Environment & Energy

longship

(40,416 posts)

25. Okay, let's assume that

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 11:51 PM

Apr 2012

First, it's not enough to bridge the gap when power is generated by solar and wind. Name a non-carbon emitting power generation that provides power 24/7, or name a technology that provides storage for peak periods not covered by off-peak generation.

Look, my friend. I hate nuclear power as it is. It's a nightmare. But it just so happens that it is one technology which has no CO2 emissions. Given our current situation we would be stupid to ignore it. No matter what people think, we are going to need alternatives that can supply power. Solar cannot do it. Wind cannot do it. Not 24/7, unless we have a way to store the power.

But how to do that? Tell me.

In the meantime, new nuclear technologies may serve us well. That's all I'm saying here.

Fukushima has skewed people's opinion. Nuclear power tech can go way beyond those reactors. I am not recommending that we rebuild unsafe reactors, but we should at least look into the latest ideas. I am no expert, I last studied nuclear physics in the 70's. Things have progressed far beyond that since.

Peace.

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