Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

15. I understand real time demand extremely well.

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 10:49 PM

Apr 2012

You however, do not. All you are doing is parroting the nuclear industry standard line of bullpuckey.

You made an appeal to science, right? Show me a peer reviewed analysis that says the linking together of renewable sources of generation cannot work to provide 100% of our energy needs. Al Gore was pushing a program called "RePower America", do you remember that? Why would they claim something that doesn't work? Another example is Germany. They have studied the issue and they say they can do it. Do you think they do not understand the variability of wind and solar?

So again, I challenge you to show me a peer reviewed analysis that says the linking together of renewable sources of generation cannot work to make a system that provides 100% of our energy needs.

You will not find one because the premise cannot be supported. You will, however, find a lot of papers from the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Heritage Foundation making exactly the same claims you are making.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The 30-year itch America�s nuclear industry struggles to get off the floor [View all] kristopher Apr 2012 OP

obsolete technology. end our obsession with war and go alternative energy big time nt msongs Apr 2012 #1

As usual, public opinion lags the science longship Apr 2012 #2

Why do you think we need nuclear power... kristopher Apr 2012 #3

Several reasons longship Apr 2012 #4

So you believe in "The Baseload Myth"? kristopher Apr 2012 #6

Okay! How do you store energy? longship Apr 2012 #9

You say "this is basic science"? kristopher Apr 2012 #10

Jesus Christ! You still don't understand real time demand! longship Apr 2012 #13

I understand real time demand extremely well. kristopher Apr 2012 #15

You don't understand the main issue here longship Apr 2012 #18

I told you the answer - it is the same answer we use now, a grid. kristopher Apr 2012 #20

Where is the fucking storage in this fucking grid? longship Apr 2012 #21

I asked where you are getting your information kristopher Apr 2012 #22

Okay, let's assume that longship Apr 2012 #25

You clearly do not "hate nuclear power" kristopher Apr 2012 #26

What forms of renewable energy do you have at your house? XemaSab Apr 2012 #33

I agree that we will need nuclear power johnd83 Apr 2012 #5

Agreed. Nuke power tech is antiquated. longship Apr 2012 #7

They have been researched. kristopher Apr 2012 #8

Agreed in practice, but not in principle longship Apr 2012 #11

Thorium has a host of its own problems kristopher Apr 2012 #12

That is precisely why we need To fund research longship Apr 2012 #16

Solar and wind do not have to do it alone kristopher Apr 2012 #19

Propaganda? longship Apr 2012 #23

You aren't quoting science, you are quoting propaganda. kristopher Apr 2012 #24

You obviously do not want to have a meaningful discussion longship Apr 2012 #27

You aren't engaging in a discussion. kristopher Apr 2012 #28

These are my view of the facts. Tell me where I am mistaken. longship Apr 2012 #29

I've already answered that... kristopher Apr 2012 #30

Blah, blah, blah, blah longship Apr 2012 #31

The current grid operates almost entirely on stored energy... kristopher Apr 2012 #32

The fucking grid does not store power longship Apr 2012 #34

And yet you DO RECOMMEND AND ENDORSE NUCLEAR kristopher Apr 2012 #35

That's enough longship Apr 2012 #36

That's a lot easier than actually addressing the information... kristopher Apr 2012 #37

Voyager is not really a good example johnd83 Apr 2012 #14

the real problem is the enormous cost... of nuclear energy kristopher Apr 2012 #17