Old Rocks
Diamond Member
When asked if he would shut down oil instantly if he could, Musk had this answer;
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then how do you have time to know anything pertinent to this discussion? Shutting down oil production instantly would be a complete disaster, what is needed is an orderly and rapid transition to renewable energy. Oil production will continue to find new sources, they will be increasingly expensive to exploit, while renewables continue to become less expensive. The amount of space needed to cover all our energy needs would cover only a very small amount of our nation. A for instance is that given the space a nuclear installation takes up, were you to cover that same amount of ground with solar, you would actually produce more energy the the nuke plant. And no dangerous waste problems. Also, because Musk wants to see EV's rapidly replace ICE's, all his patents are open. Other subjects covered, also,Don't have time to watch a 17 minute speech.
can you summarize in 25 words or less?
Then how do you have time to know anything pertinent to this discussion? Shutting down oil production instantly would be a complete disaster, what is needed is an orderly and rapid transition to renewable energy. Oil production will continue to find new sources, they will be increasingly expensive to exploit, while renewables continue to become less expensive. The amount of space needed to cover all our energy needs would cover only a very small amount of our nation. A for instance is that given the space a nuclear installation takes up, were you to cover that same amount of ground with solar, you would actually produce more energy the the nuke plant. And no dangerous waste problems. Also, because Musk wants to see EV's rapidly replace ICE's, all his patents are open. Other subjects covered, also,Don't have time to watch a 17 minute speech.
can you summarize in 25 words or less?
Wrong. According to this study, Solar requires about 3.5 times as much surface area as nuclear. And that surface area can be used for much more than solar. Like homes, super markets, malls, parking lots, and there are even farms that are getting double service out of solar as they use the panels for climate control for their crops. Solar is also far cheaper than nuclear by a factor of four. Wind takes up very little land, they grow wheat and other crops right up to the base of the wind turbines. Both, but especially solar can be scaled to the needs, whereas nuclear is always big. Also, nuclear is dangerous enough that no insurance company will insure a nuclear plant.Then how do you have time to know anything pertinent to this discussion? Shutting down oil production instantly would be a complete disaster, what is needed is an orderly and rapid transition to renewable energy. Oil production will continue to find new sources, they will be increasingly expensive to exploit, while renewables continue to become less expensive. The amount of space needed to cover all our energy needs would cover only a very small amount of our nation. A for instance is that given the space a nuclear installation takes up, were you to cover that same amount of ground with solar, you would actually produce more energy the the nuke plant. And no dangerous waste problems. Also, because Musk wants to see EV's rapidly replace ICE's, all his patents are open. Other subjects covered, also,Don't have time to watch a 17 minute speech.
can you summarize in 25 words or less?
A for instance is that given the space a nuclear installation takes up, were you to cover that same amount of ground with solar, you would actually produce more energy the the nuke plant.
Liar!
View attachment 502450
Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plantâs Footprint
Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility, a Nuclear Energy Institute analysis has found.www.nei.org
Wrong. According to this study, Solar requires about 3.5 times as much surface area as nuclear. And that surface area can be used for much more than solar. Like homes, super markets, malls, parking lots, and there are even farms that are getting double service out of solar as they use the panels for climate control for their crops. Solar is also far cheaper than nuclear by a factor of four. Wind takes up very little land, they grow wheat and other crops right up to the base of the wind turbines. Both, but especially solar can be scaled to the needs, whereas nuclear is always big. Also, nuclear is dangerous enough that no insurance company will insure a nuclear plant.Then how do you have time to know anything pertinent to this discussion? Shutting down oil production instantly would be a complete disaster, what is needed is an orderly and rapid transition to renewable energy. Oil production will continue to find new sources, they will be increasingly expensive to exploit, while renewables continue to become less expensive. The amount of space needed to cover all our energy needs would cover only a very small amount of our nation. A for instance is that given the space a nuclear installation takes up, were you to cover that same amount of ground with solar, you would actually produce more energy the the nuke plant. And no dangerous waste problems. Also, because Musk wants to see EV's rapidly replace ICE's, all his patents are open. Other subjects covered, also,Don't have time to watch a 17 minute speech.
can you summarize in 25 words or less?
A for instance is that given the space a nuclear installation takes up, were you to cover that same amount of ground with solar, you would actually produce more energy the the nuke plant.
Liar!
View attachment 502450
Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plantâs Footprint
Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility, a Nuclear Energy Institute analysis has found.www.nei.org
Wrong. According to this study, Solar requires about 3.5 times as much surface area as nuclear. And that surface area can be used for much more than solar. Like homes, super markets, malls, parking lots, and there are even farms that are getting double service out of solar as they use the panels for climate control for their crops. Solar is also far cheaper than nuclear by a factor of four. Wind takes up very little land, they grow wheat and other crops right up to the base of the wind turbines. Both, but especially solar can be scaled to the needs, whereas nuclear is always big. Also, nuclear is dangerous enough that no insurance company will insure a nuclear plant.Then how do you have time to know anything pertinent to this discussion? Shutting down oil production instantly would be a complete disaster, what is needed is an orderly and rapid transition to renewable energy. Oil production will continue to find new sources, they will be increasingly expensive to exploit, while renewables continue to become less expensive. The amount of space needed to cover all our energy needs would cover only a very small amount of our nation. A for instance is that given the space a nuclear installation takes up, were you to cover that same amount of ground with solar, you would actually produce more energy the the nuke plant. And no dangerous waste problems. Also, because Musk wants to see EV's rapidly replace ICE's, all his patents are open. Other subjects covered, also,Don't have time to watch a 17 minute speech.
can you summarize in 25 words or less?
A for instance is that given the space a nuclear installation takes up, were you to cover that same amount of ground with solar, you would actually produce more energy the the nuke plant.
Liar!
View attachment 502450
Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plantâs Footprint
Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility, a Nuclear Energy Institute analysis has found.www.nei.org
You are correct. As I also pointed out in post #5. However, you were even further off than I was. 12.1 times as much, not 75 times as much. Another point, you can also use the land in solar for other purposes. You can farm or graze animals underneath the panels, they can provide shade and rain cover in a parking lot. You cannot do that with a nuclear site. And the generation from a solar installation is much cheaper per kw than nuclear.Wrong. According to this study, Solar requires about 3.5 times as much surface area as nuclear. And that surface area can be used for much more than solar. Like homes, super markets, malls, parking lots, and there are even farms that are getting double service out of solar as they use the panels for climate control for their crops. Solar is also far cheaper than nuclear by a factor of four. Wind takes up very little land, they grow wheat and other crops right up to the base of the wind turbines. Both, but especially solar can be scaled to the needs, whereas nuclear is always big. Also, nuclear is dangerous enough that no insurance company will insure a nuclear plant.Then how do you have time to know anything pertinent to this discussion? Shutting down oil production instantly would be a complete disaster, what is needed is an orderly and rapid transition to renewable energy. Oil production will continue to find new sources, they will be increasingly expensive to exploit, while renewables continue to become less expensive. The amount of space needed to cover all our energy needs would cover only a very small amount of our nation. A for instance is that given the space a nuclear installation takes up, were you to cover that same amount of ground with solar, you would actually produce more energy the the nuke plant. And no dangerous waste problems. Also, because Musk wants to see EV's rapidly replace ICE's, all his patents are open. Other subjects covered, also,Don't have time to watch a 17 minute speech.
can you summarize in 25 words or less?
A for instance is that given the space a nuclear installation takes up, were you to cover that same amount of ground with solar, you would actually produce more energy the the nuke plant.
Liar!
View attachment 502450
Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plantâs Footprint
Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility, a Nuclear Energy Institute analysis has found.www.nei.org
Thanks for the link.
Energy Plant Land Use Nuclear power stations do not require as much land per megawatt as other low-carbon methods of electricity production. The Arkansas Nuclear One Station requires only 1,100 acres (1.7 square miles) to produce 1,800 megawatts operating at a 90 percent capacity factor. A study by Entergy Arkansas estimates that for modern wind and solar plants operating at the same capacity, they would require 108,000 acres (169 square miles) and 13,320 acres (21 square miles) of land respectively to produce the same amount of power.
13320/1100 = 12.1 times the land........not less land. Like you claimed.
You are correct. As I also pointed out in post #5. However, you were even further off than I was. 12.1 times as much, not 75 times as much. Another point, you can also use the land in solar for other purposes. You can farm or graze animals underneath the panels, they can provide shade and rain cover in a parking lot. You cannot do that with a nuclear site. And the generation from a solar installation is much cheaper per kw than nuclear.Wrong. According to this study, Solar requires about 3.5 times as much surface area as nuclear. And that surface area can be used for much more than solar. Like homes, super markets, malls, parking lots, and there are even farms that are getting double service out of solar as they use the panels for climate control for their crops. Solar is also far cheaper than nuclear by a factor of four. Wind takes up very little land, they grow wheat and other crops right up to the base of the wind turbines. Both, but especially solar can be scaled to the needs, whereas nuclear is always big. Also, nuclear is dangerous enough that no insurance company will insure a nuclear plant.Then how do you have time to know anything pertinent to this discussion? Shutting down oil production instantly would be a complete disaster, what is needed is an orderly and rapid transition to renewable energy. Oil production will continue to find new sources, they will be increasingly expensive to exploit, while renewables continue to become less expensive. The amount of space needed to cover all our energy needs would cover only a very small amount of our nation. A for instance is that given the space a nuclear installation takes up, were you to cover that same amount of ground with solar, you would actually produce more energy the the nuke plant. And no dangerous waste problems. Also, because Musk wants to see EV's rapidly replace ICE's, all his patents are open. Other subjects covered, also,Don't have time to watch a 17 minute speech.
can you summarize in 25 words or less?
A for instance is that given the space a nuclear installation takes up, were you to cover that same amount of ground with solar, you would actually produce more energy the the nuke plant.
Liar!
View attachment 502450
Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plantâs Footprint
Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility, a Nuclear Energy Institute analysis has found.www.nei.org
Thanks for the link.
Energy Plant Land Use Nuclear power stations do not require as much land per megawatt as other low-carbon methods of electricity production. The Arkansas Nuclear One Station requires only 1,100 acres (1.7 square miles) to produce 1,800 megawatts operating at a 90 percent capacity factor. A study by Entergy Arkansas estimates that for modern wind and solar plants operating at the same capacity, they would require 108,000 acres (169 square miles) and 13,320 acres (21 square miles) of land respectively to produce the same amount of power.
13320/1100 = 12.1 times the land........not less land. Like you claimed.
Fossil fuels will eventually run out.Don't have time to watch a 17 minute speech.
can you summarize in 25 words or less?
Fossil fuels will eventually run out.Fossil fuels will eventually run out.Don't have time to watch a 17 minute speech.
can you summarize in 25 words or less?
But if the dumbest experiment is using fossil fuels because of perceived climate impacts than the same argument applies to solar.
There is n such thing as a free lunch. Even Musk must realize this.
I spent 37 years working in upstream oil and gas in a variety of engineering disciplines; one of which was reservoir engineering. So I know about the economic development of hydrocarbon reservoirs. During the last 20 years of my career, I have witnessed and participated in the development of unconventional hydrocarbons. And yes, that resource is massive but it is finite. So when he says that there will be a point in time when it no longer makes economic sense to base load transportation and electric generation on fossil fuels he isn't wrong. The question is the when and the when may be beyond 200 years for oil, 500 years for natural gas and 1,000 years for coal. It's a big earth with lot's of resources.Fossil fuels will eventually run out.Fossil fuels will eventually run out.Don't have time to watch a 17 minute speech.
can you summarize in 25 words or less?
But if the dumbest experiment is using fossil fuels because of perceived climate impacts than the same argument applies to solar.
There is n such thing as a free lunch. Even Musk must realize this.
We've been told that since I've been paying attention....Yet new "fossil fuel" resources keep being found, and technology keeps getting more BTU per unit.
BTW, you have heard of abiotic "fossil fuels", and realize that there are planets with oceans of hydrocarbons that could have never supported life, right?
Fossil fuels will eventually run out.Don't have time to watch a 17 minute speech.
can you summarize in 25 words or less?
But if the dumbest experiment is using fossil fuels because of perceived climate impacts than the same argument applies to solar.
There is n such thing as a free lunch. Even Musk must realize this.