29 Nov 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @wildgrass
Obviously I said in my first post on this thread and I've already agreed several times that rooftop solar is great and should be encouraged and promoted. I don't know why you keep saying this as if it's something we disagree about. It's just clearly not enough.
Look up how many wind turbines are needed to replace a single coal power plant (hint: it's a ...[text shortened]... investing in lots of nuclear now, as a proven, safe, reliable solution to reduce GHG emissions.
And how do you produce all those hundreds of thousands of windmills? With fossil fuels of course.
the fossil fuels used to make them are less than the amount prevented from being used from the electricity the wind turbines generate.
Fossil fuels are used to make nuclear power stations and yet you don't object to the building of new nuclear power stations because of that. Why is that? It is because fossil fuels used to make them are less than the amount prevented from being used from the electricity the nuclear power stations generate.
Eventually, when we stop burning fossil fuels, any new wind turbines or any new nuclear power stations will be produced without burning any fossil fuels.
How long would it take? Decades of course.
So what? It would take decades for the world to go 30% nuclear. So we shouldn't go 30% nuclear?
29 Nov 17
Originally posted by @humyWind is currently <2% of energy. You want it at 85%. Scale up all your numbers by 43.5.
[bIs that just all lies? If you don't believe me, just google it yourself and find out the truth for yourself. It is a myth that wind turbines are a serious threat to bird populations.[/b]
The study you posted [1] says that nuclear and wind are equal killers of birds. But the methods are awfully dubious. They don't look at actual bird deaths. They found one incident where 40 geese might have ingested contaminated water and extrapolate it out to the entire power grid. Most of the data is subjective.
I don't think you're lying. I think you're trying to fit your data to your worldview. Crunch the numbers and tell me where the birds are going to live when the whole world is peppered with rapidly rotating razor blades.
What do pesticides have to do with anything? We're talking about generating power. Stop with the false equivalency.
[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857#bib1
30 Nov 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @wildgrass
Wind is currently <2% of energy. You want it at 85%. Scale up all your numbers by 43.5.
The study you posted [1] says that nuclear and wind are equal killers of birds. But the methods are awfully dubious. They don't look at actual bird deaths. They found one incident where 40 geese might have ingested contaminated water and extrapolate it out to the en ...[text shortened]... alse equivalency.
[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857#bib1
Wind is currently <2% of energy. You want it at 85%.
I don't. There needs to be a mix of renewables + some nuclear but it would be unrealistic to think it will go mostly nuclear within the next few decades as that is one of the most costly solutions while wind is one of the cheapest.
No doubt much more energy will be generated by wind in the future
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-wind-turbines-would-it-take-to-power-the-world-2016-10?IR=T
And, before looking at the evidence, I never have a worldview.
Just look up the evidence for yourself and see for yourself.
You still haven't told me your solution to the problem.
If we don't go mostly nuclear nor mostly renewables, what do you propose we do then? Any solution would require going mostly one or the other, right?
30 Nov 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @humyUmm...... I've stated my opinion to a solution in almost every post on this thread. We.. should.. invest... more... in... nuclear... power.
You still haven't told me your solution to the problem.
If we don't go mostly nuclear nor mostly renewables, what do you propose we do then? Any solution would require going mostly one or the other, right?
Since 2013, about 13 nuclear plants around the country have been or are slated for shutdown, largely because of low natural gas prices and the rise of renewable energy, NEI said. California plans to close its last nuclear power plant in about nine years. Illinois has not come up a plan to avoid early retirement for two plants. Nebraska’s nuclear plant will close, said Edward Kee, chief executive officer of the Nuclear Economics Consulting Group.
Shutting down more than a dozen existing clean power plants (which is more than all of wind combined)??? Why are we doing this when we have hundreds of coal plants??? Because wind and coal are cheaper? If you want to lower carbon, you should want to replace GHG producing plants, not nuclear ones. Why are we closing plants that are 99.999% safe and operational and clean? Why aren't we building more?
There's this too: "Although 29 states have renewable energy goals, until recently, only Indiana and Ohio expressly included nuclear energy in those strategies."
Why? Why don't these states recognize nuclear as a renewable carbon-reduction strategy? (Yes, it is renewable. The earth could be powered indefinitely in new reactors that recycle material).
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/sep/12/carbon-free-plants-nuclear-energy-future-power-state-sources
30 Nov 17
3 edits
Originally posted by @wildgrass
Umm...... I've stated my opinion to a solution in almost every post on this thread. We.. should.. invest... more... in... nuclear... power.
[quote]Since 2013, about 13 nuclear plants around the country have been or are slated for shutdown, largely because of low natural gas prices and the rise of renewable energy, NEI said. California plans to close it ...[text shortened]... om/sustainable-business/2016/sep/12/carbon-free-plants-nuclear-energy-future-power-state-sources
. I've stated my opinion to a solution in almost every post on this thread. We.. should.. invest... more... in... nuclear... power.
That isn't answering my question because that is not a "solution" because "investing more" in nuclear will still not mean the world going MOSTLY nuclear (because that wouldn't be economically feasible for many decades) and if we ALSO don't go mostly renewable, how are we to make up the shortfall in energy production without continuing to burning fossil fuels? Just think of the simple maths; If we go BOTH LESS than 50% renewable AND LESS than 50% nuclear, that means we don't go 100% carbon-neutral; problem NOT solved.
Take less than 50 from 100 and then another less than 50 from the remainder, you still have a positive non-zero remainder.
(Yes, it is renewable. The earth could be powered indefinitely in new reactors that recycle material).
unless you can break the known laws of thermodynamics, that must be false. Radioactive elements would eventually be spent no matter how efficiently you use them.
30 Nov 17
Originally posted by @humyThis does not make sense. The problem is how to eliminate green house gases. What's the 'mostly' thing all about? What does 'both less' in all caps mean? Am I solving the wrong problem?. I've stated my opinion to a solution in almost every post on this thread. We.. should.. invest... more... in... nuclear... power.
That isn't answering my question because that is not a "solution" because "investing more" in nuclear will still not mean the world going MOSTLY nuclear and if we also don't go mostly renewable, how are we t ...[text shortened]... be false. Radioactive elements would eventually be spent no matter how efficiently you use them.
30 Nov 17
18 edits
Originally posted by @wildgrassIt means more than half i.e. more than 50%.
What's the 'mostly' thing all about?
If LESS than 50% of the worlds energy production will come from nuclear then the energy will not be coming 'mostly' from nuclear. Do you understand that?
If BOTH LESS than 50% of the worlds energy production will come from nuclear AND LESS than 50% of the worlds energy production will come from renewables, that means there will NOT be 100% of the worlds energy production coming from carbon-neutral sources. Do you understand that?
The problem is how to eliminate green house gases.
which cannot be solved if we go BOTH LESS than 50% nuclear AND LESS than 50% renewable.
If BOTH LESS than 50% of the worlds energy production will come from nuclear AND LESS than 50% of the worlds energy production will come from renewables, that means there will be LESS THAN 100% of the worlds energy production coming from carbon-neutral sources so we will still be burning fossil fuels; problem NOT solved. Do you understand that?
I still would like to know your solution you haven't told me yet.
30 Nov 17
Originally posted by @humyLet's assume we go 100% non-CO2 producing power and have no need for Diesel trucks and such, every vehicle electric, there will still be man made sources of CO2, like jet aircraft using fossil fuels, not much of a way around that one and forest fires which produce copious amounts of CO2 and if the Arctic starts warming up methane emissions will go way up and CH4 is about 20 times more of a greenhouse gas than CO2.
It means more than half i.e. more than 50%.
If LESS than 50% of the worlds energy production will come from nuclear then the energy will not be coming 'mostly' from nuclear. Do you understand that?
If BOTH LESS than 50% of the worlds energy production will come from nuclear AND LESS than 50% of the worlds energy production will come from renewables, that m ...[text shortened]... ed. Do you understand that?
I still would like to know your solution you haven't told me yet.
I don't see CO2 levels coming down much even if we go 100% renewable and nuclear and maybe in 30 years, fusion. I think it's too late and we are going to pay a heavy price in 100 years.
30 Nov 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @humyAfter 18 edits this is still a garbled mess. Of course I understand what the words "less" and "both" mean, but how does it connect in the context of our conversation? Where are you getting these numbers from? 'Mostly' is certainly not a word I use frequently. Collect your thoughts, re-read my comments and repost. What does both less mean in the context of what we've been talking about?
It means more than half i.e. more than 50%.
France is >75% nuclear. French nuclear power is cheap because they invest in it and focus on it. They export zero-emission electricity. Despite fewer wind turbines than the US, they also emit far less carbon per capita than the US. Why can't the US do that?
Wind power is cheap in the US because of active investment, subsidization, and emphasis at the state and federal level. At the same time, we are closing dozens of nuclear plants and not building any of the new, more efficient, safer ones. Why? Do you disagree with the argument that the US can reduce carbon emissions faster than current rates by investing in nuclear power? Currently they are not doing so. Therefore, investment in nuclear power is a solution to excess GHG emissions.
01 Dec 17
4 edits
Originally posted by @wildgrass
After 18 edits this is still a garbled mess. Of course I understand what the words "less" and "both" mean, but how does it connect in the context of our conversation? Where are you getting these numbers from? 'Mostly' is certainly not a word I use frequently. Collect your thoughts, re-read my comments and repost. What does both less mean in the context of ...[text shortened]... are not doing so. Therefore, investment in nuclear power is a solution to excess GHG emissions.
Of course I understand what the words "less" and "both" mean, but how does it connect in the context of our conversation?
OK, let me go through this step by step for you and tell me at exactly which point you fail to comprehend;
If less than half (i.e. less than 50% ) of the world's energy is going to be generated by nuclear (which realistically will be the case) AND if less than half (i.e. less than 50% ) of the world's energy is going to be generated by renewable energy (if you had your way) then that means at least SOME of the world's energy is going to be generated by a source OTHER than nuclear or renewable energy.
Do you understand that? Yes or no?
And if at least some of the world's energy is going to be generated by a source OTHER than nuclear or renewable energy, that means some will continue to be generated by burning fossil since there is not other possible energy source available to us other than fossil fuels or nuclear or renewable energy.
Do you understand that? Yes or no?
So, as it would be economically unrealistic for most (i.e. more than 50% ) of the world's energy to be generated by nuclear for MANY decades to come, that means if we are to solve the problem and avoid continuing to burn fossil fuels, most (i.e. over 50% ) of the world's energy is going to have to be generated by renewable energy.
Do you understand that? Yes or no?
01 Dec 17
Originally posted by @humyYes. I understand (I said that in the last post). Now answer all the questions I've asked you. How many coal plants do the birds-living-in-harmony wind turbines in your area replace?Of course I understand what the words "less" and "both" mean, but how does it connect in the context of our conversation?
OK, let me go through this step by step for you and tell me at exactly which point you fail to comprehend;
If less than half (i.e. less than 50% ) of the world's energy is going to be generated by nuclear (which rea ...[text shortened]... energy is going to have to be generated by renewable energy.
Do you understand that? Yes or no?
What you keep glossing over is the "realistically will be the case" step of your argument. Where are you getting the 50% from (i.e. what is your source of information for this statistic)? We could use the state of California to generate all renewable energy, but then according to you that would not be realistic, either. How many more turbines are needed and where should we put them? By my calculation, if we built 600 versions of the largest wind farm in the US, which (this single one) has been under construction for 20 years and still being built, we might come close (assuming there will be no new energy demands. Going all electric on cars/trucks might double that.) But where many windmills are going up are in enormous areas of federal land that used to be great hiking and camping spots [1,2]. I can attest to this.
We are already investing heavily in wind and solar, building windmills every day and subsidizing the cost through taxes and land grants. Even though nuclear can be done with 200x less land, the investment in this clean energy source is going in the opposite direction. If we want to avoid changing the California state motto to "Where birds go to die!" then we should also invest in nuclear energy right? Why don't green energy initiatives recognize and support this important source of zero emissions power?
Do you undestand my argument?
[1] https://vtdigger.org/2017/05/10/mark-whitworth-wind-industry-vastly-damaged-vermont/#.WiFbsUqnFnI
[2] http://digital.vpr.net/post/after-agreement-over-bear-habitat-deerfield-wind-project-will-move-forward#stream/0
01 Dec 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseGetting trucks on electric should be easy. They are all highway, and have significant load/unload time for recharging.
Let's assume we go 100% non-CO2 producing power and have no need for Diesel trucks and such, every vehicle electric, there will still be man made sources of CO2, like jet aircraft using fossil fuels, not much of a way around that one and forest fires which produce copious amounts of CO2 and if the Arctic starts warming up methane emissions will go way up a ...[text shortened]... e in 30 years, fusion. I think it's too late and we are going to pay a heavy price in 100 years.
01 Dec 17
6 edits
Originally posted by @wildgrass
Yes. I understand (I said that in the last post). Now answer all the questions I've asked you. How many coal plants do the birds-living-in-harmony wind turbines in your area replace?
What you keep glossing over is the "realistically will be the case" step of your argument. Where are you getting the 50% from (i.e. what is your source of information for ...[text shortened]... vpr.net/post/after-agreement-over-bear-habitat-deerfield-wind-project-will-move-forward#stream/0
Now answer all the questions I've asked you. How many coal plants do the birds-living-in-harmony wind turbines in your area replace?
Don't know. I loose count of how many wind turbines there are here. What is that got to do with anything?
Let say it hypothetically is 'one coal plant'; so what? Exactly what does that tell us?
Where are you getting the 50% from
from the need to keep it simple for the sake of argument. I could have said 41% or 49.84211% but why make it arbitrarily complicated?
i.e. what is your source of information for this statistic
It isn't 'from statistics' but for the sake of argument, comprehend? I could have kept saying "over two-fifths" and "less than two-fifths" but why make it idiotically harder to explain by keep saying "two-fifths" rather than "half"?
We could use the state of California to generate all renewable energy, but then according to you that would not be realistic
False; according to me, it is realistic. But that is way of track anyway because I was talking about the WORLD energy production i.e. NOT just from any one particular state or any one particular country.
Do you undestand my argument?
No. What has it got to do with my assertions?
You still haven't told me what your solution is;
If we don't make world energy production either mostly nuclear nor mostly renewables, how do you propose we go carbon neutral? Your maths don't add up.