The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

FrantzHardySwag said:
I actually think in a lot of regards we need a combo of Biden and Bernies ideas. We were never going to power the US on renewables alone. Biden is open to Nuclear, we will need Nuclear to supplement renewables to become carbon free. Glad AOC left the door open on that one.
Click to expand...
You're right.  If we are going to be carbon free, we need nuclear.  Renewables are great, but no way can they power everything in the US 24-7.  I actually think being "carbon free" is a pipe dream.  We can greatly reduce it, but I can't see us ever being 100% off carbon energy sources.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FrantzHardySwag said:
I actually think in a lot of regards we need a combo of Biden and Bernies ideas. We were never going to power the US on renewables alone. Biden is open to Nuclear, we will need Nuclear to supplement renewables to become carbon free. Glad AOC left the door open on that one.
Click to expand...


BigRedBuster said:
You're right.  If we are going to be carbon free, we need nuclear.  Renewables are great, but no way can they power everything in the US 24-7.  I actually think being "carbon free" is a pipe dream.  We can greatly reduce it, but I can't see us ever being 100% off carbon energy sources.
Click to expand...
I operated nuclear reactors back when I was in the Navy. And I strongly oppose nuclear power.

There's simply no way to make it safe enough, plus at some point we're going to have to deal with the tons of radioactive waste that we're keeping in pools within the existing plants. We don't know what to do with the increasing radioactive waste, which includes not only the really highly radioactive spent fuel and reactor vessels but also lower radioactive stuff like the containment buildings, piping, etc.

 
RedDenver said:
I operated nuclear reactors back when I was in the Navy. And I strongly oppose nuclear power.

There's simply no way to make it safe enough, plus at some point we're going to have to deal with the tons of radioactive waste that we're keeping in pools within the existing plants. We don't know what to do with the increasing radioactive waste, which includes not only the really highly radioactive spent fuel and reactor vessels but also lower radioactive stuff like the containment buildings, piping, etc.
Click to expand...
We're going to have to agree to disagree on safety, reactors are becomingsafer and safer  - and I would rather deal with the problem of storing waste; then that of carbon emission. It's not that I'm choosing nuclear over renewables - we don't have that choice right now. We need to supplement renewables and I would much rather we do that with Nuclear over fossil fuels.

 
BigRedBuster said:
You're right.  If we are going to be carbon free, we need nuclear.  Renewables are great, but no way can they power everything in the US 24-7.  I actually think being "carbon free" is a pipe dream.  We can greatly reduce it, but I can't see us ever being 100% off carbon energy sources.
Click to expand...
I do think we can become carbon neutral and even carbon negative. Renewables can easily produce enough power for the US and the world. Making it available 24/7 is the remaining challenge. Batteries are already capable of providing enough power for peak demand and have been shown to be way more economically attractive than peaker plants. It's simply a matter of cost and political will power to build out enough battery storage to get through the evening and maybe even the night.

For longer term energy storage (e.g. nighttime and cloudy/windless weather), a high-voltage DC interconnect across the country will solve most of the weather issues, and "green" hydrogen (using renewable energy for electrolysis of water) can get us the rest of the way. Hydrogen energy storage isn't nearly as efficient as batteries, but it can be scaled up to large storage fairly easily. Plus synthetic fuels can be made from hydrogen like methane (natural gas, might be able to use existing infrastructure) and kerosene (aircraft fuel).

 
FrantzHardySwag said:
We're going to have to agree to disagree on safety, reactors are becomingsafer and safer  - and I would rather deal with the problem of storing waste; then that of carbon emission. It's not that I'm choosing nuclear over renewables - we don't have that choice right now. We need to supplement renewables and I would much rather we do that with Nuclear over fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
Becoming safer is not the same as safe. And I completely disagree that we don't have a choice. Nuclear power is far more expensive and comes with far, far more risk than PV, wind, or tidal energy sources. And as I said in my previous post, storage is the only real barrier and it's achievable.

 
RedDenver said:
Becoming safer is not the same as safe. And I completely disagree that we don't have a choice. Nuclear power is far more expensive and comes with far, far more risk than PV, wind, or tidal energy sources. And as I said in my previous post, storage is the only real barrier and it's achievable.
Click to expand...
You're ignoring the fact we can't power ourselves on solar, wind and hydro alone. The logical step is to completely wean ourselves off fossil fuels first, then if we do get to a point we can power ourselves on solar, wind and hydro - then wean ourselves off nuclear. 

 
RedDenver said:
I do think we can become carbon neutral and even carbon negative. Renewables can easily produce enough power for the US and the world. Making it available 24/7 is the remaining challenge. Batteries are already capable of providing enough power for peak demand and have been shown to be way more economically attractive than peaker plants. It's simply a matter of cost and political will power to build out enough battery storage to get through the evening and maybe even the night.

For longer term energy storage (e.g. nighttime and cloudy/windless weather), a high-voltage DC interconnect across the country will solve most of the weather issues, and "green" hydrogen (using renewable energy for electrolysis of water) can get us the rest of the way. Hydrogen energy storage isn't nearly as efficient as batteries, but it can be scaled up to large storage fairly easily. Plus synthetic fuels can be made from hydrogen like methane (natural gas, might be able to use existing infrastructure) and kerosene (aircraft fuel).
Click to expand...
I think the key is figuring out Nuclear Fusion.  And, that might be a very long time coming.

 
TGHusker said:
Ecblln3UwAA-QFp
Click to expand...
I absolutely hate the "Vote Blue No Matter Who" slogan. It's no different than voting for a candidate that has R next to their name.

 
FrantzHardySwag said:
Because everything I've read indicated it will take time to ramp up to 100% renewable energy. Realistically 20-30 years. And like I said before I would prefer not to be burning fossil fuels for 20-30 years if we can. Enter Nuclear.
Click to expand...
Actually the reverse is true. Nuclear takes much longer to build than wind or especially PV, so that's another reason nuclear isn't a good option.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/28/renewable-energy-much-faster-install-scalable-nuclear-power/

One major advantage renewable energy has over nuclear power (and fossil fuels) is that it can typically be installed much faster. Nuclear power plants can require 5–15 years to complete and some have taken 20 or more.
Click to expand...
Renewables can grow fast because they can be installed practically everywhere rapidly and simultaneously. Renewable capacity in the magnitude of 1 TW can in principle be added every year. Germany installed 3 GW of PV in one single month in December 2011.
Click to expand...

 
RedDenver said:
I absolutely hate the "Vote Blue No Matter Who" slogan. It's no different than voting for a candidate that has R next to their name.
Click to expand...
I agree - we should NOT vote just because of the party. My post was to emphasize that we need to kick the trump enablers out of office. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top