The research puts gas and wind as being the lowest-cost electricity generators in the country. (Science Daily: Natural gas and wind are the lowest-cost generation technologies for much of the U. S.)
Lowest cost electrical generation by US county.
Credit: Image courtesy of University of Texas at Austin
Lowest cost electrical generation by US county.
Credit: Image courtesy of University of Texas at Austin
The FCe- study examined numerous factors affecting the cost of electricity generation, including:
- Power Plant Costs (both operating and capital costs)
- Environmental and Health Costs (air quality, greenhouse gases)
- Infrastructure Costs (transmission & distribution lines, rail, pipelines)
- Fuel Cost (variability, full fuel cycle)
- Integration of renewable and distributed energy resources
- Energy Efficiency
- Government financial support for electricity generation (subsidies)
- Science Daily
Read further via the link and that includes a link the the University of Texas white paper on the research.
We have no reason to suspect the reason so we take it straight-up that Gas and Wind are the most cost-effective.
- Insert an editorial with flag waving for nukes but only on the implementation of vastly better waste management -
We see lots of solar in California but surprisingly little in Texas. In any case, it didn't make the cut for cost-effectiveness. Here at the Rockhouse, we don't like the chemicals needed for solar anyway.
Here's where many tree huggers jump over since we don't like turbine either. They fail on aesthetic, mechanical, and biological grounds since many forest creatures do not grok these things. They whack lots of creatures from bats to eagles and people ask why don't the stupid animals see them but they're animals; they don't get it. The tips of those turbines must be moving at one hell of a speed and this just doesn't compute in the animal's head.
Here's why we don't feel we sell out anything. Although non-renewable, gas is clean. I believe, if burned properly, the 'waste' products are oxygen and water wapor. Where this chokes is it needs drilling to get it and, even worse, they're probably getting it from fracking as well. Fracking has been the biggest environmental disaster and eyesore since open-pit coal mining and there's really not much to add.
There is no objection to the cleanliness and it was a surprise to see natural gas all over in California plus it looks like gas in most of the Southeast. The extent of the use of wind energy was surprising throughout the Midwest but it's wide open and plenty of wind.
Maybe I'm fired from Treehuggers Anonymous but I still believe. The gas is necessary until something works better; you can't just turn it all off. Solar and nuclear just aren't proven well enough when it's all very well that they work but the filth in disposal is not acceptable unless some way is presented in which it's properly recycled or properly disposed in Yucca Mountain. The wind kills too many animals and that's not simple bleeding heart; it kills a lot of them and of all kinds on the wing.
8 comments:
The research doesnt give a timeframe if the analysis. Logic seems to lean toward solar as the length of the time period is increased. GeoThermal and Solar required a much greater intial capital investment. But a much lower upkeep maintenance cost.
Fair enough and they're all balances between what's feasible and what's technically possible. There's always wave kinetics (I guess) but I have reservations about such a device whacking sea creatures. For me, if it really is green then it shouldn't be whacking anything. Same Indian mantra: leave no trace.
The chemicals of solar are my concern because Son of Solar comes and it's a zillion percent better. The new ones make it too expensive to run the old ones so the farms will need to be replaced. If they can't be fully recycled then I have a problem.
That is a chase of the latest and greatest. Not really true. If my panels are paid for and producing well why upgrade until they start degrading.
I have a truck that only gets 16mph It is paid for. It runs fine and has over 300000 miles on it. I am sure there are plenty of trucks out there that get fat superior mpg. But it doesnt make sense to change so the same would be my decision to change solar panels.
But I also have a computer that is over 10 years old. But soon it will have lost so much memory and disk space to OS updates that it will have nothing left to do anything other than turn on and off. Then I will have to use the newer ones in the house (if Little Princess will let me)
The farms will be in a constant state of expansion and replacement. Similar to DCA in investing
I'll have to research what happens to the bits from the replacement. If the old bits end up in a landfill then I have a problem.
When you're getting the payoff you want from the ones you have bought, I see no need to replace. I'm thinking of the large outfits in which they need the biggest bang for the buck.
Yevette's computer is just about to roll to eleven years and it won't make the cut but it looks like there's a solid angle to replace it. She sure got her miles out of that one but it drives her nuts now with many crashes.
Usually I only hear about 300K or whatnot from Toyotas so that sounds remarkable.
My own situation has been a bit different because at the professional and home level, the biggest and fastest computers are necessary. That meant an upgrade every two years and mainframes went longer than that but still the approach was generally the same. Once you depreciate the machine, well, it's time to replace it with a bigger one.
Southern trucks never die they just need new parts.
After the Merc monster, I was in love for life and I have the strongest feeling you could drive one around the world. What a wonderful beast she was.
Post a Comment