591–600 of 632 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really could have added a lot of value here. Clearly you know a bit about the situation. Please try and bring your knowledge to the table not your offense at someone else's error. I seriously think you could have a lot to offer.
The person you are replying to is not the same person as the one who made the content-free reply. You might want to follow your own advice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The funny thing is even fusion plants would produce energy by turning a steam turbine.
Not useful ones. Predicting here there will be no fusion plants that drive steam turbines, ever. ( Unless General Fusion's system turns out to work.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
France chose to build in bulk of 5-15 plants, as seen in this (extremely interesting) Gantt diagram: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Chrono-p...
And famously tried out negative learning by doing. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In my particular country... But yet [your country] is not lost?
What do you mean by "lost"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That looks very much like blaming the commenter you replied to for posting a "pointless" comment. Which is not a very gracious spelling of "Sorry, my comment you replied to was stupid; I retract it and apologize", which I'm sure was what you were trying to convey.
No, he is making up imaginary impediments to wind power build-out. If trees could be a problem, they would be built in ways that trees would not be a problem, full stop.
No, he is pointing out very real impediments to wind power build-out in forsests.
> If trees could be a problem,
As has been convincingly shown elsewhere in the subthread that they can, if one were stupid enough to build one's windmills among them.
> they would be built in ways that trees would not be a problem, full stop.
i.e. not in forests. Which was user @lazide's point all along.
And if you were going to say -- as the remains of your argument seem to be boiling down to -- "So don't build windmills in forests then", YTF did you say that to @lazide and not to @Aachen?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there's a lot of energy stored in an inherently dangerous form. [Citation needed]
Oh, come on. Give me a break with the lazy "citation needed" comment. I'm not going to go hunt up a reference to a paper which reasons that compared with wind and solar rays constantly around us, nuclear fuel rods are inherently dangerous, nor that a dammed river is inherently dangerous because the dam may burst. I expect people to be able to reason about such things themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for this. I'm curious how many scandals are involved with similar projects taking twice as long to complete in Europe. Or projects taking 4 times as long to complete in the USA? Fewer scandals? More scandals? Worse scandals? I have no idea.
We've seen similar scandals for EPRs in Flamanville and Okiluoto, forged document to fake certification of vital components of the plants, unqualified workers, lack of planning, lot of outsourcing,… it should be documented on the relevant wikipedia pages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
420 isn't an insurmountably large a number - it's 8.4 per state (lets' round it up to 10 for redundency). at an average cost of $10 billion per plant, that's 4.2 trillion dollars. I think the US has spent more than that on the iraq war and the afganistan war - 8 trillion according to https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar - which could've paid for these 420 plants twice over.
Or, could build out solar, wind, and storage, leaving plenty over for universal health care, university education, clean drinking water and breathing air, mass transit projects, and even fixing bridges. But US decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan instead of any of those.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a couple of things to consider. The solar and wind need to be overprovisioned, to feed the grid scale batteries to provide baseload. Those batteries are currently not cost effective, which is why there are very few such batteries in use. If you add in the price of battery, wind and solar look rather pricey. Without the batteries, they are helping us reduce the use of fossil fuel plants, but not helping shut…
Look at Latvia. >45% hydro, plenty of space for wind, both on shore and off shore, and hardly any of that potential realised with only 2.2% active wind energy production. Significant public investment in wind energy announced to start construction in... 2026. That is a glacial pace in the face of an ecological and geopolitical crisis situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except when the North Sea wind was weaker than usual in 2021, triggering an energy crisis that has persisted to this day. This impacted almost the entirety of Europe and led to a spike in gas prices, since, surprise, all the backup plants rely on gas and coal.
Evidently you failed to read "redundancy and geographic distribution". That there is North Sea wind power, howsoever intermittent, is a pure good. Tying it into a larger network makes it better. The solution to local deficits is more localities.