A Tutorial For Trump Supporters On Climate Change

[Silhouette]

Trump is a man who can do the math especially on cutting costs to improve profits. When a power company can boil water to run the same steam turbine...only not have to buy fuel for up to 8 hours a day (or more) 300 days a year, Trump will know which company to invest in and which not to.

The Chinese are beating our pants off at this free-fuel turbine source. Other countries are following close behind her. Will we be the 21st Century's equivalent of "energy Amish"? Or will we get with the times and become the leaders in this inevitable replacement to boil water?

sure, solar works, we should be building solar and wind generators as well as hydro and nuclear. We need all sources of energy, including oil, gas, and coal.

It is the height of naivete to think that we can convert to renewables completely in the near future.

The war on fossil fuel is STUPID. That's the issue.

What type of solar? You neglected to say whether you were talking about regular solar PV panels or what I've been talking about here: solar concentrated steam running turbines just like coal & nuclear do. Fancy water boilers. Mine doesn't use fuel. Their type of fuel is destroying the planet and its atmosphere.



BTW, we should NEVER build another nuclear water boiler. The entire Pacific Ocean has been placed in jeopardy because of ONE nuclear plant's boiler system going down. As Japan sits on the world's 1/3rd largest geothermal steam reserve. GE sold them a raw bill of goods. The Japanese leaders who signed onto this technology, knowing it only boils water like all other steam turbine technology, while their ENTIRE NATION sat on top of water already boiling...they should do the honorable thing and take themselves off the planet.

Trump needs to educate himself on nuclear power too. So here's another part of the tutorial:

All they do is boil water. Like a super deadly tea kettle that can foul tens of thousands of square miles with ONE accident, for 200,000 years or more (time it takes for their waste to stop being one of the most deadly radioactive substances we know of).

Or, solar thermal or geothermal steam. Pick your kettle folks!

^^ oh! What's that?? Another STEAM TURBINE?? Boiled with the world's most deadliest substance? What BRAIN CHILD thought that one up? I'll tell you who: a person concerned that people would catch on how SIMPLE of a technology a steam turbine is: and how to make it seem "tricky and dangerous...needing special government clearance, personnel and permitting!" (Read: how to quell the competition)

Oh, and BTW...the same people on here warning readers of "dire expense of subsidized green energy!!!" are the same people who know and conceal that nuclear power is the biggest money pit of subsidized energy there is. We will be paying for this hapless industry and it's waste disposal? (we still don't know what to do with the metric tons that are stockpiled each year on site) FOREVER. 200,000 years. High Operating Costs Spell the End for Nuclear Power

You want to "Make America Great Again!"? replace her nuclear fleet with more profitable & sane type of tea kettles. And God only knows what you're going to do with those thousands of tons of nuclear waste that there literally is no place to put. Will we have a civilization that will last for 200,000 years to babysit that crap? What civilization has EVER lasted 200,000 years?

Our greed is our demise. Imagine hiding from the public all these years that all deadly nuclear plants do is boil water....& putting all their alternative good ideas and patents on ice to boil water other ways...just so you could maintain a tricky monopoly on creating steam...while tapping that same public for subsidies for your industry that never produced a dime of profit the entire time it was in operation. Talk about your corporate welfare; with an insidious 200,000 year twist..

(We'll make the same mistake with fracking too; where deadly solvents are being pumped deep into the earth where they can never be cleaned up; right next to our last underground fresh water reserves we need for drinking, showering & agriculture...all so some rich pricks can get a little richer before they have to switch over to green anyway when the source runs out)

Read up Mr. Trump. Read up and learn about the mess you've inherited. Maybe you can be the one to turn it all around. Unfreeze those patents Mr. Trump. Bring back TRUE capitalism in the FREE market innovations that could've made America great 50 years ago. Better late than never, right Donnie? You want to drain a swamp? There's the first swamp you should drain. And you'd better hurry because Morocco, Spain, France, the ME & CHI-NAH are all beating you to the punch.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's a link for you if your tapwater is catching on fire or your whole neighborhood has a child cancer rate 700% above the nation's norm: Fracking Injury Law | Dangerous Chemicals | Fracking Injury Law

Mr. Trump could start with reversing the fact that the fracking industry is the ONE INDUSTRY ALONE that doesn't have to disclose the list of chemicals it's pumping near your drinking water. The BigOil gang got an exemption from the federal Clean Water Act that each and every single one of the rest of us has to abide by or we are severely punished.

Go get 'em Mr. Trump. Drain that swamp..before it poisons all of us... I hope Tesla figures out how to put a small bank of solar PV cells on top of all their cars, aerodynamically, so while they're driving in the sun, they're also charging: like in Southern CA about 90% of the time cars are on the road.

********
Many fracturing fluid chemicals are known to be toxic to humans and wildlife, and several are known to cause cancer. Potentially toxic substances include petroleum distillates such as kerosene and diesel fuel (which contain benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, naphthalene and other chemicals); polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; methanol; formaldehyde; ethylene glycol; glycol ethers; hydrochloric acid; and sodium hydroxide.


Very small quantities of some fracking chemicals are capable of contaminating millions of gallons of water. According to the Environmental Working Group, petroleum-based products known as petroleum distillates are likely to contain benzene, a known human carcinogen that is toxic in water at levels greater than five parts per billion (or 0.005 parts per million).


Other chemicals used in fracking, such as 1,2-Dichloroethane are volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Volatile organic constituents have been shown to be present in fracturing fluid flowback wastes at levels that exceed drinking water standards. VOCs not only pose a health concern while in the water, the volatile nature of the constituents means that they can also easily enter the air.


Clearly, some hydraulic fracturing fluids contain chemicals that would be considered “hazardous wastes” in another context. Even if these chemicals are diluted it is unconscionable that government agencies are allowing these substances to be injected directly into underground sources of drinking water.

 

[Silhouette]

Y'all like capitalism right? But what happens when a powerful company or collaboration of companies within a given gravy-train industry seek to monopolize free thinking, ideas and patents? Here's an example Mr. Trump. This is what your BigOil pals did to an electric car back in 2000 that was becoming a BIT too popular with customers & drivers who were using solar panels at home to juice them up.

BigOil's pals and deep DEEP bed-buddies in Detroit did a FORCED RECALL of the popular Chevy Volt. They took them to the desert and crushed the brand new cars flat... That's literally called "crushing the competition." The reason was they worked and they were too efficient.

They're doing a new version of that with compact diesel cars. The recent ban on VW diesel commuter cars is suspect IMHO. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that BigOil had a mole working for VW who on-purpose did an egregious nefarious act aimed at getting all compact super-efficient (60mpg or more) commuter cars banned from US markets so our Detroit BigOil bed buddies can push more SUV V-10 gas guzzling monstrosities on the public; leaving us NO OPTION to be better energy consumers.

Diesel engines have a different, more efficient way of creating more power per engine stroke. And, their fuel can be combined with natural sources grown from algae and farm wastes to create biodiesel. BigOil wasn't having ANY of that. And so, magically "viola!" VW cannot import these great cars anymore.

And you thought it was about corruption at VW. Silly public. So easy to fool. All these little industry machinations are contributing to our planet's climate issues. We can either face the malignant capitalism or collectively die as a planet in quiet ignorant loyalty to a couple of rich guys this generation.

 

[Silhouette]

I mean, these industry-rotters in the swamp Trump is trying to drain are shameless men. And by that I mean, they have no shame at all. In fact, they will act to do harm even to themselves; so long as the shameful behavior and decisions are preserved; almost like an entity or god they have created to pray to.

The example of solar thermal steam comes to mind here. They've known it's been an adjunct way to create power for decades. They could've done what they always do: lobby Congress to create a monopoly on it...made permits hard to get; put other patents on ice...same ole' same ole'. Yet for some reason they chose pure carbon; even when they knew it was a dead end street. Even when they knew military expense & blood was being unnecessarily bled out.

So you have to wonder at the end of the day, what it is that actually motivates these men? If it was just pure greed, they'd want to stick it to the customers by charging them the same rate for electricity; even on days they didn't have to burn fuel (like every day the sun shines in the Southwest). But no...It's like they are owned by something larger than themselves. This thing owns them and drives them to do their (It's) destructive business; even in spite of themselves. Like meat robots. Or what was that old band's name...oh, yes "the meat puppets".

The "meat puppets" of malignant capitalism. Who is your master? Will Trump be their master now? Or will he too bow to "the god of the meat puppets of industry"?

 

[bripat9643]

You still believe that installations like the one in your video are free. They aren't. for the same output they can easily cost as much as a coal fired power plant. Until you get around that little problem your schemes aren't economic.

Wow, Trumpees are not only bad math, they're bad at reading too. I said that all things being equal, assuming you're bright enough to know that building either a pure coal or solar thermal plant BOTH cost money, that the FUEL is free when the sun shines in a solar thermal plant with a carbon backup for cloudy days or nights (assuming you're not storing heat also in molten salt for use at night after a sunny day).

Fee FUEL. But you knew that. You were being dishonest and trying to guide Trump's eye away from the fact that a solar thermal plant in the Southwest would be burning free fuel for up to 300 days a year....or more....

The fuel is "free" only if you ignore the cost of gathering it, i.e., the cost of a solar power plant. Instead of building one power plant and paying for all the fuel, you're building two power plants and paying for 2/3rds of the fuel. If the later arrangement was cheaper then utilities would already be doing it without subsidies.

 

[bripat9643]

You still believe that installations like the one in your video are free. They aren't. for the same output they can easily cost as much as a coal fired power plant. Until you get around that little problem your schemes aren't economic.

Wow, Trumpees are not only bad math, they're bad at reading too. I said that all things being equal, assuming you're bright enough to know that building either a pure coal or solar thermal plant BOTH cost money, that the FUEL is free when the sun shines in a solar thermal plant with a carbon backup for cloudy days or nights (assuming you're not storing heat also in molten salt for use at night after a sunny day).

Fee FUEL. But you knew that. You were being dishonest and trying to guide Trump's eye away from the fact that a solar thermal plant in the Southwest would be burning free fuel for up to 300 days a year....or more...

So, if this form of energy turns out to be success, I believe people will buy it and it will start replacing other forms of energy...? What's the argument here about?

Oh silly me... of course, this plant is just a new argument in the line of failed arguments of why the regressives should be able to take our wallets. I am sure that's what this is about, no one would even care otherwise.

"Turns out to be a success?" As if we still weren't sure that coal plants merely use steam turbines and as if we still weren't sure than focused sunlight can boil water to steam. You're funny! Poor Trumpees are really struggling with this concept that will make America Great Again if BigOil stops shielding Trump's eyes long enough so he can find out about it..

If they are a "success," then why won't utilities build them without government subsidies?

 

[bripat9643]

I mean, these industry-rotters in the swamp Trump is trying to drain are shameless men. And by that I mean, they have no shame at all. In fact, they will act to do harm even to themselves; so long as the shameful behavior and decisions are preserved; almost like an entity or god they have created to pray to.

The example of solar thermal steam comes to mind here. They've known it's been an adjunct way to create power for decades. They could've done what they always do: lobby Congress to create a monopoly on it...made permits hard to get; put other patents on ice...same ole' same ole'. Yet for some reason they chose pure carbon; even when they knew it was a dead end street. Even when they knew military expense & blood was being unnecessarily bled out.

So you have to wonder at the end of the day, what it is that actually motivates these men? If it was just pure greed, they'd want to stick it to the customers by charging them the same rate for electricity; even on days they didn't have to burn fuel (like every day the sun shines in the Southwest). But no...It's like they are owned by something larger than themselves. This thing owns them and drives them to do their (It's) destructive business; even in spite of themselves. Like meat robots. Or what was that old band's name...oh, yes "the meat puppets".

The "meat puppets" of malignant capitalism. Who is your master? Will Trump be their master now? Or will he too bow to "the god of the meat puppets of industry"?

You fail to understand what motivates them because everything you believe is a lie. You live in a universe where building a solar power plant is "free" and where the sun shines all day long, even at night.

Capitalism is the mechanism that determines which production methods are most efficient at satisfying consumers. Solar power is a big loser every time it has been tried. It fails the market test. Coal passes the market test. Solar only passes the political correctness test.

 

[bripat9643]

Y'all like capitalism right? But what happens when a powerful company or collaboration of companies within a given gravy-train industry seek to monopolize free thinking, ideas and patents? Here's an example Mr. Trump. This is what your BigOil pals did to an electric car back in 2000 that was becoming a BIT too popular with customers & drivers who were using solar panels at home to juice them up.

BigOil's pals and deep DEEP bed-buddies in Detroit did a FORCED RECALL of the popular Chevy Volt. They took them to the desert and crushed the brand new cars flat... That's literally called "crushing the competition." The reason was they worked and they were too efficient.

They're doing a new version of that with compact diesel cars. The recent ban on VW diesel commuter cars is suspect IMHO. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that BigOil had a mole working for VW who on-purpose did an egregious nefarious act aimed at getting all compact super-efficient (60mpg or more) commuter cars banned from US markets so our Detroit BigOil bed buddies can push more SUV V-10 gas guzzling monstrosities on the public; leaving us NO OPTION to be better energy consumers.

Diesel engines have a different, more efficient way of creating more power per engine stroke. And, their fuel can be combined with natural sources grown from algae and farm wastes to create biodiesel. BigOil wasn't having ANY of that. And so, magically "viola!" VW cannot import these great cars anymore.

And you thought it was about corruption at VW. Silly public. So easy to fool. All these little industry machinations are contributing to our planet's climate issues. We can either face the malignant capitalism or collectively die as a planet in quiet ignorant loyalty to a couple of rich guys this generation.

I have some news for you, numskull: Chevy Volts are still being sold. In fact, I saw a couple on my way home tonight. The fact is that the Volt didn't go into production until 2010, so your story is obvious horseshit.

Chevrolet Volt - Wikipedia

Manufacturer General Motors
Also called Holden Volt, Opel Ampera, Vauxhall Ampera
Production December 2010 – present
Model years 2011–present​

 

[Silhouette]

The fuel is "free" only if you ignore the cost of gathering it, i.e., the cost of a solar power plant. .

Yes, because building a coal, oil or nuclear power plant is free, right? Even if building a solar thermal plant cost as much as the other three (which it doesn't even come close to), after all things are equal, I'd rather invest in plant who uses free fuel 300 days a year or more.

I have some news for you, numskull: Chevy Volts are still being sold.

ONLY because Obumbles was president when they started being made again. If McLame had won in 2008 such would not be the case. And, look for Trump's BigOil pals to nudge him into domestic scrapping or suing or banning imports of otherwise super efficient cars and trucks; like usual under a GOP president.

 

[bripat9643]

The fuel is "free" only if you ignore the cost of gathering it, i.e., the cost of a solar power plant. .

Yes, because building a coal, oil or nuclear power plant is free, right? Even if building a solar thermal plant cost as much as the other three (which it doesn't even come close to), after all things are equal, I'd rather invest in plant who uses free fuel 300 days a year or more.

No one said coal fired power plants are free. However, you are clucking that sunshine is free while totally ignoring the cost of gathering it. And, no, solar power plants are not far cheaper than coal fired power plants. Solar plants of the same capacity as coal fired power plants cover hundreds of acres. Parabolic reflectors and all the plumbing required to make them work probably costs or more than a coal fired power plant, and the coal plant has a much smaller foot print on the land. It only disturbs 4-5 acres of land at the most, as opposed to the hundreds of acres the solar plant occupies.

And solar plant does not use fuel free for 300 days a year. In certain select areas of the country it can get "free sunshine" for 1/3 of 300 hundred days a year. 2/3rds of the day there isn't enough sunshine to produce any power. How is this economic? At best, the solar plant is only producing power about 1/4 of the time that the coal plant is producing power. In colder wetter climates the effective usage is far worse.

I have some news for you, numskull: Chevy Volts are still being sold.

ONLY because Obumbles was president when they started being made again. If McLame had won in 2008 such would not be the case. And, look for Trump's BigOil pals to nudge him into domestic scrapping or suing or banning imports of otherwise super efficient cars and trucks; like usual under a GOP president.

Wiki says the car wasn't manufactured until 2010. It says nothing about the car pertaining to 2001. Your claim is obvious horseshit.

 

[Silhouette]

No one said coal fired power plants are free. However, you are clucking that sunshine is free while totally ignoring the cost of gathering it. And, no, solar power plants are not far cheaper than coal fired power plants. Solar plants of the same capacity as coal fired power plants cover hundreds of acres.

What are the costs of gathering coal, oil or uranium vs sunshine? All things being equal, let's discuss the fuel "burned" day to day. The stuff you have to pay for in many ways often one hour at a time, or the kind that shines down from the sky without a cash register.

Solar thermal fields do take up space. Then again, so do coal mines, uranium mines and fracking operations necessary for coal, nuclear or oil based power plants.

Again, all things being equal, I'll invest in the company who gets fuel for free most days of the year vs the other that never can stop paying for it. We are all paying for it if NASA's findings are correct about human carbon use and the thinning thermosphere in our atmosphere. Most importantly, Mr. Trump understands that if all things are equal as to setup costs, the price of fuel after all are up and running is an issue. He likes to keep his overhead down and understands when you do, you increase your profits.

And, it's not like the Southwest & West have millions of acres of complete wastelands sitting under the sun day after day after day.. Oh, wait, that's right. They do.

 

[bripat9643]

No one said coal fired power plants are free. However, you are clucking that sunshine is free while totally ignoring the cost of gathering it. And, no, solar power plants are not far cheaper than coal fired power plants. Solar plants of the same capacity as coal fired power plants cover hundreds of acres.

What are the costs of gathering coal, oil or uranium vs sunshine? All things being equal, let's discuss the fuel "burned" day to day. The stuff you have to pay for in many ways often one hour at a time, or the kind that shines down from the sky without a cash register.

Solar thermal fields do take up space. Then again, so do coal mines, uranium mines and fracking operations necessary for coal, nuclear or oil based power plants.

Again, all things being equal, I'll invest in the company who gets fuel for free most days of the year vs the other that never can stop paying for it. We are all paying for it if NASA's findings are correct about human carbon use and the thinning thermosphere in our atmosphere. Most importantly, Mr. Trump understands that if all things are equal as to setup costs, the price of fuel after all are up and running is an issue. He likes to keep his overhead down and understands when you do, you increase your profits.

And, it's not like the Southwest & West have millions of acres of complete wastelands sitting under the sun day after day after day.. Oh, wait, that's right. They do.

AGW is an gigantic con, and Jim Hansen who runs that NASA climate program is a proven liar. Including bogus costs from a bogus con isn't valid.

Furthermore, it isn't just a matter of the space they take up. A coal mine is just a big hole in the ground. A solar plant is hundreds of acres covered with delicate and expensive equipment. You already posted the cost of a ton of coal. The equivalent cost of sunshine gathered to heat steam is higher. You're also still ignoring the fact that you can only gather the sunshine for 1/4 of the year. Coal fired power plants produce energy for 95% of the years, and the down times can be scheduled.

 

[Silhouette]

AGW is an gigantic con, and Jim Hansen who runs that NASA climate program is a proven liar. Including bogus costs from a bogus con isn't valid.

Furthermore, it isn't just a matter of the space they take up. A coal mine is just a big hole in the ground. A solar plant is hundreds of acres covered with delicate and expensive equipment. You already posted the cost of a ton of coal. The equivalent cost of sunshine gathered to heat steam is higher. You're also still ignoring the fact that you can only gather the sunshine for 1/4 of the year. Coal fired power plants produce energy for 95% of the years, and the down times can be scheduled.

OK, so you, who demonstrate here your proclivity for lying, are calling the NASA guy a "proven liar" (without links or substantiation of course). You want people to believe that if you build two plants next to one another, one coal 24/7, the other solar thermal with a coal backup, that the sun that shines upon the simple parabolic sheet metal that simply focuses concentrated sunshine on a tube is "expensive fuel" compared to the tons of coal needed each hour to run the pure coal plant. There is nothing delicate or expensive about pressed sheet metal as a reflector. So there you are lying again.

Jim Hansen you WANT to be a liar, because you're heavily invested in last century's dwindling carbon addiction. They have 12-step programs that might help you. Meanwhile, the rest of the world likes free fuel and is marching on without your kind.

 

[Silhouette]

To wit:
******
The Future of China’s Solar Thermal Power Generation and China-US Technology Cooperation

Interest in Solar Thermal Technology on the Rise

As renewable penetration increases globally, policymakers and utilities have shown growing interest in technologies that can ensure long-term reliability without increasing emissions. Regulators, utilities and grid operators increasingly incorporate factors such as system integration costs and reliability impacts when considering future energy portfolios and investment decisions.

CSP with thermal energy storage is one example of a flexible resource to help address the supply variability introduced by rapidly expanding wind and PV production. Recent studies [1] show the technology can play an important role in achieving global clean energy and climate goals by providing dispatchable power when it is needed most, improving reliability and reducing costs.

China has excellent solar energy resources, of which 70% is mainly concentrated in the Western and Northern provinces. The annual solar energy received by China’s land surface is estimated to equal the energy resource of 4.9 trillion tons of standard coal – approximately more than the total electricity output of 10,000 Three Gorges.

******

The US with her Southwest & Midwestern territories has China beat by a mile on that potential. And, where coal is finite and runs out eventually, the sunshine never will. Not in a practical way at least. Welcome to the 21st Century oh ye Carbon-Amish! Can you imagine Trump insisting we keep using the horse and buggy while CHI-NAH is developing the race car?

 

[Silhouette]

If they are a "success," then why won't utilities build them without government subsidies?

I don't know why the government has to subsidize the nuclear industry, the most expensive power there is that has never turned a profit since it was started. But you don't hear a lot of complaining from the people on the receiving end of that dole, do you?

If I was drawing up the budget for a government and had to choose a company to subsidize (providing private people don't get the jump on me), I'd choose a bank of pressed sheet metal reflecting the sun to boil water before I sunk one dime into radioactive steam kettles/money pits.

Trump wants to be the man to find waste in spending? He need look no further than the nuclear power fleet. Go ahead Mr. Trump. Crunch them numbers: http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default...ts/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

How would you like your subsidy?
Nuclear power subsidies vary by type of ownership (public or private), time frame of support (legacy, ongoing, or new), and the type of cost (or “attribute of production”) they address—from startup capital to decommissioning and waste disposal. Subsidies can take many forms, including tax breaks, accident liability caps, direct payments, and loan guarantees.....While the exact value of these subsidies can be difficult to pin down, even conservative estimates add up to a substantial percentage of the value of the power nuclear plants produce—approaching or even exceeding 100 percent in the case of legacy subsidies and subsidies to new privately-owned reactors (see chart).

SUBSIDIES TO NEW REACTORS REPEAT PAST PATTERNS

Legacy and ongoing subsidies to existing reactors may be important factors in keeping facilities operating, but they are not sufficient to attract new investment in nuclear infrastructure. Thus an array of new subsidies was rolled out during the past decade, targeting not only reactors but also other fuel-cycle facilities. Despite the profoundly poor investment experience with taxpayer subsidies to nuclear plants over the past 50 years, the objectives of these new subsidies are precisely the same as the earlier subsidies: to reduce the private cost of capital for new nuclear reactors and to shift the long-term, often multi-generational risks of the nuclear fuel cycle away from investors. And once again, these subsidies to new reactors—whether publicly or privately owned—could end up exceeding the value of the power produced (4.2 to 11.4 ¢/kWh, or 70 to 200 percent of the projected value of the power).

******

What a friggin' racket. That there is like a ponzi-scheme in its severity of defrauding the public. Criminal charges should be launched.

 

[bripat9643]

If they are a "success," then why won't utilities build them without government subsidies?

I don't know why the government has to subsidize the nuclear industry, the most expensive power there is that has never turned a profit since it was started. But you don't hear a lot of complaining from the people on the receiving end of that dole, do you?

If I was drawing up the budget for a government and had to choose a company to subsidize (providing private people don't get the jump on me), I'd choose a bank of pressed sheet metal reflecting the sun to boil water before I sunk one dime into radioactive steam kettles/money pits.

Trump wants to be the man to find waste in spending? He need look no further than the nuclear power fleet. Go ahead Mr. Trump. Crunch them numbers: http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default...ts/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

How would you like your subsidy?
Nuclear power subsidies vary by type of ownership (public or private), time frame of support (legacy, ongoing, or new), and the type of cost (or “attribute of production”) they address—from startup capital to decommissioning and waste disposal. Subsidies can take many forms, including tax breaks, accident liability caps, direct payments, and loan guarantees.....While the exact value of these subsidies can be difficult to pin down, even conservative estimates add up to a substantial percentage of the value of the power nuclear plants produce—approaching or even exceeding 100 percent in the case of legacy subsidies and subsidies to new privately-owned reactors (see chart).

SUBSIDIES TO NEW REACTORS REPEAT PAST PATTERNS

Legacy and ongoing subsidies to existing reactors may be important factors in keeping facilities operating, but they are not sufficient to attract new investment in nuclear infrastructure. Thus an array of new subsidies was rolled out during the past decade, targeting not only reactors but also other fuel-cycle facilities. Despite the profoundly poor investment experience with taxpayer subsidies to nuclear plants over the past 50 years, the objectives of these new subsidies are precisely the same as the earlier subsidies: to reduce the private cost of capital for new nuclear reactors and to shift the long-term, often multi-generational risks of the nuclear fuel cycle away from investors. And once again, these subsidies to new reactors—whether publicly or privately owned—could end up exceeding the value of the power produced (4.2 to 11.4 ¢/kWh, or 70 to 200 percent of the projected value of the power).

******

What a friggin' racket. That there is like a ponzi-scheme in its severity of defrauding the public. Criminal charges should be launched.

Nuclear power is a diversion. You haven't said a thing that proves solar power can complete economically with coal fire power plants. Nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

AGW is an gigantic con, and Jim Hansen who runs that NASA climate program is a proven liar. Including bogus costs from a bogus con isn't valid.

Furthermore, it isn't just a matter of the space they take up. A coal mine is just a big hole in the ground. A solar plant is hundreds of acres covered with delicate and expensive equipment. You already posted the cost of a ton of coal. The equivalent cost of sunshine gathered to heat steam is higher. You're also still ignoring the fact that you can only gather the sunshine for 1/4 of the year. Coal fired power plants produce energy for 95% of the years, and the down times can be scheduled.

OK, so you, who demonstrate here your proclivity for lying, are calling the NASA guy a "proven liar" (without links or substantiation of course). You want people to believe that if you build two plants next to one another, one coal 24/7, the other solar thermal with a coal backup, that the sun that shines upon the simple parabolic sheet metal that simply focuses concentrated sunshine on a tube is "expensive fuel" compared to the tons of coal needed each hour to run the pure coal plant. There is nothing delicate or expensive about pressed sheet metal as a reflector. So there you are lying again.

Jim Hansen you WANT to be a liar, because you're heavily invested in last century's dwindling carbon addiction. They have 12-step programs that might help you. Meanwhile, the rest of the world likes free fuel and is marching on without your kind.

I’ll Say It Again: James Hansen Is a Fraud and a Liar

Error Theory: NASA global-warmist James Hansen is a LIAR

 

[Silhouette]

Nuclear power is a diversion. You haven't said a thing that proves solar power can complete economically with coal fire power plants. Nothing.

No, you were lamenting subsidized power plants. Nuclear is the acme of that example. Coal costs money after the plant is built. Sunshine does not after the plant is built. Since both plants have to be built, we turn to the fuel to project profits into the future. That's how people invest. You'll have to admit, nuclear is an extremely poor investment. It's corporate welfare with a deadly twist...just to boil water. But for some reason THAT subsidized power source, the most heavily subsidized there is or probably ever will be, doesn't bother you.

There's the real diversion: your hypocrisy is fair game.

 

[bripat9643]

Nuclear power is a diversion. You haven't said a thing that proves solar power can complete economically with coal fire power plants. Nothing.

No, you were lamenting subsidized power plants. Nuclear is the acme of that example. Coal costs money after the plant is built. Sunshine does not after the plant is built. Since both plants have to be built, we turn to the fuel to project profits into the future. That's how people invest. You'll have to admit, nuclear is an extremely poor investment. It's corporate welfare with a deadly twist...just to boil water. But for some reason THAT subsidized power source, the most heavily subsidized there is or probably ever will be, doesn't bother you.

There's the real diversion: your hypocrisy is fair game.

I am perfectly OK with eliminating all subsidies for nuclear power. Now explain why no utility will build a solar power plant without government subsidies.

 

[Silhouette]

I am perfectly OK with eliminating all subsidies for nuclear power. Now explain why no utility will build a solar power plant without government subsidies.

Actually all power companies love government subsidies. Who doesn't like freebies? That's not the point. The point is what are the nuts and bolts of startup costs and the nuts & bolts of paying for the fuel day after day. When all other things are equal, I'll invest in the company that uses free fuel as often as it can.

If subsidies were removed from nuclear power, the industry would die overnight and never be revived. It has been on massive life support since day 1 and has never had a chance of standing on its own two feet.