Gas is gonna go through the roof.....

[ibjamming]

currently, wind/solar interface well with the existing grid because there is so little power generated from them
just how much you can pump into a grid on a large scale is a bit of an open question
smart grid is research in progress, not a done deal, no one is completely sure just how well it will be able to integrate a large percentage of intermittent power generation sources
the devil really is in the details, because that will be a big determiner of just how cost effective the system will be

Exactly...people don't understand interdependencies that exist. People need RELIABLE energy...not dependent on the whims of nature. You're going to need really big batteries! Wind and solar are daytime only just about everywhere.

I watched a show about ,what would happen if for whatever the reason there were no more humans on this earth and what will happen to the earth when ppl are no longer able to do what they do. One of the biggest problems first and formost is our nuclear plants all over the world.. I think they said 23 plants in the US and 14 in Canada alone and all of them are going to leak!! None of the plants are made to evert disaster!!! Once the electricity runs out were totally screwed!!!! They have NOT figured out a way to get rid of nuclear waste in all these fucking years !!! WE are as stupid about this as they come .. The more you know lol.. peace out Headband707

If we're not here...who cares?

There is no "getting ride of nuclear waste"...it's here probably as long as we are...many thousands of years. You can't burn it, you can't neutralize it, and you can't send it away. All you can do is bury it and hope it stays put...for a long long time.

 

[BrainSellz]

......

 

[zenoonez]

Isn't power storage really only an issue if you try to keep the solar or wind power generated, at the location it's generated? Doesn't the plan of making a smart grid where you can generate electricity and what you don't use immediately goes into the system (as a credit to you) for others to use, solve the problem of storage?

Hopefully innovation will fix the problems with solar and wind power. Mainly they fall short because they're inefficient and not much energy has been put into making them less so. Like solar panels, I believe on average their efficiency is about 12%. There is a company out there that has found a way to get closer to 80% efficiency but they haven't figured out yet how to actually get the energy created from the photoreactive material to where it can be used.

Do you have a source for the 80% efficiency on pv cells? I hadn't read anything about that. I think someone has some cells that produce 16% efficiency but they are pretty expensive.

 

[igrowone]

There is no "getting ride of nuclear waste"...it's here probably as long as we are...many thousands of years. You can't burn it, you can't neutralize it, and you can't send it away. All you can do is bury it and hope it stays put...for a long long time.

that is not quite true, it can be 'burnt', it just requires fast neutron reactors, the current reactor fleet are slow neutron(relatively)
the are a number of fast neutron designs, some have been tested extensively over the years
you could use a good deal of our existing nuclear waste as fuel for this reactor type
they too produce waste, but much less
interestingly, their waste has much higher levels of radioactivity, which is good! lower half life
many fear the 'nuclear' bogey man, many have no idea what nasty industrial processes go on very near where they live and have much poorer safety/health records than nuclear power

 

[SpasticGramps]

I've heard of the 80% efficiency deal. I believe it was a Swiss or some other European company that was trying to do it. From what I understood they weren't close to perfecting it though.

In order to get the 80% efficiency the atoms on the panels have to be arranged in a perfect grid. Any flaws in the arrangement comprises the efficiency. The only way to do that is through nanotechnology. Which is what I keep harping on for this reason.

 

[turbolaser4528]

I watched a show about ,what would happen if for whatever the reason there were no more humans on this earth and what will happen to the earth when ppl are no longer able to do what they do. One of the biggest problems first and formost is our nuclear plants all over the world.. I think they said 23 plants in the US and 14 in Canada alone and all of them are going to leak!! None of the plants are made to evert disaster!!! Once the electricity runs out were totally screwed!!!! They have NOT figured out a way to get rid of nuclear waste in all these fucking years !!! WE are as stupid about this as they come .. The more you know lol.. peace out Headband707

Na dude, we can just put all of our nucl3ar waste on container ships, and then detonat3 them at a port in the middle of Iran and North Korea. That'll take care of em !!!

Fuck it, crop dust that shit over china too. Too many of those fuckers running around, sucking up all the worlds resources !!!!

Fuck it, Africa too, too many evil warlords running around as well LOLOLOL



Ok that's enough right ? FUCK IT, drop some waste bombs on Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India too, not enough resources for everyone !!!!


USA, USA, USA !

or send that shit into outer space.

or roll up some nuclear laced blunts, shit will be gone in like 3 weeks son...


I apologize in advance, btw.

 

[igrowone]

^^^ meant to be mostly funny, but here's the suggestion made by the 'godfather' of the green movement, don't recall his name but back in the 50's/60's he began the anti-nuclear movement, he was a physicist
his more recent suggestion was to take all nuclear waste, put it into leaky steel drums and drop it on the amazon rain forest
he wasn't exactly joking, here was his rationale
the rain forest is basically doomed the way things are going, and radioactive waste doesn't mess that much with ecosystem
Chernobyl doesn't look like much of a desert, plenty of animal and plant life
human beings don't cope well with radioactive waste, so it would chase them out and away from chopping down the trees

 

[headband 707]

Chernobyl's fallout landed in Belarus...

Chernobyl's fallout landed in Belarus...

The disaster occurred on 26 April 1986, 1:23 A.M., at reactor number four at the Chernobyl plant, near the town of Pripyat, during an unauthorized systems test. A sudden power output surge took place, and when an attempt was made at an emergency shutdown, a more extreme spike in power output occurred which led to the rupture of a reactor vessel as well as a series of explosions. This event exposed the graphite moderator components of the reactor to air and they ignited; the resulting fire sent a plume of radioactive fallout into the atmosphere and over an extensive area, including Pripyat. The plume drifted over large parts of the western Soviet Union, and much of Europe. As of December 2000[update], 350,400 people had been evacuated and resettled from the most severely contaminated areas of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.[1][2] According to official post-Soviet data, up to 70% of the fallout landed in Belarus.[3]

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

^^^ meant to be mostly funny, but here's the suggestion made by the 'godfather' of the green movement,

His so called "green" focus is primarily efficiency and conservation, not renewables.

developed a broad range of energy efficiency technologies, including electronic ballasts for fluorescent lighting, a key component of compact fluorescent lamps; and low-emissivity windows, a coating for glass that allows light in but blocks heat from either entering (summer) or escaping (winter). Dr. Rosenfeld was personally responsible for developing DOE-2, a computer program for building energy analysis and design that was incorporated in California’s Building Code in 1978. These codes have served as models for the nation, copied by Florida and Massachusetts, and other states are beginning to adopt them as well. DOE-2 is used to calculate codes and guidelines for energy efficient new buildings in China and many other countries.

don't recall his name but back in the 50's/60's he began the anti-nuclear movement, he was a physicist

Art Rosenfeld.

his more recent suggestion was to take all nuclear waste, put it into leaky steel drums and drop it on the amazon rain forest

That sounds like a shock-jock interpretation to me. How about a link?

he wasn't exactly joking, here was his rationale
the rain forest is basically doomed the way things are going, and radioactive waste doesn't mess that much with ecosystem

Nah, Rosenfeld advocated harvesting rain forest products that don't require deforestation.

Chernobyl doesn't look like much of a desert, plenty of animal and plant life

After the disaster, four square kilometers of pine forest directly downwind of the reactor turned reddish-brown and died, earning the name of the "Red Forest".[85] Some animals in the worst-hit areas also died or stopped reproducing. Most domestic animals were evacuated from the exclusion zone, but horses left on an island in the Pripyat River 6 km (4 mi) from the power plant died when their thyroid glands were destroyed by radiation doses of 150–200 Sv.[86] Some cattle on the same island died and those that survived were stunted because of thyroid damage. The next generation appeared to be normal.[86]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#cite_note-iaea1991-85

human beings don't cope well with radioactive waste, so it would chase them out and away from chopping down the treeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Rosenfeld

Thanks for the link but it doesn't back up what you say. I'd like to see the info about dumping waste in the Amazon jungle, lol.

Sounds like your solution, igo. Poison the jungle and poison the people that promote deforestation.

With that kind of logic, we could "waste" Washington lobbies that thwart radioactive cleanup.

BTW, if it's bad for humans it's bad for animals. Based on your post, I'd never suspect that flora is immune to fallout.

A robot sent into the reactor itself has returned with samples of black, melanin-rich radiotrophic fungi that are growing on the reactor's walls.[87]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Flora_and_fauna

 

[igrowone]

His so called "green" focus is primarily efficiency and conservation, not renewables.

Art Rosenfeld.


That sounds like a shock-jock interpretation to me. How about a link?

Nah, Rosenfeld advocated harvesting rain forest products that don't require deforestation.

Thanks for the link but it doesn't back up what you say. I'd like to see the info about dumping waste in the Amazon jungle, lol.

Sounds like your solution, igo. Poison the jungle and poison the people that promote deforestation.

With that kind of logic, we could "waste" Washington lobbies that thwart radioactive cleanup.

BTW, if it's bad for humans it's bad for animals. Based on your post, I'd never suspect that flora is immune to fallout.

this was hardly meant to be a plan of action, more for effect than action
actually doing this would be an act of war, and is not going to happen
it's more of an illustration of what is, on the surface, an insane idea, then thinking through some consequences
it's not clear that there would be more long term ecological damage from dumping radioactive waste, then the current status quo which is destroying huge swaths of habitat
the point here is the hysteria people have when nuclear is mentioned
Chernobyl was bad, flawed design we have never used(commercially anyways)
but i will trade a large commercial nuclear industry than having to go to major war in the Mideast(it's a small war now)
which has the potential to become a nuclear conflict in the not too distant future(if not now)

 

[SpasticGramps]

Don't some indigenous people still make their life in the rain forest and it's rivers? I doubt they would appreciate having all our nuclear waste dumped on them.

Not that I don't understand hyperbole as a means of illustrating a point.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

this was hardly meant to be a plan of action, more for effect than action
actually doing this would be an act of war, and is not going to happen
it's more of an illustration of what is, on the surface, an insane idea, then thinking through some consequences

Is it Rosenfeld's insane idea?

it's not clear that there would be more long term ecological damage from dumping radioactive waste,

It's not clear? Does Rosenfeld back you up on that?

Forget Rosenfeld, does ANY nuclear physicist back up what you say?

Forget nuclear physicist, does ANYBODY back up what you say?

then the current status quo which is destroying huge swaths of habitat
the point here is the hysteria people have when nuclear is mentioned

Hysteria with significant fallout is well founded. Fallout kills, causes birth defects and makes areas of the planet uninhabitable.

Your comments aren't well founded when you make un cited declarations of fallout legacy.

Chernobyl was bad, flawed design we have never used(commercially anyways)

Don't forget, Chernobyl technicians ran unauthorized tests that led to the disaster.

Three Mile Island suffered an instrument failure and technicians didn't know what was taking place in the reactor.

Bottom line, hardware fails and people do crazy shit. We can fix what we understand. But we don't understand stupid.

but i will trade a large commercial nuclear industry than having to go to major war in the Mideast(it's a small war now)
which has the potential to become a nuclear conflict in the not too distant future(if not now)

We've got more choices than nuclear. Hell, we waste half our energy as it is.

 

[igrowone]

Is it Rosenfeld's insane idea?

It's not clear? Does Rosenfeld back you up on that?

Forget Rosenfeld, does ANY nuclear physicist back up what you say?

Forget nuclear physicist, does ANYBODY back up what you say?

Hysteria with significant fallout is well founded. Fallout kills, causes birth defects and makes areas of the planet uninhabitable.

Your comments aren't well founded when you make un cited declarations of fallout legacy.

Don't forget, Chernobyl technicians ran unauthorized tests that led to the disaster.

Three Mile Island suffered an instrument failure and technicians didn't know what was taking place in the reactor.

Bottom line, hardware fails and people do crazy shit. We can fix what we understand. But we don't understand stupid.

We've got more choices than nuclear. Hell, we waste half our energy as it is.

plainly you did not understand the original intent of the post, it was meant to be hyperbole, not something that should be done
some don't like the idea of nuclear power, you plainly fall into that camp
i don't love it, but we are entering a very grim time if energy resources follow their current path
commercial nuclear power in the USA has an excellent safety/health record
it is the closest thing we have for cheap, clean, plentiful energy, and it could be even better with newer available technologies

 

[headband 707]

We really do speak like true parasites of this planet.. Screw the planet and as far as space there is already too much space junk in our atmosphere .. We have had this type of power for a long time now and we still can't figure out how to get rid of the TOXIC waste from it?? Sounds like such a smart plan to me LOL>>NOT.... Oil,Gas, Nuclear plants and coal will kill us ..this is the "Age of stupid" from this there is no doubt.. peace out Headband707

 

[Chronic Don]

one of the main reasons is the the worlds emerging economies, namely Brazil and China (adding russia, india and S affrica) ....their economies are growing at a HIGH speed...they are now where we were in the 1950's with a growing middle class that is thirsting for oil, oil to feed their new cars, and heat their bigger homes and fuel their larger manufacturing buildings and factories... the price of oil is climbing because of their consumption presently and will only climb higher and faster with time... so... by 2012, less than a year, we will be lucky if gas hovers around 5.00/gall...the year after may be worse....an ex shell ceo sees this 5.00/gall price by 2012....he doesnt say why but this seems most logical as to why....

you think it'll take til 2012 for 5.00/gal?
guess again its here already.
there are cities in eastern canada that pay 5.40/gallon, in western canada where we produce most of the oil and gas from this country we pay 4.59/gal and our dollar is on/near par with the USD. in fact the gas we overproduce in our refineries gets sold south of our border and resold cheaper then the refineries claim it costs them to make, wonder how or is it an excuse to overcharge us for our own product. damn foriegn owned energy companies. need to nationalize them.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

plainly you did not understand the original intent of the post, it was meant to be hyperbole, not something that should be done

Oh, ok. I gathered you took another member's post as hyperbole.

some don't like the idea of nuclear power, you plainly fall into that camp
i don't love it, but we are entering a very grim time if energy resources follow their current path

You're right. I'm less interested in Earth's most dangerous energy source. But I'm no crusader. I don't want nuclear energy in monumental proportions. I thought it was bad enough when China announced building hundreds of coal fired plants, now hundreds of nuclear plants are on the board. I'm cool with China's energy needs but it's too bad we're dealing with coal and nuclear.

commercial nuclear power in the USA has an excellent safety/health record
it is the closest thing we have for cheap, clean, plentiful energy, and it could be even better with newer available technologies

Sorry, igo. "Excellent" is a little subjective when considering potential birth defects, cancer rates, horrible death and (severe and lasting) environmental damage.

We subsidize nuclear more than conventional energy. It's just my opinion but we could direct some of that subsidy toward efficiency and renewables.

 

[igrowone]

You're right. I'm less interested in Earth's most dangerous energy source. But I'm no crusader. I don't want nuclear energy in monumental proportions. I thought it was bad enough when China announced building hundreds of coal fired plants, now hundreds of nuclear plants are on the board. I'm cool with China's energy needs but it's too bad we're dealing with coal and nuclear.

Sorry, igo. "Excellent" is a little subjective when considering potential birth defects, cancer rates, horrible death and (severe and lasting) environmental damage.

We subsidize nuclear more than conventional energy. It's just my opinion but we could direct some of that subsidy toward efficiency and renewables.

i have no problem with renewables, if they work, all is good
with coal and nuclear, which releases more radioactivity into the environment?
coal, not even close, spews forth uranium/thorium in large amounts(relatively), at least compared to nuclear plants
if you would do some more reading on the actual epidemiological studies of nuclear health effects, you might be surprised
i was very wary of nuclear power for a long time, and i do not love it one bit
i just see a much grimmer future without it, unless some other plans show better results

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

i have no problem with renewables, if they work, all is good
with coal and nuclear, which releases more radioactivity into the environment?
coal, not even close, spews forth uranium/thorium in large amounts(relatively), at least compared to nuclear plants
if you would do some more reading on the actual epidemiological studies of nuclear health effects, you might be surprised

You might be surprised when you find out the number of coal fired plants exponentially outnumber nuclear plants. Not to mention that coal is measured in metric tonnes and burned in millions of. Besides, coal won't cause radioactive fallout and or meltdown.

I was very wary of nuclear power for a long time, and i do not love it one bit
i just see a much grimmer future without it, unless some other plans show better results

Your right, we're likely to have nuclear energy for the foreseeable future. IMO, we choose energy sources based on profitability, not sustainability.

 

[headband 707]

You might be surprised when you find out the number of coal fired plants exponentially outnumber nuclear plants. Not to mention that coal is measured in metric tonnes and burned in millions of. Besides, coal won't cause radioactive fallout and or meltdown.

Your right, we're likely to have nuclear energy for the foreseeable future. IMO, we choose energy sources based on profitability, not sustainability.

COAL contains sulfur dioxide which is acid rain ,, and you need to move mountains to get to it so NO coal is BAD and it's screwing up our weather as China has way too many coal mines>>>>YUK.. peace out Headband707

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Thanks for the post, headband. I'm not an advocate for coal or nuclear energy. Each have their respective quality but legacy aspects are potential problems for future generations.

coal = bad