Home /
Reply to Message
A different thought
YetAnotherBob.
Just reading through these comments yours appears the most incorrect.
What materiel shortage are you talking about that will affect wind and solar plants? Which type of solar plant are you referring to, Photovoltaic? Do you know of solar power been harnessed and stored via concentrating solar power with thermal energy storage options? (CSP/TES) (I'm sure by now you would have heard about this technology). At this very moment there are companies that are installing 300MW CSP/TES plants, which are about 1/6 the size of an average nuclear reactor. CSP offers zero carbon emissions, baseload electricity 24 hours a day, and zero change of a catastrophic 'melt-down' scenario occurring. I don't need to spend any time describing how thermal heat and electricity can be generated in the sunbelt regions of the world, (look at the Desertec Initiative in the MENA zone). Using dry-cooled plants the "high water usage" argument against CSP plants is invalidated.
I think the 'heat islands' you mention don't exist. I.e., your estimation of the environmental impact associated with solar (PV/CSP) is misguided. You state also that,
"Wind power directly kills birds, bats and insects. It also reduces the natural water cycle." - firstly, do you know how many birds and bats are killed every year by domestic cats/antenna/cars/planes/trains/buildings/windows etc? The amount killed accidentally by wind turbines is minimal in comparison.
How do wind turbines affect the "natural water cycle"? Wind turbines use no water, and have little affect on the vapour saturation of the surrounding air. Please show me scientific papers concluding that wind turbines reduce rainfall levels...
You are also a proponent of nuclear fuel, but you seem to have ignored the discussion in the article and comments on this page which shows (as numerous other research bodies have also) that nuclear requires massively large subsidies to be viable. You would also like to see nuclear waste been reused. Have you ever been to a nuclear reactor and seen what kind of safety measures and waste-handling protocols are in effect to move high-level nuclear waste anywhere? It's ridiculous and there feels like a sense of insecurity about the danger associate with the waste. You are right that spent fuel can be reused, but you are talking about using it in present day reactors which would need to continue to run using the recycled fuel. I.e., more reactors would need to be built, more money (subsidized) would have to be spent, continued danger of accidents would exist, etc, etc. Uranium extraction is also not carbon neutral.
Do you not want to live in a world where there is zero change of a nuclear melt-down occurring? The sun is the main energy feed to our planet, - it would be wise to start gathering our energy needs from the original source, and not continue messing around with fossil fuels, (coal, oil, gas, nuclear).
Just reading through these comments yours appears the most incorrect.
What materiel shortage are you talking about that will affect wind and solar plants? Which type of solar plant are you referring to, Photovoltaic? Do you know of solar power been harnessed and stored via concentrating solar power with thermal energy storage options? (CSP/TES) (I'm sure by now you would have heard about this technology). At this very moment there are companies that are installing 300MW CSP/TES plants, which are about 1/6 the size of an average nuclear reactor. CSP offers zero carbon emissions, baseload electricity 24 hours a day, and zero change of a catastrophic 'melt-down' scenario occurring. I don't need to spend any time describing how thermal heat and electricity can be generated in the sunbelt regions of the world, (look at the Desertec Initiative in the MENA zone). Using dry-cooled plants the "high water usage" argument against CSP plants is invalidated.
I think the 'heat islands' you mention don't exist. I.e., your estimation of the environmental impact associated with solar (PV/CSP) is misguided. You state also that,
"Wind power directly kills birds, bats and insects. It also reduces the natural water cycle." - firstly, do you know how many birds and bats are killed every year by domestic cats/antenna/cars/planes/trains/buildings/windows etc? The amount killed accidentally by wind turbines is minimal in comparison.
How do wind turbines affect the "natural water cycle"? Wind turbines use no water, and have little affect on the vapour saturation of the surrounding air. Please show me scientific papers concluding that wind turbines reduce rainfall levels...
You are also a proponent of nuclear fuel, but you seem to have ignored the discussion in the article and comments on this page which shows (as numerous other research bodies have also) that nuclear requires massively large subsidies to be viable. You would also like to see nuclear waste been reused. Have you ever been to a nuclear reactor and seen what kind of safety measures and waste-handling protocols are in effect to move high-level nuclear waste anywhere? It's ridiculous and there feels like a sense of insecurity about the danger associate with the waste. You are right that spent fuel can be reused, but you are talking about using it in present day reactors which would need to continue to run using the recycled fuel. I.e., more reactors would need to be built, more money (subsidized) would have to be spent, continued danger of accidents would exist, etc, etc. Uranium extraction is also not carbon neutral.
Do you not want to live in a world where there is zero change of a nuclear melt-down occurring? The sun is the main energy feed to our planet, - it would be wise to start gathering our energy needs from the original source, and not continue messing around with fossil fuels, (coal, oil, gas, nuclear).
Posted by Hybrid-RE
13th Jul