Leftists will ONLY support a course of action that makes the underlying problem worse. There is no clean energy without nuclear power. The energy return on investment for wind & solar is too low.
Solar and wind are not clean energy. Making them requires enormous amounts of fossil fuels. Sand has to be mined, converted into silica which is then grown into silicon crystals. Purifying the crystals requires toxic chemicals, which requires, of course, fossil fuels. Manufacturing of turbine blades, towers, gear reducers, generators and inverters also requires tremendous fossil fuels. There is little that can be recycled from either technology.
I live in the Northeast. Twenty years ago electricity was under 10 cents per Kw-hr. Now I pay over 22 cents, mostly because we got rid of our nuclear plants. I can easily afford it but what about the elderly living on a fixed, very small, income?
A solar company razed a nearby hillside - about 40 acres - of trees to put in solar. Where were the environmentalists protesting the loss of forest, killing of forest habitat for the squirrels, owls, rabbits, deer and other forest critters? Also those trees use CO2 to live, making Oxygen for everyone.
I’m sorry, but nuclear in the US is not a clean energy source in the literal sense of the term.
Exelon still hasn’t added the Fukushima safeguards to its US plants despite the government instructing them to do so after the meltdown.
An Exelon plant in Illinois has been leaking radioactive material into the nearby area for years. They just pay the multi-million dollar fine instead of actually fixing the problem. The water levels have higher radioactive material levels than what is safe according to the EPA in both Illinois and Pennsylvania.
Until we can get these corporations to not be greedy asshats and can find a way to dispose of or reuse the waste safely, nuclear isn’t as ~amazing~ as people want it to be.
Hate to burst the bubble, but this view is extremely over-simplified.
The primary core issue with solar is the conversion rates of solar energy to electrical. Last I checked ones above 30% conversion were considered "high efficient".
Next is distribution.
The final challenge is how to get solar power at night.
Ok, different contexts. Most people talking up solar power come from a green energy replacement perspective.
Kurzweil tends to speak about the potentials. Solar power has uses, but will never be a suitable replacement on any large scale. Until the conversion of energy hitting a panel is converted around 80% that we could start having some serious solar production at grid scales.
More likely we will start seeing the development of things like ambient temperature superconducting technology. That alone would decrease load on the grid by average 20-40% where implemented.
The other interesting one was nano-diamond batteries, essentially depleted uranium encased with tiny diamonds that allow electrons out. Except the charge lasts for thousands of years.
WHAT!? Why is he doing this?? Nuclear power is the future and always has been. I hate to say it but even China is switching to nuclear. It’s so cost effective (long term) and is the cleanest energy source.
The state also chose projects without considering what else is needed to make it reliable. They're in for a price shock
Leftists will ONLY support a course of action that makes the underlying problem worse. There is no clean energy without nuclear power. The energy return on investment for wind & solar is too low.
Solar and wind are not clean energy. Making them requires enormous amounts of fossil fuels. Sand has to be mined, converted into silica which is then grown into silicon crystals. Purifying the crystals requires toxic chemicals, which requires, of course, fossil fuels. Manufacturing of turbine blades, towers, gear reducers, generators and inverters also requires tremendous fossil fuels. There is little that can be recycled from either technology.
I live in the Northeast. Twenty years ago electricity was under 10 cents per Kw-hr. Now I pay over 22 cents, mostly because we got rid of our nuclear plants. I can easily afford it but what about the elderly living on a fixed, very small, income?
A solar company razed a nearby hillside - about 40 acres - of trees to put in solar. Where were the environmentalists protesting the loss of forest, killing of forest habitat for the squirrels, owls, rabbits, deer and other forest critters? Also those trees use CO2 to live, making Oxygen for everyone.
Hypocrites.
I’m sorry, but nuclear in the US is not a clean energy source in the literal sense of the term.
Exelon still hasn’t added the Fukushima safeguards to its US plants despite the government instructing them to do so after the meltdown.
An Exelon plant in Illinois has been leaking radioactive material into the nearby area for years. They just pay the multi-million dollar fine instead of actually fixing the problem. The water levels have higher radioactive material levels than what is safe according to the EPA in both Illinois and Pennsylvania.
Until we can get these corporations to not be greedy asshats and can find a way to dispose of or reuse the waste safely, nuclear isn’t as ~amazing~ as people want it to be.
You are wrong about not implementing Fukushima safeguards....I processed the material personally!
Too low?! If any. Batteries don’t grow on trees.
The sun provides 10,000 x the amount of energy the earth needs daily.
If we can capture 1/10,0000 of that, we are done fighting over eneegy
I still have faith in solar nanotechnology
Hate to burst the bubble, but this view is extremely over-simplified.
The primary core issue with solar is the conversion rates of solar energy to electrical. Last I checked ones above 30% conversion were considered "high efficient".
Next is distribution.
The final challenge is how to get solar power at night.
You didn't burst any bubble LOL I got the data from electronics inventor Ray Kurzweil
So if it's oversimplified take it up with him
It's interesting how almost nothing is as simple or as complicated as it seems
Ok, different contexts. Most people talking up solar power come from a green energy replacement perspective.
Kurzweil tends to speak about the potentials. Solar power has uses, but will never be a suitable replacement on any large scale. Until the conversion of energy hitting a panel is converted around 80% that we could start having some serious solar production at grid scales.
More likely we will start seeing the development of things like ambient temperature superconducting technology. That alone would decrease load on the grid by average 20-40% where implemented.
The other interesting one was nano-diamond batteries, essentially depleted uranium encased with tiny diamonds that allow electrons out. Except the charge lasts for thousands of years.
NYC will be able to have daily blackouts and brownouts just like the 3rd world shithole it is.
Snake Pliskin 2024!
Commies
Every time I hear another story about this sick disgusting piece of #@$% garbage why is he still in there?
WHAT!? Why is he doing this?? Nuclear power is the future and always has been. I hate to say it but even China is switching to nuclear. It’s so cost effective (long term) and is the cleanest energy source.
Talk about “anti science”
such poor timing. Imagine all the grannies he could have offed if he did this earlier...
How is this shithead still in power?
Why isn't Cuomo is jail? What the hell is going on?
Dems destroy, nothing more.
They will have to run the solar panels at night to make up the energy difference!