The days of the nuclear industry's "Feet up, pat 'em on the po po"
approach to dealing with the public are over.
The industry has had 40+ years to develop a reliable and safe waste
stream processing method and they are still at square one.
Until the industry gets serious about solving this problem on a world
wide basis, there will be no new nukes built, at least if I can help
There are just too many other alternate renewable energy possibilities
waiting to be developed including, but not limited to the next
generation of batteries and photo cells..
I do think, however, that solar is usable on small-scale
installations, but as a major feed to the grid, not so much.
Wind? Same thing. Peak loads occur at 7 PM and 7 AM (give-or-take)
just when wind is low(er).
I followed a few links from that site you posted and I hadn't thought
about the vulnerability of such installations.
One AK47 and 20 clips of ammo, there goes a big chunk of a farm. One
bullet per panel.
There are MANY solutions to nuclear waste. None have been adopted because we
don't NEED to adopt them. The longer we wait before deciding on which
solution is best, the better the chance that an even better solution will be
Batteries are NOT an energy solution. Batteries STORE energy, they don't
create it. The energy they store has to come from somewhere, presumably
nuclear power plants.
Photocells won't work for large scale deployment either. The earth receives
about 1300 watts / sq meter of sun energy. At the equator. At noon. With no
Assuming 50% conversion factor and adjusting for latitude, clouds, 12 hours
of darkness, and other limitations, it would take a solar collector farm the
size of the Los Angeles basin (1200 sq miles) to provide the 50GW of power
used by California.
Consider the cost to manufacture, install, and maintain 1200 square miles of
solar collectors. You would NEVER recoup the investment.
Don't get me wrong - alternative, renewable, energy sources have their
place, but they'll never do more than nibble at the margins and are almost
Politics, not science.
Had to laugh at the commentors. This quote says it all:
"Say I wanted broil a steak, which I don't eat because its meat and
causes climate change ..."
... nuff said.
Makes one hope they won't live to see the bill for stupidity come due.
Remember the Air France plane that disappeared over the Middle Atlantic
some time back? On its way from Brazil, it ran into bad weather. The
pilots were not too experienced/trained, and didn't read the
malfunctioning pitot tube(s) speed indicators with enough suspicion.
Those pitot tubes were KNOWN to be prone to icing up. As a result, they
pointed the nose up, not down, and stalled the plane into the ocean. A
clear example of a known defect, that normally doesn't result in really
bad things, but, obviously, here it did. The same with nukes. There are
a number of known bad things in design of the totality of some of the
plants and nobody does anything until it is too late. Certainly with
Chernobyl and Fukushima (sp?). That does NOT mean nukes are inherently
bad, just that some things with some nukes are bad, and should be fixed.
As has been pointed out before, more coal workers have died per year than
all the people who have died from nuke accidents.
OHMIGOD! Poor Lew. His aluminum hat has evidently fallen off again.
A 35,000' drop is an awful lot for a stall without any recovery.
I have to question that conclusion. Got a cite for it? If nothing
else, even a fairly newly licensed pilot would have a better feel for
pitch attitude than that would indicate.
Absolutely, dear sir.
Cars, coal, stairs, pools. The list is quite large.
We are always the same age inside.
-- Gertrude Stein
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.