New Jersey Approves Increase to Renewable Energy Standards

[jpak]

http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/NewsNAGO272.htm

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) has approved modifications to the existing Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) rules at its Wednesday, September 14th meeting.

The proposed amendments will increase the state's RPS percentage of Class 1 (solar, wind, sustainable biomass) to 20 percent by 2020 from the current requirement of 4 percent by 2008.

The proposal would further require that 2 percent of this amount come from solar electric systems.

<snip>

They further reported that "This proposal would keep New Jersey as a national leader in the development of renewable energy."

<more>

[NNadir]

1. We in New Jersey are indeed among the nationwide leaders in PV power.

Here is a list of our PV installations here:

http://www.powerlight.com/newjersey/index.shtml">New Jersey Is Now One Of The Leading States In The Nation For Solar

Each solar station is listed with it's "power rating." Totalling, and dividing by 1000 to change the "kilo" prefix to the less misleading "mega" prefix, we see that New Jersey has an impressive 2.3 Mega"watts" where as usual I refer to Mega"watts" in magical solar peak ratings. (Since these plants typically run at 0.15 capacity loading, the average power rating using the word "watts" as a physicist, as opposed to a weak minded mystic" the actual power is 0.3 megawatts.)

New Jersey power demand in 2003 ran about 61,569,000 megawatt-hours in 2003, or 2.22 X 10^17 J. This translates to an average power demand of 7024 Megawatts.

http://www.state.nj.us/bpu/cleanEnergy/energyFAQ.pdf

We are so happy to be among the leaders in solar PV twit power here, recognizing as we do that the fraction that solar energy PV here represents is 0.0005 of our electrical energy demand.

Right here in New Jersey we've stopped global climate change dead in its tracks with our magic PV systems.

Don't drive around trying to see all the solar systems for yourself, though. As a resident, I can tell you they're sort of hard to find. You'll burn a lot of gas and will end up crying about the missing oil platforms in the gulf.

I'll bet most of you are highly envious of our advanced solar capacity here. All we have to do is increase our solar output by a factor of about 20,000 and we'll be totally solar. We'll spend all our money to do this. We'll eat mud to do it. We'll sell our children into slavery. It's just that important.

Well we don't have to do it, actually. It is enough to promise that our grandchildren will do it, say in 2050, and if they can't do any better than we can, well fuck 'em, we never gave a shit about them anyway. Wimps!

I do apologize by the way for "upchucking facts." Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts!

:puke:

[jpak]

2. LOL!!!!!

Oyster Creek is going to "go away" come April 2009.

:)

Hope you get your 10 kW BP Solar PV system before then!!!!

:hi:

[NNadir]

3. Oyster Creek will not go away, but if it did it would be coal coal coal

No one is going to buy solar power in New Jersey to save themselves from rising fuel prices. Anyone who does it is doing it for show and/or pretense.

Solar power does not, effectively exist as a reasonable option. Even 40 years of hype couldn't make it happen on a truly measurable scale. Even in Germany, where the so called Greens (temporarily) hold power - although they have been distracted from their attention to solar mysticism while they've been calling for attacks on Iraq - there is really no effective solar PV industry delivering appreciable power. Oh, there's guys running around shoving half a billion euros in their pockets, but no real delivery. There's the usual spin, and hype, promises, and lots of crowing about 1 mega"watt" here and 2 mega"watts" there, but no real energy delivered.

There was a big promise that when solar got a big enough subsidy - in Germany it amounts to an increase in price by almost a factor of 10 - the price of solar power would "come down," enough to be competitive with oil, never mind nuclear and coal. But of course, there was no delivery on that promise.

Now - and please understand that I know that (gasp) numbers don't impress twits because they're connected with something called reality - let's look at solarbuzz:

http://www.solarbuzz.com/Moduleprices.htm

Anyone who can do numbers, and this would preclude the members of Society of Scammers who Think We Are As Dumb As They Are, can easily see that over the last 5 years, a period during which the so called "Greens," pushed through subsidy bill so that rich investors couldn't lose on the solar scam, the price of solar power fell a mere 10%, from astronomically unafforbable $6.33 per magic solar "watt," to 5.76/magic solar "watt." Using units that physicists use at 0.20 loading capacity, we see that this is the equivalent of the price dropping from $3,160 euros to light a 100 watt light bulb, to $2,880 euros to light a 100 watt light bulb, and of course, as usual, we neglect the cost of inverters and batteries.

What's even more telling is that solar prices have struck already struck an (unimpressive) minimum. They are rising now.

Note too, from solarbuzz themselves: "The module cost represents around 45-55% of the total installed cost of a Solar Energy System. Therefore the solar module price is the key element in the total price of an installed solar system. All prices are exclusive of sales taxes, which depending on the country or region can add 8-20% to the prices, with generally highest sales tax rates in Europe.

The prices are based on the purchase of a single module and take into account prices across all solar module power bands (i.e. 3 Watts to 300 Watts). This approach is taken to ensure a consistent, but broadly based, Index."

So much for bullshit.

How many Greenpeace Illiterates does it take to light a light bulb? That depends. How much money can they rape you for?

"Solar only" advocates are fossil fuel apologists. You yank the fossil fuel crutch from under them and they scream, because nothing exposes a fraud quite so much as a demand for delivery.

Not one of them give a shit that the city of New Orleans is now coated with a layer of oil - a part of the price for reliance of the fossil fuels they advance with every bit of nebulous feel-good fraudulent bullshit. All they care about is the price of gas, for if gas gets to high, they'll have to walk to the liquor stores to get drunk enough to stand themselves.

Oyster Creek by itself is larger than the entire world solar capacity when measured in the kind of watts that physicists use. Even in magical solar "watts" that pretends the sun doesn't go down the plant makes all the solar whining and hype look ridiculous. At it's just one of such 440 plants in the world.

The days when radiation paranoids could command any respect are over. Not one of their predictions, whether about solar nirvana, the demise of the nuclear industry, the scale of the worse case nuclear accident, the unmanagability of so called "nuclear waste" has proven true.

When people continually insist and advertise for untrue things, they are usually designated in the English language as "frauds."

[jpak]

4. *sigh*

US (and global) nuclear power capacity will experience a serious decline in the next two decades...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/forecast/gencap.html

Let's look at the numbers (net GW)...

2005 = 97.5 GW

2010 = 97.5 GW

2015 = 79.5 GW

2020 = 71.6 GW

...and ChimpCo can't even PAY US utilities to build new nuclear power plants...

http://www.energybulletin.net/8282.html

...and the DOE has to PAY US utilities to use MOX fuel derived from blended-down weapons-grade plutonium...

http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0329-04.htm

....but in the case of Virginia Power - they can't even pay them to do that!!!....

http://www.bredl.org/info/2000/VaPower_drops_mox.htm

...and US uranium production has collapsed (download the pdf Uranium Overview 1949-2004)...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/nuclear.html

...and there is only ONE uranium conversion plant currently operating in the US...(down from several two decades ago)....

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-conversion.html

...and it suffered a serious fire with offsite release of UF6 in December 2003, which effectively dislocated the front end of the US nuclear fuel cycle...

..and the privatization of former DOE uranium enrichment facilities was a complete disaster that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars…

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:gkY60paAaTsJ:zhiyuancui.ccs.tsinghua.edu.cn/Course/CPG/DanEnrichmentCorporation.pdf+United+States+Enrichment+Corporation+privatization+bankruptcy+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

..and the cost of Yucca Mountain has ballooned to $58 billion with no end in sight…

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/special/2001/may/07/511790003.html

http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/loux05.htm

...and it will cost local Nevada communities and additional $2.5 billion…

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-gov/2005/aug/16/519213655.html

…and an additional $38-61 billion if nuclear utilities win their suit against the DOE for not disposing the spent fuel they produced and made a profit with…

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Jan-26-Mon-2004/news/23067502.html

…and let’s not forget the failed commercial reprocessing plant at West Valley NY and the billions it will cost taxpayers to clean up…

http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/rwreprocessfactsheet.htm

Gee – it looks like the US nuclear fuel cycle is in a state of collapse.

Quite unlike the global PV module industry, which is profitable and growing exponentially…

http://www.oja-services.nl/iea-pvps/isr/05.htm

Now it's off to loot the liquor store - to be followed by ridiculous mantra chanting...and Greenpeace Twittery!!!

:beer: :smoke: :beer: :smoke:

[BeFree]

5. Thanks, jpak

Good information there.

Ya know, solar just isn't sexy enough for some folks, eh?

Plain panels, small sizes, safe, and relatively uncomplicated.

Solar works, however, and as you pointed out, the industry is growing with hundreds of new investors, while nukes are having a hard time getting private investors even with the financial blowjob from b**h.

Maybe the idea of big, dangerous nuke plants fullfill a deep, dark, and hidden sexual need for some? Just wondering.

[NNadir]

6. Coal coal, coal, coal. Oh and the usual 0.000x solar.

I love hearing about the alledged problems of so called "nuclear waste," from arm-chair drunks.

Not one of them has ever though ever whines about fossil fuel waste, unless an oil platform disappears and cuts them off.

Man these guys are sensitive about being "cut off." Guess it isn't new.

The US will in fact be an impoverished third world country, filled with panicing drunks face down on the floor, crying give me a beer, give me some oil, oil is expensive, where is the gas, where is the gas? Then they will do what they do best, pass gas out of both ends.

I have very little hope for the US, but I do note that solar only greenpeace twits have been promising the demise of the nuclear industry almost as long as they have been promising a viable solar industry that represents even a respectable fraction of the world's energy.

In fact back in the 1980's the death of the nuclear industry was widely reported.

Look what happened:



Now, given that the world is adding about 25% more reactors than it had before, and given that the world nuclear production increased by 2 terrawatt-hours in the 1990's without building more tha a few reactors (as the result of myticism and stupidity), and given that this two terrawatt-hours dwarfs the production possibility of what solar can achieve with two more decades worth of subsidies...

...well have another beer.

Read it and weep:



The failed world solar industry is obscured in the "hydro and other" section of this bar graph. It should read "hydro and hyped diddling".

But there will be no solar nirvana. If US nuclear productions does fall will be soaking a cloud of coal to the extent that it has energy at all.

Now, fortunately most of the twits will have drunk themselves to death, which is why they talk so loudly about 2020 and 2050, because they'll be dead.

But there will not be 7 gigawatts of PV solar power anywhere in the world. Nowhere. Oh, new poorly uneducated frauds will be promising it (this time in 2050 and 2070) and getting loaded enough to believe that it could be true.

In 2029, the licence renewal for Oyster Creek will be coming up yet again, and still it alone will challenge the entire solar world.

0.0005. That fraction deserves a thread about the victory of adding more solar subsidies.

Of course you can subsidize to death. No one practical buys into it. Solar PV still too expensive, after decade after decade after decade of subsidies.

Oh and by the way, looking at the last stupid link, 821 mega"watts" (even pretend solar hype "watts") for an "exponentially growing industry" is pretty pathetic. That's not a world class industry. That's the equivalent of one tiny coal fired plant. Someone who knew something about energy would know that. Someone who gave a rat's ass about global climate change would be positively appalled. But a fraud would happily report it as a victory.

Big Deal. Big Fraud.

If I were going to the liquor store, I'd get two bottles, hard stuff, straight up. Big fraud calls for big hallucinations.

Oh, and though I'm not drinking and I suggest a toast for those who are: Governor Hydrogen Hummer Billion Solar Roofs Steroid Boy announced his run for re-election today.

As for the smoke, one expects that it is something illegal. You'd have to be pretty fucked up to believe in this religion.

[NNadir]

7. Gee, I was in a tizzy and screwed up a bit.

Drunk killers always piss me off.

In the graph in the above post, I said that nuclear production increased by "2 terrawatt-hours" in the period between 1990 and 2002. I didn't have my glasses on.

What I should have said is that nuclear power production increased it's share of world electricity production by 2%.

Actually production increased from around 2000 terrawatt-hours to 2500 terrawatt hours from 1990 - 2002.

How much energy is that? 500 terrawatt-hours is 1.8 exajoules where an exajoule is 10^18 joules. In average power terms this represents an annualized production of 57,040 Megawatts, or about the equivalent of 57 new nuclear power plants. This represents a growth - without much building, most of this result obtained by better operating procedures - the equivalent of about 5 1000 MWe plants per year, or 5000 MWe capacity.

How much carbon dioxide does this additional capacity represent each year unremarked by coal apologists?

26 trillion tons. Per year. Every year.

Above one of the hallucinatory links given above represented that PV solar production is now 1629 Mega"watts" per year. Since a solar hype mega"watt" is about 1/4 of a physicist's watt in a good weather zone, we have that the world solar building capacity is slightly more than 400 MWe per year, neglecting completely the fact that if solar energy were required to produce power 24 hours/day, it would require inefficient batteries, making the production even more piddly.

This means that worldwide solar growth capacity is about 1/3 of a single proposed coal fired plant in Illinois:

http://www.peabodyenergy.com/Operationsproducts/prairiestate.html">What the Solar Revolutionary Promissories Will Really Deliver - 6 million tons of coal/year - 1 1500 MWe coal plant


So after 40 years of "exponential growth" in the solar industry, it's entire production capacity is represented by the fraction 400/5000 = 0.08 of the amount the "dying" nuclear industry was able to produce by merely tweaking the existing plant. (Note that production is only 1100/1629 or 68% of capacity.)

And when you consider that the exponential growth of the solar industry is a highly subsidized Ponzi scheme, a Ponzi scheme being a fraud based on big promises and poor delivery, it is even more impressive.

Don't worry about global climate change, while you're looking under the cushions for that last barrel of oil, the solar PV industry will save the day.

Oh, and for any little boys who might be reading, sorry about "upchucking facts" again. It must really disturb the bed time stories.

:toast:

And here's one for Governor Hydrogen Hummer Steroid Trillion Solar Roofs Boy:

:toast:

[dcfirefighter]

8. 26 Trillion tons of Carbon Dioxide

$10 a ton would raise gas prices by 2 cents / gal and electricity by $0.0085 / kwh for coal produced electricity.

How much subsidy does nuclear get per kwh produced?
How much subsidy does PV get per kwh produced?

And, NNadir - you've got * on the brain, it's tera- not "terra-"

[BeFree]

9. Drunk killers

The drunk killers you refer to are the power companies who own and operate both the coal and nuclear generators. Your constant and childish slandering of the good people on this board, all in an attempt to further the killer's business is nothing short of upchuckingly sick.

Your whitewashing of the industry, while ignoring any fact that contradicts your faith, along with your slander, is getting you nowhere. In fact, the more I read of your crap, the more alienated I become towards nukes. Not that you care, but what sense does it make?

Our problems will not be solved by intermittent scribbling across the screens of the few DU members who read this forum, so why rampage against them? The only immediate good which can come from our missives is that an understanding of the problem is acquired. That means all the facts are laid out, not just a few. I feel it is the responsibility of those with the most knowledge to be as judicial with the facts as possible, and not be alienating but be educationally minded, but hey, that's just me. You are free to do as your faith leads you.

Peace

[NNadir]

10. Why rampage?

Because their arguments are trying to kill my kids.

It seems like I have to say this fifteen times a day, and still the conversation goes on.

I don't like unethical people. I'm not nice to them.

Pretending that a non solution is a solution is pretty much the same as driving Hummers and pretending the oil will never run out. OK? Get it?

I didn't think so.

You never heard of global climate change or its consequences?

I didn't think so.

Oh and for the "faith" thing: That's for Bushies.

There's something called "science." You may wish to check it out sometime. It involves something called "measurement," which can be pretty unambiguous. It involves something else called "numbers" which, starting with 1st grade, most people can understand, concepts like "bigger than," "less than," you know stuff like that.

Now here is a report on the external cost of energy.

http://www.externe.info/

What's the safest form of constant on demand energy...

...Let's see, hmmmmm...oh...I know: Nuclear energy.

It has all those awful things it, science and numbers, not one object of "faith," in it, just those awful things that would make me want to vomit if I were deeply attached to fantasy, you know, those awful upchucking fact thingies.

As for whether I'm getting somewhere, I think my mail makes me feel quite satisfied, thank you. Some people read my posts for amusement - thinking that it is, in fact, more interesting when I mix those awful, horrible, (gasp, terror) facts with how shall we say this, disrespectful commentary. Some write me to privately offer their thoughts on my antagonists, and it's really not much prettier than the things that I say out loud.

I am not really interested in convincing my three or four constant antagonists of anything, because I have, at the end of the day, zero respect for them. They are foils.

So, let's see, if one thing is safer than another, and someone insists that the less safe thing be used until they can appeal to a pretend third alternative, what would you call that?

I know. Murder.

Get it?

I didn't think so.

[BeFree]

11. Your faith

Leads you to believe, as you state here, that some here are killers. That's sick. The killers are the owners and operators of the coal plants. You are way off base attacking folks who want solar because they know solar does not kill.

You mention unethical people. Well, had you read and understood my words you would realize that I consider nuke advocates to be just that: Unethical. The whitewashing of the serious consequences of nuclear power is unethical, and upchucking one sided facts is unethical.


I note that you have ignored my response to you on another thread here. I know why, I caught you with your foot in your mouth. I wonder if your secret admirers will email you bout that?

I wish we could agree on ending the pollution entering our atmosphere, but as reality sets in I see that you are so far off to one side that it will be nigh impossible, so I am left with no further recourse than to counter your faith in nuclear power whenever and wherever it so blatantly rears it ugly head.

Peace

[jpak]

14. LOL!!!!!

Someone needs to take his meds....

:rofl:

[jpak]

15. ROFL!!!!

Oyster Creek renewed AGAIN in 2029????

It's one of the oldest nuclear power plants in the US (initial operation 1969) and its current license runs out in 2009.

It will be 40 years old in 2009

and 60 years old in 2029

IF it gets relicensed - something the current NJ Governor and elected officials in surrounding communities oppose.

And we can safely and economically operate a nuclear reactor for 60 years?????

:rofl:

On edit: here's an Interesting article on Oyster Creek...

http://www.energybulletin.net/2178.html

[Oerdin]

12. 10 years to late.

Here in San Diego SDG&E (our local power and gas company) has a goal of 20% of power from solar, wind, and geothermal by 2010. We're already up to around 15% and another 25% comes from our local nuclear power plant which does not produce greenhouse gases. That means here in San Diego we currently have 35% of our electricity generated using entirely nongreen house gas producing sources and we'll be increasing that to 40% with in the next 5 years. That puts us on very good footing I think tough some of the northwest get a higher percentage due to all the hydroelectric dams.

[jpak]

13. Cool!

Maine has you beat though...

~50% of generating capacity currently from low-head hydro, waste-wood-fired plants, trash-to-energy plants (which have their problems)...

...and there are ~180 MW of wind turbine capacity to come on line in the near future, and hundreds more in planning (a lot for a state with ~1.3 million people)...

...a large percentage of Maine homes burn wood to some extent.

...and there are a lot of PV or solar-hot water equipped homes in the state (thousands) - maybe more per capita than any other state except California (my wild guess)...

:hi: