The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[bilby]

People are fucking stupid.

If two people get sunburn and one falls of a roof, while installing solar panels, that's literally a worse "disaster" than Fukushima.

You are correct, some people are fucking, even criminally, stupid. That has to be the most hands down most idiotic argument I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot.

The area around Fukushima is a contaminated wasteland. Risk from radiation was minmal due to swift evacuation. You can look at Chernobyl. It too is a wasteland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

Costs to Japanese taxpayers are likely to exceed 12 trillion yen ($100 billion).[273] In December 2016 the government estimated decontamination, compensation, decommissioning, and radioactive waste storage costs at 21.5 trillion yen ($187 billion), nearly double the 2013 estimate.[274]

A contaminated wasteland that's less radioactive than a number of major cities is NOT somewhere that needs to be evacuated.

Crazy overreactions are not evidence that a threat is real.

Many dozens of lives would have been saved (and none lost) had there been no evacuation at all. Almost all of that money is being wasted on measures that are completely unnecessary.

And I confidently predict that you will spare not one moment in rejecting these facts, because you have a derp* and enduring faith that there was a nuclear disaster at Fukushima.

There wasn't. An event that kills zero people doesn't qualify as a disaster by any sane definition of the word.

An old power plant suffered catastrophic damage and will need to be replaced - But it was close to the end of its life, and was hardly the only (or the most significant) piece of infrastructure damaged by the MASSIVE earthquake and tsunami.

The real killer here wasn't radiation; It was a lack of education or understanding on the part of a news media that profits from sensationalism, and on the part of politicians who act on public opinion, rather than hard facts.

There was never sufficient radiation released to harm anyone outside the power plant perimeter.

 

[steve_bank]

Back in then 60s there was humor book of pictures with captions. One was Khrushchev's famous picture banging his shoe on a table. The caption read

" Russian scientists have proved radiation is good for you"

Go on social media maybe you can start a grass roots pro nuke movement. I Love Nukes t shirts.

 

[bilby]

Back in then 60s there was humor book of pictures with captions. One was Khrushchev's famous picture banging his shoe on a table. The caption read

" Russian scientists have proved radiation is good for you"

Go on social media maybe you can start a grass roots pro nuke movement. I Love Nukes t shirts.

Derp and enduring faith.

I picked it.

Low doses of radiation are good for you:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889502/

And there are several grassroots movements in favour of nuclear power:
https://mothersfornuclear.org/

https://www.brightnewworld.org/

You could try living in the twenty first century; A lot has happened since the 1960s, and you appear to have missed most of it.

You could even get a nice T-shirt:

https://www.amazon.com/Say-yes-to-Nuclear-power/dp/B01GSSXZLS

 

[steve_bank]

Back in then 60s there was humor book of pictures with captions. One was Khrushchev's famous picture banging his shoe on a table. The caption read

" Russian scientists have proved radiation is good for you"

Go on social media maybe you can start a grass roots pro nuke movement. I Love Nukes t shirts.

Derp and enduring faith.

I picked it.

Low doses of radiation are good for you:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889502/

And there are several grassroots movements in favour of nuclear power:
https://mothersfornuclear.org/

https://www.brightnewworld.org/

You could try living in the twenty first century; A lot has happened since the 1960s, and you appear to have missed most of it.

You could even get a nice T-shirt:

https://www.amazon.com/Say-yes-to-Nuclear-power/dp/B01GSSXZLS

Over here you can pay to sit in uranium mines, some believe it is healthy for you. Makes your dick harder they say. The Brits have always had a predilection towards quackery and pseudo science . Ionizing radiation is dangerous. You can look upmthe long term studies of generational aftermath of the two nuclear bombs.

Your arguments are mostly ersatz.

 

[KeepTalking]

Over the years there has been anti nuke protests and demonstraions.

Never heard of any pro nuke demonstraions, and before this a pro nuke activist.

The above argument seems to engage in at least one, if not multiple, logical fallacies. I fail to see how not having heard of "pro nuke demonstrations" or "pro nuke activists" is in any way a compelling argument against nuclear power.

Thank you for a deep enjoyable afternoon belly laugh. It is not an argument it is an observation.

Oh, great, in that case it doesn't even rise to the level of the anecdotes you rely on in so many of your posts. I guess those don't count as arguments either. When you come across an argument you want to actually make to back up your anti-nuke position, please let us know.

 

[bilby]

Back in then 60s there was humor book of pictures with captions. One was Khrushchev's famous picture banging his shoe on a table. The caption read

" Russian scientists have proved radiation is good for you"

Go on social media maybe you can start a grass roots pro nuke movement. I Love Nukes t shirts.

Derp and enduring faith.

I picked it.

Low doses of radiation are good for you:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889502/

And there are several grassroots movements in favour of nuclear power:
https://mothersfornuclear.org/

https://www.brightnewworld.org/

You could try living in the twenty first century; A lot has happened since the 1960s, and you appear to have missed most of it.

You could even get a nice T-shirt:

https://www.amazon.com/Say-yes-to-Nuclear-power/dp/B01GSSXZLS

Over here you can pay to sit in uranium mines, some believe it is healthy for you. Makes your dick harder they say. The Brits have always had a predilection towards quackery and pseudo science . Ionizing radiation is dangerous.

Heat is dangerous. That doesn't mean it's never beneficial to health. And it's certainly not an excuse for unreasoning terror.

You can look upmthe long term studies of generational aftermath of the two nuclear bombs.

Your arguments are mostly ersatz.

Your fifty year old prejudices are not a serious rebuttal to actual science. Indeed, your complete failure to address my post in any substantive way speaks volumes.

You didn't even click those links, did you?

Derp and enduring faith. It's not a virtue.

 

[steve_bank]

Sorry bilby, I can't do endless tit for tat.

My view of nukes is clear and the reasons why.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Over here you can pay to sit in uranium mines, some believe it is healthy for you. Makes your dick harder they say. The Brits have always had a predilection towards quackery and pseudo science . Ionizing radiation is dangerous. You can look upmthe long term studies of generational aftermath of the two nuclear bombs.

Your arguments are mostly ersatz.

The idea isn't bonkers. Simply look at current thoughts on allergy--the explosion in allergies is blamed on too-healthy living. Our immune systems don't find enough actual bugs to fight and become prone to latching on to foreign but harmless things.

The basic idea is that at low levels the effort the body must spare in fixing the damage is actually beneficial.

Unfortunately, to prove this one way or the other requires huge sample sizes. There is no question the risk is at most low.

 

[steve_bank]

Over here you can pay to sit in uranium mines, some believe it is healthy for you. Makes your dick harder they say. The Brits have always had a predilection towards quackery and pseudo science . Ionizing radiation is dangerous. You can look upmthe long term studies of generational aftermath of the two nuclear bombs.

Your arguments are mostly ersatz.

The idea isn't bonkers. Simply look at current thoughts on allergy--the explosion in allergies is blamed on too-healthy living. Our immune systems don't find enough actual bugs to fight and become prone to latching on to foreign but harmless things.

The basic idea is that at low levels the effort the body must spare in fixing the damage is actually beneficial.

Unfortunately, to prove this one way or the other requires huge sample sizes. There is no question the risk is at most low.

Kids who grow up playing in dirt and are around farm animals have stronger immune systems. Early exposure to bacteria.

 

[James Brown]

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/7liXT4T9XJA[/YOUTUBE]

 

[lpetrich]

India’s First Auctioned Wind Energy Project Commissioned | CleanTechnica: "Ostro Energy commissioned 126 megawatts of the 250 megawatt capacity allocated to it in the first-ever wind energy tender in India’s history."

Growing Without Farming | CleanTechnica -- on indoor farming.

Wind Energy Prices Continue To Fall Due To Technology Advancements & Cost Reductions | CleanTechnica at least in the US. In 2017, 7 gigawatts of capacity, 25% added, and wind energy supplied 6.3% of total US electricity in that year -- and 30% in Iowa, Kansas, South Dakota, and Oklahoma.

New Study Finds Air Pollution Lowers Intelligence | CleanTechnica -- in addition to its physical-health effects.

South Africa Drops Nuclear in Favor of Renewables | CleanTechnica

Specifically, the new draft of the IRP not only includes no new nuclear power and only 1 gigawatt (GW) worth of new coal capacity by 2030, but it plans for additional renewable capacity of over 15 GW — including 2.5 GW of hydro, 5.670 GW of solar PV, and 8.1 GW worth of new wind capacity. The new plan also calls for 8.1 GW of new natural gas capacity.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Too bad the regression in South Africa, which will result in more air pollution and/or gases that contribute to global warming (since previously planned nuclear will be replaced with something, and solar+wind, etc., can't cover it on their own; e.g., how do you get solar at night?, etc.).

 

[lpetrich]

New "Affordable Clean Energy" Plan Lands With A Thud | CleanTechnica -- the utilities aren't interested in using more coal.

GE To Supply Turbines & Facilitate €90 Million Financing For 100 Megawatt Ukrainian Wind Farm | CleanTechnica

California Moves One Step Closer To Being 100% Renewable Powered By 2045 | CleanTechnica:
2026: 50%, 2030: 60%, 2045: 100% renewable electricity generation.

The state's electricity generation is currently 4% coal, 34% natgas, 15% hydroelectric, 29% "renewable" (wind, solar, geothermal?), and 18% from nuclear and other sources.

100% Renewables Requires Less Land Footprint Than Reliance On Fossil Fuels In California — #RealityCheck | CleanTechnica -- rebuts an opponent of renewable energy who claims that renewable-energy generation will use a LOT of land. Wind turbines can easily coexist with other land uses, because their tower bases take up much less land than the land needed to give them good spacing.

Tesla "Big Battery" Responds To "Power System Emergency" In Australia | CleanTechnica

Last Saturday afternoon, lighting strikes in Australia temporarily interrupted transmission lines that interconnect the electrical grids in the eastern part of the country. For a time, the grids in Queensland and South Australia were turned into energy islands, cut off from the national grid infrastructure. The Australian Energy Market Operator termed the incident a “power system emergency.”

Customers in New South Wales and Victoria experienced widespread power outages while those in in Queensland and South Australia noticed little more than a momentary flicker of their lights. In Queensland, that happy circumstance was due to an abundance of renewable energy available to meet that state’s energy needs. Some of the excess was being shared with NSW before the transmission line between the two was put out of commission.

South Australia was largely unaffected, thanks to the Hornsdale Power Reserve, known affectionately in SA as the “Tesla Big Battery.” It kicked in immediately to add 84 MW of power to the state’s electrical grid and stabilize the frequency of the local grid, which was disturbed when the link to neighboring Victoria was disrupted.

 

[bilby]

Queensland doesn't have an "abundance of renewable energy" All but a tiny fraction of Queensland electricity generation is from coal.

This is where our electricity comes from mid-afternoon, when solar is at its peak:



And this is where we get our electricity at night:



To describe this as an "abundance of renewable energy" is, IMO an outright and barefaced lie, that discredits the entire source.

CleanTechnica clearly prefer their agenda over the facts.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Why is Queensland dragging it's feet on renewable energy?

 

[bilby]

Why is Queensland dragging it's feet on renewable energy?

Because both the state and federal governments are in love with coal mining in Queensland.

We are also a major exporter of coal to China.

Coal is to Queensland what oil is to Saudi Arabia.

 

[steve_bank]

Coal pollution is ready good for you. It is all fake news by the wacky anti fossil fuel liberals.

 

[lpetrich]

US Electricity Generation By Renewables Edges Out Nuclear (Interview) | CleanTechnica

A SUN DAY analysis of US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data showed that in the first half of 2018 renewables generated about 19.867% of US net electricity generation, which was just slightly more than the 19.863% nuclear power produced.

Most of that is hydropower, but as wind and solar installations grow, then I expect that nuclear power will be left behind. We may eventually see no more new nuclear reactors, something that seems to also be happening to coal.

Yes, There Will Be Plenty Of Lithium For Energy Storage | CleanTechnica -- a company has developed an alternative to evaporation as a way of extracting lithium salts from brines. It uses ion-exchange materials to concentrate the lithium from those brines.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Most of that is hydropower, but as wind and solar installations grow, then I expect that nuclear power will be left behind. We may eventually see no more new nuclear reactors, something that seems to also be happening to coal.

That would be regrettable, but in any case, at most you would see no new nuclear reactors in the US. Several other countries will keep making nuclear reactors regardless of what the US does, and also regardless of what anti-nuclear activists say.

 

[bilby]

Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power