The One and Only Climate Change thread...

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Fred, the arguing is not for Vlads sake. It is for the other readers of this site that do not post. I think that they should get correct information; they know after a while who to get it from and who to laugh (privately) at...

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

By the way, tacking an e on to the end of a power number, like MWe or kWe for example is sometimes done to indicate that this power is in electrical form (as opposed to MWt for example, which would be thermal power). All power plants heat water to produce steam to run electrical generators, whether they be use oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, etc to heat the water. Thus e is not a unit but a designation for electrical. Conversion efficiency of the plant is just the ratio MWe/MWt * 100%, typically in the range of 30-40% or even lower.

Anyone (like Vlad) can find links to this stuff and post them to try to trick people into thinking that knowledge (thought) is behind the post; unlike Vlad I understand this stuff as Fred does (aside: I worked for Ontario Hydro for a summer job in 3rd year university working on fortran code simulating bidirectional fueling, cadmium control rod cooling, and boron injection shut-down systems for Candu reactor systems, and simulating LOCA (loss of coolant accidents)...cadmium and boron have high neutron cross sections and thus scavenge the slow neutrons taking the reactor sub-critical...

Vlad, the more you post the sillier you look...please stop making stuff up...HTH...

[Fred Harvey]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

And yet the consumer price index for Canada hasn't been anywhere near 5% in any of the years since then and in fact has been below 2% over most of that period.

[I]I believe it's the cost of capital financing, not CPI, that is the important figure here. Quite a bit more than 2%[/I]

Pardon me, if I colour you as just another person with an axe to grind who plays fast and loose with his figures just like Paul.

[I]I have no axe to grind[/I]

The assumptions made over financing are not that nebulous. You use the discount rate that matches your marginal cost of capital.

And you can predict the cost of financing these huge expenditures over the next twenty years?

Well your pronouncements on nuclear power are not believable (since you seem to believe that 5% compounding over 18 years leads to the same result as 1% to 2.4% compounding), show no real knowledge, and suggest to me that you treat the whole complicated debate on global warming with the same lack of rigour.

I have expessed absolutely no opinion on global warming. I asked you not to nickel and dime the figures, but no, you are incapable of that, as you are at grasping some basic fundamentals of energy and capacity units, and of project financing. Forget the compounding, the last AECL bid to Ontario was $10,800 per kw, forget the "e"

I should have remembered that it is pointless to argue with someone that has that certainty of opinion that runs on emotion rather than science.....

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I guess it depends on which evil is more palitable to the voters.

Cynical is doing the dirty work on the weekend when the financial markets are closed to minimize the damage of uncertainty when they open Monday morning. In case anyone is wondering about the Blitzkrieg on the weekend.

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Once again, Vlad demonstrates an ignorance of basics physics.

Energy is measured in Joules.
Power is measured in Watts (Joules/second)
Kilo = 1000x
Kilowatt*hour = kWh = unit that appears on our electricity bills
1 kWh = 1000 (Joules/second) x 1 hour (x3600 seconds/hour) = 3.6x10**6 Joules is
a unit of energy
Power plants (note they are called Power plants, not energy plants as Vlad thought) are usually rated in MW (1 million Watts) or even GW (1 billion Watts).

Vlad is not expected to know this because he has taken business courses (without getting the degree).

The only reason I give my background areas of study is so the reader knows when I talk about physics, math, engineering, climate change I know what I am talking about, when Vlad talks about business he may know more than others since he studied this...

HTH...

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I am not sure what all of our wars have accomplished. In Afghanistan, we still have an environment where it is okay to throw acid in little girls' faces because they want to learn to read and write.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I didn't see the interview. I think Harper lost my vote the last few days. I'm not thrilled seeing us in another costly conflict.

Expect us to get into more costly conflicts over the years no matter who wins the election. Harper's advantage is that he is the lesser evil out of the alternatives that we have.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I can no longer follow where your logic is taking you, but I can assure you that my experience in matters nuclear far exceeds your falling down, oops, standing up, at a friends wedding thirty years ago!

For Ontario, the last nuclear station completed was Darlington, 1990-93, four units total 3500MW (the "e" is not necessary) for 14.5 billion dollars. Please don't nickel and dime the details, we're talking general figures here. That would be $4114 per kw in 1993 dollars, or at 5% inflation over eighteen years, $10,400 per kw today. Surprisingly close to Beckworth's assertion.....

And yet the consumer price index for Canada hasn't been anywhere near 5% in any of the years since then and in fact has been below 2% over most of that period.

http://www.global-rates.com/economic...pi/canada.aspx

Pardon me, if I colour you as just another person with an axe to grind who plays fast and loose with his figures just like Paul.

Two or three years ago the Ontario government abandoned a proposal to extend Darlington because of the terribly high capital cost of AECL's bid, which was, hold your breath .... $10,800 per kw installed.

I am not going to get into a defence of these numbers - they will have to be much lower for AECL to get back into the game in Ontario, and they will claim they will be - but your figures for the U.S. may be true because they do not have the heavy water, which is a capital cost, but do have enriched uranium, which is a very expensive operating cost. Most studies will suggest that a cost comparison of the generated power between the two is a saw-off over the plant life-time. The problem is that this comparison is totally dependent on the assumptions made over financing and economic factors over long periods of time, which can be very nebulous, in general, and certainly political in detail.

The assumptions made over financing are not that nebulous. You use the discount rate that matches your marginal cost of capital.

Enough! My point is that your pronouncements on nuclear power are not believable, show no real knowledge, and suggest to me that you treat the whole complicated debate on global warming with the same lack of rigour. So I don't believe anything you say!

Better luck with your chess.....

Well your pronouncements on nuclear power are not believable (since you seem to believe that 5% compounding over 18 years leads to the same result as 1% to 2.4% compounding), show no real knowledge, and suggest to me that you treat the whole complicated debate on global warming with the same lack of rigour.

I don't care if you believe me or not. I will be dead before the temperature goes up 2 degrees Celsius by the year 2100 if the worst case comes to fruition. I think mankind will survive and adapt. I believe that global cooling is more of a danger than global warming as we have survived warmer temperatures than the realistic worst case figures [2 degrees] without all the technology to help us.

Thanks for wishing me luck with the chess.

[Fred Harvey]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

You made assertions about costs of building a nuclear generating station. Why wouldn't I check those assertions? I stood up in the wedding of a friend who worked for Asea Brown Boveri almost 30 years ago. He worked on Pickering and used to be sent around the world to help build nuclear power stations. We used to have similar discussions with me taking the side that said nuclear was more expensive than most of its proponents accounted for.

I can no longer follow where your logic is taking you, but I can assure you that my experience in matters nuclear far exceeds your falling down, oops, standing up, at a friends wedding thirty years ago!

For Ontario, the last nuclear station completed was Darlington, 1990-93, four units total 3500MW (the "e" is not necessary) for 14.5 billion dollars. Please don't nickel and dime the details, we're talking general figures here. That would be $4114 per kw in 1993 dollars, or at 5% inflation over eighteen years, $10,400 per kw today. Surprisingly close to Beckworth's assertion.....

Two or three years ago the Ontario government abandoned a proposal to extend Darlington because of the terribly high capital cost of AECL's bid, which was, hold your breath .... $10,800 per kw installed.

I am not going to get into a defence of these numbers - they will have to be much lower for AECL to get back into the game in Ontario, and they will claim they will be - but your figures for the U.S. may be true because they do not have the heavy water, which is a capital cost, but do have enriched uranium, which is a very expensive operating cost. Most studies will suggest that a cost comparison of the generated power between the two is a saw-off over the plant life-time. The problem is that this comparison is totally dependent on the assumptions made over financing and economic factors over long periods of time, which can be very nebulous, in general, and certainly political in detail.

Enough! My point is that your pronouncements on nuclear power are not believable, show no real knowledge, and suggest to me that you treat the whole complicated debate on global warming with the same lack of rigour. So I don't believe anything you say!

Better luck with your chess.....

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

It looks like we are headed for a federal election as well as a provincial one.

I didn't see the interview. I think Harper lost my vote the last few days. I'm not thrilled seeing us in another costly conflict.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

The U.S. uses a different design than the CANDU reactors. The light water reactors used in the U.S. require enriched uranium.

The last quote for a CANDU was so high I think it's doubtful Ontario will be buying that design. We haven't seen the Cons platform as yet.

I saw Iggy on a news show (probably CTV since the CBC would have been less challenging) where they showed one of his attack ads. When the show hostess asked him about the previous assertion that he was going to take the high road and not resort to attack ads he came up with the assertion that his attack ads were not attack ads. When the questioning ended he got this funny look on his face like he was relieved that he hadn't dropped a load in his pants his pants. He doesn't seem comfortable on tv which is a bit surprising considering that it was his profession in the past.

It looks like we are headed for a federal election as well as a provincial one.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Well that took you a little time to google that information.....lol! I don't believe you!

You made assertions about costs of building a nuclear generating station. Why wouldn't I check those assertions? I stood up in the wedding of a friend who worked for Asea Brown Boveri almost 30 years ago. He worked on Pickering and used to be sent around the world to help build nuclear power stations. We used to have similar discussions with me taking the side that said nuclear was more expensive than most of its proponents accounted for.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

It is not. Most recent nuclear plants have been built at a fraction of that cost even in the U.S. where endless prebuild litigation adds to the cost.

The U.S. uses a different design than the CANDU reactors. The light water reactors used in the U.S. require enriched uranium.

The last quote for a CANDU was so high I think it's doubtful Ontario will be buying that design. We haven't seen the Cons platform as yet.

[Fred Harvey]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

It is usually expressed as KWe in that case.



It is not. Most recent nuclear plants have been built at a fraction of that cost even in the U.S. where endless prebuild litigation adds to the cost.

Well that took you a little time to google that information.....lol! I don't believe you!

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Well, now, I do believe he was quoting the capital cost of building nuclear plants, usually quoted in $ per kilowatt. This is rather different than the cost of generating it, usually quoted in $ per kilowatt hour.

It is usually expressed as KWe in that case.

No longer in the business, but his figure may indeed be correct.

It is not. Most recent nuclear plants have been built at a fraction of that cost even in the U.S. where endless prebuild litigation adds to the cost.

Nuclear has always been terribly expensive to build, but once there is the cheapest base load power, which is why Ontario will continue to refurbish it's nuclear fleet.....to a point!

I hope your chess doesn't encompass such "newbie mistakes". May be you guys ahould stick to chess.......

My chess encompasses numerous newbie mistakes. That is why my rating keeps oscillating in the 2170 to 2230 band recently outside of rating glitches that bring me even lower.