IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
News For Germany (and Like), 12.1GWh/day from solar. Nukeplants to close. Fukushima!!

tumetuestumefais...
post Apr 8 2011, 10:02 PM
Post #1





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



Recently somebody came here with the information that in the Germany they have at peak already the whole "12.1GWh" produced daily from solar and implying that if anything then we need the nuclear power only from our sun.

So let's look kids how much the 12.1GWh in the Germany is.

In 2008 they consumed 631 TWh in Germany. It is on average 1727 GWh a day. 1727 divided by 12.1 = 142. So then 1 divided by 142 = 0.007. -Seven thousands of the consumed electricity in Germany, the leading solar superpower they already produce using the solar powerplants. Perfect. thumbsup.gif

This stunning figure we see 10 years after the year 2000 when the Germany passed the nuclear phase-out which will close all the evil nuclear powerplants until 2021 (pushed through by the prime minister G. Schroeder, who then became the CEO of the natural gas pipeline company Nordstream, planning to bring the natural gas from Russia, after having been hired by the investment bank Rothschild just after he strucked a billion euro deal with Gazprom) and after all the large subsidies pushed by EU. What a progress. ohmy.gif

What a perfect source which has at the night exactly same wattage as the nuclear powerplant (now in Fukushima). What a wonderful renewable power source - it renews itself every morning!

In the evil nuclear powerplants the Germans (still) produce 23% (27.2% in 2004!) of electricity. 0.23 divided by 0.007 = 32.85. Multiplied then by the ten years of the previous promising development since 2000 = 328 years.

So here are the good news for the Germans: Just another 328 years of the same promising solar energy development and they'll produce from it the same amount of the electricity as they do now in the nuclear powerplants. It will work just during the day, but it will perfectly help the German industry of candles...

And now for the bad news: From coal and natural gas they produce in Germany 61% of electricity now. In the splendid year 2339 with the present speed of the solar energy growth in Germany (said to be the fastest in the world) will this industry get on par there with the present electricity production from the nuclear powerplants. But even if the power consumption will rest the same as now - as it doesn't much look likely - there will be no, but really NO coal (maybe a piece in a museum) then. Nowhere. According to the World Coal Association there are coal reserves for 119 years. The known natural gas reserves are estimated to be 190 trillion cubic meters. The present world consumption of the natural gas is by the UN estimated to be more than 3.3 trillion cubic meters yearly. 190 divided by 3.3 = 58. Which means that even if the world natural gas consumption would remain the same from now on then the known reserves of the natural gas will last just 58 years. And with the promising so called fracking, which needs loads of fresh water we already now have problems to have enough, it will be presumably also very precarious then.

From what the Germans will produce the 77% rest of their electricity if we assume they'll have same energy consumption then? From the wind? And what if it will not blow, there will be January and night? dunno.gif Will the vast majority of the Germans supporting the brilliant Greenpiss ideas about the nuclear energy freeze and starve to death including the local Turks by the year 2339, or very possibly much sooner, and the Czechs will expand to the west and the French their evil nukeplants to the east, or they'll eventually come back to their senses?

The world apparently wants to be deluded. So should we abandon the reasonable argumentation, which anyway often ends just with the name-calling from the side of the "valued members" and start fervently support the magnificent green ideas in whole the temperate zones except our countries -to let finally e.g. the Germans, Americans, Italians... simply the nations with the exuberant histories of the fascist government and with the dully public supporting it same way fervently as now the nuclear power phase-out too -to spontaneously cease from the face of this Earth?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Apr 8 2011, 10:28 PM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



Tume,

I am not a valued member…but I understand…having read other’s reactions.

I am a peace maker…and have noted that the “Moderating Team” has been lax…

On the other hand…

Long drawn out responses “Will not be read” by the average person…

Pretend we are 6th graders…

elreb
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Apr 8 2011, 10:51 PM
Post #3





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



Why is switching to renewable sources of energy such a threat to you?

It's not all or nothing. There's lot of things we can do to generate energy, without resorting to the most expensive and dangerous way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Apr 8 2011, 11:40 PM
Post #4





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (elreb @ Apr 8 2011, 03:28 PM) *
Long drawn out responses “Will not be read” by the average person…

Yeah, I've noticed e.g. here or here. But at least some can follow more. Maybe I'll be again accused to obfuscate something here with the 10 paragraphes like here, but that's somehow my nature to try explain the things how they are, not just show the polished surface.

As DYEW said: "Instead of saying no we can't, we have to starting believing in ourselves again because we don't have a choice if we want to survive."

Now I see he has the point. I'm going to fervently support the Greenpeace - looks like it is the fastest way how to let the roots of evil to uproot themselves, do virtually nothing than just sometimes make a fuss and get generous subsidies for it. rolleyes.gif

Fukushima-Hiroshima! Radiation! protest.gif Let's dig the shelters!! Recriticality, Plutonium, fee-fo-fum! In SunGOD we trust! Horus my master worthy.gif enlight me! Rothschild, give more to my beloved fellow Schroeder! handsdown.gif Vivat la revolución, venceremos! Che-Guevara! banger.gif LSD ->sold here! smokin.gif Make money not war! shake.gif Saaandy mourning, praise d'dawning...Jest, weekend! stars.gif bow.gif bath.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Apr 8 2011, 11:50 PM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



if i may interject. i think that the gist of the disputations involves "utopians" versus realists.

i am a manufacturer. the product i manufacture is mandatory for the operation of ic engines that are critical to the e&p and transmission of hydrocarbons. and electrical powergen. globally.

this is a part of the global infrastructure of civilization that very few recognize, understand.

in the years that i have been doing this, i have encountered way too many "utopians". though they might like sufficient energy from what i call "utopian" sources to power the industrial world, it cannot happen at this time. perhaps far into the future as the industrial world as it now is continues to exist and function, or after some form of global cataclysm and humankind attempts to get back out of caves.

also to the point, "utopians" come from many disciplines. one of the most interesting is the shill for natural gas as a replacement fuel for pov's and class 7, class 8 tractors[trucks]. his name is james cramer and he spouts his ignorance daily on a show on cmbc. when i occassionally surf into him in the early evening as he promotes this alternative to gasoline, diesel, i want to jump through the television screen, throttle him, and tell the audience the truth. natural gas is the worst vehicular fuel imaginable. and converting the diesel-powered over the road tractors[trucks] to to this fuel would shut down all cargo transport in the usa. jim cramer either knows nothing about natural gas as a vehicular fuel. or he wants to sell you stock in companies involved in natural gas.

the other day, rupert's wall street journal gave air to an editorial by a former dci, james woolsey. he touted using natural gas to produce methanol, then to use methanol to replace diesel and gasoline. this may be a more pernicious "utopian" idea than cramer's.

i was involved in the government-funded efforts to make methanol a future fuel back in the 1970's. lots of grant money dispersed. and no one wanted to hear what i had to say about methanol. it was as if i was the only individual who knew something about methanol back then. and i can tell you, what i had to say at doe conferences, asme, sae conferences was not welcomed.

but if you were to go and study the results of the methanol projects, i think you would find that i had it accurately from the outset.
methanol is not fuel you want replacing gasoline, diesel.

in a similar vein, the "utopians" have clamored for, supported, the government mandate for the addition of crop[corn]-derived ethanol[ethyl alcohol] to gasoline. this mandate is buncombe[sic] in its purest form.

and if you want to know why i say that, just ask me, and i shall respond.

from my perspective, if inhabitants of the industrial countries want to continue living in a world that they have enjoyed for most of the post ww2 decades, they are going to have to come to grips with the realities of real energy sources. and stop kicking the can down the road.

i continue to find it exasperating that the usa, and other industrial countries, have done nothing since the first arab oil embargo in 1973[?] to develop a national energy policy. a national transportation policy. solar, wind will never be able to replace hydrocarbons. that being the reality, hydrocarbons are going to have to be used more effectively.

i close this chapter this way. it is unimaginable to me that the "utopians" seem to favor a national transportation system predicated upon commercial jet aircraft. arguably, this is the most energy depleting transport system imaginable. a national grid of diesel-powered rail transport would be the most energy saving transport system currently available.

but, i think you may understand that the commercial aircraft trnasport system is an adjunct of the military industrial complex. and those lobbyists run the show.

i could say so much more, but the time has come to throw a grass-fed piece of beef on the barbie. and that leads me to another bit of methodology to reduce energy consumption. eliminate the feed lots. stop using corn as an ungulate fatterner. end corporate farming[the soylent greensters].

my 4 cents.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Apr 9 2011, 12:05 AM
Post #6





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Apr 8 2011, 03:51 PM) *
Why is switching to renewable sources of energy such a threat to you?

:GOTO POST 1 :DATA INPUT :END OF HINT
QUOTE
It's not all or nothing. There's lot of things we can do to generate energy, without resorting to the most expensive and dangerous way.

for example?
(I like the idea of the coast-to-coast bullet-trains powered by the fatty passengers on bicycle trainers, although I'm still not sure where we get the burgers'fries'n'coke for them if we abandon the industrial agriculture.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Apr 9 2011, 12:34 AM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



Tume,

I agree that the “Moderating Team” failed to do their job…but…don’t yell at me…

You are a deep and thoughtful person…yet…we must out fox…the chicken coup…

Strange Genius Syndrome & Creative Genius Syndrome

A strange Genius is expressed in a variety of forms, such as history genius, computer genius, mechanical genius and inventive genius amongst others. A strange Genius may show itself in early childhood or later in life; either way, strange geniuses eventually differentiate themselves from the others through great originality.

A strange Genius often have crisp, clear-eyed visions of given situations, in which interpretation is unnecessary, and they build or act on the basis of those facts, usually with tremendous energy. Accomplished strange geniuses in intellectual fields start out with superior memory or understanding.

The only currently acceptable scientific way of determining one's intelligence is with an intelligence quotient (IQ) test. A strange Genius may not have IQ levels in the normal smart-ass range do to their disability and may score a very low level in one of the sub-categories of non interest, such as sports trivia or rap music.

Accordingly, the definition of a strange genius can include those who do not necessarily have a high IQ test score, or who have not even taken such a test. Popular assessment of a strange genius often relies not only on a vast intellect, but also upon a combination of an incredible ability to understand complex issues and problems, a profound creativity and imagination, and the ability to channel such skills into productive outlets.

A strange genius has the ability to independently arrive at and understand concepts that would normally have to be taught by another person and in many cases most people have problems understanding the concepts and wisdoms of a strange Genius due to the enormous gap in perspective. In fact, the visions of a strange Genius may have never been taught at all or are in reality, in opposition with currently accepted views, values & venues.

Many strange Geniuses do not associate themselves with organized religion, political parties or traditional educational institutes. VVV

"Before experience knowledge" is a type of knowledge inherent and intrinsic in some human minds.
This knowledge is received through impressions, and also from the faculty of cognition which supplies itself from within one’s self.

"After experience knowledge" is a type of knowledge gained based on the content of experience.

“All possibilities knowledge” is going beyond knowledge and may begin with experience, but it does not follow that it arises from experience".
It is not limited to the deduction of the conditions of possible experience but does consider Time, Cause and Logic because the world is not an orderly, rule-governed place.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Apr 9 2011, 01:19 AM
Post #8





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



Maturin42 said " It is a peak figure, of course but perhaps it indicates that renewable strategies only need some combinations of infrastructure measures to address how to meet our sustainable power needs without blowing ourselves up or causing a few centuries of radiation-induced genetic mutations."

Notice how I said that was a peak figure and that we should start figuring out what combinations of infrastructure measure were needed to meet sustainable power needs ...

The key is sustainable and it's all about earth-friendly. What is happening at Fukushima, and what happened at Chernobyl, and TMI and what takes place in a nuclear reactor, and in trying to figure out how to just store the waste products ... that AIN'T earth-friendly.

Tume - I believe you are a good engineer. I bet you could help if you were not so much the captive of the beauty of nukes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Apr 9 2011, 06:52 AM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Apr 8 2011, 11:05 PM) *
:GOTO POST 1 :DATA INPUT :END OF HINT

for example?
(I like the idea of the coast-to-coast bullet-trains powered by the fatty passengers on bicycle trainers, although I'm still not sure where we get the burgers'fries'n'coke for them if we abandon the industrial agriculture.)

First Ever Hybrid Solar Plant Opens in Florida

March 21, 2011



With the recent launch of the world’s first hybrid solar energy plant, it looks like Florida is putting its reputation as the Sunshine State to good use. Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center will not only help to push the state to the forefront of the solar market, but will also showcase an example of how new and old energy forms can work together.

The plant is located in Martin County, sprawling over 500 acres of Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) owned land. With nearly 200,000 solar thermal mirrors currently being used to track and contain the energy released by the sun, it has the ability to power an impressive 11,000 homes. But solar power isn’t its only means of collecting energy. It’s also working with the existing natural gas plant, thus the reason it’s considered “hybrid.”

This 75-MW facility is expected to reduce fossil fuel consumption by 41 billion cubic feet of natural gas and 600,000 barrels of oil. In turn, this could mean 2.75 million tons less of greenhouse gas emissions and $178 million in fuel cost savings over a 30-year period.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Apr 9 2011, 07:39 AM
Post #10





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (elreb @ Apr 8 2011, 05:34 PM) *
I agree that the “Moderating Team” failed to do their job…but…don’t yell at me…

This could be a misunderstanding. Nothing here is intended to yell at anybody. Originally I've written the original post for my Czech blog in the section humor. Just minor adaptation was needed to freshen it for posting here.

Yeah, the world is not an orderly, rule-governed place. So for the lack of other ideas at this moment I've got the idea I could try to use the "ordo ab chao" methodics too, to try tackle the most disorderly things and mob. I'm still not very good at it, but hopefully I'll eventually come on as is said that to use its own weapons is the best way how to prevail the enemy - in this case the folly.

And thank you for the geniuses taxonomy explanation. I just wonder in which of the categories fit the "perfect" crimes some of our politicians notoriously get away with, with immunities supported, wittingly or unwittingly, by many whenever it fits their, reasonable or unreasonable, agendas.

Just because we came across the strange geniality I should confess that once just after the 2004 tsunami I've even written the Prolegomena to stupidity. -The one of the most marvellous phenomenas in the known universe. Unfortunately I'm not so able at English to translate it. Fortunately the movie Falling Down is still available.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Apr 9 2011, 08:33 AM
Post #11





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



well, you 'geniuses' keep patting yourselves on the back..i'll sit back and yawn until you are done.

and for anyone harboring any illusions of utopia, well good luck don quixote.

all of the engineers and scientists and 3 piece suits have already decided for the rest of humanity what the desired path is , so who are the plebs to complain?

don't bs me w/ some 'the public wanted ethanol'. adm wanted ethanol. and spare me the democracy spiel. you go and out vote rockefeller.

how many tons of radioactive waste are there worldwide? 250000 tons? a million tons? growing at what rate annually? do you think the solution is to form it all into 30mm rounds and rain it down on the heads of falluja?
what happens when you run out of fallujas?

i'm sick to death of hearing how cost effective nuclear power is? in terms of what? i have never seen a comprehensive breakdowns of the costs from start to finish. not some rudimentary back of the napkin calculations, but the real deal. quit comparing it to this or that. wrong premise.

as scientists, you have theory. as engineers you have practice. theory does not equal practice. there is no such thing as infallible. quit being so f'ing arrogant as to think you have the answer. you don't. and in case you don't know why, it's simple, you ain't god..you are man. you wipe your ass the same way every other man does.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 9 2011, 08:35 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



hmmm, solar power...
i got a couple of panels of solar cells, hooked up to batteries and an inverter. It's just enough to run a water pump.
For certain small things, like sign lighting in the middle of nowhere, solar power is very useful, but for turning visible light into power for heating or air-conditioning, it is minuscule.

A wood fire is a better way to extract heat energy from solar power, and the byproduct, CO2, grows more trees!

Wind power.
i built a barrel windmill, much more efficient than the 2 or 3 bladed, propeller type, anyway the wind blows.

i have come up with an even more efficient wind mill, though i haven't built it yet.
The wind whacker.
It consists of a single sail, of any size, suspended horizontally from a one way ratchet. Like a swing. In its normal position, it hangs down, but when the slightest wind blows, it swings, powering a ratchet, such as the freewheel of a bicycle, that would spin a fly wheel only one direction, (from the back and forth movement of the swinging sail), from which, electrical energy can be extracted.

Another idea is to utilize the extreme expansion power of water as it cools to ice. Though i would need an ocean of water and very cold arctic air...

i feel that we have only been given rubber tools to extract energy from the environment.

And then there is the very real geothermal energy, utilizing an underground, ever replenishing steam pocket, and powering the turbine directly, using the Earth itself as the boiler for a steam engine.

Isn't the nuclear power industry, a spin-off from making nuclear bombs?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Apr 9 2011, 09:52 AM
Post #13





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (maturin42 @ Apr 8 2011, 06:19 PM) *
Tume - I believe you are a good engineer. I bet you could help if you were not so much the captive of the beauty of nukes.

But I'm not an engineer at all. I'm a psychologist. My speciality is terrorism. - the use of fear to achieve (usually utopian) political ends (usually using indiscriminate violence as well-tested mean to generate it, although the environmentalists sometimes can be successful even without much of it except the rape of reason).

The reasons I support nuclear are purely pragmatic - too many people, consuming too much with not much time for the system and infrastructure transition left. I don't spool to the overplayed fears, but I'm very much aware of what will happen if the "utopian" sources - as albert put it - will be promoted enough to prevail and no real real alternative will be managed to substitute the two main hydrocarbon resources for electricity generation - coal and natural gas - with reliable sources - which neither solar, nor wind are in principle. I'm not completely against this technologies, but as I said better for local off grid use. For example in Czech we have already now notoriously the emergency situations in the grid if the wind starts to blow in Germany and our grid must transport it to the nuclear unfriendly Austria. Blackouts are imminent and also when we must transfer the power back if the wind stops to blow in Germany.

Problem with the solar and wind is that it has low potential, instability and too slow implementation relatively to the hydrocarbon sources depletion prospect even if they would not have the instability problem which makes them unsuitable for industrial application without the backup of the same wattage + the reinforcement of the grid. What i think is the most important detail in my attitude towards nuclear is that I think the R&D resources should be directed mainly to the 4th generation nuclear technologies - especially Thorium based - as the 3rd and earlier generations clearly aren't sustainable and should be gradually phased-out and substituted for the 4th generation which I'm almost sure will be the major power generation technology in the 2nd half of the 21. century regardless what the environmentalists "think" about. (and which btw solves on the long term basis dangerous "waste" problem) If not, or if somebody will not invent something else cappable to substitute for fast depleting gas and coal, which I don't much believe it will happen, at least not sufficiently soon, then I'm afraid a generalized global economic and civilization decline would most probably ensue very quickly after the coal peak in 2035-45. (and please don't tell me the peak coal doesn't exist as some the "optimists" do confusing it with peak oil) It is not a matter of political opinion, but a result of quite simple basic principles of thermodynamics, namely its 2nd law.

I think the false sense of security, which many buy into with the so called "renewables" -as a result of contrast reaction to the overinflated and artificially promoted terrors to secure the hydrocarbon lobby agenda -like the "invisible enemy" radiation fears reminding of the UBL phantome could potentially result in selfinflicted globalized catastrophe already during our lives.

going to employ solar energy of the nice spring afternoon: tume
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Apr 9 2011, 12:05 PM
Post #14





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



pragmatism aside, not being a malthusian, i don't believe there are too many people. well, too many politicians perhaps. are they people?

thorium has no stable isotopes, so by definition it is radioactive.

read here if any one dares (the suggestion/implication is that there is no safe dosage):

http://ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/nwJWG.html

the premise is sound. nuclear radiation is ionizing radiation by definition. the weakest gamma ray is 4 orders of magnitude greater than the strongest chemical bond. ponder that for a moment. take any amino acid (think dna) and break a bond someplace and create benzene...pow, instant carcinogen.

i for one will not take on the role of bean counter and say something akin to '200k extra cancer cases, ah, it was worth it'. because it's not worth it. more power generation (or the same for that matter) just means a bigger military-industrial-pharmaceutical-etc-etc complex.

like the information in the link states, the genetic damage done just gets passed along and multiplied.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Apr 10 2011, 08:28 AM
Post #15





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 9 2011, 01:33 AM) *
and for anyone harboring any illusions of utopia, well good luck don quixote.

biggrin.gif
I'm not fighting the windmills, I just recommend them off the centralized grids, because already now they overstrain them -for example the Czech grid operator notoriously warns that the german wind farms overstrain the EU grid when there's too much wind in the Germany, nobody seems to listen there and it looks like it will need to result in major blackouts before somebody woud do something with it.
QUOTE
how many tons of radioactive waste are there worldwide? 250000 tons? a million tons? growing at what rate annually? do you think the solution is to form it all into 30mm rounds and rain it down on the heads of falluja?

I recommend better use of the "waste" then as the ammo (it would be wasting of valuable material I think as all the wars are) to use it as the fuel in the 4th generation nuclear powerplants - looks like we have enough of it to cover electricity needs of humankind for centuries without uranium mining.



And here a contribution for the local thrill lovers a trip to Fukushima evacuation zone:



This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Apr 10 2011, 02:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Apr 10 2011, 09:15 AM
Post #16





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Apr 8 2011, 04:50 PM) *
in a similar vein, the "utopians" have clamored for, supported, the government mandate for the addition of crop[corn]-derived ethanol[ethyl alcohol] to gasoline. this mandate is buncombe[sic] in its purest form.

and if you want to know why i say that, just ask me, and i shall respond.

Tell us more albert. I personally think that to burn the food in the cars and to use the agricultural resources including very significant part of the arable land (even destroy the tropical forests for it) for this type of bussiness (especially when very significant portions of the world's population are still malnutritioned in our splendid 21st century) is one of the most repugniant outcome of the so called "green" or better your "utopian" politics.
QUOTE
from my perspective, if inhabitants of the industrial countries want to continue living in a world that they have enjoyed for most of the post ww2 decades, they are going to have to come to grips with the realities of real energy sources. and stop kicking the can down the road.

it doesn't much look even the truthers here understand, not speaking about the traditional TV audience...
QUOTE
i continue to find it exasperating that the usa, and other industrial countries, have done nothing since the first arab oil embargo in 1973[?] to develop a national energy policy. a national transportation policy. solar, wind will never be able to replace hydrocarbons. that being the reality, hydrocarbons are going to have to be used more effectively.

I've heard that in USA in 70ties - then the leading country in peaceful use of the nuclear power - there was a plan to generate most of the electricity using nuclear by y. 2000 (as it is now in my second home France where the people travel faster and more conveniently with trains than airplanes - as they do in Japan too and Chinese look to successfully spot the train too...), but then it was abandoned under the Club of Rome auspices and using the recycled professionalized anti-vietnam-war activists...and now we see the desperate US energy dependence, and for example the underdeveloped railway system, most of even the heavy transportation and logistics oil-dependent and the wars to secure more of it in the Middle east, or the waivers for the big oil in the Gulf of Mexiko despite the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
Here is funny and simplified online strategy game describing what is this paradigm mostly all about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Apr 11 2011, 11:41 AM
Post #17





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 9 2011, 05:05 AM) *
pragmatism aside, not being a malthusian, i don't believe there are too many people. well, too many politicians perhaps. are they people?

I'm not a malthusian neither, but apparently the guys who succeeded to persuade you into the nuclear phobia are. Their plan called "Limits to Grow" has nuclear phase-out as one of the main means how to achieve the malthusian ends.

When you say you haven't seen the calculations how the nuclear energy is expensive just look at the numbers:
For example: We have the new nuclear powerplant Temelin which produces >15 TWh/year. This two-reactor powerplant costed 98 billion CZK, mainly because it was in middle of the building mandated by EU to refit the whole plant originally based on russian VVER-1000 technology with the Westinghouse technology. The powerplant is commissioned to operation for 40 years (with possibility of prolonging it to 60 years if everything is going well) and after it will be decommissioned for approx. 10% of the initial cost. The yearly costs for maintenace, fuel handling and decommission securities mandated by the Atomic law are around 4 billion CZK/year.
So the plant will produce ~600 TWh for the cost of 160+98+10 = 268 billion. 268 billion divided by 600 billion kWh = 0.44 CZK/kWh = 0.08 USD/kWh. If the plant will be commissioned for another 20 years then the costs will be 330 billion divided by 900 billion kWh = 0.36 CZK/kWh = 0.06 USD/kWh. (all more or less in todays money).
In USA you have total 3992 TWh/year electricity consumed so you would need 3992 divided by 15 = 266 powerplants as Temelin to cover the electricity consumption in USA -which in currency translation would cost 268x266/17 = 4.2 trillion USD -to cover the electricity need next 40 years - which would mean 350 USD/yearly for one inhabitant on costs + interests on the loans to build the plants + taxes (with nuclear power nothing else of course) - fair to note: if the consumption doesn't rise anymore.
How much is the USA GDP, how much costed the wars last 20 years, how much is the US national debt?...
QUOTE
thorium has no stable isotopes, so by definition it is radioactive.

All elements above Bismuth + Technetium and Promethium are radioactive see here
QUOTE
read here if any one dares (the suggestion/implication is that there is no safe dosage):
http://ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/nwJWG.html
the premise is sound. nuclear radiation is ionizing radiation by definition. the weakest gamma ray is 4 orders of magnitude greater than the strongest chemical bond. ponder that for a moment. take any amino acid (think dna) and break a bond someplace and create benzene...pow, instant carcinogen.

Although nobody is saying here the radiation is not harmful, it is not much clear if the Linear No-Treeshold dose model actually works.
Google "radiation hormesis" if you dare.
If not then avoid staying in granite mountains (loads of radon there), any bath in the sea - 3-7 mg of Uranium and 7 mg of Thorium in every cubic meter - and especially please don't dig in the dirt - 1.5-30 grammes of Uranium and in average ~25 grammes of Thorium is in one cubic meter of soil rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Apr 11 2011, 12:17 PM
Post #18





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Apr 9 2011, 02:41 PM) *
I'm not a malthusian neither, but apparently the guys who succeeded to persuade you into the nuclear phobia are.



Although nobody is saying here the radiation is not harmful, it is not much clear if the Linear No-Treeshold dose model actually works.


don't try to turn my healthy concern into a phobia smile.gif

your monetary cost consideration fell into an early trap. a comprehensive analysis would begin by being based on the 'forgotten man' principle. any dollar taken for the purpose of a nuclear plant is a dollar taken away from something else. the tire, the truck, the man-hour, on and on are resources once dedicated to nuclear power, are no longer available for anything else. it took energy to produce the tire and truck used for uranium mining. those never show up completely in the calculations. things to ponder.

and lastly, the no threshold does seem pretty clear to me, but what the heck, your mileage may vary. just because there are radioactive things in the world, doesn't mean i want to consume/play/breathe them, anymore than i would want to engage scorpions, lions, polar bears and other dangerous creatures in any close quarters fun. i hope you can see the distinction.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Apr 11 2011, 02:43 PM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 11 2011, 05:17 AM) *
don't try to turn my healthy concern into a phobia smile.gif

OK, should I next time rather use the term utopian anti-nuclear fanaticism. laughing1.gif
QUOTE
your monetary cost consideration fell into an early trap. a comprehensive analysis would begin by being based on the 'forgotten man' principle. any dollar taken for the purpose of a nuclear plant is a dollar taken away from something else.

yeah - taken away from several orders of magnitude more extensive coal mining and from waging illegal wars for the last hydrocarbons (-you could build for cost of it all the needed nukeplants in USA -for just the last 20 year's costs and the tires and trucks etc. used for for the wars, together with the explosives which would most probably be enough to mine all Uranium and Thorium in the world and the spent DU your military uses against the Iraqis and Afghanis most probably would be enough for decades of the electricity production in the 4th generation nukeplants - if you would be as the Russians and Japanese and have some...)
QUOTE
the tire, the truck, the man-hour, on and on are resources once dedicated to nuclear power, are no longer available for anything else.

what an ingenious idea (demagoguery)... rolleyes.gif

You know how many trucks and tires you need for achieving substitution by solar for one nukeplant producing 15 TWh yearly?

For producing 1000 kWh yearly in temperate zone (I take the Czech geographical conditions) you need approx. 8 square meters of photovoltaic panels. (One square meter of photovoltaic costs 375-1250 USD.) So the amount of truckloads you would need to just bring the solar panels on the desired place 15000000000*8 = 120000000000 (120 billion) square meters of the solar panels (which would btw itself cost at least like 120000000000*375 = 45000000000000 (45 trillion) USD and would work just at day and will be burned out after like 20 years...
In the southern USA the ratios will be slightly better (but not orders of magnitude better than in the Czech geographical conditions)
For 45 trillion USD you would be able to build 15300 GWe - 7500 Temelin nukeplants (based on Temelin quite high costs after the change to the Westinghouse technology) - so you would be most probably able to build for the money so many nukeplants that it would cover the electricity needs of the whole humankind for at least several decades - not just to build an unreliable substitution for one single nukeplant somewhere in the Czech Republic...

You still believe your trucks&tires demagogy? whistle.gif
QUOTE
it took energy to produce the tire and truck used for uranium mining. those never show up completely in the calculations. things to ponder.

they show up translated to financial costs (of building the plant, of buying the fuel, of scraping the plant after obsolete). Or you think the nuclear fuel producers sell it for less than it costed to mine the uranium, process it, enrich it and bring it to the plant? Hopefully not... rolleyes.gif
QUOTE
and lastly, the no threshold does seem pretty clear to me, but what the heck, your mileage may vary.

read here about Ramsar, Iran.
QUOTE
just because there are radioactive things in the world, doesn't mean i want to consume/play/breathe them, anymore than i would want to engage scorpions, lions, polar bears and other dangerous creatures in any close quarters fun. i hope you can see the distinction.

I hope you've noticed my warning not to dig in the dirt and swimm in the sea. cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Apr 11 2011, 03:00 PM
Post #20





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Apr 9 2011, 05:43 PM) *


thank you. now i have had quite enough of your patronizing style. banter with yourself in your ivory tower you nuclear power cheerleader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd October 2014 - 10:19 PM