No Solar Power/Electricity Tonight

[Robert W]

They're the one making the claim, I'm the one asking for proof. I don't need to provide any links.

So per you, you don't make claims such as what I was reading?

 

[Robert W]

Ok. So you have no proof anyone said any such thing and you basically made up some silly straw man argument that you could have a fake argue against. This is precisely why no one should ever take your anti science wackos seriously.

So all you did was pick a fight. I see now how you plan to operate.

 

[the other mike]

I have a pyramid out back.
(Musical electron harvester)

 

[wihosa]

Everyready and Duracell have been researching batteries for a century. Diehard has researched batteries for a century. Now we need more research?

The sun's energy is simply to weak. We need 1000's of square miles of solar panels, destroying farmland, forests, and pristine desert.

Solar consumes raw materials by the millions of tons. All processed by heavy industry. Thus solar is a new source of CO2 released into the atmosphere (which is food for life).

200,000 to 400,000 tons of CO2 everyday contributed by solar and wind.

The first solar cell was invented in 1883. The solar cell has been researched and developed longer than the invention of the computer.

We do not need short lived solar panels, we need electric power plants that last 50 to a 100 years, that is nuclear power. Speaking of which, a nuclear power plant is a battery, releasing it's power over a span of 30 years.

The sun's energy is simply too weak? The sun's energy is virtually all we have...all fossil fuels are essentially stored sunlight . The Earth would be a ball of ice without sunlight.

If the energy used to make PV is from renewable sources no CO2 is produced.

A nuclear power plant produces power for 30 years and extreme hazard for thousands of years. Can you say irresponsible?

 

[the other mike]

The sun's energy is simply too weak? The sun's energy is virtually all we have...all fossil fuels are essentially stored sunlight . The Earth would be a ball of ice without sunlight.

If the energy used to make PV is from renewable sources no CO2 is produced.

A nuclear power plant produces power for 30 years and extreme hazard for thousands of years. Can you say irresponsible?

Actually when the sun starts dying into a red giant earth will have been long since vaporized .

 

[elektra]

The sun's energy is simply too weak? The sun's energy is virtually all we have...all fossil fuels are essentially stored sunlight . The Earth would be a ball of ice without sunlight.

Fossil Fuels were created over 4.5 billions of years. Now you make the claim that in minutes, a few hours of sunlight, we can replace what took billions of years?

 

[elektra]

If the energy used to make PV is from renewable sources no CO2 is produced.

????
All energy must be created with something, steam is our best energy source. Steam we create with heat from nuclear, coal, natural gas, or fossil fuels.

If is a big word. All processes to make renewable resources require days of 24 hour power, zero interruptions. We will never ever do that with, "renewable" resources.

Is it not funny, that the solar and wind projects that capture the "renewable" resources are not renewable themselves and in fact last only a short time compared to nuclear or fossil fuel production.

 

[elektra]

A nuclear power plant produces power for 30 years and extreme hazard for thousands of years. Can you say irresponsible?

30 years? Where have you been? We have Nuclear reactors today that are 50 years old and still operating. Nuclear reactors that were designed 70 years ago!!!!!!

New reactors designed today with no modern materials and advanced inspection techniques will easily operate a 100 years!!!!

Nuclear reactors in our navy operate 30 years without a need to be refueled.

Extreme hazards? Name one incident this century, in the USA, that shows the extreme hazard. If the entire world operating our designs with our safeguards there would never of been an accident in the Ukraine or Japan.

Hazards for thousands of years? What hazard is that? It is irresponsible to suggest there is any hazard.

 

[Mexicano]

The sun's energy is simply too weak? The sun's energy is virtually all we have...all fossil fuels are essentially stored sunlight . The Earth would be a ball of ice without sunlight.

If the energy used to make PV is from renewable sources no CO2 is produced.

A nuclear power plant produces power for 30 years and extreme hazard for thousands of years. Can you say irresponsible?

It is not that the solar energy is weak, it isn't . The problem is the amount of energy we need to use to capture that energy producing solar cells and then storing that energy. The whole arrangement ( solar cells + hydro storage) means it has an over cost of 50% compared to nuclear energy.
This means solar cells produced with renewable energy would have a 50% higher cost. And that's the state of things until we improve the energy efficiency of solar cell production. I haven't seen the numbers for thin-film solar cells.

 

[Robert W]

The sun's energy is simply too weak? The sun's energy is virtually all we have...all fossil fuels are essentially stored sunlight . The Earth would be a ball of ice without sunlight.

If the energy used to make PV is from renewable sources no CO2 is produced.

A nuclear power plant produces power for 30 years and extreme hazard for thousands of years. Can you say irresponsible?

I don't relate crude oil found deep in Earth to your version of sunlight. CO2 is fine. It has saved Earth in the past. It took Earth out of the Snowball age. CO2 can save Earth again from a death due to being a huge snowball.

 

[elektra]

It is not that the solar energy is weak, it isn't .

No, the problem is that Solar energy is very weak

 

[elektra]

This means solar cells produced with renewable energy would have a 50% higher cost. And that's the state of things until we improve the energy efficiency of solar cell production. I haven't seen the numbers for thin-film solar cells.

Yet, solar cells have a cost that is over 10,000% higher!!!! And no matter how much you spend, they are still weak leaving us without the energy we need.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

brilliant, we could invent something old and call it new, like a nuclear power plant, that dont need batteries

We could, but nobody wants to build them or live near them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fossil Fuels were created over 4.5 billions of years. Now you make the claim that in minutes, a few hours of sunlight, we can replace what took billions of years?

Yes, easily. This is simple math.

 

[elektra]

Yes, easily. This is simple math.

hhahahahahaha, show us the math, the process, start at bare land, digging the mine, etc., etc.

I bet you can not name one chemical needed off the top of your head.

 

[elektra]

We could, but nobody wants to build them or live near them.

yet, all across the world they are being built

Last year the greatest increase in energy production was one nuclear power plant in georgia

This year the greatest increase in energy production will be another nuclear power plant coming online in georgia

All across our country people live peacefully, next to nuclear power plants

In Connecticut they just sold a dozen houses for 600k right across from a nuclear power plant.

Try again with your lies, or is it just your ignorant opinion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

hhahahahahaha, show us the math, the process, start at bare land, digging the mine, etc., etc.

I bet you can not name one chemical needed off the top of your head.

Simple. Calculate how much energy the sun imparts on a square meter per second. Compare it to combustion. Durely.ypu don't think you just stumped the worlslds scientists with an exercise that college freshmen do.

By the way, the 4.5 billion year number is irrelevant.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

yet, all across the world they are being built

Not by private parties they aren't. Please stop making stuff up.

Are you suggesting we nationalize nuclear power?

 

[elektra]

Not by private parties they aren't. Please stop making stuff up.

Are you suggesting we nationalize nuclear power?

You are right, John Doe next door is not building a nuclear plant. But that is not what you stated to begin this little tit for tat.

why would we nationalize nuclear power when the private sector has done a great job.

there are many corporations, building nuclear power plants, without the government

 

[toobfreak]

Yes, I am right again, there is no electricity being produced by solar panels tonight. Seems dumb to say, but look at what happens when we search that very idea.

Interesting as I just learned that solar panels are 4X as expensive as a conventional power plant for the electricity they produce as they only add power to the grid from about 10AM to about 4-6PM, even less on cloudy days, and that off shore wind power plants are 10X as expensive.

So, "green" energy only serves at best as a SUPPLEMENT to conventional power not a replacement, and since Europe has built so much green energy on top of their regular power, it amounts to TWO power grids, part of the main reason why electricity now costs about 3.5X as much as here in the USA.

Oh yeah--- another fun fact:

In the 1990s, we were 100% independent of supplying the yellow cake uranium that we needed for ourselves.
Today, we supply ourselves only 1% of our uranium needs (for nuclear military vessels, power plants, etc.), while getting over half our needs now from RUSSIA.

NY Times: Hillary Clinton Approved Russian Uranium Deal After $2 Million Donation to Clinton Foundation

The New York Times is suggesting Hillary Clinton took actions as secretary of state because of financial donations that were made to the Clinton Foundation by Russians pushing for a Canadian uranium company. The Times reported in an explosive piece on Thursday that Canadian records show the...

www.yahoo.com