| Pages:
1
..
51
52
53
54
55
..
122 |
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18377
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  |
My question still remains - What do we do (if we go total renewable wind and solar which is the current Holy Grail) at night when the wind doesn't
blow?
|
cliffy,
nobody has said we are going ALL solar and wind.
the wind does blow at night. (p.s. populations generally use less power at night relative to day)
most populated areas are on a grid, a grid powered by multiple generating sources, if one generating source has low output then other generating
sources fill the gap.
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4920
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
Pointless to explain things to someone who thinks when the sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow.
[Edited on 5-21-2023 by surabi]
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4920
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, ***ushima. Attacks on nuclear power plants releasing radiation. Trading in one serious threat to human and animal life
for another isn't a viable solution.
[Edited on 5-21-2023 by surabi]
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JZ | Until Libs start talking about nuclear I'll know they aren't serious about reducing C02.
|
Look into the costs of building a nuke plant. There's a huge capital investment cost with nukes and it takes over twice as long to build one. If nukes
were more profitable than fossil-fueled plants, they would be built. Everything about nukes is EXPENSIVE, including the fuel cycle from mining to
waste management.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18377
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JZ | Until Libs start talking about nuclear I'll know they aren't serious about reducing C02.
|
Half pint,
Nuclear is one power source. You like it. Others don’t. Nuclear is a dirty fuel, as the waste is technically and politically challenging to deal
with. Solutions like solar and wind don’t come with the problems of radioactive waste
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
"In 2017, two South Carolina utilities abandoned two unfinished Westinghouse AP1000 reactors due to difficulties in equipment manufacturing,
significant construction delays, and cost overruns—leaving just two other AP1000 reactors under construction, in the state of Georgia. These
reactors have also faced delays and cost overruns. The original cost estimate of $14 billion has risen to $23 billion, but construction is proceeding,
given the promise of government financial support for these reactors—the first of their kind in the United States."
https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-nuclear-power-plants-cos...
|
|
|
JZ
Select Nomad
Posts: 10546
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by SFandH | | Quote: Originally posted by JZ | Until Libs start talking about nuclear I'll know they aren't serious about reducing C02.
|
Look into the costs of building a nuke plant. There's a huge capital investment cost with nukes and it takes over twice as long to build one. If nukes
were more profitable than fossil-fueled plants, they would be built. Everything about nukes is EXPENSIVE, including the fuel cycle from mining to
waste management. |
Have you seen the billions and billions that are being wasted on nonsense?
Watch this TED Talk. This guy has spent his entire life trying to make renewables work.
https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
I thought we were talking about nukes. I like nukes but ***ushima scared me. Those reactors melted down because of sheer stupidity. The earthquake
happened, and the reactors shut down - good. The quake also knocked out the power grid so the backup diesel generators started to power the cooling
water pumps - good. The tsunami came and flooded the diesel generators - bad. The reactor cores melted because of a lack of cooling water - really
bad. Why did the generators flood? - Because they were UNDER the ground. The idiots put the generators in an underground room where tsunamis are to be
expected. Really stupid.
How many other really stupid engineering decisions have been made?
Perhaps nukes are just too dangerous. After all, you can't stop them from generating heat energy. Essentially, you can't turn them off, no matter
what.
I'll watch the video later.
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4920
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JZ | | Quote: Originally posted by SFandH | | Quote: Originally posted by JZ | Until Libs start talking about nuclear I'll know they aren't serious about reducing C02.
|
Look into the costs of building a nuke plant. There's a huge capital investment cost with nukes and it takes over twice as long to build one. If nukes
were more profitable than fossil-fueled plants, they would be built. Everything about nukes is EXPENSIVE, including the fuel cycle from mining to
waste management. |
Have you seen the billions and billions that are being wasted on nonsense?
|
Whenever you have no cogent argument to support your opinions, you deflect to "whataboutism".
|
|
|
JZ
Select Nomad
Posts: 10546
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
No. He said it's expensive. I said we have plenty of money. Just start spending it on the right things.
I mean for starters there is $70B in unspent Covid relief funds.
[Edited on 5-22-2023 by JZ]
|
|
|
JZ
Select Nomad
Posts: 10546
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18377
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
is that funny? you probably find that funny because you don't understand that all cars need to refuel.
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/03/bill-gates-w...
The Left in the west has been against nuclear power since at least 1947. Unless of course the CCCP was doing it! Gates has a better idea and the money
to back it up.
Solar or wind are lousy for base load unless they have huge storage facilities attached to them. Geothermal, hydro and nukes are far better for base
load.
[Edited on 5-22-2023 by RFClark]
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4920
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
Michael Shellenberger, founder of Breakthrough Institute.
" Scholars such as Professor of American and Environmental Studies Julie Sze and environmental humanist Michael Ziser criticize Breakthrough's
philosophy as one that believes "community-based environmental justice poses a threat to the smooth operation of a highly capitalized, global-scale
Environmentalism." Further, Environmental and Art Historian TJ Demos has argued that Breakthrough's ideas present a "nothing more than a bad utopian
fantasy" that function to support the oil and gas industry and work as "an apology for nuclear energy."
Journalist Paul D. Thacker alleged that the Breakthrough Institute is an example of a quasi-lobbying organization which does not adequately disclose
its funding.
The institute has also been criticized for promoting industrial agriculture and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan
Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. After an IRS
complaint about potential improper use of 501(c)(3) status, the Institute no longer lists the Nathan Cummings Foundation as a donor. However, as
Thacker has noted, the institute's funding remains largely opaque.
Climate scientist Michael E. Mann also questions the motives of the Breakthrough Institute. According to Mann, the self-declared mission of the BTI is
to look for a breakthrough to solve the climate problem. However Mann states that basically the BTI "appears to be opposed to anything - be it a price
on carbon or incentives for renewable energy - that would have a meaningful impact." He notes that the BTI "remains curiously preoccupied with
opposing advocates for meaningful climate action and is coincidentally linked to natural gas interests" and criticises the BTI for advocating
"continued exploitation of fossil fuels." Mann also questions that the BTI on the one hand seems to be "very pessimistic" about renewable energy,
while on the other hand "they are extreme techno-optimists" regarding geoengineering.
|
|
|
JZ
Select Nomad
Posts: 10546
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by surabi |
Michael Shellenberger, founder of Breakthrough Institute.
" Scholars such as Professor of American and Environmental Studies Julie Sze and environmental humanist Michael Ziser criticize Breakthrough's
philosophy as one that believes "community-based environmental justice poses a threat to the smooth operation of a highly capitalized, global-scale
Environmentalism." Further, Environmental and Art Historian TJ Demos has argued that Breakthrough's ideas present a "nothing more than a bad utopian
fantasy" that function to support the oil and gas industry and work as "an apology for nuclear energy."
Journalist Paul D. Thacker alleged that the Breakthrough Institute is an example of a quasi-lobbying organization which does not adequately disclose
its funding.
The institute has also been criticized for promoting industrial agriculture and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan
Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. After an IRS
complaint about potential improper use of 501(c)(3) status, the Institute no longer lists the Nathan Cummings Foundation as a donor. However, as
Thacker has noted, the institute's funding remains largely opaque.
Climate scientist Michael E. Mann also questions the motives of the Breakthrough Institute. According to Mann, the self-declared mission of the BTI is
to look for a breakthrough to solve the climate problem. However Mann states that basically the BTI "appears to be opposed to anything - be it a price
on carbon or incentives for renewable energy - that would have a meaningful impact." He notes that the BTI "remains curiously preoccupied with
opposing advocates for meaningful climate action and is coincidentally linked to natural gas interests" and criticises the BTI for advocating
"continued exploitation of fossil fuels." Mann also questions that the BTI on the one hand seems to be "very pessimistic" about renewable energy,
while on the other hand "they are extreme techno-optimists" regarding geoengineering. |
Lib playbook 101, attack the speaker, not their ideas.
I'm beginning to think you are a bot.
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4920
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
All of what I quoted was criticism of his ideas, not the speaker. Guess you didn't actually bother to read it.
[Edited on 5-22-2023 by surabi]
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4920
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
"2019, Shellenberger also testified in support of Ohio House Bill 6.20 The bill, which was signed into law by Governor Mike DeWine later that year,
provided subsidies to uncompetitive nuclear and coal plants, and rolled back Ohio’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards for electric
utilities."
"Shellenberger worked with left-wing groups in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1990s, but has since renounced the Democratic Party. On Twitter, he
frequently criticizes "wokeism" and critical race theory."
Of course you would promote his video. So predictable.
[Edited on 5-22-2023 by surabi]
|
|
|
willardguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6451
Registered: 9-19-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
... no seriously,
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4920
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
What did I label him? I simply quoted facts. If those facts discredit him to some, that's not my doing.
Bots seek to misinform and twist the facts. All I did was quote objective facts anyone can look up for themselves.
Knowing the agenda and background and biases of those one is going to listen to and believe is important.
Sorry (not) if you don't like anyone to research the sources you promote.
[Edited on 5-22-2023 by surabi]
[Edited on 5-22-2023 by surabi]
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 986
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666 | | Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy |
My question still remains - What do we do (if we go total renewable wind and solar which is the current Holy Grail) at night when the wind doesn't
blow?
|
cliffy,
nobody has said we are going ALL solar and wind.
the wind does blow at night. (p.s. populations generally use less power at night relative to day)
most populated areas are on a grid, a grid powered by multiple generating sources, if one generating source has low output then other generating
sources fill the gap. |
"cliffy,
nobody has said we are going ALL solar and wind."
OK if we now admit that going 100% renewable won't work just how much more renewable do we need? Right now we have about 15% of our energy by
solar/wind. Do we want 4 times that much to reach over 50% generation by renewables? If so who's land does that get put on? Is all that land conducive
to wind or solar generation? Are we OK with the flora and fauna cost of doing that? This hasn't even been broached yet by the proponents of
renewables. I mentioned it many weeks ago. Why sidestep it?
"the wind does blow at night. (p.s. populations generally use less power at night relative to day)"
The sun is a major factor in the wind blowing - Fact not fiction! One only has to fly over wind farms in the early morning hours and then again in the
afternoon to actually see the affect of solar gain on the earth surface and the action of the wind generators. Go to wunderground and select any city
you want and view the wind prediction graph to see how the sun affects the forecast wind speed every day. At night the wind dies down most every day
thereby rendering the wind mills ineffective,
Find me the information that I seem unable to find after more than a decade of looking, showing wind generation power output by the hour 24/7 for any
wind generator you want. I have never found that information but I will bet it is tracked by the power company owning the wind farm. They just don't
let that information out. WHY?
"most populated areas are on a grid, a grid powered by multiple generating sources, if one generating source has low output then other generating
sources fill the gap."
You have described exactly how the power grid works and why fossil fueled power plants will never go away. We CAN'T get rid of them period. Glad to
see we have finally made some progress here on the forum.
So the hyper rhetoric about going solar and wind is just scare tactics. I have no problem with building renewables if those renewables go along with a
reasonable pace that is financially sound for the population to accept AND their problems are solved before they are built. Right now we have the cart
before the horse. We mandate renewables with the statement that "time will bring the solutions to the future problems they produce". Solve the cost
issue and the recycling issues first then we can move forward with PARTIAL renewable generation. No issue with that.
Renewables can't provide total power to the grid reliably as I have mentioned before.
With that in mind, I believe we could also(where possible) transfer over to natural gas as a power source for generation with a huge decrease in
emitted gases compared to the coal we now use. That would kill the coal industry here in the USA UNLESS we allow it to be shipped to the bigger users
of coal- CHINA and INDIA but then they use more coal making our efforts to lower emissions globally totally ineffective overall- do we see another
problem here?
Going to natural gas would be a big step toward your goal (here in the USA). BUT that meets with hysterical opposition also and in the global picture
will make no progress what so ever.
Question- Why did the Energy Secretary when questioned before Congress, refuse to answer just how much, in percentage, our going total renewable would
affect the global atmosphere?
You chose your position in life today by what YOU did yesterday
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
51
52
53
54
55
..
122 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
