Wind or Nuclear?

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I am for increased offshore drilling, opening up anwar, building and connecting wind farms to the grid, building more new nuke plants, creating and connecting vast solar arrays, and giving tax deductions to private citizens for installing solar paneling and solar water heating in their homes.

Oh and Geothermal is cool too.

 

[Navy1960]

I am for increased offshore drilling, opening up anwar, building and connecting wind farms to the grid, building more new nuke plants, creating and connecting vast solar arrays, and giving tax deductions to private citizens for installing solar paneling and solar water heating in their homes.

Oh and Geothermal is cool too.

Speaking of the tax incentives for solar, there are big ones at the moment, however those tax breaks don't begin to cover the costs of solar. Imagine for a moment had this nation not spent 750 Billion Dollars on a Stimulus that went bascially nowhere and perhaps directed that money for a time period to allow American homeowners tax breaks to purchase Solar panels for their homes. What would the result be?, more jobs perhaps, lower energy cost perhaps?

 

[JBeukema]

I repeat:

Has anyone estimated how long our nuclear fuel supplies in the US could last if we used it as our primary source of energy?

Nuclear is a finite resource, just like oil. Therefore, unless it will last until Sol goes red giant, it is a transitional/supplemental energy source only

no?

 

[Navy1960]

Steve Fetter, dean of the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, supplies an answer:
If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption.


Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.
How long will the world's uranium supplies last?: Scientific American

This article does not take into consideration reprocessing (MOX) or Govt. stockpile releases of spent nuclear fuel in casks for reprocessing that adds to that supply.

 

[Old Rocks]

Solar need not be expensive.

Yang

Intellectual merit: Achieving the predicted efficiency over 60% from the third generation solar cells based on Intermediate Band (IB) has been troublesome due to the defects and low light absorption by Self-Assembled Quantum Dots (SAQD) via the Stranski-Krastanov (S-K) growth mode. The nature of the SAQDs fabricated by the S-K mode is randomness in size and position. This randomness broadens the IB structure formed between p- and n-junctions, which reduces the absorption at a given spectrum, reducing the efficiency. Another problem in applying SAQDs for solar cells is the difficulty in realizing defect-free layers of high concentration of dots when the stacking of SAQDs is more than ~20 layers. In order to overcome the problems related with controls of size and site, and the defects in the SAQD-stacks, this project will develop low cost and direct in-situ patterning processes to guide the self-assembly of uniformly sized, multi-stacked SAQDs for high efficiency solar cells. Interferential irradiation of high power laser pulses will be employed to create thermal modulations on surface in order to produce defect-free, uniform and ordered nanoscale patterns on surfaces. Atomistic understanding will be pursued on the patterning processes and the stacking SAQDs more than 50 layers. The atomistic optimization, using in-vacuum Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM), will provide ways to scale-up the arrays of desired sizes and shapes of SAQDs. In particular, the project will study how the size and periodicity influence the electronic structure of IBs formed by SAQDs. In-situ optical characterizations will be used to analyze optical defects, the correlation between IB structure and the properties of QD arrays such as size and density so that the patterning and growth processes maximize the efficiency of QD-based solar cells. Gained insight will be used to fabricate SAQD-based solar cells with target efficiency over 50%
Award#0854313 - Ordered Array of Uniformly Sized Quantum Dots for High Efficiency Solar Cells

 

[Old Rocks]

Directoryaintable plastic solar cells using quantum dots
From PESWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Paintable plastic solar cells are in development that could provide power beyond that of the advanced photovoltaic cells today
Directoryaintable plastic solar cells using quantum dots - PESWiki

 

[mdn2000]

Directoryaintable plastic solar cells using quantum dots
From PESWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Paintable plastic solar cells are in development that could provide power beyond that of the advanced photovoltaic cells today
Directoryaintable plastic solar cells using quantum dots - PESWiki

Another link, I have read a half dozen of your links, each one disagreed with the point you made Old Crock.

Wind or Nuke,

Solar or Nuke,

Nuke wins hands down, only the ignorant can even consider wind, solar, geothermal or any other crazy green idea.

You cannot run industry on green energy, it is too weak, for the amount of resources it takes to create windmill or solar panel or even maintain a geothermal plant you get a negative return. You cannot supply heavy industry with a fraction of the power needed to produce the raw materials to even begin building green energy, and that will never change, not in the next century.

The environuts and global climate kooks are literally promoting that faster destruction of the earth, we literally have to increase the rate we are using fossil fuels 10,000% to meet the demands of green energy.

So ironic that the proposed solution uses more energy than just getting our energy straight from fossil fuel.

The idiots, the morons, the ignorant, let me give you a great analogy to see if it helps you understand.

Take a chain and hook it up to the front of your car, attach the chain to your neighbors car, that is green energy, great huh, you are using no fossil fuel, you are not polluting, you never ever need to buy gas again.

Sure you cant use your car at night, but if you had a solar car that would not work at night either, so either way you are still dependent on someone else, with a chain or a solar panel Old Crock is still sucking me dry, the neighbor pays so that Old Crock can say he is using green energy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again you prove yourself beyond stupid, Mdn. From the Scientific American;

A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables: Scientific American

 

[KittenKoder]

Once again you prove yourself beyond stupid, Mdn. From the Scientific American;

A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables: Scientific American

Did you read the article?

 

[mdn2000]

Once again you prove yourself beyond stupid, Mdn. From the Scientific American;

A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables: Scientific American

Old Crock, you know I read the article, I pointed out that you did not read the article in the other thread, I will bumb that thread to the top so you cannot continue to ignore it.

The article does not state that this can be done, the article states the opposite. Not one expert thinks even 1% of the earths energy can come from renewables.

There is not such thing as a renewable, you got to use fiberglass, takes energy to make fiberglass, more energy than all the "so called renewables" create on the sunniest day.

So how much energy does it take to make one ton of this magical renewable fiberglass, for that matter explain how fiberglass is renewable?

 

[KittenKoder]

Once again you prove yourself beyond stupid, Mdn. From the Scientific American;

A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables: Scientific American

Old Crock, you know I read the article, I pointed out that you did not read the article in the other thread, I will bumb that thread to the top so you cannot continue to ignore it.

The article does not state that this can be done, the article states the opposite. Not one expert thinks even 1% of the earths energy can come from renewables.

There is not such thing as a renewable, you got to use fiberglass, takes energy to make fiberglass, more energy than all the "so called renewables" create on the sunniest day.

So how much energy does it take to make one ton of this magical renewable fiberglass, for that matter explain how fiberglass is renewable?

Another reason there is no such thing as "renewable" ... energy cannot be created.

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again you prove yourself beyond stupid, Mdn. From the Scientific American;

A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables: Scientific American

Old Crock, you know I read the article, I pointed out that you did not read the article in the other thread, I will bumb that thread to the top so you cannot continue to ignore it.

The article does not state that this can be done, the article states the opposite. Not one expert thinks even 1% of the earths energy can come from renewables.

There is not such thing as a renewable, you got to use fiberglass, takes energy to make fiberglass, more energy than all the "so called renewables" create on the sunniest day.

So how much energy does it take to make one ton of this magical renewable fiberglass, for that matter explain how fiberglass is renewable?

Like hell you have read the article. Once again you prove yourself to be a lying dumbass. Here is the concluding statement in the article.

"A decade ago it was not clear that a global WWS system would be technically or economically feasable. Having shown that it is, we hope the global leaders can figure out how to make WWS power politically feasable as well. They can start by committing to meanful climate and renewable goals now"

A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2009

How to get all energy from wind and and solar

Scientific American, November 2009 issue

 

[Kingpin]

I've understood thet wind energy isn't very cost effective, whereas nuclear energy has a byproduct which is deadly for tens of thousands of years!

 

[JD_2B]

The problem is not with using nuclear energy, it is with government oppression in regards to sustainability.

1- YES people DO steal spent uranium. It DOES happen. This is not some kind of massive lie.. but people steal all sorts of things to make bombs with, so whatev.. Increase security camera usage then. How often to people actually USE nuclear bombs? There ya go. Its just an all around power thing.. and I mean political not nuclear, lol

2- There are many other ways of getting sustainable energy, without using all sorts of ground and land space, besides wind and solar. I swear, you just compared apples and oranges in your OP, because why? You want to somehow prove that nuclear energy is Da' Bom' ??? <scuse my pun!>
Ever heard of entire villages being generated by their own fecal waste? How about underground copper coils? And dont get me started on the original problem, which is a massive lack of water. Water is not exactly renewable, but is can be a sustainable resource if we stop eating so damned much meat, and recycling rain water that falls on our rooftops by the use of rain cystines, and green roofs.

I am sick of all the hype about nuclear power.. It may be a good power source, but it is a terrible "waste" source for us, and the bottom line is that the US is leaving a MASSIVE carbon footprint by not reusing the byproducts, and also by claiming ignorance to the many many other means at our disposal for sustainability.

 

[Polk]

The biggest problem with nuclear power is funding. Companies aren't will to invest the startup capital to build the plants.

 

[Si modo]

The biggest problem with nuclear power is funding. Companies aren't will to invest the startup capital to build the plants.

Historically, they haven't because of the ignorant fear-mongering by the left toward nuclear energy. Ohhhhhhh, bad radiation, bad nuclear.

The left are their own worst enemies.

 

[JD_2B]

The biggest problem with nuclear power is funding. Companies aren't will to invest the startup capital to build the plants.

Considering the sizable pricetag that they have to pay for, and the bond just to get the permit to start up a plant that contains hazardous materials, is gosh..a total of about 5 and a half billion dollars?? Not to mention insurance which ends up being over a billion dollars as well.

Dont blame Corporate America for that shit.

 

[mdn2000]

YES people DO steal spent uranium. It DOES happen. This is not some kind of massive lie.. but people steal all sorts of things to make bombs with, so whatev.. Increase security camera usage then. How often to people actually USE nuclear bombs? There ya go. Its just an all around power thing.. and I mean political not nuclear, lol

This statement does not make sense, What are you talking about, fuel rods from commercial reactors? Spent Uranium? By that definition there is no danger, its spent. So if your talking about what is called a spent fuel rod from a US reactor than you are bit confused, this has never happened, doubtful if it ever will happen. Even if it did, it would be impossible to open up the cask without the set from Dr. No.

Funding, the only thing that hurts funding is government interference and Lawyers. As long as the government is in the hand of the corporations than we will continue to see the government giving money to the corporations that build windmills.

You know who is getting rich besides Al Gore, companies like ExxonMobil, AIG, Dupont, Dow, OcciChemical, GE, any corporation that owns a mine like the one in California that is the only source for Boron, cant make windmills without basic materials like minerals/elements that are mined.

So the Lawyers and government will stop nuclear by taking money from the middle class of america and giving that money to corporations who in return hire the politicians for 100k a pop speeches. Meantime we pay higher taxes, higher electric bills, higher food prices, more expensive clothes. Everything is going up, further we will never have the energy needed to run heavy industry, no heavy industry and we will continue our decline, we are on our way to being a third world.

You young people can look forward to poverty and famine.

 

[KittenKoder]

Okay, some facts about nuclear that many seem to just not get:

It's "waste" can be used, as a matter of fact they have seen a huge increase in demand for such recently with a new way to use it. That small amount which cannot be used is actually less dangerous than having a huge windmill topple onto your house.

As for funding, there are already plants ready, built and up to date. All they need is the "okay" not the funding, to power up.

 

[Intense]

The problem is not with using nuclear energy, it is with government oppression in regards to sustainability.

1- YES people DO steal spent uranium. It DOES happen. This is not some kind of massive lie.. but people steal all sorts of things to make bombs with, so whatev.. Increase security camera usage then. How often to people actually USE nuclear bombs? There ya go. Its just an all around power thing.. and I mean political not nuclear, lol

2- There are many other ways of getting sustainable energy, without using all sorts of ground and land space, besides wind and solar. I swear, you just compared apples and oranges in your OP, because why? You want to somehow prove that nuclear energy is Da' Bom' ??? <scuse my pun!>
Ever heard of entire villages being generated by their own fecal waste? How about underground copper coils? And dont get me started on the original problem, which is a massive lack of water. Water is not exactly renewable, but is can be a sustainable resource if we stop eating so damned much meat, and recycling rain water that falls on our rooftops by the use of rain cystines, and green roofs.

I am sick of all the hype about nuclear power.. It may be a good power source, but it is a terrible "waste" source for us, and the bottom line is that the US is leaving a MASSIVE carbon footprint by not reusing the byproducts, and also by claiming ignorance to the many many other means at our disposal for sustainability.

Hey We could Kill all of the Carbon Dioxide Emitting Plant and Animal Organisms starting Right now , let's do it for Al !!!!! Sun Light is a Polutant Too Right!!!!! Try to not make it Too Easy for The Totalitarian Take Over Of The Planet!!!!!