No Amount Of Incremental Wind And Solar Power Can Ever Provide Energy Independence

moon said:
Yes, it can. We just have to drastically reduce usage.

It will mean the end of many corporations that you prostrate yourself before, maggot. Tough titty.
Given the choice between your profits and the planet I'd like you removed from the equation as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

It's good that this nasty cunt has revealed itself fully to the board, total fucking loony.
 
Primavera said:
It's good that this nasty cunt has revealed itself fully to the board, total fucking loony.
Click to expand...

You puncture very easily these days, maggot. Time was when you'd produce two pages of cut-and-paste effluent.


Haw, haw.....................................haw.
 
moon said:
You puncture very easily these days, maggot. Time was when you'd produce two pages of cut-and-paste effluent.


Haw, haw.....................................haw.
Click to expand...

I sussed out a while back that you are a totally useless
technology challenged cunt, people like you ought to have been drowned at birth
 
The electric car industry can be compared to a man about to be hung asking for more weights for his feet. It's also a billionaires' paradise at the expense of common sense and environmental necessities.

The likes of the Brit maggot, poor fool, refuse lifestyle change and they will use you to stand on in order to keep their heads above the flood.
 
ExpressLane said:
Fossil fuels for now and Nuclear Power in the energy of the future. Perhaps SMRs?
Click to expand...

Fusion research is coming on leaps and bounds, I'm very optimistic about it. Same story with SMRs which are ideal for places like Africa which haven't a developed infrastructure on much of the continent.

Small modular reactors – designing nuclear energy for African landscapes

Nuclear power is not new. It has been in operation for over half a century, with an excellent record for providing reliable baseload electricity.

Not only has the electricity turned out to be reliable, but it is also the safest, greenest and most inexpensive electricity currently available to mankind. The proof exists. But to judge from much of the barrage of anti-nuclear propaganda, which has been projected by anti-nuclear activists, people can be forgiven for doubting such claims. Let us consider the infamous Fukushima nuclear power incident in Japan. Not one single person was killed or injured by nuclear radiation at Fukushima. Now read that again. Not one single person!

Nuclear power stations run for many years. Over their lifetime the electricity produced is inexpensive. The concept of “cost” can only be judged over a life cycle, and not at initiation.

Ask the question: does a brand new Boeing or Airbus passenger aircraft cost a lot of money? It is wrong to look at the purchase price on the day of delivery. You need to examine the situation at the end of the life of the aircraft, when you can then count the total passengers carried, operating costs, and then work out its profitability to the air carrier, and hence the actual operational “cost”. Don’t confuse the concepts of “purchase price” and “cost”. They are very different. Anti-nuclear activists go out of their way to induce public confusion with respect to this important distinction.

Nuclear power is highly profitable. Both airlines and nuclear power operators know how to calculate these cost figures very accurately. That is why both are confident in making a profit on new investments in their respective fields of expertise.

Over the past half-century, nuclear power has proven itself to have been highly reliable and profitable. It will be even more reliable and more profitable in the future. Many people do not seem to realise that nuclear technology has advanced dramatically during recent decades. Modern nuclear reactors are far more advanced now than ever before. Modern fabrication techniques, modern electronic systems, modern metal alloys, modern computer control, modern internet-based operating surveillance, modern robotics…the list goes on. All this means that we now have “space-age” nuclear reactors in comparison to those built in the previous century.

As nuclear reactors developed over the first half-century of nuclear power, they became larger and were all based on having a large body of water available, such as the ocean or a major lake.

But this design concept had a built-in self-limiting barrier. They needed the water! However, many countries do not have a coastline. Many don’t even have major lakes. So the customer base was limited.

Big and small nuclear
Africa is very large. It is larger than the US, Europe, China, India and Japan added together. So, even some African countries which do have an ocean coast, also have major areas very far from the ocean which needs to be electrified. South Africa is an example.

South Africa is the same size as the whole of Western Europe. The distance from South Africa’s inland capital, Pretoria, to Cape Town is the same as the distance from Rome to London. The world’s most southerly nuclear power station, Koeberg, is situated on the southern coast of South Africa, from where it serves the southern regions. But major mining areas are 1,000km inland, in arid areas with no large water bodies. South Africa’s vast coal deposits and coal-fired power stations are clustered in the far northeast of the country, which consequently requires very long transmission lines to serve the country.

The nuclear power from Koeberg is South Africa’s cheapest and most reliable electricity.

So during the last decade of the 20th Century, South African nuclear technologists decided to investigate building a small nuclear reactor that would not need water cooling. Its purpose was to serve large mining and industrial complexes and arid inland regions.

There certainly is still a need for large nuclear power plants, but there is also a desperate need for much smaller ones too.

The initial design criteria for a new small reactor were that it should be easy to build and easy to add more reactors to an existing complex. So the idea of pursuing a “modular” concept became a cornerstone of design. Another very important design constraint was that the electricity produced should not be more expensive than the current selling price of South Africa’s coal-fired electricity.

The reactor had to be gas-cooled. As such, Helium gas was chosen.

Fuel had to be easy to load into the reactor and easy to transport, so graphite-based fuel balls, as large as a cricket ball were chosen. The term “pebbles” was adopted for the fuel.

So was born the South African PBMR Project (Pebble Bed Modular Reactor).

Development of Small Modular Reactors in South Africa
This project developed steadily to the point at which the total staff complement was some 2,000 people. The project advanced such that by 2008 the PBMR team was ready to construct the First Of A Kind (FOAK) prototype. The site had been selected and approved and all was ready for the starter’s pistol to fire.

Then fate intervened. The world 2008 financial crisis was initiated in the US as a result of a foolish house mortgage policy. This cascaded around the world. Big international banks which had become involved in the financing deals for the PBMR suddenly became bankrupt or unable to honour their pledges to the PBMR. At the same time, South Africa had an unexpected change in government, with a new president and cabinet taking office. A number of major projects were then put on hold, the PBMR being one of them. Nuclear technologists thought that this “hold” would last for a few months, but in fact, it turned out to be years.

community.
Fortunately, South Africa has an energy minister who appreciates the reality of providing a reliable supply of baseload electricity to the country. He has launched a program to build 2,500 megawatts of new nuclear power, to add to the existing nuclear power base. He has specifically stated his support for Small Modular Reactors to be included.

So the government attitude towards the development and deployment of Small Modular Reactors in South Africa is positive. In addition, about a dozen other African countries have declared their intention of following a nuclear power path in the future. Some have already set up national nuclear bodies to advance their plans.


Read more: https://www.esi-africa.com/industry...igning-nuclear-energy-for-african-landscapes/
 
Last edited:
Primavera said:
Are you talking about tidal power? Pretty obvious you know little about it. Read this and stop bullshitting.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/tidal-energy/
Click to expand...
Seawalls for the general welfare could include energy generation and water purification and pumping to the interior and for export.

And, could potentially be used to save at risk environments like Pacifica and areas of the Bay Area. I can imagine a harbor that generates revenue with seawalls generating energy and purifying water and pumping it to the interior and for export.
 
moonBAT said:
Yes, it can. We just have to drastically reduce usage.

It will mean the end of many corporations that you prostrate yourself before, maggot. Tough titty.
Given the choice between your profits and the planet I'd like you removed from the equation as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

^Brainless, America hating, terrorist loving halfwit thinks destroying economies is a great idea.

Dipshit
noun
dip·shit | \ ˈdip-ˌshit \
usually vulgar
: a stupid or incompetent person

clueless
adjective
clue·less | \ ˈklü-ləs \
1: having or providing no clue
2: completely or hopelessly bewildered, unaware, ignorant, or foolish
 
Something to ponder about so-called "green" energy bullshit.

"Batteries do not produce electricity - they store electricity, which is produced elsewhere, especially by coal, uranium, ground-gas-powered power plants or diesel-powered generators. So the claim that an electric car is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all true.

Since forty percent of the electricity produced in the United States comes from coal power plants, forty percent of electric cars on the road are coal-based.

But that's not all yet. Those of you who are passionate about electric cars and a green revolution should take a closer look at the batteries, but also wind turbines and solar cells.

A typical electric car battery weighs a thousand pounds, about the size of a travel suitcase. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds of cobalt, 200 pounds of copper and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel and plastic. There are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells inside.

To make each BEV battery, you need to process 25,000 pounds of sole for lithium, 30,000 pounds of resin for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of resin for nickel and 25,000 pounds of copper for the copper. All in all you need to dig 500,000 pounds of the earth crust for a battery. "

The main problem with solar systems is the chemicals used to convert silicon into the silicon used for the panels. In order to produce sufficient pure silicon, it must be processed with salic acid, sulfur acid, salpetic acid, fluoride hydrogen, trichlorethane and acetone.

In addition, gallium, arsenide, copper indium gallium dieselenide and cadmium telluride are needed, which are also highly toxic. Silicone dust poses a threat to workers, and the plates cannot be recycled.

Wind turbines are the nonplusultra in terms of costs and environmental destruction. Each windwheel weighs 1688 tons (which is equivalent to 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of glass fiber, and the hard-to-earth rare earth neodym, praseodym and dysprosium. Each of the three shovels weighs 81,000 pounds and has a life span of 15 to 20 years, then they must be replaced. We can't recycle used rotor leaves.

These technologies may have their place, but you have to look beyond the myth of emission freedom.

“Going Green” may sound like a utopic ideal, but if you look at the hidden and inconsiderate costs realistic and unbiased, you’ll find that “Going green” is doing more harm to the Earth’s environment than it appears Has.

I'm not against mining, electric vehicles, wind or solar energy. But I show the reality of the situation.
 
Truth Detector(AKA Poopiehead) said:



Since forty percent of the electricity produced in the United States comes from coal power plants, forty percent of electric cars on the road are coal-based.
Click to expand...

Hey Poopiehead, the 2000's called. They want you to get updated on where electrical production is coming from in the US.

outlet-graph-large.jpg
 
moon said:
The electric car industry can be compared to a man about to be hung asking for more weights for his feet. It's also a billionaires' paradise at the expense of common sense and environmental necessities.

The likes of the Brit maggot, poor fool, refuse lifestyle change and they will use you to stand on in order to keep their heads above the flood.
Click to expand...

Enjoy your long charge times, the expensive car that can't carry much of a payload very far (if at all), the fires, and the horrible resale value of your electric car.
Enjoy the bans of the internal combustion engine, and all the railroads, aircraft, ships, and trucks that depend on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top