Elon Musk on shutting down oil right now

Don't have time to watch a 17 minute speech.

can you summarize in 25 words or less?
 
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?
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,

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!

1623949402804.png


 
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,

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

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.
 
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,

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

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.

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......

According to this study, Solar requires about 3.5 times as much surface area as nuclear.



One of these things is not like the other.....DURR
 
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,

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

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.


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.
 
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,

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

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.


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.
 
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,

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

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.


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.

However, you were even further off than I was.

You said less land. My link said up to 75 times more. All the links say more.
Did you have any link that said less?

And the generation from a solar installation is much cheaper per kw than nuclear.

Is that why Germany, which is eliminating nuclear and adding solar, pays triple what we do?
 
Break the chain, guys.

I'm no longer in this conversation
 
Don't have time to watch a 17 minute speech.

can you summarize in 25 words or less?
Fossil fuels will eventually run out.

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.
 
Don't have time to watch a 17 minute speech.

can you summarize in 25 words or less?
Fossil fuels will eventually run out.

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.
Fossil fuels will eventually run out.

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 (i.e. less and lass waste) per unit.

BTW, you have heard of abiotic "fossil fuels", and realize that there are planets that could have never supported life that have oceans of hydrocarbons , right?
 
Don't have time to watch a 17 minute speech.

can you summarize in 25 words or less?
Fossil fuels will eventually run out.

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.
Fossil fuels will eventually run out.

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?
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.

He isn't wrong that the sun is the greatest resource. But no one has considered the impact of reducing the solar radiation of the sun by 1 to 2%. Given that earth is uniquely configured - for the first time ever - for bipolar glaciation, and given that this configuration has led to an ice age for the past 2.7 million years ago, they need to take the same critical eye to solar that they have taken to fossil fuels. The risk from widespread solar dwarfs the risk of fossil fuels.
 
Don't have time to watch a 17 minute speech.

can you summarize in 25 words or less?
Fossil fuels will eventually run out.

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 doubt it will run out because it will be too expensive to extract it long before it runs out.
 

Forum List

Back
Top