FYI energy costs

[snake river rufus]

From the department of Energy and printed in decembers Discover

For the 115,400 Btu ( the amount of energy in one galloi of gasoline
Gas $2.86
Solar $14.44
Wind $1.96
Biofuel $2.70
Nuclear $3.75
Geothermal $1.69
Natural gas $5.37
Hydro $0.91
Yeah we need to breech those dams, Dumbasses

 

[BigHornRam]

Snake,

Can you give a break down on how they calculated the "cost" of each energy source. Some seem a little suspect, IMO. Thanks.

 

[snake river rufus]

same source
Information based on national averages from the Energy information adm, the offfice of energy efficiency and renewable energy, and the national renewable energy laboratory.
The solar and the nuke numbers are based on Cal. high average price per kilowatt -hr, Cal. energy commission.

 

[BigHornRam]

Can you post their calculations to see if we comparing apples to apples here? Price is different than cost, expecially if subsidies are involved. Are they comparing delivered kilowatts to the consumer with California nuke power vs. production costs with already depreciated equiptment only for hydro? Let's see the math here.....

My instincts say the wind energy number is low, biofuel is low, nuclear is high, geothermal is low, Natural gas is WAY high, and hydro is low.

 

[JoseCuervo]

From the department of Energy and printed in decembers Discover

For the 115,400 Btu ( the amount of energy in one galloi of gasoline

Hydro $0.91
Yeah we need to breech those dams, Dumbasses

You are the dumbass. How much money (hint, it starts with BILLIONS) is spent to allow $0.91 Hydro (if that number is correct, and I doubt it is) to destroy hunting and fishing in 3 states?

 

[snake river rufus]

You are the dumbass. How much money (hint, it starts with BILLIONS) is spent to allow $0.91 Hydro (if that number is correct, and I doubt it is) to destroy hunting and fishing in 3 states?

Well shit for brains, provide evidence

 

[JoseCuervo]

Well shit for brains, provide evidence

What evidence do you need?

 

[AZ402]

Ah, the Ol'e shit for brains call, that made me laugh. Seriously though, how many households recieve their energy from hydro??

 

[noharleyyet]

Ah, the Ol'e shit for brains call, that made me laugh. Seriously though, how many households recieve their energy from hydro??

SpongeBob maybe???..What I'd like to know is how Jose knew SRR's 'dumbass' was referring to him.

 

[AZ402]

What I'd like to know is how Jose knew SRR's 'dumbass' was referring to him.

Dumbass is the code word for Jose to reply.........

 

[schmalts]

Dumbass is the code word for Jose to reply.........

and "proove it" is code word for him to hide away and not respond

 

[AZ402]

and "proove it" is code word for him to hide away and not respond

Speaking of dumbasses............ hump

 

[JoseCuervo]

Not being sure what the dumbshit from Kansas wants for proof, I will just offer him some edjumacation as it looks like he has missed many opportunities for that in his life.

The lower Snake River dams were constructed primarily for barge transportation, not for producing large amounts of energy. Combined, the four lower Snake River dams produce on average about 1,000 megawatts. That's about 2% of the Northwest's entire energy pool.

To put the lower Snake River dams in perspective:


Combined, these four dams produce only 790 aMWs of firm power--the amount of electricity utilities can count on in a drought year. When the electricity grid is stretched thin in winter and late summer, these dams are good for even less power, only 425-525 aMWs.

From a reliability standpoint, the four lower Snake River dams are small contributors to Northwest energy needs. These dams are "run-of-river" dams with very little storage capacity. So they are almost totally dependent on the yearly snowpack and discharge (rate of runoff). Their yearly output is only 1,022 average megawatts.

A 2002 study by the Tellus Institute concluded that electricity from the lower Snake could be replaced with clean affordable sources that will not contribute to global warming. Energy savings from conservation, efficiency and renewables (in the form of wind and biomass/geothermal) could make up the 1,022 average megawatts.


Replacing energy is relatively cheap.

A 2006 study called Revenue Stream looked at the potential costs and benefits of lower Snake dam removal, including the costs of replacing the energy generated by the four dams. Only clean energy options were considered. The report demonstrated that replacing the four dams' electricity with efficiency and renewables would cost between $79 million and $179 million per year for 20 years. The lower figure represents a mix of 90 percent efficiency ("conservation") and 10 percent new wind power; the top figure represents a greater reliance on renewables and/or higher-than-expected costs for acquiring conservation.

Figures such as $79 million (later revised to $86 million due to a calculation error) or $179 million might seem large. But even if ratepayers were to carry the entire replacement-cost burden, residential power bills would be expected to rise no more than 65 cents to $2 per month.

Even the highest cost estimates are dwarfed by the billions of dollars in new income expected from additional tourism, commercial and recreational fishing, and other business income engendered by salmon restoration. Revenue Stream shows that investment in clean energy replacement would more than pay for itself.

Energy output from the lower Snake dams:

The four lower Snake River dams are "run-of-river dams", which means that their power-generating capacity is largely dependent on the amount of snowpack and discharge (rate of runoff from year to year). The reservoirs have little storage capacity (134,000 acre).

When the Bonneville Power Administration discusses replacing the power from the lower Snake, they claim that we would need to replace 3,483 megawatts of electricity. That number represents the combined "nameplate generation level" of the four dams--the amount of power that the four dams could produce if all four reservoirs were completely full and all 24 turbines were running at maximum generation.

In actuality, the dams combined average yearly output is around a third of their nominal capacity, 1,022 average megawatts. During peak power months, primarily during summer and winter, the Lower Snake River dams have historically produced about 500 peak megawatts for a short time (hours) by using the available reservoir storage. The US Army Corps of Engineers recommended replacing only 1,500 peak megawatts from the Lower Snake in their 2002 Environmental Impact Statement.

Are the lower Snake dams reliable energy sources?

The 1,022 aMW somewhat overstates the dams' electricity importance when looking at reliable firm power. The power grid can only rely on 790 aMW of firm power from the lower Snake dams -- the amount electric utilities can count on in a drought. When the grid is stretched thin in winter and late summer, these dams are good for only 425 to 525 megawatts -- about 1 percent of the region's load at those times. If Seattle were counting on the energy from the lower Snake dams, it would have blackouts much of the year.

The lower Snake run-of river dams are small producers of electricity because of the basin's water storage potential: there's simply not that much water behind the dams to run through the turbines. Water discharge in the Snake is about a third of the lower Columbia River.

These kinds of dams, on this kind of river, are fairly unreliable sources of power. Because their power generation capability is so uncertain, the region already keeps ample generating capacity in reserve for droughts and cold snaps. From an energy need standpoint, the Lower Snake dams will hardly be missed.

 

[schmalts]

Speaking of dumbasses............ hump

bite me Opie

 

[FLIPPER]

Ah, the Ol'e shit for brains call, that made me laugh. Seriously though, how many households recieve their energy from hydro??

The state of California? And most of the Southeast.

 

[AZ402]

The state of California? And most of the Southeast.

Hmmmmmmm.......