Does CO2 cause global warming? Is it good to reduce CO2? Who the Frack cares!

ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
All doable. We have the land, I don't know if we need three times the capacity for storage but if the wind farms are dispersed, there will be much less need for storage. Solar is a day time thing and the U.S. only has what? 4 time zones but most energy is needed in the day time anyway. Our grid and our generation capacity goes into a deep slumber every night - and that is where it is presumed we would gain with plug in hybrids and full electric vehicles.

There is no harm in adding to our generation capacity using only solar and wind. No one is advocating instant conversions.
Click to expand...
atm your ignoring the baseline need and building renewables from fossil fuels

build nuclear from fossil to take over your baseline then use nuclear to produce renewables to take up the slack

your putting cart before the horse atm
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
nontheist said:
Except unpredictability and large amounts of land, every time I see stupid fucking forecasts for wind and solar "in 20years we can have enough wind and sun energy to supply a average electric consumption for the 1960's. house hold" They completely ignore the fact as technology grows so will the desire for energy hell we can barely keep up now but I see your argument adding subpar equipment/technology to a struggling infrastructure will work in libtard land.
Click to expand...

Yeah, unpredictability with solar - never mind that most of our space fixtures use solar and demand predictability. Land? we got land, lots of land. You might also notice that our modern appliances use less and less power not more.


Adding subpar equipment and technology? oh, you mean like putting more coal fired plants online right?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
as low as it can be before i move out into the woods
Click to expand...
Why would you need to be in the woods? Just because you are on the grid does not mean you are contributing to demand. IMO Germany is doing it wrong, they have the same economic model of power facilities providing power to a grid to keep people paying every month.

In my old house I had solar panels running my meters backwards. They didn't pay me, but at least I didn't have to pay them. My power was clean too.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Why would you need to be in the woods? Just because you are on the grid does not mean you are contributing to demand. IMO Germany is doing it wrong, they have the same economic model of power facilities providing power to a grid to keep people paying every month.

In my old house I had solar panels running my meters backwards. They didn't pay me, but at least I didn't have to pay them. My power was clean too.
Click to expand...
was that in mexico?
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
atm your ignoring the baseline need and building renewables from fossil fuels

build nuclear from fossil to take over your baseline then use nuclear to produce renewables to take up the slack

your putting cart before the horse atm
Click to expand...

We are supporting our baseline needs now - with everything we have from wind to hydro to nuclear. Nuclear takes 10 years or more to bring online, wind far far less, solar far far less as well. Why wait 10 years in order to institute what is our eventual goal anyway?
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
We are supporting our baseline needs now - with everything we have from wind to hydro to nuclear. Nuclear takes 10 years or more to bring online, wind far far less, solar far far less as well. Why wait 10 years in order to institute what is our eventual goal anyway?
Click to expand...
i'll refer you back to post 106

and with commitment it will take much less than 10 years to put up nuclear power plants

for clarification im suggesting gen 3 nuclear power that do not have the shortcoming of the BWR plant of archaic design
 
nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Yeah, unpredictability with solar - never mind that most of our space fixtures use solar and demand predictability. Land? we got land, lots of land. You might also notice that our modern appliances use less and less power not more.


Adding subpar equipment and technology? oh, you mean like putting more coal fired plants online right?
Click to expand...
First of all our space fixtures don't have the unpredictability of the earths atmosphere. Second who's going to buy all this land, land is expensive and so is solar power. Third you're potentially destroying one recourse for another LAND what happens when populations start to swell and land has increased value by 5000x?. Coal is not subpar we can build it and know exactly what production rate it will produce.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
nontheist said:
First of all our space fixtures don't have the unpredictability of the earths atmosphere. Second who's going to buy all this land, land is expensive and so is solar power. Third you're potentially destroying one recourse for another LAND what happens when populations start to swell and land has increased value by 5000x?. Coal is not subpar we can build it and know exactly what production rate it will produce.
Click to expand...
coal is one of the worst sources of energy that we can use. more radiation is emitted into the enviroment thru coal than nuclear
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Interesting, but it is for the U.K. land is at a premium and it lies further north than much of the U.S. I would be all in favor of leveling the entire state of Texas and turning it into one giant solar generation facitily - we could sell the excess to canada and Mexico.
Click to expand...
it doesnt just cover the uk...

the lessons are applicable world wide considering the uk has some of the prime wind spots
 
nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Interesting, but it is for the U.K. land is at a premium and it lies further north than much of the U.S. I would be all in favor of leveling the entire state of Texas and turning it into one giant solar generation facitily - we could sell the excess to canada and Mexico.
Click to expand...
uh huh so much for being realistic
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
i'll refer you back to post 106

and with commitment it will take much less than 10 years to put up nuclear power plants

for clarification im suggesting gen 3 nuclear power that do not have the shortcoming of the BWR plant of archaic design
Click to expand...

State and federal regulations cost years and of all of the sorts of things that might call for relaxation of regulations, nuclear is not one of them. California has run into a huge problem with one of its nuclear facilities. I believe the bill will be close to a billion dollars to fix the problem, it is so massive that there are serious considerations of simply shutting down that portion of the plant.

Recall also that our plans for storage of waste have never been completed. Even if they are, there are soverignty issues and transportation problems that need to be worked out (if they can ever be). it is going to be a number of years even if you can put a plant up in 60 months as is being stated for the newest facilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top