cowboycwr said:

---

We just all need our own small nuclear reactor in our cars.

Or our engine that is powered off of garbage like Doc Brown

Or to figure out cold fusion....

---

Cold Fusion - the unicorn of energy

cowboycwr said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

If your energy discussion does not include nuclear power then you're not having a real energy discussion. Rather you're having an energy wish.

---

Absolute truth. As far as the electric grid, nuclear would be the best option with the most capacity upside (raw power generation ability).

---

Yup. But that is considered off the table.

Funny, raping the earth scouring and strip mining for rare earth minerals is OK to get EVs.

Nuclear, not allowed.

---

Another factor is the land area required for wind farms to create an equivalent amount of energy as a nuclear power plant is 360 times greater than nuclear plant requirements. For solar its 75 times greater.

The US has significant Uranium reserves, but we import the majority used for reactors, including from Russia. Would need to work the economics out, but we could become more self sufficient there also.

---

Hinkley C is a nuclear plant being constructed in the UK.

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

I saw that graphic. You are dead-on! Renewables work in certain locations at certain levels, they cannot generate the whole load. And we cannot shift in the timeframes they are trying with today's technology.

The problem is even if a new technology came out today that COULD solve all our energy problems the time it takes to:
plan,
design,
test
implement pilots to ensure it works in the real world,
develop industrial/commercial grade products for distribution
manufacture at scale
deploy and incorporate into industry to make a difference

you are talking decades and that is if everyone agrees and determines this the way to go. If the free market determines, which will develop a better solution add a decade for innovative changes. Point of all this is that it is unrealistic to destroy our current energy industries at this point in time. This Green New Deal crap is a generation early to be doable.

---

Several of my neighbors have solar panels on their houses. A few admit they thought it would allow them to basically stop having to pay electricity at all when they had them installed. The rest thought they would use less than they actually do but didn't factor in just how much the solar panels produce even on bright sunny days compared to how much electricity is used by just the AC.

---

I live in Florida, I do not want to have solar panels ripped off the house during storms and become projectiles.

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

If your energy discussion does not include nuclear power then you're not having a real energy discussion. Rather you're having an energy wish.

---

Absolute truth. As far as the electric grid, nuclear would be the best option with the most capacity upside (raw power generation ability).

---

Yup. But that is considered off the table.

Funny, raping the earth scouring and strip mining for rare earth minerals is OK to get EVs.

Nuclear, not allowed.

---

Another factor is the land area required for wind farms to create an equivalent amount of energy as a nuclear power plant is 360 times greater than nuclear plant requirements. For solar its 75 times greater.

The US has significant Uranium reserves, but we import the majority used for reactors, including from Russia. Would need to work the economics out, but we could become more self sufficient there also.

---

Hinkley C is a nuclear plant being constructed in the UK.

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

I saw that graphic. You are dead-on! Renewables work in certain locations at certain levels, they cannot generate the whole load. And we cannot shift in the timeframes they are trying with today's technology.

The problem is even if a new technology came out today that COULD solve all our energy problems the time it takes to:
plan,
design,
test
implement pilots to ensure it works in the real world,
develop industrial/commercial grade products for distribution
manufacture at scale
deploy and incorporate into industry to make a difference

you are talking decades and that is if everyone agrees and determines this the way to go. If the free market determines, which will develop a better solution add a decade for innovative changes. Point of all this is that it is unrealistic to destroy our current energy industries at this point in time. This Green New Deal crap is a generation early to be doable.

---

Several of my neighbors have solar panels on their houses. A few admit they thought it would allow them to basically stop having to pay electricity at all when they had them installed. The rest thought they would use less than they actually do but didn't factor in just how much the solar panels produce even on bright sunny days compared to how much electricity is used by just the AC.

---

I live in Florida, I do not want to have solar panels ripped off the house during storms and become projectiles.

---

Right. I imagine that in an average to severe hail storm, the hail will damage or destroy the photovoltaic cells.

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

If your energy discussion does not include nuclear power then you're not having a real energy discussion. Rather you're having an energy wish.

---

Absolute truth. As far as the electric grid, nuclear would be the best option with the most capacity upside (raw power generation ability).

---

Yup. But that is considered off the table.

Funny, raping the earth scouring and strip mining for rare earth minerals is OK to get EVs.

Nuclear, not allowed.

---

Another factor is the land area required for wind farms to create an equivalent amount of energy as a nuclear power plant is 360 times greater than nuclear plant requirements. For solar its 75 times greater.

The US has significant Uranium reserves, but we import the majority used for reactors, including from Russia. Would need to work the economics out, but we could become more self sufficient there also.

---

Hinkley C is a nuclear plant being constructed in the UK.

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

I saw that graphic. You are dead-on! Renewables work in certain locations at certain levels, they cannot generate the whole load. And we cannot shift in the timeframes they are trying with today's technology.

The problem is even if a new technology came out today that COULD solve all our energy problems the time it takes to:
plan,
design,
test
implement pilots to ensure it works in the real world,
develop industrial/commercial grade products for distribution
manufacture at scale
deploy and incorporate into industry to make a difference

you are talking decades and that is if everyone agrees and determines this the way to go. If the free market determines, which will develop a better solution add a decade for innovative changes. Point of all this is that it is unrealistic to destroy our current energy industries at this point in time. This Green New Deal crap is a generation early to be doable.

---

Several of my neighbors have solar panels on their houses. A few admit they thought it would allow them to basically stop having to pay electricity at all when they had them installed. The rest thought they would use less than they actually do but didn't factor in just how much the solar panels produce even on bright sunny days compared to how much electricity is used by just the AC.

---

I live in Florida, I do not want to have solar panels ripped off the house during storms and become projectiles.

---

Right. I imagine that in an average to severe hail storm, the hail will damage or destroy the photovoltaic cells.

---

Don't worry the guys coming to your door to get you a "free roof" (on your insurance) will add that in. And, you get to look forward to a whole new crop of marketers.

Wind power is billed as 100% environmentally friendly but what happens when the wind turbines slice birds in half?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't understand. The "experts" said inflation was transitory? So it must be transitory, right? I mean, they're "experts."

---

Only if they are from out of town.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Can't afford $6 gas? Just buy a $55k electric car you stupid simpletons.

---

Only a sheltered uber privileged idiot could believe stuff like this.

---

Stuff?

RMF5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

If your energy discussion does not include nuclear power then you're not having a real energy discussion. Rather you're having an energy wish.

---

Absolute truth. As far as the electric grid, nuclear would be the best option with the most capacity upside (raw power generation ability).

---

Yup. But that is considered off the table.

Funny, raping the earth scouring and strip mining for rare earth minerals is OK to get EVs.

Nuclear, not allowed.

---

Another factor is the land area required for wind farms to create an equivalent amount of energy as a nuclear power plant is 360 times greater than nuclear plant requirements. For solar its 75 times greater.

The US has significant Uranium reserves, but we import the majority used for reactors, including from Russia. Would need to work the economics out, but we could become more self sufficient there also.

---

Hinkley C is a nuclear plant being constructed in the UK.

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

I saw that graphic. You are dead-on! Renewables work in certain locations at certain levels, they cannot generate the whole load. And we cannot shift in the timeframes they are trying with today's technology.

The problem is even if a new technology came out today that COULD solve all our energy problems the time it takes to:
plan,
design,
test
implement pilots to ensure it works in the real world,
develop industrial/commercial grade products for distribution
manufacture at scale
deploy and incorporate into industry to make a difference

you are talking decades and that is if everyone agrees and determines this the way to go. If the free market determines, which will develop a better solution add a decade for innovative changes. Point of all this is that it is unrealistic to destroy our current energy industries at this point in time. This Green New Deal crap is a generation early to be doable.

---

People think that electric cars are the future... but they don't realize that we could never come close to replacing our current stock of cars with EVs. The batteries alone would make it impossible. Also, the load on the current electric grid would be impossible to manage. It's a pipe dream and a fantasy.

The greenies are just a bunch of ideological idiots. They have no idea what they are doing.

---

I agree with you, but they are leaving a lot of damage in their wake. People don't understand how electric grids work, it is more than what is coming out of your outlet. Every item plugged in impacts the stability of the system. Sometimes grid failures are not because there isn't enough power, but they can't stabilize the system due to the interference and resonance that each user adds. I am not an Electrical Engineer, but I know enough that you can't just plug in additional millions of devices in the short term and maintain the system.

---

yes... exactly right.

another interesting thing is that wind turbines do not create "clean" energy waves. It's highly technical, but there is an extreme oscillation in the energy produced, so only about 50%-60% of that energy can actually be transmitted through the lines to the grid.

People just don't understand the complexity of the grid or anything else about it. This is why we need more steady and reliable sources of energy like coal, nuclear, natural gas.... all of these can be manually altered to generate constant, steady flows of energy which is much closer to 100% usable/transmittable energy. They also give the option to ramp up or down, based upon demand & usage... you can't get that with wind & solar.

---

I have no problem with moving to using alternate fuels and giving consumers a choice of EVs vs ICE vehicles. But, it has to just what it is called ; "Alternate". It can't be the primary. Nuclear is a better option than what we are doing.

---

Yes.
And I don't think I articulated it well, but most people are unaware that current battery technology does not allow for all cars to be replaced with EVs... not even close.
We will need major break through in battery technology before we can even think about EVs becoming more than 50% of current road vehicles. Lithium is too rare and too expensive for mass use.

And we can't replace the long haul fleet of commercial trucks with EVs... so we will need diesel or something else for that role too.

I really think that big cities should be pushing CNG, as it does not contribute to pollution or air quality issues. Converting cars to dual fuel is rather easy and inexpensive, and the average city driver would burn the amount of CNG that an in-home device would generate overnight. So that would drastically reduce the amount of gasoline used for daily commuters.

The point is that there are realistic solutions available now, if people would just stop listening to the wackos like Biden and AOC.

---

I agree. The other technology is hydrogen. I saw a presentation on that at AV 21 last year, guy made excellent point that the winner (EV) was chosen before hydrogen was allowed to even compete.

---

and if you want to get into conspiracies, the security guard/offduty cop that was shot in very sketchy Buffalo mass shooting was building a hydrogen powered truck.

https://rollingout.com/2022/05/27/slain-buffalo-officer-was-a-genius-worked-on-water-fueled-car-engine/

And I read about BMW having hydrogen powered cars in the works in 2000.

Hydrogen fuel cell cars existed from both BMW and Ford. They had a hydrogen fuel cell Mustang. The initial costs were deemed too high. It's not a conspiracy.

Also numerous manufacturers own patents on hydrogen fuel cell technology.

nein51 said:

---

Hydrogen fuel cell cars existed from both BMW and Ford. They had a hydrogen fuel cell Mustang. The initial costs were deemed too high. It's not a conspiracy.

---

And electric is not?

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

We just all need our own small nuclear reactor in our cars.

Or our engine that is powered off of garbage like Doc Brown

Or to figure out cold fusion....

---

Cold Fusion - the unicorn of energy

---

Did you think I was serious??????

Do you not understand the movie references above it (Back to the Future) and the numerous sci fi ones where nuclear powers everything from houses to cars

Cold fusion was another movie reference (The Saint)

RMF5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Hydrogen fuel cell cars existed from both BMW and Ford. They had a hydrogen fuel cell Mustang. The initial costs were deemed too high. It's not a conspiracy.

---

And electric is not?

---

Not on a per car basis. No.

When BMW built one they estimated the costs would be something like 150-200k per unit. It was an insane number for the time.

They are launching an X5 Hydrogen at some point this year.

nein51 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Hydrogen fuel cell cars existed from both BMW and Ford. They had a hydrogen fuel cell Mustang. The initial costs were deemed too high. It's not a conspiracy.

---

And electric is not?

---

Not on a per car basis. No.

When BMW built one they estimated the costs would be something like 150-200k per unit. It was an insane number for the time.

They are launching an X5 Hydrogen at some point this year.

---

I know this stuff is not new. Mercedes has been working on auto-parking since the 1970's. The tech seems to have caught up to make it viable.

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

If your energy discussion does not include nuclear power then you're not having a real energy discussion. Rather you're having an energy wish.

---

Absolute truth. As far as the electric grid, nuclear would be the best option with the most capacity upside (raw power generation ability).

---

Yup. But that is considered off the table.

Funny, raping the earth scouring and strip mining for rare earth minerals is OK to get EVs.

Nuclear, not allowed.

---

Another factor is the land area required for wind farms to create an equivalent amount of energy as a nuclear power plant is 360 times greater than nuclear plant requirements. For solar its 75 times greater.

The US has significant Uranium reserves, but we import the majority used for reactors, including from Russia. Would need to work the economics out, but we could become more self sufficient there also.

---

Hinkley C is a nuclear plant being constructed in the UK.

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

I saw that graphic. You are dead-on! Renewables work in certain locations at certain levels, they cannot generate the whole load. And we cannot shift in the timeframes they are trying with today's technology.

The problem is even if a new technology came out today that COULD solve all our energy problems the time it takes to:
plan,
design,
test
implement pilots to ensure it works in the real world,
develop industrial/commercial grade products for distribution
manufacture at scale
deploy and incorporate into industry to make a difference

you are talking decades and that is if everyone agrees and determines this the way to go. If the free market determines, which will develop a better solution add a decade for innovative changes. Point of all this is that it is unrealistic to destroy our current energy industries at this point in time. This Green New Deal crap is a generation early to be doable.

---

Several of my neighbors have solar panels on their houses. A few admit they thought it would allow them to basically stop having to pay electricity at all when they had them installed. The rest thought they would use less than they actually do but didn't factor in just how much the solar panels produce even on bright sunny days compared to how much electricity is used by just the AC.

---

I live in Florida, I do not want to have solar panels ripped off the house during storms and become projectiles.

---

Oh I agree. I wasn't advocating for solar. Just pointing out how some think it will be able to disconnect them from the grid because they put a few on their roof.

ScottS said:

---

Wind power is billed as 100% environmentally friendly but what happens when the wind turbines slice birds in half?

---

It saves Tyson and Cargill the trouble and expense of cutting them up in the processing plant.

whitetrash said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Wind power is billed as 100% environmentally friendly but what happens when the wind turbines slice birds in half?

---

It saves Tyson and Cargill the trouble and expense of cutting them up in the processing plant.

---

Want to get the really going, look up 5g and bird kills in Europe. They will go off the deep end!

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

If your energy discussion does not include nuclear power then you're not having a real energy discussion. Rather you're having an energy wish.

---

Absolute truth. As far as the electric grid, nuclear would be the best option with the most capacity upside (raw power generation ability).

---

Yup. But that is considered off the table.

Funny, raping the earth scouring and strip mining for rare earth minerals is OK to get EVs.

Nuclear, not allowed.

---

Another factor is the land area required for wind farms to create an equivalent amount of energy as a nuclear power plant is 360 times greater than nuclear plant requirements. For solar its 75 times greater.

The US has significant Uranium reserves, but we import the majority used for reactors, including from Russia. Would need to work the economics out, but we could become more self sufficient there also.

---

Hinkley C is a nuclear plant being constructed in the UK.

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

I saw that graphic. You are dead-on! Renewables work in certain locations at certain levels, they cannot generate the whole load. And we cannot shift in the timeframes they are trying with today's technology.

The problem is even if a new technology came out today that COULD solve all our energy problems the time it takes to:
plan,
design,
test
implement pilots to ensure it works in the real world,
develop industrial/commercial grade products for distribution
manufacture at scale
deploy and incorporate into industry to make a difference

you are talking decades and that is if everyone agrees and determines this the way to go. If the free market determines, which will develop a better solution add a decade for innovative changes. Point of all this is that it is unrealistic to destroy our current energy industries at this point in time. This Green New Deal crap is a generation early to be doable.

---

Several of my neighbors have solar panels on their houses. A few admit they thought it would allow them to basically stop having to pay electricity at all when they had them installed. The rest thought they would use less than they actually do but didn't factor in just how much the solar panels produce even on bright sunny days compared to how much electricity is used by just the AC.

---

I live in Florida, I do not want to have solar panels ripped off the house during storms and become projectiles.

---

Right. I imagine that in an average to severe hail storm, the hail will damage or destroy the photovoltaic cells.

---

Nope.

quash said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

If your energy discussion does not include nuclear power then you're not having a real energy discussion. Rather you're having an energy wish.

---

Absolute truth. As far as the electric grid, nuclear would be the best option with the most capacity upside (raw power generation ability).

---

Yup. But that is considered off the table.

Funny, raping the earth scouring and strip mining for rare earth minerals is OK to get EVs.

Nuclear, not allowed.

---

Another factor is the land area required for wind farms to create an equivalent amount of energy as a nuclear power plant is 360 times greater than nuclear plant requirements. For solar its 75 times greater.

The US has significant Uranium reserves, but we import the majority used for reactors, including from Russia. Would need to work the economics out, but we could become more self sufficient there also.

---

Hinkley C is a nuclear plant being constructed in the UK.

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

I saw that graphic. You are dead-on! Renewables work in certain locations at certain levels, they cannot generate the whole load. And we cannot shift in the timeframes they are trying with today's technology.

The problem is even if a new technology came out today that COULD solve all our energy problems the time it takes to:
plan,
design,
test
implement pilots to ensure it works in the real world,
develop industrial/commercial grade products for distribution
manufacture at scale
deploy and incorporate into industry to make a difference

you are talking decades and that is if everyone agrees and determines this the way to go. If the free market determines, which will develop a better solution add a decade for innovative changes. Point of all this is that it is unrealistic to destroy our current energy industries at this point in time. This Green New Deal crap is a generation early to be doable.

---

Several of my neighbors have solar panels on their houses. A few admit they thought it would allow them to basically stop having to pay electricity at all when they had them installed. The rest thought they would use less than they actually do but didn't factor in just how much the solar panels produce even on bright sunny days compared to how much electricity is used by just the AC.

---

I live in Florida, I do not want to have solar panels ripped off the house during storms and become projectiles.

---

Right. I imagine that in an average to severe hail storm, the hail will damage or destroy the photovoltaic cells.

---

Nope.

---

That is good.

For the green idiots

I used to think solar was the best way to make electricity, but I was wrong. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/GLR2jcyGbS

— Brian Gitt (@BrianGitt) June 16, 2022

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

---

You just made the case, wind is supplemental. It provided when needed. Great, all for it. Same with solar. WITH LNG and clean coal. Not instead.

The issue is with this attempt to force a transition before it is feasible or sustaonable.

cowboycwr said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

We just all need our own small nuclear reactor in our cars.

Or our engine that is powered off of garbage like Doc Brown

Or to figure out cold fusion....

---

Cold Fusion - the unicorn of energy

---

Did you think I was serious??????

Do you not understand the movie references above it (Back to the Future) and the numerous sci fi ones where nuclear powers everything from houses to cars

Cold fusion was another movie reference (The Saint)

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

---

Nuclear power is the way to go but unless there is some massive event that changes people's feelings it's just not going to happen. It is one topic where you have a cross over of people who dont like it large enough that changing their feelings would be incredibly difficult IMO.

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

---

The other plants are simply capped out.

We have no energy problem that 4-5 new coal fired plants couldn't solve. They are impervious to cold and heat issues, available on demand. The raw material is right in the middle of the population triangle, already served by transmission lines.. And they are cheaper than anything else.

All we have to do is decide people are more important than the climate.

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

---

The other plants are simply capped out.

We have no energy problem that 4-5 new coal fired plants couldn't solve. They are impervious to cold and heat issues, available on demand. The raw material is right in the middle of the population triangle, already served by transmission lines.. And they are cheaper than anything else.

All we have to do is decide people are more important than the climate.

---

Right. Austin just needs to go dark from August 15 to September 7. We all be amazed at how quickly Saving the Planet (tm) becomes a tertiary concern.

thread:

Biden claims to be doing all he can to reduce energy prices, but he's not. Biden's policies are making energy expensive and worsening inflation, even though doing so may destroy his presidency. Why is that? https://t.co/pNNw5yq2Id

— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) June 16, 2022

Cobretti said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

We just all need our own small nuclear reactor in our cars.

Or our engine that is powered off of garbage like Doc Brown

Or to figure out cold fusion....

---

Cold Fusion - the unicorn of energy

---

Did you think I was serious??????

Do you not understand the movie references above it (Back to the Future) and the numerous sci fi ones where nuclear powers everything from houses to cars

Cold fusion was another movie reference (The Saint)

---

---

Guess I should have included the fact it was movie references or "sarcasm" at the end of it. He may be too young to know either of those moves....

Cobretti said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

We just all need our own small nuclear reactor in our cars.

Or our engine that is powered off of garbage like Doc Brown

Or to figure out cold fusion....

---

Cold Fusion - the unicorn of energy

---

Did you think I was serious??????

Do you not understand the movie references above it (Back to the Future) and the numerous sci fi ones where nuclear powers everything from houses to cars

Cold fusion was another movie reference (The Saint)

---

---

I loved the Saint. Didn't get that was the reference, on me...

If we are going to do the energy movie genre, which I love by the way, evil Morgan Freemen terrorizing Keanu Reeves or even George C Scott

Seeing some pretty significant demand destruction from high prices already. Anticipating a slide back to $4 by mid-late July.

Joe Biden has spent the past week making a series of claims about oil companies, profits, and taxes that are easily provable lies. And yet not one MSM factchecker has bothered to investigate - not @snopes, not @PolitiFact, not @factcheckdotorg, not @AP or @washingtonpost.

— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) June 17, 2022

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

---

You just made the case, wind is supplemental. It provided when needed. Great, all for it. Same with solar. WITH LNG and clean coal. Not instead.

The issue is with this attempt to force a transition before it is feasible or sustaonable.

---

Clean coal, that's great.

Give me nuclear over coal every time.

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

---

You just made the case, wind is supplemental. It provided when needed. Great, all for it. Same with solar. WITH LNG and clean coal. Not instead.

The issue is with this attempt to force a transition before it is feasible or sustaonable.

---

Clean coal, that's great.

Give me nuclear over coal every time.

---

No arguement here.

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

---

You just made the case, wind is supplemental. It provided when needed. Great, all for it. Same with solar. WITH LNG and clean coal. Not instead.

The issue is with this attempt to force a transition before it is feasible or sustaonable.

---

Clean coal, that's great.

Give me nuclear over coal every time.

---

No arguement here.

---

***ushima probably killed nuclear.

Nuclear requires preparation for the worst case. No matter how good it's secured from human error, there are natural events that just can't be engineered around. So that forces us to put them in a safe place. Problem with that is.....anywhere far enough from people to satisfy security concerns tends to have water supply issues and/or be too far from demand.

For example, we already have the transmission lines from the Big Spring windfarm to the metroplex, so it would make a ton of sense to put a nuke plant in, say Robert Lee. Reservoir already in place. Problem is, most of Lake Spence is great quail cover. The lake is at single digit capacity year in, year out. Not enough water to make the deal work.

Like nuclear much. Don't think it's going to work in very many places.

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

listened to a presentation the other day - to run New York City with solar power would require a solar farm the size of Ohio.

Renewables only make sense as a very small percentage of a power grid powered primarily by fossil fuels.

---

Or nuclear.

In Texas last week wind power provided the power the other plants couldn't. Weather FTW.

---

You just made the case, wind is supplemental. It provided when needed. Great, all for it. Same with solar. WITH LNG and clean coal. Not instead.

The issue is with this attempt to force a transition before it is feasible or sustaonable.

---

Clean coal, that's great.

Give me nuclear over coal every time.

---

No arguement here.

---

***ushima probably killed nuclear.

Nuclear requires preparation for the worst case. No matter how good it's secured from human error, there are natural events that just can't be engineered around. So that forces us to put them in a safe place. Problem with that is.....anywhere far enough from people to satisfy security concerns tends to have water supply issues and/or be too far from demand.

For example, we already have the transmission lines from the Big Spring windfarm to the metroplex, so it would make a ton of sense to put a nuke plant in, say Robert Lee. Reservoir already in place. Problem is, most of Lake Spence is great quail cover. The lake is at single digit capacity year in, year out. Not enough water to make the deal work.

Like nuclear much. Don't think it's going to work in very many places.

---

Agree, but it is a piece of the puzzle. We have too many people that believe their is one solution. Options is always the best path, in the US we used to de-centralize and not fall into the single point of failure trap. I see a movement to abandon that and move to centralized pretty much everything.

I am optimistic about edge computing, maybe that can get us back to using options that work appropriate to the area, not one global or nationalistic push for one solution. This is a danger of the Govt allowing monopolies and getting involved in the market.

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

If your energy discussion does not include nuclear power then you're not having a real energy discussion. Rather you're having an energy wish.

---

Absolute truth. As far as the electric grid, nuclear would be the best option with the most capacity upside (raw power generation ability).

---

Yup. But that is considered off the table.

Funny, raping the earth scouring and strip mining for rare earth minerals is OK to get EVs.

Nuclear, not allowed.

---

Another factor is the land area required for wind farms to create an equivalent amount of energy as a nuclear power plant is 360 times greater than nuclear plant requirements. For solar its 75 times greater.

The US has significant Uranium reserves, but we import the majority used for reactors, including from Russia. Would need to work the economics out, but we could become more self sufficient there also.

---

1. You can still run cattle etc. on you land with windmills on it.

2. Land availability is not a limiting factor for solar power.

The main problem with both wind and solar is storage, not capacity.

With electric cars, the power source is the limiting factor. Electricity is far superior to internal combustion, but the battery technology is not there yet to make it work at large scale.