Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ironic coming from someone who was completely wrong about his allegation that a "State Agency is claiming a Miracle happened".Except we have no alternate source to replace the coal plants unless we go nuclear which Obama is against also. He is pricing coal out of existence with no back up in sight. Anyone stuck with coal fired electricity will see a HUGE spike in prices.
As for this article it is a straight up lie. Germany is replacing their Nuclear plants with COAL fired plants not green ones. I linked to two of the stories.
Those new coal plants are replacing EXISTING less efficient COAL plants. They are effectively reducing coal emissions by 20%. They are not replacing the old nuclear plants. Those are being replaced by wind and solar power instead.
Wrong, as usual.
They are phasing out nuclear by 2022. The replacement is the coal plants. Hell they are building them in cities with green energy sources already, read the article. The problem is that in the winter solar is nearly useless. Germany is overcast most days in the winter I lived there in my youth. No solar generation in the winter.
1. Solar panels do not work in cold, cloudy places/states.
UV light is all that's needed and even the cloudiest of places have excelled. Germany, who ranks low in sunny days, is the solar energy capital of the world. In fact, when the solar panels are cold, they are able to better conduct electricity.
OP is Pure BFS.
I am a consultant in the power industry, our company provides smart cleaning solutions for coal fired power plants and all power operations that use alternative fuels to power boilers.
Coal is the cheapest fuel and the most abundent. If we shut down all coal fired power plants in the US tomorrrow and replaced them with solar, wind or natural gas powered plants we would lose 90% all electrical power generation in the US. You tree huggin hippie green fucks would be crying that you cant watch TV, plug in your electric car, cool your house, use you computer, charge your smartphone ect, ect ect.
For a consultant, you don't seem to have a good grasp of details.
Your statement is equivalent to "if we shut down half the power plants, half the light will go out." Big whoop.
If we shut down all coal fired plants and replaced them with alternative sources of equivalent capacity, we would lose no electrical power generation.
ps: I'm pro-Obama whether it's cool or not.
equivalent capacity...dumbass...wind & solar dont have it.....
Solar photovoltaic (PV) installed capacity grew by 41 percent in 2012, reaching 100 gigawatts (GW). Over the past five years alone, installed PV capacity grew by 900 percent from 10 GW in 2007. The countries with the most installed PV capacity today are Germany (32.4 GW), Italy (16.4 GW), the United States (7.2 GW), and China (7.0 GW).
Total installed wind capacity edged up in 2012 by 45 GW to a total of 284 GW, an 18.9 percent increase from 2011. In keeping with recent years, the majority of new installed capacity was concentrated in China and the United States, which reached total installed capacities of 75.3 GW and 60 GW, respectively.
The United States was the worlds top wind market in 2012. Overall capacity increased 28 percent as the country added 13.1 GW, double the amount it added in 2011. Increased domestic manufacturing of wind turbine parts, improved technological efficiency, and lower costs helped spur this increase, but the greatest catalyst was the threat of expiration of the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC)which provides tax credits for kilowatt-hours produced by wind turbinesat the end of 2012.
A slowdown was originally expected in 2013, but the U.S. Congress extended the PTC until the end of the year, which bodes well for many U.S. and European wind turbine and parts manufacturers that benefit from it.
Fossil fuels don't get the influx of government money that renewables do right now.
Just wait until all that tax payer money stops rolling in and see what happens to the price.
I hope the German utilities are aware of that. Perhaps you should warn them.
I don't give a shit about Germany.
I'm just telling it like it is.
who cares??
who cares??
Certainly not deluded and extremely ignorant retards like you, kooks. Why do you bother posting?
who cares??
Certainly not deluded and extremely ignorant retards like you, kooks. Why do you bother posting?
Because I find it a fucking hoot to keep updating this scoreboard over the years........
People die in accidents all the time.
I'll bet that people have died while putting up large windmills so what's your point?
As far as deaths go there have been far less deaths associated with any aspect of nuclear power than any other large scale power generation operations.
So you don't count those who died from Chernobyl (and still are dying) or the probable deaths from Fukishima (still to be determined) as being "associated with any aspect of nuclear power"?
The point being that nuclear waste is toxic and still kills people long after the power is no longer flowing. The same is not true for solar and wind power. So the question becomes how many innocent people must be needlessly sacrificed on the high alter of nuclear power?
I hope the German utilities are aware of that. Perhaps you should warn them.
I don't give a shit about Germany.
I'm just telling it like it is.
It never fails to amaze me just how much misinformation and BS you denier cult retards are full of. And always so certain about your ignorant mistaken pseudo-'facts' too. That takes a special kind of stupid. LOLOLOL.
Energy Subsidies Black, Not Green
A study released by the Environmental Law Institute, a nonpartisan research and policy organization, shows that the federal government has provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the seven-year study period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled $29 billion over the same period. Th e vast majority of subsidies support energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel. Moreover, just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of subsidies for fossil fuels, with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil. More than half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, has generated concern about climate effects. These figures raise the question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.
People die in accidents all the time.
I'll bet that people have died while putting up large windmills so what's your point?
As far as deaths go there have been far less deaths associated with any aspect of nuclear power than any other large scale power generation operations.
So you don't count those who died from Chernobyl (and still are dying) or the probable deaths from Fukishima (still to be determined) as being "associated with any aspect of nuclear power"?
The point being that nuclear waste is toxic and still kills people long after the power is no longer flowing. The same is not true for solar and wind power. So the question becomes how many innocent people must be needlessly sacrificed on the high alter of nuclear power?
The point is that 98% of nuclear so called waste can be recycled but we in the USA have banned that type of recycling thus freezing us out of the multi billion dollar medical isotope industry and wasting our money on wind power which only produces one third of its advertised output on average.
And comparing the new small modular reactors to Chernobyl and Fukishima is way off the mark.
The new small nukes only need to be refueled every 20 -25 years, are self limiting so they can't melt down and do not need millions of gallons of water for cooling.
Your comparison is not even apples to oranges but more like apples to orangutans.
So you don't count those who died from Chernobyl (and still are dying) or the probable deaths from Fukishima (still to be determined) as being "associated with any aspect of nuclear power"?
The point being that nuclear waste is toxic and still kills people long after the power is no longer flowing. The same is not true for solar and wind power. So the question becomes how many innocent people must be needlessly sacrificed on the high alter of nuclear power?
The point is that 98% of nuclear so called waste can be recycled but we in the USA have banned that type of recycling thus freezing us out of the multi billion dollar medical isotope industry and wasting our money on wind power which only produces one third of its advertised output on average.
And comparing the new small modular reactors to Chernobyl and Fukishima is way off the mark.
The new small nukes only need to be refueled every 20 -25 years, are self limiting so they can't melt down and do not need millions of gallons of water for cooling.
Your comparison is not even apples to oranges but more like apples to orangutans.
So all of those existing nuclear plants have been magically upgraded to the new 20-25 year refueling model? When did that happen? If it didn't what are you proposing to do in order to prevent people from dying from yet another Chernobyl/Fukishima disaster? How long is it going to take before all of those existing reactors are replaced?
The point is that 98% of nuclear so called waste can be recycled but we in the USA have banned that type of recycling thus freezing us out of the multi billion dollar medical isotope industry and wasting our money on wind power which only produces one third of its advertised output on average.
And comparing the new small modular reactors to Chernobyl and Fukishima is way off the mark.
The new small nukes only need to be refueled every 20 -25 years, are self limiting so they can't melt down and do not need millions of gallons of water for cooling.
Your comparison is not even apples to oranges but more like apples to orangutans.
So all of those existing nuclear plants have been magically upgraded to the new 20-25 year refueling model? When did that happen? If it didn't what are you proposing to do in order to prevent people from dying from yet another Chernobyl/Fukishima disaster? How long is it going to take before all of those existing reactors are replaced?
You don't have to replace the old reactors.
The new modular nukes can be plugged into existing power generation plants currently running on coal oil and gas.
The old ones can continue to generate power until they have come to the end of their planned lifespan then more small nukes can be added.
It's not that complicated.
And we are not Japan or Russia so I fail to see your obsession with those two plants. In this country we have not had any similar incidents.
Fukishima was not a malfunction but a result of the tsunami. The new small nukes can be buried underground and do not need to be near large bodies of water.
So all of those existing nuclear plants have been magically upgraded to the new 20-25 year refueling model? When did that happen? If it didn't what are you proposing to do in order to prevent people from dying from yet another Chernobyl/Fukishima disaster? How long is it going to take before all of those existing reactors are replaced?
You don't have to replace the old reactors.
The new modular nukes can be plugged into existing power generation plants currently running on coal oil and gas.
The old ones can continue to generate power until they have come to the end of their planned lifespan then more small nukes can be added.
It's not that complicated.
And we are not Japan or Russia so I fail to see your obsession with those two plants. In this country we have not had any similar incidents.
Fukishima was not a malfunction but a result of the tsunami. The new small nukes can be buried underground and do not need to be near large bodies of water.
In order to plug reactors into existing coal plants you would have to upgrade the security at those facilities and obtain licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Authority. The problem that we have is that many of the old plants are being kept running even though they have exceeded their lifespan. What is more these reactors are sited near earthquake faults and oceans. Simply because there has not been a recent tsunami in the North Atlantic does not mean that it won't happen. In summary you are content to run the risk of exposing the American people to a nuclear disaster for the next couple of decades, right?
You don't have to replace the old reactors.
The new modular nukes can be plugged into existing power generation plants currently running on coal oil and gas.
The old ones can continue to generate power until they have come to the end of their planned lifespan then more small nukes can be added.
It's not that complicated.
And we are not Japan or Russia so I fail to see your obsession with those two plants. In this country we have not had any similar incidents.
Fukishima was not a malfunction but a result of the tsunami. The new small nukes can be buried underground and do not need to be near large bodies of water.
In order to plug reactors into existing coal plants you would have to upgrade the security at those facilities and obtain licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Authority. The problem that we have is that many of the old plants are being kept running even though they have exceeded their lifespan. What is more these reactors are sited near earthquake faults and oceans. Simply because there has not been a recent tsunami in the North Atlantic does not mean that it won't happen. In summary you are content to run the risk of exposing the American people to a nuclear disaster for the next couple of decades, right?
The new modular nukes can be buried underground thereby making them more secure than current reactors and even more secure than current plants running on coal oil and gas where the volatile fuels are stored above ground in tanks.
Try again.
