Imagine Buenos Aires In 2030

[ajoknoblauch]

Wow, to build a huge machine, one actually requires energy? That's some ground-breaking discovery!

Of course, to build an energy-efficient, clean-burning coal-fired plant requires nothing of the sort.

 

[gpop]

So how much does it cost to build and equip a nuclear plant?

When the opposition of clean energy throws out their reasons why their shit is better; they don't share how much it took to get their plants going. Nor are they transparent as to what goes on under the hood of these power plants. I'm sure the oil company execs main consideration during the day is how to remain an exec and what kind of Mercedes to buy this month.
The facts are that the change must come and waiting until the last minute will only create more problems. R and D is not dedicated to improving anything IMHO. Solar could be completely viable by the end of the year if say, oil reserves were completely gone. But hey, don't put all the eggs in one basket (that's why we are in the mess we're in to begin with)... wind, tidal, geo-thermal. The Americas are headed in the wrong direction using bio-fuel. Growing millions of hectares of corn to transform into fuel is insane... using good farming resources for fuel instead of food is insane.

 

[hannstew]

The Americas are headed in the wrong direction using bio-fuel. Growing millions of hectares of corn to transform into fuel is insane... using good farming resources for fuel instead of food is insane.

Its not just the Americas, they are doing it in Germany as well as other parts of Europe.

 

[Jaredberryman]

So how much does it cost to build and equip a nuclear plant?

When the opposition of clean energy throws out their reasons why their shit is better; they don't share how much it took to get their plants going. Nor are they transparent as to what goes on under the hood of these power plants. I'm sure the oil company execs main consideration during the day is how to remain an exec and what kind of Mercedes to buy this month.
The facts are that the change must come and waiting until the last minute will only create more problems. R and D is not dedicated to improving anything IMHO. Solar could be completely viable by the end of the year if say, oil reserves were completely gone. But hey, don't put all the eggs in one basket (that's why we are in the mess we're in to begin with)... wind, tidal, geo-thermal. The Americas are headed in the wrong direction using bio-fuel. Growing millions of hectares of corn to transform into fuel is insane... using good farming resources for fuel instead of food is insane.

I've got a good friend who is an oil executive and he is just not like what you are stating. The oil industry is just like anything else. You have extremely unscrupulous individuals and corporations, like BP, and then you have others that have integrity and do in fact care about the environment.

I disagree that biofuel is totally the wrong direction because certain companies have had great successes growing biofuel using algae. This process produces waste water that can be reused and is not contaminated (not to mention that the algae produce oxygen in this process), and manufacturers have also been able to get the cost of producing that fuel further and further down. Why don't we start using it if that is the case, if we can grow the same amount biofuel with algae at a cost near or less than a barrel of gasoline? Because the infrastructure is not there and the companies are not big enough yet. But biofuel is a good option for powering cars and several other things if enough can be produced.

 

[jp]

I think the main point here is the 170 tons of coking coal and all the hydrocarbons necessary to mine, transport and process the ore to build one. There is no way around that.

Ignoring the obvious fact that building and maintaining fossil fuelled powerplants invovles a fair amount of materials, human labour, security, waste disposal etc etc the idea that a wind turbine could not recover the energy invested in building it sounded dubious. Not an energy expert by any stretch so please tell me if I'm getting this all wrong, but a quick dig for some numbers produced this:

A ton of coal produces 2000 KWH of electricity (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/LunChen.shtml)

So 170 tonnes presumably produces somwhere in the region of 340,000 KWH.

Meanwhile, the lowly windturbine produces a mere 6,000,000 KWH per year. And is operational for 20-25 years. Which means that during it's life span, a wind turbine could produce around 150,000,000 KWH of power during it's life time. (http://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/).

Am I missing something? Because if you take the energy potential of the coal out of the lifetime power output of a windturbine, you are still left with a surplus of 149,660,000 KWH.

So I'm struggling to understand the cute little infographic which claims that there's no way a wind turbine could ever recoup the energy that went into building it. Did Mr Dixon leave off a few zeros somewhere? Or is there some staggeringly energy intensive processes involved in making turbines I'm not aware of? Does it take 75,000 tonnes of coal to process the steel for the towers and the fibreglass for the blades?