Home › Forums › Political Corner › What should we do about global climate change?
This topic contains 96 replies, has 29 voices, and was last updated by 
Killmandrill 3 years, 4 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Though this guy always acted like he tried to sell us something, and I did not buy.
Was he trying to sell you something? Yes. Why? Because he knows when he gives those tours most of the people go into it with their mind made up that nuclear is bad and its his job to try to get the truth out and change negative perception. Really what did your tour consist of…you wearing multiple dosimetry devices…none of which alarmed or recorded much dose I’m sure, a tour guide with a geiger counter that wasn’t measuring anything, and you probably didn’t even realize it at the time but there are rad monitors all over the place with local alarms and alarms in the control room, so if something unexpected happen you’d know to stay clear of the area before you even entered. You saw a bunch of radiation monitoring equipment that all said it was safe and that nothing was being released…yet you still leave thinking its bad…just because?
The thing with nukes is they are like car accidents vs plane crashes. More people are injured and killed in every other type of energy production…yet everyone is scared of nuclear. Well your chances of getting killed or hurt in a car accident are much higher than in a plane crash…but every time a plane crashes it gets a ton of media coverage where as car crashes get little, if any, because they are so common place people have just become desensitized to them for the most part. Everyone knows Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima…but how many more nuclear plants can you name off the top of your head? Maybe another three or four…meanwhile there are hundreds around the world producing emission free energy you’ve never heard of because nothing bad enough to scare the masses happened…and of those three events that most Americans have heard of, Three Mile Island didn’t release enough radiation to have any harmful effects on anyone nearby civilians and Fukushima is expected to be the same. I’ve heard the dose near by people during the TMI release were exposed to was literally the equivalent of eating a banana every day for a year…sure it wasn’t a good event, but it just goes to show how much media hype and ignorance play into how a lot of people think.
I wanted to throw my 2 cents in. I confess to love NPP’s. But my view on it is, Governments shouldn’t dictate technology. Instead, let MARKET FORCES decide. For instance, we mandate a certain percent of power from un-economical alternative energy in the State I reside in, and in many others: Solar. Instead of government picking winners and losers, why not let the marketplace do so? Or simply make ALL technologies that don’t emit significant pollution TAX-FREE so it’s neutral or reduce the tax burden on them so as not to favor one company or sector? i.e. no more Solyndras.
Exactly. That is my main problem with the man made climate change hoax…there is so much money and corruption involved in it. So many people want to “go green” yet they don’t want to alter their own lifestyle or put their money where their mouth is and invest their own funds in companies trying to advance technologies, or pay a premium out of their own pocket to get solar panels or whatever installed on their house knowing they aren’t cost effective but better for the environment. It makes me wonder how much more advanced we could be right now if the government wasn’t the one picking winners and losers. We’ll never know how many great companies with new ideas that could have altered the market failed to launch because some politicians gave all the subsidies to companies owned by their brother in law and old college buddy instead and effectively got to pick who got to stay afloat and collapse as you can’t compete with your competitor who is getting millions/billions in subsidies while you get nothing.
Why don’t build more hydro station? It is the most cost efficient of renewable energy
If we actually did something practical it would mean politicians would lose one of their favorite ways to effectively transfer tax dollars to their friends, family, and donors. The government wants to keep the masses ignorant and scared so they can keep robbing them blind.
So how many of the climate alarmists on here have ever heard of this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
Companies literally pump water up hill during off peak hours when electric prices drop to power hydro plants during peak hours lol. Wouldn’t the government had outlawed this a long time ago if the goal was to go green? Producing electricity is an inefficient process and you lose energy every step of the way…they’ll literally use power from a gas turbine or some other source to pump water uphill just so that later on it can be converted into a smaller amount of energy then it took to move that water uphill lol.
Cost effective, yes…cuts back on pollution, nope! Its all a hoax. Its all a scam. Keep being good little sheeple believing what the alarmists say while still ignoring that during ancient Roman times the climate was hotter than it was today, and during the dark ages we were in a mini ice age. Even in the last couple thousand years we’ve had massive swings in climate, the same as what happened prior to man kind existing, yet suddenly its all our doing…now keep being a good little peasant as we steal your resources and redistribute them as we see fit to combat this imaginary problem.
yet you still leave thinking its bad…just because?
Not just because, rather because of things like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_wasteYou may say that´s long ago and now regulated and prohibited, that does not help though, the worst is yet to happen… and we´re going on.
or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_wasteor this:
Read more at: https://chernobylguide.com/chernobyl_mutations/#chernobyl-plant-mutationsAdmittedly Chernobyl happened after my visit there, but I knew that radioactivity isn´t good for the environment or humans. That guide was praising his “plant” like a used car salesman and my nature is just skeptic. And I wasn´t the only one, there was a big movement against nuclear power here in the 80s, possibly that´s why this guy was behaving like he did. Even if he wouldn´t have been like that I still wouldn´t have believed all that he said and not “just because” rather “because” all of the things he did not say that I already knew about.
Again the period of extracting energy from the fuel rods, for me, stands in no sane relation to how long the waste radiates and has to be taken care of and what it does to the environment and humans.http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/db87c16c-4947-11e6-b387-64ab0a67014c.html#axzz4JVUYQ7aW
You can´t stop nations that are not as rich and careful as US wanting/having NPPs too. I guess those nations will just dump their waste into the ocean like others did before. Even France used to bury barrels of lower radiating waste just covered with a little soil (not anymore though) but it has happened and there is no rewind button to press anywhere.
The thing with nukes is they are like car accidents vs plane crashes. More people are injured and killed in every other type of energy production…yet everyone is scared of nuclear.
Yet plane crashes happen, even if they are on top of the safest ways of transportation there is, with the highest possible amount of redundant systems and fail safe technologies you can´t exclude human errors in operating either a plane or a NPP, the same applies to either planning, the choice of erection sites and taking care of the radioactive legacies of a NPP over thousands of years.
Ten Most Radioactive Places on Earth Mapped Out [GRAPHIC]
Have a nice day.
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent. Friedrich Nietzsche
Let me know when you stop the escape of C02 from all of the underwater volcanoes, then you can try and stop this falsehood called “Climate Change” And if your idea is to let our government regulate everything, then there is no hope.
Nuclear power is better anyway.
Fact: Coal power plants produce more radiation than Nuclear Plants. This is because Nuclear Plants come equipped with heavy shielding.Spoken like a true brainwashed enviornmentalist liberal. Explain why there are very few cases of cancer down stream from a coal plant and why there are unusually high cases of rare cancers found in people down stream from nuclear power plants.
Not just because, rather because of things like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste%5B/quote%5DSomething that was stopped over two decades ago…that even if other countries want to do, we really can’t stop them?
[quote quote=296774]http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/legacy-danger-old-nuclear-waste-found-in-english-channel-a-893991.html
Oh look, more dumb s~~~ that happened in a foreign country over 50 years ago.
You may say that´s long ago and now regulated and prohibited, that does not help though, the worst is yet to happen… and we´re going on.
Precisely…we’ve already gone through the worst and the industry has learned from mistakes and improved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
And again…right back to my point…we already have a lot of spent fuel to deal with. It isn’t that big. Is it really any different if we store it on a 5 acre site or a 10 acre? You can’t get rid of what we’ve already created. We can either contain all our pollution from energy production in a small place via nuclear, or burn fossil fuels and dump ton after ton of s~~~ into the air.
You can´t stop nations that are not as rich and careful as US wanting/having NPPs too. I guess those nations will just dump their waste into the ocean like others did before. Even France used to bury barrels of lower radiating waste just covered with a little soil (not anymore though) but it has happened and there is no rewind button to press anywhere.
I’m not disagreeing that using the technology irresponsibly is bad, but here in the states we have the safest track record in the world in the nuclear industry and it has only improved over the years. You also have to consider the civilian nuclear industry as a whole across the globe shares operating experience and improvements…its actually in the best interest of all for the safer countries to stay in the game…would you rather have China putting plants up and paying foreign contractors that know their s~~~ to help them get things up and running, or would you rather have China just saying YOLO and repeating preventable mistakes?
Yet plane crashes happen, even if they are on top of the safest ways of transportation there is, with the highest possible amount of redundant systems and fail safe technologies you can´t exclude human errors in operating either a plane or a NPP, the same applies to either planning, the choice of erection sites and taking care of the radioactive legacies of a NPP over thousands of years.
And again it goes right back to what I posted earlier. Every other form of energy production kills more people year after year than nuclear…yet you think they are more safe?
Spoken like a true brainwashed enviornmentalist liberal. Explain why there are very few cases of cancer down stream from a coal plant and why there are unusually high cases of rare cancers found in people down stream from nuclear power plants.
copied and pasted from one of the above links
According to U.S. NCRP reports, population exposure from 1000-MWe power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal power plants, 100 times as great as nuclear power plants
What do you expect when coal burners dump toxic s~~~ out of their stacks and for years coal ash was handled poorly?
Also, just some other things to put it in perspective…
The main source of radiation in the human body is potassium-40 (40K), typically 17 milligrams in the body at a time and 0.4 milligrams/day intake.[25] Most rocks, due to their components, have a low level of radioactivity. Usually ranging from 1 millisievert (mSv) to 13 mSv annually depending on location, average radiation exposure from natural radioisotopes is 2.0 mSv per person a year worldwide.[26] This makes up the majority of typical total dosage (with mean annual exposure from other sources amounting to 0.6 mSv from medical tests averaged over the whole populace, 0.4 mSv from cosmic rays, 0.005 mSv from the legacy of past atmospheric nuclear testing, 0.005 mSv occupational exposure, 0.002 mSv from the Chernobyl disaster, and 0.0002 mSv from the nuclear fuel cycle).[26]
Let’s all freak out about exposure from nuclear plants when you literally get more radiation from the rocks in your back yard.
Oh look, more dumb s~~~ that happened in a foreign country over 50 years ago.
You´re just not getting it, 50 years don´t mean a thing concerning a half time of radioactive waste of thousands or billions of years! Once those barrels are rotten the s~~~ hits the fan, hence the worst is yet to happen.
Already posted this link above :
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/db87c16c-4947-11e6-b387-64ab0a67014c.html#axzz4JVUYQ7aWI said what I had to say.
I´m not trying to convince you of anything and you can´t convince me of anything!
Peace I´m out!
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent. Friedrich Nietzsche
You´re just not getting it, 50 years don´t mean a thing concerning a half time of radioactive waste of thousands or billions of years! Once those barrels are rotten the s~~~ hits the fan, hence the worst is yet to happen.
I’m fairly certain at this point you are being willfully ignorant. Those barrels are already there. Was it a bad move? Obviously…but what does that have to do with using nuclear power going forward? Pretty much every country stopped dumping barrels in the water decades ago, and if someone wants to continue to do so, short of going to war with them we can’t stop them, just like we couldn’t stop North Korea from detonating a nuke yesterday, could we? Using that as an example as to why we shouldn’t use nuclear power going forward is really a pretty dumb argument.
Already posted this link above :
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/db87c16c-4947-11e6-b387-64ab0a67014c.html#axzz4JVUYQ7aW%5B/quote%5DAnd again…you still are ignoring the very simple fact that that stuff is already there and has to be watched for a long time…if the pile gets a little bigger between now and the time it takes the human race to come up with a viable alternative to fossil fuels…who cares? Would you prefer this? Just saw this article on yahoo this morning…
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/deaths-air-pollution-cost-225-105402997.html
an estimated 5.5 million people died in 2013 as a result of diseases “associated with outdoor and household air pollution.”
Let’s just keep dumping s~~~ into the air instead of building some more reactors. Who cares if millions of people a year are dying due to air pollution related causes.
If you think the worst is yet to come, you are right. Developing countries that are hungry for energy aren’t going to be building solar farms and windmills that are ridiculously far from cost effective and can’t produce enough to consistently meet demand…they’re going to be building coal and gas plants. Remember how poor the air quality was during the Beijing Olympics, or how disgusting the water was during the Olympics in Brazil? China and India are the two most populated countries and a huge majority of their electrical production is from coal burners, which is pathetic considering they both have nuclear capabilities. Climate change aside, air pollution is an issue, and I’m more concerned about that happening right now than a pile of radioactive active waste that is going to be there for 10,000 years being there for 10,050 years because we add to it for another 50 to cut back on fossil fuel consumption right now while we work on other technologies, and in the mean time we very well may come up with new ways reprocess, recycle, or find uses for some of it. You said it yourself…50 years don’t mean a thing when you are talking about thousands, right?
I’m fairly certain at this point you are being willfully ignorant.
No I´m not but I can´t stop you from thinking so.
And again…you still are ignoring the very simple fact that that stuff is already there
That´s why we need to add more, dump it in the ocean kill all fish turn them infertile, as for land burials, contaminate the ground water and soil, but hey its only 10 acres today and tomorrow its going to be 100 acres and so on. Radiation can´t be stopped it goes through walls, it spreads in the water, the air, it´ll be literally be everywhere. Yes I´m exaggregating, but who knows how much and I may even be right?
I mentioned the time frames like a parrot, I think in those dimensions and see that it does not stand in a reasonable relation: half time of waste > time its useable for energy production > the harm that it “can” do and will do.
All I can do is cross my fingers and hope for the least to go wrong. We could have drawn our clues from the past, but did not, we´re going on and producing more and more. At least the government of Germany (where I live) has gotten that right and will abstain from nuclear power and invests in alternative energy production and its further R&D.
Why should I care about the USA, that´s we´re you live, don´t you?
Why should I care at all I´m like 2/3 dead already considering my life span.
It´s because I do care about future generations, and I do care about what kind of legacy we are leaving behind!
All I can do is oppose and even if it won´t change a thing, I do not want to die in this kind of consciousness, thinking it´s ok and having let it happen.
I´d rather have a zillion windmills all around than sitting on a pile of depleted plutonium stored under my ass and leaving it to future generations to deal with it.
All governments who promote this seem to only think about the now and maybe tomorrow and don´t mind the day after tomorrow and that applies to a lot and not only NPPs.
This thread was initially about climate change and we two bounce facts about NPPs back and forth. But we´re not going to convince the other of anything. It might be different if we´d discuss this in person and you and I might get a bigger picture of where the other is coming from, too much gets lost in the writing since we can´t immediately respond, let aside knowing each other and having eye contact, but yet we´ll have our points.I can only repeat what I already said in previous posts here, it´s you who puts that together in your mind, and I can´t stop you from thinking what you want about me and about what I said. For sure I am not going to accept the idea that NPPs are good, and of course I can´t change what already happened but I can refuse to go on like that within my powers.
Have a nice day.
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent. Friedrich Nietzsche
I´d rather have a zillion windmills all around than sitting on a pile of depleted plutonium stored under my ass and leaving it to future generations to deal with it.
More willful ignorance. Again…you still can’t deal with the basic concept that green sources don’t have anywhere near a 100% production up time and people aren’t going to deal with non stop rolling blackouts, and the idea of everyone owning and maintaining expensive and dangerous battery set ups full of chemicals to support down times is probably about as far away from green as one can get.
At least the government of Germany (where I live) has gotten that right and will abstain from nuclear power and invests in alternative energy production and its further R&D.
Meanwhile coal consumption in Germany has increased since they started shutting nukes down lol.
Why should I care at all I´m like 2/3 dead already considering my life span.
It´s because I do care about future generations, and I do care about what kind of legacy we are leaving behind!You are going to tell your kids and grand kids they don’t deserve pollutant free air because
but hey its only 10 acres today and tomorrow its going to be 100 acres and so on.
Maybe I just see it different because we have uninhabited deserts here that stretch on for miles. And besides…
http://nautil.us/issue/7/waste/our-nuclear-waste-is-a-goldmine
We use about 5% of the energy in fuel rods. We have the technology to build reactors that could “burn” spent fuel rods in the commercial reactors used today, which would break them down into less radioactive isotopes with half lives in the 10-30 year range, but we don’t, because $$$$ and fear mongering born from ignorance from people who think things like the following are true.
Radiation can´t be stopped it goes through walls, it spreads in the water, the air, it´ll be literally be everywhere.
Do you realize what radiation is? Depending on its type it takes as little as a sheet of paper to completely stop it and can’t even travel a couple feet through the air. Gamma’s are the most penetrating and they can only travel limited distances depending on their energy level and what they encounter along the way. Most commonly lead is used for shielding, but any dense material such as other metals, stone, concrete, or even water will block gamma rays.
You are confusing radiation with contamination…which is the spreading of radioactive material. As long as the radioactive material is contained the radiation doesn’t travel far at all…which is why Chernobyl and past nuclear weapons testing has literally put more radioactive crap into the air then all other reactors combined. I work at a nuke plant. I can access our spent fuel storage areas. The hotter rods are in a pool…I can stand at the top of the pool and look down and see the glowing rods and get no dose from where I stand. The cooler rods(about 25-30 years old) are transferred to dry cask storage. I can sit on top of one of the storage modules and get no dose. I can put my hands on the outer wall of containment and get no dose.
And again…you are being willfully ignorant as to how much has the nuclear industry raised radiation levels across the globe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
The average person across the globe gets almost 100 times more radiation from medical testing than they get from the Chernobyl release, past atmospheric weapons testing, and the nuclear fuel cycle COMBINED. Should we ban x-rays and CT scans?
These sources also combine for 1/750th of the average person’s exposure when taking naturally occurring background sources into account…but hey, let’s not let facts or science get in the way of our willful ignorance and irrational fear. The average person will literally never have any issues in their life span with radiation with the exception of skin cancer, which is from the sun and nuclear energy has nothing to do with it, yet you think the contribution of an extra 0.13% to a meaningless amount of radiation is the end of the world lol.
Here is another fun tidbit for you…air crews on commercial air planes get more radiation exposure than nuclear workers. Radiation is pretty nasty stuff…we should ban flying, right?
What do you expect me to say? That you´re right and I´m wrong with my personal opinions? It´s not going to happen!
My opinion is based on the information that “I” view as relevant for myself. You can call that ignorant if you want. You are wasting your precious time!You are confusing radiation with contamination
Could be, but the outcome is what counts for me.
Should we ban x-rays and CT scans?
We had this before.
But nobody is arguing nuclear is good.
Then why you are continually presenting it as the better alternative and sugarcoat it, where´s the difference?
I´m not trying to convince you of anything and you can´t convince me of anything!
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent. Friedrich Nietzsche
Then why you are continually presenting it as the better alternative and sugarcoat it, where´s the difference?
Ignore this question!
Because that explains it all:
I work at a nuke plant.
Of course you are not going to bite the hand that feeds you and you know more about nukes than I, yet I see things from another perspective, hence our differences. You are convinced that nuclear power is the solution, I am not.
I would not defend the business that I´m in, but I also would not bite the hand that feeds me.Have a nice day
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent. Friedrich Nietzsche
We had this before.
Nah…I’ve made plenty of valid points in which you’ve had no reply to lol. Largely you’ve just had a lot of irrational fear and ignorance…as proven by data that shows how little radiation nuclear energy is actually responsible for compared to what we get for background anyhow.
You just dodge repeatedly because OMG RADIATION BAD. Why don’t you want to see the aviation industry dismantled? More people die each year from flight related accidents, and more total dose is acquired from flying than nuclear power production is responsible for. Why don’t you want to abolish nuclear medicine…people pick up more dose each year from nuclear medicine than they do from power production.
But you are constantly advocating it as the better alternative and sugarcoat it, where´s the difference?
Its because you are being ignorant as to what the alternatives are. Let me list them out for you.
1. Non stop rolling blackouts.
2. More fossil fuel consumption.
You see how that works? Non combustible alternative sources simply don’t provide anywhere near enough reliable power to keep the grid fed…the alternative to shutting nukes down is to burn more coal, gas, and oil…kinda like Germany is doing. Even if Germany could theoretically not use any nuclear or fossil fuels…its not going to matter on a global scale when you are just exporting the coal for someone else to burn rather than burning it yourself lol.
Alternative sources are having a hard time gaining traction in developed nations because they are so expensive and not cost effective…if this changing in developed nations is decades away at a minimum…its going to be centuries away in developing nations that are just going to go after the cheapest energy sources. If countries stopped subsidizing alternative sources the solar and wind industries would pretty much collapse over night.
The goal should be to get off fossil fuels…even if you don’t believe in man made climate change, fossil fuels are dumping tons of pollutants into the air that are a hell of a lot worse for us than what is in the air right now that can be attributed to nuclear energy. I’m sorry if you are too blind to see reality. I hope your wet dream about solar panels and windmills are fulfilling, meanwhile people across the globe will continue to die prematurely and suffer from health issues courtesy of needlessly burning fossil fuels. For someone who is so scared of radiation, I’d think you’d fear coal burners more than nuclear reactors…
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
But hey…once again…don’t let facts get in the way of your ignorance! If you surround your house with windmills and solar panels maybe they will blow away all the airborne contamination and block the radiation for you!
Of course you are not going to bite the hand that feeds you and you know more about nukes than I, yet I see things from another perspective, hence our differences. You are convinced that nuclear power is the solution, I am not.
I would not defend the business that I´m in, but I also would not bite the hand that feeds me.Have a nice day
Honestly, when it comes down to my own personal gain, I hope my plant closes. It takes several years for them to decomission a plant. What happens is soon as they announce its closing people start looking for jobs elsewhere and leaving. For those that stick around for a while, they pay fat retention bonuses, and you end up getting all the overtime you want. I work with people who have come from other plants that have shut down recently and they made 250-300k their last couple years at those plants and could have milked it a little longer but they had to weigh how long they wanted to milk it out against when they had a job offer lined up for a job that was going to be around for a while.
Once that fat money is done I could get a job at a gas turbine in a more desirable and lower cost of living part of the country making the same money I’m making now. The company I work for is a large company that runs all kinds of projects all around the country from solar to LNG terminals to nuclear reactors and historically when they close a plant they offer all their employees a transfer or a severance package…plus here in the states if we get laid off we can collect unemployment for six months.
What would I lose if my plant shut down? I’d basically double my current pay for 2-3 years, then I could take the severance option, and milk unemployment for six months, or take a transfer and move to pretty much any region of the country I want…total f~~~ing win either way. It has nothing to do with not wanting to bite the hand that feeds me, because on an individual level it would be awesome for me, although if we were to be closed and replaced by a gas or coal plant, I think that is a step backwards for society.
I think the issue is that yes, I know more about nukes than you, and I let the facts determine my views on them. You think I’d be working at one if the radiation was that dangerous? I’m more scared of a steam pipe or a pipe containing pressurized water well above the atmospheric boiling point breaking when I’m nearby and flashing into steam. I’m more scared of a breaker blowing up in my face than radiation.
Those are risks that are in any plant though, and historically the odds of that happening are pretty damn low as long as I do my job correctly, so I’m really not concerned about it, and the few mR I pick up here and there that will never amount to anything are of even less concern.
I know the industry from the inside…I see first hand how its constantly adapting and improving. The idea that we should abandon nuclear because we might have another Fukushima is ridiculous considering the alternative right now if we shut down all nukes over the next decade would be replacing them with mostly fossil plants.
I understand how the grid works. You want a basic run down of it? When a nuclear plant is online its best left at 100% power because throttling is tougher on them than fossil plants…perfect for base load. Hydro is pretty good but limited to your geography. Solar and wind are sporadic and not consistent. Fossil plants are obviously the worst choice of the bunch…but considering how easy they are to throttle they’ll never go away…and realistically burning fossil fuels isn’t that bad as long as we don’t go crazy.
The other thing you probably haven’t even thought of is electric cars. It seems like sooner or later this technology will be phasing out combustible engines, and they are going to need charged. What are we going to do when everyone gets home at night time and needs to charge up, but its already dark because its winter time so all our solar production is at 0%, and its not windy that day so wind production is down in the gutter as well? And that leads to more problems…how much wind capacity should we have for non-sunny days and night time, and how much solar capacity should we have for days that aren’t windy? They are expensive and not cost effective as is…we could essentially build enough of each to supply 100% capacity and still have times when both combined produce near 0%. That would just be astronomically expensive and require incredible amounts of land. Are we going to maintain enough fossil fuel capacity to meet demand and fire up all the coal and gas burners? How moronic would that be? When a nuclear plant is online its best left at 100% power and not throttled. Nuke plants + electric cars = total win…less crap getting thrown into the air both on the energy production side and the transportation side.
The best wind and solar will ever be is an alternate throttle so we don’t have to fire up the fossil plants to the extent we do now when conditions are favorable. The real question that you need to ask yourself is where do you want the base load to come from…do you want it to come from fossil or nuclear? If we get rid of nuclear at times the base load is going to be almost entirely fossil fuel in some areas. If we build more nukes we can avoid using fossil plants for base load which will greatly reduce fossil fuel consumption, thus greatly reduce air pollution.
Nah…I’ve made plenty of valid points in which you’ve had no reply to lol
See I just did not reply that´s all, that´s not the same, and not because I had no points to present. I rather was getting the idea you were trolling me, so I did not even bother to refute a lot of your points. Now that I got the bigger picture it explains a lot to me. I would have probably done the same if I was convinced of what I´m doing for a living or thinking/knowing it´s safe.
One of my main points in general was :
That I think it´s a not a good idea with going on building more NPPs without taking all of the alternatives into consideration and use them side by side (not talking about fossil fuel), there´s ways in development to produce solar power in space, and a lot of other ways of producing energy are coming up all the time. You may say why reinvent the wheel, and I think why not.
Basically the technology is there already to reduce energy consumption or even produce energy with your house > for electric cars but there is no interest in doing so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_building
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_buildingSide note:
Found this while researching, it´s in German just look at the kWh/per capita per year,
Iceland is 100% on water power and geothermal energy (the reason for their high consumption is their aluminum industry):America has also the potential to go geothermal in some regions at least. Even some areas here like the Eifel in Germany have potential, though they rather buy fossil fuels.
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent. Friedrich Nietzsche
That I think it´s a not a good idea with going on building more NPPs without taking all of the alternatives into consideration and use them side by side (not talking about fossil fuel), there´s ways in development to produce solar power in space, and a lot of other ways of producing energy are coming up all the time. You may say why reinvent the wheel, and I think why not.
You keep living a dream. Solar panels here on earth aren’t even feasible without heavy subsidies yet…the concept of launching solar farms out into space is way, way off into the future…especially since considering we don’t even have a way to get energy from space back to earth yet lol. Its like I’ve been saying that you just want to ignore…people want/need electricity now…if you want to replace nukes what can you replace it with that can go online now…not something that might be a possibility way off in the future.
Its very basic man…let’s talk about it in more practical terms you might understand. Let’s say you need a car as you live in a remote area where public transportation is not an option. Do you go trade your car in and say thanks fellas, I’ll be back sometime after 2057 to pick up a hydro powered hovermobile, or do you not trade yours in until a replacement is ready to go?
Basically the technology is there already to reduce energy consumption or even produce energy with your house > for electric cars but there is no interest in doing so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_building
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_building%5B/quote%5DAgain…you miss the big picture. Direct quote from one of those links. “while the individual house may use an average of net zero energy over a year, it may demand energy at the time when peak demand for the grid occurs. In such a case, the capacity of the grid must still provide electricity to all loads. Therefore, a ZEB may not reduce the required power plant capacity.”
You know what that means? It means a handful of people can do it with the proper investments when they are backed up by the fossil plant or nuke plant across town, but if everyone does it we’ll still need 100% capacity from off site sources for everyone to tap into. Its not anywhere near the magic bullet you think it is, it just makes for good talking points when taken out of context, which is all you are doing.
[quote quote=299657]Side note:
Found this while researching, it´s in German just look at the kWh/per capita per year,
Iceland is 100% on water power and geothermal energy (the reason for their high consumption is their aluminum industry):Side notes:
The population density in Iceland is 3.3 people per square mile. The population density of the United States, 85 per square mile. The population density of Germany, 591 per square mile.Icelands population…roughly 333k. Munich’s population and population density…2.6 million @ 12,000 per square mile. Icelands entire population is smaller than Munich’s and Iceland’s entire production capacity couldn’t even power a single German city. How about New York City…population of 8.5 million @ 28,000 per square mile.
Remember all that stuff I said earlier about things like solar and wind not being practical in a lot of places because of land space requirements? See why I was saying that? You can’t use one of the most sparsely population countries with a favorable geography for hydro power production as a model for what the rest of the world can be because those same situations are not what the rest of the world has to work around.
China’s population density is 370 per square mile, and India’s is 1,048. Together they account for 2.7 billion people…almost a third of the world’s total population. You think the same energy plan that works for a sparsely populated Iceland that gets 70% of its power from hydro would work in those countries? You are in fantasy land man.
America has also the potential to go geothermal in some regions at least. Even some areas here like the Eifel in Germany have potential, though they rather buy fossil fuels.
Geothermal isn’t that great if you actually research it. Mainly its only viable in certain regions as it requires being built over steam pockets…and it…you know…causes earthquakes among other issues. I’d hate to point out the obvious but sometimes logistics and limitations come into play, and its not as moronic as people would “rather buy fossil fuels.”
You present me “your” facts on and on, I present you my facts you rip them apart on and on, as a “specialist” on the matter, and I can still doubt your expertise. And back and forth you can rip my facts as often as you want.
It´s not going to change my standing to this matter, period! I said this like 3 or 4 times before, you are “ignoring” a simple fact here!
Or what else do you expect? That I accept your “it´s not going to work” because you say so, and before anyone has tried, NO!Who are you trying to boss me like a girl?
I look at your facts with my eyes and I decide for myself what´s relevant to me or not, I keep on saying that…but it doesn´t seep in, but feel free to keep on posting….
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent. Friedrich Nietzsche
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
