Some Facts About Renewable Energy

[Wyandot Jim]

If you're a fan of renewable energy better not watch this 7 1/2 minute video. Unless you'll allow yourself to be exposed to a few facts about the subject.

https://www.kiteandkeymedia.com/videos/renewable-energy-electricity-blackouts-and-solar-wind-mandates/

 

[GunnyGene]

There's no such thing as "renewable" energy. At least not on the human time scale. It took 4.5 Billion years for this planet to produce everything we currently use, including nuclear. 100 million years for so called "fossil" fuels. Those wind farms, solar panels, and batteries require massive amounts of minerals of many kinds to produce and maintain and you never get more out of those products than you put into them. Ever.

 

[JFB]

my base education 4 decades past was to simplify energy conversion and storage. most of the class time back then was dedicated to solar, wind and chemical batteries. Mainly because no matter how you tried to fudge the numbers the comparison for even the lowest quality fossil fuel far exceeded. calcs for nukes were overwhelming.

this did not factor in the cost of the technoligy to perform the conversion. as that little video express, the cost of the technoligy to convert 100% of all the available power from one ACRE of area has dropped significantly. but that acre of "cheap" solar can not comapre to one coal car burned at steam power plant (or splitting a few pounds of U235)

 

[Colonialgirl]

Well; STUPIDITY prevails and it pays WELL for some people.
Wonder if Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and the other leftist rich pigs are going ALL solar ??

Baawaaahaaahaaahaaahaaaa !!!!!

 

[wheelgun1958]

Video put me to sleep.

 

[Jimbo357mag]

Oil, can't live with it and can't live without it. If we continue the way we are going now there will be big repercussions for future generations to pay.

 

[Johnnu2]

I didn't watch the video, but I sorta go by a mantra like this:

If the majority of the world thinks it's A GOOD THING, I PASS on it..... And if the YEWT of the nation praise it..... I PASS on it.

I've been doing it all my (so far) long life and have been very happy with the results....

IMHO as always,

J.

 

[JFB]

the "possible" solutions might come from those "engineer billionaires". NOT because of their gladly accepting funding to proceede in an useless directive. BUT because they are hitting the limits on power density of their pet projects. giving the ultimate energy conversion density is "mass at speed of light", HOPEFULLY they can overcome that public fears.

solving the problem and capturing the emission of harmful, wasted energy making nuclear a personal option is my syfy vision.
the ONLY star trek "technology" I didn't believe is the phasor batteries!

even back to the future writers hit on it when the reactor full changed from yellow cake to food scrapes
https://youtu.be/vHake6w4Su0?t=42

 

[RSIno1]

Video put me to sleep.

Yep - nothing but boring facts. Which is why the low info voter believes what he's told.

 

[Rick Courtright]

this did not factor in the cost of the technoligy to perform the conversion. as that little video express, the cost of the technoligy to convert 100% of all the available power from one ACRE of area has dropped significantly. but that acre of "cheap" solar can not comapre to one coal car burned at steam power plant (or splitting a few pounds of U235)

Hi,

My HS physics class was right after lunch, so it was easy to sorta lose track and doze off a bit...

Even so, I seem to remember some laws of conservation: of energy, and matter especially. There was another idea tossed in there, too. I think it said EVERY energy conversion involves a loss. Did I catch that one right?

Rick C

 

[GunnyGene]

. I think it said EVERY energy conversion involves a loss. Did I catch that one right?

Rick C

You did. The push for solar, etc. just moves some of that loss to other upstream and downstream processes. But the people getting rich off this scam don't want anyone to know about that.

Way back when the first nuke power station was being built the marketing for it said we'd get electricity for FREE. Well, that didn't happen. And the reason it didn't was because of that awkward physics thing. Even just pushing juice thru copper wires involves a loss - called heat. The longer the wire the more is lost as heat. Make the wire long enough and you get zero electricity out the other end, and a warm wire.

 

[kramden]

Most practical source of energy is nuclear. Yet foolishly we don't build them.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Way back when the first nuke power station was being built the marketing for it said we'd get electricity for FREE. Well, that didn't happen. And the reason it didn't was because of that awkward physics thing. Even just pushing juice thru copper wires involves a loss - called heat. The longer the wire the more is lost as heat. Make the wire long enough and you get zero electricity out the other end, and a warm wire.

True, but we get that loss regardless of how the electricity is generated. The benefits from nuclear power generation were supposed to be no pollution and no cost to produce all the other fuels normally used. Well, pollution is still created in the form of the "expended" nuclear fuel rods and the overall costs of generation are still there from the manufacture of the fuel rods, their "disposal" and the construction and operation of the nuke plants. I have yet to see full documentation of the costs of nukes versus other forms of power generation that I find convincing. I like the idea but don't necessarily swallow all the Kool-Aid. Besides, we have yet to have a disastrous "meltdown" of a coal-fired plant. :wink:

 

[Rick Courtright]

True, but we get that loss regardless of how the electricity is generated. The benefits from nuclear power generation were supposed to be no pollution and no cost to produce all the other fuels normally used. Well, pollution is still created in the form of the "expended" nuclear fuel rods and the overall costs of generation are still there from the manufacture of the fuel rods, their "disposal" and the construction and operation of the nuke plants. I have yet to see full documentation of the costs of nukes versus other forms of power generation that I find convincing. I like the idea but don't necessarily swallow all the Kool-Aid. Besides, we have yet to have a disastrous "meltdown" of a coal-fired plant. :wink:

Hi,

Back to that HS physics class right after lunch, and the Law of Conservation of Matter: Matter is neither created nor destroyed. It simply changes form. Mr. Heinlein, not a physicist, described the same thing in different terms when he talked of no free lunches!

On to the nukes. I don't know how they compare when it comes to the hard figures. But just for some glow in the dark trivia, CA is taking the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant off line and out of service. I understand from the article I saw some time back it will take close to 10 years to completely deactivate and dismantle it due to procedural issues; a lot of the material has specified cool down times before it can be removed, in the months to years time frame. I don't know how long the plant will be productive at a reduced level during this process, but it is CA's largest power plant (and only nuke since San Onofre was deactivated), and at full production can produce 30% or better of the State's total electrical needs. In simple terms, this one plant can serve about 12 million people out of roughly 40 million in the State by itself. I'm not easily impressed, but that "fun fact" made my ears perk up.

Rick C

 

[rugerguy]

Hey G 1, you know this is "coal country"???? and I am between Davis Besse and Perry Nuke plants, and my costs are cheap, please don't screw with things.......I used to work for the AEC and my son Joe works with NRC now,,,,,,,,,sooooo "light 'em up" 8) :roll: :wink:

China is putting up coal plants ALL over their country, talk about cheap energy! :shock: