Would nuclear fission powered generators help more than the inherent risks? Assume humans think smarter than to locate them near oceans in the 'ring of fire" areas and not use light water graphite moderated reactors like Chernobyl.
Some of the newer nuclear technologies need to be investigated more. Some can run on the waste from traditional plants and afterward leave a small amount of waste that would have a shorter half-life.
'Other' includes, geothermal, solar wind, tidal, heat etc, lets keep bleating on about the 1% and certainly never mention fossil which keeps the punters in their lifestyles demanded.
Yes. Nuclear is OK. The waste is a problem. Maybe shoot it into space?
Wind is safer. Solar is unlimited almost,and it is ultimately the power source of our solar system.
They had ( and still have ) the option of using thorium molten salt reactors, which are very much safer and produce very little radioactive waste, but they've been surpressed because they're not much good for producing nuclear bombs!!!! China has started to develope these but the USA had a prototype running decades ago but canned it for the above reason. It's the same dickheads that feed us all sorts of information which is why I still believe significant amounts of climate data is likely bullshit!
uh huh, what "same dickheads" would that be precisely? every major national science org? fed you infomraiton about the climate and about thorium nuclear reactors? don't think so.
Yes. Nuclear is OK. The waste is a problem. Maybe shoot it into space?
Wind is safer. Solar is unlimited almost,and it is ultimately the power source of our solar system.
They had ( and still have ) the option of using thorium molten salt reactors, which are very much safer and produce very little radioactive waste, but they've been surpressed because they're not much good for producing nuclear bombs!!!! China has started to develope these but the USA had a prototype running decades ago but canned it for the above reason. It's the same dickheads that feed us all sorts of information which is why I still believe significant amounts of climate data is likely bullshit!
Sadly, the bit about the thorium technology is very likely true, daft as it sounds to the average citizen.
Thorium remains experimental and commercially unproven, the bomb notion will no doubt appeal to the weak minded conspiracy theorists here.
My reference re the earlier diagram and other stats used are all courtesy of the bean counters at the IEA, their key world energy statistics publications.
Thorium remains experimental and commercially unproven, the bomb notion will no doubt appeal to the weak minded conspiracy theorists here.
If you think nuclear weapons weren't very high on the priorities of governments for most (especially earlier) nuclear development, you are unfamiliar with the history.
My reference re the earlier diagram and other stats used are all courtesy of the bean counters at the IEA, their key world energy statistics publications.
'Other' includes, geothermal, solar wind, tidal, heat etc, lets keep bleating on about the 1%
Wind alone is now 15% of total electricity production in the UK and accelerating in scale due to even better economics. Most of the world is as well provided with renewable sources.
and certainly never mention fossil which keeps the punters in their lifestyles demanded.
Steam will never be obsolete! A hundred years of success proves it.
Those well-known hippy treehuggers ( ok, not really ) at the Financial Times conservatively say:
My reference re the earlier diagram and other stats used are all courtesy of the bean counters at the IEA, their key world energy statistics publications.
Let's see what the IEA has to say about renewables...
Market Report Series: Renewables 2017
The renewable electricity market has witnessed an unprecedented acceleration in recent years, and it broke another annual deployment record in 2016. The market’s main driver last year was solar photovoltaics, which is boosting the growth of renewables in power capacity around the world. As costs decline, wind and solar are becoming increasingly comparable to new-build fossil fuel alternatives in a growing number of countries. China remains the dominant player, but India is increasingly moving to the centre stage. Government policies are introducing more competition through renewable auctions, further reducing costs. The IEA’s newly renamed Renewables 2017 (formerly titled Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report) provides a detailed market analysis and overview of renewable electricity capacity and generation, biofuels production, and heat consumption, as well as a forecast for the period between 2017 and 2022. This year’s report also provides additional analysis on the contribution of electric vehicles to renewable road transport and on the off-grid solar market in Africa and developing Asia. Finally, the report identifies a set of policy improvements in key markets that could accelerate the growth of renewables in the electricity sector as well as the growth of transport biofuels for the first time. These are needed to accelerate decarbonisation in all sectors in order to be on track to meet long-term climate goals.
Oh, I forgot to mention. Wind and solar now comprise 5% of global electricity production. In a few years time, it will be 10%, then 20% and well, you know ...
uh huh, what "same dickheads" would that be precisely? every major national science org? fed you infomraiton about the climate and about thorium nuclear reactors? don't think so.
It only takes a small number of people to manipulate a few figures and if every national science org works with those figures it's easy to hoodwink people, look around every government department is at it.
Would nuclear fission powered generators help more than the inherent risks? Assume humans think smarter than to locate them near oceans in the 'ring of fire" areas and not use light water graphite moderated reactors like Chernobyl.
Yes. Nuclear is OK. The waste is a problem. Maybe shoot it into space?
Wind is safer. Solar is unlimited almost,and it is ultimately the power source of our solar system.
Some of the newer nuclear technologies need to be investigated more. Some can run on the waste from traditional plants and afterward leave a small amount of waste that would have a shorter half-life.
Yeah. But it's a lot cheaper to use wind and solar.
Agreed.
'Other' includes, geothermal, solar wind, tidal, heat etc, lets keep bleating on about the 1% and certainly never mention fossil which keeps the punters in their lifestyles demanded.
Amen!
NIMBY also applies...
the lifestyles demanded are often imposed, just as the choice of which fuel to use is. you don't bother to cite your source, either.
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
Yes. Nuclear is OK. The waste is a problem. Maybe shoot it into space?
Wind is safer. Solar is unlimited almost,and it is ultimately the power source of our solar system.
They had ( and still have ) the option of using thorium molten salt reactors, which are very much safer and produce very little radioactive waste, but they've been surpressed because they're not much good for producing nuclear bombs!!!! China has started to develope these but the USA had a prototype running decades ago but canned it for the above reason. It's the same dickheads that feed us all sorts of information which is why I still believe significant amounts of climate data is likely bullshit!
uh huh, what "same dickheads" would that be precisely? every major national science org? fed you infomraiton about the climate and about thorium nuclear reactors? don't think so.
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
Yes. Nuclear is OK. The waste is a problem. Maybe shoot it into space?
Wind is safer. Solar is unlimited almost,and it is ultimately the power source of our solar system.
They had ( and still have ) the option of using thorium molten salt reactors, which are very much safer and produce very little radioactive waste, but they've been surpressed because they're not much good for producing nuclear bombs!!!! China has started to develope these but the USA had a prototype running decades ago but canned it for the above reason. It's the same dickheads that feed us all sorts of information which is why I still believe significant amounts of climate data is likely bullshit!
Sadly, the bit about the thorium technology is very likely true, daft as it sounds to the average citizen.
(The comment about climate data makes no sense).
well first i would have to know what the poster considers bullshit, and who the dickheads in question are, before i could evaluate the claim.
Thorium remains experimental and commercially unproven, the bomb notion will no doubt appeal to the weak minded conspiracy theorists here.
My reference re the earlier diagram and other stats used are all courtesy of the bean counters at the IEA, their key world energy statistics publications.
And the guy who tells us the truth will be President of Earth for life,and will have a thousand foot gold statue as incentive.
well first i would have to know what the poster considers bullshit, and who the dickheads in question are, before i could evaluate the claim.
Thanks: I read it quickly and missed the vague nonsense at the end. I have corrected my post.
Thorium remains experimental and commercially unproven, the bomb notion will no doubt appeal to the weak minded conspiracy theorists here.
If you think nuclear weapons weren't very high on the priorities of governments for most (especially earlier) nuclear development, you are unfamiliar with the history.
My reference re the earlier diagram and other stats used are all courtesy of the bean counters at the IEA, their key world energy statistics publications.
'Other' includes, geothermal, solar wind, tidal, heat etc, lets keep bleating on about the 1%
Wind alone is now 15% of total electricity production in the UK and accelerating in scale due to even better economics. Most of the world is as well provided with renewable sources.
and certainly never mention fossil which keeps the punters in their lifestyles demanded.
Steam will never be obsolete! A hundred years of success proves it.
Those well-known hippy treehuggers ( ok, not really![wink.png]( "wink")
) at the Financial Times conservatively say:
Wind and solar will be 40% of global electricity production by 2040
Industry analysts envision electric vehicles becoming dominant in a similar time scale, and note the accelerating trend (now faster than anticipated) whereby electric vehicles may become cheaper as soon as 2025.
My reference re the earlier diagram and other stats used are all courtesy of the bean counters at the IEA, their key world energy statistics publications.
Let's see what the IEA has to say about renewables...
Market Report Series: Renewables 2017
The renewable electricity market has witnessed an unprecedented acceleration in recent years, and it broke another annual deployment record in 2016. The market’s main driver last year was solar photovoltaics, which is boosting the growth of renewables in power capacity around the world. As costs decline, wind and solar are becoming increasingly comparable to new-build fossil fuel alternatives in a growing number of countries. China remains the dominant player, but India is increasingly moving to the centre stage. Government policies are introducing more competition through renewable auctions, further reducing costs.
The IEA’s newly renamed Renewables 2017 (formerly titled Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report) provides a detailed market analysis and overview of renewable electricity capacity and generation, biofuels production, and heat consumption, as well as a forecast for the period between 2017 and 2022. This year’s report also provides additional analysis on the contribution of electric vehicles to renewable road transport and on the off-grid solar market in Africa and developing Asia.
Finally, the report identifies a set of policy improvements in key markets that could accelerate the growth of renewables in the electricity sector as well as the growth of transport biofuels for the first time. These are needed to accelerate decarbonisation in all sectors in order to be on track to meet long-term climate goals.
http://www.iea.org/bookshop/761-Market_Report_Series:_Renewables_2017
Oh, I forgot to mention. Wind and solar now comprise 5% of global electricity production. In a few years time, it will be 10%, then 20% and well, you know ...
uh huh, what "same dickheads" would that be precisely? every major national science org? fed you infomraiton about the climate and about thorium nuclear reactors? don't think so.
It only takes a small number of people to manipulate a few figures and if every national science org works with those figures it's easy to hoodwink people, look around every government department is at it.