Comments on: Why didn’t the heat wave cause power failures?

By: aligatorhardt

aligatorhardt — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 00:54:48 +0000

The energy story is changing rapidly and old standards are proven wrong time and again. We must consider the long term cost of operating power plants as well as the cost to build them. Fuel free systems are the way to save money in the long run. Land based wind power is cheaper and faster to install than coal or nuclear power. Natural gas is questioned as how clean it really is, with methane being 20 times more objectionable for global warming than CO2. However, in burning, gas has the advantage over coal. Recent disaster at Japan is showing the losses possible when relying on nuclear power, and the large amount of power lost when it is offline. Solar power is perfect to offset peak loads during daytime hours, and prices are coming down to be equal to new nuclear in installation cost, but far ahead in safety. http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/06 /237150/stunner-new-nuclear-costs-as-mu ch-as-german-solar-power-today-and-up-to -0-34kwh-in-2018/

Solar costs in the US are still higher than in Germany but prices continue to improve. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26 /solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power -in-five-years-ge-says.html

Many businesses are finding their own wind turbines can save money as well. https://eshop.macsales.com/green/wind.ht ml

While utilities see a different picture of generation investments, homeowners are saving money by owning their own solar power. While electric bills never stop, owners can pay off systems in 10 years or less and enjoy free electricity for another 20 and more years after that, so investing in home solar can save the most.

One thing for sure is fossil fuels will continue to go up in price as world supplies lessen and hard to reach sources are required to fill the gap. Even coal is going up, and it depends on railroad delivery, and that depends on diesel. The cost of pollution and environmental cleanup cannot be ignored, with health care costs related to coal use being estimated at $300 to 500 billion each year in the US. http://www.energyboom.com/yes/harvard-st udy-estimates-coal-power-has-300-500-bil lion-hidden-costs

By: VanIslBoy

VanIslBoy — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:16:47 +0000

Unfortunately Easterbrook reveals his bias too often in this piece. When he dismisses those who call for further stimulus as “special interests,” he undermines his own credibility. Nobel laureates like economists Stiglitz and Krugman are hardly special interests. Professor Robert Reich isn’t a special interest. If Easterbrook can’t abide their expertise or if it doesn’t conform to his narrative he should explain why they’re wrong and he’s right.

By: auger

auger — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 01:49:31 +0000

Distributed generation has been working great in NJ, for a number of chain clients including Wal Mart and Whole Foods. The statement “And there’s no way big solar and wind energy facilities will fly without a commitment to invest billions in new power lines…” is contrary to sensibility -The essence of rooftop solar is the elimination of the HV lines, and the generation prices have never been lower. Solar will begin to shine in this environment, with or without subsidies

By: ronwagn

ronwagn — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:50:33 +0000

Natural gas is available in most areas. NG plants could be used locally, avoiding line loss. We no longer need coal plants. NG is much cleaner, is the most economical of all clean energy technologies, and can also be used in vehicles.

By: robb1

robb1 — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:11:20 +0000

Bravo!

If they just would give better incentives for home solar/wind generation and light/insulation savings… but there is not much “political glamor” into that.

And yes, we need to solve the energy storage problem at the home level, without relying on the grid for power back.

By: Ralphooo

Ralphooo — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:07:36 +0000

Gregg, your logic is good, but power generation and distribution is so critical to the health of our technological civilization that a belt-and-suspenders approach is well worth taking.

While I agree that local power generation is by far the superior option in the very long run, nevertheless the vicissitudes of energy supplies may make next year’s outlook for power grids much brighter. Nothing could be a better investment in our future than BOTH a rock-solid grid AND small solar and wind harvesting installations, built on any and every scale. For example, in the future we might see home lighting, appliances and other miscellaneous loads being driven by rooftop solar cells, while vehicle charging, home heating and air conditioning power come through the grid on a 24-hour staggered schedule. With advances in batteries starting to come down the R&D pipeline, every home may soon have an energy storage module, making it easier to mix and match local and distant sources of power.

By: wiredog

wiredog — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:29:36 +0000

By “Iridium” I assume you are talking about the satellite cell-phone system which turned out to be quite useful. Just not to private industry. Anyplace private industry goes they have cell coverage. Governments, however, have found it useful. The tsunami warning system, for example, uses the Iridium system to send data.