New chief scientist - in favor of nuclear and fracking!

Which is why the only ones who believe that is being suggested are the AGW denialists

Everyone else is looking at alternatives as suppliments

 

What about Vanadium redux??

For home - Tesla's Powerwall

 

You keep saying that solar cannot meet the needs of industry. Can you name a few industries, where solar or wind energy cannot meet their power needs?

 

Uh........virtually every single person in my college conservation group thought that it could be done until I started throwing pesky facts and logic at them, and the person I just had an exchange with also thinks it can be done with just renewables. In fact most renewables advocates are not running around talking about using it for supplementary power they are in fact proposing it as the MAIN form of power in order to replace coal. Be honest when is the last time you hear anyone chant "Reduce coal! Increase solar!" They don't say that, they want coal gone entirely. If you want to remove coal entirely then you have to switch to nuclear.

 

Germany just spent $300 billion over the last few years on a monumental solar energy program. The best they could attain is 50% of their power on a holiday (most businesses were shut down) on two August days. So ZERO, ZILCH, NADA industries can run on solar except maybe a cheese factory because all they do is sit around and watch mold grow all day.

VW also built a 19 acre solar plant in Chattanooga TN for one of their facilities and it only provides 12% of the plants power at peak times when its up an running. Meanwhile a nuclear power plant can power several of those plants by itself.

 

PM Turnbull's pick for his new chief scientist to keep Mal's Coal shares money alive is Neuroscientist Dr Alan Finkel, a highly trained researcher who studies the structure and function of the brain and nervous system.

 

Does logic and intellect dictate that the world is forced to go nuclear, just because a few car manufacturing plants cannot provide 100% peak power though renewable solar and wind generation?

Where did the specification come form confirming the plant in Chattanooga can only produce 12% power through solar at peak times?

VW doesn't lie, do they? I would like to see some independent evidence supporting those figures.

 

Volkswagen is on record to its intellectual capabilities resulting in need for criminal deceit!

Saize it all really to it's expertise in solar energy!

 

http://www.phoenixsolar-group.com/b...see.8abb13d2-81f4-405b-ae45-204e1a75320f.html

And it was 33 acres not just 19.

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.ph...te/nuclear-has-one-of-the-smallest-footprints

There are umpteen studies and articles detailing how inefficient renewables are at power production....literal power as in MW/km^2........wind is actually fairly efficient unfortunately it is far to unreliable to use as anything other than a tertiary source of power.

The smallest reactor in the US operates at 502 Megawatts, most others operate at much higher levels of production. If you scaled up the Chattanooga plant to the same acreage it would produce only 180 and that is ONLY at peak times. Cloudy days and nights it just sits there masturbating to vegetable porn like most environmentalists I know. The nuclear reactor operates at all hours of the day and night mostly non-stop. Keep in mind that that is also an old plant and Gen 6 nuclear plants are even more efficient and produce even more power with even smaller land usage. Using the other example in that article the Palo Verde plant if you scale up the solar plant to the same acrege it only produces 1.09 GW compared to the 3.9 GW from the nuclear plant and once again that 3.9 is CONSTANT and doesn't stop for bad weather or when the sun goes down. As I said.......facts are very annoying to renewable cultists.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=104&t=3

 

VW was on a winner by building a solar plant, and being rewarded with lucrative financial subsidies from the Government at tax payers expense.

VW never expected for solar to fulfill 100% of their plants energy requirements.

It was all a ruse to get $hundreds of millions in free subsidies under the renewable scheme, and divert some of the subsidies into other projects.

 

So logic dictates the world is forced into going nuclear, because a few car manufacturers cannot generate 100% power form solar and wind?

How do plan to dispose of the toxic waste generated by these nuclear power stations that will take thousands of years to break down?

I hope you have the disposal facilities built in your own county.

 

The car manufacturer was an example. They touted it as a miraculous thing but when you looked at the numbers it only produces a fraction of the power needed for just that one plant an only during the day. Either you are for or against fossil fuels. I am against fossil fuels as I am pro nuclear. Since you are against nuclear by definition then you are for fossil fuels because there is NOTHING else that can replace fossil EXCEPT nuclear. I would make a density joke relating energy with your inability to understand the concept but it would clearly just fly past you.

 

In the race for inefficiency you begin with Wind, which is a close call to Photovoltaics.

Carbon-CO2 is the worlds new energy source, now taken up by China, North Korea, Russia, Indonesia and Texas.

Carbon-CO2 relies upon heat for energy activation, that heat need commences at -39*C Celsius, extreme heat draw is +80* Celsius.

In comparative to a 350 megawatt turbine needing +600* Celsius Steam, CO2 does the same at +50* Celsius and at +80* Celsius powers three hundred 350 megawatt turbines in comparison to Steams one at +600* Celsius.

Unlike Coal and Nuclear heated power plants, CO2 is self cooling and not need lakes of water for cooling.

A modern day example of leave the Fridge door open and the lights will stay on!

 

I think maybe tide operated generators could produce equal power to fossil fuels and there was some talk of putting solar panels in space and sending the power down to earth in microwave beams. Also ethynol could be burnt in place of gas or coal and it is renewable. But there is nothing in the near furture that will replace fossil fuels and nuclear.

 

That stuff is years if not decades away from fruition. I assume that you are referring to this.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/using_co2_to_make_fuel_a_long_shot_for_green_energy/2405/

I am not opposed to it but everything I have read says that right now its ridiculously energy intensive and expensive and has a long way to go to become feasible.

 

Pffft, what are you talking about... do you support nuclear or do you support coal? It's one of the other seemingly.

My post was just highliting that. It doesn't state my opinion anywhere, which I did in a previous post in this thread, which you must not have read, because it said "I'd love to see solar and wind grids in the outback, but if it was affordable why has no-one done it? ".

So again m2, your speaking nonsense. You've invented a persona of me which you seem to enjoy argueing with, but don't actually bother to read my posts. I get it, you have a stereotype for anyone on the right, and are not used to them actually bothering with the inane points lefties like you think your making so just revert to argueing with your projection of my point instead

 

The problem I have with people like you that its fossil or nuc, nothing else! You are not giving alternatives a fairer chance, and you are not interested in other ways, so it appears.
Money goes towards coal and nuc all the time, but if we would invest more into alternatives, we would be a step closer. I am aware that at this stage we cannot shut down fossil and/or nucs, but hey, in some years time we will.
And who cares if you lose 8 or 9% during transport (long distances)? That makes it still 91/92% of free energy, without the burden of finding appropriate places to store nuc waste and/or the side effects of burning fossil fuels.
I would love to see your arguments then...
Regards

 

No, in your mind it has all to do with the cheapest way, bang for your bucks, right now. No forward looking there is....
Money drives your logic - I however would be happy to pay a bit more for my electricity needs if I can help to make this planet a slightly better place for our children.....
Regards

 

Don't give me that crap about not trying Both Britain and Germany tried. Germany spent $300 billion and the best they could do was 50% capacity for a couple of hours in August on a holiday when most businesses were shut down. Great Britain cut their wind subsidies because it wasn't even coming close to meeting their projections. Entire countries have spent fortunes and it has ended up being a waste of money that could have been spent elsewhere. Meanwhile they pay the highest rates for electricity in the entire EU. France has a majority of their electricity from nuclear and they have a much smaller per capita CO2 emmission than Germany with all their solar panels. Solar and wind WILL NEVER power the world. I don't know how much more clear than that I can get.

The problem I have with people like you is that you don't give anything a chance OTHER than renewables. People like you have this knee jerk neanderthal reaction to anything that isn't crappy source of power. Wind and solar all share the same problems. All your side does is foam at the mouth and shout "Big oil" "Big nuclear" blah blah blah blah. If an energy source has low energy density, is highly dependent on location and is completely unreliable then you are all for it.

 

One thing I have not heard mention of here is the concept of using less electricity. I would put a figure of 50% of all electricity generated is used unnecessarily.
If you are worried about pollution from coal or nuclear power generation, then stop using so much unnecessarily. We have solar panels on our house and they generate more than we use. Sure, they don't work at night or in cloudy weather but then we just fall back on mains power. If every house had solar panels like ours I reckon we could shut down a few coal powers stations, we would not need them, especially if people didn't waste so much as well! Turn of the bloody light!!

 

I've shivered through winters with no heater and in the dark, all to no avail. The electricity retailers want their pound of flesh. I think the best way is to go off grid and just have your own panels. When the electricity runs out, just do without, like you would on a boat or caravan.

 

You are repeating yourself. When I was young, nuc and coal appear to be normal, I didn't question it. Today we know better, and have to get away from unforeseeable longterm problems with nuc plus the odd accident happening (which you obviously don't care about) and with coal even you should know by now. What is your problem?
I think renewables should be pushed much harder, we need to get away from the two other ones, although I acknowledge it will be hard and expensive. Stay in your cage if you want to, but don't lecture others with your narrative mindset......
Regards