2 ms·

I've heard the line several times: "Costs the same so long as you add in total system cost." Then they proceed with estimates for everything from accidents to c

I've heard the line several times: "Costs the same so long as you add in total system cost." Then they proceed with estimates for everything from accidents to climate change related costs. This sounds like handwaving to me. You could make anything cost competitive with variables that large. What is the total system cost from throwing out an entire nation's infrastructure?

stretchwithme 16y ago
Forget that. I just think its amazing that we can now study the future.
stretchwithme 16y ago
Forget that. I just think its amazing that we can now study the future. :-)
j_baker 16y ago
Yeah, but on the other hand you don't have to mine or discover sunlight or wind. You don't have to transport it from the place you discovered it to where it will be generated. You don't have to refine it. You don't have to have pollution filtering mechanisms. Maybe they are hand-waving a bit, and perhaps the costs are higher than what they are claiming. However, I could see the long-term costs being nowhere near as high as you might imagine. I mean, it's not so much the throwing out of the infrastructure that's expensive. It's replacing it that's really costly.
- johngalt 16y ago
  You do have to determine where winds or sunlight will be regularly available. People that need solar power in Seattle will have to discover sunlight somewhere first. This is precisely my point. I get the idea when people calculate "total system costs are the same" the calculations go like this: Current system costs: Fuel + Transport + Transmission + Environmental destruction + 1/3rd of all cancer costs + 1/3rd of every hurricane/flood + 1/3rd of Iraq war etc... Proposed system costs: Solar plants in Arizona + Wind Generators in Nebraska + Hydro on the mississippi Somehow I doubt the proposed system is considering the costs of the mines/foundaries for the solar panels, or the dead birds from the windmills, or the destroyed fisheries from the hydro. Additionally, consider that you still have to transport the electricity if not the fuel, and you lose a lot more on this side of the equation. Transmission losses are significant over distance. You can put a natural gas generator anywhere and it will produce power in a very dense footprint. Specifically when compared with acres of solar panels or windmills. So even if you can produce power at a similar rate it matters where you produce it. Anyone that's concerned about fossil fuel dependence and CO2 should be campaigning for more nuclear plants. Solar and wind can be used where feasible, but to say they can replace the whole system is overshooting.

stretchwithme 16y ago

Forget that. I just think its amazing that we can now study the future.

stretchwithme 16y ago

Forget that. I just think its amazing that we can now study the future. :-)

j_baker 16y ago

Yeah, but on the other hand you don't have to mine or discover sunlight or wind. You don't have to transport it from the place you discovered it to where it will be generated. You don't have to refine it. You don't have to have pollution filtering mechanisms. Maybe they are hand-waving a bit, and perhaps the costs are higher than what they are claiming. However, I could see the long-term costs being nowhere near as high as you might imagine. I mean, it's not so much the throwing out of the infrastructure that's expensive. It's replacing it that's really costly.

johngalt 16y ago
You do have to determine where winds or sunlight will be regularly available. People that need solar power in Seattle will have to discover sunlight somewhere first. This is precisely my point. I get the idea when people calculate "total system costs are the same" the calculations go like this: Current system costs: Fuel + Transport + Transmission + Environmental destruction + 1/3rd of all cancer costs + 1/3rd of every hurricane/flood + 1/3rd of Iraq war etc... Proposed system costs: Solar plants in Arizona + Wind Generators in Nebraska + Hydro on the mississippi Somehow I doubt the proposed system is considering the costs of the mines/foundaries for the solar panels, or the dead birds from the windmills, or the destroyed fisheries from the hydro. Additionally, consider that you still have to transport the electricity if not the fuel, and you lose a lot more on this side of the equation. Transmission losses are significant over distance. You can put a natural gas generator anywhere and it will produce power in a very dense footprint. Specifically when compared with acres of solar panels or windmills. So even if you can produce power at a similar rate it matters where you produce it. Anyone that's concerned about fossil fuel dependence and CO2 should be campaigning for more nuclear plants. Solar and wind can be used where feasible, but to say they can replace the whole system is overshooting.