How to replace the petroleum energy supply

That's great. But here's the thing... The wind doesn't blow 24x7.

What we really need are small-medium nuclear plants spread throughout the country. They create NO emissions, they only need to be refueled once every 20 or 30 years (if that), and we have enough safe storage space for thousands of years of waste at Yucca Mountain, or whatever that place is called.

The only thing we lack is the spine to actually do the right thing, a phenomenon that is not that unusual in government. Say the word "Nuclear" and people think Chernobyl (which was inspired by idiots, designed by idiots, built by idiots, and managed by idiots which was the problem, not the fuel), but the names and places of the thousands upon thousands of other nuclear plants are unknown because they sit there quietly doing their jobs.

That's enough power for everyone to have an EV (not that everyone can afford one), it's enough to heat Texas during an unusual blizzard, and cool NYC during a heatwave that we Floridians call "Tuesday". As for us Floridians, we could run our A/C all day every day and have bills a fraction of what they are now.

 

Once again, I cited a cost comparison that subtracted all subsidies for wind.

Wind was still cheaper.

And, as for your crack about air conditioners, please remember that wind is the leading producer of electricity in Iowa, and there are significant wind farms in the US central region, let alone other areas.

One assumption you are making here is that the objective is to replace all fossil fuel with wind. But, that is not an objective.

There are a number of clean energy sources. And, there will continue to be gas fired electricity plants. There are ways of resolving the intermittent production of wind and solar. That's really not going to be an issue unless we reach a point where substantial portions of our power production is intermittent.

My view is that nuclear will also have to be included.

Also, you aren't showing any data concerning subsidies.

 

you can believe whatever crazy crap you want. I'm not part of this stupid religion that makes up this nonsense.

your religious belief is absurd in order to have wind generated energy replace all of fossil fuels we would need to build 650 million windmills it's simple math. Will not happen in the next thousand years. No matter how much you believe in it it's a pipe dream. It's almost as absurd as the flat Earth.

right it wouldn't work on your wildest dreams. So we spend all of this money on not that much energy isn't it more cost effective to build real power plants instead of unicorn farts?

Why does our tax money have to support your religious crap.

is zero there's no such thing. Windmills are dirty they're just really really crappy compared to other things. Is they don't produce senior enough to make even the slightest difference.

until we build a nuclear plants we will have to and the more people that want more electricity we will have to build more and more and more coal-fired power plants your electric car doesn't work on magic.

it doesn't really matter when all of the energy produced by these crappy methods in a year is consumed in the first week.

Again these aren't clean. They are dirty and crappy why would you waste money on this?

anti-nuclear religion is even dumber than yours. And the frustration I feel having to explain to you that you're stupid little windmills and your solar collectors are nothing I hope you get to feel when you try to talk people into nuclear.

I don't have to it's public record. I'm not trying to argue with you to prove myself right I already know I'm right.

If you want to know go look it up just like I did I'm not doing it for you.

 

Wind doesn't blow 24/7. But, power consumption isn't equal 24/7, either. Plus, usage patterns can be affected by using rates to move demand.

The USA has had its own nuclear issues. There was 3 Mile Island, which caused serious financial losses for those living in the region - even if you ignore all health issues. Also, we had WPPSS, which was a stupendous financial disaster that I and others continued to pay for for decades, even though NO electricity was generated.

There is a list of US nuclear incidents on wiki that is easy to find. While most involve no fatalities, nuclear plant accidents have a pucker factor that other electric plants don't have. Plus, we still have gigantic nuclear cleanup to do for stuff done all the way back to WWII.

I agree we need nuclear power. But, let's be careful where we put them (like not near cities) be sure they can be completed, are as safe as possible, and have a plan for the radioactive waste that gets generated.

 

LOL!

No, the objective is to move pollution creation to a point source where it can be made more clean/efficient and where pollution can more easily be addressed.

Plus, it means it isn't inside every US city.

Cars are just not that clean when it comes to creating energy from gas and diesel.

More specifically, gasoline is more polluting than is natural gas.

So, this is a win for cities and for greenhouse gas emissions.

 

I gave data on this.

Do you have a cite, or are you just going to rant?

 

the point is to move the goal posts all things for the holiest of holy electric cars our Lord and savior.

You can't move pollution away we all share the same atmosphere.

 

I'm not interested in proving myself I already know I'm right.

How many times are you going to ask me this question and get snubbed like this?

 

We don't have to have our pollution source be throughout our cities.

And, point sources can be addressed far more easily than sources distributed throughout.

Besides that, natural gas is less polluting than is burning gasoline and diesel in cars, so the total amount of pollution IS reduced.

 

I keep thinking you might have found something to support your claims.

 

Yeah. Because construction and design methods of nuclear plants hasn't changed a bit since 1957.

I guess I paid for it, too, since I lived in WA for roughly a decade. Didn't know about it, though. We're still paying interest on WWII C-Rats, too, since nobody of either party gives a crap about trying to actually cut spending. And by cut spending, I mean CUT SPENDING, not increase it by a little less than first thought and call it a cut. We can start by cutting off all able-bodied adults who have been on public assistance of any kind (except military benefits) for more than 2 months.

 

I fully support dumping dollars into biofuel instead of Ukraine.

 

so this isn't really about environment it's about your comfort fair enough.

It doesn't matter we all share the same atmosphere.

so it's really just **** those people that live in rural communities they don't deserve clean air because I'm a city dweller and I'm the most important thing on the planet

The only reason we use natural gas now versus cold and most of our power production is because it's cheap and abundant. If you have to consume more because you're removing diversity energy it's just going to balance out and be the same amount of pollution.

To take all of the energy that we use in gasoline and transfer that to the power plants we have to build more power plants. We probably have to double maybe triple the amount of power plants we have.

And then there's complications with the power grid so the trade-off isn't worth it.

 

I don't need to. I feel no compulsion to prove myself if you don't believe me and chances are you won't because you're in a religion then don't.

I don't try to convince people that the religion is wrong that is a fool's errand. In my view your lost. You are the chaf as it were. Somebody that maybe doesn't believe what you've been brainwashed to believe hook line and sinker they might look it up. You're just a device to encourage that in less brainwashed people.

 

Clearly, all the items I mentioned aren't necessarily risks today, but they are the American experience.

I mention them more as hurdles in selling nuclear to the public.

 

I love you too, man!

 

Automobile exhaust pollution is damaging to health. There is a real health care cost to allowing that kind of pollution. We haven't had a real choice, so the way you hear about it is in the calls for higher mpg, catalytic converters, periodic automobile exhaust testing and other such demands for pollution improvement.

No, different fuels have very different pollution per unit energy. Coal is worst. Oil as for transportation is worse than natural gas in powering electric transportation.

There are serious problems with our electric grid regardless of EVs.

 

To you I represent a snag in the tapestry. This is a detriment to any religion based on beliefs. Religious people either try their best to stich the snag back down or they pretend it doesn't exist. You are the latter.

This is why you continuously challenge me to prove your religion wrong. And it's why I never do. The snag is there you can ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist but you know it does.

 

So is exhaust from power plants. As long as it's damaging the hearth of people you don't care about it's fine right?

Sounds like a choice you make. There are lots of things you accept living in a city. If place exhaust poisoning on the very bottom.

Really? You have to be in a city why don't ask the people that aren't not have to?

No it's very much your choice. You choose to live in the city and you want other people to pay the cost for your lavish lifestyle.

If it's a problem move. I didn't like living in a city because of the power outages. I moved I didn't demand everybody else Carter to my idiosyncracies.

if that's not enough for you nothing ever will be. What we should do as a society is tell you church ladies to go to hell.

People like you think you're the only person that matters.

Yeah when you quadruple the dependence on coal and natural gas that'll be ever worse.

So increase demand by 200% sounds like a good idea to you.

If you want to drive yourself around in your electric car feeling high and mighty for your fashion statement, well there's one of you born every minute. If you want me to believe in this highschool popularity nonsense no way. I'm my opinion you made a stupid purchase and if you had sense you'd be sorry

 

I agree about nuclear being included. I like everything I've read about thorium reactors. What do you think of those? I've only heard good things, but I admit I don't know the whole story. I did here they were not used because they did not produce the materials wanted for nuclear weapons.

 

Nuclear was promised to be safe. Nuclear was promised to be "too cheap to meter". And it has never met expectations. It certainly didn't prove to be safe. We just got lucky...sort of.

This is why I don't support nuclear power: I've worked in science and engineering my entire career. I know how it works.

Fukushima is a great example of the kind of thing I have seen time and time again. Why did we have a disaster at Fukushima? There were two primary failures that were staggeringly preventable. Firstly, they cut the budget and lowered the height of the sea wall. They knew based on historical data what the height needed to be. But they cut corners for the budget. Engineers were ignored for bean counters. The same error is what destroyed the Challenger Space Shuttle, btw. Bean counters took priority over scientists and engineers.

So back to Fukushima Japan, when a big tidal wave came along, one like many seen before, one that was anticipated but ignored in the design, it went over the sea wall and flooded the facility, and power was lost. But not a problem! They have backup generators. Right? Of course they do. They were located below sea level in a room that was not waterproof. So they failed. Hard to see that one coming huh!!! When power was lost, the disaster began.

Left to our own devices, scientists and engineers will almost always get it right. But put the constraints of a budget and managers in the loop, and god only knows.

Here is another great example: After 911, one of our greatest concerns was the potential for terrorists to take over a nuclear plant and put it into meltdown mode. Not even a year later, we had news reports with videos showing the guards at nuclear power plants sleeping on duty!!!

And while we should have had the military protecting every nuclear power plant after 911, it never happened.

 

The failure and explosions at Fukushima

 

The failure at 3-Mile Island.

Because the radiation exposure for anyone who attempted to close by hand a critical valve, would kill anyone who tried, they floated the idea of sending in terminal cancer patients to do the job. That is what you call desperate!


A friend of mine was just there.

 

PS. They have been promising that fusion power is just around the corner since I was a little kid. For the foreseeable future that option doesn't even exist.

And they say Thorium is safe. Now where have we heard that before...? And it doesn't even exist at scale. It is still in the lab...like nanobots that cure cancer.

 

far more people have died and far more damage has been done by fossil fuels. And fossil fuels have become fare more energy intensive to extract and refine. And it continues to become more costly for less return on energy. Soon we will reach the point where it takes more energy to extract the fuels than we actually receive. What is the solution? Fossil fuels have had a good run, but they were always a temporary resource, a bridge to allow us to advance to a point where we could find s power source more efficient, safe, and sustainable. What will that source be?