More anti-ev gibberish

[qwk]

A Skystream wind system can be purchased for $14,400 in Easter Washington State. If it produces 5000 kWh annually and lasts for 20 years then it will produce 100000 kWh. This works out to $0.14/kWh assuming that you have 100% efficiency storage. The most expensive retail rate in WA is around $0.12/kWh with the average being around $0.9/kWh. Eastern WA has a very good wind profile. Tell me how this wind system with perfect storage (V2G) is cheaper than the centralized power plants?
Source for Skystream wind system

The problem with this reasoning is that the .12/kwh will remain constant. Power is also not that cheap everywhere like it is in the Northwest. You also have to add the fees and taxes, not just the kw/h charge.

You gave one example. There are many sizes of solar/wind options to suit every need. Sure it costs more money up BUT in the end you not only end up saving money, the air and water are cleaner around you.

[qwk]

A Skystream wind system can be purchased for $14,400 in Easter Washington State. If it produces 5000 kWh annually and lasts for 20 years then it will produce 100000 kWh. This works out to $0.14/kWh assuming that you have 100% efficiency storage. The most expensive retail rate in WA is around $0.12/kWh with the average being around $0.9/kWh. Eastern WA has a very good wind profile. Tell me how this wind system with perfect storage (V2G) is cheaper than the centralized power plants?

Source for Skystream wind system

The problem with your reasoning is that the .12/kwh will remain constant.

You also have to add in the fees and taxes the electric company charges you. Power is also not as cheap everywhere like it is in the Northwest.

In the end you have to decide if you like clean water, air, and soil without radioactive isotopes.

When you take all that into account, I'll take the wind/solar.

[qwk]

Can you please provide some numbers to back that up?

You're assertion that "half are dead before the age of 55" doesn't match with what's available online, which is that 10% of the liquidators are now dead. However, given that the majority of them were between 20 and 45 at the time of the accident, some of them would have been 70 by now. Average male life expectancy in Ukraine is 63.

To check that this low life expectancy isn't as a result of Chernobyl, I looked at the entire Russian federation and other ex-Soviet states. They are worse. Life expectancy across the entire region nosedived after the collapse of the USSR. Interestingly, only those former states that have joined the EU have higher life expectancy approaching that of western standards - and these were the ones that sent many of the liquidators at the time and they were the ones downwind of the site. Even Belarus, which had 60% of the fallout, has a higher life expectancy.


Professor Gerry Thomas, Chair in Molecular Pathology at the Department of Surgery & Cancer at Imperial College London and Director of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank was on BBC News this morning. She said that the only attributable effect to Chernobyl that has been observed is an increase in thyroid cancer in those who were children at the time, because the Soviet authorities were reluctant to admit there was a problem and distribute iodine tablets. Interestingly, the guy sitting next to me at work is from just across the border in Slovakia. He says they were not told about the accident and not told to take any precautions during the May Day parades a few days later, and as it was warm most people were out in T-shirts.

I have no reason to believe that Professor Thomas is anything but a bona fide and independent academic.

I have done a ton of research on this as it fascinates me. I'll try to find you some sources.

The Russian government hid or destroyed a lot of information, so you have to come to a lot of conclusions.

Here is a good video, 11 parts long, that shows a ton of original footage, and decent info.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4vMT...eature=related

[rolosrevenge]

The problem with your reasoning is that the .12/kwh will remain constant.

You also have to add in the fees and taxes the electric company charges you. Power is also not as cheap everywhere like it is in the Northwest.

In the end you have to decide if you like clean water, air, and soil without radioactive isotopes.

When you take all that into account, I'll take the wind/solar.

It actually doesn't remain constant because of the present value of the upfront investment compared to payments every year. It costs you more that way. Additionally, whether these things last 20 years is a big if, and they are only warranted for 5. 5000 kWh per year was the high end estimate, assuming you only get 4000 kWh per year, even with 20 years of operation your rate jumps to $0.18/kWh if the system only lasts 15 years then its over $0.24/kWh. Without subsidies the payback periods on these things rarely justify their their existence. Plus add in the inefficiencies of storage and bump your price up another 20%. Plus what about the maintenance? Is everyone going to do their own maintenance, or will they have to pay, that will take a huge cut out of the earnings of the system either in paid or opportunity costs.

Now true that energy is cheap in eastern WA, but wind is also plentiful. Tell me a DG that will work in Seattle, with a horrible solar profile and a poor wind profile. To power your house in Seattle you have to oversize your system so much that it will never pay for itself. Hydroelectric dams on the other hand, are very cheap and plentiful in the region.

[qwk]

Meant NOT, sorry.

[rolosrevenge]

To be fair though, I am rooting for DG and have done quite a bit of peer reviewed and published research in the area. I can foresee a time when rooftop PV in some places, will be cheaper than large generation stations on a strictly energy basis. It already is in Hawaii where the electricity rates are very high. The cost competitiveness of these technologies has only come about however in the last 10 years (they still aren't there yet) so before that you really didn't have a choice at all.

[SByer]

It strikes me (as an outsider) that the macro-trends there are getting pretty obvious - large, central generation will continue to come under greater scrutiny and more exposure to their real costs in terms of pollution. Even centralized solar is running up against environmental concerns for many of the proposed desert locations. The best wind locations aren't generally near current trunk transmission lines and so will have to build in those costs.

Here, in California, electricity rates have risen at a pretty steady 6%/yr. The cost of PV panels will continue to fall. The pay-back time of PVs will continue to shorten. Seems like distributed can't help but make up an increasing portion of the generation infrastructure.

[dpeilow]

Which? clarifies its stance on electric cars | TheGreenCarWebsite.co.uk

It's good that they admit that no-one has all the facts on this. Get to work boys...

[Doug_G]

It's good that they admit that no-one has all the facts on this. Get to work boys...

Their position is still ludicrous. "We don't have the numbers for ICE cars so we'll just make an unfair comparison!"

[vfx]

Which? clarifies its stance on electric cars | TheGreenCarWebsite.co.uk

It's good that they admit that no-one has all the facts on this. Get to work boys...

Love that the comments are full of the ICE long tailpipe" argument. Like Hydrogen "takes more energy than you get out of it" argument, it's a conversation stopper for anyone just learning about the creation of transportation energy.

Electricity to make a gallon of gasoline can drive an electric car 22 miles.