| Pages:
1
..
51
52
53
54
55
..
118 |
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3640
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Online
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  | hold?
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?
|
You keep asking this stupid question, which has been answered multiple times, and keep ignoring the answers. Are you purposely being obtuse, or does
it come naturally?
Your agenda is obviously not to gain understanding and information, but to come up with all kinds of reasons to oppose sustainable energy.
[Edited on 5-21-2023 by surabi]
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 17574
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: 3640
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Online
|
|
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: 3640
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Online
|
|
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: 6987
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: 17574
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: 6987
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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9524
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: 6987
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: 3640
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Online
|
|
| 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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9524
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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9524
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 17574
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: 2415
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Looking forward to 2024
|
|
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: 3640
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Online
|
|
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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9524
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: 3640
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Online
|
|
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: 3640
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Online
|
|
"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: 3640
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Online
|
|
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]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
51
52
53
54
55
..
118 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
