GM to halt production of the VOLT

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Much more money would be available if the country was not wasting a prodigious amount of money on defense

Fixed it for you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mirage62 0]

Actually it's interesting, both groups do it here. Kallend brings up something that doesn't have anything to do with the thread but it very "true" as if that truth takes away from whatever the current thread is about - as long as he doesn't like the direction of the thread.

Not just John, like I said both sides do it, must be 101 debate tactics.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[brenthutch 390]

Quote

Quote

Much more money would be available if the country was not wasting a prodigious amount of money on defense

Fixed it for you.

Speaking of waste.....
"Given the news about the Volt, it’s no surprise that GM “is once again losing market share, and it seems unable to develop products that are truly competitive in the U.S. market,” as Louis Woodhill notes at Forbes. The only surprise is that so many are still eager to point to the auto bailout as a success."
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/10/the-chevy-volts-staggering-losses/

[billvon 2,478]

>Much more money would be available if the country was not wasting so much money
>on wind and solar

In 2021 the federal government will spend $16 billion on ALL clean energy programs - incentives, research funding etc. As a result the solar and wind industries are two of the only US industries that has grown throughout the recession.

Estimate for overhauling the US grid - $75 billion a year

So cutting all that "wasted" spending wouldn't even give you a quarter of what you want.

And what did we get for that money? Renewable energy now makes up 5% of our total electricity generation. Our solar and wind industries are some of the fastest growing in the world and employ hundreds of thousands of people. Payback times are getting below ten years for solar-PV. We are exporting more solar equipment to China than we are importing, one of the very few markets where that's happening. And all for less than a quarter of the money you want to spend.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Much more money would be available if the country was not wasting so much money
>on wind and solar

In 2021 the federal government will spend $16 billion on ALL clean energy programs - incentives, research funding etc. As a result the solar and wind industries are two of the only US industries that has grown throughout the recession.

Estimate for overhauling the US grid - $75 billion a year

So cutting all that "wasted" spending wouldn't even give you a quarter of what you want.

And what did we get for that money? Renewable energy now makes up 5% of our total electricity generation. Our solar and wind industries are some of the fastest growing in the world and employ hundreds of thousands of people. Payback times are getting below ten years for solar-PV. We are exporting more solar equipment to China than we are importing, one of the very few markets where that's happening. And all for less than a quarter of the money you want to spend.

Again

I am NOT talking about the federal dollars

I am talking about companies wasting capital dollars on wind and solar

(the only do this for two reasons however, the tax incentives and the political climate cause it does not make good business sence with out the two listed above)

I was replying to the comments about the infrustructure

If the companies use the wasted solar and wind dollars they would have greater resources to build that which needs addressed

And the ONLY reason wind and solar have grown is because of the gov

Other generation sectors could grow without gov subs if the same gov would get the hell out of the way

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,478]

>I am talking about companies wasting capital dollars on wind and solar

Ah. So you object to people using their own money to invest as they choose? Interesting.

>If the companies use the wasted solar and wind dollars they would have
>greater resources to build that which needs addressed

"That which needs addressed" also includes new power sources. And 30% of our new power sources are wind. In many places it is cheaper than coal now.

>Other generation sectors could grow without gov subs if the same gov would get the
>hell out of the way

How much would nuclear grow if the government "got the hell out of the way" and repealed Price-Anderson?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>I am talking about companies wasting capital dollars on wind and solar

Ah. So you object to people using their own money to invest as they choose? Interesting.

>If the companies use the wasted solar and wind dollars they would have
>greater resources to build that which needs addressed

"That which needs addressed" also includes new power sources. And 30% of our new power sources are wind. In many places it is cheaper than coal now.

>Other generation sectors could grow without gov subs if the same gov would get the
>hell out of the way

How much would nuclear grow if the government "got the hell out of the way" and repealed Price-Anderson?

Back to being Mr Twister

People can invest wherever they wish

But, as I stated and as you most likely read, most good companies would not invest in wind and solar if the gov subs did not exist. That and the political climated that those like you have pushed on the population.

And wind is NOT cheaper that coal

You look at it as stand alone. It can not be

For every meg of wind generation out there there HAS to be a Meg of gas, coal or nuclear generation behind it. This effectively doubles (or more) the investment needed to provide a meg of power. Which is stupid.

Regulation and movies like the China Syndrome has cripled the nuc industry. Regulatin and alarmist fears have done the same to the coal generation industry

I dont know what Price-Anderson is. I may look it up

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[riddler 0]

Quote

What ever happened to the "smart cars and plug-in hybrids that Americans want"?

They were superceded by the "smart cars and plug-in hybrids that the Japanese already make at a much lower price and much higher quality." Vis-a-vis the Toyota Prius plug-in hybrid.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[billvon 2,478]

>People can invest wherever they wish

Yet you demand they stop "wasting capital dollars on wind and solar."

>And wind is NOT cheaper that coal

Dollars per megawatt-hour:

Conventional coal: 99
Advanced coal: 112
Advanced coal with CCS: 140

Nuclear 112

Wind 96

Solar PV 156

(all numbers include capital cost, operations, fuel, transmission line amortization and capacity factor)

>Regulation and movies like the China Syndrome has cripled the nuc industry.

I'd say the actual meltdowns have done more than the movies have done.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>People can invest wherever they wish

Yet you demand they stop "wasting capital dollars on wind and solar."

>And wind is NOT cheaper that coal

Dollars per megawatt-hour:

Conventional coal: 99
Advanced coal: 112
Advanced coal with CCS: 140

Nuclear 112

Wind 96

Solar PV 156

(all numbers include capital cost, operations, fuel, transmission line amortization and capacity factor)

>Regulation and movies like the China Syndrome has cripled the nuc industry.

I'd say the actual meltdowns have done more than the movies have done.

You keep ignoring the fact that it takes another plant behind the wind

But this is what you have to do to sell the lie that wind is less expensive than coal


BTW, I do not know where you get your figures. They look more like purchase prices on the open market during peak load times

A meg of coal is much less than what you post

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,478]

>You keep ignoring the fact that it takes another plant behind the wind

Yes, it does. They are called "peakers." They use them here when demand is high and/or those baseline loads are offline. Using them to back up wind is no different. (Fun fact - so far this year wind power has been available more often than power from the San Onofre nuclear power plant.)

>BTW, I do not know where you get you figures.

January 23, 2012 report of the Energy Information Administration of the DOE. Report is called "Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012".

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

You keep ignoring the fact that it takes another plant behind the wind

Just like it takes peakers behind base load coal

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>You keep ignoring the fact that it takes another plant behind the wind

Yes, it does. They are called "peakers." They use them here when demand is high and/or those baseline loads are offline. Using them to back up wind is no different. (Fun fact - so far this year wind power has been available more often than power from the San Onofre nuclear power plant.)

>BTW, I do not know where you get you figures.

January 23, 2012 report of the Energy Information Administration of the DOE. Report is called "Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012".

Nope
Not peakers, that is a different part of the system in general

We are talking base power plants

If you use wind in any capacity, another generation source, other than wind has to be available. If you use a wind turbine for peak back up, you need another non-wind source to back up that wind. If you use wind as base generation, then you need another non-wind source for back up for the base load

Also, there is a minimum of plants that are on line constantly that are called spinning reserves. Each generation company must provide this in case of the loss of a line or another plant.


Now, you talked about wind availability. Yes , it seems you have had a good year . To some extent the same has been seen here in Iowa. But, I also know of at least 10 days where most of the turbines in Iowa were not moving at all

Hence my point, you end up with stranded investment to back up the falicy that is wind power. Even if it is only needed for one day, generation companies are not getting a return on those plants used to back up wind. That increases the cost of power and strands capitol dollars. Back up is need of other generation too, but not at the meg for meg level needed to back up wind

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

You keep ignoring the fact that it takes another plant behind the wind

Just like it takes peakers behind base load coal

Yes it does
But not the extent it is needed for wind

There is a balance here that does not strand dollars of investment where no return is seen

Usually peaker plants are smaller and more expensive to operate. They are kept ready for high load or lost generation situtations but again, it is not needed at a meg for meg level like backing up wind takes

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,478]

>Not peakers, that is a different part of the system in general

>We are talking base power plants

Correct. Coal in general has an 85% availability; when it's down peakers have to take over. Wind has a 37% availability per plant; when it's down peakers have to take over.

>Even if it is only needed for one day, generation companies are not getting a return
>on those plants used to back up wind.

That's true. Nor does it get a return on the plants needed to back up coal, or to ride through peaks.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Not peakers, that is a different part of the system in general

>We are talking base power plants

Correct. Coal in general has an 85% availability; when it's down peakers have to take over. Wind has a 37% availability per plant; when it's down peakers have to take over.

>Even if it is only needed for one day, generation companies are not getting a return
>on those plants used to back up wind.

That's true. Nor does it get a return on the plants needed to back up coal, or to ride through peaks.

Many of the peaker plants are older effiecent plants that have already given a return on investment

And if we go more wind, more new "peakers" ( as you call them) will still need to be built because wind makes for poor base load generation

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,478]

>Many of the peaker plants are older effiecent plants that have already given a return
>on investment

No. Combined cycle plants (the efficient plants) - especially the older ones - cannot be throttled fast enough to serve as peakers. You can't just call a plant a "peaker" because it's old; it has to be able to respond quickly to load changes.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Many of the peaker plants are older effiecent plants that have already given a return
>on investment

No. Combined cycle plants (the efficient plants) - especially the older ones - cannot be throttled fast enough to serve as peakers. You can't just call a plant a "peaker" because it's old; it has to be able to respond quickly to load changes.

Not true

In times when the controlers think load is going to increase, they ask memebers to spin up generators. They run in an idol condition and at that point can be brought up very quickly. This increases cost because they are effectively running but are providing very little energy to the grid.

In this state they can respond quickly, and they do

It is called spinning reserves

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,478]

>In times when the controlers think load is going to increase, they ask memebers to
>spin up generators. They run in an idol condition and at that point can be brought up
>very quickly. This increases cost because they are effectively running but are
>providing very little energy to the grid.

Yes, that's a peaker. They are once-through designs; basically huge turbines that are fed by natural gas combustion. They are brought up by natural gas, synced to the grid and then run at a low power level. At that point they function purely as frequency stabilizers, since the spinning turbine is always exactly in sync with the power frequency. When more power is needed, fuel is added. The additional torque spins the turbines harder (not faster since they are synced to the grid) and power flows into the grid. This can be done within minutes, limited only by thermal issues (thermal inertia, temperature rate of change limitations.) Efficiencies for these are around 40% max.

Some less efficient older baseline plants have such architectures and can be used as peakers with a little work.

That is very different than a combined cycle plant. In a combined cycle plant, there is still a gas turbine, but the output feeds a boiler that then generates steam for a secondary turbine. In other words, the front stage is a Brayton cycle, the back stage is a Rankine cycle engine. These CANNOT be throttled quickly, because the relationship between exhaust temperatures, boiler pressures, condensate flow, primary vs secondary turbine torque etc is much more complex. You can't just "open the throttle" and have them power up. You have to build pressure in the boiler, ensure you don't pull a vacuum by overpumping a cold boiler etc etc.

On the plus side you can get efficiencies up to 60% with such a system.

[brenthutch 390]

http://www.businessinsider.com/cbo-electric-cars-are-a-waste-of-money-2012-9

Truth hurts and this is from the government, so it must be true.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

http://www.businessinsider.com/cbo-electric-cars-are-a-waste-of-money-2012-9

Truth hurts and this is from the government, so it must be true.

No, it's from a right wing publication's spin on a CBO report.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 390]

Quote

Quote

http://www.businessinsider.com/cbo-electric-cars-are-a-waste-of-money-2012-9

Truth hurts and this is from the government, so it must be true.

No, it's from a right wing publication's spin on a CBO report.

Directly from the CBO:

"Do the Federal Tax Credits Make Electric Vehicles Cost-Competitive?



"At current vehicle and energy prices, the lifetime costs to consumers of an electric vehicle are generally higher than those of a conventional vehicle or traditional hybrid vehicle of similar size and performance, even with the tax credits, which can be as much as $7,500 per vehicle. That conclusion takes into account both the higher purchase price of an electric vehicle and the lower fuel costs over the vehicle’s life. For example, an average plug-in hybrid vehicle with a battery capacity of 16 kilowatt-hours would be eligible for the maximum tax credit. However, that vehicle would require a tax credit of more than $12,000 to have roughly the same lifetime costs as a comparable conventional or traditional hybrid vehicle.

Assuming that everything else is equal, the larger an electric vehicle’s battery capacity, the greater its cost disadvantage relative to conventional vehicles—and thus the larger the tax credit needed to make it cost-competitive."

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43576?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=812526&utm_campaign=0

No right wing spin.

[rushmc 18]

I see now that Toyota is drasticly cutting their electric car production too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

I see now that Toyota is drasticly cutting their electric car production too

They're cutting down on electric-only production, but increasing hybrid production. I think this makes sense, since battery technology is not good enough yet for most electric-only applications. I very much doubt Toyota is cutting back on battery research. They will get there, sooner rather than later. Wouldn't it be great in GM or Ford got there first?

- Dan G

[brenthutch 390]

Quote

Quote

I see now that Toyota is drasticly cutting their electric car production too

They're cutting down on electric-only production, but increasing hybrid production. I think this makes sense, since battery technology is not good enough yet for most electric-only applications. I very much doubt Toyota is cutting back on battery research. They will get there, sooner rather than later. Wouldn't it be great in GM or Ford got there first?

GM already has!

"General Motors EV1
General Motors designed and developed an electric car from the ground up instead of modifying an existing vehicle. This vehicle, called the EV1, was a 2-passenger sports car powered by a liquid-cooled alternating current motor and lead-acid batteries. The EV1 had a top speed of 80 mph, had a range of 80 miles, and could accelerate from 0 to 50 mph in less than 7 seconds.

In addition to the EV1, General Motors offered an electric vehicle Chevrolet S-10 pickup. This vehicle had a range of 45 miles, it accelerated from 5 to 50 mph in 10 seconds, and it had a payload of 950 pounds.

Other electric vehicles that were available during 1998 included the Toyota RAV4 sport utility, the Honda EV Plus sedan, and the Chrysler EPIC minivan. These three vehicles were all equipped with advanced nickel metal hydride battery packs. Nissan placed limited numbers of their Altra EV station wagons in California fleets during 1998. The Altra was equipped with a lithium-ion battery pack. In addition, both Ford and General Motors during 1998, made the Ranger, the EV1, and the S-10 pickup available with nickel metal hydride battery packs.


Cost Effective
By 1998, electric vehicles satisfied the driving requirements of many fleet operators and two car families, however, a cost of $30,000 to $40,000 (1998) made them expensive. However, this cost was considerably lower when tax credits and incentives were included.

Large-volume production and improvements in the production process later reduced prices competitive to gasoline-powered vehicles."

http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventions/a/History-Of-Electric-Vehicles.htm
There you have it! Prices competitive to gasoline-powered vehicles" RAOTFLMAO