|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy |
JohnWxy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-23-10 02:22 PM Original message |
Electric Prices in Europe come DOWN thanks to burgeoning Wind Power supply |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
virgogal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-23-10 02:32 PM Response to Original message |
1. With the NIMBYism here,you won't see much. Cape Wind has been trying |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JohnWxy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-23-10 03:20 PM Response to Reply #1 |
4. Cape Wind signed an agreement to buy 130 Wind Turbines from Siemens Energy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-23-10 03:26 PM Response to Reply #4 |
5. They expect a final determination from Salazar at the end of this month. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vincardog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-23-10 02:36 PM Response to Original message |
2. Now it will be sustainable and profitable. What will the Coal defenders do? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ready4Change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-23-10 03:05 PM Response to Reply #2 |
3. That may be why prices are dropping. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vincardog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-23-10 04:46 PM Response to Reply #3 |
7. All I can say is "Bring it on". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ernesto (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-23-10 03:45 PM Response to Original message |
6. K&R!!! nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-23-10 06:38 PM Response to Original message |
8. Kick and rec |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-24-10 06:46 PM Response to Original message |
9. Kick |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:56 AM Response to Reply #9 |
10. Don't you think you should read the report before you decide to pump it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 12:54 PM Response to Reply #10 |
11. I did read it, but I didn't need to. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 02:07 PM Response to Reply #11 |
12. lol |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 02:17 PM Response to Reply #11 |
13. Of course having free subsidies per unit of power also helps. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 02:20 PM Response to Reply #13 |
14. and which energy sector doesn't receive "free subsidies" - especially nuclear power |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 02:23 PM Response to Reply #14 |
15. Not $20 per MWh. Nothing thas subsidies that high except wind/solar. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 02:28 PM Response to Reply #15 |
16. I guess the taxpayer cost of building & operating the nuclear fuel cycle doesn't count |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 02:37 PM Response to Reply #16 |
17. Of course they did just not on the scale of $20 per MWh (which is what wind/solar get). |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 02:41 PM Response to Reply #17 |
18. Bullshit again. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 02:45 PM Response to Reply #18 |
19. Only ever claimed but you but never proven. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 02:49 PM Response to Reply #19 |
20. I told you it is in the 2005 energy bill. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 02:51 PM Response to Reply #20 |
21. $1328392132 trillion dollars for solar in 2005 energy bill. Look it up. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 03:29 PM Response to Reply #21 |
29. Deleted message |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 02:56 PM Response to Reply #17 |
22. LOLLOLOLOL!!11 - taxpayers paid ALL the R&D costs to develop nuclear power |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 02:59 PM Response to Reply #22 |
23. Still not as much as renewable energy has received over last 50 years. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 03:02 PM Response to Reply #23 |
24. You actually think sane people believe that garbage, don't you? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 03:18 PM Response to Reply #24 |
26. Deleted message |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 03:16 PM Response to Reply #23 |
25. That is ridiculous and WRONG - show me the money!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 03:22 PM Response to Reply #25 |
27. You are aware hydro is a renewable form of energy right? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 03:25 PM Response to Reply #27 |
28. Answer the question - show me the money!!!!11111 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 03:35 PM Response to Reply #28 |
30. Here |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 03:54 PM Response to Reply #30 |
31. ummm...you should add at least $100+ billion to the nuclear subsidy - for disposing spent fuel |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 04:12 PM Response to Reply #31 |
32. Utilities pay for disposing of fuel and 2/3 of Yucca will be for weapons waste. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 04:39 PM Response to Reply #32 |
33. Wrong, taxpayers will pay most it and nuclear received FAR more "free subsidies" than wind or solar |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 04:53 PM Response to Reply #33 |
34. Wrong again. Renewables have received 60% of low-carbon subsidies to date |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 05:11 PM Response to Reply #34 |
35. Wrong again - if you subtract federal subsidies for hydro going back to the New Deal and further |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 05:14 PM Response to Reply #35 |
36. Nope. Wrong yet again. Read the quote it is in last 50 years. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 05:27 PM Response to Reply #36 |
39. Last 50 years, huh - back to say...1960...but not including ALL the taxpayer investments |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 05:36 PM Response to Reply #36 |
40. Nice post, needs to be copy+pasted when the dishonest stuff comes out. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 05:57 PM Response to Reply #40 |
41. Yeah like all the Manhattan Project R&D that "doesn't count" and future spent fuel disposal costs |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 05:58 PM Response to Reply #41 |
42. If we ever moved to Gen IV I'm sure it'd be profitable to sell. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:01 PM Response to Reply #42 |
44. Is there any govt' funding of this future profitable Gen IV R&D? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:10 PM Response to Reply #44 |
45. Profit, profit, profit. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:19 PM Response to Reply #45 |
46. nope nope nope |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:21 PM Response to Reply #46 |
47. Profit isn't your leading driver? Good! We're on the same page! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:26 PM Response to Reply #47 |
53. profit is the driver, that's why the nuclear industry dumped their spent fuel on the taxpayers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:31 PM Response to Reply #53 |
55. The billions of tonnes of CO2 free energy... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:36 PM Response to Reply #55 |
59. I'm sorry but nuclear power is not CO2-free - not by a long shot |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 07:48 PM Response to Reply #59 |
65. Billions of kilowatts of CO2 free energy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 07:59 PM Response to Reply #65 |
68. nope - not even close |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 07:22 PM Response to Reply #53 |
63. Kinda like you dump your waste on the city? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:21 PM Response to Reply #46 |
48. Society should pay for its externalized costs of energy! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:29 PM Response to Reply #48 |
54. yes it should |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:32 PM Response to Reply #54 |
57. Then good, we're definitely getting somewhere. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:21 PM Response to Reply #46 |
49. $150 / tonne carbon tax now! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:22 PM Response to Reply #46 |
50. Retroactively subtract $150 / tonne CO2 saved from the nuclear "bill." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:23 PM Response to Reply #46 |
51. Nuclear is in the green if you do that! :) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:25 PM Response to Reply #41 |
52. Manhattan project had nothing to do with nuclear energy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:32 PM Response to Reply #52 |
56. You have got to be kidding - did nuclear industry R&D build US uranium enrichment plants? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 07:20 PM Response to Reply #56 |
62. I guess you don't understand the concept of sunk cost. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 07:48 PM Response to Reply #62 |
64. I guess you don't understand the technological and historical connections between nuclear weapons |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:33 PM Response to Reply #52 |
58. So that's the magical "if I say it enough it will be true" strategy of the right? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 06:37 PM Response to Reply #58 |
60. bingo - these folks think history will just go *poof* if they say so |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 05:16 PM Response to Reply #35 |
37. Even if that were true... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 05:19 PM Response to Reply #37 |
38. Well that is exactly what Kris did in another thread. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 05:59 PM Response to Reply #38 |
43. Hydro is a success as far as subsidies, nuclear is a failure. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 07:18 PM Response to Reply #43 |
61. There is about nothing correct in that post |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 07:51 PM Response to Reply #61 |
66. You haven't realized that the data you're responding to is dishonest manipulation? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 08:02 PM Response to Reply #66 |
70. you realize there are CO2 emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle - it is NOT CO2 free |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 08:22 PM Response to Reply #70 |
73. All "carbon free" sources have carbon costs. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 07:55 PM Response to Reply #61 |
67. The only thing bogus is everything you write. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 08:01 PM Response to Reply #67 |
69. Well the DOE disagrees. Not surprising a anti-nukker would inflate cost of nuclear by 150%. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 08:04 PM Response to Reply #69 |
71. Yup, we'll ignore the $54 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees to build the new 1st nukes since 1973 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 08:19 PM Response to Reply #71 |
72. Well couple problems with that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-25-10 09:06 PM Response to Reply #72 |
74. more than a couple - 54 billion to be exact |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-26-10 06:02 AM Response to Original message |
75. Yippie kai ya y'all! Kudos to the collective peoples of the Eiropean Union. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Mon May 13th 2024, 01:08 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC