Explaining hostility to renewables

May 29, 2017 by Marc Hudson, The Conversation
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Studying the catastrophe that has been Australian climate and energy policy these past 30 years is a thoroughly depressing business. When you read great work by Guy Pearse, Clive Hamilton, Maria Taylor and Phillip Chubb, among others, you find yourself asking "why"?

Why were we so stupid, so unrelentingly shortsighted? Why did the revelation in 2004 that John Howard had called a meeting of big business to help him slow the growth of renewables elicit no more than a shrug? Why did policy-makers attack renewable energy so unrelentingly?

About now, readers will be rolling their eyes and saying either "follow the money, stupid!" or "they are blinded by their marketophilia". Fair enough, and they have a point.

My recently published paper, titled "Wind beneath their contempt: why Australian policymakers oppose solar and wind energy"outlines the hostility to renewables from people like former treasurer Joe Hockey, who found the wind turbines around Canberra's Lake George "utterly offensive", and former prime minister Tony Abbott, who funded studies into the "potential health impacts" of wind farms.

It also deals with the policy-go-round that led to a drop in investment in renewables.

In a search for explanations for this, my paper looks at what we academics call "material factors", such as party donations, post-career jobs, blame avoidance, diminished government capacity to act, and active disinformation by incumbents.

I then turn to ideological factors such as neoliberalism, the "growth at all costs" mindset, and of course climate denial.

Where it gets fun – and possibly controversial – is when I turn to psychological explanations such as what the sociologist Karl Mannheim called "the problem of generations". This is best explained by a Douglas Adams quote:

"Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."

Over the past 50 years, white heterosexual middle-class males with engineering backgrounds have felt this pattern particularly keenly, as their world has shifted and changed around them. To quote my own :

"This loss of the promise of control over nature occurred – by coincidence – at the same time that the British empire disintegrated, and the US empire met its match in the jungles of Vietnam, and while feminism, civil rights and gay rights all sprang up. What scholars of the Anthropocene have come to call the "Great Acceleration" from the 1950s, was followed by the great (and still incomplete) democratisation of the 1960s and 1970s."

The rising popularity of solar panels represents a similar pattern of democratisation, and associated loss of control for those with a vested interest in conventional power generation, which would presumably be particularly threatening to those attracted to status, power and hierarchy.

Consider the cringe

Here are a couple more ideas and explanations that didn't make the cut when I wrote the research paper. First up is the "biological cringe" – analogous to the "cultural cringe", the self-loathing Australian assumption that all things British were better.

In Ecology and Empire: Environmental History of Settler Societies, the historian Tom Griffiths notes that:

"Acclimatization societies systematically imported species that were regarded as useful, aesthetic or respectably wild to fill the perceived gaps in primitive Australian nature. This "biological cringe" was remarkably persistent and even informed twentieth-century preservation movements, when people came to feel that the remnants of the relic fauna, flora and peoples, genetically unable to fend for themselves, should be "saved"."

Second, and related, is the contempt and hatred that settler colonialists can feel towards wilderness, which in turn morphs into the ideology that there should be no limits on expansion and growth.

This means that people who speak of limits are inevitably attacked. One good example is Thomas Griffith Taylor (1880-1963), an Australian scientist who fell foul of the boosters who believed the country could and should support up to 500 million people.

Having seen his textbook banned in Western Australia for using the words "arid" and "desert", Taylor set sail for the United States. At his farewell banquet at University of Sydney, he reinterpreted its motto Sidere mens eadem mutate ("The same spirit under a different sky"), as "Though the heavens fall I am of the same mind as my great-great-grandfather!"

I am anticipating that at least four groups will object to my speculations: (vulgar) Marxists, for whom everything is about profits; positivists and Popperians, who will mutter about a lack of disprovability; deniers of climate science, who often don't like being described as such; and finally, those who argue that renewables cannot possibly provide the energy return on investment required to run a modern industrial economy (who may or may not be right – we are about to find out).

Explore further: IEA hikes green energy forecast after 'turning point' year

More information: Marc Hudson, Wind beneath their contempt: Why Australian policymakers oppose solar and wind energy, Energy Research & Social Science (2017). DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.03.014

Related Stories

Recommended for you

EPA adviser is promoting harmful ideas, scientists say

March 22, 2019

The Trump administration's reliance on industry-funded environmental specialists is again coming under fire, this time by researchers who say that Louis Anthony "Tony" Cox Jr., who leads a key Environmental Protection Agency ...

The taming of the light screw

March 22, 2019

DESY and MPSD scientists have created high-order harmonics from solids with controlled polarization states, taking advantage of both crystal symmetry and attosecond electronic dynamics. The newly demonstrated technique might ...

Male fish can thank genes for colourful looks

March 22, 2019

Striking traits seen only in males of some species – such as colourful peacock feathers or butterfly wings – are partly explained by gene behaviour, research suggests.

Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

116 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) May 29, 2017
"...and of course climate denial."
In terms of CO2 reduction, intermittent renewables are already proven to be a trillion-dollar fiasco in the fight to stop Climate Change, renewables are backed up by fossil fuels to compensate intermittencies, and most of apparent reductions are due to replacement of coal by natural gas/fracking.
In terms of fauna and flora, renewables are invading untouched natural habitats and causing unimaginable ecological disasters.
The only proven way to deeply decarbonize modern grids is with carbon-free nuclear power which causes fewer fatalities and less ecological impacts than so-called renewables per unit of energy produced.
Steelwolf
3.9 / 5 (7) May 29, 2017
Nuclear power actually has a very large carbon footprint, most is just hidden in transportation. All of the materials going into the production of a nuclear plant requires lots of energy well before the plant goes online. Further, there is constant mining for uranium, the processing and transport of such and that all but negates the 'carbon savings' of said power production. On top of that there is NO safe way to store said wastes, NONE, and so until that factor is solved going forward on nuclear power is senseless. There ARE different energy storage mechanisms that can offset the transient power production problem, they just take some investment, which has been largely blocked by the banks representing their BIG Partners the Energy Corporations who are their largest customers.
Eikka
2.5 / 5 (8) May 29, 2017
and finally, those who argue that renewables cannot possibly provide the energy return on investment required to run a modern industrial economy (who may or may not be right – we are about to find out).


The way to not find out about it is for the government to continue subsidizing and backing up technologies which are currently non-competitive, thus ensuring that they never need to develop to the point where they could provide the necessary energy and economical return to sustain themselves.

That is the fifth opposition: pointing out that if the private market won't touch the stuff without extensive artifical support, not even a little bit, it probably isn't ready for the market anyhow and will fall on its face the instant you take the training wheels off.

So it is misguided to blame the Australian government for being unsupportive of renewable energy. In fact this is not a question the government should even take sides in one way OR the other.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) May 29, 2017
Nuclear power actually has a very large carbon footprint, most is just hidden in transportation.

OK, while I usually bash nuclear this isn't true. Nuclear does have a very low CO2 footprint per kWh produced (only beaten out by on-shore wind energy, though off-shore will beat it shortly and solar eventually since there is still quite some potential for improvement from technologies just now entering the market: perovskite and quantum dot solar cells)
https://en.wikipe..._sources

Saying that nuclear therefore is preferrable to e.g. solar is, of course, nonsense, since these are already relatively close. The amount of CO2 produced by fossil fuels eclipses them easily by more than an order of magnitude.

Waste management (and incalculable risk of the reactors themselves) are serious issues and the main reason why fission is on the way out.

In the immortal words of private Hicks: "Game over, man. Game over."
greenonions1
3.9 / 5 (7) May 29, 2017
I find the opposition to renewables to be confounding. It seems to me to be more like religious zeal. Reading physorg - you see the same group - telling lie after lie. Willie claims that wind turbines kill whales. Eikka says that Yukka Mountain is paid for by the nuclear industry. Etc. etc. etc. Mean time - in the real world - the energy transition is well under way. Britain is now getting 25% of it's electricity from renewables - but Eikka says that is not curtailing any C02. Reality has a funny way of doing it's own thing. France - the hub of the nuclear industry - has just announced 17 GW of renewables in the next few years - and goals of up to 70 GW for the longer term.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) May 29, 2017
Being against renewables is like being against science.

Oh, wait... they are against science!

Not noting, apparently, that they're typing their opposition on computers. Duhhh ummmm.
Eikka
3 / 5 (6) May 29, 2017
Eikka says that Yukka Mountain is paid for by the nuclear industry. Etc.


Did you not know that the nuclear industry was and is being taxed for the purpose?
https://en.wikipe...licy_Act

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 created a timetable and procedure for establishing a permanent, underground repository

Generators and owners of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste were required to pay the costs of disposal of such radioactive materials. The waste program, (...) would be funded through a fee paid by electric utilities on nuclear-generated electricity.

The Nuclear Waste Fund receives almost $750 million in fee revenues each year and has an unspent balance of $25 billion. However (according to the Draft Report by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future), actions by both Congress and the Executive Branch have made the money in the fund effectively inaccessible to serving its original purpose.
Eikka
3 / 5 (6) May 29, 2017
In late 2013, a federal court ruled that the Department of Energy must stop collecting fees for nuclear waste disposal until provisions are made to collect nuclear waste.


The Yucca Mountain cost 13.5 billion, and some 200 million a year still even as it's out of commission and shut down by Obama. The government is sitting on the $25 billion they collected for the purpose, and refuse to open it up, or spend the money anywhere else.

The problem of nuclear waste disposal is entirely political, and it is by the choice of congress that it does not happen immediately. That is because the powerful anti-nuclear interest from both the fossil fuel industry, and the subsidy-dependent renewable industry, are funding "little green men" to turn up and oppose any chance or proposal to do so.

The anti-nuclear crowd's best argument against nuclear power is the "impossibility" of dealing with the waste, so it serves their purpose that nothing is being done about it.
WillieWard
4 / 5 (4) May 29, 2017
Nuclear power actually has a very large carbon footprint, most is just hidden in transportation.
Faux-greens and Environuts believe that intermittent renewables are manufactured, mined, transported by wind/solar-powered machines and that fossil fuels are unnecessary to keep lights on when there's no sun no wind because Elon Musk is giving away his super batteries for free.
Real numbers don't lie: carbon-free nuclear power really curbs CO2 emissions; while intermittent renewables are just an expensive placebo.
http://www.tandfo..._oc.jpeg
France: nuclear expansion = deep decarbonization; Germany: renewable expansion = almost no CO2 reduction
https://uploads.d...bfe4.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...Mudg.jpg
Eikka
4 / 5 (4) May 29, 2017
but Eikka says that is not curtailing any C02


Do not accuse others of lying and then lie yourself, twice.

I did not, I merely pointed out that YOU were lying by claiming that wind power is responsible for the declining CO2 when 90% of the reduction was due to other reasons, namely switching fuels from coal to gas and a drop in demand.

Shame on you.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) May 29, 2017
Carbon-free nuclear power is so powerful and the waste produced is so tiny that faux-greens have to exaggerate a lot it to cause irrational fear.
"Small Quantity: the whole highly radioactive waste from Switzerland for over 45 years only fits in a warehouse."
https://uploads.d...f808.jpg
http://nuklearia....st-sexy/
https://pbs.twimg...kDGT.jpg
In France, carbon-free nuclear power produces up to 80% of their electricity and all waste produced up to now fits in a small room.
https://pbs.twimg...svpZ.jpg
http://media1.s-n...-6x2.jpg

greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (6) May 29, 2017
Shame on you
No - shame on you Eikka. I did not lie.
Did you not know that the nuclear industry was and is being taxed for the purpose?
2 points here Eikka. First - the "nuclear industry" was not being taxed. Electric utilities were being taxed. From your Wiki article
The Act established a Nuclear Waste Fund composed of fees levied against electric utilities to pay for the costs of constructing and operating a permanent repository
But more importantly - the fund no where near covers the cost of Yukka mountain - and as I pointed out - you immediately want to turn to the gubermint to now cover this cost. Here is your quote.
Yucca Mountain was already paid for and nearly completed with money taxed out of the nuclear industry
Yes - you lie. cont.
greenonions1
4.4 / 5 (7) May 29, 2017
Bigger point Eikka. You never miss an opportunity to attack renewable energy. One of your big attacks is against subsidies - and how the government should not artificially support one energy source over another. On this thread you said
this is not a question the government should even take sides in one way OR the other.
But you have no problem in advocating for energy systems that are clearly supported/subsidized by the government. That kind of duplicity is the target of today's article - and it is hard to watch - as many of us want to see the world move forward in terms of science/technology/innovation.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) May 29, 2017
Eikka
I did not, I merely pointed out that YOU were lying by claiming that wind power is responsible for the declining CO2
Here is my quote -
This is the reason that global C02 emissions are now leveling - as countries such as Britain are reducing their emissions
That is not a lie. Britain now gets 25% of it's electricity from renewables - which of course cuts C02 emissions. You can argue that I was not clear in acknowledging that wind turbines are just one part of the emissions reduction - but the basic point is sound - countries such as Britain are adopting more and more renewables - which is causing C02 reductions.
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) May 29, 2017
http://institutef...urbines/

Since England closed coal plants they must now rely on backup DIESEL generators to supplement the wind. Yea, that's green!
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) May 29, 2017
The headline itself is very divisive. It is very similar to the 97% of scientists statement. It is every politician's job to question government spending. Renewable power subsidies certainly come under that category.
manfredparticleboard
3.7 / 5 (3) May 29, 2017
Politicians have been playing politics with renewables by questioning spending; subsidies are awarded and then withdrawn on a whim of ideology. Howard wanted the renewable industry slowed because of his deep neoliberal conservative taint. Rudd saw them as a popular, (Solar was being taken up by the private sector- even without Howards' blessing) and a modernisation of both infrastructure and industry. Now the conservatives are back in the hot seat, they were aggressively against against the idea of solar rebates and any kind of fair price for the MW.h^-1 generated by panels. They wanted to protect the private owners of the coal fired power stations- who are now walking out in droves leaving them to be decommissioned because renewables are cheaper to build and run... But that's conservative ideology for you, stick with the old way even when it's obviously wrong and outdated.
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) May 29, 2017
England has invented yet another way to waste other peoples money. They import whole logs which are harvested in the US and burn them in a wood to electric power plant. If being critical of green crony capitalism is considered hostile then I suppose I am.
greenonions1
4.4 / 5 (8) May 30, 2017
MR -
If being critical of green crony capitalism is considered hostile then I suppose I am.
Which highlights your (and other commenters) hypocrisy. Why don't you oppose all crony capitalism? Why support crony capitalism for the coal/nuclear/oil/gas industries - but oppose it for renewables?
MR166
5 / 5 (1) May 30, 2017
Onions after I wrote the post I thought just the same thing and agree with you. Crony capitalism is a huge problem eating away at the foundations of our republic and capitalistic system.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) May 30, 2017
Here's an interesting article from 2009 that puts the subsidies for each energy form into perspective
http://cen.acs.or...ies.html

It's perfectly OK to have subsidies to get a new form of energy off the ground, since there is always an ulterior motive

- Coal and oil in the late 1700's to the 1900's: Get an energy structure up at all
- Nuclear (and gas) in the 1960's through 80's: Diminish reliance on middle east oil suppliers
- Renewables now: Climate change, energy security, terrorism alleviation, breaking of monopolies and general environmental and health benefits

If you look at the numbers it's really a laugh how little help renewables are getting when compared to the old-timey energy sources (and despite all this they are *still* starting to wipe the floor with them...just goes to show how good an investment they are compared to the others)
MR166
3.7 / 5 (3) May 30, 2017
Anti you cannot begin to to quantify subsidies to the fossil fuel industry without separating tax breaks from the actual government spending on their behalf. Then these tax breaks need to be compared to the breaks given to all companies in order to see if they are out of the ordinary. Until an article does that all comparisons are meaningless. My point is that many of the so called subsidies are nothing more than deductions for real business expenses. Also energy companies are some of the biggest tax payers in the US. Please advise me when renewable energy companies become net payers instead of receivers of tax monies.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) May 30, 2017
Please advise me when renewable energy companies become net payers instead of receivers of tax monies.
So how will we know when we have reached that point - given that every country, and every state is completely different in terms of electricity costs, taxes, and incentives? Calculating return on investment on a wind turbine is very site specific. You would have to look at individual turbines to see when they became 'net payers'. Again - do you have the same metric for fossil fuels and nukes? Hinkley point is going to cost the British tax payers a fortune in increased electricity costs.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) May 30, 2017
- Renewables now: Climate change, energy security, terrorism alleviation, breaking of monopolies and general environmental and health benefits
"The study comes as President Barack Obama continues to push for more government support for renewable, non-fossil-fuel energy sources. This push is intended to mitigate climate-change impacts of energy generation by cutting emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels"
In practice, intermittent renewables have failed miserably in cutting CO2 emissions thereby the mitigation of climate-change, they are just expensive placebos backed up by fossil fuels to compensate intermittencies.

SteveS
4.4 / 5 (7) May 30, 2017
Carbon-free nuclear power is so powerful and the waste produced is so tiny that faux-greens have to exaggerate a lot it to cause irrational fear.
"Small Quantity: the whole highly radioactive waste from Switzerland for over 45 years only fits in a warehouse."


Swiss Federal Office of Energy SFOE

"By the time the existing nuclear power plants reach the end of their specified service life of 50 years, the total volume of waste to be disposed of will be about 100,000 m3.

Of the total volume of waste, 90% is low and intermediate level waste and 10% consists of high-level waste."

http://www.bfe.ad...?lang=en

That's 10,000 m3 of highly radioactive waste from just 5 reactors
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) May 30, 2017
highly radioactive
"highly" "unimaginable" are undefined metrics.
100,000 m3
100m X 100m X 10m = 100,000m3 it is more or less a size of soccer field. And most of spent fuel is not "waste", it can be used for medical purposes(radiotherapy) and reused as fission fuel.
https://pbs.twimg...3LAy.png
For sure wind/solar produces much more waste(arsenide and other chemical carcinogens) per unit of energy generated without so strict regulations.
https://uploads.d...7c03.jpg
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) May 31, 2017
Notice that Willie compares cesium 137 with Arsenic. Willie also says
most of spent fuel is not "waste", it can be used for medical purposes(radiotherapy) and reused as fission fuel.
Of course - that would beg the quick questions - then why do we keep filling up the containment pools at the power plants, and why do we need Yucca Mountain - to store the fuel for perhaps 100,000 years. Do some research on a complex topic - and you will see that Willie is a liar.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) May 31, 2017
most of spent fuel is not "waste", it can be used for medical purposes(radiotherapy) and reused as fission fuel.

Erm...no. You do not use the kind of stuff that comes out of nuclear reactors for radiotherapy. No way no how.

You really do not have the slightest clue what radiation actually is and how it works, do you Willie?

if there was any doubt remaining then that last statement of yours disqualified you from any technical discussion on any level.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) May 31, 2017
No one is suffering from spent nuclear fuel; no one has ever been injured from used fuel from a commercial nuclear power plant, let alone killed.
The over-exaggeration of tiny nuclear waste has just served to favor the wind/solar and fossil fuel industries which wastes are much worse in volume and toxicity.
"Big growth in wind energy, but what about the waste? The 16,000 tonnes *per year* are "huge problem," say Germans."
https://pbs.twimg...n_Cs.jpg
https://www.clean...riticism
"Japan tries to chip away at mountain of disused solar panels" full of arsenide and chemical carcinogens
"Environment Ministry forecasts the country's solar-panel waste will exceed 10,000 tons..."
http://asia.nikke...s?page=1
Fortunately, there are cheap fossil fuels to generate energy to recycle bird-choppers and solar panels.
PTTG
3 / 5 (4) May 31, 2017
That is the fifth opposition: pointing out that if the private market won't touch the stuff without extensive artifical support, not even a little bit, it probably isn't ready for the market anyhow and will fall on its face the instant you take the training wheels off.


That's completely wrong. Fossil fuel subsidies are substantially higher than renewables. https://en.wikipe...ubsidies
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) May 31, 2017
Erm...You do not use the kind of stuff that comes out of nuclear reactors for radiotherapy. No way no how
Because... it would be wrong...

"Ninety-six percent of the spent fuel can be turned into new fuel. The 4 percent of the so-called waste that remains—2,500 metric tons—consists of highly radioactive materials, but these are also usable. There are about 80 tons each of cesium-137 and strontium-90 that could be separated out for use in medical applications, such as sterilization of medical supplies. Using isotope separation techniques, and fast-neutron bombardment for transmutation (technologies that the United States pioneered but now refuses to develop), we could separate out all sorts of isotopes, like americium, which is used in smoke detectors, or isotopes used in medical testing and treatment."

-according to you.

The majority of radionuclides for commercial and medical use are already made in reactors which I suppose you could say is splitting hairs.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) May 31, 2017
BTW on a related note I see they found a good use for philos

"BERKELEY (CBS SF) — A former Diablo Valley College philosophy professor has been arrested for his role in a violent melee that broke out during a Berkeley rally supporting President Donald Trump last month...

"Authorities said Eric Clanton was arrested in Oakland on Wednesday afternoon. There had been an outcry for his apprehension on alt-right websites after a video clip was posted on social media of the 28-year-old allegedly assaulting a pro-Trump demonstration with a bike lock.

"Investigators said cellphone videos show him swinging the U-lock at multiple Trump supporters in the head, injuring at least three people.

"Police said finding the U-lock attacker was such a priority, homicide detectives were assigned to the case."
http://sanfrancis...p-melee/

-They make great thugs.

Thinks hes Anonymous personified.. re his mirror
greenonions1
2 / 5 (4) May 31, 2017
No one is suffering from spent nuclear fuel
And no one says they are. The point here - is that if - as you point out - spent fuel was not a problem - because it can be recycled - here is your exact quote.
most of spent fuel is not "waste", it can be used for medical purposes(radiotherapy) and reused as fission fuel.

Then why do we need Yucca - and why are the pools at the power plants filling up with spent rods? Willie's graphic says that all of those rods can be re-burned or re-cycled. Funny thing that is not happening.
greenonions1
2 / 5 (4) May 31, 2017
Serious question for ghost. If this is accurate
Ninety-six percent of the spent fuel can be turned into new fuel.
Why do we not stop mining new uranium - and deal with the current surplus of spent fuel - by burning it?
greenonions1
3 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2017
Good analysis here regarding the story about wind farms killing whales. - http://renewecono...s-38230/
This really highlights how eager some people are to pass on bad information - with their hostility to renewables.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2017
RenewEconomy is not a credible source, they are notoriously biased pro-renewable, they are able to say anything to protect their eco-friendly bird-choppers. Facts: bird-choppers invade untouched wildlife habitats; need fossil fuels to be installed, manufactured and to keep lights on when wind is not blowing; and are failing miserably to curb CO2 emissions everywhere even after trillions of dollars spent.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2017
Serious question for ghost. If this is accurate
First tell me what mining uranium has to do with aa not knowing how radiosotopes are made, and using her ignorance to insult a fellow poster who just happened to know more about the subject than she did?
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2017
Ghost - why should I tell you that? You made a statement
Ninety-six percent of the spent fuel can be turned into new fuel.
I asked you a serious question - that was based on that statement.
Why do we not stop mining new uranium - and deal with the current surplus of spent fuel - by burning it?


Nice dodge though.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2017
Willie
RenewEconomy is not a credible source,
Coming from the person who uses the Daily Mail, and Breitbart as their source. The actual source was Carbon Brief - but you will discount that too. Fact is - the article has a lot of science in it - compared to yours - that had opinion - without any support.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2017
I did a little bit of googling over the question of reprocessing nuclear fuel. Seems the cost of reprocessing the plutonium would be around 2 cents a Kwh - that would of course be added to the cost of electricity. My source - https://en.wikipe...conomics So when wind and solar are producing electricity at around 2 - 3 cents Kwh - and the costs are dropping like a brick - that probably explains why we are not doing it.

Don't worry Ghost - I got may answer.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2017
Windmills are a constant menace to wildlife.
"Thousands of gannets, puffins and kittiwakes are predicted to die each year."
"Save seabirds from windfarms" - 31 May, 2017
http://www.herald...ndfarms/
According to "American Bird Conservancy", windmills are among the fastest-growing threats to birds and bats.
"..hundreds of thousands of birds and bats die every year when they accidentally collide with turbine blades. Fragile-bodied bats can even succumb to the pressures created when the giant turbine blades pass through the air, a phenomena known as barotrauma." - April 08, 2017
https://abcbirds....s-birds/
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2017
Worth noting on the question of reprocessing that the US was historically against it because it can produce nuclear weapons grade fissible material in a manner that would be very difficult to track. I don't know if this prejudice got into the Non-Proliferation Treaty or not.

In any case, as @greenos points out, the added cost in terms of electricity production being of the same order as the cost for renewables kinda knocks it out anyway.

I will point out that all of this leaves out TWRs, which burn all the fuel and all the waste as well, leaving inert material. At least theoretically; no one's actually fully engineered one, much less built one.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2017
Worth noting on the question of reprocessing that the US was historically against it because it can produce nuclear weapons grade fissible material in a manner that would be very difficult to track. I don't know if this prejudice got into the Non-Proliferation Treaty or not.

In any case, as @greenos points out, the added cost in terms of electricity production being of the same order as the cost for renewables kinda knocks it out anyway.

I will point out that all of this leaves out TWRs, which burn all the fuel and all the waste as well, leaving inert material. At least theoretically; no one's actually fully engineered one, much less built one.

I did look into this a little. See TerraPower...
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2017
Ghost - why should I tell you that? You made a statement
It wasnt my statement. The quote marks mean it was a... quote.

You can drop it into Google to find out who you may want to argue with.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2017
I will point out that all of this leaves out TWRs, which burn all the fuel and all the waste as well, leaving inert material. At least theoretically; no one's actually fully engineered one, much less built one.

The thing is, even if TWRs were as good as gold:
Someone needs to build one (prototype). This must be run a number of years to find out all the kinks. Someone must build a second generation plant. Based on this plant production must be scaled up (new companies must be founded, expertise must be built up in people to build and run these things, ...)...and then a huge number of them must be built.

Now it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the timeline until this actually makes a noticeable dent in global electricity production is on the order of 25 years or more (under optimal conditions).

So as a solution to climate change this tech is pretty irrelevant.
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2017
You can drop it into Google to find out who you may want to argue with.
I was not arguing - I was asking a question. You were not interested in answering. Fair enough - I did use google - and got the answer. It is pretty disingenuous to just mention that we can reprocess 96% of the fuel (therefore implying that it is not a problem - as it will be recycled) - and to not mention the fact that because of the cost - we are not going to recycle it - as it is cheaper to dig up new uranium. Hence the massive problem of storage that we are now faced with - and of course the conservatives immediately believe it is the tax payer's responsibility to now deal with this problem - but don't any one suggest that the gubermint should get involved in promoting renewables.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2017
If Climate Change is an urgent matter, there is no reason to continue to waste taxpayer's money on renewable placebos; trillions of euros spent on wind/solar and the only noticed CO2 reduction is due mainly to replacement of coal by natural gas/fracking. The only proven way to really curb greenhouse emissions is with carbon-free nuclear power. Intermittent renewables are an economical and ecological disaster.
"Energiewende is an economic, financial, ecological, social and climatological disaster, says co-founder of Green Party"
http://bazonline....21856097
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2017
The only proven way to really curb greenhouse emissions is with carbon-free nuclear power.
Wrong. Nuclear power is one option - but it would be very expensive - and leave the world with a shit load of waste to dispose of - and power plants to decommission. Renewables is another option - and a hybrid would be the third. It will be interesting to see if we can get some hard numbers out of Saudi Arabia, and other mid eastern countries - to see if we can get some hard data to make decisions on. Mean time - progress continues - but slower than we would like to see.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2017
...we can reprocess 96% of the fuel (therefore implying that it is not a problem - as it will be recycled) - and to not mention the fact that because of the cost - we are not going to recycle it - as it is cheaper to dig up new uranium. Hence the massive problem of storage that we are now faced with - and of course the conservatives blah
So you're still trying to argue with me about the subject? Thats odd.

What makes you think I know enough about the subject to ad lib? For that matter what makes you think you know enough about it to pretend to argue with the authority I cited without actually doing so?

Kind of makes it pointless to rebut you with quotes when you only respond with ad libs without bothering to cite your own expert sources.

You know?

Willie does lots of that to his credit. You and aa - not so much. That's how aa can pretend to know where radionuclides come from, or could come from, without actually knowing.

You know?
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2017
So you're still trying to argue with me about the subject? Thats odd.
No I was not. Argue would imply that I was disagreeing with something that you said. i was asking a question. I was saying - given that 96% of the fuel can be recycled - can you explain why we are not actually recycling the 96%. Asking for additional information on a subject - is not arguing.
Willie does lots of that to his credit.
Willie is a lilar. Willie argues that wind turbines kill whales. When presented with very extensively documented articles that show there is no scientific support for that assertion - and that a tabloid rag - misinterpreted some research - and the authors of that research disputed what the tabloid rag said - Willie ignores the fact that he is exposed as a presenter of misinformation - and moves on to continue his spreading of misinformation.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2017
Renewables is another option...
Numbers don't lie: intermittent renewables are not curbing CO2 emissions, not in Germany, not in California, not in Vermont, and nowhere. Some tiny reductions are due mainly to replacement of coal by natural gas/fracking. Excluding hydro and geothermal(geographical limitations), renewables are a trillion-dollar fiasco and an ecological disaster. You cannot change the facts by just citing biased articles from non-credible sources such as CleanTechnica and Enenews.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2017
Numbers don't lie
No but you do. https://www.thegu...dy-finds
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2017
So as a solution to climate change this tech is pretty irrelevant.
I'm more interested in it as a solution to the nuclear waste we already have.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2017
Numbers don't lie
No but you do. https://www.thegu...dy-finds
There is no peer-reviewed study based on real data that proves wind/solar placebos are curbing greenhouse emissions, and much less yet in an economically feasible way.
"$2 trillion invested globally into renewables and the energy contribution is almost nothing."
https://pbs.twimg...obp4.jpg
"If you believe 100% RE is possible, try to do it in your house: Nothing made in factories. No fertilizers. No mechanization."
Not even Greenpeace and other faux-greens use these placebos to generate electricity to power their ships and motorboats, they use marine diesel instead.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2017
I'm more interested in it as a solution to the nuclear waste we already have.
Technical/scientific solution already exists (geological disposal). The problem is so tiny in comparison to waste produced by wind/solar placebos that faux-greens have to over-exaggerate it a lot, because intermittent renewables cannot compete with a so powerful, so ecologically friendly, i.e. the best source of energy in all aspects, at a point that faux-greens are forced to use lies to fight against it.
https://pbs.twimg...A3Vx.jpg
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2017
can you explain why we are not actually recycling the 96%. Asking for additional information on a subject - is not arguing
Sure it is.

But actually I can give you a few reasons why we might be deciding to use ore rather than waste...
1) It makes sense to recover and process as much of this dangerous material as we can, rather than leaving it for others to get at;
2) Waste repositories serve as secure storage if ever our supply of ore is cut off or runs out; and
3) By storing it we are learning HOW to store it. Fissiles are the most useful materials we have ever produced. They alone are the only thing which will enable us to establish independent colonies elsewhere in the system. And so we need to learn as much as we can about how to make and manage it.

This includes how to clean up melted reactors. Not so bad here but perhaps disastrous on Io.
greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2017
Willie
There is no peer-reviewed study based on real data that proves wind/solar placebos are curbing greenhouse emissions,
So a liar - who cites bs articles from the Daily Mail - now demands peer reviewed studies.
Facts are facts Willie. 2015 was the first year that renewables surpassed coal in terms of installed capacity. That means that renewables are getting bigger - compared to coal. Every Kwh generated by a solar panel - is one not generated on fossil fuels. That means less C02, mercury, etc. etc. going in to the air.
manfredparticleboard
3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2017
"Not even Greenpeace and other faux-greens use these placebos to generate electricity to power their ships and motorboats, they use marine diesel instead."

Like Greenpeace runs a flotilla of ships, gadding about the harbours of St Tropez and Marseille!
'Hey!' says some Greenpeace activist, ' Let's stop the Japanese from whaling and highlight the devastation caused by commercial fishing!'.
'No way!' says another. ' ...unless we run the ships on pure sunlight and renewable fuels and not be a hypocrite with renewable energy, Fuk the whales!'
'Oh yeah good point...well the greater good has been done then! I can sleep at night knowing I've got my priorities straight!'
TransmissionDump
3 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2017
The reason Australia is renewable averse is the amount of royalties earned by coal exports.
I'm part of that coal chain and there is no way the government will give up that earner in a hurry. We're still approving new mines and new developments in existing mines, until renewable energy systems can be proven to generate as much revenue as mining does then it doesn't stand a chance in this country.
Guy_Underbridge
3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2017
Willy and his pretend bird-worry
..hundreds of thousands of birds and bats die every year
For wind farms to kill as much as the coal industry, we'd need 24 times the current footprint. This is also in the same magnitude as birds killed by glass windows, neither of which seem to bother you. And if you look at the real threat to birds, Big Coal doesn't hold a candle to feral cats, which kill billions a year. Is there a feral cat blog someplace that you also troll?

Willy, If arguments were pee, yours didn't get past your own shoes.
Guy_Underbridge
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2017
..hundreds of thousands of birds and bats die every year


Here you go, Willy. Go annoy these folks with your bird-worry

https://animalpet...thanasia
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2017
@Transmission, thanks for the insight into the Australian revenue problem. Is this widely discussed among the Australian public, or something that your lawmakers and news outlets don't talk about much?
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2017
2015 was the first year that renewables surpassed coal in terms of installed capacity
Where? Nowhere!
http://www.bp.com...x-bp.jpg
http://www.mfa.go...16-2.jpg
https://en.wikipe...sumption
Coal has been replaced mostly by natural gas/fracking.
alternative energy = alternative facts.
...in terms of installed capacity
An installed-gigawatt of intermittent unicorn energy is not equivalent to a gigawatt of reliable carbon-free energy.
https://pbs.twimg...oQEW.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2017
An installed-gigawatt of intermittent unicorn energy is not equivalent to a gigawatt of reliable carbon-free energy.
Yes - we know that. Repeating the same information - that we already know - without understanding the whole picture - makes you a troll. Wind in the U.S. is now costing less that 3 cents a Kwh. http://newscenter...2%A2kwh/ Hinkley point is going to cost the British tax payers 18 cents Kwh and more. Funny how the conservatives love free markets - until they dont!!!
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2017
Wind in the U.S. is now costing less that 3 cents a Kwh.
With subsidies, "batteries not included", backed up by fossil fuels to compensate intermittencies.
"Renewables received 114x more in subsidies than nuclear in 2016, says non-partisan Congressional Budget Office."
https://pbs.twimg...gqJT.jpg
http://www.enviro...estions/
without understanding the whole picture
Faux-greens' cognitive dissonance at first was hilarious and now are already an economical and environmental global tragedy.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2017
With subsidies,
The subsidies are being phased out Willie. Funny how conservatives love free markets - until thy don't....Willie is happy to saddle the British tax payer with 18 cents a Kwh electricity. That is one hell of a subsidy Willie. My money is on the free market - and cheap/clean/abundant renewables.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2017
Clear sign of lack of integrity: while claiming wind/solar is cheap almost for free and subsidies are being phased out, faux-greens ask for more subsidies.
Wind/solar placebos are nothing without subsidies and cheap fossil fuels. Their economical feasibility depends on cheap fossil fuels in all their process: mining, manufacturing, transporting, installing and backup, and recycling.
Your money is on the free market - and cheap/clean/abundant renewables – the money of fossil fuel barons too.
"2000 tons of raw material per average MW ever delivered. All 2000 tons processed via fossil fuels. Plus ~2tons of rare earths from China per MW average..."
http://www.bbc.co...on-earth
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2017
faux-greens ask for more subsidies.
As do all energy companies - including nuclear industry - http://www.theene...ar-plant So conservatives love free markets - and hate subsidies - until they don't....
Here is a list of all the uses for rare earths. Better get rid of that computer, and that car with the catalytic converter Willie - if YOU have any integrity. Of course - claiming that wind turbines kill whales puts that idea to rest. http://www.namibi...stry.asp
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2017
"Green Madness: Energy Bills Rise €30 To Pay For EU Green Energy Targets"
https://www.thegw...targets/
https://www.theti...qc9b0rmz
If you're delusional or dishonest, and don't care about the environment (natural landscapes, bird and bats, and wildlife habitats) then you advocate for intermittent renewable energy placebos backed up by fossil fuels to compensate intermittencies; otherwise you support carbon-free nuclear power, the most ecologically friendly source of clean energy.
https://pbs.twimg...fTaP.jpg
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2017
Green Madness: Energy Bills Rise €30 To Pay For EU Green Energy Targets
Wow - the Brits will be paying almost that much - just to cover the cost of Hinkley Point - and that will only generate 3.2 GW. Looks like Renewable energy is the better deal - don't you think? Oh yeah - I forgot - you think that wind turbines kill whales...

http://www.bbc.co...36925580
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2017
Carbon-free nuclear power is worth the price as the only proven (scalable) way to curb CO2 emissions.
With trillions of dollars spent, it has been proven the potential of wind/solar to replace fossil fuels is almost ZERO.
Hydro and geothermal have geographical limitations, and biomass is worse than coal in terms of CO2 emissions.
https://uploads.d...eac3.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2017
Carbon-free nuclear power is worth the price
So you are happy to stick the British tax payer with 18 cents Kwh electricity - but would deny them 3 cents Kwh wind and solar. Wind and solar certainly do have the potential to replace fossil fuels. https://cleantech...ia-2040/ Did I mention the fact that you think that wind turbines kill whales?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2017
3 cents Kwh wind and solar
"batteries not included"
Wind and solar certainly do have the potential to replace fossil fuels.
Tell it to Greenpeace, they use marine diesel instead of solar/wind/tidal/wave/algae to generate electricity to power their ships and motorboats across the oceans.
I bet most of CleanTechnica staff's home and vehicles are not 100% powered by wind/solar or are not 100% off-the-grid, i.e. most of them "don't eat their own dog food" those paid shills faux-greens.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2017
3 cents Kwh wind and solar
"batteries not included"
"the current cost of battery technology is 27 times higher than what's needed for battery storage to be economically viable."
http://www.powerf...storage/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2017

the current cost of battery technology is 27 times higher than what's needed for battery storage to be economically viable
Gotta keep up troll - the world is changing under you....
https://www.fool....the.aspx
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2017
I bet most of CleanTechnica staff's home and vehicles are not 100% powered by wind/solar
So what? The site is owned by Zach. He drives a Leaf - don't know about his house. But so what? The point is that the world is changing under you - troll - and Cleantechnica is just one of many many sites that are keeping us up to date on the changes as they happen. It is an exciting time to be alive. Shame about the trolls who want to trash everything.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2017
"solar plus storage at a price of less than 4.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) over 20 years"
It's scam after scam, repeatedly it was announced wind/solar by 2¢/kWh without subsidies but never widely confirmed. In every news involving renewables, there is always a smell of scam in the air.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2017
"New York Times Admits Batteries Necessary For Green Energy Don't Yet Exist"
http://dailycalle...t-exist/
"The Biggest, Strangest 'Batteries' " - June 3, 2017
https://www.nytim...ies.html
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2017
New York Times Admits Batteries Necessary For Green Energy Don't Yet Exist


https://arstechni...-system/
http://renewecono...l-69731/
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2017
The explanation is not singular, but multiple.

1. Personal interest.
2. Political interest.
3. Belief in FUD and conspiracy theories.

It's really that simple.And the responses on this thread can easily be classified. Teh stupid, it burnz.
manfredparticleboard
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2017
Tell it to Greenpeace, they use marine diesel instead of solar/wind/tidal/wave/algae to generate electricity to power their ships and motorboats across the oceans.
I bet most of CleanTechnica staff's home and vehicles are not 100% powered by wind/solar or are not 100% off-the-grid, i.e. most of them "don't eat their own dog food" those paid shills faux-greens.

You can't win with your logic. If you live this bizarre 100% absolutist mantra of yours, and live in a cave with the carbon footprint of a cockroach, you're a whacko Luddite regressive loony.
If you try to make a realistic transition and adopt the best practices as soon as you can, you're a faux-green shill hypocrite...
What sort of goosestepping, pouting, totalitarian nut are you?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2017
@manfred, we're unreasonably fond of purity tests here in the US. It's our major political failing.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2017
"Let's face reality: renewables are in bed with natural gas & coal."
https://pbs.twimg...kKAu.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2017
Let's face reality: renewables are in bed with natural gas & coal
With states and countries around the world - setting targets for 100% renewables - that is typical of your crazy logic Willie. Saudi Arabia, and other countries in the middle east are trying a middle route - and building out both nukes and renewables. India is doing the same thing. http://www.reuter...BN18S5UL The numbers will be very interesting to see. It is not a question of who is in bed with who. Everyone understandably pushes their own interest. Combating climate change is another piece of the puzzle. It is a very safe bet that renewables are going to win the day on price - but it will be interesting to watch the story unfold.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2017
With states and countries around the world - setting targets for 100% renewables - that is typical of your crazy logic...
There is no logic, if climate change is a concern, to continue to waste billions and billions from taxpayers' money on intermittent renewable placebos that have systematically failed to curb CO2 emissions everywhere even with all political/media/financial support. Greenhouse gas reduction should be the target, instead of "100% renewable" placebos. Of course "oil countries" have vested interest in intermittent renewables because it means more dependence on fossil fuels to mine, manufacture, transport, install, and to keep lights on when there's no sun no wind.

greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2017
There is no logic
Finally we agree - you have no logic.
that have systematically failed to curb CO2
Hey Goebbels - just keep repeating the same lie - so people will believe it? Even though global C02 emissions in total are currently flat - they would have gone up if it had not been for renewables, and nukes. As we move forward - with wind and solar being the cheapest - the decline will be more evident.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2017
..global C02 emissions in total are currently flat...
...thanks to replacement of coal by natural gas/fracking.
"the wind plants and the solar plants, are gas plants."
https://www.youtu...1gmPL50s
Faux-greens are in love with natural gas, even though it exposes people in their homes to fare higher levels of radioactive isotopes.
"Radon gas is thought to be responsible for 5,000 to 20,000 lung cancer deaths per year in the United States".
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2017
..thanks to replacement of coal by natural gas/fracking.
Or nukes/renewables/efficiency measures/electric cars etc. Keep telling the lie Goebbels - maybe someone will believe you!
Faux-greens are in love with natural gas, even though it exposes people in their homes to fare higher levels of radioactive isotopes.
I had not heard that - do you have a link? I did find that mining uranium, and mining oil and gas was a major source of radon - so that seems more evidence to support the use of renewables.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2017
"Radioactive Radon in the home, natural gas, and the New York Times"
http://nucleargre...gas.html
"When Indian Point is replaced by natural gas, radioactive emissions will increase by 50%, CO2 by 40x"
http://www.dailyk...2-by-40x
"Fracking Creates Massive Radioactive Waste Problem"
http://www.greenm...htmare-1
"Fracking produces tons of radioactive waste. What should we do with it?"
http://grist.org/...with-it/
"What's more radioactive than a nuclear power plant?"
http://physicsbuz...ear.html

greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2017
"When Indian Point is replaced by natural gas, radioactive emissions will increase by 50%, CO2 by 40x"
Unless it is not replaced by natural gas -
http://www.utilit.../436938/
Your blog link about natural gas and radon was rubbish. No scientific evidence whatsoever. An example of the rubbish -
Thus radon from Barnett shale sources could easily travel up a gas well from its Barnett Shale source, travel through local pipe lines, and get consumed in cooking in heating fires within a few hours
But no research to show if this is happening, and if so - how much radon is getting in to the homes. No wonder you think the Daily Mail is a science journal.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2017
Unless it is not replaced by natural gas
"Wind is an irrelevance to the energy and climate debate" - 15 May, 2017
http://www.ration...-energy/
"A wind pioneer is sceptical about batteries" - Jun 8th 2017
http://www.econom...ceptical
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2017
Wind is but one form of renewable energy.
Wind power penetration levels continue to increase, led by Denmark pushing 40%, followed by Uruguay, Portugal and Ireland with well over 20%, Spain and Cyprus around 20%, Germany at 16%; and the big markets of China, the US and Canada get 4, 5.5, and 6% of their power from wind, respectively. GWEC's rolling five year forecast sees almost 60 GW of new wind installations in 2017, rising to an annual market of about 75 GW by 2021, to bring cumulative installed capacity of over 800 GW by the end of 2021
From - http://www.gwec.n.../graphs/ Hold on to your hat Willie
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2017
Wind power penetration levels continue to increase...
Even so, no meaningful CO2 reduction, just bird-choppers placebos backed up by fossil fuels to compensate intermittencies.
...to bring cumulative installed capacity of over...
"installed capacity" ≠ "energy produced"
Capacity Factor: wind 32.3%, solar 24.4%, nuclear 90.9%.
https://uploads.d...41c5.jpg
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2017
Capacity Factor: wind 32.3%, solar 24.4%, nuclear 90.9%.
Just keep throwing out statistics Willie - with no context. What is the cost of the power from your nukes? Seems you wont answer that one. Capacity factor is one issue - but on the cost issue - wind and solar are creaming fossil fuels, and nukes. Hold on to your hat Willie.
https://www.treeh...ame.html
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2017
Intermittent renewables are the way to go, unquestionably, according to eco-nuts.
Wind/solar-powered dryer:
https://pbs.twimg...sYR5.jpg
Welcome back to energy poverty and dark ages.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2017
Welcome back to energy poverty and dark ages.
What a bizarre quote Willie. Don't you believe in competition? Let's put wind and solar up against your 18 cents a Kwh nukes shall we? Let's see who experiences energy poverty. Why not hang on to your hat - and see where we are 10 years from now. Here is a different perspective - https://www.amazo...8fa11f1f
Of course - the U.S. is going to be falling behind the rest of the world - but we can hope The Donald is at least only limited to one term. Then we can license the technology from other countries - and try to play catch up - http://www.altern...es-green
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2017
"Only Nuclear can lift all humans out of poverty while saving the natural environment"
"anti-nuclear groups are anti-human and anti-physics. They are on the wrong side of both science and humanity"
Don't you believe in competition?
Yes, remove all subsidies.
"Renewables received 114x more in subsidies than nuclear in 2016, says non-partisan Congressional Budget Office."
https://pbs.twimg...gqJT.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...bIaW.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...toHk.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2017
Only Nuclear can lift all humans out of poverty while saving the natural environment
That is an unsupported opinion (as usual). Renewables can run our world -
we could run the entire world off of renewable energy for virtually the same cost as traditional power at this very moment
from http://interestin...-energy/
Over and over again Willie - just saying something does not make it fact. 18 cents Kwh from Hinkley Point - nope - smart money is on renewables - coming in at way under your nukes.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2017
Renewables can run our world
Stop lying! Perhaps in lalaland it works.
But in the real world:
not even Greenpeace relies on intermittent renewables to generate electricity to power ships and motorboats across the oceans, they use marine diesel instead. Environuts use diesel/gasoline generators to recharge batteries of their electric cars instead of solar panels and windmills.
https://pbs.twimg...sio1.jpg
https://uploads.d...f818.jpg
http://wpmedia.ne...1808.jpg
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2017
"Beware antinuclear propagandists who tell us "nuclear power is subsidised". They're trying to destroy our intelligence. Denounce their lies."
https://pbs.twimg...FvJ5.jpg
"666,667 East Midlands Population Reject 777 Wind Turbines And Choose 1 Small Modular Reactor [SMR]"
http://lftrsuk.bl...spref=tw
manfredparticleboard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2017
"...not even Greenpeace ......"

Geez! still flogging that one? It got hammered 10 days ago and you are still trying to trot it out, is there a poodle that does backflips as part of this repartee.
It's like listening to one of the petulant kids on the Wonka tour. 'But Dadee! I want a nuclear power station! I want one I want one I want one!
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2017
"...not even Greenpeace ......"
...It got hammered 10 days ago...
Faux-greens believe it's possible to refute an "inconvenient truth" by simply denying it, in a pure negation of reality to stay living in their fairy world 100% powered by unicorn fart energy.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2017
But in the real world:
But in the real world...wind and solar are the fastest growing energy source - and we are just getting going... http://thehill.co...partisan
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2017
But in the real world...wind and solar are the fastest growing energy source - and we are just getting going...
"...the fastest growing energy source" together with natural gas/fracking.
Wind and solar are the fastest growing energy source that are helping in nothing to curb CO2 emissions even after trillions of dollars spent, most of visible CO2 reduction is mainly due to replacement of coal by natural gas.
"How investing in antinuclear movement has helped U.S. Natural gas interests"
https://rbnenergy...roducers

greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2017
.the fastest growing energy source" together with natural gas/fracking.


Nope Willie - wrong as usual
Over the past five years, solar has become America's fastest-growing, nonpartisan energy source.


Maybe because
From 2009 to 2015, the average price of solar dropped by 70 percent
You just keep supporting them nukes Willie - 18 cents a Kwh will reap some nice profits for the Chinese and EDF. Mean time - wind and solar are cheap/clean/abundant/and home grown.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2017
wind and solar are cheap
Sunshine and breeze are for free since ancient ages, they are energetically weak and weather-dependent.
https://pbs.twimg...sYR5.jpg
Sunshine and breeze(windmills and sails) were replaced centuries ago by fossil fuels, and nowadays wind and solar are not replacing fossil fuels, not in Germany, not in California, and nowhere; natural gas/fracking is that is replacing coal.
EmceeSquared
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2017
"Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why"
https://phys.org/...ere.html
A 2009 study using US and European data on bird deaths
[...]
"Wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fuelled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh."
[...] wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fuelled power plants 14.5 million.


WillieWard for years has defended the grisly genocide of 47x as many birds by nukes as by wind. Since he insisted we save the birds, he must now insist we replace those nukes with windmills.

Of course, a foolish inconsistency is the small mind of trolls.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2017
and nowadays wind and solar are not replacing fossil fuels, not in Germany, not in California, and nowhere; natural gas/fracking is that is replacing coal.
Just keep repeating it Willie - and the tide keeps coming in.
In just the last year, UK solar generated more electricity than coal over the 6-month period of April to September, 2016, while the UK wind energy sector generated more electricity than coal for the whole of 2016
That is just one example. From - https://cleantech...coal-uk/
EmceeSquared
1 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2017
WillieWard:
Sunshine and breeze are for free since ancient ages, they are energetically weak and weather-dependent.


The nukes fetishist troll lies about how wind + solar generated over 10% of the entire US electricity consumption in March 2017:
https://www.reute...BN195291

The troll can't understand that weather spread across a large area like the US grid is statistically quite reliable. Because their fetish compels them to embrace only the glow of nukes, and they post only to disrupt people actually discussing renewables.

Those of us interested in actual discussion can try to see which one explains their hostility to renewables, as this article offers:
Party donations, post-career jobs, blame avoidance, diminished government capacity to act, active disinformation by incumbents, ideological factors such as neoliberalism, the "growth at all costs" mindset, and of course climate denial, "the problem of generations".
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2017
"So far this year the fastest growing electricity source in Germany and Denmark are combustible fuels. IEA data."
https://pbs.twimg...TWEE.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...rVlD.jpg
"Renewables growth "almost zero" in Europe due to lack of wind and sun"
https://green-wat...a48be7fd
https://pbs.twimg...pg:large
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2017
For nuclear power, there are bird deaths only if it is included mining activities.
Conveniently for wind/solar, faux-greens do not include mining activities, do not specify that uranium is a by-product of copper mining(essential for renewables), and that the manufacturing of huge steel structures requires tons of cheap coal. Unlike wind/solar that have poor energy density and are inherently intermittent, carbon-free nuclear is awesomely energy dense, reliable, and require fewer ores.
"Global steel production is dependent on coal. 70% of the steel produced today uses coal."
https://www.world...produced

"Basic rule: you can't build a windmill with a windmill."

greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2017
Good cherry picking as usual Willie. How about global statistics????
Renewables
are the fastest growing fuel source,
From - https://www.bp.co...2017.pdf BP is able to understand what is happening Willie - but hey - keep telling the tide to go back - you will get your feet wet soon enough.
Sorry Emcee - I clicked the 1 by mistake.
EmceeSquared
2 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2017
WillieWard:
Global steel production is dependent on coal. 70% of the steel produced today uses coal.l


The nuke fetishist troll will post any lie to promote their fetish object.

They will even eventually find a way to defend coal.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2017
"Basic rule: you can't build a windmill with a windmill."
Eco-nuts believe wind/solar unicorn energy is replacing coal even though these intermittent placebos are unable to generate enough energy to manufacture and transport themselves and to keep lights on around the clock. Their cognitive dissonance is hilariously sad.
EmceeSquared
1 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2017
WillieWard:
Eco-nuts believe wind/solar unicorn energy is replacing coal even though these intermittent placebos are unable to generate enough energy to manufacture and transport themselves and to keep lights on around the clock. Their cognitive dissonance is hilariously sad.


The nuke fetishist troll will lie about wind or solar's EROI (many times greater than 100%), because it threatens their fetish object. They'll tie themselves in knots so tight they'll start posting oxymorons about cognitive dissonance - because their own bubbles over.
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Jun 20, 2017
...cognitive dissonance...
"Lies, errors and fabrications of the claimed low cost 100% US power from wind, water and solar power" - June 20, 2017
https://www.nextb...wer.html
"Decarbonizing the economy will not be cheap or easy."
"The fantasy of quick and easy renewable energy" - June 19, 2017
https://www.brook...-energy/
"Study rebuts renewables-only approach to climate-friendly power"
https://www.axios...490.html
"100% Renewables Plan Has 'Significant Shortcomings,' Say Climate and Energy Experts" - June 19, 2017
https://www.green...-experts

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.