Sign up | Login with →

Comments by Paul O Subscribe

On Should Electricity Distribution Utilities Build, Own, and Operate Microgrids For Their Customers?

This is another case of the headless chicken darting all over the place, or dog chasing his tail. The reason and purpose of micro grids are dubious at best.

Just as Bob said, the entire micro grid fantasy is just simply the wish of people who desperately want to thrash around desperately trying to feel  that they are doing someyhing, anything, without actually solving anything.

The renewables crowd wont solve our CO2 problems, with micro grids, but since they hate utilities, they'll feel better by proposing micro grids while essentially improving nothing .

 I believe that should the utilities find solar power (at the heart of the micro grid push) a better deal for their customers, and if they can reduce CO2 this way, then they should incorporate solar into their energy mix.Otherwise, they just should ignore it.

"Sticking it to The Man",  by hurting "Big Power" should not be a reason to upset our energy system, but providing less CO2 should.

At this rate I fear that we will be wasting time and money while atmospheric CO2 keep piling up. Utilities should find ways to produce more CO2 free power without increasing the costs to the custome, as best as they can. This should include more CO2 free power without reliance on coal and natural gas.

September 17, 2014    View Comment    

On The Average Price of Electricity, Country by Country

SO your reference to India's poor (but cheap) electricity supply was spurious, and you gloss over the FIT benefit at the expense of the poor who cannot afford solar panels.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spurious

 

September 8, 2014    View Comment    

On Can Nuclear Energy Secure Financing? Nuclear Power and the Capital Challenge

LOL Brian, too funny.

Pls See George Larson's reply above.

August 30, 2014    View Comment    

On Are Reverse Auctions the Key to Reforming Solar Energy Subsidies?

No Brian,

1) I have never seen any example of where Solar Power with Wind and Waste to fuel has ever eliminated a Coal Fired Plant.

2) Saying Nuclear power causes cancer is a Fraud, and it is not worthy of TEC discussion.

3) We are never, ever going to deploy enough Wind, Solar and Waste to fuel planet Earth, not if we really wanna stop CO2.

4) Why would a sane, serious, anti-climate change  person advocate burning waste, when such waste is already trapped Carbon. We should bury all of it, and reluctantly burn whatever methane come from that.

5) The only reason to oppose Nuclear power, especially Gen. 4 Molten Salt reactors, is Ideological Hatred of Nuclear. In Other words, It's a Religion.

August 30, 2014    View Comment    

On The Average Price of Electricity, Country by Country

I'm puzzled,

1) Are you inferring the Germans don't subsidize their EXPENSIVE energy

or

2) Are you saying French and American energy have Terrible Electric service since they are subsidized?

This is not a logical argument.

August 28, 2014    View Comment    

On Are Reverse Auctions the Key to Reforming Solar Energy Subsidies?

Brian,

The whole point is to eliminate CO2, considering our Climate and weather from The Arctic Circle to the Antarctic. Come Winter,Spring, Summer or Fall.

Question, Does Nuclear Power eliminate Fossil fuels and CO2 as stipulated, answer YES!

Question, Does solar power eliminate Fossil fuels and CO2 as stipulated, answer NO!


Are we even serious about Climate Change, Answer NO...Not while we are hating on nuclear.

 

August 27, 2014    View Comment    

On Can Nuclear Energy Secure Financing? Nuclear Power and the Capital Challenge

I disagree based on the following:

 

1) Nuclear power demonstrably replaces Coal Plants and other  Carbon emitters if you consider Natural cas, without drastically changing the infrastructure.

2) Nuclear power is flexible enough to load follow pending the design.

3) The people complaining about Nuclear being dangerous typically seem to support killing safer Fourth Generation Nuclear Power  (ask Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Democrats about the Integral Fast Reactor).

4) Nuclear is not expensive as per govt. figures, and considering that it lasts up to 60yrs or more.

5) Multiple simultaneous plant construction renders the time argument mute. If we build 8 plants  simultaneously over 8years, that's on average one plant per year.

6) Nuclear supports better, efficient Land use, and doesn't Kill Endangered species, and also does not rely on the whims of the weather.


Why do I personally support nuclear power? It's because all along,  for decades,  we have had a solution for our energy and climate problems, yet we have chosen to listen to scare mongers.  This has impeded the design and construction of the very thing we badly need, safe and plentiful energy without any funky demand response or such compromises.

Fukushimas and such, should not even be able to happen at all if the development of things like the integral fast reactor had not been stopped. We can still design and build Molten Salt Reactors that are safe and melt-down proof if we wanted to. They are designed to be melted and we don't want to cool them.

Distributed solar in micro grids is a fallacy. If you think about it, it would even eliminate wind power. Moreover it does not address the question of what places like Alaska, North Dakota, Minnesota, etc would do in the winter.  The battery storage issue is a huge bug-a-boo, and has been discussed at length.

August 26, 2014    View Comment    

On Renewable Energy Could Hit 36% Of Global Energy Use, But There's A Biomass Catch

 

Since I have never seen a 100% renewable country in my life, I take it with the same probabbility as Space Aliens. Also

You may not have noticed that I don't consider burning of trees as renewable, and I'll be the first Man to congratulate Denmark or Germany when they stop burning coal.

 

August 25, 2014    View Comment    

On Renewable Energy Could Hit 36% Of Global Energy Use, But There's A Biomass Catch

I see a lot of hypocrisy in "biomas". 

If you consider that the only way we currently have to remove atmospheric carbon is by planting trees, then re-releasing said (trapped) carbon to the atmosphere is just wrong headed and hypocritical.

We should bury the wood from trees, or make it into wood products whereby the carbon remains trapped. If we keep re-releasing already trapped carbon, I cannot see an end to our CO2 problem.

August 24, 2014    View Comment    

On Renewable Energy Could Hit 36% Of Global Energy Use, But There's A Biomass Catch

Bas, CO2 is CO2, Coal is Coal. If denmark is afraid of a cold climate, then they should add some nuclear power.

August 24, 2014    View Comment