Beware: The "renewable" mantra is a fraud.
Most is intermittent + unpredictable + non storable.
This has huge consequences.
Most is intermittent + unpredictable + non storable.
This has huge consequences.
Last edited:
Tesla has also developed big batteries, large closet size, for storage at home, so a micro level power capacity can be built.
And there is a thriving off grid community, some using old submarine batteries, to store power.
Back to original, it seems that the shock of the war has been dealt with, until the next new sensational incident...
And there is a thriving off grid community, some using old submarine batteries, to store power.
Back to original, it seems that the shock of the war has been dealt with, until the next new sensational incident...
Renewable energy storage exists in many forms and is used extensively around the globe... Also, Tidal power is renewable as is hydroelectric. The only fraud is people who don't know trying to diss the tech.
Didn't care to look it up... Canada has Tidal... This document is 6 years old.
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-a...orld-with-potential-add-up-7-000-mw-more.html
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-a...orld-with-potential-add-up-7-000-mw-more.html
The USA is in a unique position to reform many parts of our society. Infrastructure improvements are being passed around and my hope is that some of those improvements include innovations in renewable energy and more importantly their delivery.
eg. Dedicated roadways for electric vehicles delivering product.
Interstate systems with portions of the roadway, in ten or so mile increments, where an electric vehicle can charge just by driving on it.
We shouldn't just fix up the roadways/bridges to continue supporting old fossil fuel tech. Rather, begin to rethink how we move products and people.
eg. Dedicated roadways for electric vehicles delivering product.
Interstate systems with portions of the roadway, in ten or so mile increments, where an electric vehicle can charge just by driving on it.
We shouldn't just fix up the roadways/bridges to continue supporting old fossil fuel tech. Rather, begin to rethink how we move products and people.
Annual production is 500 GWh.
That is an average power: 57 MW.
Installed capacity 240 MW. So a loading factor 24%.
The nuclear plant EPR, just started in Finland is: 1650 MW.
Tidal power, was promissing, there are other sites in this area of very high tides, but no development. There were projects in England at Bristol, but cancelled because of environmental issues.
At La Rance France, a serious issue is the river over filling with mud.
Last edited:
Run of the river hydro was also promising at one point.
But I feel now we should think in local terms, wheeling in energy over a grid is a large investment.
Long ago, we had double incentive for wind power, the investment could be set off against income tax, and a sales tax break was also give, also a 2% wheeling charge was applied, so you could get guaranteed uninterrupted power (we had bad shortages at the time).
That is also an aspect, sometimes incentives are needed.
They can be misused too.
But I feel now we should think in local terms, wheeling in energy over a grid is a large investment.
Long ago, we had double incentive for wind power, the investment could be set off against income tax, and a sales tax break was also give, also a 2% wheeling charge was applied, so you could get guaranteed uninterrupted power (we had bad shortages at the time).
That is also an aspect, sometimes incentives are needed.
They can be misused too.
I once witnessed an electrical engineer holding up a 200 watt solar cell inside a room with fluorescent lights, expecting significant power to be developed. Although the dawning was short lived, this hasn't been historically the case for proponents of variant power sources or converters, being gas, solar or wind powered. The critical element to any power conversion is the existence a viable power source significant enough to supply demand. A nuclear based power source is the obvious choice in many locations, particularly whereupon no alternative source is significant, feasible, or economically viable.
It seems apparent that advanced engineering is necessary to resolve the many issues of concern specific to any power conversion. To dismiss nuclear entirely, as being out of the question, dismisses engineering advancements (or as you have pointed out, the copying thereof). To begin with an "appropriately" scaled power source like nuclear still seems the best approach in many areas that can't realistically support any viable alternative sources. This is of course countered by "the-ecologist", promoting its entirely prejudicial "anything but nuclear" platform.
https://theecologist.org/2021/dec/13/nuclear-powers-economic-failure
It already began. What do you think that recharging road is about. The issue is how much of it get implemented in reality.
Of course there are huge challenges. Of course there are huge consequences. But we have no choice going forward, the real fraud is believing we can go on like this with fossil fuel forever.
Wind turbine, excellent.
Location, I'm right in line through "thunder alley". Between the QEW and Hamilton. The wind gets good when it's whipping across lake Ontario. There are no obstructions to slow it down until it reaches our shore. There is plenty of potential juice for a wind turbine. Great idea. I always envisioned a self contained AC set up. A small one yet an interesting one.
We have power...
Attachments
Another fraud is to rule out nuclear energy based on a purely dogmatic posture. Nuclear being bad because it is bad, evil, no good, catastrophic, what have you. That is the attitude of the greens in Germany who spread this onto the French greens. Now they are beginning to understand they are all wrong, and the Ukraine war is accelerating this. Soon they will run like ducks with no head.
Last edited:
In my former life, I can attest to the fact that there are a significant minority of individuals and organizations that are against nuclear power for dogmatic/value reasons. They may be quite prevalent in German; I do not know as I am not intimately familiar with politics there. In the US, however, there seems to be a growing change to the "silent majority," who adopted a more, "show me nuclear power is safe and economically feasible." That is something that, as a regulator, I could deal with. The issue of man-induced climate change and the rational search and assessment of alternatives is, IMO driving ordinary people's re-assessment and willingness to consider nuclear. My experience has been that if the regulator and the industry address things in a straightforward manner, acknowledging issues and providing clear technical, environmental and regulatory responses, then a reasonable exchange of views can occur with understanding and incremental change on both sides. The last thing to do is calling people names; it does nothing to advance the conversation, but usually only serves for the name callers to stroke their egos.
There are significant issues to be dealt with with respect to nuclear power. Disposal of waste - and not just high level waste from spent fuel, but also the waste from normal operation. You cannot believe how many tons of slightly-radioactive waste is produced by each plant each year. Safety is the primary issue with respect to high level waste; IMO both safety and environmental considerations are in play for medium and low-level waste. There is also the issue of the continued safety of plants that will be (in the US), 80 years old and more since entering nuclear operation. Can their life be extended safety for another 20-40 years? I know some of the technical issues (at a high level of understanding), as I was one of two NRC individuals that developed the world's first regulatory approach for "license renewal" in the 1998-1992 timeframe (as I recall). Finally, we should consider the beginning of the fuel cycle: the environmental and safety impacts associated with mining nd milling uranium ore and transporting it to be processed into U-235.
Yes and this is considered with extreme care in France with expertise in re treatment of wastes that might by the fuel of the 4th generation reactors if we let them be.
Retreating is a key technology for a better handling of wastes, presently some is recycled ( nuclear fuel MOX ). In the future a must key to breeder reactors.
Last edited:
According to the Wall St. Journal, Germany's Greens have been funded, in part, by Russia.
Gasoline dropped from $4.49/gal to $4.09/gal in NJ just the past two days.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.