Renewable energy sources grew at record pace in 2015: study

June 1, 2016
Overall spending on green energy rose 5% from 2014 to $286 billion, with China accounting for more than a third of total investment worldwide

Developing countries spent more on renewable power than rich ones for the first time last year, driving the fastest increase in sources of green energy on record, a study said Wednesday.

Global investment in was more than double the amount spent on new coal and natural gas-fired power generation in 2015, the Renewables Global Status report found.

Overall spending on green energy rose five percent from 2014 to $286 billion, beating the previous record set in 2011.

China opened its coffers the widest, accounting for more than a third of total investment worldwide, while India, South Africa, Mexico and Chile also significantly increased spending.

In total, some 147 gigawatts of capacity was added during the year—the largest increase ever and reportedly the equivalent of all of Africa's generating capacity.

"Renewables are now established around the world as mainstream sources of energy," the report said.

"New markets for both centralised and distributed renewable energy are emerging in all regions."

Wind and solar power were the biggest winners, with more than half of the money committed to renewables in 2015 spent on harnessing the sun's energy, according to the report.

But investment in other types of , such as biofuels and hydropower, fell while the use of alternative fuels in transport continued to lag behind other areas, the report found.

The growth of renewable energy worldwide

Spending on in developed countries also slipped, particularly in Europe, where overall investment slumped by around a fifth compared to the previous year.

"Policy makers need to remove barriers that are preventing the increased share of renewables in heating and cooling and transport," said the .

"Policy makers should think on a long-term basis in order to increase investment in clean energy and advance the energy transition in their countries."

Explore further: Renewables posted record growth rate in 2015: IRENA

Related Stories

Recommended for you

A novel approach of improving battery performance

September 18, 2018

New technological developments by UNIST researchers promise to significantly boost the performance of lithium metal batteries in promising research for the next-generation of rechargeable batteries. The study also validates ...

Germany rolls out world's first hydrogen train

September 17, 2018

Germany on Monday rolled out the world's first hydrogen-powered train, signalling the start of a push to challenge the might of polluting diesel trains with costlier but more eco-friendly technology.

Technology streamlines computational science projects

September 15, 2018

Since designing and launching a specialized workflow management system in 2010, a research team from the US Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory has continuously updated the technology to help computational ...

180 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
"Policy makers should think on a long-term basis

Anyone else see a problem with this statement (re average age of policy makers and length of terms in office)
WillieWard
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2016
"Wind and solar power were the biggest winners"
It is not good news for mother earth, farewell untouched natural landscapes, welcome bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers, more fossil fuels to match fluctuating wind/solar power to electricity demand while saying goodbye to eco-friend carbon-free nuclear power.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2016
welcome bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers

The more you write the more I'm convinced you haven't ever seen a windpower generator in your life. They neither destroy the landscape (nor are they in any way as harmful to birds as exhausts from coal burning powerplants or car exhausts).
Whenever I drive by them and see them turning it makes me really glad to live here. Clean air, clean power. It's win-win for everyone.

BTW: nuclear may be climate friendly* ...but it definitely isn't eco-friendly.

*and even that can be disputed since nuclear adds net energy to the climate from a source that is effectively 'sequestered' (just like oil/coal)...unlike wind, hydro and solar that just use energy that is in the environment in any case.
Guy_Underbridge
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2016
welcome bird-choppers...
Could you provide some comparative statistics to back that up, say, bird deaths by wind-turbines vs bird deaths by house-cats?
TechnoCreed
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2016
@Willie
"Wind and solar power were the biggest winners"
It is not good news for mother earth, farewell untouched natural landscapes, welcome bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers, more fossil fuels to match fluctuating wind/solar power to electricity demand while saying goodbye to eco-friend carbon-free nuclear power.

I do not care about the content of your comments because I know that, in reality, you do not give a damn about nature; you are just here for the defence of the nuclear power industry. To read your despairing complaints about the loss of market share of nuke makes me feel so fucking good because it means that I am winning and that you are living a crushing defeat.

WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2016
bird deaths by wind-turbines vs bird deaths by house-cats
It is a blatant nonsense to "defend" the solar and wind power industry by saying "others kill more birds so it is eco-friendly". Moreover, house-cats do not slaughter eagles and other endangered species in midair.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2016
"Bird-choppers"? Is that all you got, Willie?

Really? Against the disasters of Fukushima and Chernobyl, you offer "bird-chopping"?

You lose, Willie.
Guy_Underbridge
3.5 / 5 (16) Jun 01, 2016
blatant nonsense to "defend" the solar and wind power industry by saying "others kill more birds...
Really? Just googling for numbers tells me that around 2.5 billion bird are killed by cats, 300 million from collision with glass buildings, 5 million from electrocution (power lines)...

but only 140,000 to 500,000 to wind turbines. That's like 0.017%

You should campaign against cats and glass building.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 01, 2016
Guy, he is a nuke supporter: It is all he has.
Guy_Underbridge
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 01, 2016
(Could you imagine if I told him US Fish and Wildlife states cars kill more than 200 million?)
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
Don't even need to go for the cat comparison. If you google for the amount of birds killed by coal or nuclear you'll find that nuclear (!) outstrips windfarms by a factor of more than 2 in terms of bird deaths per GWh energy produced...and coal by a factor of almost 35.
(Note that for both nuclear and coal you need to add fish deaths - because both heat up rivers because they need steam for the turbines...neither wind nor solar have that effect)

Sooo Willie. What kind of power plants should we build to save the birds in your opinion?
Guy_Underbridge
3.7 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2016
What kind of power plants should we build to save the birds?
Burn cats?
WillieWard
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2016
What kind of power plants should we build to save the birds?
Burn cats?
https://www.youtu...xBhqcjqY
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2016
Burn cats?

Nah...Just install Willie. He should produce enough hot air of his own. That's all he does.
WillieWard
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2016
Really? Against the disasters of Fukushima and Chernobyl,
"How many people have died or gotten sick from Fukushima radiation? Zero. Whereas 16,000 died from the tsunami and earthquake. Nuclear is and always has been our only realistic opportunity to drastically cut CO2 emissions."
"In Europe, renewable energy has failed to impress hence countries are building new nuclear plants."
"A nuclear plant of comparable power can be built in a tiny fraction of the space a wind farm or solar farm takes and generates consistently regardless of sunlight or wind."
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2016
"Policy makers need to remove barriers that are preventing the increased share of renewables in heating and cooling and transport," said the report.


How about ending feed-in-tariffs and net metering, so the private producers wouldn't simply push everything to the grid for the subsidies. There's no incentive to invest in ways to use renewable energy when the utilities and the public are forced to pay you for it directly.

If they weren't, you'd soon find that a solar panel on the roof won't pay you back because the mid-day solar peak pushes the prices down, and to make use of the energy you need to install e.g. an icebox cold storage for your AC to capture all the energy, and a storage boiler for hot water, batteries etc.

Of course that costs money and may make the whole setup uneconomical, but so it would for anyone else trying to use your power through the grid, plus transmission losses. With the subsidies you just didn't have to think about whether it makes sense.
Guy_Underbridge
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2016
How many people have died or gotten sick from Fukushima radiation? Zero. Because (not whereas) 16,000 died from the tsunami and earthquake.
Fixed that for you Willie.
Eikka
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2016
Other than removing the distorting incentives, the policymakers don't really have much to do: they can't magically make the technology better or cheaper in and of itself.

When gas costs you 6 cents a kWh for heat, and electricity 16, it's a bit of a no-brainer that you can't use renewable electricity to heat your home without seriously cramping your style, because the heating bills would almost triple. You'd have to get it for almost nothing - certainly cheaper than what it costs to make and transmit in the first place, before it would make sense economically.

Fortunately it's possible to solve the issue with technology, by using heat pumps to drop the cost of heat made out of electricity. An aftermarket air-to-air heatpump installed next to an existing heating system in Sweden drops the cost of electric heating by 40% and the more south you go the more you save because the yearly average temperature goes up and the CoP of the heat pump follows, making it more efficient.
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2016
(Note that for both nuclear and coal you need to add fish deaths - because both heat up rivers because they need steam for the turbines...neither wind nor solar have that effect)


Actually, you can farm fish around nuclear powerplant water exhausts. They stay nice and warm through the winter.

http://qctimes.co...2e0.html

The fish hatchery happened by accident. When the power plant was built in 1972, a 3.5-mile canal was built around it as a means of cooling river water that had cooled the reactors. By the late 1970s, it was deemed ineffective, and the plant was modified to discharge the water directly into the river.


It's not the heat that kills fish - the water that exits the plant isn't that many degrees hotter - but the act of pumping water through the heat exchanger, similiarily to how fish that end up through hydroelectric turbines often get mangled to death.
Eikka
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2016
The temperature at the heat exchanger is crucial for the efficient operation of the plant, and it should remain as low as possible, which is why they need to pump so much water. The water usully goes out about 10 C warmer than it comes in., and that's not enough to boil fish dead.

Of course there are powerplants which are cooled by a small lake that can get pretty hot in the summer because it's circulating the same water throughout.

Eikka
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2016
Then again:

http://www.eia.go...?id=3950

Over half the cooling systems at U.S. electric power plants reuse water

Closed-cycle cooling: Water is reused in a closed-cycle cooling systems. Evaporation from a nearby cooling tower removes heat from the power plant.

Overall, 53% of the electric generating capacity in the United States uses closed-cycle cooling systems. Most new power plants, like many combined-cycle natural gas plants, use closed-cycle cooling systems; many older natural gas- and coal-fired power plants use once-through cooling. As a result, the average age of a closed-cycle cooling system is 29 years, compared to 50 years for once-through systems.


The cloud-billowing conical cooling tower is the iconic image of nuclear power.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2016
What kind of power plants should we build to save the birds?
Burn cats?
https://www.youtu...xBhqcjqY

Okay, Willie. THAT was funny...
Just don't let it go to your head....:-)
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2016
Willie
It is a blatant nonsense to "defend" the solar and wind power industry by saying "others kill more birds so it is eco-friendly

What's a blatant nonsense - is your continual pissing on technologies that have the potential to provide the world with cheap - renewable - environmentally friendly power. It would not matter how many times we show you the staggering level of environmental destruction coming from the tar sands (just for example) - you could not care less. On balance - there can be no dispute - that wind and solar are more environmentally friendly than coal and oil. Just keep howling at the moon Willie - show the world how deeply you are beholden to oil and gas.

GO,
I think he is much fonder of nuclear...
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2016
I support nukes too - especially liquid fueled LFTR

Nukes have other problems besides the obvious (waste/danger/dependency on suppliers of fuel/prime terrorism target)

The problem is: You have to site them where water is plentiful. This means either the coast or along rivers. However, traditionally, people like to live along rivers, because: farmland (and fishing). And if some people think windmills are eye-sores, you should see what a nuclear powerplant looks like. That's not something you want anywhere near your property (especially not if you ever want to sell it).

Most developed countries have laws against warming up rivers beyond a certain point because: fish. This means that in hot summers nuclear powerplants along rivers may have to go off line (Remember: for every GWh of electricity you get out of a steam process you are dumping 2 GWh of energy into the atmosphere/water as waste heat.)
leetennant
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2016
Also, if we switch wholesale to nuclear then we're just opening ourselves up to the inevitable "what do we do with all this waste? / nuclear waste isn't a problem" issue a few years from now. The nuclear industry will be powerful, the scientists will be shouted down by money and we'll have to go through the same damn thing again.

They want nuclear because it can only be run by the large corporations that control things now. We have the opportunity to democratise energy and take it away from the corporations that have caused the problem in the first place. We should take it.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2016
I think we have a tiger by the tail in terms of climate change - and are going to need every non ff energy resource we can muster

I feel that the speed of getting to a CO2 neutral energy mix is more an issue of how much we invest. So pumping the money into wind/solar/hydro (and some storage) will get us there as fast (or faster*) than if we divert some of those funds to nuclear powerplants**.

*mostly because it takes one hell of a long time to build a nuclear powerplant as opposed to a windfarm.

**much less unproven designs - even if they look OK on paper. The devil is in the details. If we use unproven designs then no one is going to build 1000 of them in parallel. They'll need to build one. Then run it a few years. Then evaluate. Then - maybe - start building more (after redesign and upgrade). At which point only one (or a very few) companies will be able to do so. I see no real way of scaling this up in a timeframe that matters.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2016
They want nuclear because it can only be run by the large corporations..
We have the opportunity to democratise energy and take it away from the corporations..
Wind and solar farms are also run by the large corporations. Get off the grid! There are no laws forbidding the people from installing solar panels on their home's rooftops nor placing wind turbines in their backyards, no legal impediments, save natural landscapes.

gskam is smart he is still on the grid to save his batteries, hmm very convenient, win-win game that also includes coal and oil corporations to compensate energy fluctuations on the grid.
Whydening Gyre
4.9 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2016
Didn't Mitsubishi or someone design a small 50-75year mini nuke plant that you just dropped a couple hundred feet in the ground and bury it?
I'll do some research on it. Seemed like a good idea at the time...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2016
Didn't Mitsubishi or someone design a small 50-75year mini nuke plant that you just dropped a couple hundred feet in the ground and bury it?
I'll do some research on it. Seemed like a good idea at the time...

SMRs. And it was initially the Toshiba unit I read about..
https://en.wikipe..._reactor
gkam
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
"The cloud-billowing conical cooling tower is the iconic image of nuclear power."
---------------------------------
It is hyperbolic, not conical.
tblakely1357
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2016
I wonder how much of the money 'invested' in green energy ended up in the politician's pocket.
leetennant
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016

I wonder how much of the money 'invested' in green energy ended up in the politician's pocket.


Considering the massive fossil fuel subsidies going to large political donors, I find comments like this completely gobsmacking. As in 'what universe do you live in?' gobsmacking.

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2016
guess i'm late to the party... but loved the video above LMFAO
Also, if we switch wholesale to nuclear then we're just opening ourselves up to the inevitable "what do we do with all this waste?
this is just one reason that i advocate for a mixed approach

... we can taper off using coal and oil by relying upon nuke for a short time till we get our sh*t together, IMHO

call it incentive... but i also think fusion will be required for the future to exist, especially in space exploration
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2016
but i also think fusion will be required for the future to exist,

I think there are very few people who have an issue against fusion energy. The fuel is ubiquitous and the waste problem is relatively benign (low volume and short half life) and the chance of catastrophic explosion/meltdown is nil.

However, given its state of development it's highly unlikely that fusion energy will play a part in any scenario to combat climate change.

Didn't Mitsubishi or someone design a small 50-75year mini nuke plant that you just dropped a couple hundred feet in the ground and bury it?

This idea has been bandied about a fair bit. But it always runs into security/proliferation issues and also the inability to fix it if something goes wrong. The idea was to deploy these in the tens of thousands. There is no system (let alone one as complicated as a micro nuclear reactor) that is deployed in such numbers which doesn't have the occasional breakdown.
Osiris1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2016
We need nuclear power and especially its cousin fusion energy. That said, photovoltaic is just fine in space and on earth so whatever we improve for its efficiency will help us both places. I LIKE having a space tech like solar for close in system applications that will never run out of power. Like also to have the good battery tech that goes with it as batteries solve the intermittant nature of earthbound operations (night/day, clouds/sun, open space/planetary occluded space, etc) This and electric engines or ideally Shawyer drives like the Chinese second generation EmDrives for no fuel needed EVER gives us freedom for unlimited exploration of our local system. To be free as a nomad as it were for with enegy goes agricultural units to free us from earthbound dependencies. Use navy doctrine of multiple redundancies for all mission critical items including medical. 3-D printers and chemical processors synthesize the rest. Mine our needs from asteroids. Our destiny is in system
gkam
1 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2016
If you need nukes, go build them. Pay for them yourself then see if we want to buy that nasty and expensive power. If you hurt anybody in the process, be ready for immense personal catastrophe .
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2016
We need nuclear power and especially its cousin fusion energy.

What do you base this 'need' on (at least for the fission part)? There's quite a few (even industrialized) nations that say we don't. And they are actually doing a pretty good job at proving that they don't.
Fission also makes very little sense off-world as replacement fuel rods are hard to come by. Possibly when we're talking about a moon base that could be supplied with new fuel rods from Earth. Although I'm not really thrilled about something like a fuel rod being part of a rocket launch. They still do, occasionally, go wrong.
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2016
You want nukes?

Go here, they have the stuff you can use. Maybe free fuel,too! All you have to do is to go get it.

http://www.abc.ne...8353.htm
gkam
1 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2016

"ABC Australia, May 24, 2016: Fukushima clean-up chief still hunting for 600 tonnes of melted radioactive fuel… [TEPCO] has revealed that 600 tonnes of reactor fuel melted during the disaster, and that the exact location of the highly radioactive blobs remains a mystery… [C]hief of decommissioning at Fukushima, Naohiro Masuda, said the company hoped to… begin removing it from 2021… "But unfortunately, we don't know exactly where (the fuel) is" [said Masuda]. [Gregory Jaczko, Chairman of the US NRC] at the time of the meltdowns at Fukushima doubts the fuel can be retrieved… "Nobody really knows where the fuel is… It may be possible that we're never able to remove the fuel. You may just have to wind up leaving it there and somehow entomb it as it is."… "
gkam
1 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2016
It is time to ramp up more renewables. Here are more nuclear plants which are so uneconomic, they cannot be operated even when completely paid off!

http://www.utilit.../420237/

And some folk want more of them? Send them to Fukushima.

Or Quad Cities.
kochevnik
2 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2016
@Willietard "How many people have died or gotten sick from Fukushima radiation? Zero. Only a psychopath can make that claim with conviction

Regarding cloudy days, the simple solution is to add more panels. Much cheaper than power lines or power plants at $1/watt. Even on cloudy days my Sunpower Maxeon cells operate at 20% which keeps things going while the sunny day fully recharges the batteries. If I am short of power adding more power is as simple as connecting a wire
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2016
You are correct: Only a psychopath would allege nobody was hurt or injured by radiation at Fukushima.

But the worst was from Chernobyl, where the Soviets got stupid and ruined much of Europe. Want to see pictures of Chernobyl children?
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2016
All Soviet children are Chernobyl children. Food was distributed everywhere
WillieWard
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2016
Only a psychopath can make that claim with conviction..
You are correct: Only a psychopath would allege..
Only psychopaths are cynical and hypocritical enough to promote bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers integrated with fossil fuels that kill much more per gigawatt produced than nuclear power.
death/TWh: Solar 0.44 , Wind 0.15, Nuclear 0.04
http://www.energy...raph.jpg
http://talknuclea...vs.2.png
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2016
If Willie likes nukes, he had better move fast to some places, because many nukes are being closed because they cost too much to operate, even after being completely paid for.

Now, all they have to do is find a way to guarantee the safety of that nasty nuclear waste for about 200,000 years. Got the contract for the armed guards?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2016
I think there are very few people who have an issue against fusion energy
@AA_P
debatable... some can't differentiate between fission and fusion. they also are concerned with where the energy comes from to initiate fusion

so they look to the authorities for guidance

and therein lies the problem, really... especially for those incapable of telling the difference (fission/fusion/science/fact/opinion)

what is typically seen isn't real authority but those who scream loudest or most often about a topic

if an argument can't stand in the face of factual statistics, then it's crap... except for, apparently, nuke arguments

- so how would an person ignorant of the science and statistics view this thread alone?

want to know what i mean by that? read all the above ... now re-read these articles

http://phys.org/n...ity.html

http://phys.org/n...bad.html
Edenlegaia
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2016
Now, all they have to do is find a way to guarantee the safety of that nasty nuclear waste for about 200,000 years. Got the contract for the armed guards?


Many times i said, and i'll always say, you suck at being a prophet, gkam. Noone knows what'll happen in the next coming years. You can lead your crusade against nukes, go ahead, but don't invent the future, especially when it's about such a huge gap.
Clean power is good and well, but don't make it happen when it can't yet.
gkam
1 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2016
Oh, good, because I am no prophet. It is not my crusade against nukes, all I am doing is giving my opinion based on my life and learnin's.

I mentioned how we have been given these extraordinary promises for two generations now, and what we actually got was Fukushima, You-know-where, and closing reactors which are too costly to operate, . . . and thousands of tons of stuff we cannot even store safely for the millennia it requires.

Say all you want about inventing the nuclear future, I am sick of the propaganda and the reality of it.
Edenlegaia
5 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2016
Say all you want about inventing the nuclear future, I am sick of the propaganda and the reality of it.


Some countries needed it back then because energy was a necessity in a world where and when it meant everything to give to the people the means and needs of a promising future, the same one you're now screaming at. Are you wrong on that? No, but the way you denounce it is. Nukes are a nasty reminder of our past, how much we craved for its energy, and it's strange to invest in it more than in "clean energy" nowadays...
But what we still have, we can't stop so easily. Those relics still gives us energy, a dangerous one, but we won't replace them with a snap of fingers. Screaming at nukes and playing the "ULTRA ETERNAL CULPRITS!" card evertime they're mentionned will never persuade anyone of how mich it's better to have clean energy FASTER. If you don't intend to persuade people that nukes are bad, i don't know what you're doing here, the way you're doing it.
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2016
"Doing here"? I am making a point.

BTW, I do not oppose any research into what you want to achieve, I just do not believe any more of the stuff with which they seem to fool themselves. They want to believe it so much they convince themselves it is "the answer" before they can do it.

These folk took the hard classes and worked even harder to deliver cheap and clean power to us, but the dream has turned to nightmare. They still believe in it, that the bugs can be worked out, but how much has it cost us already? How about waiting until we can prove our schemes for the nuclear waste really work?
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2016
Eden, these engineers are not scorned by me, they are some of our best. I have great respect for their efforts.

But this stuff leads to nuclear weapons and the waste is a magnet for terrorists. Let's stop fooling ourselves. We can transition out of it. In fact, we are transitioning out of it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 02, 2016
And some folk want more of them? Send them to Fukushima
Psychopaths like the idea of sending people they don't agree with off to some place unpleasant. Like concentration camps for instance.

Actually, opposing opinions are usually irrelevant. A psychopaths core motivation is the desire to impose his will on others in demeaning and destructive ways. That's why George fantasizes about throwing opponents about the landscape.

But he always has to create opponents first in order to do this.
Zorcon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2016
"Policy makers should think on a long-term basis

Anyone else see a problem with this statement (re average age of policy makers and length of terms in office)

Trying to reason with policy makers is a waste of time... you need to talk to the voters. They have made it very clear that any policy maker thinking past where Joe Sixpack's next beer is coming from will be punished at the polls.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2016
debatable... some can't differentiate between fission and fusion.

Haven't yet seen anyone protesting fusion at the rallies I went to (unless you count fusion bombs). But that might be because it's not in the public eye. The only protests against ITER I'm aware of are based on fiscal issues - not radiation dangers.

You can lead your crusade against nukes, go ahead, but don't invent the future

Well, going at a problem with the attitude "We MUST deal with the pollution, but we have no clue how. But I just believe future generations will figure it out - so let's pollute to our heart's content" doesn't sound like sensible approach to me.

Especially since we're not talking about a problem in engineering but actual physics. A solution would require that future generations can *change the laws of physics*. That's a tall order. For reference: That is something no human has ever been able to do throughout history (and no one has even started thinking about how).
Edenlegaia
not rated yet Jun 03, 2016
Well, going at a problem with the attitude "We MUST deal with the pollution, but we have no clue how. But I just believe future generations will figure it out - so let's pollute to our heart's content" doesn't sound like sensible approach to me.

I am absolutely no way in favor of making shitload of mess just because "it'll be cleaned in the future, i'm sure of it!". I am simply against the future prevision of failures in attempt to clean what we already did and, while being more cautious about what we're doing and are going to do (well...as cautious as one want to be, i guess.....) and fatality.
Every day brings solutions for everything, new uses to things we understood nothing of before, and so on. I'm not bragging with certainty we will find a way to clean nuclear wastes in no time, with a 100% efficiency and in one go, but i can't believe, in the coming years, we won't find something strange but neat that may be better way to deal with it than what we're doing right now.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2016
Every day brings solutions for everything

I agree. But there's a qualitative difference here and not just a quantitative difference.

Read:
Quantitative would be: It's an engineering task, but the engineering is just very difficult/expensive now. In this case it is OK to say that future generations will likely be able to bring the cost/complexity down to a point where it's an easy (i.e. economically viable and safe) solution.

But we're dealing with an entirely different set of problems here (*qualitative* difference). It's not engineering. It's physics. You can't "engineer" radioactive decay away.
No one has ever changed the laws of physics before. And while I'm not saying it's impossible to do it I'm pretty sure that we're nowhere near being able to do this for the foreseeable (or even long term) future.

(And if someone could we should make sure we don't break the universe if we do)
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2016
Haven't yet seen anyone protesting fusion at the rallies I went to...
@AA_P
was talking more about here...
but you're right: it's not so much in the public eye except for the occasional news blurb

as i pointed out: those who are ignorant or on the fence seek information from readily available sources that are typically geared towards simplified reading (sans science jargon)... and they consider them authorities -like PO- ...

then they see people claiming higher education making emo-statements that are directly contradicted by facts

talk about confusion for them!

it makes things worse, not better
A solution would require that future generations can *change the laws of physics*.
well if those pesky eu & zeph acolytes would just give up their joint-ownership of the philosophers stone so we all can have all the answers...

[should i label this as a jk so that folk know? or is it blatant enough?]
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2016
talk about confusion for them!

I see what you did there

well if those pesky eu & zeph acolytes would just give up their joint-ownership of the philosophers stone so we all can have all the answers...

Weeerl...we wouldn't want that ;)

Anyways, if we could change the laws of physics we might start one of these:
http://phys.org/n...ser.html
And that wouldn't be good (slight understatement, there).
Hey, maybe some other civilization did this already and that's why we're heading for the Great Attractor.
kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2016
@Edenlegaia Every day brings solutions for everything, new uses to things we understood nothing of before, and so on. I'm not bragging with certainty we will find a way to clean nuclear wastes in no time, with a 100% efficiency and in one go, but i can't believe, in the coming years, we won't find something strange but neat that may be better way to deal with it than what we're doing
Unless you have some technology that manipulates neutrinos you're not solving the 200.000 year nuclear waste storage problem. Star Trek is a TB show and half the actors are deceased
@Willietard Wind and solar farms are also run by the large corporations
Your troll-fu skills are fading
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2016
Unless you have some technology that manipulates neutrinos you're not solving the 200.000 year nuclear waste storage problem.
solar energy much more neutrinos.
"The majority of neutrinos in the vicinity of the Earth are from nuclear reactions in the Sun. About 65 billion (6.5×1010) solar neutrinos per second pass through every square centimeter perpendicular to the direction of the Sun in the region of the Earth."
https://en.wikipe...Neutrino
"By far the largest fraction of neutrinos passing through the Earth are Solar neutrinos"
https://en.wikipe...neutrino

gskam's head is continuously bombarded by neutrinos from his rooftop PV so it is better he and other greenies use a tin foil hat.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QkJqwgIcs8E/VXpSL6dxr0I/AAAAAAAAApY/XF2EeKWxvJs/s1600/Tin%2Bfoil%2BtHANKS%2BTO%2BTHE%2BgREENS%2BIM%2Bsafe.jpg
http://orig07.dev...izal.png
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2016
"The majority of neutrinos in the vicinity of the Earth are from nuclear reactions in the Sun. About 65 billion (6.5×1010) solar neutrinos per second pass through every square centimeter perpendicular to the direction of the Sun in the region of the Earth."
https://en.wikipe...Neutrino
"By far the largest fraction of neutrinos passing through the Earth are Solar neutrinos"
https://en.wikipe...neutrino

Take care, neutrino is in everywhere it is killing the greenies, protect your family.
http://www.nnhs65...Nerd.jpg
http://pilerats.c...-hat.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0aGGYTJxkYs/TSXOX86rEjI/AAAAAAAAAmw/-_HzWkuV_c4/s1600/k9-01x09-Dream-Eaters-Tin-Foil-Hats.jpg
http://blogs.disc...-hat.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nIBfM-fEYb4/TBu1TxT1yZI/AAAAAAAAAXo/p60KgIWLV88/s400/100_0306_2.jpg
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2016
It ain't neutrinos, Toots, the problem is Neutrons.

I suggest a course in science. Start off with General Science and work your way up to Physics.
WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2016
the problem is Neutrons.
Sources of neutrons are valuable in medical applications.
https://en.wikipe..._therapy
https://en.wikipe...f_cancer
https://en.wikipe...mography
Most of the radioactive waste does not emit meaningful amounts of neutrons; it emits mostly alpha(helium-4) e beta particles(electrons) that are relatively easy to manage.
http://www.world-...agement/
Nuclear Waste Management, is more a political/ideological than technical issue.
kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2016
@gkam It ain't neutrinos, Toots, the problem is Neutrons.

I suggest a course in science. Start off with General Science and work your way up to Physics.
Neutrinos affect radioactive decay rates. But Willietard's moronic tangent is hilarious. As a metaphor he confuses natural sunlight with manmade laser light
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2016
..confuses natural sunlight with manmade laser light
If it is natural so it's ok, but if it's manmade it isn't ok; two sets of standards.
Roderick
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2016
Antialias,

Nuclear power has a fine safety record measured in terms of deaths divided by gigawatts. Your attitude regarding nuclear power is irrational. If you want to understand the weaknesses of renewable energy, simply read Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air written by a respected Cambridge physicist.
Roderick
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2016
Greenonion

The blatant nonsense is your claim that renewable energy is cheap. The EIA disagrees. And the EIA estimates don't include storage costs. http://www.eia.go...tion.cfm
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 03, 2016
George kamburoff the lying cheating psychopath opines
I suggest a course in science. Start off with General Science and work your way up to Physics
-I think he's exploiting another opportunity to imply that he himself has education he never got and experience he also never got.

George wants us to believe for instance that his honorary 'life experiences' MS was actually an 'environmental management' MS.

But he himself provided evidence that one was quite obviously not the other.

Despite this his sickness compels him to repeat this lie over and over and over as if nobody here knows the truth.

So this tells us what Georges admonitions are actually worth.
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2016
Sorry Roddie, but I understand nuclear power systems, perhaps better than you. They are the least efficient thermal systems we have. Their thermal pollution is immense, several times the energy put out on the powerline.

Want the waste? Lots of it available now, . .
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 03, 2016
Sorry Roddie, but I understand nuclear power systems, perhaps better than you
No, no you probably don't georgie. Pretending to know is not the same as knowing. Lying about knowing is not the same as knowing.

And standing in a control room once, or doing instruction manual validation of one system, as a temp, offsite, certainly does not make one an authority on nuclear power systems now does it?

Anyone will tell you this. And many have.
kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2016
@Roderick The blatant nonsense is your claim that renewable energy is cheap. The EIA disagrees

Nuclear power has a fine safety record measured in terms of deaths divided by gigawatts.
$500 USD must be big money to you. Nuclear energy is commercially nonviable on a gigawatt basis with full accounting including externalities. It can only exist on government subsidies as a corporate welfare project
humy
4 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2016
It is not good news for mother earth, farewell untouched natural landscapes, welcome bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers, more fossil fuels to match fluctuating wind/solar power to electricity demand while saying goodbye to eco-friend carbon-free nuclear power.


1, there is no evidence that wind turbines has a significant effect on bird population as there is a very low probability that any given bird would be so unlucky to collide with one.

2, even if we go totally solar, few if any landscapes worthy of mention would be spoilt by solar panels.

3, regardless of fluctuations in demand and supply, LESS, not more, fossil fuels would be used if we had more solar and wind; there is already evidence of this.+, with the introduction of the supergrid and/or off-the-grid energy storage, there would be no need for ever using fossil fuels to match anything as we would go 100% renewable for electric.

4, renewable energy doesn't exclude nuclear power; why not have some of both?
humy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2016
"...
1, there is no evidence that wind turbines has a significant effect on bird population as there is a very low probability that any given bird would be so unlucky to collide with one...."

I also should add to that;
more birds are probably killed by fossil fuels via combination of local pollution and global warming from fossil fuels thus, overall, wind energy would likely have less impact on bird population.
Thus this criticism against wind in favor of fossil fuels doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.
And how many birds are killed by flying into trees? Why is there nobody protesting against the planting of trees because of that? -answer, most birds are not that unlucky.
humy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2016
"...
2, even if we go totally solar, few if any landscapes worthy of mention would be spoilt by solar panels.

..."

I also should add to that;
typically solar panels would be put on roof tops; so no landscape spoilt there!
When they are not put on roof tops, they may be put in deserts to take advantage of the reliable sunshine there thus no need to chop down trees and there isn't much of a landscape in a desert to 'spoil' !
+ how many landscapes have been spoilt by coal mining and oil exploitation?
Thus this argument against solar in favor of fossil fuels doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2016
Meanwhile, coal/oil and fracking barons are dying from laughter getting wealthier, thanks to pseudo-environmentalists that are phasing out carbon-free nuclear power to give place to intermittent energy.
"A bunch of nuclear power plants are closing, and it's because of fracking"
"operators are now struggling to stay afloat in an era of dirt-cheap natural gas"
http://motherboar...fracking
"natural gas -- not renewables -- is replacing nuclear power"
http://www.forbes...ewables/
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2016
Give it up, Willie, you are just screaming across the playground.

Every other kid is back in class.
Zzzzzzzz
2.5 / 5 (11) Jun 04, 2016
Market forces are already having a positive effect on the development of renewable energy sources, on a non-level playing field where all fossil fueled generation technology costs are not part of the equation. Policy makers only need to create a level landscape. Subsidies are a part of that picture, and are not distortions as Eikka asserts - they have the opposite effect, reducing market distortions. The balance point has already been exceeded, and the direction at this point will not reverse.
We are not far from seeing significant developments in generating technology used by large power utilities, which might in the end prove to be unsuccessful attempts at catching up. I will retire in the next few years from a career spent engineering and building power generation. The younger people in this business I'd like to leave a future plan for will have many adjustments to make. Nuclear may play a role, but I think it will be a decreasing one.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2016
Nuclear may play a role, but I think it will be a decreasing one
@Zzzzzzz
agreed... i think i made this point before as well, despite the ranting of certain other posters ...
I will retire in the next few years from a career spent engineering and building power generation
good luck on your retirement! hope you enjoy the fruits of your labors

perhaps you should give classes or start informing others on engineering and how it works?
- call it a hobby (but there is the potential for $$ too)

gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2016
Zzzzz, you are leaving at an interesting time, when we need to work out a new and more "intelligent" grid, with all the attendant problems of inputs, regulation, control, and cost allocation.

Kudos to those who work it out, with the differing quantity, quality and timing of non-traditional sources to integrate.
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2016
Someone probably not in the business marked down that last post. It is difficult to convey the complexities of controlling power in reactive systems with multiple varying inputs and changing loads.

It must look easy to those without technical knowledge or experience.
WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2016
the truth is revealed again "the story seems to reinforce the fact that every time you vote against nuclear power you are voting in favor of fossil fuels, and this is true even in a country aggressively committed to renewables."
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2016
"despite the ranting of certain other posters "
--------------------------------

Yes, .. but are you STILL posting my Social Security Number online, as you did months ago?

Inquiring legal minds want to know.
Roderick
5 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2016
Au contraire Gkam,

Nuclear power plants operate at above 90% of capacity over long periods. The Bavarian Solar Farm is around 12%. If you actually economics, you would know high capacity utilization rates are key component efficiency. And if you had studied physics, you would know that thermodynamic efficiency of nuclear reactors is very high. http://www.eia.go..._01.html
Roderick
3 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2016
No, GreenOnions you flunk basis economics. Wholesale pricing tells us zero about long term average costs. Since wholesale rates for solar and wind power have gone negative at times in Europe, you would be forced to conclude that they have negative costs.
Roderick
3 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2016
Kochevnik,

The EIA disagrees and the French electricity system has far smaller subsidies than what Germany gives to its pathetic solar and wind farms. You know, the ones that don't produce most of the time. :)
Roderick
3 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2016
Greenonions,

The truth is that you are full of crap. The EIA uses the right measure of cost - avoided levelized costs. They have plenty of real world data on costs as a regulatory body. You have only your imagination and anything that threatens your ideology is propaganda.

Let me educate you on a few things. Danes don't pay a few euro cents for electricity. The retail rate is around 30 Euros per kilowatt hour in Denmark. Why do they pay so much? Easy to understand. Most of the Danish wind power is exported due to the lack of synchronization with Danish demand. So the Danes can only charge a couple Euro cents on the wholesale and then have pay much higher rates to import electricity at the times they actually need it. And for your information, since you do not leave your trailor park every often, the Danish government just cancelled a major wind turbine deployment along the costs on grounds it would drive up the cost of electricity. PS: I was just in Copenhagen.
Roderick
3 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2016
GreenOnions,

I live in Europe, you clown. What tenders are happening in the US is irrelevant. Look on a map. Europe is on the same latitudes as Canada. Weather is far less favorable, electricity demand patterns are less favorable, and land costs are much higher.

Moreover, low tenders are still quite compatible with subsidies. For example, who is paying to build the transmission facilities to connect these solar or wind farms to Grid. I wager a lot of money is not the operator.

You don't think these things through in a careful. You just mud at the wall and hope some of it sticks. Just a few minutes you were insisting that low wholesale rates for wind power reflected costs. And then you just flipflopped.
Roderick
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2016
To educate you further, GreenOnions, European electricity demand peaks in the winter and summer is seasonal low. There is virtually no AC on the residential So building solar power in Europe is self defeating. It simply creates excess capacity during the low season.

When it is sunny outside your trailer park, read this article on utilization rates and watts generated per square meter. rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1996/20110431. It is an indictment by a green power sympathizer of solar power economics.
Roderick
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2016
To educate your even more, GreenOnions, it would take about 10% of the UK's landmass to provide enough wind turbines to provide 50% of the energy required for the auto passenger and truck traffic each day. Do you really think that the UK or any country is going buy up 10% of its available and convert in wind turbine parks? Wind and solar power is diffuse power and simply consumes too much land to be economical.

By the way, nuclear power plants very dramatically in cost depending on design. The new Westinghouse designs are far less expensive than France's EDF designs. So you are setting the bar for nuclear power by citing EDF's designs.
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2016
Roddie, you are losing now, and will lose even more in time to come.

Give it up. Or go to Fukushima and show us how good a power system it is. You may have trouble finding the hundreds of tons of melted reactor vessel and intensely-radioactive cores. And even more trouble dealing with something you cannot view directly without dying, . . something which even kills your hardened electronics.
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2016
"Since wholesale rates for solar and wind power have gone negative at times in Europe, you would be forced to conclude that they have negative costs."
-----------------
Which means they are paying off, and someone else gets a great deal. So what is the gripe?

That your engineers did poor planning? Here, we do not build the facility until we sell the power. Shall we come over there and show you the path to the 21st Century?
gkam
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2016
Negative costs means they are even better than expected and are profitable, . . and you complain?

I do not get you folk. Is your real opposition political?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2016
..dealing with something you cannot view directly without dying, . . something which even kills..
pointless paranoid schizophrenic argumentations from a decrepit sociopath mind, "invisible radioactive Godzilla will kill all of us", "it's the end of the world" ...
"Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth merely because they say it!"
"Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences."
"Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs."
"One of the easiest signs to spot is how sociopaths exaggerate things to an irrational absurdity."
http://www.natura...nce.html
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2016
Yes, Willie, and nuclear energy kills.

You cannot change the facts by attacking the messenger, can you?
kochevnik
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2016
@Roderick The EIA disagrees and the French electricity system has far smaller subsidies than what Germany gives to its pathetic solar and wind farms. You know, the ones that don't produce most of the time. :)
Is the EIA powering my panels? Do they control laws of physics? Is there a reason I never before hear of them? Maybe EIA is you blogging from your basement?

I have receipts so your EIA is worthless and wrong, at best. Unsubsudized solar panels begin at $0.50/watt, which would to pay for itself in 29 weeks
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2016
nuclear energy kills
Renewables kill much more. You cannot change the facts, can you?
http://physics.ke...re15.pdf
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 04, 2016
Yes, .. but are you STILL posting my Social Security Number online, as you did months ago?
-You still giving it out to strangers like a dumbass?
Inquiring legal minds want to know
Inquiring medical minds want to know how someone as dumb as you can keep thinking he is smarter than everybody else, despite being stupid enough to willfully surrender his most sensitive personal info to the public domain.

But that's because you meant to do it isn't that right Georgie? Just like you meant to lose a dozen jobs over the course of your career.
You cannot change the facts by attacking the messenger
The messenger is a dumbass who thinks he can make up facts and get away with it.

And so reminding everyone that George kamburoff is an habitual liar is a good way to throw doubt on everything he says without going to the trouble to actually prove it.
Zzzzzzzz
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 04, 2016
Right now the costs at the gigawatt level are against Nuclear. Of course, when you compare installed generation capacity costs between nuclear and fossil, not all the costs are in the equation. New gas fired baseline operated generation can be built in the USA for about $650/KW. A load following or peaking configuration for around $1000/kw. A couple of years ago we struggled to bring an estimated installed cost for an SMR we were developing under $2000/kw. And the customer base is highly skeptical of estimated cost. Solar thermal (Think Brightsource, or Ivanpah) can be around $1500/kw. Hot oil solar thermal I don't have direct experience with, but far more hot piping than a mirror plant. PV is so far less deployed in gigabyte configurations, but holds a lot of promise to come in at the lower end of the scale. Transmission is another subject - PV, and to some extent wind, can develop deployable configurations that cut a lot of middlemen (transmission) out of the energy path.
Zzzzzzzz
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 04, 2016
(cont.) Its in the transmission adjustments due to the variation that will develop for viable PV generation configurations where I believe the biggest challenges the industry will lie.
tblakely1357
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2016
"Developing countries spent more on renewable power than rich ones for the first time last year, driving the fastest increase in sources of green energy on record, a study said Wednesday."

And much of that money ended up in the pockets of the politicians pushing 'green' energy. That's the main reason for it's popularity not for supplying cheap energy to people who need it.
humy
4 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2016
nuclear energy kills
Renewables kill much more. You cannot change the facts, can you?
http://physics.ke...re15.pdf

That is an interesting statistic and one that I suspected for some time although not that I think that is a good reason to reject renewables as there isn't such thing as completely risk-free power generation. Of course oil/coal power kills vastly more people than renewables and nuclear combined and so many that I think that would be a good reason to reject oil/coal.

Although I have nothing in principle against nuclear, for purely economic reasons i.e. nothing whatsoever to do with environment, I bet it would be renewables rather than nuclear that pans out as the main source of future power in the very long run as the cost effectiveness of renewables is improving all the time.

Obviously, fossil fuel power, including the relatively safe natural gas power, has absolutely no long term future.
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2016
the truth is revealed again "the story seems to reinforce the fact that every time you vote against nuclear power you are voting in favor of fossil fuels, and this is true even in a country aggressively committed to renewables."
"Nuclear down, natural gas up"
"An increasing amount of the state's baseload power is going to the natural gas sector. Natural gas burns about two times cleaner than coal, but is still a fossil fuel, two-thirds of which is extracted in the U.S. by hydraulic fracturing."
"Nuclear is clearly the best and only environmentally-friendly baseload power,"
http://www.sandie...-future/
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2016
..are the best alternative to fossil fuels
where? in undeveloped countries?
Paraguay, Lesotho, Albania, Bhutan, Mozambique, Costa Rica, Laos, Colombia, Malawi, Nepal, Belize, etc, or maybe Norway and Iceland, eco-friendly killers of Minke whales.
Wind, solar, wave, tidal, hydro, otec, geothermal - will all provide cheap, safe, clean power
are they manufactured in wind/solar-powered factories? all installed on rooftops? I guess no; it is not clean, nor environmentally friendly.
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2016
Willie has not response to that, but to go back to those silly quotations from the nuke industry.

They like to say it is a political problem, but the scientists do not work in politics, and all of them cannot find a way to safely store the nastiest stuff on Earth, and ALL of it man-made.

So, Willie, do you want it?
kochevnik
1 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2016
@Willietard "Nuclear is clearly the best and only environmentally-friendly baseload power
Not even robots can withstand Fukishima. No ecosystem is compatible with current fission technology except space
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2016
When we compare the prices of power from wind and PV, we find nuclear plants, long ago paid off, having to close because they are too costly to operate, even when paid off. Wind and PV pay for themselves as well as make profits and energy at a cost about 1/3 of nuclear power.

And then, there is the problem of high-level nuclear waste which we cannot even keep from Humanity and all life, but have to do so for over 200,000 years.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2016
If nuclear waste were, in fact, so dangerous, thus these people standing so close would already be dead.
http://fbcdn-spho...87_o.jpg
humy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2016
Wind, solar, wave, tidal, hydro, otec, geothermal - will all provide cheap, safe, clean power
...are they manufactured in wind/solar-powered factories? all installed on rooftops?

Eventually, yes. It is just a matter of when, not if.
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2016
If nuclear waste were, in fact, so dangerous, thus these people standing so close would already be dead.
http://fbcdn-spho...87_o.jpg
They probably have malignant tumors. Dead men walking
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2016
They probably have malignant tumors.
"Solar panel industry producing millions of pounds of carcinogenic toxic waste"
Natural degradation of solar panels slowly releases chemical carcinogenics (hexavalent chromium, selenium, gallium arsenide, brominated diphenylethers, polybrominated biphenyls) in vast areas imperceptibly polluting the environment, probably it will kill millions in a near future.
"The fossil fuels used to transport that waste, experts say, is not typically considered in calculating solar's carbon footprint, giving scientists and consumers who use the measurement to gauge a product's impact on global warming the impression that solar is cleaner than it is."
http://solarindus...mer.html
http://www.txses....end-life
https://toryardva...inogens/
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2016
If nuclear waste were, in fact, so dangerous, thus these people standing so close would already be dead.
http://fbcdn-spho...87_o.jpg

That is completely silly.
humy
5 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2016
If nuclear waste were, in fact, so dangerous, thus these people standing so close would already be dead.
http://fbcdn-spho...87_o.jpg
They probably have malignant tumors.

Extremely unlikely if not absurd that most of them would have malignant tumors.
humy
4 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2016
"Solar panel industry producing millions of pounds of carcinogenic toxic waste"
Natural degradation of solar panels slowly releases chemical carcinogenics (hexavalent chromium, selenium, gallium arsenide, brominated diphenylethers, polybrominated biphenyls) in vast areas imperceptibly polluting the environment, .
l


I just like to point out I happen to know that at least many of the newer types of solar panels that will be soon coming off the production line contain no such poisons and there is no rational reason whatsoever to think any solar panels of the future would need or have carcinogens incorporated into them so your point is pretty much irrelevant. Since solar panels can be designed to work just fine without such poisons, if manufactures put them in the solar panels in the future anyway, we could always introduce a law against that and still have a perfectly viable solar future; problem solved! and no need to reject solar because of it!
humy
5 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2016
All the reasons I have seen so far in these comments to reject wind/solar/nuclear are all invalid and often because they are for problems that can easily and simply be solved without banning wind/solar/nuclear. For example, if toxic substances are put in the solar panels, stop putting toxic substances in them :P
They can be manufactured without poisons and be designed to function just fine without them.
And don't put nuclear waste where it can get into the water supply etc.
Zzzzzzzz
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2016
There are several attractions to Nuclear - no emissions, and great for baseload operation. Perhaps Nuclear can be a part of how humanity bridges the gap in the near term to decrease atmospheric CO2, but the long constructions schedules and licensing process generally demand quicker solutions. Today, it's moving coal fueled power generation to gas fueled power generation - still fossil fueled, but lower emissions. Renewables are gaining steadily, and may well move to the forefront in the coming years. These trends are mainly driven by economics, rather than politics, the opinions of posters on discussion boards notwithstanding.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2016
who now says that nuclear waste is not dangerous. http://www.altern...on-state
conspiracy theories and scary fables.
gkam
1 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2016
"There are several attractions to Nuclear - no emissions,"
---------------------------------'
Oh, but there ARE emissions, but they downplay them. Look at nuke plants and notice how they have really tall stacks? Look at the ones at Fukushima, for example. They are higher (400 feet!) than most stacks with nasty stuff to carry it "away", . . . to someone else.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2016
Who would have thought it, pro-renewable/anti-nuclear activists are now in fact fossil fuel supporters, because renewable needs dispatchable(not intermittent) baseload energy and cannot compete with carbon-free nuclear power in terms of energy density and eco-friendliness.
Roderick
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2016
GreenOnions,

I never cited wholesale pricing as indicative of underlying costs. In fact, I cited the example of negative wholesale rates to rebut the claim that low wholesale pricing shows that solar and wind power has lower costs.

You are the idiot, not me. You can't even read properly.

1. Wind and solar power have higher avoided levelized average costs than nuclear power. 2015 EIA study.
2. The high costs of intermittent power reflects low capacity utilization - between 10% and 20% for virtually all European solar farms. Approximately 25% for terrestrial wind turbines.
3. Intermittent renewable power is poorly synchronized with demand in Europe, particularly solar power. Electricity demand peaks in the winter when solar production is basically zero. And demand bottoms in the summer.
4. Bidding costs are not a good measure of underlying costs due to green power subsidies, which are huge, and because the Grid is often responsible for the power links, not the producer.
Roderick
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2016
Gkam,

You are clueless. Those tall stacks on nuclear power plants are cooling towers. They are not emitting CO2.
Roderick
3 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2016
Wrong ZZZZ,

The economics do not favor solar and wind power. And the proof is the sky high subsidies they receive in Europe.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2016
"cleantechnica" & "greentechmedia" Biased pro-renewable/antinuclear websites.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2016
They probably have malignant tumors.
"Solar panel industry producing millions of pounds of carcinogenic toxic waste"
These materials are chosen for their COST, and are in your computer, car and phone Willietard. If you are so green you must destroy your computer immediately!

Lead is in the solder used. Silver solder can be used but conservaturds like Willietard do no want to pay more for their Chinese junk

Brominated fire retardants are to keep Willietardants from burning themselves alive. But who are we to stop him?
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2016
When facts show your resource to be bullshit - you should look a little deeper.
I have a maths proof that airplanes cannot fly

@Roderick The economics do not favor solar and wind power. And the proof is the sky high subsidies they receive in Europe.
Ditto for nuclear
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2016
Willietard wounds me with his downvotes. That is all pathetic nuclear propeller heads have as persuasion power. Stupid EMO facebook likes
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2016
"Gkam,You are clueless. Those tall stacks on nuclear power plants are cooling towers. They are not emitting CO2."
----------------------------------
How does it feel to be in a permanent state of embarrassment? The cooling towers are the hyperbolic shapes, the vents are skinny towers, up to hundreds of feet high. What do you think they want to keep so far away from themselves?

And it ain't steam or CO2, it is radioactive gases from the degassing of the cooling loop.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2016
And it ain't steam or CO2, it is radioactive gases from the degassing of the cooling loop.
ahem
The "smoke" coming out of the cooling towers of the nuclear power plants of Doel and Tihange is actually …… steam.

This steam is not radioactive because it does not come into contact with the primary circuit. The cooling towers are part of the tertiary circuit and serve for the evacuation of heat resulting from the condensation, within the condenser, of steam coming out of the turbines.
http://www.vnsafe...p;site=1

http://world-nucl...nts.aspx

http://www.ucsusa...#Sources

http://powerplant...wer.html

http://www.answer...in_shape
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2016
What do you think they want to keep so far away from themselves?
sigh...
– Natural draft towers are designed to move air up through the structure naturally without the use of fans. They use the natural law of differing densities between the ambient air and warm air in the tower. The warm air will rise within the chimney structure because of its lower density drawing cool
ambient air in the bottom portion. Often times these towers are very tall to induce adequate air flow, and have a unique shape giving them the name "hyperbolic" towers
http://energy.gov...wers.pdf

http://energy.gov...rectives

http://www.liquic...inal.pdf

http://www.liquic...lant.pdf
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2016
The U.S. subsidies are being phased out over the next 5 years - so we will truly see what they can do.

Are the subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels being phased out, too? (Just kidding. Of course they aren't)

We might want to discuss what a level playing field would be:
- cut all subsidies for all power sources?
- give renewables as much subsidies (in adjusted dollars) and over the same timespan as what other energy sources got?

I see neither happening. Renewables are being treated pretty unfavorably with regards to subsidies - and still are wiping the floor with conventional sources.

AGreatWhopper
2 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2016
No disagreement with your points antialias. Mainly because of the issue of dealing with the waste we are currently sitting on - I can get behind next gen nukes - to start handling that problem. Long term - there is no doubt that renewables are going to kick every one else's ass - just from a cost perspective. I think we have a tiger by the tail in terms of climate change - and are going to need every non ff energy resource we can muster - to live sustainably on the planet - give everyone a high quality of life - and not totally crisp home. I think we can do it with our without nukes - glad it is not my decision - and sure wish the Willies and antigoracles of the world would f*ck off.


Indeed, but don't foget they're protected by the moderators. I don't remember NiteSkyGirl saying anything more than that and her account seems to be suspended. antirational has been directly threatening and been deleted...account untouched. IP log says antil and WillieWanker are same
AGreatWhopper
2 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2016
kochevnik2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2016
Your troll-fu skills are fading


Give us a break Putin-bot. We don't have schools that teach those skills like you do. People in the West don't have the option of being a paid troll for a living. Typical arrangement is as you see on PO. Heritage Foundation, Koch Foundation, etc., pay for denier comments to be given preferential treatment. The feckless deniers get nothing for their efforts. They really should consider moving to Russia. Paid trolling, the same devaluation of the environment and human life, hero worship. Really, Wanker/antirational and co. You really should go.

Of course they're transforming the US at a rate that it may be moot. Seems the US and Philippines are both embracing the idea of an ignorant, chest thumping needle dick with an attitude to "restore national pride", just like Russia has. All 3 have a serious body image problem.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2016
It seems that anyone who exposes weak points of pseudo-eco-friendly technologies is labeled as "paid" mainly if there are facts that cannot be refuted in a logical/rational way; it is very convenient.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2016
"Solar energy might be free, but harvesting it is very costly, both in dollar terms and on the environment"
"Sunshine may be considered a renewable energy source but the resources needed to harvest it are the same as for any other energy source; they involve land, mines, tailings dams, metals, smelting, concrete, trucks, bulldozers; the whole gamut."
"sunshine and wind are both intermittent and unpredictable, .. which means more mines, smelting, tailings dams, trucks and the like."
"Zinc mines are particularly hot property at the moment because of interest in bloody big batteries to spackle over the gaping holes in energy output from solar panels and wind farms."
https://newmatild...tery.jpg
"The environmental costs of .. uranium mine are certainly significant, but tiny compared to the solar + battery alternative."
https://newmatild...nuclear/
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2016
Tell us about Quad Cities NPP, Willie.

Those reactors are completely paid off, yet cannot compete with PV and wind, which must also carry the costs of construction. Yet nukes cannot compete, even with the 60 years of massive subsidies.

You lost, Willie.
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2016
kochevnik2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2016
Your troll-fu skills are fading


Give us a break Putin-bot. We don't have schools that teach those skills like you do. People in the West don't have the option of being a paid troll for a living. Typical arrangement is as you see on PO. Heritage Foundation, Koch Foundation, etc., pay for denier comments to be given preferential treatment. The feckless deniers get nothing for their efforts. They really should consider moving to Russia.
Paid trolling? No we have life and women here while you have drugs, debt and fat feminazis with zionist media to incessantly chase your rectum with your mouth. Are part of the USA heroin epidemic? You should as a patriot as your Afghan narcodollar is replacing your now defunct shiyte petrodollar
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2016
This thread regards Alternative Energy. Russia ought to try it, like other nations.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2016
This thread regards Alternative Energy. Russia ought to try it, like other nations.

Read the article about Graetzel cells we invented useful in clothing and superior to Chinese solar you import, as your industry is nonexistant and only repackages Asian cells. Moreover we insist upon using Russian materials unlike you Western WTO sellouts, because we love Russia while you hate yourselves by your actions of hollowing your economy and your future. China already owns 30% of your corporate real estate and is waiting for you to hang yourselves before taking over management

We are not blessed with sunny California weather so more efficiency is required before large deployment. If you look at our apartment buildings you will observe that solar windows are the better option than rooftop
gkam
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2016
Oh, good. Does Pootie know? He owns the folk who own the oil.
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2016
http://www.utilit.../420323/

Looks like alternative energy wins. We have to beef it up now.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2016
here's more for Willie:

http://uk.reuters...20150903

http://ecowatch.c...eactors/

Expect some really scary "excursions" from these aged and obsolete plants. They are dangerous, but money is a prime motivator. We just have to make sure all damages are personally paid by the folk who make the decisions. The most extreme penalty is warranted if someone is killed by them.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2016
http://www.utilit.../420323/

Looks like alternative energy wins. We have to beef it up now.
Looks like fossil-fuel/fracking energy wins.
"thousands of megawatts of new gas-fired generation fueled by historically-low commodity prices"
"Some would argue that the markets are working: Gas is cheap"
"plants are under pressure from low-cost natural gas."
"But the reality is that large amounts of cheap gas has quickly changed the market landscape"
http://www.utilit.../420323/

Goodbye eco-friendly carbon-free nuclear power, welcome wind/solar fiasco & fracking.
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2016
"Goodbye eco-friendly carbon-free nuclear power, "
---------------------------------
Not yet, Willie.

You have many thousands of tons of nasty intensely-radioactive waste we cannot even store safely.

It's yours, Willie. Don't stick us with it.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2016
- is based on lead. Solar panels do not need lead batteries - there are plenty of other storage tecnologies -
Lithium-ion battery is more energy dense so useful for EV, while lead is less expensive, more economical for wind/solar farms.
"lead will always be a winner in the battery wars because it is cheaper than both. But if you want a serious battery backup system, then you typically need a spare room for what ends up as a really large battery set."
https://newmatild...nuclear/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2016
You have many thousands of tons of nasty intensely-radioactive waste
If it were so intensely-radioactive, it already would have a place in radiotherapy area as treatment/cure of cancer.
https://en.wikipe..._therapy
https://en.wikipe..._therapy
https://en.wikipe...f_cancer
https://en.wikipe...mography
It is not intensely-radioactive.
http://www.world-...agement/
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2016
Plutonium is Death, Willie. The Actinides produced by fission are mostly not useful, and are hard to separate. Everything they touch gets contaminated.

Plutonium is nuclear weapons, Willie. If we had no man-made Plutonium, most nuclear weapons would not exist.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2016
It can use lithium-ion, molten salt storage, compressed air, and other techs being developed but in practice, lead-acid battery is still more affordable "cost: typical deep-cycle, lead-acid batteries cost about half as much as lithium-ion."
It sounds same BS hypocrisy such as renewable needs "zero land" as it can be put on rooftops but in practice due to "economies of scale", it is on large wind/solar farms disturbing wildlife's habitats/ruining natural landscapes.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2016
Looks like alternative energy wins.
Intermittent energy is just to grow the system costs.
"Generous green subsidies have led to a boom in renewable energy, such as wind and solar power. But the rapid expansion has pushed up electricity costs in Europe's biggest economy and placed a strain on its grid."
http://www.thegua...-rollout
Germany should go back to carbon-free nuclear power to fight climate change.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2016
The taller towers were ...
@greenonions
sorry, but i will have to ask you to refrain from speaking for her, please... and thank you

why?
the name is mention 40+ times on this page

it made 33 posts

of those, 29.5 are emotional appeals demonstrating its fear and loathing or outright false statements that have already been refuted by scientific study

(and i've posted the study to it more than once in the past, so there isn't an excuse unless we're dealing with a case of dementia or Alzheimer's)

only 3.5 can be called scientific

(one of those posts is science plus emo bullsh*t)

of the science, there is no indication of specific clarity defining the typical characteristics found from a higher degree holding STEM graduate, regardless of the evidence of degree proven

therefore it is demonstrated above that the motivation was not "communication of experience" or even science so much as emotional appeal to fear and a political argument sans logic
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2016
It can use lithium-ion, molten salt storage, compressed air, and other techs being developed but in practice, lead-acid battery is still more affordable "cost: typical deep-cycle, lead-acid batteries cost about half as much as lithium-ion."
Not true. Hi amperage applications benefit from lithium or untracapacitors. A microwave oven or air conditioner will use over 100amps at 12volts which requires many lead acid batteries in parallel, but which is easily handled by one lithium. Storing energy can be more important in Moscow but less important in California
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2016
"There are several attractions to Nuclear - no emissions,"
---------------------------------'
Oh, but there ARE emissions, but they downplay them. Look at nuke plants and notice how they have really tall stacks? Look at the ones at Fukushima, for example. They are higher (400 feet!) than most stacks with nasty stuff to carry it "away", . . . to someone else
This is how psychopaths think. Those are for emergencies georgie. Which rarely happen.

Psychopaths like to lie and exaggerate. 'Hey look at those stacks... something bad must be going on.'

Plutonium exists so it must be raining down on idaho as we speak. It must have been what caused those fukushima reactors to explode, right george?

People here arent as easy to scare as your poor cowering family. You demand their fear and love just like jaweh.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2016
No offense meant - and point taken.
@Greenonions
no offense taken

i understood you were surprised by your link... it's not commonly discussed because of the typical fearmongering responses by certain type people who can't comprehend things like: exposure, time, levels, etc

IMHO it's like exposure to biological stuff: bacteria, viruses, etc - we're constantly exposed to various things in life that can be dangerous or fatal. we live with things like e.coli in our gut and yet certain strains can be sickening or lethal

but should we be so afraid of e.coli that we attempt to eradicate all strains in existence, regardless of the benefit we get from it?

.

the last thing we really need is an overly emotional plea with a false argument from authority making fear based posts that mislead or promote a delusional belief over fact

.

keep up your good work
at least you do homework and post links and references - that is orders of magnitude better than certain others
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2016
The whole argument that solar power is bad - because of the pollution caused by lead mining is total bullshit.
Lead in batteries is mostly recycled in closed loop. It is not proliferating in the environment. Lead solder in solar panels persists simply because it is not banned, as in case of silver solder for the house plumbing. Lead is not intrinsic to solar cells or panels. Most electronics use lead solder so it is absurd to scapegoat solar panels when lead solder is ubiquitious. Of course nuclear propellerheads have no argument so they desperately grasp for soundbytes to capture imagination of the most retarded 20% and cling to life
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2016
Fast forward twenty years and, at least in the US, the vast majority of solar energy systems no longer use batteries at all and instead take advantage of the utility grid and net metering
from https://www.revis...storage/
"no longer use batteries" "take advantage of the utility grid" hmm fossil fuel power plants to hide the intermittency; it is cheaper than lead batteries and sounds greener, hypocritically greener.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2016
sounds greener, hypocritically greener.
Greener is greener, Willietard
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2016
@greenos
Captain - if you look at the picture in this link - energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/10/f3/waterfs_coolingtowers.pdf You will see two kinds of tower. Do you agree that the cooling towers emit only steam - that is not radioactive, but the thinner, taller towers - are emitting mildly radioactive gasses - as described in this article? http://www.radiat...wer.html The taller towers were the ones gkam was referring to.
The references provided do not substantiate that the taller towers are releasing radioactive material, and in addition the second reference shows that the amount of radioactive material released is of the same order as the background. Nuclear plants must maintain power even if they are shut off, as we see from Fukushima, and thus have a small fossil fuel plant associated with them. I see no reason to conclude that those tall stacks are not for venting the combustion products from these.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2016
[contd]
And in any case, given that the releases are comparable to the background, and are closely monitored in any case whether there is an unplanned release or not, I don't see what the problem is. You are still getting more exposure from cosmic rays and natural radiation from the ground than from anything the nuclear plant is doing.

I don't unconditionally support nuclear power; but it's important to identify what it's really doing, not what we think it might be doing or what we fear it's doing, and it's especially important to understand that there is natural radiation exposure at levels ten to a hundred times what any nuclear plant causes. Radiation hysteria does not well serve the cause of making nuclear plants safer, and I'm all in favor of making them safer.
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2016
Da S, Nice, but not complete. My information comes from a friend who worked at Lawrence, and was hired to do the studies of what actually was being emitted . The theory was that the short-lived radiocnuclides would decay by the time they got to the end of the stack, but his measurements showed they did not. He tried to raise the alarm and was told to be quiet, so he quit and went to medical school, saying somebody had to take care of those we were going to affect.
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2016
Oh, and that clever little remark about "radiation hysteria" will not go down well in Pripyat.
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2016
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrTcdP821ZXEa8A7uMnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjR0MTVzBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwM3BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1465339005/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.gov.uk%2fgove...5WWY39I-
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2016
AlbertPierrepointOBE
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2016
It seems that anyone who exposes weak points of pseudo-eco-friendly technologies is labeled as "paid" mainly if there are facts that cannot be refuted in a logical/rational way; it is very convenient.


No one would accuse you of having a job.

Interesting, AGW, that antirational and WillieWanker are the same. I should have known when I saw "bird choppers". Definitely from the same limited mind that rotely repeats "chicken littles" ad nauseam.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2016
And here:

http://www.japant...a-survey
always biased with no comparison to normal thyroid cancer rate.
They also do not include leukemia/cancer related to mining activities for renewables.
https://en.wikipe...erations
http://www.thegua...ollution
http://futureofen...newbles/
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2016
Willie got himself in trouble this time with mining, and the high lung cancer rates for Uranium miners.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2016
high lung cancer rates
Germany is a country aggressively committed with wind/solar; they phase out carbon-free nuclear power to give place to coal and other fossil fuels to compensate intermittency, spreading coal ashes to entire Europe to be inhaled by children. Interesting that coal has even higher emissions of radioactive material compared to nuclear power.
http://www.scient...r-waste/
http://anglesonen...om/?p=63
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2016
@DaSchneib
Thanks for the post

it's always good to see a refreshing actual experienced engineer with an education post logical unemotional responses based upon provable factual evidence that can be read in links above!

appreciate your hard work here

.

.

You probably have higher radiation exposure by living in Denver, or flying on a plane
@GreenO
neat experiment on youtube from a PhD that answer that:
https://www.youtu...MRkN99aE

https://www.youtu...g-TXBgU8

When we make decisions about energy sources - hopefully we will look honestly at the whole picture
yeah... that is what i am trying to do: add logic to the hysteria of nuclear or THz radiation from certain posters
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2016
@greenos, I think we agree on this issue.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2016
Germany is a country aggressively committed with wind/solar
"we should learn from Germany's costly mistakes"
"Germany decided to close its nuclear plants. But despite huge subsidies, solar and wind power couldn't replace the lost nuclear power. As a result, Germany had to bring shuttered coal plants back on line and import electricity from neighboring countries. "
"Today, electricity in Germany is four times more expensive than electricity in the United States. And Germany's greenhouse gas emissions are barely declining."
"subsidized wind and solar power" "..due to its intermittency, it is usually three or four times more expensive than nuclear-generated electricity."
http://www.usnews...ar-power
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Jun 08, 2016
"You probably have higher radiation exposure by living in Denver, or flying on a plane."
--------------------------------

Except for the thyroid cancers in Japanese children near Fukushima.

The fact is, none of you really know what is coming out of those really tall stacks, do you? You have to rely on the words of those in the industry, who have never fibbed or been wrong, . . . right?

I take the word of the scientist who did the studies, guys.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Jun 08, 2016
@Willietard "subsidized wind and solar power" "..due to its intermittency, it is usually three or four times more expensive than nuclear-generated electricity."
Simply add more panels, which are almost free. Wiring is already installed and roofs still bare
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Jun 08, 2016
Those fossil plants are already there,Willie. We are just cutting into their hours of operation, as now they are second-rate sources.
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Jun 08, 2016
Those fossil plants are already there..
"..Germany had to bring shuttered coal plants back on line.." http://www.usnews...ar-power
sadly hilarious
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 08, 2016
The fact is, none of you really know what is coming out of those really tall stacks, do you? You have to rely on the words of those in the industry, who have never fibbed or been wrong, . . . right?
But we're supposed to rely on the word of a lying cheating psychopath named george kamburoff?

Nothings coming out of those stacks.
I take the word of the scientist who did the studies, guys
Is this that jap hypochondriac expat living in a romanian basement that you are so fond of?
Da S, Nice, but not complete. My information comes from a friend who worked at Lawrence
-Ah. Right. I heard that psychopaths do sometimes travel in packs.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2016
81% of German population still supports the phase out of nukes
Four-fifths of Germans look like fearful illogical chickens, giving support to phase out carbon-free nuclear power to give place to coal and other fossil fuels, much deadlier per gigawatt produced than nuclear power, maybe thanks to shameless fear-mongers, sensationalist mass media, pseudo-environmentalists, academic alarmists and vested political/ideological interests.
death/TWh: coal 161, oil 36, solar 0.44 , wind 0.15, hydro 0.10, nuclear 0.04
http://qph.cr.quo...2dfd5cdd
http://climate.na...ews/903/
http://cen.acs.or...ses.html
http://blogs.scie...on-more/

WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2016
Or maybe they know how to play the long game. https://www.bloom...-success
"My dream, my vision is that RWE will put solar panels on your roof, a battery in your shed, a heat pump in your cellar, and we will also manage this complex energy system for you. We want to be the holistic energy manager of the future."
Well, keep on dreaming darling, let large corporations in control, they know what is better for you and for the environment: coal/oil/gas/fracking/bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2016
- and then promote nuclear power?
In a more realistic action to fight climate change and to protect the environment and ecology, it should comprise:
- decentralized rooftop solar for auxiliary energy production instead of huge wind/solar farms;
- massive carbon-free electricity production from nuclear power to supply industrial parks and megacities;
- maybe a change of automobiles to natural gas as it is more affordable than EV and relatively cleaner in comparison to other fossil fuels;
- phase out all fossil-fuel power plants, all huge wind/solar/tidal farms / bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers.

WillieWard
not rated yet Jun 09, 2016
Renewables are the fastest growing power source around the world
together with "fracking" to compensate intermittency, together very very eco-friendly carbon-free sources of energy. LOL
"low price of gas, stagnant economy, are killing off U.S. nukes"
http://www.theene...-s-nukes
Roderick
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2016
Greenonions,

How about getting the basic facts rights? It does not require 250000 years for nuclear waste to burn itself. In fact, it takes a couple hundred for most of it. Second of all, renewable energy despite all these investments still accounts at best 3% of world energy consumption. And with both Denmark and Germany slowing their deployment of green power due to the upward pressure on prices, you need to reconcile your claims of dirt cheap green power with Germany and Denmark's recent experiences.

You need to stop dancing around the issues and explain yourself. Loser.
Roderick
3 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2016
Greenonions,

Nuclear power still produces many multiples of the electricity produced by wind and solar. Unfortunately for you, most wind and solar power produces nothing most of the time. So these investments are not impressive in terms of actual electricity to be produced.
WillieWard
not rated yet Jun 17, 2016
to compensate intermittency
"the Energiewende made no progress at all in clearing the German grid of fossil fuels or abating greenhouse emissions" "German Utilities are replacing lost nuclear power with "lignite, a cheap, soft, muddy- brown... form of sedimentary rock that spews more greenhouse gases than any other fossil fuel" "renewable electricity is proving so unreliable and chaotic that it is starting to undermine the stability of the European grid and provoke international incidents"
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) mis-characterising again!
... what i am trying to do: add logic to the hysteria of nuclear or THz radiation from certain posters
Really but, NOT succeeding with another claim, provide evidence for claim of "hysteria" from who ?

You write "logic" where is it that goes from your reference (P1):- http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf
to your extraordinary all-encompassing claim (C1) "THz radiation is harmless" ?

Repeatedly asked you show that logic but you STILL refuse point blank, why is that ?

ie. Claims you are "trying to do: add logic" completely false !

If not then where is that logic ?

When pressed, you claim a mythical paper not P1, call it P2
- your 14 yr old grand-daughter found & use the idea to claim I can't read
- already linked to P2 with Experimental Methodology AND Empirical Evidence for C1

But, no link, show I'm Wrong, link to P2 direct please ?

Instead of swearing/insults/evasion, be honest/smart & link direct please ?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.