Solar and Wind are Garbage energy sources

This is correct about Solar & Wind.
Nuclear is good, but you are going to have to overcome the programming for fear of anything Nuclear. You can reference the nuclear physisist Galen Winsor. He has videos on youtube. They are old as he did his tours I think in the 1980's or maybe 70's. You can also reference the many videos showing nuclear fears to be unfounded.
There is also a website explaining why A & H bombs do not work.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb1.htm
You might also want to look into Tesla Tech: Wireless transmission of electricity: https://teslagenerator.com/the-wardenclyffe-tower/

Also look at some of the videos showing those fabulous old buildings with multiple spires on them. They were allegedly for collection of energy from the atmosphere. For starters look for vids by Jon Levi. (the only name I can think of now)

 

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/wang-k2/



100 quadrillion BTUs x [ 0.00029 KWh / 1 BTU ] = 29 trillion KWh per year energy for the US.

29 trillion KWh/Year x [ 1 year / 8766 Hrs] = 3.3 Billion KW continuous output = 3300 billion watts

3.3 billion KW x [ $5339 / KW] = $17.7 trillion

So the capital cost of going all nuclear is about $18 trillion.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-power-does-nuclear-reactor-produce

1 gigawatt of power is 1 billion watts. So with a demand of 3300 billion watts, we would need 3300 nuclear power plants. That's an average of 66 per State.

The cost of decommission is estimated to be double the cost of construction or more, For example

The Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Rowe, Massachusetts, took 15 years to decommission—or five times longer than was needed to build it. And decommissioning the plant—constructed early in the 1960s for $39 million—cost $608 million.Apr 28, 2014
https://thebulletin.org/2014/04/the-rising-cost-of-decommissioning-a-nuclear-power-plant/

So in reality going all nuclear is a commitment of at least $60 trillion, likely much more] over perhaps 25 years. This doesn't include operating costs. And going nuclear requires $18 trillion up front to build them. That's an average ongoing cost of at least $2.4 trillion per year, likely far more.

Where do you put them? What happens to the cost and supply of uranium when suddenly 3300 new plants want to come online? How long would it take to get enough Uranium?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/267158/number-of-nuclear-reactors-in-operation-by-country/

What happens when engineers miss something?


Engineers ignored the lifetime risk for the size of a tsunami and instead went by the average, probably to reduce costs, So they built the sea wall 6 feet too short. This flooded the emergency generators, which were in a room that was not water tight. So they flooded and failed. This is what led to the explosion. People in industry cut corners to save money and mistakes get made as a result. How many opportunities for mistakes with 3300 reactors?

These would be prime targets for terrorists as well. They could take over a plant and force a meltdown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

We have a mechanism for converting sunlight directly into carbon-neutral fuel

 

That's an average of at least $7200 per year, for every person in the US.

 

Driving by the mile high city a few years ago and there was one truck after another carrying windmill parts to windmill farms along the roadway.

Then I was once flying into La Vegas and looking down I saw large wind farms surrounding the old nuclear test site.

 

I'm not pro nuke. But solar and wind are a complete waste of time. And hydro is amazingly destructive.

 

Passive solar home design is an excellent way to save on heating and cooling bills. Mass walls and proper orientation and you end up with heating bills that are 1/10 of normal. Ain't rocket science.

 

https://www.wiseinternational.org/n...hael-shellenberger-and-environmental-progress

Can anyone spell “vested interest”?

 

That is true.. and i am in favor of citizens having more self reliance. But industry and municipalities are requiring more and more energy.

 

Plus if you add in a power wall or even a couple of batteries you have decentralised power and THAT is the way for the future

 

You proved that you can... nothing else though.

 

And if the citizens go off grid it allows more energy in the system to flow to industry with little to no requirement to invest in expensive infrastructure

 

That's all great.. but that doesn't make big wind and solar farms a good idea.

 

Why not?
Landscape issues?

Yeah they ruin the landscape

 

I think you mean this



By Erik Wilde from Berkeley, CA, USA - harvesting wind, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51105579


and this..



Nikkei Asian review may 11 2017

 

Any reason why you cannot let the land revert to its natural state? Would take less than rehabilitating this


Or this

 

true but our engery demand is increasing not decreasing.. once a wind farm goes up it's never coming down and it's killing wildlife the whole time, same with solar so returning it to it's natural environment ain't happening.

these are alternative energy sources, they are NOT green energy. not even kinda

 

Coal is so clean and environmentally friendly


http://appvoices.org/end-mountaintop-removal/mtr101/

 

Actually they don’t kill more birds than skyscrapers

But there are “bird friendly” wind turbines



I think this one just makes them dizzy

 

Like Shellenberger said the problems with wind and solar are not technical but natural. Each produces very dilute energy and each is unreliable because sunlight and wind are present only a small portion of the time.

 

I used it quite successfully here: