29 Replies to “Y2Kyoto: Meet Your “Clean” Energy Footprint”

  1. By the time we have sufficient wind power to run all our stuff, there won’t be a bird left on the planet except perhaps for chickens.
    By the time we have enough sufficient solar power to run our stuff, there won’t be enough uncovered land left to grow our food.
    To quote the great Kate, “The world is being run by crazy people”.

  2. By the time we have sufficient wind power to run all our stuff, there won’t be a bird left on the planet except perhaps for chickens.
    you missed, ostriches & emu’s. The penguins will all be dead because of glow-ball warming.

  3. And we’d have to cut down every forest in North America to plant grain etc. to produce enough ethanol to run America’s cars.

  4. Many issues…..
    Nuclear seems to inspire a hysterical opposition….based on ignorance…..Nuclear reactors even in the worst cases are not potential thermonuclear bombs….different physics…..It has been established that the ill effects of even Chernobyl were highly exaggerated by the usual suspects.
    Storage of nuclear waste is smaller than the plants themselves…..and a potential source of fuel…..
    Nuclear plants have less siting issues than wind or solar and do not need hundreds of miles of transmission lines…..because they can be sited close to the load.
    Nuclear power is not flexible and as a result is only suited to “base load”….it cannot respond to demand….like water/hydro and fossil fueled plants.
    Wind and Solar are intermittent…..usually offline because hot spells and cold spells usually feature light/no wind or sunlight.
    Compared to nuclear the material/capital requirements of wind are to a factor of 3 (installed capacity)and when the 30% factor is introduced it becomes nearly 10X.

  5. Highg efficiency low risk nuclear fission tech is the way to go to satisfy both market demands for cheap energy and environmental impact demands for clean production.
    However, even the most refined leading edge nuke-tech will never pass muster with greenbots who still worship at the alter of pseudo science symbolatry.
    Why do we allow this narrow-minded Luddite minority to make our energy need decisions for us?
    Is it a matter of who’s lobby group scares our gutless politicians the most? Maybe they should start fearing the majority again — especially a majority enraged at being squeezed financially by phony energy shortage profiteering and deceitful energy use [carbon] taxing.

  6. I picked up a copy of ‘Green Hell’ by Steve Milloy and read it this weekend. It is crazy what the ‘Green’ movement is doing and who is doing it. I suggest it as a must read for everyone.

  9. I think the Research and Science is now reflecting the reality and the horror that is EUROPE with the Wind Farms.
    First, they are a blight on the landscape.RICH Owners in Cape Cod don’t want them. Next they have a low frequency drone that is not pleasant to people living near them. Then there is the effect on Wildlife etc.
    Finally, released today are a number of studies suggesting (as Cottage owners in ON know) there is mental disturbance caused by them.
    They produce so little power (would take 25,000 to power Paris alone – no they don’t have them) and given the cost – use COAL.

  11. Facts are such wonderfully stubborn things … but nonetheless unpersuasive to faith based enviro-extremists.
    Openly laughing out loud at them every chance we get is worth a try.

  12. allan at
    **sasquatch, our CANDU reactors can be switched on/off faster then most other reactors.**
    Yes but still to slow for intermitant load. Nuclear generators are steam plants and a head of steam takes time. This is what makes nuke subs noisy…..not just the constantly running cooling pumps but also essentially a boiler on standby.
    The only truly flexible energy source is HYDRO….basically turning on a tape—if you have a head of water…..
    Denmark now exports ALL wind power to Sweden and Norway…..who have sufficient HYDRO resources to accomodate the intermitant nature of wind power.
    For time Denmark inported power from Sweden(nuclear) to supply the times the wind ceased. This new policy works much better……
    The LS from SK
    **They produce so little power (would take 25,000 to power Paris alone – no they don’t have them) and given the cost – use COAL.**
    Actually the French lead the world in the field of nuclear energy…..most of their electricity comes from nuclear.

  13. As much as Kate dislikes the ‘giant stinking fans’ they will be part of our energy future.
    First, fossil fuels will see us through another 50-100 years at most. Whatever FF is left after that will cost too much except for the wealthiest buyers. Nuclear energy will be the main source of power then, but remember not every country has uranium or thorium.
    Solar and wind are available to all, don’t need to be imported from crackpots or dictators, are clean, and will last practically forever. What is missing is a suitable way to store the energy, thus solving their intermittent nature. I know it may be cool to mock the technology, but at this very moment scientists and engineers are busy making sure this challenge will be met.

  14. GreenNeck
    By the time we solve the storage problem we will have moved onto the hyper-extended fuel cell technology that will provide a universal portable energy source for use in autos and homes.
    Saying once we invent a super-capacitor we can use renewables is like saying once we come up with a car we can start riding horses.
    Look forward, not back, solar and wind are mature technologies that do not work when scaled up. They are supplemental sources at best and can help slow fossil fuel use, but the scale and time and energy to produce them coupled with the unreliability makes the remaking of the grid under the current plans (Smart Grids) a waste of money, improving the grid infrastructure and retransmission efficiency coupled with overproduction of energy makes far more sense than making the grid operate on less energy.
    The Age of Wind Power did not end because we ran out of wind, but because we found something better.

  15. Precisely, Illiquid. Just as 800 years ago we didn’t stop using wood because it disappeared, just as 50 years ago we didn’t stop using coal for home heating because it disappeared. In all cases, we came up with something better. Our civilization has been moving for the past millenium to more concentrated power sources; more power delivered in higher quality product for less space and greater density. Solar and wind represent a gigantic step backward in that regard.
    As to availability, Greenneck in the top metre of topsoil in your back yard is about 3 kg of uranium in the surface soil. That’s enough to power your home for about a thousand years. There’s lots of uranium lying around all over the place. Cost of extracting it isn’t much of a factor, because you need so little of it to produce electricity. Moreover, the productivity of uranium will increase significantly with the GenIV technologies. By increasing greatly reactor operating temperature, they will increase greatly the amount of electricity extracted out of a given quantity of uranium fuel.

  16. If people want to build windmills all the power to them, just don’t ask me for money directly or indirectly. If I wanted to pay the price for wind power I would. Don’t ask my government for my tax dollars after you asked me directly and I said no.
    I like the idea of smart meters, but in a regulated or semi-regulated model the price swings between prime time and low time are not great enough. Its strange that the same people screaming for government regulation in such fields don’t realize its the regulations that prevent the true cost of energy from being realized by the consumer. Only after the consumer pays the true cost of each unit of energy will they change their habits.
    Why should I wait until 10pm to turn on my dishwasher or dryer when turning it on @ 7 costs me nothing, or even with current smart meters saves me a nickle yet I now have to structure my life around saving a nickle.

  17. It makes sense. When you think about it, the source of almost all the energy on this planet is the sun. The sun is what causes the wind to blow, so wind energy could never be as efficient as something that uses the sun more directly.
    Wind energy is great for a few specific things; charging fences, pumping water, that type of thing. Solar I think actually has a chance of replacing some of the base load currently generated by coal, if they can figure out how to make molten salt or something else work. BUt we will always need other sources such as coal, hydro, or nuclear.

  18. This is horribly flawed. Does it take into account the land needed to mine and process uranium continuously to fuel the plant?
    I actually don’t have anything against nuclear power as I see it as a clean and low impact energy solution, but that doesn’t mean I exercise cognitive dissonance and hate on other energy sources. Power is power. Wind energy may require a lot of land, but it doesn’t make the land below it unusable. Solar is obviously a different story, and if there is a technology for which I believe needs more development, that is it. But as for wind and nuclear, let them reign where appropriate.

  19. all the bs aside, it would take a windfarm the size of pei just to power toronto and the damn thing would have to be able to run 24/7. even on pei that is not possible.

  20. in support of , or not, the green asshats. we must all remember this earth is a finite piece of dirt. sooner or later we will run out of that which is necessary to sustain human life on the planet. this is a given there can be no argument put forward to dispute this. science can’t overcome it nor can religion. too many of us or any animal consuming that which is needed to survive will deplete the resources necessary to survive.

  21. Your iso’s sum up pretty nicely what I’ve been saying regarding wind power and its advocates. Those that advocate wind power fall into three groups:
    (1) those that profit – manufacturers, parts manufacturers, retailers ect..
    (2) anti everything advocates – if you support something that will never happen you have something to b*tch about forever.
    (3) useful idiots – those that empower (1) & (2)
    Except for group (3) the advocates of wind power understand fully that it cannot power our society. It is simply a shell game that keeps the public money coming. If wind was a suitable substitute for that which powers us now, private enterprise would have a reasonably priced product for sale and be turning a profit. The fact that failing companies require public money and need the government to create a competitive advantage to move their unwanted products should say it all.
    If it walks like a duck…

  22. heiten
    I am really not sure you get the point. The point is you can build a nuclear plant in any region without a need for massive real estate. Because of that fact you can build closer to the EXISTING grid and reduce the need for HUGE NEW transmission corridors from the wind areas and deserts into the population centers. Also the need to clear and de-foliate land for turbines and solar panels.
    Also one uranium mine can service multiple like installations so the land use would be distributed. Also we will not stop mining uranium if we build no more reactors because we use it to power the US Navy and moist of France for example. So there is no savings of land use.
    Another example of Green Math at work, if we do not build reactors we will not mine for resources… right…

  23. Related:
    MSM Headline says: “few benefits”
    Report says: “failing to produce environmental benefits.”
    The MSM is a pack of lying scumbags; lying not just through its teeth.
    …-
    Headline: “Subsidies for hybrid cars produce few benefits – UBC study”
    “VANCOUVER – A UBC study claims government subsidy programs in Canada and the U.S. that encouraged people to drive hybrid vehicles were failing to produce environmental benefits.”
    urlm.in/cvsn

  24. “This is horribly flawed. Does it take into account the land needed to mine and process uranium continuously to fuel the plant?”
    Does it take into account the land needed to mine and process the metal and concrete required to build the 300 foot tall monstrosities?

  25. “”This is horribly flawed. Does it take into account the land needed to mine and process uranium continuously to fuel the plant?”
    Does it take into account the land needed to mine and process the metal and concrete required to build the 300 foot tall monstrosities?
    Posted by: Kate at August 4, 2009 7:09 PM ”
    Plus the CO2 produced to refine that metal and make that concrete,compared to nuclear?

  26. thee frogites (AKA French)did some intensive experimenting with ultra sound back in the 70T’s me thinks, read about it, and then tell me you want to live near one of those “windfarms”
    and
    solars cell,hahahahaha, they’ll keep all of the illegal Mexicans busy for life cleaning off the bird sh*t, and replacing the damaged and failed/worn out units!!

  27. Perhaps we should rethink this wind power thing, I mean, just consider this, if you put big sheets of canvas on large ships instead of wasting all that fuel, then they could move from point to point on the globe using wind power instead of wasting fossil fuels. Don’t you think we should give this new technology a chance?
    (ha ha)

  28. proponents of alternative energy sources just seem to gloss over the costs, capabilities and downsides of wind, solar, geothermal, compost methane, etc etc.
    they don’t seem to REALIZE this unprecedented standard of living THEY enjoy came with huge and continuing energy requirements.
    “do the math”

  29. Illiquid:
    Fuel cells are not an energy source, only an energy transport, just like a battery. You still need a primary energy source, like nuclear, to ‘fill’ them up.
    CGH:
    Agreed there is lots of uranium in the earth crust, but so far, only a handful of places allow you to extract it economically. The current spot price for uranium is about 100$/kg. To get the 3 kg in my backyard, I’d need to process some 1,100 tons of dirt – crushing it to dust, rendering it into acid, several steps of precipitation. Then I’d get some yellow-cake. Bet it will cost more than 300$. And only about 1% is fissible U-235. The bulk of it, U-238, could be used in breeder reactors, and that is indeed a promising technology, albeit in its infancy.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation