If They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Have 100% Clean Po

Oneuli said:
First, I don't know of anyone who wants solar to be the only source of electricity. Most environmentalists are picturing some combination of solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and possibly nuclear. Anyway, to power the US off solar alone would take about 262 square kilometers of solar panels:

https://inovateus.com/2017/08/03/many-square-miles-solar-panels-take-power-u-s-smaller-think/

To put that in context, New York is a little over 122,000 square kilometers. So, you'd be covering a little more than 2/10 of 1% of New York. The Northeast as a whole is about 420,000 square kilometers, so it would be a bit over six-one-hundredths of 1% of the Northeast.
Click to expand...

A rational approach.
 
Havana Moon said:
Allow me to just point out that solar is a tiny 1.3% of the total US electricity production, whereas nuclear is 20%, with gas and coal at over 30% each. I wonder how many people know that?

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Click to expand...

I assume a lot of people. However, it doesn't address the issues with scaling up nuclear versus solar. That nuclear generation is from old nuclear plants, dating back decades. The last I checked, the most recent plant to come online was Watts Bar 2, which began in 1972. We've added almost no nuclear since the late 1970s, and the projects that have come online since then have been projects started back in the 1970s, before the Three Mile Island scare. If we're going to expand past 20%, we can't have projects taking decades to gestate. We need to move quickly as solar is now moving.
 
Oneuli said:
I assume a lot of people. However, it doesn't address the issues with scaling up nuclear versus solar. That nuclear generation is from old nuclear plants, dating back decades. The last I checked, the most recent plant to come online was Watts Bar 2, which began in 1972. We've added almost no nuclear since the late 1970s, and the projects that have come online since then have been projects started back in the 1970s, before the Three Mile Island scare. If we're going to expand past 20%, we can't have projects taking decades to gestate. We need to move quickly as solar is now moving.
Click to expand...

Watts Barr 2 achieved criticality in 2016! The biggest problem in the US is the lack of experience with big nuclear projects. Sadly many of the old timers have either retired or died.
 
Oneuli said:
I assume a lot of people. However, it doesn't address the issues with scaling up nuclear versus solar. That nuclear generation is from old nuclear plants, dating back decades. The last I checked, the most recent plant to come online was Watts Bar 2, which began in 1972. We've added almost no nuclear since the late 1970s, and the projects that have come online since then have been projects started back in the 1970s, before the Three Mile Island scare. If we're going to expand past 20%, we can't have projects taking decades to gestate. We need to move quickly as solar is now moving.
Click to expand...

That's more to do with the irrationality of Americans, risk analysis is just not something that many are capable of understanding.
 
Sailor said:
Historically meaning already in place? Built? Under construction now?
Click to expand...

Vogtle 3 &4 are the only reactors being built right now. Contrast that with China where 14 new reactors are under construction.

Around 11% of the world's electricity is generated by about 450 nuclear power reactors. About 60 more reactors are under construction, equivalent to 16% of existing capacity, while an additional 150-160 are planned, equivalent to nearly half of existing capacity.
Click to expand...

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...eration/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx
 
TrippyHippy said:
No, they made the right bet on renewable energy. Germany produced so much energy that electricity prices dropped below zero, meaning customers were essentially paid to use electricity. And California is producing so much from solar their electrical grid literally can't handle it. The arguments about the efficacy of renewable energies are unfounded.

Meanwhile, it's still not safe to live anywhere near Fukishima or Chernobyl. :palm:
Click to expand...

Poor Tom
 
Sailor said:
Not in New England. They are picking some of the choicest real estate.
Click to expand...

Yep, ... waterfront property here in Md..

:thumbsup:

In Blue liberal fascist Maryland we've always had issues with Chicken Farms and the manure runoff into the Chesapeake Bay.
 
Havana Moon said:
People are returning to Fukushima, indeed property prices are rocketing there. I still remember the bullshit you spouted about contaminated fish off the Californian coast.
Click to expand...

It wasn't bullshit, fuckface.
The price of Atlantic squid skyrocketed and has remained high all these years, because Pacific squid are still too contaminated (reflecting background radiation) asshole.
 
Last edited:
Havana Moon said:
That's more to do with the irrationality of Americans, risk analysis is just not something that many are capable of understanding.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.
For decades the question of who will finance them (no one would) has been the hold up.
Yuca mountain was another roadblock as well.

Stuff your Britshit. , arse wrangler.
 
Last edited:
Rune said:
It wasn't bullshit, fuckface.
The price of Atlantic squid skyrocketed and has remained high all these years, because Pacific squid are still too contaminated (reflecting background radiation) asshole.
Click to expand...

It was bullshit then and even more so now. You're such a stupid cunt that you can't see that this is a perfect example of Septic irrationality. If you're so worried about radiation then don't eat bananas or Brazil nuts!!

https://oceana.org/blog/worried-abo...d-turns-out-bananas-are-more-radioactive-fish
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top