Global warming

[David Horn]

(11-16-2016, 03:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-05-2016, 12:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-25-2016, 04:15 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 02:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-06-2016, 01:28 PM)radind Wrote: There will be a price to pay for the closing of nuclear plants.

We need to replace nuclear with solar. Delay is not a reasonable option.

Ask the Germans about that.  No one is more attuned to renewables and more averse to nuclear, so they were the first to come to grips with the obvious.  You can't run a modern society on intermittent power, so they are biting the bullet and reopening some coal fired plants.  Is that better?

In a system that uses the pooled resources from many solar and wind plants at once, there is no intermittence. That has been proven. When one is down, the others are working.

If nuclear can be made safe, it's an option. There must be no chance of a meltdown, and all nuc waste must be recycled. I reported on the old thread that there's some movement toward this, especially in Russia. Personally, I don't like the risk of entire regions becoming off limits due to another Fukushima. We may be truly fu'ked if we rely on nuk. A few hundred square miles of solar can power the world. All we need is transmission lines. The transition is not immediate, but we must go as fast as we can.

Germany:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_...in_Germany

Fukushima = Fuck you, Shiva! We don't need mass destruction! 

Just a little hyperbolic poetry there.

Other than Fukushima, which was a natural disaster that would have been bad regardless, and Chernobyl, which was the failure of a plant extremely outdated decades before it plant crashed, show me any deaths related to nuclear power.  Compare that to all the fossil fuel options.  And please, don't ring in with your overly optimistic expectations for renewables.  They may get there, but not soon. Assume the same numbers the expert proponents assume: 50 years.