Members banned from this thread: evince, Leonthecat, archives, Micawber, ThatOwlWoman, Jade Dragon and Nordberg


Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 114

Thread: If They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Have 100% Clean Po

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reagansghost View Post
    Three Mile Island
    Who died regarding three mile island? You know it is still operating right? Dunce.

    Quote Originally Posted by reagansghost View Post
    Chernobyl
    Communist shitholes would be a dangerous place for the high tech required to operate these safely.

    Quote Originally Posted by reagansghost View Post
    case closed
    So without nuclear, we will have to turn to coal and natural gas for power then. Solar and wind are never going to be sufficient.
    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  2. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TrippyHippy View Post
    I love how you groan posts but never seem to be able to reply to them.
    Heard the same old crap many times, can't be bothered replying anymore.

  3. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Good lord; you can't be this stupid. Germany's energy nedds aren't being met by clean energy. They try to get rid of it when energy demands go down because there is no way to STORE the energy being created by these so-called "green" plants. It isn't because they produce too much. Dolt.

    Most of Germany's energy needs are met by importing it, coal which is the largest source and nuclear.

    Same with California you idiot. The notion that wind and solar can provide the hundreds of thousands of megawatts necessary to power Germany and California are laughably stupid.
    Yes and you were born in Germany and live in California, heaven forfend that you might actually know your shit.

  4. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Yes and you were born in Germany and live in California, heaven forfend that you might actually know your shit.
    I don't know as much as you do, but any idiot can learn that solar and wind only provide infinitesimal amounts of energy to run a modern economy.

    The same thing with batteries; the notion that buying cars that rely on them for power as being clean is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It takes MORE energy to create these highly toxic batteries than they can store.
    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Truth Detector For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (09-17-2018)

  6. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    I can see a strong argument for nuclear, but there's also an argument against it. Even if it's irrational, there's huge opposition to building nuclear plants. So, as a practical matter, it's not at all clear that California or Germany could have scaled up nuclear the way they have solar, even if the leaders had been pushing hard in that direction. You can add a bunch of new solar generation practically overnight, whereas with nuclear you get caught in permitting hell for years or even decades. And then the safety requirements wind up so onerous that the actual cost per unit of energy winds up much higher than solar. That can be faulted as overkill, but it's the reality of the political landscape. So, it becomes a choice between adding a whole lot of solar generation quickly, here in the real world, and only adding a pittance of nuclear energy in the same time, as you try to clear one hurdle after another.
    SMRs are manufactured off-site in factories off site and assembled in-situ. Once the design is proven there is no need to keep perfoing the same y STS over and over. If the US is unwilling then they can just watch the rest of the world using them instead. What do you mean by solar anyway, are you talking about rooftop panels or solar power plants on the desert?

  7. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,543
    Thanks
    441
    Thanked 1,874 Times in 1,170 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 202 Times in 195 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    SMRs are manufactured off-site in factories off site and assembled in-situ. Once the design is proven there is no need to keep perfoing the same y STS over and over. If the US is unwilling then they can just watch the rest of the world using them instead. What do you mean by solar anyway, are you talking about rooftop panels or solar power plants on the desert?
    I'm talking about solar in general. Small- and mid-sized solar generation is popping up all over the place even here in the Northeast. You even see it alongside the highways, where they can take an undeveloped strip of land and pop in a bunch of solar panels. That makes the threshold for adding new solar very low, relative to adding new nuclear. Even if it's theoretically possible to have very safe nuclear power developed cheaply and quickly, if not for NIMBY opposition, that's just not the real world. Here in the real world, for the amount of political capital and effort as it takes to get a given amount of nuclear online, you could get a whole lot more solar.

  8. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I don't know as much as you do, but any idiot can learn that solar and wind only provide infinitesimal amounts of energy to run a modern economy.

    The same thing with batteries; the notion that buying cars that rely on them for power as being clean is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It takes MORE energy to create these highly toxic batteries than they can store.
    Actually California does have the capability to provide pumped storage, but it's in Baja California. There are several sites along the coastline but no doubt the usual suspects like Greenpiss and the Sierra Club will do all in their power to stop them. This website Energy Matters, run by Euan Mearns, is brilliant for in depth analysis of such issues. The guy really does know his stuff.

    http://euanmearns.com/how-california...100-renewable/

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Truth Detector (09-17-2018)

  10. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    I'm talking about solar in general. Small- and mid-sized solar generation is popping up all over the place even here in the Northeast. You even see it alongside the highways, where they can take an undeveloped strip of land and pop in a bunch of solar panels. That makes the threshold for adding new solar very low, relative to adding new nuclear. Even if it's theoretically possible to have very safe nuclear power developed cheaply and quickly, if not for NIMBY opposition, that's just not the real world. Here in the real world, for the amount of political capital and effort as it takes to get a given amount of nuclear online, you could get a whole lot more solar.
    Solar is the most inefficient waste of time on the planet. It will NEVER provide sufficient energy for a growing economy even if you covered every square inch of land in the NorthEast.

    But it does make low IQ liberals feel warm and fuzzy about "saving" the planet.
    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  11. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    I'm talking about solar in general. Small- and mid-sized solar generation is popping up all over the place even here in the Northeast. You even see it alongside the highways, where they can take an undeveloped strip of land and pop in a bunch of solar panels. That makes the threshold for adding new solar very low, relative to adding new nuclear. Even if it's theoretically possible to have very safe nuclear power developed cheaply and quickly, if not for NIMBY opposition, that's just not the real world. Here in the real world, for the amount of political capital and effort as it takes to get a given amount of nuclear online, you could get a whole lot more solar.
    Allow me to just point out that solar is a tiny 1.3% of the total US electricity production, whereas nuclear is 20%, with gas and coal at over 30% each. I wonder how many people know that?

    https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
    Last edited by cancel2 2022; 09-17-2018 at 02:01 PM.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Truth Detector (09-17-2018)

  13. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,543
    Thanks
    441
    Thanked 1,874 Times in 1,170 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 202 Times in 195 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Solar is the most inefficient waste of time on the planet. It will NEVER provide sufficient energy for a growing economy even if you covered every square inch of land in the NorthEast.
    First, I don't know of anyone who wants solar to be the only source of electricity. Most environmentalists are picturing some combination of solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and possibly nuclear. Anyway, to power the US off solar alone would take about 262 square kilometers of solar panels:

    https://inovateus.com/2017/08/03/man...smaller-think/

    To put that in context, New York is a little over 122,000 square kilometers. So, you'd be covering a little more than 2/10 of 1% of New York. The Northeast as a whole is about 420,000 square kilometers, so it would be a bit over six-one-hundredths of 1% of the Northeast.

  14. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    First, I don't know of anyone who wants solar to be the only source of electricity. Most environmentalists are picturing some combination of solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and possibly nuclear. Anyway, to power the US off solar alone would take about 262 square kilometers of solar panels:

    https://inovateus.com/2017/08/03/man...smaller-think/

    To put that in context, New York is a little over 122,000 square kilometers. So, you'd be covering a little more than 2/10 of 1% of New York. The Northeast as a whole is about 420,000 square kilometers, so it would be a bit over six-one-hundredths of 1% of the Northeast.
    A rational approach.

  15. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,543
    Thanks
    441
    Thanked 1,874 Times in 1,170 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 202 Times in 195 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Allow me to just point out that solar is a tiny 1.3% of the total US electricity production, whereas nuclear is 20%, with gas and coal at over 30% each. I wonder how many people know that?

    https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
    I assume a lot of people. However, it doesn't address the issues with scaling up nuclear versus solar. That nuclear generation is from old nuclear plants, dating back decades. The last I checked, the most recent plant to come online was Watts Bar 2, which began in 1972. We've added almost no nuclear since the late 1970s, and the projects that have come online since then have been projects started back in the 1970s, before the Three Mile Island scare. If we're going to expand past 20%, we can't have projects taking decades to gestate. We need to move quickly as solar is now moving.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Oneuli For This Post:

    Fentoine Lum (09-17-2018)

  17. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    14,239
    Thanks
    1,579
    Thanked 4,734 Times in 3,515 Posts
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 291 Times in 282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Soul View Post
    Who was proposing to put them on or near the fault lines?
    Someone mentioned California I believe.

    https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/...s/map/#qfaults

    http://strangesounds.org/2014/09/cal...ew-faults.html

  18. The Following User Groans At Fentoine Lum For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (09-17-2018)

  19. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    14,239
    Thanks
    1,579
    Thanked 4,734 Times in 3,515 Posts
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 291 Times in 282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    A rational approach.
    Yeah, always someone else's back yard, like with the pig shit oceans from corporate ag. Put 'em where ever the unsubstantial people live.

  20. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post
    Yeah, always someone else's back yard, like with the pig shit oceans from corporate ag. Put 'em where ever the unsubstantial people live.
    Not in New England. They are picking some of the choicest real estate.

Similar Threads

  1. So, We got a clean CR and a clean Debt Ceiling increase...
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-08-2019, 10:25 AM
  2. Renewables are useless: The Evidence is Overwhelming
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 04-05-2016, 04:16 PM
  3. The Poverty of Renewables
    By StormX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-25-2014, 11:32 AM
  4. Germany's REAL reason to cut Nuclear power?
    By wiseones2cents in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-11-2013, 02:25 PM
  5. Germany giving up on Nuclear power
    By Topspin in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 06-29-2011, 06:43 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •