Same problem with wind and solar dumbass.
Except wind and solar are cheaper safer more reliable and actually exist, dumbass.
What’s your plan for solving our transportation energy problem dumbass?
Except wind and solar are very expensive (in terms of per watthour) and not at all reliable (cloudy days, lack of wind, too much wind, etc).
Whereas nuclear churns out power that is both cheap (compared to the above) and reliable.
When posting things that are really quite blatantly incorrect, it’s a good idea not to accuse others of being a dumbass.
That’s a whole topic in itself, but best bets are either methanol (doesn’t compete with food crops in same way as ethanol), hydrogen (storage and distribution problem, but lots of work being done to crack that - http://www.shellspringboard.org/news/96 ) or electricity (see noted battery problem already mentioned, but Renaults rather cute idea of changeable battery packs that can be swapped over at an equivalent to a gas station, where they then are recharged) are all good options.
The latter two though go well for nuclear, which can output the sheer power you need to keep American levels of cars running.
For sheer horror, you can’t beat the fact that if the situation does get much much worse, (which all sane people really really hope does not happen), there is no plan of action. There is no planning, no equipment prepared, nobody knows what to do. They actually never planned for that. Nobody has.
Don’t you think wind and solar are excellent sources of power for batteries? One of the main criticisms of wind & solar is that we can’t store all that free energy.
I like the Renaults idea. I was wondering about the exact same thing, so I’ll have to read up on that.
Really. I thought radiation was detected in 11 crops growing in 4 prefecture surrounding the plant. In my limited abilities ,that indicates radiation escaping. Tokyo drinking water over 100 miles from the plant has radiation in it. I think that says radiation is escaping.
Perhaps you can explain how that is not the case.
Are you kidding me? How big an idiot do you have to be, when Europe is now reporting the levels of radioactive particles from the burning plant.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
So you’re saying cars need to run on gas. What on earth is nuke power going to do to help that? What’s your nuke plan for our transportation energy problem? Nuclear cars? Bring it on. Lemme see. Cites please!
[/QUOTE]
Do you always attempt to change the goal posts in any discussion, and then to say bizarre and stupid shit in an attempt to cover that up? I have to say I’m unfamiliar with you as a poster…is this a special exception or do you do this shit all the time?
You are the one who attempted to muddy the waters by including petroleum in a discussion about electrical power generation by trying to weasel in your 8% cite. I pointed out that the figure is misleading, since it includes all energy in an apples to oranges way (coal was only 23% of our total energy in that cite…is coal going to be ‘easy’ to replace too? :rolleyes:). That you then went on to make the even more asinine assertion that because nuclear is ‘only 8%’ it should be easy to replace was pretty much the capper.
Now you are trying to change the goal posts and include a strawman about nuclear cars. Good thing this is the Pit so I can tell you that you are a fucking idiot and you look like a fool to anyone who has even an inkling of a clue and sees what you are trying to do. Which, I have to say, if pretty fucking obvious.
Not they aren’t cheaper (as has been pointed out to you several times), but even if they were it’s a moot point you moron…we don’t have the technology today to replace our hydrocarbon burning vehicles with ones that can be run by wind and solar (or nuclear and coal, or any other type of electrical generation) on any sort of meaningful scale. The electric cars today don’t have the price or the performance characteristics to make any serious inroads on the number of cars burning hydrocarbons…and they won’t in the foreseeable future.
So, attempting to lump aggregate energy together to make some sort of loopy point about nuclear is either deceptive or you are fucking stupid. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and saying you are deliberately trying to deceive, knowing full well it’s a bullshit comparison…but after these series of posts I’m starting to think you might actually be as stupid as gonzomax, who you seem to have allied with in this thread. I think your other buddy, FXMastermind, is pretty stupid too, though in his case I think he’s sort of a nut as well.
-XT
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Really. I thought radiation was detected in 11 crops growing in 4 prefecture surrounding the plant. In my limited abilities ,that indicates radiation escaping. Tokyo drinking water over 100 miles from the plant has radiation in it. I think that says radiation is escaping.
Perhaps you can explain how that is not the case.
[/QUOTE]
Who are you talking too? Who said no radiation has escaped??
-XT
I’m wondering the same thing.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, reports of the highest radiation levels yet, and workers injured by radiation, from of all things, the water in the basement.
No links provided, so the rabid batmonkeys can scream and call me a liar,
Weird…I just read a report on CNN that said that new testing of the water in Tokyo indicated radiation levels have dropped back below the levels of danger in infants. And you say they are getting higher? Strange…
-XT
No, highest spike at the plant, from the mysterious ‘source’ whiich nobody knows what it is.
Workers were in basement of reactor 3. The water apparently burned them with radiation. Now they know to avoid the water.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/228433/global-food-scare-widens-from-japan-nuclear-plant
The food situation is probably worse than anything so far. Man I hope they somehow manage to do the impossible, and stop the radiation leaking and burning and spilling into the ocean.
I’m trying to get you to understand the reality of the situation. You propose nuclear as the answer. Answer to what? Our problem is not “where do you guys think we should get 8% of our energy from?” 8% of our energy is not a problem. The problem is where 60% of our energy comes from.
8% is all nuke can do, and it will most likely fail at that. Nuclear only contributes to electricity. Period. It doesn’t drive cars.
Renewables contribution breaks down to:
11% Transportation
28% Industrial
10% Residential and Commercial
51% Electric Power
That’s flexible. That’s helpful. The chart there says renewables contributed about 7% of our total energy vs. 8% for nuke. But, the chart is old, and wind power has doubled its generating capacity in just the last three years.
Once they finally get Fukushima cleaned up and rendered not-too-harmful, they need to build a park there with a big grave stone, marking the end of commercial nuclear power.
Wow, you are a nuclear meltdown of stupidity. Someone asks me where wind cars are, I ask where nuke cars are, and you jump my ass for moving goal posts like you have any understanding of what anyone is saying here. Your head don’t work right, and you’re embarrassing yourself.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
No, highest spike at the plant, from the mysterious ‘source’ whiich nobody knows what it is.
Workers were in basement of reactor 3. The water apparently burned them with radiation. Now they know to avoid the water.
[/QUOTE]
From your Bangkok Post cite (Bangkok Post??):
They don’t say the duration of the exposure or how much of that they absorbed, but we’ll say they were exposed to that 170-180 mSv.
From Wiki:
So…0-250 mSv has no acute symptoms. That’s not to say that it’s a healthy environment (if these guys got 170-180 mSv exposure they are nearly at their yearly limit, which I think is 250 mSv…so they might be out of a job soon).
From the same cite, talking about Chernoybl:
Just to put the numbers from your cite into perspective…I didn’t know what they meant either before all this started happening.
-XT
Yep. Thing is, you lied before. If you make a claim, you have to back it up, otherwise it is fair to call you a liar again. That’s not screaming. It’s not rabid batmonkey behavior. It’s a perfectly logical position.
No, it’s not. That you can’t grasp that, that is what makes it so amusing. You don’t think there is anything wrong with you, but everybody you disagree with, they are … well, whatever nonsense you create in your head.
As has been the case, no pictures, no interviews, no mention of what hospital, the heroes trying to save Japan are treated like they don’t exist. Just some strange reports about water in their boots.
And it seems video cameras are still not working at the plant.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
I’m trying to get you to understand the reality of the situation. You propose nuclear as the answer. Answer to what? Our problem is not “where do you guys think we should get 8% of our energy from?” 8% of our energy is not a problem. The problem is where 60% of our energy comes from.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t propose nuclear as the answer you idiot. I said we need to increase our use of it. Our future energy solution is going to be a mix of technologies. If we want clean, CO2 free energy today then nuclear is the only technology available today that can be scaled up to the point that it makes a meaningful contribution. Today, wind and solar make up less than 5% of our electrical generated power. It would be a monumental task to just get them to 10% of our overall electrical. You are never going to get them to make a large enough difference to take coal out of the equation. If you are good with that then that’s fine. But if you seriously think that they are going to get to 20, 30 or even 40% of our electrical production you are deluded…there is no fucking way. It’s impossible.
I see you are still on about your 8% thingy, and still using the same idiotic cites you used before, so I think I’m going to let someone else try and explain to you what ‘apples to oranges’ means. You obviously aren’t getting it.
It doesn’t fuck red headed left handed dwarf Anabaptist’s either. Wind and solar don’t ‘drive cars’ either, dumb shit. While it ‘only’ makes up 8% of our total energy consumption, it represents 20% of our total electrical energy production…something that wind and solar aren’t even close too. Why you can’t seem to grasp this is beyond me…and obviously beyond my ability to pound through your thick skull.
It’s horseshit. You have yet to provide a cite showing that ‘renewables contribute 7%’ of our total energy. Your own cite doesn’t even SHOW wind or solar in the graph you moron…the only ‘renewable’ I see in there is hydro, and it’s fixed…it’s not ever going to get bigger in the US.
Probably. Idiots like you and the other anti-nukes in this thread will certainly see to that. Yeah…ignorance wins! WTG!
If you think it’s me embarrassing myself, well, DeNile isn’t just a river in Egypt. 
-XT