One resource we've dumped rather hastily is nuclear, which has a better efficiency and safety record than the public is lead to believe. Just ask our US Navy which makes extensive use of nuclear power-plants.
Totally agree, A large number of key environmentalists and many of most ardent GW scientists -- have written positive positions on nuclear. We've sat out the 2nd, 3rd generation nuclear designs. It's time we at least commission a rush 3 or 4 "fly off" somewhere on govt abused land to demonstrate these 3rd and 4th gen designs and approve fast track licensing for the winners.
Glad to hear that. I realize one major concern is the nuclear waste issue, but my thought is we can find remote enough areas to stash it for now and plan on a solution in the future. Perfecting fission reactors might be that, where we could use waste from the fusion process as fuel for the fission.
My main point is we don't want to rush into new and not fully developed techs and at the same time do large scale abandon of what we have.
I beg to differ. Solar and wind are VERY MATURE technologies. Been solar panels on the WHouse since Carter and now BOTH are just mass produced commodity items. We dont even PRODUCE much of this in the USA because its mature tech. The "innovations" would be in grid scale storage. But every technique to DO THAT -- is NOT green at all..
My point, which I may not have expressed well enough, is that cost$ per watt produced these seem marginal still. If one factors out the guv'mint subsidies and factors in the environmental and other costs of raw material mining/processing and then the useful lifespans, after which there are disposal costs, such aren't looking to be bargain enough to replace(totally) other systems like hydro or carbon-fuels.
Are those solar panels from Carter's time still on the White House or did they have to be replaced. If so, due to wearing out or just upgrade to improved models?
As for wind generators, the designs other than the tall three blade towers are looking more interesting, IMO. Here's link to a search page showing dozens of types/images;
DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.
duckduckgo.com
As for the grid storage techniques, I'm with you there. Most lately seems to center around lithium battery tech and there we are back to the mning and processing cost$ plus eventual dispose of cost$ and collectively, not such a bargain moneywise or environmental wise.
BTW -- in science/engineering there are always avenues to make stuff better. A lot of the time -- you just cannot "go there" because of costs, dangers, or enviro concerns. For instance, we COULD MAKE Solar panels that are 15% more efficient if we used Gallium Arsenide semiconduction instead of silicon and more expensive amounts of gold/silver.. But who wants to CREATE A HUGE Arsenic mining process and handle the massive wastestream??? Just because it's POSSIBLE -- does not mean you should do it.. These GA-AS panels btw -- is what powers satellites and the Mars rovers.,
I follow you there. My last employment before being retired(sort-of) was as the Quality Assurance-Inspector for an industrial firm making fiberglass/composite components for much of the energy and chemical industry manufacturers/suppliers so I have some gauge on this.
Agreed, sometimes the slight gain in efficiency doesn't match the various costs to get there.
So-far, GA-AS panels don't pencil out as practicable or affordable for terrestrial(Earthly) applications.
And pay attention to the politics.. The RUSH is on.. The Dems are salivating over wind and solar as key elements of infrastructure. They dont care about responsible mixing of methods. Their goal is to KILL all fossil fuel usage by a date certain. Even gasoline. Adding even MORE RAW CAPACITY to the grid to charge them.. They are more afraid of nuclear then they are of GWarming !!!!!!
What does that tell you? You on-board with this juvenile dream and wasting monstrous amount of material and money on their fantasies?
I'm aware of that I can assure you. I'm involved in local political and economic orgs seeking to develop our local economy and counter the absurd and illogical agendas of the "Greenies".
I think we are in agreement that for now and the near future into the next century or so, we need to retain a mix of sources on both energy and related raw material resources to sustain a national and global economy and systems that will keep the most people alive and hopefully thriving as best as can be done.
As population grows we (humans on planet Earth) need to add to resource and energy capacity to cover and provide for that growth and the Dems/Greenies are wanting to cut such while not being willing to be the first in line to pay the costs; just the opposite.
Carbon resources, for fuel and more essentially for materials will remain an essential need to sustain global economies and populations for the decades to come as we transition to any other viable sources/resources.
I'll get back to your final paragraph(+) in the next post I make here. ...
Seriously tho -- sending THAT MUCH POWER thru the atmos has consequences. And the atmosphere itself can eat it up or spread it out. I'll patiently wait for us to get desperate enough to try this.. Comm satellites that use microwaves dont need a lot of received power to function because the receivers can be TUNED and processed to detect really weak signals.
