$98 per barrel oil

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
:

Thomas Borchert wrote:
all those cost serveral
times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of making
the costs comparable to coventional methods is slim.


To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there...

Not really.

With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of "alternate"
sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional
electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited areas
where the alernates are optimized, for example solar power in very
sunny locations.


The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your figures
are incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't include
the borrowing involved.

"Fossil" fuels have nothing to do with nuclear energy.



The cost of electric production by nuclear energy includes the total
life cycle cost of a nuclear facility if the numbers are honestly
derived.


Nope.

Yep.

"Levelized life-cycle cost is the total cost of a project from
construction to retirement and decommissinon, expressed in present
value and the spread evenly over the useful output (kWh) of the
project."

From just one source, feel free to find a contradictory one.

http://www.keystone.org/spp/document...F6_12_2007.pdf


The total life cycle is everything from the first study to the last
cleanup on shutdown.

But not the storage of the fuel or the cleanup of the damage done by it.

You don't store fuel and what damage are you talking about?

And it does include the disposition of nuclear waste.

Talk to me again if the experiment at Cadarache succeeds, otherwise, you
can keep them.

Your personal preferences have nothing to do with what it costs in the
real world.

And since you probably don't know, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
requires that the costs of disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste be borne by the parties responsible for their generation.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides for two types of fees to be levied
on the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel: an ongoing fee of
1.0 mil (one tenth of one cent) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on nuclear
electricity generated and sold after April 7, 1983, and a one-time fee
for all nuclear electricity generated and sold prior to that date.

Because the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel are required
to pay the full costs of its disposal, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
requires an annual assessment of the adequacy of the 1 mil/kWh fee.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/info_librar...s/ocrwm007.htm

So the disposal cost is payed up front as an operating cost.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
:

Thomas Borchert wrote:
all those cost serveral
times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of
making the costs comparable to coventional methods is slim.


To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there...

Not really.

With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of "alternate"
sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional
electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited
areas where the alernates are optimized, for example solar power
in very sunny locations.


The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your figures
are incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't
include the borrowing involved.

"Fossil" fuels have nothing to do with nuclear energy.



The cost of electric production by nuclear energy includes the
total life cycle cost of a nuclear facility if the numbers are
honestly derived.


Nope.

Yep.

"Levelized life-cycle cost is the total cost of a project from
construction to retirement and decommissinon, expressed in present
value and the spread evenly over the useful output (kWh) of the
project."

From just one source, feel free to find a contradictory one.

http://www.keystone.org/spp/document...port_NJFF6_12_
2007
.pdf


The total life cycle is everything from the first study to the last
cleanup on shutdown.

But not the storage of the fuel or the cleanup of the damage done by
it.

You don't store fuel and what damage are you talking about?

And it does include the disposition of nuclear waste.


No, it doesn't.



Talk to me again if the experiment at Cadarache succeeds, otherwise,
you can keep them.

Your personal preferences have nothing to do with what it costs in the
real world.


Really?
What is the real world? If you think you know the answer to that you're
part of the problem.


And since you probably don't know, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982 requires that the costs of disposing of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste be borne by the parties responsible for
their generation.


Right....


The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides for two types of fees to be
levied on the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel: an ongoing
fee of 1.0 mil (one tenth of one cent) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on
nuclear electricity generated and sold after April 7, 1983, and a
one-time fee for all nuclear electricity generated and sold prior to
that date.

Because the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel are required
to pay the full costs of its disposal, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
requires an annual assessment of the adequacy of the 1 mil/kWh fee.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/info_librar...lreports/96ar-
c
p/sections/ocrwm007.htm

So the disposal cost is payed up front as an operating cost.


And the disposed waste is where?


"We could have saved the earth but we were too damned cheap"

"They're stupid, they stink, I hate them"




Fact is, when you start doing things that are stupid and you are
affecting your neighbors, who haven't subscribed to your idiocy, you
have to expect a bit of hostility at the very least.

At the very most, you can expect some, um, unpleasantness.




Bertie

Denny wrote in news:1194553620.452564.220860
@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

Back on topic, the future of the USA is coal as the main source of
energy... WIth some 200 years supply on hand, once oil hits some
magic figure, say $300/bbl, those who's main concern is global
warming, pollution and environmental protection will find themselves
shouted down in the halls of congress by the majority

Yep, that is what will happen.

(it is a
representational democracy after all)

No, it isn't.


who want warm houses and their
porn movies at an affordable price...
Cars will become electric for town with 300 miles being the norm for
range
(attainable right now in very small/light vehicles, much as 300 is
the normal range for my 4X4 truck)
and only use big vehicles burning expensive hydrocarbon fuels for the
vacation and special events - with these big cars being rented or time
share owned -
We will begin small steps back into light electric rail in the heavily
populated urban corridors sorrounding the big cities...
It is good we have the highway system as we let the railroad right of
ways get away... The rail systems will begin using the turn pike
centers as the new rail system... And it is efficient because the
turnpikes now go where we want to go, whereas the old rail right of
ways no longer go where the population wants...
House will begin shrinking after the bloat of the past 30 years...
And on....


A few years back, roughly 3, I said in these forums that oil would be
$100 within 5 years and I was snickered at... I now admit I was
wrong .... it is sooner...

Me, I'm backing lukewarm fusion.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Yes, in fact, history has proven they are.

Really? How? The Inquisition?



What, you woried abouta new one where they fry idiots at the stake?



Does an idiot float?


Bertie

("Thomas Borchert" wrote)
You don't remotely know me enough to be able to make that statement above.
And it's a typical knee-jerk ugly American redneck reaction of you, too
;-)


No need to start slinging the "r" word around.


Montblack :-)

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
:

Thomas Borchert wrote:
all those cost serveral
times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of
making the costs comparable to coventional methods is slim.


To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there...

Not really.

With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of "alternate"
sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional
electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited
areas where the alernates are optimized, for example solar power
in very sunny locations.


The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your figures
are incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't
include the borrowing involved.

"Fossil" fuels have nothing to do with nuclear energy.



The cost of electric production by nuclear energy includes the
total life cycle cost of a nuclear facility if the numbers are
honestly derived.


Nope.

Yep.

"Levelized life-cycle cost is the total cost of a project from
construction to retirement and decommissinon, expressed in present
value and the spread evenly over the useful output (kWh) of the
project."

From just one source, feel free to find a contradictory one.

http://www.keystone.org/spp/document...port_NJFF6_12_
2007
.pdf


The total life cycle is everything from the first study to the last
cleanup on shutdown.

But not the storage of the fuel or the cleanup of the damage done by
it.

You don't store fuel and what damage are you talking about?

And it does include the disposition of nuclear waste.


No, it doesn't.

It does by law contrary to your full and explicit refutation.

Talk to me again if the experiment at Cadarache succeeds, otherwise,
you can keep them.

Your personal preferences have nothing to do with what it costs in the
real world.


Really?
What is the real world? If you think you know the answer to that you're
part of the problem.

Really.

Sounds like MX; you don't like the answer, so attack the messenger.


And since you probably don't know, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982 requires that the costs of disposing of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste be borne by the parties responsible for
their generation.

Right....

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides for two types of fees to be
levied on the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel: an ongoing
fee of 1.0 mil (one tenth of one cent) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on
nuclear electricity generated and sold after April 7, 1983, and a
one-time fee for all nuclear electricity generated and sold prior to
that date.

Because the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel are required
to pay the full costs of its disposal, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
requires an annual assessment of the adequacy of the 1 mil/kWh fee.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/info_librar...lreports/96ar-
c
p/sections/ocrwm007.htm

So the disposal cost is payed up front as an operating cost.


And the disposed waste is where?

Somewhere safe.

"We could have saved the earth but we were too damned cheap"

"They're stupid, they stink, I hate them"


Fact is, when you start doing things that are stupid and you are
affecting your neighbors, who haven't subscribed to your idiocy, you
have to expect a bit of hostility at the very least.

At the very most, you can expect some, um, unpleasantness.

Non sequitur.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

About 250,000.

About fifty times less.

Um.. That would be -12,250,000

How is that possible?

wrote in :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:8n8c05-hnm.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
:

Thomas Borchert wrote:
all those cost serveral
times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of
making the costs comparable to coventional methods is
slim.


To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting
there...

Not really.

With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of
"alternate"
sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional
electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited
areas where the alernates are optimized, for example solar
power
in very sunny locations.


The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your
figures
are incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't
include the borrowing involved.

"Fossil" fuels have nothing to do with nuclear energy.



The cost of electric production by nuclear energy includes the
total life cycle cost of a nuclear facility if the numbers are
honestly derived.


Nope.

Yep.

"Levelized life-cycle cost is the total cost of a project from
construction to retirement and decommissinon, expressed in present
value and the spread evenly over the useful output (kWh) of the
project."

From just one source, feel free to find a contradictory one.

http://www.keystone.org/spp/document...port_NJFF6_12_
2007
.pdf


The total life cycle is everything from the first study to the
last
cleanup on shutdown.

But not the storage of the fuel or the cleanup of the damage done
by
it.

You don't store fuel and what damage are you talking about?

And it does include the disposition of nuclear waste.


No, it doesn't.

It does by law contrary to your full and explicit refutation.

Talk to me again if the experiment at Cadarache succeeds,
otherwise,
you can keep them.

Your personal preferences have nothing to do with what it costs in
the
real world.


Really?
What is the real world? If you think you know the answer to that
you're
part of the problem.

Really.

Sounds like MX; you don't like the answer, so attack the messenger.


And since you probably don't know, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982 requires that the costs of disposing of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste be borne by the parties responsible
for
their generation.

Right....

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides for two types of fees to be
levied on the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel: an
ongoing
fee of 1.0 mil (one tenth of one cent) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on
nuclear electricity generated and sold after April 7, 1983, and a
one-time fee for all nuclear electricity generated and sold prior
to
that date.

Because the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel are
required
to pay the full costs of its disposal, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
requires an annual assessment of the adequacy of the 1 mil/kWh fee.


http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/info_librar...lreports/96ar-
c
p/sections/ocrwm007.htm

So the disposal cost is payed up front as an operating cost.


And the disposed waste is where?

Somewhere safe.

Oh well., that's OK then.



"We could have saved the earth but we were too damned cheap"

"They're stupid, they stink, I hate them"


Fact is, when you start doing things that are stupid and you are
affecting your neighbors, who haven't subscribed to your idiocy, you
have to expect a bit of hostility at the very least.

At the very most, you can expect some, um, unpleasantness.

Non sequitur.


No, it isn't.



Bertie

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote

I've got some empty hanger space. But my bet is that at the first sign of
next summer you'd be heading back to the UK.

Why, just because the humidity makes the air so thick, you can slice it with
a knife? Because the air is so hot that it feels as though you have opened
the door to a blast furnace? And that is at 09:00!

Or would it be because of the cockroaches the size of silver dollars, that
can even fly, that everyone has to keep in control with chemicals, and this
holds true even for people with clean houses in good neighborhoods?

I'm sure you have more to add to these, if you were being honest! g
--
Jim in NC

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


No, it isn't.

Another 160+ line post to provide this full and complete retort with
citations and references to support the position.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.