RV Fuel Issues & Prices - Post 'Em Here!

[Dick_A]

All other fuel threads will be automatically deleted. 🙂

[Fezziwig]

Hooray! Someone, at least has been doing research after my prodding.

The nuclear plant you cite produces about 3.7gw on 4000 acres (excluding from consideration waste storage, etc.) which is an acreage requirement of about 1.1 acres per megawatt. By contrast, traditional solar PV rule of thumb is 5 acres/mw, which is much larger. that's the traditional rule of thumb, which is about 4.5 times as big a requirement.

The solar plant cited is about 1900 acres for 280Mw, which is a requirement of about 6.7 acres/Mw, about 6 times the nuclear, and even higher than the 5 acres/Mw of the rule of thumb.

You might well ask, 'why are they so careless of acreage', and the answer is that the design does not control for square footage. That's why most of the solar plants are built in deserts of the west (75% in California). Land is cheap. And this is a valid constraint freedom because the calculation for total land required for all US electric needs is small.

That's why the AZ plant is so prodigal with land. It frees the developers to work on the other constraints. It comes down to money: the fixed land cost is swamped out by operating costs (capitalism at work!), so you look at Revenue returned on Capital at the margin, in other words, marginal ROI. Which the article points out is better than other electrical systems (except hydro).

Basically, the AZ plant is a pilot system. It would be fine if all the solar plants the US needs were to be situated in western deserts, but then a lot of power would be burned up (as it is now) in extensive electrical grids, so ultimately we want to distribute solar generators throughout the US, even near more populated eastern cities where land is expensive. So there IS an underlying desire to improve that acreage requirement figure.

And there are projects that produce better yield. For example, in California at Carrica plains, which is somewhat more valuable land, a new solar plant is going in which is on 640 acres and will produce 177 Mw, which gives an acreage requirement of about 3.6, which is about 3 times the nuclear site.

That's without even really trying. In engineering R&D pilot systems 3 to 1 is pretty good. You'd be worried if it were 20 to 1, or something like that.

There are other projects that narrow the gap even more.

We know from experience that once a newish technology goes into production we can find many ways to increase yield. But first, the primary economic cost/revenue projections must be verified.

Yield is pretty easy to increase once stable pilot systems are working. In fact, we have seen that very thing in nuclear energy where production is 10 times or more what it was just a few years ago.

We know that there are enhancements at hand that can increase solar yield: improved PVs, improved technologies (like Stirling engines, concentrated solar, solar thermal, etc.) that can be expected to mature as we proceed.

The real proof of the pudding here is that real honest-to-goodness US investors are willing to put THEIR money into these projects. Not only are the willing, but they have already committed billions of dollars to development. real people are making real product as a result of private investment. By contrast, not one nuclear plant anywhere has been privately financed.

But the playing field is tilted in favor of traditional energy, primarily oil (to say nothing about nukes, which are totally coppered by the government). To even get close to a level playing field alternate energy needs the Tax Credits you've heard about. Now the thing is about the tax credits is that they are NOT money from the government to industry, they are simply tax reductions. Whereas, oil gets both tax breaks and direct subsidies (10s of billions a year).

Why is it so hard to get the Tax Credits passed? Because congress and the administration are playing a game of Financial Chicken to hide the REAL facts of our terrible financial situation. It turns out that an accounting convention in USA accounting holds that any financial bill with an expiration date or a renewal clause doesn't get counted in annual revenues/expenditures! How weird. But that's why Bush tax cuts have an expiration date, for example: that way they aren't accounted for! And if they keep extending them, they will never be accounted for! We'll go broke not even knowing it. So they tacked a renewal clause on the tax creits, too, so that they would not have to be accounted for, but with such a short term that they can be threatened every year or two. Is this any way to run a government?

Oh, there are a lot of foreign investors that are putting their money into these things, too. If we in the USA turn our backs on these technologies then foreigners will get the fruits. We will end up buying from them, which will hasten our descent into being a third-world client economy.

Remember, the whole thrust of the Globalization free-trade scheme (that US business has embraced whole-heartedly) is that the US has NO advantage in manufacturing, only in technology. We have always been THE tech leader for the world. If we forfeit that we are lost!

[topflite51]

sirdrakejr wrote:
I love hearing about replacing our oil, coal and gas fired generator systems and saying "No" to nukes. So we get into Solar, wind and geo-thermal power ONLY.

Well folks, please tell me what happens at night when the sun sets and the winds calm down. Where do we get the power then to turn on the lights, power up the electrics cars and cook dinner in the microwaves? I think until we come up with a better way, OIL and/or GAS is still the best and cheapest to use with clean burning coal the most plentiful. Until someone figures out how to replace them for a 24 hour duty cycle, they wont be replaced.
Not in our lifetimes!
Frank

I hear they are building a HUMONGOUS Duracell Bunny!:B

[sirdrakejr]

I love hearing about replacing our oil, coal and gas fired generator systems and saying "No" to nukes. So we get into Solar, wind and geo-thermal power ONLY.

Well folks, please tell me what happens at night when the sun sets and the winds calm down. Where do we get the power then to turn on the lights, power up the electrics cars and cook dinner in the microwaves? I think until we come up with a better way, OIL and/or GAS is still the best and cheapest to use with clean burning coal the most plentiful. Until someone figures out how to replace them for a 24 hour duty cycle, they wont be replaced.
Not in our lifetimes!
Frank

[H_1]

Each form of power has a risk/reward and a cost/benefit relationship.
Renewables aren't heavy on the power density side of things, but nobody's going to make a movie called "4000 Acre Island" about the core meltdown at the solarium.

Wind power has its issues too, so does coal - not the least of which involve strip mines and black lung.

France has gone heavy into nuclear energy, the Germans and the Danes seem to be leaning more toward solar and wind. Be like the French, be like the Danes? Pros and cons there too.

I'm personally glad Fez is here. A discussion where everyone agrees with everyone else is of no value, either for entertainment or education.

[topflite51]

Strawfoot wrote:

Fezziwig wrote:
Nuclear? A solar plant occupying the same acreage produces almost as much electricity as nuclear...

Is it possible to call shenanigans on this claim without incurring another landslide of rants?



The lucky sunny state of Arizona is about to become home to the world’s largest Solar Plant! Thanks to a just-announced contract between Abengoa Solar and Arizona Public Service Company (APS), the enormous solar plant called Solana will power up to 70,000 homes, and will be the first example in the country of a major utility getting the majority of its energy from solar. The capacity of the power plant has been projected at 280 megawatts. The 1900 acre plant will be completed by 2011 – IF AND ONLY IF Congress renews the clean energy tax credit that’s set to expire at the end of 2008. That's the clean energy bill which would shift about $18 billion in tax breaks from oil companies to renewable energy.



Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

The facility is on 4,000 acres of land and consists of three Combustion Engineering pressurized water reactors, each with an original capacity of 1.27 gigawatts electrical, current (2007) maximum capacity of 1.24 gigawatts electrical, and typical operating capacity 70%-95% of this. The plant is a major source of power for Phoenix and Southern California, capable of serving about 4 million people. The plant provides about 35% of the electricity generated in Arizona each year.

It supplies electricity at a production cost (including fuel, maintenance and operation) of 1.33 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour[5]. This is cheaper than coal (2.26 cents/kWh) or natural gas (4.54 cents/kWh) in the region at the same time (2002), but more expensive than hydro (0.63 cents/kWh). Assuming a 60-year plant life and 5% long-term cost of capital, the depreciation and capital costs not included in the previous marginal cost for Palo Verde are approximately another 1.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. In 2002, the wholesale value of the electricity produced was 2.5 cents/kWh. By 2007, the wholesale value of electricity at the Palo Verde hub was 6.33 cents/kWh[6]. Nuclear power generators are very profitable when fossil fuel prices are high.


So the Solar Power Plant is 1900 acres has been projected to produce 280 megawatts.

The Nuclear Power Plant is 4,000 acres of land and consists of three Combustion Engineering pressurized water reactors, each with an original capacity of 1.27 gigawatts electrical, current (2007) maximum capacity of 1.24 gigawatts, for a total of 3.72 gigawatts.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, the Nuclear Power Plant takes up twice the space and produces 13 times more electricity. It serves 4 million people vs. 70,000 homes, if those two can be compared.

So exactly how did you conclude the two were equal? Where are your sources. I simply looked at the Nuclear Power Plant here in Arizona and the proposed Solar Power Plant here in Arizona.

Are we to conclude all the figures you post here are off by over 1000%? It would go a long way in explaining why you are met with so much skepticism. 🙂

Fuzzy numbers, fuzzy logic, fuzzy thinking. Should we expect anything else from fuzzyhead. Outstanding post Strawfoot!

[ORbiker]

coolbreeze01 wrote:

DWN wrote:
Well said ,Strawfoot. Good to read some common sence here. Nuclear relieves pressure on oil usage and should be vigorously pursued.

Yes, good job.

What are the costs of each?

What are the pros and cons of each.

I think they (? who) shut down most of the nuclear plants years ago. Are they in mothball stage and just need to be re-certified and started back up?

[coolbreeze01]

DWN wrote:
Well said ,Strawfoot. Good to read some common sence here. Nuclear relieves pressure on oil usage and should be vigorously pursued.

Yes, good job.

[DWN]

Well said ,Strawfoot. Good to read some common sence here. Nuclear relieves pressure on oil usage and should be vigorously pursued.

[Strawfoot]

Fezziwig wrote:
Nuclear? A solar plant occupying the same acreage produces almost as much electricity as nuclear...

Is it possible to call shenanigans on this claim without incurring another landslide of rants?



The lucky sunny state of Arizona is about to become home to the world’s largest Solar Plant! Thanks to a just-announced contract between Abengoa Solar and Arizona Public Service Company (APS), the enormous solar plant called Solana will power up to 70,000 homes, and will be the first example in the country of a major utility getting the majority of its energy from solar. The capacity of the power plant has been projected at 280 megawatts. The 1900 acre plant will be completed by 2011 – IF AND ONLY IF Congress renews the clean energy tax credit that’s set to expire at the end of 2008. That's the clean energy bill which would shift about $18 billion in tax breaks from oil companies to renewable energy.



Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

The facility is on 4,000 acres of land and consists of three Combustion Engineering pressurized water reactors, each with an original capacity of 1.27 gigawatts electrical, current (2007) maximum capacity of 1.24 gigawatts electrical, and typical operating capacity 70%-95% of this. The plant is a major source of power for Phoenix and Southern California, capable of serving about 4 million people. The plant provides about 35% of the electricity generated in Arizona each year.

It supplies electricity at a production cost (including fuel, maintenance and operation) of 1.33 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour[5]. This is cheaper than coal (2.26 cents/kWh) or natural gas (4.54 cents/kWh) in the region at the same time (2002), but more expensive than hydro (0.63 cents/kWh). Assuming a 60-year plant life and 5% long-term cost of capital, the depreciation and capital costs not included in the previous marginal cost for Palo Verde are approximately another 1.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. In 2002, the wholesale value of the electricity produced was 2.5 cents/kWh. By 2007, the wholesale value of electricity at the Palo Verde hub was 6.33 cents/kWh[6]. Nuclear power generators are very profitable when fossil fuel prices are high.


So the Solar Power Plant is 1900 acres has been projected to produce 280 megawatts.

The Nuclear Power Plant is 4,000 acres of land and consists of three Combustion Engineering pressurized water reactors, each with an original capacity of 1.27 gigawatts electrical, current (2007) maximum capacity of 1.24 gigawatts, for a total of 3.72 gigawatts.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, the Nuclear Power Plant takes up twice the space and produces 13 times more electricity. It serves 4 million people vs. 70,000 homes, if those two can be compared.

So exactly how did you conclude the two were equal? Where are your sources. I simply looked at the Nuclear Power Plant here in Arizona and the proposed Solar Power Plant here in Arizona.

Are we to conclude all the figures you post here are off by over 1000%? It would go a long way in explaining why you are met with so much skepticism. 🙂

[H_1]

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/02/mercedes-runs-out-of-gas-by-2015/

Article synopsis: Mercedes Benz plans to abandon the gasoline engine by 2015. Alternative fuels, electrics, and fuel cells or H2 engines, I guess.

Presumably they have reasons.

[Fezziwig]

"Drill here drill now", if pursued, will be utterly disappointing, and then some people will say "how could we have known", and "but everyone believed...".

But you CAN know now. And NOT EVERYONE believes the untruths.

But you have to be brave. You have to be willing to confront your own assumptions and change them if necessary.

You have to be willing to work hard and search out the real facts. NOT just the facts that seem to support your preconceptions.

[mrjimboalaska]

Geez,
Go Carbon ONsetting for a week and this thread goes from really bad to REALLY bad.
No changing this Fizzywedge at all.

Now planning my next Carbon ONsetting trip.....

enjoy all..... DRILL HERE DRILL NOW

[Fezziwig]

If we 'drill now drill here' then we get to wait until 2030 (according to the Energy Information Administration in the DOE) to see if it contributes significantly to global oil. Too bad that the IEA says that the effect on prices will be negligible.

Too bad. People will be disappointed after waiting 20 years, then digging that $150,000 motor coach out of the weeds in the backyard, only to find that gas went up anyway and now costs $20/gallon.

How did this sad state come to pass?

100 years ago the USA controlled world oil because we were the biggest producers of oil in the world. American kerosene replaced whale oil in lamps around the world. Petrol replaced alcohol and other volatiles. Because oil products were cheaper. And the USA controlled the supply.

50 years ago we started to import oil and we financed all the foreign oil producers. We gave away the production control, but retained market control by being the biggest consumer of oil, so we could make the market dance to our tune.

But now we are rapidly losing market control as other consumers dominate the market (can you say C-h-i-n-a?). Soon, prices will be entirely set by those foreign entities. No matter WHAT we do we will not affect market prices, and we will have lost sovereignty over our own oil fields (if we try to sequester US oil then the WTO will declare us outlaws and send in troops from China to Set Us Right, just as they do in Tibet).

Oil is "fungible", and as long as markets are open to global trade they are all interchangeable. So, yes, a barrel of oil produced in the USA will go into the global pool, from which the USA draws about 1/3. Not a good deal. especially since the oil companies are 55% foreign owned (thanks to our generosity over the past 50 years) so the profits leave the country. A few American slaves will be employed to do the dirty work at the wells and on the (foreign registered) oil tankers.

When, in past centuries, western countries did that we called it "colonialism".

Why would it be any different? What could possibly persuade a person to continue on this degenerative course? What oil strategy will produce a good outcome for the USA and it's citizens, such as me and thee?

[Fezziwig]

Nuclear? A solar plant occupying the same acreage produces almost as much electricity as nuclear, and you get side benefits:

1-no radioactive wastes
2-no terrorist target
3-no federal insurance expenditure (Price-Anderson)
4-private construction financing, no federal subsidy (no nuke reactor has ever been built with private capital).

We conservatives prefer solar because it privatizes the energy industry and the insurance industry. It's only those one-world radical socialists who want the nationalized nukes.

[cjoseph]

Drill here, drill now.

Who cares where its sold? Go ahead and sell it overseas. That will bring some foreign dollars HOME.

Slow down that huge sucking sound.

All the anti-drillers have is that it wont lower the price and only foreign companies will benefit.

Tell that to the poor sap looking for a job in this supposedly slow economy.