• 598 Days Ago
• 06/25/2010

Interesting

Interesting.  Perhaps if we would stop spending money to prevent people from developing natural gas resources, like we have in Alaska, the price would drop enough that energy companies would choose it over coal. Then we wouldn't have to spend even more money to make companies use natural gas.

• 598 Days Ago
• 06/25/2010

effect on cost per kw

How much would the increase in fuel cost associated with the switch from coal to natural gas increase the cost of electricity? 

Could the electricity bill increase be offset by using the revenue from the carbon tax for incentives for efficiency improvements like compact floresent light bulbs which save net money over there life cycle and further reduce carbon emission. 

• 597 Days Ago
• 06/26/2010

natural gas and drinking water pollution

Please search for "gasland" and "NOW" on the web, and watch the top award winning documentary about how gas drilling, for the last 10 years in 34 states, sounds like it is polluting the well water and river water with VOCs, heavy metals...and how some cities like Philadelphia and NYC may be affected and many drinking water wells....We can not live without drinking water.

I hope we try EfficiencyFirst.org and save our gas and oil for making things like medicines, plastic, nitrogen fertilizer...and save our water too.

• 595 Days Ago
• 06/28/2010

Am i the first

Back in MIT's hay day they were very smart with Minsky ( i think, cant remember) in AI research at least more intelligent than the rest put together.

These days I see stupid people peedling documents proving this and that...

Taking one very smart person the old Australia PM, who cited the very obvious....the mining resources will still be there in the future...

You dont need to tax emissions and indeed emissions tax have no bearing AT ALL on the cost of gas in future. My goodness if MIT is getting filled with stupid people then my appreciation of a once fine institute is waning.

Coal is a finite resource...did the report state that?

As coal runs out, gas will become more prevalent as the economic alternative.

Now back to being green as the article stated.... youre implying gas is greener than coal. OH whoopy do...did you get your doctorate for that declaration...was it worth it....lol

Perhaps you should have seen the other doctorates in MIT about eating rice instead of beef.

Once MIT get out of cloud cuckoo-land they might see that people know every result they do. Its basic research thats important, along with new lines of research associated with it.

If they really want to cut world-wide emissions of green-house gases they can do the following.

Genetically engineer some bacteria that changes methane into other elements and inserts into the guts of cows as a friendly bacteria. How flaming hard is that, now that is worth a doctorate not some stupid idea stating basic elements and compound differences.

Bring back the old MIT genius' i say.

• 589 Days Ago
• 07/04/2010

Energy is never "cheap"

The level of Technology Review journalism has disintegrated. It's rare to find even one or two trustworthy articles a year. Nearly all of them have become "puff pieces," written by people who seem to have few technical skills, promoting someone like an advertisement, without any effort to provide background or analysis.

So it is with Mr. Bullis and his "cheap way to cut emissions." If power plants fired by natural gas were really "cheap" to run as he says, then Mystic Station in Everett would run all the time. It doesn't, so obviously it's not "cheap" to run and can't be made "cheap" with a mere fluff of technology.

Mr. Bullis has another puff piece called "Solar's great leap forward," in Technology Review for July, 2010 (pages 52-57). That promotes a Chinese businessman who says he will make solar power "cheap." Mr. Bullis uncritically estimates capital costs trending as low as $1 a watt (chart, page 56).

As it happens, there is some recent and relevant background in President Obama's announcement that the U.S. government will provide the Abengoa Solar plant in Arizona with a $1.4 billion loan guarantee. That plant is rated to produce 280 MW, peak. If lucky enough to achieve an 18 percent capacity factor, Abengoa Solar will generate about 50 megawatts, averaged over several years.

Abengoa Solar must be costing at least $1,400,000,000 to generate an average of 50,000,000 watts. That puts the capital cost over $27 a watt--also not something a mere fluff of technology can overcome.

Lowballing cost is not just a Chinese tradition. A few years ago, MIT economists were lowballing costs of new "third generation" nuclear power, estimating $2 a watt. Once again, federal loan guarantees make it possible to get some ground truth.

The guarantee for the Vogtle plant surfaced knowledge that Georgia Power, the operator, expected to pay $6.1 billion, including interest, for its 45.7 percent share, making the total cost about $13.3 bilion. [ Nuclear News. June 21, 2010, at www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Georgia_Power_accepts_Vogtle_loan_guarantee-2106107.html ]

Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors are rated at 1,175 megawatts each. If they are able to achieve 90 percent capacity factors, now typical of "second generation" nuclear plants, they will generate about 2,100 megawatts, averaged over several years. That makes the capital cost about $6.30 a watt.

Unlike natural gas-fired power-plants, which require an expensive, premium type of fuel, solar and nuclear plants have no fuel costs and small fuel costs, so their energy prices are dominated by capital costs and plant lifetimes. While the "third-generation" nuclear plants are expected to operate at least 60 years, so far even optimistic estimates for solar plants are 25 years or less.

We remember what happened with the last "Great Leap Forward."

-- Craig Bolon, MIT '66, Brookline, MA

• 585 Days Ago
• 07/08/2010

Natural Gas Power

The turbines used in Natural Gas Power Plants are more or less the same as those in old Jet Air Liners. The EPA no longer allowed there use in the air so they sit in junk yards.  Geared down like power plants they could provide a cheap way of making new Natural Gas Power plants.  But I don't think GE wants to hear that.

• 579 Days Ago
• 07/14/2010

Best way to cut emissions

I'm always interested if I read articles or blog that related to emissions reduction. Scientific study is none sense at all if the people are still wasting energy or fossil fuels because government doesn't made any legislation and regulations. I wonder why the UN and those develop countries doesn't think to regulate those car and motor cycle racing sports. That's a none sense sports and just wasting fossil fuels. I know that car racing is a part of advertizing but that have little impact only to the consumers. There are few people only can afford to buy that kind of cars with the same specifications used and won the race. It's the unit price of the car is the most important in market competition next to quality. I believed all car brand now have good quality because they're using the same technology i.e. metal materials and accessories. So no need to undergo racing sports to find those name that won is the best quality but it is the person that drive. STOP CAR RACING SPORTS TO CUT GREEN HOUSE EMISSIONS.