Wow you are a lying piece of shit. The number of dead in the Ukraine according to the World Heath Organization is less then 60. The deaths outside of the Ukraine from radiation are 0. That is why nuclear is the safest energy source. Fact.
You are obviously an idiot...
Germany is burning coal. That is what happens when you do not have.a clean source of baseload energy. Fact.
Or do you realy think the nation of minds and thinkers and engineers consists only out of idiots?
Well if they are anything like you yes I do. I think the antinuclear movement is made up of feckless weak-minded idiots who believe lies told to them by the fossil fuel industry.
Which pollution does a nuckear power plant prevent?
Air pollution you stupid fucking twit. And learn to spell.
You can google about both power sources btw... what is preventing you from getting a clue instead of insulting fellow/. readers!
I provided sources for everything, you provided 0 sources. You insulted me several times. You insulted me first. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen you stupid feckless shitwad.
Wow there is a lot there. A paper from 1870 is still relevant, but papers from 1980 are not? What about a recent analysis of the lives saved from nuclear power? . The reality is that we should have gone to 100% nuclear 40 years ago. It would have saved a lot of lives and mitigated climate change.
You and Hansen, if he really said what you claim, that nuclear power is the only way out of the current situation, are wrong.
You know that, everyone knows that.
It is not just us there are a lot of people who believe in nuclear power. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-nuclear_movement. If you scroll down you will see a lot of prominent names on that list.
In fact the national academy of science does not think so either. They critiqued the feasibility of a 100% Wind Water and Solar solution. http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722.full.pdf The issue, as I stated at the top of this thread, is storage. We do not have a means to store weeks worth of electricity.
E.g. in germany you can not build them at all. So... you are 100% contradicted.
How are we contradicted? Germany is burning more coal then ever. There are times of the year where renewables produce 0 electricity forcing them to burn coal. If they kept their nuclear fleet running they would be cleaner today.
Everyone knows that nuckear power is super expensive
4th generation reactors can be factory built which will make them cheaper. It is called the economic of scales. It is why solar panels and microprocessors get better and cheaper.
no one wants it in his back yard.
I do, but I do not believe all of the bs lies about nuclear power. In fact a recent analysis says the children who grew up near nuclear power plants are healthier because they are exposed to less pollution.
I know it is hard to admit you are wrong for decades, but if we are going to move forward as species you are going to have to.
Your ignorance does not change the debate. Climate change was not proven in the 1870's. As far as I can tell there was just a few, albeit correct, arguments about CO2 being released into the atmosphere. Just because you worked in the energy sector does not make you an expert and it does make Hansen, or myself wrong about energy. Check out this video of Hansen from a few years ago
Even with a better distributed grid we will still need multiple weeks worth of storage. A couple of years ago there was a polar vortex in the north which shutdown most forms of generation including fossil fuels. It lasted for several weeks. Drawing power from other parts of the country is not practical because those areas will also be effected by winter weather and less daylight hours.
Personally I think nuclear power is the best solution because we will not have to deal with the intermittency of renewables.
Hydrogen is a going to part of the solution, but it will primarily be used for trucking and transportation. See https://nikolamotor.com. It can easily and cheaply be produced when energy prices go negative.
Also you wouldn't put all of the solar panels in a single spot even if that spot is 10,000 square miles.
You are an angry little man. You insulted me by calling me retarded and stupid. You described my arguments as bollucks, and now you are mad because I responded with fucktard. You are making a stupid and petty definition argument about 'leading' that does not help your case. James Hansen has lead the science on this subject. He has published the most significant work, and he is leading the movement to decarbonization our energy sector. Science has leaders.
climate scinetists have no clue about energy production
The worlds leading climate scientist, and author of that article, is NASA scientist James Hansen. He is the man who proved climate change is real in the 1980's. You might have learned that if read the article. So stop trolling you fucktard.
Citation needed on the anti-nukes being funded by the fossil fuel industry, though.
Here is one from just a few weeks ago.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... Friends of the Earths was founded by an oil tycoon. The sierra club, greenpeace, national resource defense council and union of concerned scientists all receive funds from the fossil fuel industry. There are a lot of smaller anti-nuclear groups funded by local fossil fuel companies. Many anti-nuclear politicians such as Jerry Brown have connections to the fossil fuels industry that go back decades.
That would cost trillions+. It would not be practical because there is a loss of electricity due to resistance. It also would not be reliable because solar and wind are intermittent.
What misinformation? Resistance will reduce the amount of energy sent. You will lose a lot electricity thru resistance. See ohms law. Maybe I should have used the word practical instead of possible.
Second the east coast, west coast, and texas use different grids. Forcing all three to become a single grid is not practical.
Third the national academy of science has debunked the feasibility of a 100% wind water and solar system. Fourth the worst scenario is wide spread blackouts during winter because we are relying on an intermittent power source.
Even with wind you would need weeks worth of storage because wind also has very low capacity factor(~20%-30%). There are times of the year (winter) where both of those sources produce 0 electricity during the day. So you would need storage for both the day and night. A couple of back to back storms would require multiple weeks worth of storage to guarantee power to things such as hospitals.
Of course we could avoid all of that if we would be allowed to use atomic energy.
Transmission of electricity is not possible from nevada to new england. There is too much loss due to resistance. Also they are actually different grids. Any actual system of solar panels would be better distributed.
I live in the Soutwest and two contiguous cloudy days is extremely rare...
No it's not. This last year we had a lot of rain. So much rain that the drought ended. It is not rare if it happens every year. Also the world is a larger place then just the southwest. Should New Englanders suffer during winter because they have weeks of cloud coverage?
Why do you presume it will be the only factory producing batteries? It is almost inevitable that there will be more factories like it and probably sooner than you think. Never mind the fact that they already ARE producing [independent.co.uk] batteries for grid storage.
I never made that assumption. I just referenced the gigafactory because this article is about Musk. And second those batteries are to be used for load balancing and not grid level storage. And just for a little math. The US uses almost 4000 tWh of electricity annually which divided by 365 is ~11 tWh. That is 11 tWh for a single day of storage. That plant can only store 100 mWh. How many of those plants would we have to build for two weeks worth of storage? Is that even a feasible solution?
What options do you think are "better and cheaper" in the long run? Nuclear fission will never happen for political reasons if nothing else.
Of course nuclear fission is the answer. The world's leading climate scientists have called it the only viable path forward on climate change. The political reasons generally involve huge amounts fossil fuel industry money spent on anti-nuclear propaganda. Not only do I think nuclear is the least worst option available, I think it is actually a good option. It is the safest, cleanest energy source with the smallest environmental footprint. Look at nuclear energy startups such as Terrapower, NuScale, Terrestrial energy, etc. Their reactors are meltdown proof and recycle waste. They can be factory built which will further reduce costs. They can be run sustainably for 10000's of years.
We're going to be investing trillions into energy one way or another so why not pick the one that is clean and that we know works?
Well we know nuclear will work, and it is the cleanest source of electricity. Why not invest in that?
Why would we need several weeks of storage to make this plan viable? That's quite a ridiculous amount.
"Winter is coming"
There are times of the year when solar produces 0 electricity for weeks on end. A couple of weeks of stormy weather would require weeks of storage. This is something that happens every year. Given the realities of climate change there will be larger storms in the future.
Flow batteries are actually an older technology. They were invented in the 1880's. NASA explored the technology again in the 1970's. I think they are perfect for load balancing, but I doubt they can scale for grid storage.
You are completely correct about not having all of eggs in one basket. It is stupid to rely on a single source of energy.
Solar has a very low capacity factor (~20%-30%) which means we need to find a way to store the electricity. The majority of storage is done thru pumped-hydro. Most of those locations are already tapped. Batteries won't solve it either. Tesla's gigafactory is not going to be able to produce enough batteries for grid level storage. Current storage can be counted in the minutes, but we will need several weeks of storage to make this plan viable.
This plan will end up costing trillions and still will not work. It will also will cost trillions in grid improvements and probably tens of trillions in storage. I am sure Musk likes the idea of the US giving him trillions, but I think their are better and cheaper options.
When you are interested in a subject, a dopaminergic circuit forms between your hippocampus and substantia nigra. Dopamine is the pleasure neurotransmitter. This circuit has been has been demonstrated to improve long term memory formation. Interest drives memory formation.
Second when you connect ideas together, such as following branches on wikipedia, you form new associations. It has been demonstrated that new long term memories form more rapidly when you associate it to an already established memory. New memories are the result of protein synthesis at the synapse. Repetition works(from route memorization), but association and dopamine is more effective.
One of the reasons an expert tutor is superior to all other forms of education is because they can connect new ideas to ones the learner already knows (association) and impart subject enjoyment(dopamine).
Like many people said we have online platforms that provide this (Coursera, Khan, etc), but they are all inherently flawed. This is because they are all using passive learning methodologies. Passive learning is reading a video, sitting in a lecture or watching a video. Passive learning is provably less effective than active learning which is learning by doing.
The highest form of active learning is an expert tutor. What we really need is a digital tutor. A cloud based A.I. system that will teach a student using mastery level techniques.
Nuclear waste is significantly less dangerous then you are claiming. There is not much of it, and there has never been a single case where it has harmed anyone(waste from nuclear power). France stores all of their waste in a single room the size of a high school gym. The only real dangerous parts of it are the strontium-90 and cesium-137 which both have short half-lives(30 years). The longer-lived isotopes can and should be recycled. We can easily recycle it to produce 1000's of years of power. Nuclear waste is just a metal rod. Basically you would have to eat nuclear waste for it to hurt you.
According to James Hansen, the NASA scientist who proved climate change is real, called nuclear power "the only viable path forward on climate change."
When electricity prices go negative it would be a good time to produce hydrogen fuel thru electrolysis. It could be used to for clean trucking and further reduce greenhouse gasses. .
Slashdot Mirror
You are obviously an idiot ...
Germany is burning coal. That is what happens when you do not have.a clean source of baseload energy. Fact.
Or do you realy think the nation of minds and thinkers and engineers consists only out of idiots?
Well if they are anything like you yes I do. I think the antinuclear movement is made up of feckless weak-minded idiots who believe lies told to them by the fossil fuel industry.
Which pollution does a nuckear power plant prevent?
Air pollution you stupid fucking twit. And learn to spell.
You can google about both power sources btw ... what is preventing you from getting a clue instead of insulting fellow /. readers!
I provided sources for everything, you provided 0 sources. You insulted me several times. You insulted me first. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen you stupid feckless shitwad.
You and Hansen, if he really said what you claim, that nuclear power is the only way out of the current situation, are wrong. You know that, everyone knows that.
It is not just us there are a lot of people who believe in nuclear power. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-nuclear_movement. If you scroll down you will see a lot of prominent names on that list. In fact the national academy of science does not think so either. They critiqued the feasibility of a 100% Wind Water and Solar solution. http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722.full.pdf The issue, as I stated at the top of this thread, is storage. We do not have a means to store weeks worth of electricity.
E.g. in germany you can not build them at all. So ... you are 100% contradicted.
How are we contradicted? Germany is burning more coal then ever. There are times of the year where renewables produce 0 electricity forcing them to burn coal. If they kept their nuclear fleet running they would be cleaner today.
Everyone knows that nuckear power is super expensive
4th generation reactors can be factory built which will make them cheaper. It is called the economic of scales. It is why solar panels and microprocessors get better and cheaper.
no one wants it in his back yard.
I do, but I do not believe all of the bs lies about nuclear power. In fact a recent analysis says the children who grew up near nuclear power plants are healthier because they are exposed to less pollution. I know it is hard to admit you are wrong for decades, but if we are going to move forward as species you are going to have to.
Your ignorance does not change the debate. Climate change was not proven in the 1870's. As far as I can tell there was just a few, albeit correct, arguments about CO2 being released into the atmosphere. Just because you worked in the energy sector does not make you an expert and it does make Hansen, or myself wrong about energy. Check out this video of Hansen from a few years ago
Even with a better distributed grid we will still need multiple weeks worth of storage. A couple of years ago there was a polar vortex in the north which shutdown most forms of generation including fossil fuels. It lasted for several weeks. Drawing power from other parts of the country is not practical because those areas will also be effected by winter weather and less daylight hours.
Personally I think nuclear power is the best solution because we will not have to deal with the intermittency of renewables.
Hydrogen is a going to part of the solution, but it will primarily be used for trucking and transportation. See https://nikolamotor.com. It can easily and cheaply be produced when energy prices go negative. Also you wouldn't put all of the solar panels in a single spot even if that spot is 10,000 square miles.
climate scinetists have no clue about energy production
And neither do you fucktard.
The worlds leading climate scientist, and author of that article, is NASA scientist James Hansen. He is the man who proved climate change is real in the 1980's. You might have learned that if read the article. So stop trolling you fucktard.
Citation needed on the anti-nukes being funded by the fossil fuel industry, though.
Here is one from just a few weeks ago. https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... Friends of the Earths was founded by an oil tycoon. The sierra club, greenpeace, national resource defense council and union of concerned scientists all receive funds from the fossil fuel industry. There are a lot of smaller anti-nuclear groups funded by local fossil fuel companies. Many anti-nuclear politicians such as Jerry Brown have connections to the fossil fuels industry that go back decades.
I did not know that there are climate scientists that are leader of something.
Do you not believe in climate change? I hate to break it to you, but it is real.
That would cost trillions+. It would not be practical because there is a loss of electricity due to resistance. It also would not be reliable because solar and wind are intermittent.
What misinformation? Resistance will reduce the amount of energy sent. You will lose a lot electricity thru resistance. See ohms law. Maybe I should have used the word practical instead of possible. Second the east coast, west coast, and texas use different grids. Forcing all three to become a single grid is not practical. Third the national academy of science has debunked the feasibility of a 100% wind water and solar system. Fourth the worst scenario is wide spread blackouts during winter because we are relying on an intermittent power source.
Of course we could avoid all of that if we would be allowed to use atomic energy.
Transmission of electricity is not possible from nevada to new england. There is too much loss due to resistance. Also they are actually different grids. Any actual system of solar panels would be better distributed.
"several weeks" is hyperbole.
No it is not. The reality is that is probably an underestimate given the weather cycles in the northern parts of the United States.
I live in the Soutwest and two contiguous cloudy days is extremely rare...
No it's not. This last year we had a lot of rain. So much rain that the drought ended. It is not rare if it happens every year. Also the world is a larger place then just the southwest. Should New Englanders suffer during winter because they have weeks of cloud coverage?
I used the word most, and not all. Also just a couple of weeks ago the national academy of science debunked the feasibility of a 100% wind, water, and solar system.
Why do you presume it will be the only factory producing batteries? It is almost inevitable that there will be more factories like it and probably sooner than you think. Never mind the fact that they already ARE producing [independent.co.uk] batteries for grid storage.
I never made that assumption. I just referenced the gigafactory because this article is about Musk. And second those batteries are to be used for load balancing and not grid level storage. And just for a little math. The US uses almost 4000 tWh of electricity annually which divided by 365 is ~11 tWh. That is 11 tWh for a single day of storage. That plant can only store 100 mWh. How many of those plants would we have to build for two weeks worth of storage? Is that even a feasible solution?
What options do you think are "better and cheaper" in the long run? Nuclear fission will never happen for political reasons if nothing else.
Of course nuclear fission is the answer. The world's leading climate scientists have called it the only viable path forward on climate change. The political reasons generally involve huge amounts fossil fuel industry money spent on anti-nuclear propaganda. Not only do I think nuclear is the least worst option available, I think it is actually a good option. It is the safest, cleanest energy source with the smallest environmental footprint. Look at nuclear energy startups such as Terrapower, NuScale, Terrestrial energy, etc. Their reactors are meltdown proof and recycle waste. They can be factory built which will further reduce costs. They can be run sustainably for 10000's of years.
We're going to be investing trillions into energy one way or another so why not pick the one that is clean and that we know works?
Well we know nuclear will work, and it is the cleanest source of electricity. Why not invest in that?
Why would we need several weeks of storage to make this plan viable? That's quite a ridiculous amount.
"Winter is coming"
There are times of the year when solar produces 0 electricity for weeks on end. A couple of weeks of stormy weather would require weeks of storage. This is something that happens every year. Given the realities of climate change there will be larger storms in the future.
Flow batteries are actually an older technology. They were invented in the 1880's. NASA explored the technology again in the 1970's. I think they are perfect for load balancing, but I doubt they can scale for grid storage.
You are completely correct about not having all of eggs in one basket. It is stupid to rely on a single source of energy.
This plan will end up costing trillions and still will not work. It will also will cost trillions in grid improvements and probably tens of trillions in storage. I am sure Musk likes the idea of the US giving him trillions, but I think their are better and cheaper options.
When you are interested in a subject, a dopaminergic circuit forms between your hippocampus and substantia nigra. Dopamine is the pleasure neurotransmitter. This circuit has been has been demonstrated to improve long term memory formation. Interest drives memory formation.
Second when you connect ideas together, such as following branches on wikipedia, you form new associations. It has been demonstrated that new long term memories form more rapidly when you associate it to an already established memory. New memories are the result of protein synthesis at the synapse. Repetition works(from route memorization), but association and dopamine is more effective.
One of the reasons an expert tutor is superior to all other forms of education is because they can connect new ideas to ones the learner already knows (association) and impart subject enjoyment(dopamine).
Like many people said we have online platforms that provide this (Coursera, Khan, etc), but they are all inherently flawed. This is because they are all using passive learning methodologies. Passive learning is reading a video, sitting in a lecture or watching a video. Passive learning is provably less effective than active learning which is learning by doing. The highest form of active learning is an expert tutor. What we really need is a digital tutor. A cloud based A.I. system that will teach a student using mastery level techniques.
Recycling a nuclear fuel rod wont kill you.... Also solar will be recycled like ewaste is recycled in China. That does kills people.
Nuclear waste is significantly less dangerous then you are claiming. There is not much of it, and there has never been a single case where it has harmed anyone(waste from nuclear power). France stores all of their waste in a single room the size of a high school gym. The only real dangerous parts of it are the strontium-90 and cesium-137 which both have short half-lives(30 years). The longer-lived isotopes can and should be recycled. We can easily recycle it to produce 1000's of years of power. Nuclear waste is just a metal rod. Basically you would have to eat nuclear waste for it to hurt you. According to James Hansen, the NASA scientist who proved climate change is real, called nuclear power "the only viable path forward on climate change."
When electricity prices go negative it would be a good time to produce hydrogen fuel thru electrolysis. It could be used to for clean trucking and further reduce greenhouse gasses. .