Climate Change Update........

[foszoe]

+1. There are places solar and wind make sense, and they make sense as an additional source of power. They do not make sense as the ONLY source of power. Even in Indiana, adding a few panels and inverters to your house yourself can help offset some of the high demand times in summer.

BTM solar, wind, and battery and the move to a distributed grid supported by the BES instead of the other way around is the future, i think.

 

[two70]

Yep. I remember triple digit temperatures when I was growing up here in Indiana but it has been many years.

It seemed like it happened several times in the 80's but a quick search produced this article about '88 in particular.

 

[Tombs]

+1. There are places solar and wind make sense, and they make sense as an additional source of power. They do not make sense as the ONLY source of power. Even in Indiana, adding a few panels and inverters to your house yourself can help offset some of the high demand times in summer.

You and everyone else should realize there's a HUGE difference between putting a solar panel on your roof, and trying to power the entirety of the US with solar.

The backbone of the grid needs to use the most efficient power source possible, which at this point in time, is nuclear.
You can supplement the load with solar and wind, and you can use hydro or thermal where viable. The overwhelming point is that, in general, you need the energy density and 24/7 reliability to provide the base load for the grid.

 

[foszoe]

You and everyone else should realize there's a HUGE difference between putting a solar panel on your roof, and trying to power the entirety of the US with solar.

Of course there is, but I didn't see anyone say anything resembling that

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Of course there is, but I didn't see anyone say anything resembling that

Have you even read this thread?

 

[cavallo]

You and everyone else should realize there's a HUGE difference between putting a solar panel on your roof, and trying to power the entirety of the US with solar.

The backbone of the grid needs to use the most efficient power source possible, which at this point in time, is nuclear.
You can supplement the load with solar and wind, and you can use hydro or thermal where viable. The overwhelming point is that, in general, you need the energy density and 24/7 reliability to provide the base load for the grid.

I know this thread is really about global warming but the comment about energy production and windfarms gaves me an idea: much like a windfarms with windmills on breezy prairie areas ... we need to build "bluster farms" that run on political posturing and place them near DC! We could power the whole country and ... on election years we could store the surplus in batteries (or tanks or whatever one stores extra bluster in.)

 

[foszoe]

Have you even read this thread?

I was meaning ingo members

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I was meaning ingo members

Me too.

 

[foszoe]

Me too.

Since post 555 which was an original post not a reply to anyone...geez it's like talking to an elephant

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Since post 555 which was an original post not a reply to anyone...geez it's like talking to an elephant

I'm flattered that you think I never forget, but I do.

 

[Twangbanger]

Is there even a side of the isle that acknowledges climate change as a real thing and proposes real ideals to deal with it that don't involve tax deduction scams?

Like hell, just stop reducing the sulfur in diesel and we'll reverse course on all of this within a couple years. Better yet, put some concentration of it in jet fuel where it'll be dispersed too high to cause acid rain.

Solar and wind is just a scam. Anything but nuclear is impractical at the levels of demand we have today.

This is an astonishingly easy problem to solve, yet everyone is too busy arguing over nonsense to realize the easy solution.

The problem is the part of your statement, "...at the levels of demand we have today..." Net Zero isn't about finding practical solutions for maintaining present levels of demand. It's about de-growing your lifestyle to 1990. Because your present lifestyle is sinful, wasteful, materialistic, selfish, immoral, and fattening, and you should be ashamed of yourself. And get down on your knees before God and ask forgiveness for your sins. And lean forward and choke yourself.

God hates waste.

And etc., &c.

It's a new-age fundamentalist orthodoxy. Think Puritanism 16.0, and you're in about the right frame of mind. Ashamed, kneeling prostrate before an Angry God, and groveling.

How dare you CONSUME so MUCH

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I thought NetZero died out about the same time as AOL. Do they still have the free install CDs?

 

[jamil]

I know this thread is really about global warming but the comment about energy production and windfarms gaves me an idea: much like a windfarms with windmills on breezy prairie areas ... we need to build "bluster farms" that run on political posturing and place them near DC! We could power the whole country and ... on election years we could store the surplus in batteries (or tanks or whatever one stores extra bluster in.)

Eh, I’m not sure that kind if energy is carbon neutral. Instead of studying the impact of cow farts it would probably have been more productive to study the effects of politicians on global warming. It seems the more they bluster the worse it gets.

 

[BugI02]

+1. There are places solar and wind make sense, and they make sense as an additional source of power. They do not make sense as the ONLY source of power. Even in Indiana, adding a few panels and inverters to your house yourself can help offset some of the high demand times in summer.

The latitude we all live at allows solar to be just a fraction of daily use. Where they could sell me a system is if they could drive down the cost of a power wall and changed to batteries that won't burn down my house like Nickel-Hydrogen. Then run off the power wall for garden variety outages or rolling blackouts and save the generator for more serious events

 

[2tonic]

I know this thread is really about global warming but the comment about energy production and windfarms gaves me an idea: much like a windfarms with windmills on breezy prairie areas ... we need to build "bluster farms" that run on political posturing and place them near DC! We could power the whole country and ... on election years we could store the surplus in batteries (or tanks or whatever one stores extra bluster in.)

Unfortunately their bluster is contaminated with too much bilge, and the separation process is tiring and tedious for conservatives, and apparently impossible for leftists.

 

[Tombs]

The problem is the part of your statement, "...at the levels of demand we have today..." Net Zero isn't about finding practical solutions for maintaining present levels of demand. It's about de-growing your lifestyle to 1990. Because your present lifestyle is sinful, wasteful, materialistic, selfish, immoral, and fattening, and you should be ashamed of yourself. And get down on your knees before God and ask forgiveness for your sins. And lean forward and choke yourself.

God hates waste.

And etc., &c.

It's a new-age fundamentalist orthodoxy. Think Puritanism 16.0, and you're in about the right frame of mind. Ashamed, kneeling prostrate before an Angry God, and groveling.

How dare you CONSUME so MUCH

I have a feeling this is why they hide the actual measures to reverse climate change. Such as sulfur in fuels, which has shown, historically, to be exceedingly effective at generating a cooling effect on the climate.

None of them will talk about it, none of them will acknowledge it. All they do is green wash and push their anti-humanity agenda. They're also almost unanimously anti-nuclear as well.

 

[wtburnette]

I have a feeling this is why they hide the actual measures to reverse climate change. Such as sulfur in fuels, which has shown, historically, to be exceedingly effective at generating a cooling effect on the climate.

None of them will talk about it, none of them will acknowledge it. All they do is green wash and push their anti-humanity agenda. They're also almost unanimously anti-nuclear as well.

Going nuclear would be the greenest energy anyone could possibly implement and it would drive energy costs down so that we'd all be doing much better. Harder to implement the Puritanism 16.0 movement when everyone is happy, healthy and relatively wealthy.

 

[smokingman]

Going nuclear would be the greenest energy anyone could possibly implement and it would drive energy costs down so that we'd all be doing much better. Harder to implement the Puritanism 16.0 movement when everyone is happy, healthy and relatively wealthy.

"Currently, almost all the uranium used in US commercial reactors is imported. After reaching a peak in 1980, domestic mining now accounts for about 5% of the fuel used in US reactors. Between 1977 and 2005, government policy did not allow reprocessing of used fuel for commercial reactors."

Where our uranium comes from - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Sources of uranium, how and where uranium is produced in the United States, and source of U.S. uranium imports.

www.eia.gov

Note from the above .gov link,even last year we imported a little over 12% of our nuclear fuel from(data released June 2023)....Yep,Russia.

 

[wtburnette]

"Currently, almost all the uranium used in US commercial reactors is imported. After reaching a peak in 1980, domestic mining now accounts for about 5% of the fuel used in US reactors. Between 1977 and 2005, government policy did not allow reprocessing of used fuel for commercial reactors."

Where our uranium comes from - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Sources of uranium, how and where uranium is produced in the United States, and source of U.S. uranium imports.

www.eia.gov

Note from the above .gov link,even last year we imported a little over 12% of our nuclear fuel from(data released June 2023)....Yep,Russia.

I take anything from .gov with a grain of salt. Also, is it that we don't have a lot here, or is it that regulations have shut down and made it impossible to mine it here? I don't know but am curious about that. Also, is reprocessing problematic, or just not used due to the war against nuclear? It's been smeared as being horrid for so long, I don't know if the way things are reflect reality at all, or the reality they want us to believe.

 

[smokingman]

I take anything from .gov with a grain of salt. Also, is it that we don't have a lot here, or is it that regulations have shut down and made it impossible to mine it here? I don't know but am curious about that. Also, is reprocessing problematic, or just not used due to the war against nuclear? It's been smeared as being horrid for so long, I don't know if the way things are reflect reality at all, or the reality they want us to believe.

Mining is part anti nuclear/anti mining. We also do not have much in the way of high quality ore. Not impossible,but costly to mine and process + regulations and anti nuclear sentiment.

From what I have read(and the chart shows it) we started reprocessing fuel,and did so until very recently. I do not know enough about the process to say more than that.

You are probably right to take anything .gov with a grain of salt(or blocks of it for things like the https://www.bls.gov/ ). I view most .gov as alternative data source these days,but statistics on reactor fuel imports in an easy to view format is really only available there(and likely just as manipulated as everything else).