Skip to main content

View Diary: Troll Rating Fritz Haber, Jimmy Kunstler and the Oracle at Snowmass, Part 2 (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is one quantitative flaw ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel, NRG Guy

    ... which is that the primary "ready for prime time" contributions of solar are passive solar, in both heating/cooling and lighting, and energy avoided is simply not counted in the numbers.

    The real situation is that wind, active solar, tidal, etc. are all infant industries, and require support in order to become established, and nuclear is a mature industry that already received the infant industry support it required when it was an infant industry.

    Government policy positions placing nuclear at the top priority, ahead of energy efficiency and sustainable renewable power is not going to substantially increase the contribution of nuclear electricity in the next 20 years, while government policy positions placing energy efficiency and sustainable renewable power at the top priority will substantially increase the contribution of negenergy over the next decade and sustainable renewable power over the next twenty years.

    SupportTheTroopsEndTheWar.com and Energize America

    by BruceMcF on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:55:08 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Basically in agreement ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bryfry

      well stated ...

      Wind as "infant", not quite sure, however ... "toddler"?

    •  This kind of thinking has been nonsensical for (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LIsoundview, Plan9

      many decades now.

      Maybe you think that per capita energy consumption in the United States is lower now than it was in 1986.

      I hate to contradict happy face talk with data but I am compelled to confess at the risk of great pain that data exists.

      I am particularly amused by this alleged 20 year figure.

      In 1987, the per capita energy consumption of an American was 320 MBTU/person/year.  In 2006, it was 334 MBTU/person.

      I guess this "savings" is pretty ethereal.

      US per capita energy consumption is today precisely the same as it was in 1970.

      Now let's return to the "conservation and renewables is fast" and "nuclear is slow" myth that never gets challenged and therefore routinely gets believed in spite of the fact that there is no evidence to support it.

      We have had continuous cheering about the potential of solar energy for more than 50 years now.   It doesn't produce even a tenth of an exajoule.   If we divide the number of joules it does produce by 50, and then the number of seconds in the year we get the average power increase of 47 MWe per year.   The average power of a nuclear plant may be taken to be around 1000 MWe - some are much larger but some are smaller.   Thus it would take 20 years of growth in solar to be equivalent to one nuclear power plant.

      The vast majority of US nuclear reactors, most of which are still now running, representing, by far, the largest climate change gas free source of energy in this country, were built between 1965 and 1985.

      As engineers began to understand these machines, they quickly rose to become the fourth largest source of energy in the United States, and the only form of energy among the top four that does not generate massive amounts of dangerous fossil fuel waste.

      Again, data.

      Nuclear energy production in this country has roughly quadrupled on an exajoule scale since 1980 despite a huge chorus of nonsense continually sung about the cleanest and safest exajoule scale energy industry in the United States.

      At no point in the last 20 years has energy consumption actually fallen.

      World energy consumption, broken down by country.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site