Comments for A future fueled by coal; really? at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 6 out of 6 comments http://www.theind.com Fri, 24 May 2013 15:07:22 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/12238-a-future-fueled-by-coal-really#comment-27518 Justin, all I have to say is "dream on". The more things change, the more they stay the same. - Greg Foreman Tue, 11 Dec 2012 03:34:53 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/12238-a-future-fueled-by-coal-really#comment-27517 Hello Mr. Foreman; you and I haven't had the pleasure of meeting yet, but I'd be glad to discuss the figures I used in my presentation with you at any time, and any additional information you have to add to the discussion. You're absolutely right - the public was sold a bill of goods on nuclear energy that never panned out. As such, this country hasn't built and operated a brand new nuclear reactor in something like thirty years. Meanwhile, the numbers I cited come from actual, existing, brand new renewable energy projects using wind and solar (I just had solar panels installed at my home, so I'm a bit more knowledgable than you may think), and advanced natural gas power plants and energy efficiency programs. The reason why I suggested we need a citizens' task force to figure out the numbers is because the figures I used for alternatives are not Lafayette-specific, not that they aren't good numbers. My point was simple: the evidence all around the country is showing a better way for electricity generation, and those figures suggest we may be foolishly spending way too much on coal and an old natural gas generator in the near future. So the question is - are you willing to help do some research, or are you content with the way things are planned? - Simon Mahan Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:24:58 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/12238-a-future-fueled-by-coal-really#comment-27516 Because inaccurate cost projections happened with nuclear facilities 30 years ago does not necessarily mean they will happen with renewable energy facilities today. No one expects cost projections to be 100% accurate, but it's reasonable to assume that we've gotten better at doing them. Also, the start-up cost of a nuclear power plant is astronomically higher than other types including most renewables. I don't think it's logical to dismiss renewable energy initiatives by casting suspicion on the people doing cost projections. Regarding our energy paradigm, it's not a question of how we would "like" things to be, but whether or not we take a proactive approach to an inevitable shift. - Justin Price Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:06:44 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/12238-a-future-fueled-by-coal-really#comment-27509 Justin, the criticism of the "cost" projections presented by Mahan is simply this, such projections are none existent. When an individual "boldly" offers cost comparisons of one project versus another, then in the next voice states a "committee" needs to further study and evaluate the projects that tells one the projected figures are shallow at best and nonexistent at worse. Forgive me for such apprehensiveness, however, I come from the generation that was sold nuclear power as green, environmentally friendly energy(yeah, can you believe it). The cost of these plants ultimately ending up costing consumers as much as ten times the original cost estimates. In our own back yard, the River Bend Nuclear Plant(St. Francisville) had an original project cost of between $400 to $500 millions dollars. Ultimately the cost exceeded $5 billion dollars. Such cost overruns were not unique to River Bend. Every nuclear power plant experienced cost overruns and the taxpayers, i.e, you and I were caught on the hook for such cost. Furthermore, in the last five years, we've discovered the original cost projections "excluded" the cost to decommission the nuclear plants. Such cost could easily amount to as much as the cost of construction, i.e, another 5 billion, for which the consumers will ultimately be responsible for. So, please forgive me when I cast dispersions on such statements made by Mr. Mahan. I've learned long ago, such statements are part and parcel of the "ultimate" dog and pony show aimed at convincing the public to support this or that advocation. It is kind of a "my dogs prettier than your dog" approach to an ill defined, poorly organized and very expensive conversion from the way things are to the way we would "like" them to be. - Greg Foreman Mon, 10 Dec 2012 05:04:40 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/12238-a-future-fueled-by-coal-really#comment-27508 One thing Mr. Foreman does not consider is that coal, a fossil fuel, will inevitably rise in cost (supply decrease, energy demand increase) while renewable energies will inevitably lower in cost due to continual technology improvements, more people using it, and...the greatest thing of all...it doesn't get depleted. Let's not forget the cost of coal pollution which is indirectly passed on to the public through health costs, environmental costs, and others. - Justin Price Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:49:52 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/12238-a-future-fueled-by-coal-really#comment-27507 Mr. Mahan obviously has not "ran the numbers" on his proposed project. If he had, then why he state: “We’re "asking for the council to sanction a citizens task force to figure this all out and conduct a financial risk assessment and technological review,” Mayan says. Therefore, how can he make project cost saving to the degree he has made? His, as well as Schoeffler's, presentation is a gross oversimplification of a horrendously expensive adjustment to the energy distribution system. It is impossible to make claims concerning conversion to or incorporation of any alternative energy proposals. Even once any "proposed" group develops proposed cost estimates, one could very easily double if not triple such estimates for final cost purposes. Of course, just as in the case of cost overruns with respect to nuclear plants, proponents of alternative energy downplay the ultimate cost. They know(and now you know)the taxpayers will be on the "hook" for whatever projects are developed. - Greg Foreman Sun, 09 Dec 2012 05:31:11 +0100