Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [energyresources] EROIE for wind power

Expand Messages
  • gtyner
    Steve Morningthunder: Thanks for your keen insights. Yes, you are correct I had designed a standard spreadsheet to make several analyses ( and one of the
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Steve Morningthunder:
      Thanks for your keen insights. Yes, you are correct I had designed a
      standard spreadsheet to make several analyses ( and one of the studies is
      for nuclear power) and I had forgotten to adjust the notes that you are
      talking about.
      Thanks, I will be more careful.
      Gene Tyner
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "S Morningthunder" <mthunder@...>
      To: <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 6:12 PM
      Subject: RE: [energyresources] EROIE for wind power


      >
      >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: gtyner [mailto:gtyner@...]
      > > Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 4:30 PM
      > > To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: Re: [energyresources] EROIE for wind power
      > >
      > >
      > > Folke:
      > > I have attached a study that I did a couple of years ago on my take
      > > on the net-energy of wind power. What is important to note are the
      > > dynamic considerations (the building and operation of large systems
      > > over time). If you have questions, please send them. Gene Tyner
      >
      > Very interesting study.
      >
      > The two below lines seem as if they belonged to a different study which
      > concentrated on nuclear energy, as there is no fuel cost for wind and
      > long-term waste problem should not be applicable to wind:
      >
      > Line 18, Fuel Cost: The fuel cost used in the current table is 8 mills
      > per kilowatt hour. Recent DOE estimates are from 5 to 8 mills per
      > kilowatt hour.
      >
      > Line 19, Decommissioning and Waste Disposal: This is a highly unknown
      > cost because, to the best of my knowledge, only small plants have been
      > decommissioned and the long-term waste problem is yet to be resolved. In
      > this case, I have assumed that the cost of decommissioning and long-term
      > waste disposal costs are 25% of plant cost.
      >
      > (And, am I correct in thinking that Table 3b should state that 3.29E+012
      > BTUs =0.00329 quads rather than your .000329)
      >
      > We are perhaps the only peers who might review your study, but again, it
      > is a very interesting study. Thanks for sharing.
      >
      > --
      > Rare is the great of soul to whom all is the Divine Being.
      > --Gita, VII. 19.
      >
      >
      > Steve Morningthunder
      >
      > mthunder@...
      > http://greatchange.org
      >
      >
      >
      > Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
      > Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Tom Robertson
      Folks: I want you-all to note what is happening in the following exchange. Well considered comments made by one member of this list (Gene Tyner) were assessed
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Folks:

        I want you-all to note what is happening in the following exchange.

        Well considered comments made by one member of this list (Gene Tyner) were assessed and improved upon by another member. (Steve Morningthunder)

        The result was not just better understanding, but improved capacity to
        understand, a wonderful demonstration of evolutionary intelligence at work.

        Tom Robertson, Moderator, EnergyResources Group
        (39?53'N 76? 59'W)


        -----Original Message-----
        From: S Morningthunder [mailto:mthunder@...]
        Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 7:13 PM
        To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [energyresources] EROIE for wind power

        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: gtyner [mailto:gtyner@...]
        > Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 4:30 PM
        > To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [energyresources] EROIE for wind power
        >
        >
        > Folke:
        > I have attached a study that I did a couple of years ago on my take
        > on the net-energy of wind power. What is important to note are the
        > dynamic considerations (the building and operation of large systems
        > over time). If you have questions, please send them. Gene Tyner

        Very interesting study.

        The two below lines seem as if they belonged to a different study which
        concentrated on nuclear energy, as there is no fuel cost for wind and
        long-term waste problem should not be applicable to wind:

        Line 18, Fuel Cost: The fuel cost used in the current table is 8 mills
        per kilowatt hour. Recent DOE estimates are from 5 to 8 mills per
        kilowatt hour.

        Line 19, Decommissioning and Waste Disposal: This is a highly unknown
        cost because, to the best of my knowledge, only small plants have been
        decommissioned and the long-term waste problem is yet to be resolved. In
        this case, I have assumed that the cost of decommissioning and long-term
        waste disposal costs are 25% of plant cost.

        (And, am I correct in thinking that Table 3b should state that 3.29E+012
        BTUs =0.00329 quads rather than your .000329)

        We are perhaps the only peers who might review your study, but again, it
        is a very interesting study. Thanks for sharing.

        --
        Rare is the great of soul to whom all is the Divine Being.
        --Gita, VII. 19.


        Steve Morningthunder

        mthunder@...
        http://greatchange.org



        Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
        Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • Andrew MacKillop
        ... cost because, to the best of my knowledge, only small plants have been decommissioned and the long-term waste problem is yet to be resolved. In this case,
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          >Line 19, Decommissioning and Waste Disposal: This is a highly unknown
          cost because, to the best of my knowledge, only small plants have been
          decommissioned and the long-term waste problem is yet to be resolved. In
          this case, I have assumed that the cost of decommissioning and long-term
          waste disposal costs are 25% of plant cost.
          <

          I also wrote to Gene about this

          We only have 'anecdotal evidence' on real, total and final decommissioning
          costs, and some of that evidence is in fact 'refusal to analyze'

          One example/ British Energy, a semi-private outfit running a bunch of
          creaking, English technological eccentricities called 'Magnox reactors'
          periodically runs out of cash, and threatens to shut shop
          That is it "calls for government funding", which it always gets. British
          Energy was originally styled as a fine, upstanding, privatized modern
          company, created when the Thatcher governments handed over State funded,
          taxpayer financed electric power generation facilities to a bunch of
          cowboys called 'modern entrepreneurs'. These persons of course refused to
          buy, own and operate nuclear power facilities because - very simply - its a
          great way to lose money, and anyway the 'responsibilities', including how
          to find insurance (which in fact is impossible) were and are too great for
          these heroes of modern society. So a few of them were persuaded or cajoled
          into taking on The Challenge of running these privatized nuclear power
          facilities on the basis "When you lose, the taxpayers sheep pay, OK?".
          The simple threat of going bankrupt, from time to time, is a great gambit/
          Nuclear power plants just cant be left to 'go to the Wall' depsite the fact
          that Earth Mother Thatcher announced with glowing eyes that this would be
          the 'sanction applied by The Market' for failure to live up to greatness,
          British Energy is therefore periodically bailed out with taxpayers funds.
          The latest round of funding cost taxpayers about $ 650 Million.
          Each time British Energy threatens to go bankrupt, finance columns of UK
          newspapers will have 'comment from city analysts' This always features "the
          unknown costs of decommissioning nuclear reactors making it impossible to
          regard, treat or analyze British Energy like any other company". End of
          citation.

          Over in France, the then Secretary of State for Industry, C Perret, made a
          speaking tour in June-July 2001 to "inform and sound out opinion" on French
          nuclear power - more particularly on how the taxpayer and consumer sheep
          were going to pay for decommissioning of France's rapidly aging reactors (
          lots of them). One nicely-crafted aside from this person was that
          electricity consumers in France should be prepared to pay for their nuclear
          folly (which Perret called "technological jewels" or "artworks") - with
          price rises of "250%-350%" being possible "in the next 5 - 10 years". End
          of citation.

          Of course there is always the 'Russian Solution' to decommissioning - chuck
          the fissile materials in the nearest stretch of open water, or even invite
          plant managers to try out unusual and amusing operating sequences, then
          crawl to the international community for funding some of the disaster
          relief, afterwards.

          A McKillop
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.