SoggyInSeattle’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  radioactive byproducts sequestration

  Charles,

  I'm unaware of any radioactive byproducts sequestration that has been "proven to be effective for at least one and a half billion years". Can you link to something to support that claim?On A new report posted 2 years, 5 months ago 39 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Why worry about leaks from nuclear storage?

  One reason is that a leak of 1% from a carbon sequestration facility means the storage is 99% effective. A leak of 1% from a nuclear waste storage  facility means the storage is 0% effective. On Yet another pioneering green move from the state posted 2 years, 5 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  All we are saying, give iron a chance

  Planktos is not claiming we should do this on a grand scale yet or that this alone will solve all of our climate change problems. There are reasonable concerns, which is why we need more data. But I think we would be crazy to rule out the possibility of something that might play a significant role in removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

  Even if we could create a world-wide carbon free economy (which we can't any time soon), it would be worthwhile to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Whether fertilizing the seas with iron is a good idea remains to be seen, but I don't understand the reluctance to see how well it works.On Putting iron in the ocean posted 2 years, 6 months ago 47 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Roll out in 10 years

  Yes, we could do this if we use WWII type central planning and don't care about costs. But then your $1,300 a kW are going to need to be increased by at least a factor of 2.

  Five years ago Zilkha energy started working on the Kittitas Wind farm (http://www.horizonwind.com/projects/whatweredoing/kittita ...)
  They are still working on getting a permit. It's amazing how much NIMBYs can separate what we should be able to do and what we can do.On We don't need to keep burning coal, oil , and gas for electricity posted 2 years, 8 months ago 37 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  $2 a kW/hr Doesn't pass the laugh test

  It's hard to know exactly what wind power costs, but let's take a ballpark guess knowing the GE, Goldman-Sachs, Puget Sound Energy and others think there's money to be made.

  Here are the sources of revenue
  1) The federal subsidy is less than $0.02 a kW/hr
  2)the wholesale price of electricity is about $0.05 kW/hr
  3) PSE charges an extra $0.02 kW/hr to get your power from wind, so let's use that as the extra the a windfarm owner can get by selling power at a premium as green.

  Total revenue is less than 10 cents a kW/hr. So all costs, including construction, M&O and profit, must be less than 10 cents a kW/hr or these companies are losing money.

  These are just estimates, but $2 kW/hr doesn't pass the laugh test.On We don't need to keep burning coal, oil , and gas for electricity posted 2 years, 8 months ago 37 Responses