+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 52
Latest: Carnesia
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 16222
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 5
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth  (Read 18124 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
« Reply #195 on: June 08, 2016, 07:27:23 pm »
EIA talks construction cost, never mind what happens after it is built and DOES what it is DESIGNED to DO (i.e. GENERATE energy). 

EIA: Constructing  ;) a natural gas plant is cheaper than other options

By Robert Walton | June 7, 2016


HAPPY TALK SNIPPET:
Quote

•The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently began collecting data on the cost to construct electric power generators, showing gas capacity to be the cheapest widely-used generation  and wind to be the least-expensive renewable resource.  ;)

•In 2013, the first year for which the agency collected data, natural gas generation on a capacity-weighted basis averaged $965/kW  , compared with $1,895/kW for wind and $3,705/kW for solar.

•More than 7,400 MW of gas capacity was added that year, compared with 2,600 MW of solar and 860 MW of wind.

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/eia-constructing-a-natural-gas-plant-is-cheaper-than-other-options/420453/

Agelbert NOTE: Doesn't that sound so nice and objective? That sweet talk about wind being the Cheapest Renewable Energy source is the set up for the sucker punch chart they rigged showing the "natural" gas power plants as MUCH "cheaper".  And WTF is the idea of limiting the COST of infrastructure to the initial construction costs? HELLO? Power Plants operate for at least THIRTY YEARS! It's BOLD FACED mendacity and disingenuous duplicity to claim one system is "cheaper" than another just from initial construction costs! Talk about PICKING WINNERS by excluding pollution costs after operation begins! 

And, by the way, it's 2016. What's with  the 2013 stats (2014 and 2015 were BOTH BANNER YEARS for wind that saw construction costs GO DOWN!) to try to make Gas Power Plants look good?

Then they have the brass to publish a ridiculous cost comparison chart excluding fossil fuel pollution costs! 

The "capacity" talk is a deliberate conflation of construction costs with generation costs to pull the wool over your eyes. The EIA  has no shame.  ANY study of capacity for ANY Renewable energy source in general, and wind in particular, evidences VAST more energy capacity than fossil fuel power plants BECAUSE the fuel is FREE.

What these fossil fuel friendly bastards in the EIA are doing here is going back to "high energy density" of hydrocarbons to justify a gamed "capacity".

In a sane world, the INSTANT you talk about energy density, you MUST talk about polluting products COSTS. If you don't, then you are cherry picking fossil fuels as WINNERS, PERIOD.

HERE'S what the fossil fuel friendly EIA does not want YOU to know:

Quote
Wind energy is now as cheap as natural gas, and solar is getting close
And it's only getting cheaper.

BEC CREW  7 OCT 2015

Wind power is now comparable in price to fossil fuels, and solar is well on its way, according to a new report that confirms earlier predictions that renewables aren't just the best option for the environment - they’re unequivocally the smartest long-term investment you can make on energy.

The report, by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, found that in the second half of 2015, the global average cost of onshore wind energy will be $83 per megawatt-hour of electricity (which is down $2 from the first half of the year), and for thin film solar photovoltaics, the cost is $122 per megawatt-hour (down $7 in the past six months).
http://www.sciencealert.com/wind-energy-is-now-as-cheap-as-natural-gas-and-solar-is-getting-close


Quote
Natural Gas Health and Environmental Hazards

Natural gas power plants are significant air pollution sources, releasing hazardous air pollutants, global warming pollution and fine particulate matter.

Natural gas is worse than coal for global warming

While the smokestack emissions from gas-burning power plants are lower than coal, gas is worse because of the leakage from the wells to the pipelines and compressor stations to the end-uses -- since methane (the principle component of natural gas) is far more potent at heating the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (which is produced when coal or gas are burned).

The newest science on methane's global warming potential shows that it's far more potent than previously thought:

http://www.energyjustice.net/naturalgas
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

 

+-Recent Topics

Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next. by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:46:22 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:40:17 am

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:47:35 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:27:30 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:35:38 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:19:30 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:07:28 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:54:48 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:10:24 pm

Intelligent Design by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 06:38:41 pm