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.
I may not have been clear, I meant large subsides that are outweighing wind and solar as was commented on earlier. If you look at your list, you can see that nuclear does not receive more than wind and solar. Maybe over all, but that is of no meaning because there are more kWhr created by nuclear. On a meaningful scale, nuclear and coal on the only ones on this list that should be in operation. And in perfect market, coal would even win at that.
And I've read about 200 years of coal, which is probably in the same margin of error as 350. The reason I prefer we phase it out before we exhaust coal is so we have coal around incase we may need it for something else (unknown at present). I don't think it is a good idea to completely exhaust a resource.
Why, was that the point of the whole "Global Warming" non-sense in the first place? To utilize this situation in an effort to move along oil independance and alternative fuels? Did you know that the argument was exploiting a natural occurance to drive an aggenda?
What planet do you live on. Over the last five years much more wind generation has been installed than coal and there's been zero nuclear despite nuclear subsidies that are substantially larger than those for wind. Last year there were eight gigawatts of wind installed in the country.
No matter how many government subsides wind power gets, it does not make it any more reliable or dependable. Wind and solar will never be anything other then a source of supplemental power generation. You need a dependable base of electrical power, and that would currently only apply to nuclear, coal and NG, and maybe hydro.
I might add that the electrical grid does not simply soak up all the power that a G&T can pump out. When the demand for electricity is low, a power generation and transmission provider will actually have to pay fines for adding excess energy onto the grid, which must be bled off. Nuclear and coal power plants must slowly ramp up/down their power generation, so they use different methods to match generation with the predicted demands. Just because the wind is blowing does not mean anyone wants to buy their power, and just because the wind is blowing, does not mean anyone wants to buy their power either; the same for solar. Both wind and solar are unreliable, and you cannot plan your base load very predictably with either.
Wind and solar need to be a part of our future, though they may not have the raw power/reliability to be the baseline. Currently neither are very cost effective, as they have high costs and low outputs, so they need to run for very long amounts of time to pay themselves off. Obviously coal and gas are the most cost effective right now, but both being a non-renewable resource they should be phased out, and not time is better than the present.
I agree.
We have enough coal to last 150+ years, but you are correct, it would be nice to phase it out, once better sources are found.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WalterK
Zero nuclear plants have been built because the "subsidies" never existed, the government started a loan guarantees program in '05 through '08. The document you need to submit to the NRC is about 10-15K pages, so submits didn't get in to the NRC until '08, at which point the NRC reviews them for a mandatory 3 years. During that time the ESBWR (which many where submitted to build) did not receive approval by the NRC, so all applicants much re-submit. There were 34 or so submittals, meaning potentially in the next 10 yrs we could have around 34 new nuclear power plants. You would need about 17,000 wind mills to generate a comparable amount of power.
Nuclear power is far from subsidized in my state, its banned.
This little chart is a favorite of the political right (who seem to uniformly oppose the science regarding climate change, for some reason). I'm yet to see any source cited on it to verify its accuracy. The fact that algorelied.com is cited raises my red flag of suspicion.
Anybody who pegs the climate change issue on Al Gore does not have a clue about the climate change issue and probably first heard about it when Gore popularized it in the mainstream.
Likewise, there are countless charts that demonstrate the rising global temperature from legitimate sources:
Nuclear power is far from subsidized in my state, its banned.
The green movement is indeed winning, which is funny cause you would think nuclear power would be their saving grace. No carbon, we have the technology, safe (despite what they say), reliable, and high enough output.
Bluefly-all your graphs are from the mid-1800s till now. In terms of climate change, you aren't even looking at two cycles, that is why it is easy to convince some (looking at the graph, it seems conclusive) and others, like myself, are not convinced because when you look at an accurate time scale in dealing with climate.....
seriously... another one of these idiotic threads? What do you think you're going to get out of this that your previous "it's cold outside" threads haven't gotten you?
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.
