Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Grogybear · Aug 31, 2007, 01:36 pm

Ok. I will sum up reasons why a few of these technologies cannot work cost-effectively.

Wind:
Need power on demand. If there is no wind or if the wind is too strong the turbines do not work.
Unsightly when placed in the countryside.
Cannot produce enough power.

Solar:
You would need an absolutely vast amount of solar panels to produce enough power.
Very expensive.
What happens when the sun goes down or if it is cloudy?

**Pooeypants** · Sep 1, 2007, 05:23 am

There's one universal; human excrement!

Kidding aside, no one is suggesting that we rely solely on Wind or Solar, as you've pointed out, it's very unreliable or naturally constrained to just the day (and even then, to the weather). But if it does help to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and save on our energy costs then why not?

PatrickHenry · Sep 1, 2007, 06:30 am

Most electric grids use a MIX of different power sources. I think that using green sources like wind and PV are wise, because it saves the fossil fuels for later and reduces CO2 loading in the atmosphere. Nice clean power.

What's wrong with that? Nobody is saying that conventional power sources will be eliminated. Just that using greener technologies takes the edge off using other more detrimental sources.

Grogybear · Sep 1, 2007, 01:01 pm

I do think that we should move far away from fossil fuels. The problem with renewables is that they provide very little power with the exception of hydro which seems allright.
When I started this topic I also wanted to promote nuclear power as the most viable option.
A tablespoon of uranium provides as much power as something like a kilotonne of coal. Burying a few tonnes of the spent fuel from a reactor is no big deal... It will not turn worms into fire-breathing mutants. It will just sit there... just like uranium does everywhere else in the form of Uraninite.

PatrickHenry · Sep 1, 2007, 07:24 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Grogybear

Burying a few tonnes of the spent fuel from a reactor is no big deal... It will not turn worms into fire-breathing mutants. It will just sit there... just like uranium does everywhere else in the form of Uraninite.

Yeah, it sits there being radioactive!

And you say a "few tons?" How about 80,000 tons? And no place permanent to bury it? And the movement of highly dangerous wastes across the nation to any future storage site? And a quarter million years of isolation?

Osborn F Enready · Sep 2, 2007, 01:49 pm

Too many people are thinking about energy independence on a collective scale. If we all did our share to provide our OWN power, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Where is your sense of self-responsibility America?

Check out this small town in Indiana....

MotorWeek: Inside Track: Auto World

Repowering the Midwest :: Indiana Clean Energy Development :: Printable Page
Indiana solar power seriously includes solar panels and heat systems? Why Indiana

We already have many of the answers we need for fuel and energy of the future.... many of them are simply outlawed. Hemp is the most biofuel productive plant on the earth, last time I checked, and hempfuel is far superior to ethanol or other current fuels, with less necessity of energy to produce.

Grogybear · Sep 2, 2007, 03:58 pm

Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
There.. have some facts. I fail to see the problem with burying the waste. What do you think will happen to it while it is buried?
The containers of waste are well-nigh indestructable so there is very little danger of anything happening to a container of waste.
There seems to be an irrational fear of nuclear power in alot of people. Perhaps it is due mostly to the Chernobyl event, which incidentally is nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be (according to the W.H.O.). People should not be afraid of something which was built poorly and without a containment vessel.

Osborn F Enready · Sep 4, 2007, 12:01 pm

I trust the WHO as much as Richard Nixon.

Have you been to Chernobyl?

I would post a story of someone who lived there, but their video diary was removed from the web...... it wasn't pretty, and I think you are letting agenda downplay what actually happened.

**Pooeypants** · Sep 4, 2007, 02:41 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Osborn F Enready

I trust the WHO as much as Richard Nixon.

Have you been to Chernobyl?

I would post a story of someone who lived there, but their video diary was removed from the web...... it wasn't pretty, and I think you are letting agenda downplay what actually happened.

The problem occurred because they stupidly carried out a safety test in the early hours of morning where the human mind is not entirely switched on. Further to that, modern Nuclear energy industry is probably the most tight regulated and inspected industry in the world. Those kind of incidents are highly unlikely now, I mean, look at the French record, they actually use a significant amount of nuclear power.

Grogybear · Sep 4, 2007, 03:52 pm

75% i believe... and you can ignore the World Health Organisation if you want.. im sure you would have no problem in quoting them on an issue where they agreed with you.

Sep 1, 2007, 05:23 am	#42 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	There's one universal; human excrement! Kidding aside, no one is suggesting that we rely solely on Wind or Solar, as you've pointed out, it's very unreliable or naturally constrained to just the day (and even then, to the weather). But if it does help to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and save on our energy costs then why not? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Sep 1, 2007, 06:30 am	#43 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,446	Most electric grids use a MIX of different power sources. I think that using green sources like wind and PV are wise, because it saves the fossil fuels for later and reduces CO2 loading in the atmosphere. Nice clean power. What's wrong with that? Nobody is saying that conventional power sources will be eliminated. Just that using greener technologies takes the edge off using other more detrimental sources. "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Sep 2, 2007, 01:49 pm	#46 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Too many people are thinking about energy independence on a collective scale. If we all did our share to provide our OWN power, this wouldn't even be an issue. Where is your sense of self-responsibility America? Check out this small town in Indiana.... MotorWeek: Inside Track: Auto World Repowering the Midwest :: Indiana Clean Energy Development :: Printable Page Indiana solar power seriously includes solar panels and heat systems? Why Indiana We already have many of the answers we need for fuel and energy of the future.... many of them are simply outlawed. Hemp is the most biofuel productive plant on the earth, last time I checked, and hempfuel is far superior to ethanol or other current fuels, with less necessity of energy to produce. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Sep 4, 2007, 12:01 pm	#48 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	I trust the WHO as much as Richard Nixon. Have you been to Chernobyl? I would post a story of someone who lived there, but their video diary was removed from the web...... it wasn't pretty, and I think you are letting agenda downplay what actually happened. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Aug 31, 2007, 01:36 pm	#41 (permalink) (top)
Grogybear Molten Ash Location: Ireland Posts: 26	Ok. I will sum up reasons why a few of these technologies cannot work cost-effectively. Wind: Need power on demand. If there is no wind or if the wind is too strong the turbines do not work. Unsightly when placed in the countryside. Cannot produce enough power. Solar: You would need an absolutely vast amount of solar panels to produce enough power. Very expensive. What happens when the sun goes down or if it is cloudy?

Sep 1, 2007, 01:01 pm	#44 (permalink) (top)
Grogybear Molten Ash Location: Ireland Posts: 26	I do think that we should move far away from fossil fuels. The problem with renewables is that they provide very little power with the exception of hydro which seems allright. When I started this topic I also wanted to promote nuclear power as the most viable option. A tablespoon of uranium provides as much power as something like a kilotonne of coal. Burying a few tonnes of the spent fuel from a reactor is no big deal... It will not turn worms into fire-breathing mutants. It will just sit there... just like uranium does everywhere else in the form of Uraninite.

Sep 2, 2007, 03:58 pm	#47 (permalink) (top)
Grogybear Molten Ash Location: Ireland Posts: 26	Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle There.. have some facts. I fail to see the problem with burying the waste. What do you think will happen to it while it is buried? The containers of waste are well-nigh indestructable so there is very little danger of anything happening to a container of waste. There seems to be an irrational fear of nuclear power in alot of people. Perhaps it is due mostly to the Chernobyl event, which incidentally is nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be (according to the W.H.O.). People should not be afraid of something which was built poorly and without a containment vessel.

Sep 4, 2007, 03:52 pm	#50 (permalink) (top)
Grogybear Molten Ash Location: Ireland Posts: 26	75% i believe... and you can ignore the World Health Organisation if you want.. im sure you would have no problem in quoting them on an issue where they agreed with you.