Somebody forgot to tell someone about this obviously. Perhaps our expert on the topic can explain how this could be possible. While he is at it, I would love to hear what he has to say about this. If everything he believes about climate change and how us humans burning carbon is the cause, can he also explain why this is such a bad thing?
Solar, wind and other natural forms of producing energy just won't cut it.
Leadership requires making actual decisions Mr. Dion. Talking endlessly about solving a perticular problem as you have shown, does not solve the problem...
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Friday, November 30, 2007
What we have here is a failure to communicate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Why won't solar power "cut it?" Once the collectors are installed, it's almost a self-sustaining energy resource. Expanding use will bring the cost down dramatically, and technology will continue to shrink the space currently needed for both the collectors and batteries. At some point, it could become feasible to run a transit system, and maybe even private vehicles, on solar power.
And the term "solar power" is a little misleading. It makes people think that direct and undiffused sunlight is needed to make the system work, and that's not true.
If I ever win the lottery, and can afford to build my own house, it will be solar powered.
Nuclear power, on the other hand, is potentially disastrous. And even if all goes perfectly and as planned, the waste products are dangerous on more than one level.
"Expanding use will bring the cost down dramatically, and technology will continue to shrink the space currently needed for both the collectors and batteries. At some point, it could become feasible to run a transit system, and maybe even private vehicles, on solar power."
Eventually... but right here and right now, none of this applies. Everything I have read regarding "solar" still requires the user to have a connection to the mainstream power lines. one of those reasons is t sell the excess power to the utility companies in the good times but the major reason is to receive power during the higher demand time of winter. Storage of the solar power is still a problem at this time.
Since 1939, how many nuclear power plant disasters have there been? Answer... two. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Problems with nuclear waste storage facilities... 0
France who is producing 80% of their electrical supply using nuclear power has never had any problems.
Everything can be "potentially dangerous" Crossing the street might kill you. Driving vehicles kills more people than just about any other source. You sure don't see many people screaming out to ban car production do you....
"You sure don't see many people screaming out to ban car production do you...."
Boy, if we had known then what we know now, Henry Ford et al might not have made it past puberty! ;)
But you're right. There is risk in everything. Doctors kill more people than do illegal drugs, but they're still makin' a grand livin' an' all.
It's a matter of of potential for me. Which energy source has the most potential for safe, sound, and efficient use. Solar power is it. I don't have any intention of backselling to the power companies. If I have energy to spare, it'll go toward something else. Or maybe I'll just enjoy the sun's being the sun for a change, and not just an energy source.
And the further north you go, the more drastic becomes the seasonal swing, and the lack of sunlight in the winter might be a problem. But I live on the 49th parallel, and we get at least eight hours of sunlight on the shortest day of the year. That will be enough to power my hypocaust and cook my dinner.
I don't know about zero oopsies with nuclear waste storage, though. I live not all that far away from Richland. Luckily, I live north of it and not east. Those who live east of Richland are called "downwinders." Some of them are friends of mine. Almost all of them have debilitating illnesses for which no one has ever come up with an explanation. Two have died 'way before they should have done, and nobody knows why. Or...nobody is sayin'.
Chimera... lets not compare a site that had NINE reactors on it, built to produce military grade plutonium to current nuclear power plant technologies shall we. I won't even go into the fact that this facility was built at a time when they did not even know what would be considered safe!
OOOps... you got me all worked up there and I forgot to go into the Solar part...lol
Not all of us are lucky enough to live in regions where sunlight is abundant year round. Current storage capabilities for solar are not adequate for large stretches of the planet including the far north.
Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer in solar power myself. If the cost was not such an issue I would have it here and at the cabin right now. I would also have a geothermal heating and cooling system! Come on 649! All I am saying is that these technologies in there current state are not a viable solution to eliminate coal and gas fired power plants. Nuclear power is the most viable solution at this time.
I forgot to mention something about solar power regarding the cost of it:
Right now, it's very expensive to install, especially if you have to replace an existing power source. The conversion can set you back a few bucks. If you build it in from the start, it's a little less costly, but still pretty rich. However, that cost is being calculated on a per-unit basis with only one unit being counted.
If several units (a condo complex, or an apartment building, for example -- or even a group of houses in close proximity) were to use a cooperative system, the cost per unit will go 'way down.
And with expanding use, the cost of building the collectors will go down. And the batteries. The size will become more compact.
The far north does remain an interesting puzzle, though. I wonder about the feasibility of designing batteries that can store energy for more than six months, so they can collect it during the days of 24-hour sunlight?
I don't like nuclear. I never did. There is just too much that can go wrong if it ever gets manipulated by people bent on abusing it. Just look at what happens every time North Korea or Iraq says, "Boo!" The entire world dives under the covers!
Last time I checked we don't live in one of those countries... We say BOO and no one even notices!
Considering the size of this country and relatively low population, we would require very few nuclear plants to do the job. We are not talking about one in every neighborhood here. Just one in the Fort Mac area for the oil sands projects would reduce pollution output drastically and free up a whole lot of natural gas for other uses. I believe at this time, it is the best solution we have till other options are more viable.
"Last time I checked we don't live in one of those countries... We say BOO and no one even notices!"
That wasn't the context I meant. The nuclear power in those countries originally started out as being "just for domestic use," to take the place of hydro-electricity. But conversion technology makes them capable of producing weapons-grade product. NK has alrady demonstrated its willingness to do just that.
Are you suggesting that we would do the same... start our own nuclear weapons program? That would be laughable... We Cando should be our battle cry!
Post a Comment