Skip to main content

View Diary: 38% of Spain's electricity demand in July met with solar and wind energy (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, it is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    6412093, Joffan
    Do we have any readers other than myself who are old enough to remember the condescending and even mean discussion of long ago where the nuclear advocates will sneer at solar and wind, saying they could now become a major player?  

    Is it wrong that I smile every time I read a report like this where solar or wind produce substantially more electricity for a country than nuclear power?

    Yes, it is wrong, and it makes you look either ignorant or intent on manufacturing your own version of the past.

    Practical large-scale generation of power from solar and wind sources is very much a thing of the past fifteen or twenty years. Before that, as another poster has pointed out, both sources were for niche markets at best.

    It's very good that they have finally gone mainstream. But is it too late?

    In the meantime, we have had thirty or more years when we could have been getting most of our electricity from nuclear power. However, certain persons felt that that was not necessary. Even though the science has been in on global climate change since the 1920s, these people indulged in the luxury of rejecting nuclear power in favor of oil, gas, and coal.

    What? You say that anti-nuclear activists were not in favor of dirty fuels? But they never attacked them with one-tenth the vigor. If you hinder one side, and do not hinder the other, you are de facto supporting the other side.

    Still feel good about yourself? That thirty or so years of carbon in the atmosphere -- you own it, or at least part of it. You helped it happen.

    Have a nice day. There may not be too many of them left.

    This is the landscape that we understand, -
    And till the principle of things takes root,
    How shall examples move us from our calm?

    (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

    by sagesource on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 08:41:01 PM PDT

    •  Wow. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TakeSake, jasan, Jim P, Gooserock, vernonbc

      So next you will tell us the nuclear waste storage solution was found 30 years ago to and I prevented that from happening too?  

      You know what--you might mean well but you are just mean.  Go back to drinking.  

      Well, now you are just trying to be reasonable...and I'm in NO mood to be reasonable!

      by quiet in NC on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 08:56:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep, that's right - Yucca Mountain (0+ / 0-)

        The proposed repository was studied ad nauseum and the safety report was ready to publish, showing that it was indeed a safe storage solution.

        Greg Jaczko, the now-confessed anti-nuke head of NRC, shut down the project after many billions-worth of studies and blocked publication of the results.

        This is not a sig-line.

        by Joffan on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:20:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Record of What Progressives Accomplished Over (0+ / 0-)

      the past years is difficult to sum up.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 09:13:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So with 400 plants we average a meltdown a (8+ / 0-)

      decade (counting Fukushima as only one) for a generation, and the 2000, 4000 plants you would have built with imaginary trillions ($10,000,000,000 per plant on average, add three zeros and double or quadruple the "10" and you've got $20-$40 TRILLION) to get us five or ten meltdowns a decade.

      More than the US has spent on defense/intelligence/war-making since Vietnam.

      Fucking great reality-based thinking you've got going for you.

      Meanwhile, on the real planet we live on, Jimmy Carter was pushing the alternative fuels spirit and mindset (though the syn-fuel part wasn't that great) forty years ago and got shot down by the Killer Fuels Industry and their buddies in Congress and the Media.

      You want to make up alternate histories, the one where we write off a section of the earth every few years for money nobody could afford was never REMOTELY possible. The one where people moved ahead with Carter's initiative could have stood us very very well indeed.


      A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned. -- Firefly

      by Jim P on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 09:18:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You nailed it. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oslyn7

        If Carter's visionary plans hadn't been smashed into pieces by the Reagan Administration, we could have had inexpensive solar and wind at least 15 to 20 years earlier.

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 09:47:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  some of us invested in Negawatts. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HoundDog

      i dropped my heating bills by 75%.

      You can too.

    •  Until the recent subsidies hike (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lawrence, oslyn7

      the free market decided not to build one nuclear plant in the U.S. in 30 years.

      So you are wrong to blame it one me. A generation source that take 13 years to build and cannot be built unless the government guarantees profitability is not going to be a major player in our next 30 years by virtue of market forces  - can't blame this one on political activists.

      We have been and still are correct in this. Scientifically this is been clear to anyone looking objectively for a long time.

      If one includes external costs in comparative calculations such as risk of dirty bombs etc. nuclear is not something we want to spread in unstable third world nations.

      The last I checked there is a 10 delivery delay on a containment domes. The per unit cost of nuclear generation is going up as more problems keep raising cost.

      The cost to solar panels has fallen by about three quarters in the last four years and give every appearance of continuing to do so.

      The economics rule.

      Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

      by HoundDog on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 04:54:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually we don't own jack shit (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lawrence, oslyn7

      It was motherfuckers who voted Reagan in who own it.  Nuclear was wrong then, it's STILL wrong now and even more so in the future.  If we had just listened to Jimmy Carter on this solar and wind would have been much more mainstream 35 years ago when he put solar panels on the White House.  Instead we elected some asshole who promptly took them off and embraced nuclear energy.  

      So thank you very much but those 30 years of carbon in the atmosphere are owned by people like you not by us.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 09:07:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site