Remember when that nut-case Moonbeam warned you about the problem of Nuclear Waste?

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm from Chicago, and living in that area. Before the fairy fart pushers get the corrupt politicians and unions around here to start multi-$Billion efforts on some new push, I want to see hard numbers that skeptics of said solutions cannot refute before signing up to pay for them. So, excuse me for disagreeing with you, but, for me (and the few Million around Chicagoland), No, there's not more to it than a bad week in Chicago. And, just as an FYI, that's a normal every day week in Chicagoland (and all across the Midwest/Northern East/Northern West) during the winter months...

I live outside of Rochester NY. I think I know what weather is like in the NE. BTW, you aren't disagreeing with me. You aren't even addressing what I've been saying. I'm not saying that we launch an immediate retrofit of Chicago. Now Chicago politics and unions are important to you, but you might as well be complaining about the White Sox.

Except for plants needing to be retired, in which case there's not a deficiency of power, but, a complete lack of it when the plant is mandated to be shut down.

Yes there is and that needs to be taken into account. As I said before there will need to be plants for high density power usage such as industry and until the nation comes up to speed. What did you expect me to say that you should sit around in the dark for the meantime?

Really, stored for a whole metropolitan area? That much storage available instantly on-demand should the sun not shine, or tetonic activity cut off the source of steam for something like geothermal? That much storage that is less polluting to make and recycle than nuclear? That's a whole lot of batteries.....

Batteries? That's so 20th century. You haven't kept up with what's going on apparently.

I'm glad you realize this, now, can you get out of the way of the only realitistic solution - nuclear - so in 10 years an actual available solution is ready for the next 40-50 years that can meet all demand while future technology is discovered/made realistically available?

So how many years does it take to bring the needed number of nuke plants again so you can wait to implement solutions who's development you aren't much interested?

Nuclear is a dead end technology, and you really don't understand the colossal increase in energy that will be needed while you want everyone to wait around for Mr. Fusion.

You think it's a matter of regulation. No, it's a matter of physics and logistics.

 

[chucky2]

I live outside of Rochester NY. I think I know what weather is like in the NE. BTW, you aren't disagreeing with me. You aren't even addressing what I've been saying.

What you're saying is that we're needing to build a new nuke plant each day every day, for some period of time, to address the nations energy needs. And you're against that. And you want some other form of energy instead of nuke.

That we're all getting by on our current energy supply right now and you somehow think those energy needs will explode more than they already have and more than we've already kept up with is interesting. That you think solar and geothermal is the answer, over a proven tech like nuke (where we can already manage the waste as we've had 40 years to do it with the current implementations and 40 years to learn how to do it with the newer implementations), is even more interesting.

I'm not saying that we launch an immediate retrofit of Chicago. snip

Nor am I. But when CommieWealth has to shut down the nuke plant here, as other nuke plants will/are having to, whatever you're advocating is what is going to be pushed onto us. Forgive me for my skepticism, but, we already know nuke works. We already know it's reliable. We already know it meets our energy needs, whether that's when the sun has maximum solar output at the peak of summer on a cloudless day, or, when it's 20F out and gray for a week straight.

Yes there is and that needs to be taken into account. As I said before there will need to be plants for high density power usage such as industry and until the nation comes up to speed. What did you expect me to say that you should sit around in the dark for the meantime?

One can never tell with the eco energy kooks. Thing is, if we're going to build the plants for high density usage, we mine as well have them provide for the other usage as well, until something like solar tech really does start yielding true energy potential.

Batteries? That's so 20th century. You haven't kept up with what's going on apparently.

I must not. What is the currently developed energy storage medium that will allow one to store all that energy that solar is going to provide above the daily usage rate during the winter?

So how many years does it take to bring the needed number of nuke plants again so you can wait to implement solutions who's development you aren't much interested?

That would be a far greater less amount of years than the solutions that aren't even viable yet.

Nuclear is a dead end technology, and you really don't understand the colossal increase in energy that will be needed while you want everyone to wait around for Mr. Fusion.

Right, it's so dead end that it's powering tens of Millions in the US while solar powers comparitively no one. Day and night, rain or shine, summer months or winter months, nuke has been and can provide the power.

You think it's a matter of regulation. No, it's a matter of physics and logistics.

It's a matter of you can only wait for so long until you have to start on the tech that is available now to have it ready to replace the retiring/outgoing tech. For many locations/areas, that is nuclear. For those same many locations, they are being held up basically, in the end, because of eco kooks.

I agree with you though on the last part: It is a matter of physics and logistics...the physics of nuclear, and the logistics of implementing that solution. It's a shame that those matters are being held up for people pining for solar....

Chuck

 

[Moonbeam]

You think it's a matter of regulation. No, it's a matter of physics and logistics.

I do not think they want to know. They don't even bother to be up to speed on what is in the thread.

 

[chucky2]

There is a difference between solutions that are able to be implemented now - or start to be implemented now, with a go live date in however many years it'll take to complete the project - versus unproven or pie in the sky theories that might work sometime down the road, maybe.

Real - that's: reality world, where the adults have to make decisions for everyone, including the eco kooks - electicity needs must be met, not maybe met. And they must be met all the time, not some of the time.

If there are proven energy producing systems that can produce energy amounts at coal/nuclear levels, with coal/nuclear uptimes, I'm all ears. So far there's a video from some big thinker that doesn't have the responsibility to deliver the masses electricity needs, but only to deliver funding dollars to his research (which is fine, and his research may be the way of the future, but it's not now).

So to recap: Nuclear now where needed, wind where practical and in agreement with locality, geothermal where practical, wave where practical, solar where practical, etc. In the end though, the only one that can absolutely deliver on energy needs for the remote future is nuclear, so please, get the F out of the way and lets get going, 10 years is a long build out time...

Chuck