13605Re: [renewable-energy] Sowing Confusion About Renewable Energy - Forbes
- Aug 9, 2014I really don't understand how a renewable energy group would be interested in Nuclear power plants. There is nothing renewable about the energy it produces. Let me explain further, Many years now man has used fire for producing electric power. One of the needed supplies is water. Water is converted to steam and thus turns a steam turbine. In order to produce electric power via wind or solar there is very little use for water. Even in the case of CSP oil is heated to again produce steam. Now for the simple math. A nuclear power plant cost $11 million dollars a MW. Solar PV farm is around $3.00 a watt and a wind is very close to $2.00 a watt. To make a nuclear power plant requires many permits, and takes up to 11 years to develop. A wind farm or solar farm will use more land but cost less all around and can be put into service in 3-4 years. I really feel the future of energy will no longer be a centralized power scheme. I feel the days of the smart grid ( or mini grid) will add sustainability, reliability and will cost less to maintain. I also feel that the only way to reach energy independence is not just by elimination of fuels. But also the elimination of centralization of electric power. It is hard for the lay men to understand that our power lines are failing because the system is very old and instead of spending money on large tracks of grids. We should consider stopping this madness about transmission lines transferring our electric power hundreds of miles. Please understand every grid is a target. Take out the grid in any way and your disabling communications, our current life styles and yes even our transportation systems. Now for Forbes. Investors and tax investors are investing is all types of solar electric systems. The reasons are very simple. In a solar farm your investments are safe. There is a real return on investment plus there is a profit. The energy industry is the largest industry in the world. In the stock and bonds world. Investors have seen their money become de-valued because of a housing boom falling apart! As I said before the energy industry is the largest and most profitable industry in the world. Usually wall street does not like renewable energy. Two simple reasons for this dislike for renewable energy. The first reason is there is a based profit with a return on investment. Not so with the stock market. The second reason is just about greed. The stock market buys and sells stocks. A renewable energy farm produces electric power and sells that power under a 20-25 year power purchase agreement. A lot of times these renewable energy farms are insured to ensure that the yearly profits are real. The stock market can not offer a profit for the next 20-25 years. You can not even insure your investments in the stock market. It seems to me and many others that the best investments would be in the renewable energy field. Only a fool would gamble with their money.-----Original Message-----
From: 'Mike Redler' redlerm@... [renewable-energy] <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: renewable-energy <email@example.com>
Sent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 2:07 pm
Subject: RE: [renewable-energy] Sowing Confusion About Renewable Energy - Forbes
Nuclear power plants are largely owned by integrated energy companies. They are interested in generating electricity through the use of a centralized power scheme, and work closely with fossil fuel companies for part of their business. As such they share a common opposition to renewables, an energy technology which is highly adaptable to a distributed power scheme. Their combined business and political influence affords them the ability to spread their propaganda through publications like the Economist.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 1:55 PM
Subject: [renewable-energy] Sowing Confusion About Renewable Energy - Forbes
Readers of The Economist may have been surprised to read in its 26 July 2014 “Free exchange” section on page 63, or in its online version, the “clear” conclusion that solar and wind power are “the most expensive way of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions,” while “nuclear plants…are cheaper,” so governments are foolish to boost renewables and mothball nuclear.
In each of the past three years, the world has invested more than a quarter-trillion dollars to add over 80 billion watts of renewables (excluding big hydro dams). That growth is accelerating: solar power is scaling faster than cellphones. Big European utilities lost €0.5 trillion in market cap, as an Economist cover story featured, not because renewables couldn’t compete, but because they competed all too well, wiping out old power plants’ profits. The same is happening to some well-running U.S. nuclear plants, now facing closure as uneconomic just to operate.
Shouldn’t the runaway market success of renewables—soon to beat grid power on price, says Bloomberg , in most of the world—have raised a flag at the Economist article’s conclusion?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>