• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This gives me some hope

Simpletruther

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
8,964
Reaction score
1,591
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed


Great Ted talk from a former wind and solar advocate who lays out the reasons why its a loser to nuclear. Its a no Brainer when all the issues are factored in.
 

PeacefulWarrior

I am not a robot.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Messages
12,213
Reaction score
6,132
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other


Great Ted talk from a former wind and solar advocate who lays out the reasons why its a loser to nuclear. Its a no Brainer when all the issues are factored in.


YouTubes give you hope? Thats good.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
17,423
Reaction score
7,881
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative


Great Ted talk from a former wind and solar advocate who lays out the reasons why its a loser to nuclear. Its a no Brainer when all the issues are factored in.

Wind and solar may be a loser to nuclear, but that doesn't mean they should be abandoned. Every power source we can imagine should be developed and used. We just need to be practical about its viability. Wind and solar do not provide reliable steady power, but they both can be used to supplement other power sources. We only have a problem with wind and solar when we put too much reliance on those unreliable sources. There are peak times during the day when the grid is used more often than other times. It is during those peak hours when wind and solar can be included with the rest of the grid to help offset the load.

Nuclear is also not the panacea that it was made out to be in the video either. You only want to place nuclear on stable ground, beyond the reach of any tsunami. Which eliminates coastal areas and places like Alaska, California, Italy, Turkey, southeast Asia, and any other geologically active location.

We should also be looking into using thorium (Th-232) molten salt reactors. They present a higher risk of gamma radiation and could potentially result in producing U-233 if protactinium (Pa-233) is not removed during the fission process, but produces radioactive waste with a much shorter half-life than uranium nuclear reactors. There is also have no possibility of "melting-down" a thorium molten salt reactor, like there is with uranium nuclear reactors.

Hydroelectric and geothermal power sources also should be included where ever it is practical to build them. The city of Anchorage, Alaska, for example, is primarily powered by three natural gas power plants, a hydroelectric dam, a wind farm, and a coal power plant. No solar is used, however, there are plans to construct a 5 MW tidal generator in Cook Inlet that will be used by the city. Anchorage is using every energy source at its disposal that is practical.

The point, however, is to develop stable, reliable, and cheap power sources, while using renewable energy sources - where they are cost effective - to supplement the reliable sources. Renewable energy sources should never be allowed to become the primary energy source, like California, Germany, the Netherlands, and other nations are attempting to do, because it will never work.
 

Simpletruther

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
8,964
Reaction score
1,591
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wind and solar may be a loser to nuclear, but that doesn't mean they should be abandoned. Every power source we can imagine should be developed and used. We just need to be practical about its viability. Wind and solar do not provide reliable steady power, but they both can be used to supplement other power sources. We only have a problem with wind and solar when we put too much reliance on those unreliable sources. There are peak times during the day when the grid is used more often than other times. It is during those peak hours when wind and solar can be included with the rest of the grid to help offset the load.

Nuclear is also not the panacea that it was made out to be in the video either. You only want to place nuclear on stable ground, beyond the reach of any tsunami. Which eliminates coastal areas and places like Alaska, California, Italy, Turkey, southeast Asia, and any other geologically active location.

We should also be looking into using thorium (Th-232) molten salt reactors. They present a higher risk of gamma radiation and could potentially result in producing U-233 if protactinium (Pa-233) is not removed during the fission process, but produces radioactive waste with a much shorter half-life than uranium nuclear reactors. They is also have no possibility of "melting-down" a thorium molten salt reactor, like there is with uranium nuclear reactors.

Hydroelectric and geothermal power sources also should be included where ever it is practical to build them. The city of Anchorage, Alaska, for example, is primarily powered by three natural gas power plants, a hydroelectric dam, a wind farm, and a coal power plant. No solar is used, however, there are plans to construct a 5 MW tidal generator in Cook Inlet that will be used by the city. Anchorage is using every energy source at its disposal that is practical.

The point, however, is to develop stable, reliable, and cheap power sources, while using renewable energy sources - where they are cost effective - to supplement the reliable sources. Renewable energy sources should never be allowed to become the primary energy source, like California, Germany, the Netherlands, and other nations are attempted to do.
Sure. But let's stop throwing my kids money up a hogsbutt chasing the solar dream.
 

Crakhobarbie

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2020
Messages
7,401
Reaction score
5,082
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal


Great Ted talk from a former wind and solar advocate who lays out the reasons why its a loser to nuclear. Its a no Brainer when all the issues are factored in.

Brought to you by the Nuclear Lobby.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
17,423
Reaction score
7,881
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sure. But let's stop throwing my kids money up a hogsbutt chasing the solar dream.
Solar has its uses.

During the 1970s, when Global Cooling was the leftist craze of the day and I was studying architecture, I used solar panels that pumped glycol through them to be warmed by the sun. The hot glycol was then pumped into closets filled with salt to transfer and store that heat. The heat was then circulated throughout the home using fans. The glycol pumps and fans did require electricity, but their cost was far less than the cost of the heat they were able to generate.

Like with all renewables, however, there is only a very small window where solar thermal energy is practical. Too far north and there isn't enough sunlight to generate sufficient heat during the Winter. Too far south and you don't need the heat.

We just need to be practical about the power sources we use and use them in the right locations where they can provide the most benefit.
 
Last edited:

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
34,499
Reaction score
17,035
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed


Great Ted talk from a former wind and solar advocate who lays out the reasons why its a loser to nuclear. Its a no Brainer when all the issues are factored in.

Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never" - good book
 

phoenix2020

Founder, Cyborg Gorillas
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Messages
8,156
Reaction score
9,820
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I personally think the right answer is nuclear as base load with a combination of solar, wind and natural gas peakers adjusting to demand.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
17,423
Reaction score
7,881
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, get on that, Glitch. Stop wasting time here.
Purdue University, the University of Colorado, and MIT have been working that issue for more than a decade now. MIT is saying they won't have anything practical until at least 2025.

 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
17,423
Reaction score
7,881
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I personally think the right answer is nuclear as base load with a combination of solar, wind and natural gas peakers adjusting to demand.
Except that uranium nuclear reactors should not be used in geologically active locations, or within 10 miles of the coast. That would be courting with disaster.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
18,045
Reaction score
4,905
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I personally think the right answer is nuclear as base load with a combination of solar, wind and natural gas peakers adjusting to demand.

Or why not just have nuclear base load only and forego unnecessary expensive duplication of power grids ? :unsure:

Renewables consume vast areas of land per GwH of electricity generated, so in a sense its them that become the environmental blight on the land. I know my native Scotland has destroyed nearly all its beautiful countryside by festooning every hill or loch with countless ugly expensive windmills :(
 

phoenix2020

Founder, Cyborg Gorillas
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Messages
8,156
Reaction score
9,820
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Or why not just have nuclear base load only and forego unnecessary expensive duplication of power grids ? :unsure:

Renewables consume vast areas of land per GwH of electricity generated, so in a sense its them that become the environmental blight on the land. I know my native Scotland has destroyed nearly all its beautiful countryside by festooning every hill or loch with countless ugly expensive windmills :(
I'm not terribly enthusiastic about wind but solar is dirt cheap, extraordinarily reliable in terms of hardware and maintenance, and where it works it works extremely well. I have personally participated in the setup of some grid solar PPEs and can attest to the economics being highly attractive. The one downside is offset nicely by local storage and natural gas peakers, the former still being expensive but rapidly improving in cost due to vehicle electrification, and the latter being highly flexible.

I don't understand the "unnecessary duplication of power grids" - does your native Scotland have multiple independent power grids? How many different grid interconnections do you have within your household?
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
18,045
Reaction score
4,905
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm not terribly enthusiastic about wind but solar is dirt cheap, extraordinarily reliable in terms of hardware and maintenance, and where it works it works extremely well. I have personally participated in the setup of some grid solar PPEs and can attest to the economics being highly attractive. The one downside is offset nicely by local storage and natural gas peakers, the former still being expensive but rapidly improving in cost due to vehicle electrification, and the latter being highly flexible.

I don't understand the "unnecessary duplication of power grids" - does your native Scotland have multiple independent power grids? How many different grid interconnections do you have within your household?


The power grids for renewables and fossil fuels have to be duplicated due to geography and the physical unreliabilty of renewables by fossil fuels hence hugely increasing their cost and try selling solar in Scotland :LOL:
 
Last edited:

phoenix2020

Founder, Cyborg Gorillas
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Messages
8,156
Reaction score
9,820
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The power grids for renewables and fossil fuels have to be duplicated due to geography and the physical unreliabilty of renewables by fossil fuels hence hugely increasing their cost and try selling solar in Scotland :LOL:
Ah I see the problem. You don't understand how power grids are architected.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
17,423
Reaction score
7,881
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sure. But let's stop throwing my kids money up a hogsbutt chasing the solar dream.
I agree. The cost of each energy source needs to be taken into consideration. We should always be looking to employ the cheapest method for generating the most energy whenever possible. Not just factoring in the cost of delivery, but also the cost of making emissions cleaner, and the cost of disposal when at the end of their useful life.

This is a pipe-dream, because I know it will never happen, but we should get government out of the energy industry. It is the only way to make energy competitive, on a free market without government subsidies, and therefore cheaper and more available to the consumer. We should always be striving to produce the most abundant, reliable, cheapest, and cleanest form of energy possible from every source we can imagine.
 
Top Bottom