Electric car tipping point

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

So a question for you: how many people have died as a result of those failed reactors? (Hint: it's a really round number :-))

I certainly don't know, but I can Google https://www.google.com/search?q=USS+Reagan+cancer and find people calmly discussing it.

At https://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima+whales there's less argumentation and more dead whales.

Arragonis -- None more reliable than Moon Power.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Except in extreme cold of 2010 there was no output from Wind and no Solar (covered in snow).

So we burned loads of coal to generate electricity and loads of gas for heating and made loads of CO2.

So for what, a month or two, you burned all that coal & gas, but the other 10 months of the year (and most of the following years, no?) you didn't burn nearly as much as you otherwise would have. Seems like a net win to me.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I certainly don't know, but I can Google https://www.google.com/search?q=USS+Reagan+cancer and find people calmly discussing it.

Ah, the good old deep pockets lawsuit thing :-) People got leukaemia long before Fukushima, and even before the first nuclear reactors were built.

If, however, you look at a less biased report - that is, people not looking for someone to blame, and not trying to make money - such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukush...ter_casualties (the first hit in a search), you'll discover that the actual number is zero.

The real irony is that despite over 20,000 deaths from the tsunami, and despite literally centuries of warnings not to build in those coastal areas, people moved right back and started rebuilding. Yet a hysteria-fed 'disaster' that killed no one still has people forced out of their homes.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

So for what, a month or two, you burned all that coal & gas, but the other 10 months of the year (and most of the following years, no?) you didn't burn nearly as much as you otherwise would have. Seems like a net win to me.

And if we were at 100% renewables like GP morons believe ? No power at all...

Madness.

[Frank Lee]

You really hate it when hydrocarbons aren't being combusted.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

And if we were at 100% renewables like GP morons believe ? No power at all...

Fossil fuels are chemically stored RE (Solar) energy. .. done so at horribly low efficiency.

If you won't use Stored RE .. than you don't get to use Coal , Oil , etc .. either.

If you allow for using stored RE .. than have a rational comparison of different RE storage system options for the given application criteria .. built to whatever __σ event satisfies.

Depending on the specific criteria of a given application .. Fossil Fuels can be the best overall fit for an energy storage option .. in other applications or different criteria sometimes Fossil Fuels are not a viable energy storage option , or are inferior to other storage options.

The Devil is in the details.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

And if we were at 100% renewables like GP morons believe ? No power at all...

No hydropower in Britain? No way to interconnect with the European continental grid?

[NeilBlanchard]

Orkney seems to doing great on renewable energy.

[youtube]https://

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

If, however, you look at a less biased report - that is...

You mean this Wikipedia article?

This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (November 2013)

I'm in no position to parse the Edit history, but there is a flag up. Funny how the whales have no interest in pursuing it in the courts.

Don't get me wrong, I have no bias against thorium reactors. But quoting Karl Grossman: There is no “peaceful nuclear power.”

As physicist Amory Lovins and attorney L. Hunter Lovins wrote in their seminal book, Energy/War: Breaking the Nuclear Link: “All nuclear fission technologies both use and produce fissionable materials that are or can be concentrated. Unavoidably latent in those technologies, therefore, is a potential for nuclear violence and coercion which may be exploited by governments, factions…Little strategic material is needed to make a weapon of mass destruction. A Nagasaki-yield bomb can be made from a few kilograms of plutonium, a piece the size of a tennis ball.”

“A large power reactor,” they noted, “annually produces…hundreds of kilograms of plutonium.” Civilian nuclear power technology, they concluded, provides the way to make nuclear weapons, furnishing the material and the trained personnel.

Indeed, that’s how India got The Bomb in 1974. Canada supplied a nuclear reactor to be used for “peaceful purposes” and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission trained Indian engineers. And lo and behold, India had nuclear weapons.

If you ponder the problem on it's obverse face you just decrease demand (to accommodate the EV surge). Like with this: Glass paint could keep metal roofs and other structures cool even on sunny days. They aren't even starting field trials for 2 years so obviously Big Energy has it's hand in.

[ME_Andy]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Orkney seems to doing great on renewable energy.

I'm sure you know that California (22% renewable in 2014) and Hawaii (21%) are quickly following in Orkney's footsteps.