Please sign this petition

135

Comments

  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    Yes but what alternatives. What if there are no other alternatives and all we really have is nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar. Then what we wasted billions of dollars and decades finding nothing. Even with conservation wind and solar will never be suffiecient enough to maintaine our cities. Wind and solar are great for small pockets of population not for major urban centers. It takes 4 power planst to keep NYC going. Let's say we cut back 10% on our usage. We would still need at least 3 power plants. The amount of solar panels and wind towers needed to produce that amount of energy is unattainable. The amount of matrerials needed and the amount of land you would need just to spread the panels and twoers across would be unrealistic. Nuclear power is the only other option we have.

    There is the possibility of a fourth option which is Helium-3. It is rare here on Earth but is believed to be in abundance on the Moon. It is a light non-radioactive isotope of Helium and can be used as an energy source. The problem is that would have to mine for it on the Moon. The cost of converting the Helium-3 to energy is efficient but we would have to factor in the cost of mining it which could make it too costly.

    there's already biomass, tidal, geothermal, hydrogen and other forms of energy production ... your what ifs are completely valid but they get considerably less critical when you lower the need ...

    the key here is that you've resigned yourself to a world that just doesn't have to be ... every year people die from respiratory illnesses due to air pollution - do we now just live in bubbles where we filter the air or do we try to actually clean it?
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    tybird wrote:
    Everybody be birthn' all them babies, Sugar. The Chinas and Indias of the world are where the demand is grow on an exponential level. I don't think the U.S. is at negative growth yet, so a new consumer is born every day.

    the USA consumes more energy then china and russia combined ... if you don't fix your own backyard - how do you expect others to?
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    polaris wrote:
    there's already biomass, tidal, geothermal, hydrogen and other forms of energy production ... your what ifs are completely valid but they get considerably less critical when you lower the need ...

    the key here is that you've resigned yourself to a world that just doesn't have to be ... every year people die from respiratory illnesses due to air pollution - do we now just live in bubbles where we filter the air or do we try to actually clean it?

    The problem is that even with conservation, let's say the whole population of the US reduces consumption by 10% as you stated, large urban centers still would need more than just wind, solar, hydro, biomass, tidal, geothermal energy to keep the power on. Those alternative forms are great and I believe we should adopt them to at least lower our dependence on coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy but we will still need at least one of the following sources to provide the sufficient amount of energy needed to pick up the slack. Nuclear is our best option out of those 4. Next generation reactors are able to extract even more energy from uranium and run clearner than existing plants. With the new generation of reactors our existing uranium supply will last us centuries. Giving us the much needed time to develope a more cost effective way of harvesting helium-3 which is produced by the sun and is carried by solar winds.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • mammasan wrote:
    Nuclear power is probably our best option for replacing fossil fuels for the energy we need to power our cities, homes, and businesses.

    It is the cleanest form of energy, right?
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    It is the cleanest form of energy, right?

    It is by far the cleanest out of coal, oil, and natural gas. It produces one hundreth of the greenhouse gases that coal and gas fire power stations produce and next generation reactors will produce even less. Solar, wind, tidal, biomass, hydrogen, and geothermal are all by far the cleanest forms of energy but they can not produce the amount of energy as nuclear can. Not even close.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    The problem is that even with conservation, let's say the whole population of the US reduces consumption by 10% as you stated, large urban centers still would need more than just wind, solar, hydro, biomass, tidal, geothermal energy to keep the power on. Those alternative forms are great and I believe we should adopt them to at least lower our dependence on coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy but we will still need at least one of the following sources to provide the sufficient amount of energy needed to pick up the slack. Nuclear is our best option out of those 4. Next generation reactors are able to extract even more energy from uranium and run clearner than existing plants. With the new generation of reactors our existing uranium supply will last us centuries. Giving us the much needed time to develope a more cost effective way of harvesting helium-3 which is produced by the sun and is carried by solar winds.

    if consumption drops 10% ... why do you need new energy sources?
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    polaris wrote:
    if consumption drops 10% ... why do you need new energy sources?

    because the world population is growing. and is it realistic to think every human on earth is going to cut consumption by 10%. seriously, step into reality for a second.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    polaris wrote:
    if consumption drops 10% ... why do you need new energy sources?

    Even with a 10% drop in consumption all the sources you suggested will not be able to provide the necessary energy, once coal and gas fire power stations are phased out. You will still need another source to pick up the slack and that source is nuclear. I don't understand how I can make it any clearer for you. Decreased consumption will not be enough. We could all decrease our consumption by 25%, which is completely unrealistic, and we would still need another source besides solar, wind, biomass, etc... because while they may be the cleanest form of energy they also produce the least amount of energy and their output combined would not be enough to meet our needs.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    Even with a 10% drop in consumption all the sources you suggested will not be able to provide the necessary energy, once coal and gas fire power stations are phased out. You will still need another source to pick up the slack and that source is nuclear. I don't understand how I can make it any clearer for you. Decreased consumption will not be enough. We could all decrease our consumption by 25%, which is completely unrealistic, and we would still need another source besides solar, wind, biomass, etc... because while they may be the cleanest form of energy they also produce the least amount of energy and their output combined would not be enough to meet our needs.

    actually, you are making yourself extremely clear - that isn't the issue ... the issue is that we disagree on what we consider to be the potential of renewables and the necessity for new nuclear ...

    do you know for a fact renewables could not compensate for the lack of production from coal and natural gas?

    http://www.ase.org/content/article/detail/3426
  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    polaris wrote:
    the USA consumes more energy then china and russia combined ... if you don't fix your own backyard - how do you expect others to?
    Historically, yes, within the next decade.....probably not. It's China and India whose populations are growing and their consumption of energy is growing exponentially.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    polaris wrote:
    actually, you are making yourself extremely clear - that isn't the issue ... the issue is that we disagree on what we consider to be the potential of renewables and the necessity for new nuclear ...

    do you know for a fact renewables could not compensate for the lack of production from coal and natural gas?

    http://www.ase.org/content/article/detail/3426

    OK here is a breakdown of each energy source and how many kilowatts-hour it can generate.

    Coal Fire Power Station - 1200 Kilowatts
    Nuclear Power Plant - 750 Kilowatts
    Oil & Gas Fire Power Stations - 725 Kilowatts
    Hydro-Electric Plants - 280 Kilowatts
    Biomass - 60 Kilowatts
    Geothermal - 14 Kilowatts
    Wind - 10 Kilowatts per turbine with 40 mph sustained winds
    Solar - 1 Kilowatt per square meter

    These are just averages but in order to produce the same amount of energy as one nuclear power plant you would need 750 sq meters worth of solar panels or 75 wind turbines with a sustained wind of at least 40 mph. Now the solar panels are only at maxime efficiency on sunny days and only for about 6-7 hours and I don't know of many places on earth that have a sustained wind of 40 mph all day everyday.

    Hydro-electric plants are pretty good but you would need two of them to produce the same amount of kilowatts-hour as a nuclear plant.

    For geothermal you would need 53 plants to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear plant plus geothermal plants would not work in every part of the globe.

    You would need 14 power plants fueled by biomass to equal one nuclear power plant.

    Manhattan alone uses about 300 Kilowatts-hour.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    mammasan wrote:

    Hydro-electric plants are pretty good but you would need two of them to produce the same amount of kilowatts-hour as a nuclear plant.


    Plus one of Polaris' big arguments against Nuclear is the high costs. I am pretty sure the cost of building a hydro dam is huge. Not to mention there are only so many places where you can dam a river to make an artificial lake.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    Plus one of Polaris' big arguments against Nuclear is the high costs. I am pretty sure the cost of building a hydro dam is huge. Not to mention there are only so many places where you can dam a river to make an artificial lake.

    Exactly. Most of these alternatives energy sources cannot be initiated in all corners of the globe. Solar and wind could be but they do not generate at near maximum capacity for long stretches of time.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    Plus one of Polaris' big arguments against Nuclear is the high costs. I am pretty sure the cost of building a hydro dam is huge. Not to mention there are only so many places where you can dam a river to make an artificial lake.
    Hydro-electric dams destroy the river's eco-system. Most of the animals and plants living in a river have spent thousands and thousands of their generations adapting to the river....then we go and completely change it over night. Hydro-electric dams are one of the main reasons that the state of Alabama is near the top of U.S. states in extinctions. We have more species of freshwater fish, mussels and snails than any other state....but we have killed off a lot of them because nearly every major river in the state is infected with hydro-electric dams.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    OK here is a breakdown of each energy source and how many kilowatts-hour it can generate.

    Coal Fire Power Station - 1200 Kilowatts
    Nuclear Power Plant - 750 Kilowatts
    Oil & Gas Fire Power Stations - 725 Kilowatts
    Hydro-Electric Plants - 280 Kilowatts
    Biomass - 60 Kilowatts
    Geothermal - 14 Kilowatts
    Wind - 10 Kilowatts per turbine with 40 mph sustained winds
    Solar - 1 Kilowatt per square meter

    These are just averages but in order to produce the same amount of energy as one nuclear power plant you would need 750 sq meters worth of solar panels or 75 wind turbines with a sustained wind of at least 40 mph. Now the solar panels are only at maxime efficiency on sunny days and only for about 6-7 hours and I don't know of many places on earth that have a sustained wind of 40 mph all day everyday.

    Hydro-electric plants are pretty good but you would need two of them to produce the same amount of kilowatts-hour as a nuclear plant.

    For geothermal you would need 53 plants to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear plant plus geothermal plants would not work in every part of the globe.

    You would need 14 power plants fueled by biomass to equal one nuclear power plant.

    Manhattan alone uses about 300 Kilowatts-hour.

    so 75 wind turbines to replace one nuclear power station?? ... that to me is a no brainer ... 75 turbines is nominal in cost compared to a nuclear power station and you'd have a huge surplus which could be used towards efficiencies, r & d and conservation programs ...

    right now wind amounts to what i guess to be less then 1% of energy production in the states ... of that - you are only tapping less than 1% of the potential in the US ...
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    tybird wrote:
    Historically, yes, within the next decade.....probably not. It's China and India whose populations are growing and their consumption of energy is growing exponentially.

    it will be a long time before either country competes on a per capita basis ... in any case - the point still doesn't change ...

    you have to fix your own backyard first
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    polaris wrote:
    so 75 wind turbines to replace one nuclear power station?? ... that to me is a no brainer ... 75 turbines is nominal in cost compared to a nuclear power station and you'd have a huge surplus which could be used towards efficiencies, r & d and conservation programs ...

    right now wind amounts to what i guess to be less then 1% of energy production in the states ... of that - you are only tapping less than 1% of the potential in the US ...

    So point me to the region of the US that has a sustained wind speed of 40 mph on a daily and consistant basis. Also how much land would 75 wind turbines take up? What would the effect of those wind turbines be on migritory birds?
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    polaris wrote:
    so 75 wind turbines to replace one nuclear power station?? ... that to me is a no brainer ... 75 turbines is nominal in cost compared to a nuclear power station and you'd have a huge surplus which could be used towards efficiencies, r & d and conservation programs ...

    right now wind amounts to what i guess to be less then 1% of energy production in the states ... of that - you are only tapping less than 1% of the potential in the US ...
    There's not that many places that would be as economical as you think to build wind farms.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    polaris wrote:
    it will be a long time before either country competes on a per capita basis ... in any case - the point still doesn't change ...

    you have to fix your own backyard first
    It won't be a "long time" when their use is increasing exponentially.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    mammasan wrote:
    So point me to the region of the US that has a sustained wind speed of 40 mph on a daily and consistant basis. Also how much land would 75 wind turbines take up? What would the effect of those wind turbines be on migritory birds?


    and if people don't want a nuclear plant in their backyard, i doubt they'd want this
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    So point me to the region of the US that has a sustained wind speed of 40 mph on a daily and consistant basis. Also how much land would 75 wind turbines take up? What would the effect of those wind turbines be on migritory birds?

    go check out the wind association website ... i'm not too sure what it is ...

    the issue of sound and migratory birds associated with wind are largely overstated ... in instances of birds - they can be turned off during migratory seasons ... but deaths related to wind turbines are way lower then compared to buildings ...

    and the thing is it generates wind at variable wind strengths ... if you have a cheaper and sustainable technology that is not even being utilized to 1% of its potential - why wouldn't you look at that first?
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    tybird wrote:
    It won't be a "long time" when their use is increasing exponentially.

    so ... the point is ... don't do anything because china and india are gonna catch up? ... i am unsure what you are getting at ... regardless of where china and india or any other country is going - you cannot deny that consumption here in north america is not sustainable ...
  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    polaris wrote:
    go check out the wind association website ... i'm not too sure what it is ...

    the issue of sound and migratory birds associated with wind are largely overstated ... in instances of birds - they can be turned off during migratory seasons ... but deaths related to wind turbines are way lower then compared to buildings ...

    and the thing is it generates wind at variable wind strengths ... if you have a cheaper and sustainable technology that is not even being utilized to 1% of its potential - why wouldn't you look at that first?
    The jury is still out on the bird damage.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    polaris wrote:
    go check out the wind association website ... i'm not too sure what it is ...

    the issue of sound and migratory birds associated with wind are largely overstated ... in instances of birds - they can be turned off during migratory seasons ... but deaths related to wind turbines are way lower then compared to buildings ...

    and the thing is it generates wind at variable wind strengths ... if you have a cheaper and sustainable technology that is not even being utilized to 1% of its potential - why wouldn't you look at that first?

    Because it will never be able to generate the amount of energy that 1 nuclear plant can. There are very little places on this earth, never mind the US, where there is a constant 40 mph wind. Wind and solar power are only usefull, beneficial, and economic in less populated locals, not in urban centers. While I believe that these forms of alternative energy should be implemented in the appropriate locations, cities and large urban areas will still need to rely on one of the four major power sources; coal, gas, oil, and nuclear. Nuclear is by far superior to the other three sources.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    tybird wrote:
    The jury is still out on the bird damage.

    not really ... there are thousands of wind mills all throughout california and no one is talking about bird deaths ...

    office buildings will kill more birds by far
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    Because it will never be able to generate the amount of energy that 1 nuclear plant can. There are very little places on this earth, never mind the US, where there is a constant 40 mph wind. Wind and solar power are only usefull, beneficial, and economic in less populated locals, not in urban centers. While I believe that these forms of alternative energy should be implemented in the appropriate locations, cities and large urban areas will still need to rely on one of the four major power sources; coal, gas, oil, and nuclear. Nuclear is by far superior to the other three sources.

    what? ... even if we went conservative and said we need 200 wind turbines to equate 1 nuclear power plant ... it is still waaaay cheaper then one power plant ... with the advances in turbines these days - turbines can generate power with as little as 5 mph winds ... you make it sound like if it doesn't have 40 mph winds - it won't work ... simply not the case ...

    again ... less then 1% of wind energy potential is being tapped right now in the USA - get that to 10% and see where you are at ...
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    polaris wrote:
    what? ... even if we went conservative and said we need 200 wind turbines to equate 1 nuclear power plant ... it is still waaaay cheaper then one power plant ... with the advances in turbines these days - turbines can generate power with as little as 5 mph winds ... you make it sound like if it doesn't have 40 mph winds - it won't work ... simply not the case ...

    again ... less then 1% of wind energy potential is being tapped right now in the USA - get that to 10% and see where you are at ...

    If you base the majority of your power on wind turbines, what do you do on days when there are 0mph winds? Your comment earlier about batteries is crazy. The battery in my car fairly big, but if I leave my headlights on it is dead in maybe 6 hours. I can't imagine the size of batteries you would need to power a whole house.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    If you base the majority of your power on wind turbines, what do you do on days when there are 0mph winds? Your comment earlier about batteries is crazy. The battery in my car fairly big, but if I leave my headlights on it is dead in maybe 6 hours. I can't imagine the size of batteries you would need to power a whole house.

    any power generated thru wind would just get fit into the grid ... batteries are more for homes and small buildings ... a home that is off the grid will usually need a stack of maybe 10-20 batteries ... not many at all ...
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    polaris wrote:
    what? ... even if we went conservative and said we need 200 wind turbines to equate 1 nuclear power plant ... it is still waaaay cheaper then one power plant ... with the advances in turbines these days - turbines can generate power with as little as 5 mph winds ... you make it sound like if it doesn't have 40 mph winds - it won't work ... simply not the case ...

    again ... less then 1% of wind energy potential is being tapped right now in the USA - get that to 10% and see where you are at ...

    Best estimates is that you need a sustained 40 mph winds in order to generate 10 kilowatts an hour. There is no where in the United States where a sustained 40 mph wind speeds exist so it would require many more than just 75 wind turbines to generate what one nuclear plants does. It is simply impossible. The most obviouse reason is the amount of land needed to build those turbines. In more populated areas of the country the land is simply not available. NYC gets average wind speeds of about 4-6 mph. You would probably need in excess of 150 turbines operating at 100% capacity 24/7 in order to generate enough power for Manhattan alone. Where would those 150 turbines go. How about the other 300 plus turbines needed to provide power to the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. You are probably looking at about 500 turbines just for NYC alone never mind the outlying areas like Jersey City, Newark, Elizabeth. You may be looking at over 1,000 turbines just to provide power to an areas about 15 miles in diameter where land is scarce. Of course should we happen to have a few days without wind as is usual here in the humid days of summer you would need another source. Maybe a few hundred thousand meters worth of solar panels. Again don't really know where the hell to put them. We will also need a third supplier for those hot windless humid nights but I guess we can sap all the juice from Niagra Falls on those nights.

    Face it my friend as great as it sounds in theory it is just that theory. Alternative energy will never work as the sole provider. You still need another constistant source like coal, oil, gas, and nuclear. It is a fact and the longer people continue to live in a world based on theory instead of the real one the more we are fucking ourselves in the long run. Nuclear power is our best option for a constant energy source.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    polaris wrote:
    any power generated thru wind would just get fit into the grid ... batteries are more for homes and small buildings ... a home that is off the grid will usually need a stack of maybe 10-20 batteries ... not many at all ...


    I am not sure what you mean "fit into the grid" the grid is not some magical battery that can hold electricity until you need it. You need to generate the amount of electricity that you need at any given time. If you didn’t need to do that energy trading wouldn’t exist and there would be no problem keeping up with demand since “the grid” could just build up to the required demand overnight when demand is low.
Sign In or Register to comment.