Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 45 of 45

Thread: How ironic ...

  1. #31
    Senior Member (too much time on their hands) DeputyDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    3,764
    We will know what they want us to know and believe what they want us to believe.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "Never try to fight an Old Dude. If you win, there's no glory; if you lose, your reputation is shot."

  2. #32
    Senior Member (too much time on their hands) johnboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    1,894
    I know what I believe - a civilization such as ours cannot run on 'renewable' energy. Just not possible. All 'renewable' energy sources must be backed up with traditional generating capability which adds complexity and uncertainty to an electric grid. Dump wind and solar unless it's meant to power your off grid cabin or charge the batteries in your rv while boondocking and add more (properly maintained) coal, gas or nukes.

  3. #33
    Senior Member (too much time on their hands) Chicken Dinner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Occupied Virginia
    Posts
    8,495
    I agree with you to a point, John. Current green technology certainly cannot replace fossil fuels and nuclear and provide all our energy needs. But, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for it along with the traditional options.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Raoul Duke

  4. #34
    Senior Member (too much time on their hands) johnboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    1,894
    Sure it has uses but not commercial power generation. It's expensive, unreliable, destructive to the environment and always a net loss. Why would we use these technologies when we don't have to? Remember that the renewables push is only because the climate meanies think co2 will destroy the world in (add some number here) years. If it weren't for that, why would we use technology that is inferior to what we are replacing? A few people are getting richer but the rest of us been scammed.

  5. #35
    Senior Member (too much time on their hands) airbud7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Aiken, SC
    Posts
    3,875
    all of the available evidence suggests that if Texas had never relied on wind energy in the first place, then this crisis would have been significantly minimized or even avoided altogether.

  6. #36
    Administrator BarryBobPosthole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Owasso, OK
    Posts
    22,275
    lol which evidence is that one, AB?

    BKB
    Viva Renaldo!

  7. #37
    Administrator BarryBobPosthole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Owasso, OK
    Posts
    22,275
    lol which evidence is that one, AB?

    BKB
    Viva Renaldo!

  8. #38
    Administrator Arty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    VA Beach, VA
    Posts
    3,922
    I don't think the fact that TX uses some wind/solar has anything to do with the blackouts. The Gov himself said that natural gas and oil also were frozen. Barry's article said that too.

    I'm for more Nuke plants. LOW emissions. SAFE. CHEAPER THAN GREEN. Smaller footprint than these damn solar farms I pass on the way to the Outer Bank of NC.

  9. #39
    Senior Member (too much time on their hands) airbud7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Aiken, SC
    Posts
    3,875
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryBobPosthole View Post
    lol which evidence is that one, AB?

    BKB
    reliance = to rely on something

    the wind turbines failed to generate power and people froze to death.

  10. #40
    Administrator BarryBobPosthole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Owasso, OK
    Posts
    22,275
    The future for nuclear IMO is small nuclear reactors in the 300 mw range that. Nuclear will play a big part in getting away from fossil fuels. its a short term fix though.

    BKB
    Viva Renaldo!

  11. #41
    Senior Member (too much time on their hands) DeputyDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    3,764
    The problem is that nuclear energy isn’t seen as green. I have a hard time seeing the green energy people going for more nukes over wind and solar.

    Like Arty pointed out, solar takes up a LOT of space. Wind turbines are similar, plus you have that whole “turbines kill a lot of birds” thing. Plus what happens when the turbines are at the end of their life span? As of now, it’s too expensive and complicated to recycle the blades.
    [URL]https://www.intelligentliving.co/what-happens-to-old-wind-turbines-the-answers-not-so-eco-friendly/[URL]

    Plus it takes a bajillion escort vehicles to transport each blade down the road.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "Never try to fight an Old Dude. If you win, there's no glory; if you lose, your reputation is shot."

  12. #42
    Administrator BarryBobPosthole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Owasso, OK
    Posts
    22,275
    How clean is Fukishima or Chernobyl or Three Mile Island or anyof the other many nuclear accidents? Plus nukes are a terrorist target because of the potential collateral from radiation. There is legitimate concern that commercial nuclear operations might cut the same corners that the operators down in Texas did with their power grid.
    I believe those concerns can be addressed, but arguing that denial is a valid course to pursue is just bullshit. If you don’t believe me go try to get a permit for one.

    BKB
    Viva Renaldo!

  13. #43
    Senior Member (too much time on their hands) DeputyDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    3,764

    How ironic ...

    I always thought it was ironic that Japan was one of the largest users of nuclear energy.

    Maybe we should just dam up every river and go all hydroelectric.

    By the way, I’ve driven by TMI dozens of times. I’ve got family that lives about thirty miles from there. The 30 year study of cancer rates in that area shows no statistical anomalies.

    There are risks and dangers with all of them. Just like with everything else, they need to be measured against the benefits.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by DeputyDog; 02-21-2021 at 09:14 PM.
    "Never try to fight an Old Dude. If you win, there's no glory; if you lose, your reputation is shot."

  14. #44
    Administrator BarryBobPosthole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Owasso, OK
    Posts
    22,275
    I don’t disagree DD, but that doesn’t mean public sentiment is going to allow a big expansion of nuclear until there’s some demonstrable upgrades in how we do it and hpw safely. Power production is like computer automation was in the 80’s, very centralized. The model that will be most reliable and self healing is a distributed model just like networks of about any kind. That way the network also becomes storage too.

    BKB
    Viva Renaldo!

  15. #45
    Senior Member (too much time on their hands) Penguin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,257
    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyDog View Post
    I always thought it was ironic that Japan was one of the largest users of nuclear energy....
    They have to keep that on hand in case it's needed to juice Godzilla. Radiation to Gojirra is like spinach to Popeye.

    Will

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body.
But rather, to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming...WOW, What a Ride!"

Our Friend, Tony "Gator" Hunter 1953-2007