Retarded.
So, are those goalposts heavy or what?
I never said it was the same as a nuclear reactor. But those more efficient turbines are still being moved by nuclear power.
Your argument is a bit like saying that, because a turbocharger adds power to an engine, that extra power does not come from gasoline. The source of all the engine’s power, including the exhaust gases that move the turbocharger, is still the gasoline that you put in the tank
Dude, there never was a debate in this thread. I was simply pointing out that wind power had a good year last year and nuclear didn’t and sticking my tongue out at the nuclear nuts who are always down on wind power. Anyway, go SCRAM to somewhere that truly, truly believes that nuclear power will have a good year next year or the next or the next. Keep on crying how if the public didn’t object to things like Chernobyl and have a voice that we could have all kinds of new reactors, and it is the public that is wrong, damn the fact that the public decides.
The real question is whether or not nuclear power thinks that the Trinity isn’t monotheistic.
Wind Produced 1.9% of our electricity in the US in 2009. Nuclear Power produced 20%. Seems like Wind has a long way to go.
Honestly, I doubt that Wind will ever produce more than about 10% of our electricity.
Honestly, I don’t understand why the fuck this is a either/or proposition. Why can’t we have nuclear and wind power?
Wait, who’s “down on windpower”? There are NIMBY issues when it comes to turbine placement issues, like the whole Nantucket thing, but I don’t think nuclear vs wind is like Sharks vs Jets. Pretty much everyone agrees that both technologies are useful in helping to serve our power needs.
Nevermind.
Pretty clearly you haven’t read this thread or others discussing the issue. For some bizarre reason people at the SDMB love to crap all over wind power. So I saw the article and posted it in the Pit razz them a bit.
Don’t let the idiots rile you up. The best they can do is ignore the greater issue and whine about your use of a verb or something. They got nothin’.
Anyway, it’s not hippies or environmentalists or Three Mile Island that killed nuclear power, it was the industry itself that proved it couldn’t compete with other energy options. It was true in the 70’s and it’s true today. In recent years it’s become well-known to all but the nuclear fantasists here that nuke plants are more expensive than ever and no one will even consider attempting to build one without billions in federal loan guarantees. Wall Street won’t pony up otherwise. That should tell you something.
I’m not saying nuclear should be removed from our options, but if the energy new nuclear plants bring online triples the cost of energy over alternatives, what do you think is going to happen?
So, basically, you’re a self-avowed troll?
Stranger
Because of anti-nuclear hysteria (“What, radiation? Ayieeeeeeeeeeee!”) and eco-loons. The price of building nuclear plants would be absurdly lower if not for their interference.
No, it wasn’t hysteria. Utilities were pulling out and canceling existing contracts all on their own.
Are you saying we should just completely de-regulate the whole industry and let them do what they want? Serious? Not even any security or anything?
I’m pointing out a news article that calls attention to a good thing that for some reason bizarrely pisses off the SDMB nuts. If that makes me a troll, then I should set up a troll booth.
Not to mention that any of your run-of-the-mill accidents involving ash spills and coal mines and heck, even coal trucks are each, individually, worse than Three Mile Island ever threatened to be. Let’s also ignore the frequency with which they happen, at least it’s not nucular. I mean, hell, that stuff makes mushroom clouds!
… because of the increasing costs due to the loons coupled with facts that the loons might even succeed in dramatically increasing the time and costs for the licensing, testing, certification, etc… process, so as to make the costs prohibitive.
Obviously, those are the only options. Total lack of regulation or overzealous loon-driven regulation.
Shhhh. The fact that they cannot get financing and have to blame it on hippies rather than their precious market invisible hand stroking the penis of profit is utterly lost on them. They cannot bear the fact that in the mind of the public they have been so thoroughly pwned by the hippies that they cannot convince Wall Street to financially back a supposedly profitable and legal industry. So they get Obama to offer tens of billions in loan guarantees to socialize the risk of financial loss in the nuclear industry. Of course they would love to revoke the civil rights of the people who actually think Chernobyl and TMI and Windscale and Hanover etc, etc. happened because no accidents can possibly happen and those incidents were made up to discredit the industry.
When I go into my business, I have to take the risk of loss and damage to others. I have to finance it without government backed loans. And the government still takes its cut of the income (not profits in my business, income).
As I’ve mentioned in other threads, I’ve invested in electrical power generation for decades by stock ownership. I saw my PG&E stock take a beating year after year because of Diablo Canyon’s cost overruns and mistakes. I held that stock from the 60s to the late 80s before dumping it. I will never invest in another company that proposes a nuclear plant. In the early 2000s I invested in German windmill manufacturers and I multiplied my profit eight times before I sold out. What I figured out before making the investment is that the bigger the windmill is in terms of radius linearly, the square of the area in wind energy is harvested, and the bigger and sturdier the parts are. The sweet spot starts at about 750kw, and machines are now currently being made up to 6 and 7 kw (though such giants are very rare still) and even only working a fraction of the time, the giants are much cheaper than any other method of generation. Put them in an area where the wind is blowing most of the time, and it is sheer profit.
New designs remove transmissions and have the stators directly attached to the shaft.
I have Altamont pass to my south and the Solono wind farm to my north. One new 750kw turbine that I can see working has replaced dozens of the 1980s non-working smaller turbines.
We can; it’s just that the antinuclear types are so fanatically against nuclear that they are projecting their own attitudes onto nuclear proponents. “Wind isn’t enough to meet our energy needs” is NOT the same as saying “ban wind!” Several people have mentioned using it as a supplemental energy source in fact.
It says that the anti-nuke fanatics have crippled the industry in America. That hasn’t kept other nations from building them.
Assuming that was true, we’d build them anyway, and eat the cost because we need the energy and alternatives like wind and solar and hydro can’t provide it. Or at least other countries would; I think the odds are good that you anti-nuclear types will keep us from building new plants until America suffers general economic collapse due to a lack of energy, and we lose the ability to build such plants (or your precious wind and solar plants for that matter) and end up a Third World nation. Or we build huge numbers of new coal plants, boost global warming even more and are ruined that way.
Ah, yes, because I’m so well known as a fan of the free market. I want nuclear plants because they are the best alternative and screw the free market. If getting them means building them with subsidies or wholly with government resources, so be it.