Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

1066

Finally a leftist big govt. pro tax plan I can agree with

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, happycamper said:

You remember the whole "at some point the solution becomes worse..." posts?

My man, to be able to maintain electrical power, in winter, throughout the entire night, we'd have to generate three times the power even if storage is at 100% efficiency.

Now that we've stored it, we have to account for inefficiencies. Let's say that we invent a fluid that gains 130 Celsius AND it is absurdly efficient - let's say 50%. Great! Now, we use this fluid to run a steam turbine. Steam turbines are at about 80% efficiency. Now we need 3/0.8/0.5=7.5 times the generation power for solar to work (this is ignoring any cloudy days, ever, by the way). From what I remember of probably this article :https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030/ (I bought it back in the day and it was easy to find, but I don't have a subscription) they required 100,000 square miles (!!) of solar to be covered to power the US, all in the Southwest. With our storage system, we now need... 750,000 square miles of coverage. This is also before transmission losses. That is an area three times the size of Texas; it's about 1/3 the size of the continental US. The ecological consequences of this are so severe it doesn't bare thinking about. You're killing every plant in this area. You're making the entire area denuded of erosion preventing vegetation, you're placing 750,000 square miles of impervious surfaces, and you're placing a ridiculous quantity of concrete and helical piers. This is an environmental catastrophe that dwarfs your global warming concerns, and guess what? Other countries are less able to do this. What about Russia, which doesn't have a massive southwest? What about Canada? What about China, which needs power for 5 times as many people? What about India, which gets monsoons? Hell, what about England?

Stuff like this is why so many people support nuclear. There are already entire countries that base their power on it (France). It's safe (less deaths than any other power source by megawatt). It's cost competitive. While it isn't "renewable" there is a LOT of uranium and thorium in the earth and we've essentially stopped exploring for it. 

Believe me, I get that we're not there yet.  This is JUST like the gun debate with you guys, though.  Someone suggests some ideas, and you shoot them all down with a relentless tide of negativity because they don't cure 100% of the problem with 0% of the side-effects.  Unless we all get behind the idea that game-changing inventions with more efficient storage are possible, we'll just continue to the same old shit, which has resulted in where we are today, with a few decades before the worst effects of climate change are irreversible.  You let the perfect be the enemy of the good IN EVERY ARGUMENT.

And if nuclear power is such a silver bullet like you claim, then why has it not proliferated?  Why have activists been successful in pulling back on nuclear power?  We KNOW that coal/oil/natural gas is dirty af, and destroying our planet and killing hundreds of thousands of people annually (as you've said, FAR more than nuclear power), why does it continue, while nuclear takes a back seat?  You can't ascribe ALL of that to left-wing environmentalists.  We're just not that effective, or we would've stopped coal and oil in its tracks.  You're not making sense in your attempts to blame environmentalists for every problem with the environment.  Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Orange said:

Believe me, I get that we're not there yet.  This is JUST like the gun debate with you guys, though.  Someone suggests some ideas, and you shoot them all down with a relentless tide of negativity because they don't cure 100% of the problem with 0% of the side-effects.  Unless we all get behind the idea that game-changing inventions with more efficient storage are possible, we'll just continue to the same old shit, which has resulted in where we are today, with a few decades before the worst effects of climate change are irreversible.  You let the perfect be the enemy of the good IN EVERY ARGUMENT.

And if nuclear power is such a silver bullet like you claim, then why has it not proliferated?  Why have activists been successful in pulling back on nuclear power?  We KNOW that coal/oil/natural gas is dirty af, and destroying our planet and killing hundreds of thousands of people annually (as you've said, FAR more than nuclear power), why does it continue, while nuclear takes a back seat?  You can't ascribe ALL of that to left-wing environmentalists.  We're just not that effective, or we would've stopped coal and oil in its tracks.  You're not making sense in your attempts to blame environmentalists for every problem with the environment.  Jesus.

Because in the 70s the oil and gas industry bankrolled environmental groups to fight against nuclear and shift the narrative.  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/

Quote

It’s ironic and begs the question of why the traditional environmental movement is so vehemently opposed to nuclear energy, especially since it is the only fuel that can burn around the clock without releasing any carbon emissions. While this writer has had good relations among all those along the environmental continuum for 16 years, critics will maintain that it is the fossil fuel interests that have bankrolled some of the legacy groups. 

In 1970, a leader of the petroleum industry and the head of the Atlantic Richfield Co. named Robert O. Anderson contributed $200,000 to fund Friends of the Earth, an organization that is strident in its opposition to nuclear energy, citing both safety and cost issues. The topic is part of a book by F. William Engdahl titled Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Orders, says Rod Adams, author of the blog Atomic Insights

 

Quote

The oil industry had long-been concerned that “atomic fission” could replace oil, or at a minimum, significantly undercut its price. Fission occurs when an atom is split into two parts and it results in the generation of electricity from a nuclear power plant. 

 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Because in the 70s the oil and gas industry bankrolled environmental groups to fight against nuclear and shift the narrative.  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/

 

There's been MILLIONS more fighting against oil and gas, yet it's stronger than ever.  Why?  Because they have a death grip on every politician in DC.  Again, if nuclear is a silver bullet, why aren't the oil and as companies investing in it as a transition fuel?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Orange said:

There's been MILLIONS more fighting against oil and gas, yet it's stronger than ever.  Why?  Because they have a death grip on every politician in DC.  Again, if nuclear is a silver bullet, why aren't the oil and as companies investing in it as a transition fuel?  

Because it doesn’t make financial sense for them to.  They see it as a threat to their power.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Because it doesn’t make financial sense for them to.  They see it as a threat to their power.  

So is green energy, but many oil companies are investing in that, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Orange said:

So is green energy, but many oil companies are investing in that, too.

They do both. They fight it in order to delay it's acceptance but invest in the research because they know it's adoption is inevitable and they want to remain industry leaders in energy production. It's just smart business.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, renoskier said:

They do both. They fight it in order to delay it's acceptance but invest in the research because they know it's adoption is inevitable and they want to remain industry leaders in energy production. It's just smart business.

 

Exactly, so if nuclear is the future, why are oil and gas companies not transferring wealth into that industry?

I'm honestly curious. @halfmanhalfbronco and @happycamper both say nuclear can and will save the world with 0% risk.  What's the downside, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...