uziq
Member
+138|860
ken: we can never be sure that there might not ever be a really serious nuclear accident.
climate change scientists: we are absolutely sure that fossil fuels are causing irreversible climate change.
ken: yes but oil spills are easier to clean up than an as-yet-unspecified nuclear disaster that may or may not happen in the future.

am i getting this right? can we all just agree to build more solar panels and go to bed? portugal is at a stage where it can run almost entirely on solar power (albeit for short stretches).
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,958|2766|London, England
Back around the time I was born, my current governor's father ran a successful gubernatorial campaign on the promise that he would shut down the reactor being built on Long Island. So he wins, he orders it closed, but he allowed it to fire up for one day. Because of that, the local utility assumed ownership and the multi-billion dollar costs to build it. It was shut down the next day and dismantled. We're still paying the bill as a surcharge. Fuck the Cuomo family.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Karbin
Member
+42|3702
Integral Fast Reactor
(IFR) was built, tested and evaluated during the 1980s and then retired under the Clinton administration in the 1990s due to nuclear non-proliferation policies of the administration. Recycling spent fuel is the core of its design and it therefore produces only a fraction of the waste of current reactors
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,771|4040|949

Dilbert_X wrote:

Ken wrote:

I'd rather deal with an oil spill than a nuclear spill.
This argument is stupid - its like saying you'd rather smoke and risk the occasional singed moustache than drink alcohol and be guaranteed to have liver cancer. Its apples to whales.

I'd rather deal with the occasional nuclear accident - which needn't happen at all - than global warming and consequential climate change.
it's actually a statement, not an argument.

I would rather not deal with either - nuclear is an expedient solution to a problem that already has a better solution.  We should focus on renewables and forms of energy with less environmental impact.

I'm just not a fan of seeing the hard on for nuclear power.

@uzi: there have already been several nuclear accidents.  You know this, you mentioned one previously. People need to stop pretending more accidents won't happen if we increase the amount of nuclear power plants.  Every form of energy has issues, so lets find one that is the least impactful to humans and the environment. 

I think we are past the point of promoting nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,958|2766|London, England
What power source would you like to provide the base load? The answer is neither solar nor wind. Your options are hydro, nuclear or fossil fuels.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,771|4040|949

convince me base load power plants are an absolute necessity.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,958|2766|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

convince me base load power plants are an absolute necessity.
Base load power plants are what meet your everyday loads. They are permanently on. When demand rises, say on a warm, sunny day, supplemental power plants are fired up to meet the load. So, if you like having lights, and air conditioning, and powering your computer, and available at all hours of the day, you need to have base load power.

Now, you can use solar and wind as supplemental power sources, but you always need to have the base load covered with reliable power sources. Peak solar occurs over a roughly two hour window every day, while wind power varies quite a bit. You would still need to have the same number of power plants to cover the base load, but some can be switched off when solar and wind come online. The reason you can't remove any of the base load power plants is because the sun doesn't shine every day and the wind doesn't blow every day. They're not reliable.

So your options are either you have constant brownouts and unreliable power that goes on and off for a few hours a day, which can work if you want to rejigger your lifestyle to charge everything in the window you do have power (third world countries like Iraq live like this), or you can have some combination of nuclear, fossil fuel and hydro.

And no, battery banks are not a realistic option.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,771|4040|949

http://energypost.eu/interview-steve-ho … -outdated/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … e-numbered

http://www.heritage.org/environment/rep … underrated

http://www.theenergycollective.com/john … d-paradigm

Seems you hold an outdated view

Microgrids are far less susceptible to terror attacks.  They allow for more efficiency. They allow for energy to more closely match the market and consumer preferences.

Thank you for the wiki synopsis on what a base grid is.

So you haven't convinced me yet, and in fact it seems you have a very rudimentary knowledge of grid power in general.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,958|2766|London, England
I was just boiling it down as simply as possible for you since you lack a science background. Good job quoting articles from companies that make bank from selling solar systems though. I have an NRG solar system sitting on my roof.

It rained this morning and I produced 3.24 kWh today.

Yesterday it was sunny and I produced 9.89 kWh.

On Monday I produced 12.1 kWh.

That's a pretty large fluctuation over a three day period, wouldn't you say? Considering that weather is regional, I'd say that my "microgrid" is dependent on the base load generating plants to make up the difference between today and Monday.

But hey, you're probably right, and I'm probably wrong. You're the one with the CEM, right?

Please vote for CalExit.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,958|2766|London, England
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,771|4040|949

I can tell you didn't read the articles.

Thanks for telling me about your solar usage.

I forgot solar power is the only possible alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power.

You are not very good at arguing your point.  You gave me a definition of base load, said "you always need a base load" and then told me why solar isn't a good solution.  Do you see why I come to the conclusion that you are an idiot?  I'm a fairly intelligent person, so you don't need to dumb anything down for me.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,771|4040|949

Jay wrote:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/
me: base load grids are outdated, we should move towards microgrids
Jay: Here's an article about how Germany's issues with solar and wind production, and also how the current grid architecture in Germany is outdated.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,958|2766|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I can tell you didn't read the articles.

Thanks for telling me about your solar usage.

I forgot solar power is the only possible alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power.

You are not very good at arguing your point.  You gave me a definition of base load, said "you always need a base load" and then told me why solar isn't a good solution.  Do you see why I come to the conclusion that you are an idiot?  I'm a fairly intelligent person, so you don't need to dumb anything down for me.
I do when not a page ago you were talking about nuclear spills like they're a thing. This is a topic you do not understand. Just walk away.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,771|4040|949

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I can tell you didn't read the articles.

Thanks for telling me about your solar usage.

I forgot solar power is the only possible alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power.

You are not very good at arguing your point.  You gave me a definition of base load, said "you always need a base load" and then told me why solar isn't a good solution.  Do you see why I come to the conclusion that you are an idiot?  I'm a fairly intelligent person, so you don't need to dumb anything down for me.
I do when not a page ago you were talking about nuclear spills like they're a thing. This is a topic you do not understand. Just walk away.
definitely NOT a thing
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,958|2766|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/
me: base load grids are outdated, we should move towards microgrids
Jay: Here's an article about how Germany's issues with solar and wind production, and also how the current grid architecture in Germany is outdated.
How many time zones do we have in the US? 4? So that gives us a roughy 5 hour window every day for peak solar production. You would hit your peak at around 4 pm east coast time, our hottest time of the day. When you hit your own peak you would be out of luck, it would've passed by already. Of course, this is a whole continent, so you're dealing with transmission losses as well, and you would have to build about 2 or 3 times what you would actually need just to make up for the places that had bad weather. But yeah, it's going to happen tomorrow, we should totally stop building power plants. We'll get by with moon power to charge all of our electric cars too.

Just stop.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,958|2766|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I can tell you didn't read the articles.

Thanks for telling me about your solar usage.

I forgot solar power is the only possible alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power.

You are not very good at arguing your point.  You gave me a definition of base load, said "you always need a base load" and then told me why solar isn't a good solution.  Do you see why I come to the conclusion that you are an idiot?  I'm a fairly intelligent person, so you don't need to dumb anything down for me.
I do when not a page ago you were talking about nuclear spills like they're a thing. This is a topic you do not understand. Just walk away.
definitely NOT a thing
It's like trying to reason with lowing
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,771|4040|949

why do you keep bringing up solar power as if it's the only alternative?

It seems like you've formulated an opposition to an argument I'm not even making.

I'm not trying to pretend to be an expert here (you are though). I'm not saying I have all the solutions.  I'm arguing that A) nuclear power is an expedient solution and B) base grid power is outdated and the system architecture should change.  You're saying I want to power everything by solar, which I never said.  You can work yourself arguing against a fake position (there used to be a member here who was notorious for doing that), but you're just talking past me.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,590|3514|eXtreme to the max

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

it's actually a statement, not an argument.
It is an argument, its not as if you'd personally have to deal with either so its a hypothetical argument.
"I'd rather cut a tumour out of a lung than try to transplant a liver, so I think people should smoke instead of drink, but I'm not a doctor so I won't be doing either, doctors will have to do it" I don't even know what you're trying to construct here.

I would rather not deal with either - nuclear is an expedient solution to a problem that already has a better solution.  We should focus on renewables and forms of energy with less environmental impact.
Whats the better solution? There is no better non-carbon solution to base-load power production.
Coal is unfortunately the cheapest and most reliable bas-load solution, gas the most flexible for plugging gaps in renewable generation, hydro is good  if its available which for most countries it isn't on the scale needed if at all.

convince me base load power plants are an absolute necessity.
You want power when you want it, unless you're comfortable with not using your lights at night and not using your AC when its hot and windless. Without storage you need base-load power plants.

That's the key basically, until we have high-capacity storage, to supply power for say a week, then we need base load power plants.

Australia could go zero emissions relatively easily, there are some good reports here.
http://bze.org.au/
Energy storage is basically the key, plus a solid long-distance distribution system.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2017-03-01 13:09:23)

Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2017 Jeff Minard