![]() |
Why Renewable Energy Won't Work
Very Good article using math and Physics to explain to non scientist, why renewable energy can't provide our energy needs. This is a matter of Physics not R&D money or good intentions.
Nuclear Energy can provide our needs for thousands of years. The article also provides the math on this. Energy Tribune- Understanding E = mc2 This paper (from 1983) discusses how long we can use nuclear energy using breeder reactors. http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PA...11983cohen.pdf |
Re: Why Renewable Energy Won't Work
Sounds great, in theory...
But here are some facts, which largely explain why we haven't built a single nuke plant in 30 years: - nuclear plants will not power vehicles - nuclear plants still require massive amounts of fossil fuels to build, secure and maintain ... - nuclear plants require astronomical financial cost; the only energy technology with both up-front and back-end capital costs. - nuclear plants can not keep crops safe from insects, nor harvest and distribute the food necessary to feed 7-8 billion human beings. - nuclear plants require "lead-in" time of 9-12 years in order to permit, build and finish the process of making electricity. - nuclear plants will not produce plastics, asphalt or tires. - nuclear plants require uranium and/or thorium, both of which are limited resources, and neither of which come anywhere near meeting global demand (and that's just today's rate of demand). - nuclear plants produce some of the most dangerous material on the face of the earth, and no one knows what to do with the stuff. It's so bad, that the waste sits on site while governments still try to figure out where to put it. No real progress has been made in that regard, and there it still sits. |
Re: Why Renewable Energy Won't Work
Quote:
Quote:
If you want to have electric vehicles you need a cheap source of electricity and lot more electricity. I would still use hydrocarbons for transportation uses, BTW if you want synthetic fuel from coal nuke energy can power these processes.[/quote] Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This is why we should have been doing this for the past 30 years, BTW the regulatory process is artificially long due to government, there are field proven designs ready to go that have been used around the world. Quote:
[/quote] - nuclear plants require uranium and/or thorium, both of which are limited resources, and neither of which come anywhere near meeting global demand (and that's just today's rate of demand).[/quote] Incorrect see the 2nd link from the U of Pitts, we have enough for tens million years at electrical production levels greater than todays usage. Hopefully we will figure out fusion then we have a truly 'unlimited' source of energy. Quote:
This is a political problem not a technical problem. Eventually we can recycle all the waste product Breeder reactors will recycle and use the most toxic materials. BTW i take it you see no solution to our energy needs other than death and poverty due to peak oil....Or do you see a solution for all the issues you raise above? Thanks for raising valid concerns. :) |
Re: Why Renewable Energy Won't Work
You're wrong on so many points, but one thing you're correct about is that we should have started "transferrence" 30 years ago.
Quote:
anyhow, once again, the 25 points from MCR's most recent book: A Presidential Energy Policy: |
Re: Why Renewable Energy Won't Work
#23 @ $400.00 per gallon for fuel in Afghanistan this makes mucho sense..
Here is another factoid, there are over 700 bases in 130 countries around the world... all of which have to buy a lot of fuel, and continue the drain on the economy.. There are 6,000 bases on the mainland US and it's territories... 53 cents of every federal dollar goes to the military... it goes on and on. |
Re: Why Renewable Energy Won't Work
Paragraph 23:
"The problem arises when solar enthusiasts try to claim solar power can provide base load power for an industrial society. There is no technology for storing commercial quantities of electricity. Until something is developed – which seems unlikely – wind and solar can serve only as intermittent, unpredictable resources." Final two paragraphs: "This is what people finds hard to grasp. It is almost beyond our comprehension. How can we run an entire city for five years on six ounces of matter with almost no environmental impact? It all seems so incomprehensible that we make up problems in order to make things seem normal again. A reactor is a bomb waiting to go off. The waste lasts forever, what will we ever do with it? There is something sinister about drawing power from the nucleus of the atom. The technology is beyond human capabilities. But the technology is not beyond human capabilities. Nor is there anything sinister about nuclear power. It is just beyond anything we ever imagined before the beginning of the 20th century. In the opening years of the 21st century, it is time to start imagining it." ___________________________ So I get it now. Future tech breakthroughs and development of commercially viable energy storage capabilites for wind and solar are "unlikely", however, when regarding safe and long-term human-life viable storage of nuclear waste we simply need to "start imagining it". Sorry, PF13, but the writer has some 'splainin' to do about that disconnect. |
Re: Why Renewable Energy Won't Work
Quote:
I have never been opposed to Nuke plants in my adult life. I went to a protest in Seabrook when I was 17 mainly because a chick I was chasing went. Either way, we need to wean off of fossil fuels or at least limit their use to the military (which could be cut down to a fraction of what it is now when we become independent) and air travel. All power plants could be replaced by nukes as far as I'm concerned. We can store or recycle the waste until we're technologically able to dispose of it permanently. That would be a great bridge to the next phase of energy production in the not-so-distant future, whether it be fusion reaction, advanced solar collection, or geothermal sources. The toxicity and environmental effects of nukes vs. fossil fuel combustion is huge. Many nations use it safely and are free to live in peace without involvement in the Middle East. No question in my mind. Build them yesterday. |
Re: Why Renewable Energy Won't Work
Quote:
There's a left-leaning science writer who thought the same thing until she, as a science reporter, looked into the matter. Gwyenth Cravens has written a book. I won't bother telling you to read it, since people don't read anymore. But for anyone who might still do such an activity, here it is: Amazon.com: Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy (Vintage) (9780307385871): Gwyneth Cravens, Richard Rhodes: Books Quote:
Here's a transcript of a conversation he had with Dennis Prager:The Dennis Prager Show |
Re: Why Renewable Energy Won't Work
Quote:
Look at the energy density and intermittent nature of solar there is no way to run an industrial economy using this highly inefficient technology. The math doesn't work, you are limited by physics and not R&D. Breeder reactors reduce the waste material by 'recycling it' there are solutions for low level waste (ie Yucca mtn for example) we haven't done it for political reasons. Japan for example is doing what we will not. |
Re: Why Renewable Energy Won't Work
If Three Mile Island can come close to happening and Chernobyl can actually happen by accident, what about 20 guys with AK's and the technological knowledge to force it to happen? I have to think that if its possible for an accident to occur then a successful attack where the terrorists control the plant for even a hour will lead to a catastrophe that won't go away for 1000's of years. Do we really want to give our enemies that many more targets?
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 © Copyright 2000-2012. PatsFans.com Is a Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties. This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
The opinions posted in this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our staff at PatsFans.com or USA Today.
We are not affiliated with the New England Patriots™ or the NFL™. The Photo Used In the header was taken by Ian Logue.