|
Science Forum Index » Energy Forum » Clean coal, only $14 / watt
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Eric Gisin |
 Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nuclear power is around $2 /watt...
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080325/harper_sask_080325/20080325
Prime Minister highlights carbon capture as key climate plank
Updated Tue. Mar. 25 2008 7:37 PM ET
The Canadian Press
ESTEVAN, Sask. -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper is warning Canadians to expect higher energy bills
as new technologies such as the underground storage of carbon dioxide develop and come online.
Harper was in southeastern Saskatchewan on Tuesday to tour SaskPower's Boundary Dam power station,
where the federal and provincial governments are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to
develop the first so-called "clean coal'' project in Canada.
Clean coal and the ability to capture greenhouse gas emissions from large polluters for storage
underground is a key plank in the Conservative government's plans to address climate change.
When asked what effect these costly and experimental technologies will have on the average power
consumer, Harper offered a warning.
"All the cost pressures on energy, including admittedly cost pressures around environmental
regulation, are likely to lead to upward pressure on power prices across this country in years to
come,'' Harper said.
"Canadians have to understand that there is a price to this.''
Saskatchewan is the largest emitter per capita in the country thanks to its reliance on burning
coal for energy.
The clean coal pilot project at Boundary Dam is not expected to be online until 2015. When
complete, the 100 megawatts of power the unit will produce is only a fraction of the province's
3,500 megawatt generating capacity, but will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one million tonnes
annually.
The project is estimated to cost $1.4 billion, with the federal government providing $240 million
and the province putting up $758 million. The private sector is being looked to for the rest
because the carbon dioxide that is captured can be piped to nearby oilfields and used to force oil
to the surface.
The federal government investment, which was announced in last month's budget, has been criticized
by environmentalists who say the money is better spent on developing energy sources that don't
produce greenhouse gases in the first place.
But Harper said developing clean coal and carbon capture technology will make Canada a leader in
green energy in an increasingly carbon conscientious world.
"When that day comes, we will be able to say it all began right here in Saskatchewan,'' he said.
The costs of such experimental technology is a real concern.
Saskatchewan's previous NDP government had explored the idea of creating a 300 megawatt clean coal
generator, but ended up backing away when costs mushroomed to $3.8 billion.
Harper acknowledged that cost is a major concern.
"These remain expensive technologies,'' he said.
The costs are mitigated by the ability to market the technology around the world, said Saskatchewan
Premier Brad Wall.
"Imagine the commercialization opportunities for that technology around the world,'' Wall said.
"Imagine the interest in India, China and the United States, who, by the way, are forecasting a
greater reliance on coal, not less.''
Harper left little hope that the federal government will help out should costs escalate on this
project.
"The federal government doesn't have plans to fund cost overruns,'' Harper said. "Obviously the
province and the other partners will be watching those very closely.'' |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Landy |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Eric Gisin" <gisin@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:13uj85b3j9bqa21@corp.supernews.com...
Quote: Nuclear power is around $2 /watt...
Surely you mean watt hours, or kilowatt hours. Watts are a rate of use, not
an amount of electricity.
cheers
Bill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ivan |
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Eric Gisin" <gisin@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:13uj85b3j9bqa21@corp.supernews.com...
Quote: Nuclear power is around $2 /watt...
Does that $2 factor in the billions that will have to be spent the eventual
decommissioning, including the not inconsiderable costs of disposing and
long term security of the nuclear waste? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Bloomquist |
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Landy wrote:
Quote: "Eric Gisin" <gisin@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:13uj85b3j9bqa21@corp.supernews.com...
Nuclear power is around $2 /watt...
Surely you mean watt hours, or kilowatt hours. Watts are a rate of use, not
an amount of electricity.
Production cost is most often measured in dollars/watt. At that, last I
read, even France's next generation plants will run $4/watt. But that's
not bad as coal two years ago was $1/watt installed and $3-$5/watt over
the lifetime. The last nuclear plant we decommissioned ran $8/watt. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Gisin |
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:64ugeiF2d7b42U1@mid.individual.net...
Quote:
"Eric Gisin" <gisin@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:13uj85b3j9bqa21@corp.supernews.com...
Nuclear power is around $2 /watt...
Does that $2 factor in the billions that will have to be spent the eventual
decommissioning, including the not inconsiderable costs of disposing and
long term security of the nuclear waste?
Of course it does. It certainly does not cost billions either. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ivan |
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Eric Gisin" <gisin@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:13ul76295p9f3c7@corp.supernews.com...
Quote: "Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:64ugeiF2d7b42U1@mid.individual.net...
"Eric Gisin" <gisin@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:13uj85b3j9bqa21@corp.supernews.com...
Nuclear power is around $2 /watt...
Does that $2 factor in the billions that will have to be spent the
eventual decommissioning, including the not inconsiderable costs of
disposing and long term security of the nuclear waste?
Of course it does. It certainly does not cost billions either.
I appreciate that these are some of the oldest nuclear reactors in the
world, which date back to a time when the designers probably never even
thought about decommissioning, however in this article the decommissioning
cost is around the equivalent of a staggering 150 billion U.S. dollars with
a compilation time of around 30 years. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ivan |
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:64vnaoF2dkppnU1@mid.individual.net...
Quote:
"Eric Gisin" <gisin@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:13ul76295p9f3c7@corp.supernews.com...
"Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:64ugeiF2d7b42U1@mid.individual.net...
"Eric Gisin" <gisin@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:13uj85b3j9bqa21@corp.supernews.com...
Nuclear power is around $2 /watt...
Does that $2 factor in the billions that will have to be spent the
eventual decommissioning, including the not inconsiderable costs of
disposing and long term security of the nuclear waste?
Of course it does. It certainly does not cost billions either.
I appreciate that these are some of the oldest nuclear reactors in the
world, which date back to a time when the designers probably never even
thought about decommissioning, however in this article the decommissioning
cost is around the equivalent of a staggering 150 billion U.S. dollars
with a compilation time of around 30 years.
Sorry omitted link.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4859980.stm> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| SaPeIsMa |
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:64ugeiF2d7b42U1@mid.individual.net...
Quote:
"Eric Gisin" <gisin@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:13uj85b3j9bqa21@corp.supernews.com...
Nuclear power is around $2 /watt...
Does that $2 factor in the billions that will have to be spent the
eventual decommissioning, including the not inconsiderable costs of
disposing and long term security of the nuclear waste?
The waste produced in the last 50 years by all the nuclear generators could
fill a field the size of a football field
The amount of waste produced by the coal plants can do that in less than
a day
Nuclear generators do NOT release carbon in the atmosphere
You can say that about burning pure carbon (coal)
You need to educate yourself better on the issue, instead of just being a
stupid parrot |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| T. Keating |
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:02:21 -0700, "Eric Gisin" <gisin@uniserve.com>
wrote:
Quote: Nuclear power is around $2 /watt...
Not here in Florida.. more like 6 to 9$ a watt for just construction
costs!! Tack on operational, fuel, and decommissioning costs to
those numbers.
FPL is asked and just received permission to build two more reactors
at it's current Turkey Point site..
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sfl-0318fpl,0,1666939.story
"FP&L clears one hurdle en route to building two nuclear generators
near Turkey Point"
"March 18, 2008"
"The new generators would produce 2,200 to 3,040 megawatts of power
and power an estimated one million homes. Pending the approvals, FPL
hopes to have the new generators operating in 2018 and 2020."
"Commissioners acknowledged that the projected costs - which have been
estimated at about $12 billion to $18 billion - may change but that
they would review information annually to review whether the project
makes sense."
Note: The large variance in output and costs..
FPL may need to build self contained cooling towers..
Which adds to cost and decreases output by at least 10%.
Since existing cooling ponds/ocean waters may not provide
sufficient heat sink to support another 2 to 3x thermal discharge into
the local GW waters. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Len McLaughlin |
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Recently I've seen an ad promoting the efficiency of trains. The ad show a
freight train and the voice-over claims that it can run 400 miles on a
gallon of fuel. this just doesn't sound possible to me.
This seems like a group that could clear up the confusion. Any takers?
-lm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| sno |
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Len McLaughlin wrote:
Quote:
Recently I've seen an ad promoting the efficiency of trains. The ad show a
freight train and the voice-over claims that it can run 400 miles on a
gallon of fuel. this just doesn't sound possible to me.
This seems like a group that could clear up the confusion. Any takers?
-lm
The efficiency of trains is aprox 10 times that of trucks...
see US freight transportation here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation
what they are probably saying is to transport a ton of freight...
400 miles sounds like a reasonable number....
hope helps...have fun.....sno |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Talk-n-Dog |
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
sno wrote:
Quote:
Len McLaughlin wrote:
Recently I've seen an ad promoting the efficiency of trains. The ad show a
freight train and the voice-over claims that it can run 400 miles on a
gallon of fuel. this just doesn't sound possible to me.
This seems like a group that could clear up the confusion. Any takers?
-lm
The efficiency of trains is aprox 10 times that of trucks...
see US freight transportation here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation
what they are probably saying is to transport a ton of freight...
400 miles sounds like a reasonable number....
hope helps...have fun.....sno
Why not use a train like a ferry... drive on and save gas. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| sno |
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Talk-n-Dog wrote:
Quote:
sno wrote:
Len McLaughlin wrote:
Recently I've seen an ad promoting the efficiency of trains. The ad show a
freight train and the voice-over claims that it can run 400 miles on a
gallon of fuel. this just doesn't sound possible to me.
This seems like a group that could clear up the confusion. Any takers?
-lm
The efficiency of trains is aprox 10 times that of trucks...
see US freight transportation here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation
what they are probably saying is to transport a ton of freight...
400 miles sounds like a reasonable number....
hope helps...have fun.....sno
Why not use a train like a ferry... drive on and save gas.
Sorry....someone already thought of it...<grin>....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_Train
have fun.....sno |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Talk-n-Dog |
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
sno wrote:
Quote:
Talk-n-Dog wrote:
sno wrote:
Len McLaughlin wrote:
Recently I've seen an ad promoting the efficiency of trains. The ad show a
freight train and the voice-over claims that it can run 400 miles on a
gallon of fuel. this just doesn't sound possible to me.
This seems like a group that could clear up the confusion. Any takers?
-lm
The efficiency of trains is aprox 10 times that of trucks...
see US freight transportation here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation
what they are probably saying is to transport a ton of freight...
400 miles sounds like a reasonable number....
hope helps...have fun.....sno
Why not use a train like a ferry... drive on and save gas.
Sorry....someone already thought of it...<grin>....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_Train
have fun.....sno
I Guess the Liberals didn't ride the train, and save the world. But they
are willing to steal/tax my money away from me to spend to save the planet. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Poetic Justice |
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:00:39 -0300, Len McLaughlin wrote:
Recently I've seen an ad promoting the efficiency of trains. The ad show
a freight train and the voice-over claims that it can run 400 miles on a
gallon of fuel. this just doesn't sound possible to me. This seems like a
group that could clear up the confusion. Any takers? -lm
Don't use this as a cite... just a few thoughts I had.
Probably under ideal conditions, which would be with one ton being
compact enough to load the train car to capacity it could transport 1
ton - 400 miles with 1 gallon of fuel on a fully loaded train. I think
transporting vehicles typically "under loads" a train car... so I'm
guessing that they don't really get that "literally".
But for heavy/fully loaded train cars, the steel wheels and easy grade
of the rails and no weight limits, with the diesel electric power
plant... they get pretty good economics, I believe that's why coal that
is heavy, generally still goes by rail. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
