Comments SoggyInSeattle has made

  • 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, 6 months ago 39 Responses

  • 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, 6 months ago 7 Responses

  • 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, 7 months ago 47 Responses

  • 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

  • $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

  • Some small issues with your model

    You seem to be comparing the wholesale costs of your new system with the retail price we're currently paying ($200 billion a year).
    Also, there's no way we could role out such a huge system in 10 years. If we asked GE, Vestas et al to increase production as fast as they could, they still couldn't build enough turbines to fill this model.

    But let me make a few suggestions:

    1. The new HVDC grid is a federally owned and operated system using the BPA/TVA model.
    2. The construction of this grid is paid for with a carbon tax to all electricity producers.
    3. To connect to the grid you need to be carbon neutral.
    4. Carbon neutral storage facilities can also connect and their maximum sale price would be regulated (e.g. < 3 times the average wholesale cost over the last month).
    5. The goal is meet all growth and replacement of old plants.
    6. By 2050 our electricity is carbon neutral.
    On We don't need to keep burning coal, oil , and gas for electricity posted 2 years, 8 months ago 37 Responses