Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant
[1]
That is actually the converted capasity (to make it easier to compare to 24 hour power plants), meaning that if it ran all day 24/7/365, the average would be 21.5 MW. It's just a conversion to make things easier to compare (so it is will provide about 1/100th the total power of your powerplants). Just FYI, the McGuire is 2 powerplants (each at about 1,100 MW), even with modern tech, the average would still only be about 1,200 per power plant, they'll just put multiple reactors on a site.
[2]
$$$ = a lot of money
$ = very little money
Not really, if congress allows them to drill off the coast (or anywhere) they are going to have to spend money to build the facilities to do it (costing $$$), than they just gather the fuel, either natural gas or oil, (costing $). In the case where they just add algea tanks to exsisting refineries to recycle the CO2 emited by them, they are going to have to build the facilities (costing $$$), than they just gather the fuel, (costing $). So if congress passes and allows drilling, we are in the same boat. But if congress doesn't pass and does not allow drilling, I come out ahead. That's why I want both to happen, it provides the most fuel, thus resulting in the lowest cost for everyone.
|
1. Ahh, yes. It looks like I made a reciprocation error, with decimal points on both sides. But the basis of my argument is still true, that the solar “farm” delivers 1/100 the energy of the nuclear “farm”, while consuming a greater amount of farmland and wildlife habitat. So if environmentalists cared about those things, they would support nuclear.
2. Natural gas is collected as part of oil drilling and recovery. Therefore the cost is very low. Most of the infrastructure (pipelines) already exists along the east coast, in the heavily metro areas especially, so deliver costs to the consumer from east coast wells is very low.
3. Bottom line is that Congress, along with whacky environmentalists, are standing in the way for energy production. They need to step away so profit seeking individuals can do what the market needs. If its algae or PV, so be it, but I doubt it, because as I’ve demonstrated each has its own set of issues. The fact that enviros ignore these issues for technologies that they see as “green” while digging their heels in on proven technologies that are in fact more “green” points to a hidden, sinister agenda.