Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then why is it not happening ANYWHERE? Nuclear power cannot allow for any mistakes, but humans are imperfect; they make mistakes. And we have not put a waste recycling or safe storage into production.
Then why is it not happening ANYWHERE? Nuclear power cannot allow for any mistakes, but humans are imperfect; they make mistakes. And we have not put a waste recycling or safe storage into production.
Yet here in the USA we keep making new nuclear reactors, a couple every year.
This happened on Sunday.
Granted, it was an extreme wind event, but still.
"Turbines in Scotland provided 39,545 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity to the National Grid on Sunday while the country’s total power consumption for homes, business and industry was 37,202 MWh – meaning wind power generated 106% of Scotland’s electricity needs.
...
A Scottish government spokeswoman said: “Scotland’s abundant energy resources play a vital role in delivering security of electricity supply across the UK. The Scottish Government is committed to supporting onshore wind, which is one of our most cost-effective low-carbon energy technologies."
"The project's owners are SSE, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners and SDIC Power. SSE expects the wind farm to contribute £680 million to the economy through employment and supply-chain opportunities during construction, with a £400- £525 million boost during the wind farm's 25-year operational lifespan."
Much the same was said of that silly airplane gizmo in the Wright Brothers' day, IMPRACTICAL!
Guess we'd better abandon researching alternative energy sources and stick with good ol' coal, maybe we could even bring back Stanley Steamers!
You fail to distinguish between private individuals and companies investing THEIR OWN MONEY for research and the government taking money from taxpayers and giving it to rich people to pay for research.
Then why is it not happening ANYWHERE? Nuclear power cannot allow for any mistakes, but humans are imperfect; they make mistakes. And we have not put a waste recycling or safe storage into production.
In nations that are not criminally irresponsible with nuclear power, you have precious few disasters. France is almost 100% nuclear. Ever hear of a major nuclear disaster there?
What you've got is Fukushima and Three Mile Island. What's the total number of people killed by those two total? With TMI, you saw a very slight increase in certain kinds of cancer nearby, but it was less than 1% which is so tiny that it may or may not mean anything. Six workers died in their efforts to contain things at Fukushima.
How many people have died from solar and wind? Well wind turbines are killing birds like crazy, and 35 Americans have been killed by it since 1970. No Americans have been killed by nuclear power in that same time period. Making the materials that make solar panels work generates a lot of toxic pollution and people tend to fall off the roof (or other heights at solar farms) and die.
Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100 deaths per TWh (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal electricity – world avg 60 deaths per TWh(26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170 deaths per TWh
Coal electricity- China 90 deaths per TWh
Coal – USA 15 deaths per TWh
Oil 36 deaths per TWh (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 deaths per TWh (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12 deaths per TWh
Peat 12 deaths per TWh
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 deaths per TWh (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind 0.15 deaths per TWh (1.6% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 deaths per TWh (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 deaths per TWh (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 deaths per TWh (5.9% of world energy)
Denmark gets one-third of its electricity from coal, and more from wind.
Each half of the country is part of a major electrical grid which depends on nuclear power for much of the base-load supply.
About ten percent of domestic consumption is from nuclear power. Nuclear Energy in Denmark : Danish Nuclear Electricity - World Nuclear Association
As I said, name for me a country that is 100% solar and wind that doesn't have to import more reliable energy like coal, gas and nuclear from elsewhere? Denmark isn't doing that.
Last edited by godofthunder9010; 08-12-2016 at 03:42 PM..
...
As I said, name for me a country that is 100% solar and wind that doesn't have to import more reliable energy like coal, gas and nuclear from elsewhere? Denmark isn't doing that.
sun shines when it wants to. Wind blows when it wants to. Rain falls when it wants to. We want power at the flip of a switch. So burn carbon to get it, or store it from earlier. 100% solar/wind sucks.
With what subsidies? And were/are they able to stop their conventional power production?
Your subject statement was "Wind & Solar Impractical and Harmful". I showed that isn't true. It's the current defense of the flailing right who is desperate to serve oil companies and let them destroy the environment through global warming.
In nations that are not criminally irresponsible with nuclear power, you have precious few disasters. France is almost 100% nuclear. Ever hear of a major nuclear disaster there?
Irrelevant. Things being what they are in the U.S. we are criminally irresponsible. So things being what they are, we need to oppose nuclear power. There are other reasons and France is seeing them and considering them.
Quote:
What you've got is Fukushima and Three Mile Island. What's the total number of people killed by those two total? With TMI, you saw a very slight increase in certain kinds of cancer nearby, but it was less than 1% which is so tiny that it may or may not mean anything. Six workers died in their efforts to contain things at Fukushima.
Unlike you, I am not willing to take the chance with something so horrible, so long-lasting, and so unforgiving all for the profit of the nuclear power industry. Alternatives' levelized costs are now less expensive than other technologies that we rely on for more power and produce more pollution and CO2.
Quote:
How many people have died from solar and wind?
None that I know of.
Quote:
Well wind turbines are killing birds like crazy
High-rise "skyscrapers" kill far more. That is an argument put forward by gas and coal industries and parroted by the uninformed.
Quote:
and 35 Americans have been killed by it since 1970. No Americans have been killed by nuclear power in that same time period.
Is that your only criterium? What about nuclear waste that lasts 300,000 years and pollutes aquifers and waterways like Chernobyl and some others have? No Americans have been killed but that requires we discount those people who experienced increased cancers and other health issues after our nuclear accidents, and it only looks at Americans. What about Japanese? What about pollution of the ocean with radioactive waste/debris from Fukushima?
Quote:
Making the materials that make solar panels work generates a lot of toxic pollution and people tend to fall off the roof (or other heights at solar farms) and die.
People fall off roofs while re-roofing them, while erecting antennas, while installing wood stove chimneys, and many other ways. the generation of toxic pollution is a one-time event for each panel and it could be managed much more easily than nuclear waste can. But nuclear power generates a continuous flow of radioactive waste as a normal consequence of operation.
Quote:
Denmark gets one-third of its electricity from coal, and more from wind.
Each half of the country is part of a major electrical grid which depends on nuclear power for much of the base-load supply.
About ten percent of domestic consumption is from nuclear power.
Is this your argument against any effort to develop alternative energy??
Quote:
As I said, name for me a country that is 100% solar and wind that doesn't have to import more reliable energy like coal, gas and nuclear from elsewhere? Denmark isn't doing that.
Is this an argument against developing alternatives? Suppose we did that with digital technology and the computer? How about the airplane?
Can you name for me one country that is 100% nuclear and has a perfect safety record?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
