In response to:

Renewables Fail the Cost Test, Again

bfouraker Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 10:20 AM
This article is great and uses numbers to show that renewables are not cost effective without substantial government subsudies. I have two coments on the facts in the article: Regarding wood burning stoves: In addition to tree stealing, burning wood or coal, even in a high efficency stove, as opposed to obtaining electricity for heat from a power plant creates about 30 times as much pollution (mostly suspended particulates). Modern power plants must meet strict pollution guidelines. The second is the cost of nuclear is not nearly $0.111 per Kwh. If an 1100 MWe nuclear plant is built the cost is about $8 billion, adding fuel, prsonnel, O&M and decommissioning and disposal the cost at the transmission point is about $.093 per Kwh.
Big_D_ Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 6:01 PM
Good points but: "If a 1100 MWe nuclear plant is built..." You left out the cost of lawfare. Every nuclear plant proposal, the Sierra 'Club' files a lawsuit. On the other hand, the current practice and technology in nuclear reactors is sub-optimal, new developments hold MUCH greater promise (Pebble Bed, Traveling Wave, LFTR) for increased efficiency, greater safety, less waste--lower cost.

The operative word in the quote is "IF".

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has just released their Energy Infrastructure Update report, which shows how much new electric generating capacity was installed for 2012. According to the report, renewable energy sources (biomass, geothermal, solar, hydro, and wind) accounted for 49.10% of all new domestic electrical generating capacity installed in 2012 for a total of 12,956 MW. More than a quarter of that new capacity (25.29%, or 3,276 MW) reportedly came on-line in the month of December 2012 alone and wind led the way in 2012 with 164 new “units” totaling 10,689 MW.

Advocates of renewable energy are likely cheering...

Related Tags: Fail