Cutting Back on Carbon

There is so much energy in fissionables that total volume of nuclear waste is relatively low, tough. Then there are breeder reactors that reduce the lifetime of waste considerably, from 100.000 of years to like 200 (no need for geological storage) and reduce the volume of the waste to only a few % of usual reactors (because the uranium/thorium is burned completely instead of just a fraction).

I am not convinced we can cut back on carbon, globally, without expanding nuclear power.

 

I believe we can eventually create boreholes to the center of the earth that may be able to recycle nuclear waste, "naturally".

 

No excuses offered. Chernobyl was a bad Soviet design and Fukushima was hit by a natural disaster. Neither of these 'accidents' has put the majority of the world in danger. You have more danger living near a coal-fired plant. We live with natural radiation every day of our lives and it's more than you get from any nuclear disaster. No nuclear plant or disaster has added any more radioactive hazard to anyone other than the ones that were at the plant at the time of the disaster. Fears of nuclear power are way overblown and we are sacrificing our air quality and putting more CO2 into the atmosphere with coal fired plants. Even windmills and solar panels are constructed using coal-fired electricity and chemical-dirty processes.

 

you realize there have been more than 20 nuclear and radiation accidents involving fatalities, right?

and i don't know how many times i have to say i'm against burning coal, before you quit bringing it up

 

I'm in the energy industry.

That said, nuclear power is a political hot potato. And since Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, more public resistance to it has been growing. But, looking at the French model, there is more room for building them safely and cost effectively.

Wind power has high maintenance costs. And with it, also comes problems for both migratory birds and raptors. Solar cell production tends to have a lot of toxic chemicals used, and as waste products, as a result of making them. I'm not sure of the maintenance costs, and whether it makes it a cost effective means of power yet.

 

And you realize that thousands of miners die every year in coal mines...right? You can be against coal all you want however it is far superior to wind and solar and nuclear is far superior to coal. You are just not going to get enough power from so-called alternate sources like wind, solar, corn, etc. You are going to HAVE to use coal or nuclear. That is why I keep bringing up coal. To ignore it is to live in a dream world.

 

really, how many disparaging remarks about coal do i have to make before you get it?

i hear the germany produces half of their energy from solar panels

 

prove it! You hear things and start writing, instead of researching what you heard. You have become a parrot.

 

Germany is more efficient in producing energy but to hit the Climate Change reductions that are stated as necessary, they too will have to reduce their carbon use by at least 80%. 95% in the US. Worldwide the current carbon free energy production is 13%. Basically to hit carbon free energy production would require one nuclear power plant built a day until 2035.

 

yes, that's my point

 

Too bad your point was wrong. You claimed half of their energy right? Let's see the proof dude.

 

you don't know what you're talking about

 

Sure I do, the point is you don't. you ramble some comment about 50% of Germany's energy is from solar and that's flat out hysterical.

"The legislative reforms stipulates a 40 to 45 percent share from renewable energy sources by 2025" ( noted from Wikipedia).

I thought it was only 2014....hmmm me thinks you exaggerated a bit!!!!

 

really, you don't know what you're talking about

 

Then show me your data to support your statement of 50%!!! Seems you've avoided that since I posted my reply. hmmmmm..... me thinks you exagerate!!!!!

 

here's a link:

Germany Now Produces Half Of Its Energy Using Solar

http://www.iflscience.com/technology/germany-now-produces-half-its-energy-using-solar

 

Well.....that's interesting I'm not sure what you consider 50%, but I don't think one hour in one day justifies 50% of Germany's energy. Nice try though. Funny, how right after the comments on the solar, the next paragraph gets into Wind....."Consequently, it is wind, rather than solar, that has been the backbone of Germany's Energiewende," hmm........again Lose!

 

the point is that germany is producing lots of solar energy

in the usa, on the other hand, big oil and it's owners are attacking solar energy producers

 

Did you even read the article? The point is you lied. You wrote 50% of Germany's energy is solar, it isn't. Therefore, you lie.......Losing

 

yes

no i didn't

try reading what i actually wrote

 

The point is, you lied..........Losing

 

show me the quote, where you think i lied

 

Why don't you show me you didn't?

 

i already did that

 

hahahahahahaha.. you all are truly silly. No, you are a liar, the evidence is in the thread. I don't have to go back and prove anything. You wish to defend yourself you post your post that proves me wrong. Hahahahahaahahah..........LoSInG