make me an eco-nut? Just look at the record breaking low bids coming in around the world for wind and solar? Any one who can look at a chart like this - https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/09/lowest-solar-price-bids.png and not realize that we are at a game changing moment - is the one not understanding reality. Chart from - https://cleantech...i-score/ showing un-subsidized price drop of 50% in just 2 years.......
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2017
Wind and solar have several drawbacks: low energy density, intermittencies, costly batteries, large land/offshore areas, huge ecological impacts, strong dependence on fossil fuels, etc. etc.

It bet most of eco-nuts don't use the latest unicorn technology.
Wind/solar-powered dryer:
https://pbs.twimg...sYR5.jpg
Welcome back to energy poverty and dark ages.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2017
"huge ecological impacts, "

Yeah, . . let's talk about Chernobyl and Fukushima.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2017
let's talk about Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Wildlife thriving in Chernobyl exclusion zone.
Unfortunately, Eco-nuts want to cover all wildlife habitats with solar panels full of arsenide and chemical carcinogens.
EmceeSquared
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2017
WillieWard:
Wildlife thriving in Chernobyl exclusion zone.
Unfortunately, Eco-nuts want to cover all wildlife habitats with solar panels full of arsenide and chemical carcinogens.


Nukes fetishist troll says "radiation is good for you!" while lying about where solar panels get installed and what the panels are actually made of. It's pretty crazy how "carcinogens" are bad when the troll imagines them in solar panels but not when the troll celebrates Europe covered in them from a nukes cataclysm.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2017
Solar and wind do not pay into any waste management fund, their toxic wastes are spread everywhere.
Nuclear power plants pay into the waste management fund, and the waste is safely stored, and no one has been killed or injured from used fuel from a commercial nuclear power plant.
"Paying into the waste management fund. Only the nukes do it."
https://pbs.twimg...A3Vx.jpg
"Big growth in wind energy, but what about the waste? The 16,000 tonnes *per year* are "huge problem," say Germans."
https://pbs.twimg...n_Cs.jpg
https://www.clean...riticism
"Japan tries to chip away at mountain of disused solar panels" full of arsenide and chemical carcinogens
"Environment Ministry forecasts the country's solar-panel waste will exceed 10,000 tons..."
http://asia.nikke...s?page=1
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2017
Willie Ward? I think he is Freddy Fukushima.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2017
George Kamburoff? I think he is Fracking Friend.
"How investing in antinuclear movement has helped U.S. Natural gas interests"
https://rbnenergy...roducers
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2017
Yeah, Willie. Here's some news for you:
https://www.bloom...y-losers

"More Than Half of America's Nuclear Reactors Are Losing Money"
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2017
And Vogtle may be too costly to complete. http://www.theene...complete
In a hypothetical analysis, the commission staff looked at a delay of another 36 months, which would bring the plants online in June 2022 and 2023, and $3 billion more in capital costs, putting Georgia Power's share at $8.44 billion. Using these parameters, Vogtle is an economic loser
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2017
Intermittent Renewables = Scam of the Century.
"Lies, errors and fabrications of the claimed low cost 100% US power from wind, water and solar power" - June 20, 2017
https://www.nextb...wer.html
"The fantasy of quick and easy renewable energy"
https://www.brook...-energy/
https://www.axios...490.html
https://www.green...-experts
https://www.nytim...son.html
https://www.techn...ewables/
"100% renewable energy is "feasible and cheap" is scientifically debunked. Again."
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2017
Paste away, Willie.

Nuke plants are closing.

Can't paste over that.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2017
"High temperatures can decrease a photovoltaic cell's output by between 10 and 25 percent."
"don't help California's goal of lowering carbon emissions."
http://www.sfchro...4047.php
gksam, you are winning!
https://pbs.twimg...InWJ.jpg

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.