Nuclear Power

[MortyMingledon]

This has probably been discussed before, but what is the deal with much of the left's aversion to nuclear power? Why do so many leftists oppose it? I understand that it occasionally poses an environmental risk, but considering that fossil fuels have been discovered to be environmentally dangerous as well, isn't nuclear power a good alternative? Or do people feel that nuclear fission requires too much of an authoritarian structure to operat? I'm confused :bored:.

[ed miliband]

This has probably been discussed before, but what is the deal with much of the left's aversion to nuclear power? Why do so many leftists oppose it? I understand that it occasionally poses an environmental risk, but considering that fossil fuels have been discovered to be environmentally dangerous as well, isn't nuclear power a good alternative? Or do people feel that nuclear fission requires too much of an authoritarian structure to operat? I'm confused :bored:.

They do? The most vocal anti-nuclear energy folk tend to be greens, and greens ain't red. I haven't heard very much about nuclear energy from 'The Left', and they little I have heard tends to be moderately in favour of it. I'm not qualified to talk about any of this, though.

[danyboy27]

This has probably been discussed before, but what is the deal with much of the left's aversion to nuclear power? Why do so many leftists oppose it? I understand that it occasionally poses an environmental risk, but considering that fossil fuels have been discovered to be environmentally dangerous as well, isn't nuclear power a good alternative? Or do people feel that nuclear fission requires too much of an authoritarian structure to operat? I'm confused :bored:.

its a liberal/threehugger/hippies/lifstylist/ thing.

that basicly what happen when you watch the movie the chinese syndrome too much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FxtBJ59Jm8

[chegitz guevara]

The problem with it is that the waste lasts "forever." Civilization could rise and fall many times, and that stuff will still be radioactive poison.

[Luisrah]

The problem with it is that the waste lasts "forever." Civilization could rise and fall many times, and that stuff will still be radioactive poison.

Surely technology could develop in order to take care of that, couldn't it?

I mean, it only isn't solved because it isn't profitable I suppose, or else it would be.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

I've never had a problem with Nuclear power, the people I know that do have a problem with it tend to be Green fanatics, Conservation Biologists and that new generation of trendy indie hippies. I've seen a lot of Greens change their mind (favourably) towards Nuclear Power in the past few years though... even if they do still advocate Car Bans in major cities :rolleyes:

[piet11111]

Nuclear power is the only serious means of cleaner energy that does not require us to put a windmill in every garden and solar panels on every roof.
(yeah i am exaggerating but you get the point)

Also nuclear power provides us with essential medical isotopes something we should never abandon because of eco-fantasy's.

With modern technology nuclear power is safer then during the chernobyl days and the waste can be safely stored until we find a way to dispose of it permanently.

[Quail]

There are people on the left who don't like nuclear weapons, and by using nuclear power to generate electricity it means that the materials used in both are easier to get hold of (I think).
Perhaps the waste products could be used somehow, but you'd have to find a pretty good use for them that didn't go on to generate more toxic waste. (And currently, it would have to be a profitable use.) I'm not sure what the waste products decay into, or whether they can be used for anything at present though.
Edit: Nuclear power is fairly safe (toxic waste aside) if it's maintained properly, so the chances of environmental disaster are probably not that high.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

At CERN I'm sure they were looking into ways to make Nuclear Waste decay faster using neutron beams. Haven't got a clue how the hell it works, but it's apparently possible.

[Muzk]

TL;DR: Nuclear power in capitalism = Risky and crap, but in a worker's controlled society: The best alternative to fossil fuel.

[danyboy27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generators

its not perfect but hey. that a start.

[Muzk]

By the way:


Vitrification

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Vitrification1.jpg/220px-Vitrification1.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vitrification1.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vitrification1.jpg)
A vitrification experiment for the study of nuclear waste disposal


Long-term storage of radioactive waste requires the stabilization of the waste into a form which will neither react nor degrade for extended periods of time. One way to do this is through vitrification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Vitrification).[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#cite_note-21) Currently at Sellafield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield) the high-level waste (PUREX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUREX) first cycle raffinate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raffinate)) is mixed with sugar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar) and then calcined. Calcination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcination) involves passing the waste through a heated, rotating tube. The purposes of calcination are to evaporate the water from the waste, and de-nitrate the fission products to assist the stability of the glass produced.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#cite_note-council-22)
The 'calcine' generated is fed continuously into an induction heated furnace with fragmented glass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass)[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#cite_note-23). The resulting glass is a new substance in which the waste products are bonded into the glass matrix when it solidifies. This product, as a melt, is poured into stainless steel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stainless_steel) cylindrical containers ("cylinders") in a batch process. When cooled, the fluid solidifies ("vitrifies") into the glass. Such glass, after being formed, is highly resistant to water. [25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#cite_note-24)
After filling a cylinder, a seal is welded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weld) onto the cylinder. The cylinder is then washed. After being inspected for external contamination, the steel cylinder is stored, usually in an underground repository. In this form, the waste products are expected to be immobilized for a long period of time (many thousands of years).[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#cite_note-25)
The glass inside a cylinder is usually a black glossy substance. All this work (in the United Kingdom) is done using hot cell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_cell) systems. The sugar is added to control the ruthenium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenium) chemistry and to stop the formation of the volatile RuO4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenium_tetroxide) containing radio ruthenium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ru-106). In the west, the glass is normally a borosilicate glass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borosilicate_glass) (similar to Pyrex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrex)), while in the former Soviet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet) bloc it is normal to use a phosphate glass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphate_glass). The amount of fission products in the glass must be limited because some (palladium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palladium), the other Pt group metals, and tellurium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tellurium)) tend to form metallic phases which separate from the glass. Bulk vitrification uses electrodes to melt soil and wastes, which are then buried underground.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#cite_note-Waste-26) In Germany a vitrification plant is in use; this is treating the waste from a small demonstration reprocessing plant which has since been closed down.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#cite_note-council-22)[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#cite_note-27)

[chegitz guevara]

There's more power in the oceans than we'll ever need, and if we upgrade the grid from copper to graphene, we'll have four times more power instantly (right now 75% of all electricity is lost as heat in power lines).

No need for nukes.

[danyboy27]

There's more power in the oceans than we'll ever need, and if we upgrade the grid from copper to graphene, we'll have four times more power instantly (right now 75% of all electricity is lost as heat in power lines).

No need for nukes.

there is no such thing that we could call a bad technology.

Nuclear power would be quite usefull for space exploration, and has a matter of fact its already used for space exploration.

Satellite and exploration shuttles, they are mostly power by nuclear battery.

i dont think we should be narrow minded about technology, Multiple option is i think better.

[Q]

By the time we finally have socialism fusion power is most likely going to be the better choice. The ITER reactor is under construction and while it's just a test-reactor, it's the biggest one so far. One or two generations after ITER we'll see reactors which are going to produce more energy than is needed to keep them running (due to magnetic constraints and high temperature at which they operate). One or two generations after that we'll be able to fuse He3 with itself, which is considered to be the ideal type of fusion.

I'm very much against many fission reactors which were designed to create weapons grade plutionium or uranium. These reactors are inherently unsafe (Chernobyl was one such type of reactor).

Another problem is that fission energy is not CO2 free, given the vast energy requirements needed to mine the needed uranium (although it is not as high overall as directly burning fossil fuels). Massive amounts of water is also used at this process and of course we end up with large plots of barren landscape at the end.

A third issue is that with our currently known uranium stocks (most reactors run on uranium 235), with our current technology level and with our current rate of using these fuels, we'll be able to hold it out for about another 60 years before the stocks run out. Massively switching to fission energy is not an option.

Theoretically it is possible to simply reuse radioactive waste, in socalled breeder reactors, but the technological development has been on a standstill for decades. Kalkar, a breeder reactor in Germany built in 1985, was never used. Another issue is that much of the radioactive waste is molten into glass and therefore cannot be reused by current techniques (if at all possible).

In short: I'd put my money on solar cells and fuel cells for now and on fusion for the future.

[chegitz guevara]

there is no such thing that we could call a bad technology.

Nuclear power would be quite usefull for space exploration, and has a matter of fact its already used for space exploration.

Satellite and exploration shuttles, they are mostly power by nuclear battery.

i dont think we should be narrow minded about technology, Multiple option is i think better.

No, I definitely think there is such a thing as bad technology. Anything designed for the purpose of killing human beings is bad as far as I'm concerned.

As far as space is concerned, I think nuke power is fine. As long as it isn't falling back to Earth (or any extra-terrestrial colonies we establish in the future) fine.

On Earth, though, we should end its use.

[danyboy27]

No, I definitely think there is such a thing as bad technology. Anything designed for the purpose of killing human beings is bad as far as I'm concerned.

As far as space is concerned, I think nuke power is fine. As long as it isn't falling back to Earth (or any extra-terrestrial colonies we establish in the future) fine.

On Earth, though, we should end its use.

then again, most technologies who where created to kill humans have a dual function, even the most horrific things designed to kill human being have been or could have been used for a good purpose.

most of the stuff used in the gas chamber where taken from good technology (decontamination room, water purification pump etc etc) the poisonous gas used was originaly designed to kill lice.

rocket, who where created to strike armaguedon all over the hearth put the first man and satellite in the space.

so no, bad technology dosnt exist, only bad purpose of it.

[InuyashaKnight]

I've never had a problem with nuclear power, heck the leading Communist countries used nuclear power alot.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Nuclear power is dangerous, it produces large amounts of highly toxic waste that is extremely dangerous, it is extremely expensive and it is not necessary.

[danyboy27]

Nuclear power is dangerous, it produces large amounts of highly toxic waste that is extremely dangerous.

and that large amount of toxic waste can be re-used to make battery, and progress have been made to limit and eliminate the toxicity of those items.

may i remind you that even solar energy generate a lot of dangerous waste, do you really think those solar panel can be built without generating some kind of toxic fallout?



it is extremely expensive and it is not necessary.

expensive is not an excuse, because expensive is a virtual limitation of capitalism.

[Jolly Red Giant]

and that large amount of toxic waste can be re-used to make battery, and progress have been made to limit and eliminate the toxicity of those items.
dream on


may i remind you that even solar energy generate a lot of dangerous waste, do you really think those solar panel can be built without generating some kind of toxic fallout?
did I mention anything about solar panels



expensive is not an excuse, because expensive is a virtual limitation of capitalism.
Of course its an excuse - even in a fully fledged communist society it would be highly irresponsible to waste resources on a highly toxic method of energy production - particularly when there are far cheaper and safer methods available.

[danyboy27]

dream on


i am not dreaming, this technology is alrwady avaliable and fully functionnal, used by the military and space agency.




did I mention anything about solar panels

no, but its a safer alrernative right?




Of course its an excuse - even in a fully fledged communist society it would be highly irresponsible to waste resources on a highly toxic method of energy production - particularly when there are far cheaper and safer methods available.
look, you need electricity, and not all the places in the world have the possibility to have access to a dam, and solar power is not yet powerful enough to meet the current need in electricity.

so far you have coal, oil, nuclear energy, geothermal electricity and yet, the only one that dosnt reject matter in the atmosphere and and that is avaliable to all is nuclear power.

yea, nuclear waste are nasty, but relatively easy to contain if you are careful enough.

now, tell me how much people have been deeply affected by nuclear energy vs the number of people affected by lets say, oil?

you got tchernobyl, three mile island, and that was beccause nuclear energy was begining to be used.

for the oil, lets see, you got exxon valdes, many many other natural disaster that destroyed ton of wildlife, the indirect effect on the ozone layer, acid rain, etc etc etc.

when carefuly recycled and stored, nuclear waste are innofensive.

if you got a blueprint of cold fusion reactor in your garage, please feel free to distribute it over the net, and i would gladly accept the fact that nuclear energy is obsolete.

Until then, we shall use nuclear energy.

[28350]

They do? The most vocal anti-nuclear energy folk tend to be greens, and greens ain't red. I haven't heard very much about nuclear energy from 'The Left', and they little I have heard tends to be moderately in favour of it. I'm not qualified to talk about any of this, though.



The term Watermelon is commonly applied, often as an insult, to describe professed Greens who seem to put social justice goals above ecological ones, implying they are "green on the outside but red on the inside"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism
cutest insult ever.

[mikelepore]

Quoting wikipedia article on vitrification:


Long-term storage of radioactive waste requires the stabilization of the waste into a form which will neither react nor degrade for extended periods of time.

To require that the container will not degrade chemically is not nearly sufficient, in my opinion. I say: long-term storage of radioactive waste requires zero probability that one of these containers will be fractured by an earthquake, and even larger tectonic events, such as collisions of contenents and the splitting of continents, during a period of five billion years into the future. This cannot be guaranteed, and, to me, that settles the issue. Nuclear fission should not be permitted on this planet.

[NGNM85]

By the time we finally have socialism fusion power is most likely going to be the better choice. The ITER reactor is under construction and while it's just a test-reactor, it's the biggest one so far. One or two generations after ITER we'll see reactors which are going to produce more energy than is needed to keep them running (due to magnetic constraints and high temperature at which they operate). One or two generations after that we'll be able to fuse He3 with itself, which is considered to be the ideal type of fusion.

Fusion is fantastic, and could provide near-infinite power with very little environmental impacts. However, making it actually work is a ***** of a thing. Even if ITER is a marvelous success, there's still a long way to go. I love the possibilities of fusion power, who wouldn't? However, I wouldn't count on it anytime soon.



Theoretically it is possible to simply reuse radioactive waste, in socalled breeder reactors, but the technological development has been on a standstill for decades. Kalkar, a breeder reactor in Germany built in 1985, was never used. Another issue is that much of the radioactive waste is molten into glass and therefore cannot be reused by current techniques (if at all possible).

Breeder reactors have been problematic. Moreover, they substantially increase the risk of proliferation.


In short: I'd put my money on solar cells and fuel cells for now and on fusion for the future.

If we could capture and transmit one ten-thousandth of the sunlight that hits the earth every day, we could power the whole planet. However, again, the trick is capturing it, and not having the power bleed out through the transmission.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I can't believe I missed this thread.


To require that the container will not degrade chemically is not nearly sufficient, in my opinion. I say: long-term storage of radioactive waste requires zero probability that one of these containers will be fractured by an earthquake, and even larger tectonic events, such as collisions of contenents and the splitting of continents, during a period of five billion years into the future. This cannot be guaranteed, and, to me, that settles the issue. Nuclear fission should not be permitted on this planet.

Don't be fucking ridiculous. You don't demand the same absurd levels of safety from any other technology (nothing is 100% safe!), and there is no sane reason to demand the same of nuclear technology.

In terms of radiation, the nastiest, high-intensity stuff lasts briefly enough that it can be temporarily stored somewhere to "cool off" before being placed in long-term storage. Once that is done, you can then vitrify the waste, ensuring that if the containers were to break, it would not contaminate the local water table, thanks to glassy substances being non-porous.

Of course, this waste disposal should only happen at the end of a long reprocessing chain, after we've wrung out as much energy as we can from the fuel. I'm not overly concerned about proliferation, so with regards to breeder reactors I say full steam ahead.

The problem with renewable energy sources is that they are very diffuse compared to nuclear - and while diffuse energy may be good enough for domestic use, it's no good for energy-intensive industrial applications. To get the levels and concentrations of energy that such uses require, we would need to build large powerplants of the kind that most renewables fans (so it seems) are against.

[chegitz guevara]

then again, most technologies who where created to kill humans have a dual function, even the most horrific things designed to kill human being have been or could have been used for a good purpose.

Not all.


most of the stuff used in the gas chamber where taken from good technology (decontamination room, water purification pump etc etc) the poisonous gas used was originaly designed to kill lice.

Lice don't respond to cyanide. It takes a concentration 1600 times higher than is lethal for human to kill a louse.


rocket, who where created to strike armaguedon all over the hearth put the first man and satellite in the space.

I think Goddard would disagree.

[28350]

Lice don't respond to cyanide. It takes a concentration 1600 times higher than is lethal for human to kill a louse.

I find that incredibly hard to believe. Cyanide kills because it effectively stops cellular respiration by binding somewhere along the electron transport chain. Cellular respiration is very basic, and common to (at least) all animals and plants. Why would it be different for lice? Does it have to do with the manner in which they intake the cyanide?

[Die Neue Zeit]

By the time we finally have socialism fusion power is most likely going to be the better choice. The ITER reactor is under construction and while it's just a test-reactor, it's the biggest one so far. One or two generations after ITER we'll see reactors which are going to produce more energy than is needed to keep them running (due to magnetic constraints and high temperature at which they operate). One or two generations after that we'll be able to fuse He3 with itself, which is considered to be the ideal type of fusion.

Actually, from news I got a while back, one of the competitors in the fusion power technology development has even found a way with the same technology to neutralize the radioactiveness of fission waste material! I think this is the MIT project, but I could be wrong.

[danyboy27]

Not all.

yes, all.




Lice don't respond to cyanide. It takes a concentration 1600 times higher than is lethal for human to kill a louse.


from wiki:
idespread 'biological' application of hydrocyanic acid was initially limited to the fumigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumigation) of valuable tree crops, namely of citrus fruit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citrus_fruit), spreading 1887 from California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyclon-B#cite_note-3) to Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain) and other countries using liquid prussic acid or calcium cyanide (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calcium_cyanide&action=edit&redlink=1) or sodium cyanide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_cyanide) preparations. During World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I) other HCN-based pest control applications were developed, and soon fumigation of ships, stores, factories, and even residential buildings with hydrocyanic acid gas became a popular method to combat insect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect) and rodent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodent) pests in many countries.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyclon-B#cite_note-4) Thousands of ships, cereal mills and other food processing factories were fumigated with hydrocyanic acid gas until the mid 1930s in Germany alone


over and all, there is no such thing you could call a bad technology, the only thing that exist is bad use of technology, and you cant blame science for that, only humans.

your stuff is borderline primitivist.

[chegitz guevara]

I find that incredibly hard to believe. Cyanide kills because it effectively stops cellular respiration by binding somewhere along the electron transport chain. Cellular respiration is very basic, and common to (at least) all animals and plants. Why would it be different for lice? Does it have to do with the manner in which they intake the cyanide?

Insects and mammals are different critters. What affects us and them is sometimes surprisingly different. Holocaust deniers use this to try and confuse people about the gas chambers, noting that the evidence shows that the level of gas present in the gas chambers (shown through concentrations of Prussic Blue in chamber walls) isn't sufficient even to kill lice, so how could it possibly kill humans. Seems reasonable on the face, until you find out that we're way more susceptible to cyanide than bugs are.

[chegitz guevara]

your stuff is borderline primitivist.

And you're a fucking asshole.

Now, can we stop insulting each other? :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Insects and mammals are different critters. What affects us and them is sometimes surprisingly different. Holocaust deniers use this to try and confuse people about the gas chambers, noting that the evidence shows that the level of gas present in the gas chambers (shown through concentrations of Prussic Blue in chamber walls) isn't sufficient even to kill lice, so how could it possibly kill humans. Seems reasonable on the face, until you find out that we're way more susceptible to cyanide than bugs are.

Of course, the Holocaust deniers could simply be lying about the lice. It wouldn't be the first thing they've lied about.

[chegitz guevara]

Of course, the Holocaust deniers could simply be lying about the lice. It wouldn't be the first thing they've lied about.

If you go to sites which debunk holocaust denier claims, this topic is discussed (which is where I got it).

[danyboy27]

And you're a fucking asshole.

Now, can we stop insulting each other? :)

this is not an insult, this is a fact, you think some technologies are evil and should be abandonned, that primitivist.

[danyboy27]

Insects and mammals are different critters. What affects us and them is sometimes surprisingly different. Holocaust deniers use this to try and confuse people about the gas chambers, noting that the evidence shows that the level of gas present in the gas chambers (shown through concentrations of Prussic Blue in chamber walls) isn't sufficient even to kill lice, so how could it possibly kill humans. Seems reasonable on the face, until you find out that we're way more susceptible to cyanide than bugs are.

keep ignoring the wiki article i sent about the use of zyclon has an insecticide, you are doing a pretty good job at ignoring the facts.

[chegitz guevara]

this is not an insult, this is a fact, you think some technologies are evil and should be abandonned, that primitivist.

No, primitivism is rejecting modern society and wanting to return to a pre-industrial society.

[Atlee]

The future in technology based power will be hydrogen three which can be mined from the moon. All fingers point to more space tech will help us out of this hole of paleo-fueling. Terrestrial power must be renewable and non-polluting, period.

Our greater standard should speak of goals and plans, type I-III civilization (http://www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/define.html) would be basically what we are looking at to start.

[chegitz guevara]

Why is this conservative still allowed to post on RevLeft?

[Q]

The future in technology based power will be hydrogen three which can be mined from the moon. All fingers point to more space tech will help us out of this hole of paleo-fueling. Terrestrial power must be renewable and non-polluting, period.
Helium-3, not hydrogen.


Our greater standard should speak of goals and plans, type I-III civilization (http://www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/define.html) would be basically what we are looking at to start.
We're not at type 1 yet, we're pretty much at 0.7 or something. At least that's what I've read somewhere once. Still a long way to go.


Why is this conservative still allowed to post on RevLeft?
Because he hasn't posted much conservative here yet?

[danyboy27]

Why is this conservative still allowed to post on RevLeft?

who, me ot altee?

[danyboy27]

No, primitivism is rejecting modern society and wanting to return to a pre-industrial society.

fair enough, but rejecting a technology all together beccause you consider it evil sound like witchcraft to me.

just like Q said earlier, a whole new generation of generator is coming, requiring a verry minimal amount of nuclear fuel to run.

and, the zyclon b was a pesticide and an insecticide back then.

i just wanted to remember it to you, just in case you keep ignoring this fact.

[Q]

just like Q said earlier, a whole new generation of generator is coming, requiring a verry minimal amount of nuclear fuel to run.

I was talking about fusion, not fission. I remain opposed to fission for the reasons I pointed out in my first post in this thread.

[The Guy]

Chernobyl? There are so many cheaper ways around nuclear power and using up fossil fuels. Honda invented a car which ran purely on Hydrogen, wind farms are more effective than most common methods when in the right areas and solar energy is as cheap and free as it gets. We have so many alternative methods, but the capitalist regime refuses to accept any of this as the Man would lose out on what he needs the most: ca$h.

[chegitz guevara]

Helium three can be "mined" from the moon. Hydrogen three, tritium, is "mined" from the oceans.

I wonder how heavy water tastes.

[danyboy27]

Chernobyl? There are so many cheaper ways around nuclear power and using up fossil fuels. Honda invented a car which ran purely on Hydrogen, wind farms are more effective than most common methods when in the right areas and solar energy is as cheap and free as it gets. We have so many alternative methods, but the capitalist regime refuses to accept any of this as the Man would lose out on what he needs the most: ca$h.
chernobyl was an act of extreme human negligence, it happened at time when we where unaware to deal with nuclear energy properly.

hydrogen? well, its all fine but you need energy to produce hydrogen, lot of it.

wind power and solar power couldnt meet the growing demand in electricity, those are good alternative, and sure they should be implanted more broadly, but overall its not efficient enough, even in great number to fill our growing demand.

and, until something stronger and better than fossil fuel is invented or discovered, the easy alternative around to meet the demand would be nuclear energy combined with various form of clean energy like wind and solar panel.

hey, unlike what you believe i am not saying that we should all have a nuclear central in our neigborhood, just that this is an option, like the other and it should not be brushed away just beccause its seem bad.

being against something like nuclear power just beccause it produce waste ,(that are more easier to deal than it was in the past btw)or sound extremely dangerous (thanks to greenpeace on this one) is liberal thinking, greenpeace threehugger talk.

[danyboy27]

Helium three can be "mined" from the moon. Hydrogen three, tritium, is "mined" from the oceans.

I wonder how heavy water tastes.
Naturally occurring tritium is extremely rare on Earth.

mining uranium require less ressources, time and less risky than sending shuttle on the moon to harvest a ressources that we have not yet determined the quantity avaliable.

[28350]

Helium three can be "mined" from the moon. Hydrogen three, tritium, is "mined" from the oceans.

I wonder how heavy water tastes.

An ounce is enough to lethally disrupt cellular respiration.
EXTRA-NEUTRON-GOODNESS! :lol:

EDIT: It appears I made this up, as I cannot find any corroborating evidence.
I swear I read that in a book by Michio Kaku though...

[Revy]

Nuclear fission is unsafe, produces toxic waste, so it is not a sustainable solution to fossil fuels. The toxic waste is abundant and lasts for millenia.

The alternatives are solar and wind power, as well as geothermal and ocean wave/river current power. All these are safe and clean and should be developed as alternatives.

I really hope people here can stop hopping on the nuclear bandwagon, it's really annoying, but then again, some people seem to think it is somehow "green" because they have been duped by pro-nuclear propaganda.

There is nothing environmentally conscious about creating tons of radioactive deadly waste. Building thousands of facilities, which in the event of a meltdown, would devastate huge areas and render them uninhabitable.

Supposedly we are supposed to ignore the Chernobyl disaster, because this was supposedly more about Soviet incompetence than the danger of nuclear power. Thousands of people died from cancer because of the meltdown. The death toll would have been higher if it were a heavily populated area. Imagine if a city the size of New York City were located next to Chernobyl. The death toll and destruction would be apocalyptic.

[Die Neue Zeit]

All the more reason, really, to pump more resources into developing fusion technology.

Solar, wind, geothermal, and current power are all good, but a near-term development of the above would really dump these on the mud beside the road. Why bother with absorbing solar energy when you can directly replicate what stars do?

[Revy]

All the more reason, really, to pump more resources into developing fusion technology.

Solar, wind, geothermal, and current power are all good, but a near-term development of the above would really dump these on the mud beside the road. Why bother with absorbing solar energy when you can directly replicate what stars do?

Agreed, if what they say about fusion is true (no radioactive waste, no meltdowns) then I definitely support it.

Here (http://focusfusion.org/) is a site about fusion I found.

[Q]

Agreed, if what they say about fusion is true (no radioactive waste, no meltdowns) then I definitely support it.

Here (http://focusfusion.org/) is a site about fusion I found.

Several fusion reactions do produce radioactive waste actually, see this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Fusion_reactions) for information. The most common type of radiation would be neutron radiation which is very difficult to handle because a neutron is an uncharged particle and therefore cannot be contained by a magnetic field for example.

But this type of radiation only causes the outer casing of the reactor to become radioactive. So every few years the casing has to be replaced and the old casing is stored as radioactive waste. Secondly this doesn't remain radioactive for many millenia, but for about 100 years.

What we want to achieve is a deuterium-helium3 reaction or helium-3 fusing with itself, which produces no neutron radiation.

Orbital Vector has a useful summary (http://orbitalvector.com/Power/Fusion/FUSION.htm) on the types of fusion and their pro's and cons.

As for meltdowns, they are impossible with fusion.

[Atlee]

Why is this conservative still allowed to post on RevLeft?

Maybe it is because your opinion does not match the facts. I run several socialist websites that advertise RevLeft in unity with the general Left. I also donate to this website to support it. I don't go around making personal attacks or promoting hate speech. The people who do know me and have known me, much longer then we have known each other che, understand and know that what you have in the past said about me is not true.

So, again, if you wish to spout your personal opinion in a thread, please start one just for you and I. As for me, I will stay within the meaning and intent of this thread for future reference.

[Q]

So, again, if you wish to spout your personal opinion in a thread, please start one just for you and I.

This. Keep this thread on topic from now on. Kthx.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nuclear fission is unsafe,

All industrial technology is "unsafe" in that they can cause serious injury and/or death if not properly utilised. This statement of yours does not add anything to the argument.


produces toxic waste,

Which can be recycled a number of times.


so it is not a sustainable solution to fossil fuels.

Is 5 billion years long enough for you? (http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/08/how-long-can-uranium-last-for-nuclear.html)


The toxic waste is abundant and lasts for millenia.

Actually, compared to the wastes that fossil fuel plants or the chemical industry produce on a yearly basis, waste is minimal.

I've already pointed out that the longest-living stuff isn't what we should worry about.


The alternatives are solar and wind power, as well as geothermal and ocean wave/river current power. All these are safe and clean and should be developed as alternatives.

While they should be used, they are not a panacea. Renewables are either too diffuse or too geographically limited to supply the totality of energy that civilisation needs.


I really hope people here can stop hopping on the nuclear bandwagon, it's really annoying, but then again, some people seem to think it is somehow "green" because they have been duped by pro-nuclear propaganda.

It's not propaganda, try reading a nuclear physics textbook.


There is nothing environmentally conscious about creating tons of radioactive deadly waste.

Red herring. It's what happens to that waste which decides environmental consciousness.


Building thousands of facilities, which in the event of a meltdown, would devastate huge areas and render them uninhabitable. Supposedly we are supposed to ignore the Chernobyl disaster, because this was supposedly more about Soviet incompetence than the danger of nuclear power.

It was more than that. We can ignore the Chernobyl disaster as far as modern nuclear power plants are concerned, because they do not use the RBMK design.


Thousands of people died from cancer because of the meltdown. The death toll would have been higher if it were a heavily populated area. Imagine if a city the size of New York City were located next to Chernobyl. The death toll and destruction would be apocalyptic.

Actually, the consequences were slightly increased cancer rates, which are a drop in the bucket compared to the two biggest exposures to carcinogens one is likely to encounter, air pollution and tobacco smoke.

You're also working from a sample size of precisely one. It is quite simply dishonest of you to assume that the risks with modern reactors are the same as the much-criticised RBMK.

[maskerade]

I think we should use nuclear power until we have developed safer and more sustainable technology to replace it. depleted uranium will be around for lifetimes, surely no one is thrilled about this?

I read somewhere that full studies on the effects of uranium on soil etc haven't been conducted/were negative, but I'm skeptical - does anyone know anything about this?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think we should use nuclear power until we have developed safer and more sustainable technology to replace it. depleted uranium will be around for lifetimes, surely no one is thrilled about this?

Depleted uranium will stick around for the same reason that lead will stick around - it's a stable chemical element.


I read somewhere that full studies on the effects of uranium on soil etc haven't been conducted/were negative, but I'm skeptical - does anyone know anything about this?

It's a heavy metal, so it is highly likely to have some negative effects on biological systems.

But nobody is proposing we spray the soil with the stuff.

[maskerade]

Depleted uranium will stick around for the same reason that lead will stick around - it's a stable chemical element.
but the main lead isotopes are not radioactive.




It's a heavy metal, so it is highly likely to have some negative effects on biological systems.

But nobody is proposing we spray the soil with the stuff.
Fair enough, but the more nuclear power we use the more waste we will have. We should strive to replace nuclear power with something which leaves no waste, do you agree with this?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

but the main lead isotopes are not radioactive.

So? Depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium - that's why it's called "depleted". The risks from DU come from the fact that it's a toxic heavy metal, not its radioactivity.


Fair enough, but the more nuclear power we use the more waste we will have. We should strive to replace nuclear power with something which leaves no waste, do you agree with this?

Sure. As soon as we invent a perpetual motion machine. Look, even producing windmills and solar panels produces waste.

[Ovi]

First of all let's not ignore feasibility and cost; mining He-3 from the moon and fusing it is for now SF. We haven't managed to create a feasible D-T reactor, even though it requires temperatures hundreds of times smaller than those needed for He-3 fusion. Different reactor designs might be the key though. Here's some optimistic thoughts about He-3 fusion http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/wcsar9304-1.pdf , though it might be very well pessimistic since the authors considered He-3 fusion commercialization a reality by 2010 (it was written in '93). He-3 fusion would be the ideal energy source for the future, but for now it's not a solution.

Pro nuclear fission on the other hand is like a religion on revleft; supporters make all sorts of uninformed comments and insult those who question it by saying they are not communists enough, but some sort of liberal hippies. Here are some debunked myths about the nuclear vs sustainable debate



sustainable energy can't cover the rising energy demands; actually it can. Wind energy alone can supply 5 times the current world energy demands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Theoretical_potential_-_World).
sustainable energy is too costly; actually wind energy is cheaper in many cases; here's a price comparison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_differen t_sources); and of course, sustainable energy doesn't externalize the costs of managing the future problems of our wastes on the future generations.
but nuclear energy is sustainable; I've read articles demonstrating how we can extract uranium out of bare rock or sea water and we can get enough energy for millions of years to come; um, no; for (fission) nuclear energy to be sustained in the future, it requires large reserves of uranium, not large resources; when we'll ran out of highly concentrated uranium ores, the prices of uranium will rise sharply, while the energy of sustainable energy continues to drop; it's not the resources of uranium that matter but the cost of nuclear power; if it's higher than other sources, than nuclear energy has no advantage whatsoever and it will be phased out in the future; there goes your sustainable nuclear energy
we can neutralize nuclear waste using x technology; no again; even if it were possible, if you'd do that you'd most likely lose the competitive advantage of nuclear fission; if we'll use nuclear energy in the future, then it will have to by dirty, otherwise there's no material incentive at all

I say let's use the best technology we can; with the least impact on our health and whose cost is not prohibitive; if fission is the only way to go, then be it; but as far as I can see, it's not; the present sustainable sources can cover all the energy needs for today and the foreseeable future; since nuclear fusion is not yet an option yet, the only reason I find it necessary is for a space civilization (there's no wind in space :D, other than solar wind of course)

[danyboy27]

and the question is, will it be possible for huuge amount of people to agree on such gigantic project ?

sure its feasable to create an immense and gigantic wind farm, but it would require a certain degree of centralisation, forcing whole chunk of population to give up their original source of power, taking away ton of ressources to many folks who wouldnt necessary agree with that.

i say, let the people choose.

if the middle east want to run on nuclear power beccause they have the ressources and the expertise avaliable, let them choose, if north america want to build an immense solar farm to meet their energetic demand, let them choose.

for some people going nuclear would be more easy than going solar, and vice and versa.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

First of all let's not ignore feasibility and cost; mining He-3 from the moon and fusing it is for now SF. We haven't managed to create a feasible D-T reactor, even though it requires temperatures hundreds of times smaller than those needed for He-3 fusion. Different reactor designs might be the key though. Here's some optimistic thoughts about He-3 fusion http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/wcsar9304-1.pdf , though it might be very well pessimistic since the authors considered He-3 fusion commercialization a reality by 2010 (it was written in '93). He-3 fusion would be the ideal energy source for the future, but for now it's not a solution.

Even if it's not commercially feasible today, we should still work on it.


Pro nuclear fission on the other hand is like a religion on revleft; supporters make all sorts of uninformed comments and insult those who question it by saying they are not communists enough, but some sort of liberal hippies.

We say a lot more than that.


Here are some debunked myths about the nuclear vs sustainable debate

sustainable energy can't cover the rising energy demands; actually it can. Wind energy alone can supply 5 times the current world energy demands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Theoretical_potential_-_World).

That's a theoretical potential, which is not the same thing as a practical source of power. There still remains the issue of wind being a diffuse power source, which means you will need to build more wind turbines over a larger arean in order to get the same output as a single nuclear power plant.


sustainable energy is too costly; actually wind energy is cheaper in many cases; here's a price comparison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_differen t_sources); and of course, sustainable energy doesn't externalize the costs of managing the future problems of our wastes on the future generations.

Not really an argument I've made; nevertheless, there is still the


but nuclear energy is sustainable; I've read articles demonstrating how we can extract uranium out of bare rock or sea water and we can get enough energy for millions of years to come; um, no; for (fission) nuclear energy to be sustained in the future, it requires large reserves of uranium, not large resources; when we'll ran out of highly concentrated uranium ores, the prices of uranium will rise sharply, while the energy of sustainable energy continues to drop; it's not the resources of uranium that matter but the cost of nuclear power; if it's higher than other sources, than nuclear energy has no advantage whatsoever and it will be phased out in the future; there goes your sustainable nuclear energy

Reprocessing can significantly lower the demand for raw uranium.


we can neutralize nuclear waste using x technology; no again; even if it were possible, if you'd do that you'd most likely lose the competitive advantage of nuclear fission; if we'll use nuclear energy in the future, then it will have to by dirty, otherwise there's no material incentive at all

What are you talking about? Not only does reprocessing reduce demand for raw uranium, it also reduces waste volume.


I say let's use the best technology we can; with the least impact on our health and whose cost is not prohibitive; if fission is the only way to go, then be it; but as far as I can see, it's not; the present sustainable sources can cover all the energy needs for today and the foreseeable future; since nuclear fusion is not yet an option yet, the only reason I find it necessary is for a space civilization (there's no wind in space :D, other than solar wind of course)

Two words: Energy density. Uranium (and Thorium) has it in spades; renewables do not.

[Ovi]

Even if it's not commercially feasible today, we should still work on it.

We should work on it though I'm not aware of any large project that researches He-3 fusion today. Even if ITER would focus on aneutronic fusion it would still take decades until they get it right. Fusion of any kind is not a solution today to the energy problems.



That's a theoretical potential, which is not the same thing as a practical source of power.

Actually studies like this are made all the time; it's what tells cappies where to build wind turbines at a profit.

The potential takes into account only locations with mean annual wind speeds ≥ 6.9 m/s at 80 m.


There still remains the issue of wind being a diffuse power source, which means you will need to build more wind turbines over a larger arean in order to get the same output as a single nuclear power plant.

Buy all means, that's good to hear; instead of having huge power plants near water bodies whose malfunction could cause a blackout on a large area, a more decentralized approach is not only is more reliable, but it may as well be closer to consumers, thus reduce grid losses; the area it requires compared to a nuclear power plant is irrelevant; it can be seemingly integrated with other activities such as agriculture with little land usage; I haven't seen a nuclear power plant built in the middle of a farm yet :D


Reprocessing can significantly lower the demand for raw uranium.

And increase the cost of nuclear energy; reprocessing isn't cheap; that's why it's hardly used today, so that nuclear power can still be competitive.


What are you talking about? Not only does reprocessing reduce demand for raw uranium, it also reduces waste volume.

I was talking about those advocating using neutrons to reduce the amount of radioactive wastes. And yes, both reprocessing and other non implemented technologies created to reduce the amount of waste, also happen to increase the costs of nuclear energy, hopefully to obsolescence.


Two words: Energy density. Uranium (and Thorium) has it in spades; renewables do not.
That's a strawman argument; energy density is irrelevant; what matters is whether it can cover all energy needs and the cost associated with it (man power, externalities, health effects and others)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We should work on it though I'm not aware of any large project that researches He-3 fusion today. Even if ITER would focus on aneutronic fusion it would still take decades until they get it right. Fusion of any kind is not a solution today to the energy problems.

Actually studies like this are made all the time; it's what tells cappies where to build wind turbines at a profit.

That merely illustrates that most locations for wind power are sub-optimal for providing significant amounts of energy at low initial investment.


Buy all means, that's good to hear; instead of having huge power plants near water bodies whose malfunction could cause a blackout on a large area, a more decentralized approach is not only is more reliable, but it may as well be closer to consumers, thus reduce grid losses; the area it requires compared to a nuclear power plant is irrelevant; it can be seemingly integrated with other activities such as agriculture with little land usage; I haven't seen a nuclear power plant built in the middle of a farm yet :D

Nuclear power plants can have multiple reactors, thus increasing reliability with each additional reactor. As for integration, waste heat from reactors can be used to provide hot water or desalination, and the neutron flux can be used to irradiate materials for various purposes.


And increase the cost of nuclear energy; reprocessing isn't cheap; that's why it's hardly used today, so that nuclear power can still be competitive.

Reprocessing is only expensive because hardly anyone outside France does it. The French have an extensive nuclear infrastructure, and the pay-off can be seen through the fact that they are a net exporter of energy.


I was talking about those advocating using neutrons to reduce the amount of radioactive wastes. And yes, both reprocessing and other non implemented technologies created to reduce the amount of waste, also happen to increase the costs of nuclear energy, hopefully to obsolescence.

That assumes that the cost of nuclear energy cannot be reduced, which I submit is not true.


That's a strawman argument; energy density is irrelevant; what matters is whether it can cover all energy needs and the cost associated with it (man power, externalities, health effects and others)

Energy density is actually very relevant if one has any interest at all in maintaining energy-intensive industries.

Nuclear does not need to cover "all" energy needs; if we are to learn one lesson from the past century, it is that it's foolish in the extreme to rely on a single type of energy source. For our own sake, energy sources must be diverse, and that in my mind includes nuclear.

[Ovi]

That merely illustrates that most locations for wind power are sub-optimal for providing significant amounts of energy at low initial investment.

Yet another straw man. Yes, most locations are not optimal for wind power the same way most rocks are not optimal for uranium extraction.


Nuclear power plants can have multiple reactors, thus increasing reliability with each additional reactor. As for integration, waste heat from reactors can be used to provide hot water or desalination, and the neutron flux can be used to irradiate materials for various purposes.

Your original argument was that wind power requires too much land usage. It doesn't. Waste heat from concentrating solar power can accomplish similar tasks, without any of the problems nuclear power has.


That assumes that the cost of nuclear energy cannot be reduced, which I submit is not true.

Of course not; however the cost of extracting uranium will increase and the needs for safer nuclear plants will increase the cost further and phase out concepts such as molten sodium breeder reactors which could reduce the demand for uranium a lot.


Energy density is actually very relevant if one has any interest at all in maintaining energy-intensive industries.

Surely a chemical plant doesn't care whether the electricity it uses is generated by nuclear plants or wind turbines.


Nuclear does not need to cover "all" energy needs; if we are to learn one lesson from the past century, it is that it's foolish in the extreme to rely on a single type of energy source. For our own sake, energy sources must be diverse, and that in my mind includes nuclear.
Energy sources should be diverse and there are many types of sustainable energy sources, such as geothermal, solar, wind, hydro and others.

My initial post was to debunk the myth that nuclear energy is necessary and that sustainable energy is not practical. You have yet to post any arguments that proves otherwise and instead continue to ramble on issues nobody cares which will lead to yet another argument-counter argument thread which has nothing to do with the purpose of the thread. Again, the thread is about why many leftists oppose nuclear power; I oppose nuclear power because the issues it raises are unnecessary since alternative technologies can provide similar or smaller costs in terms of human labor, health effects, risks and impact on the environment, while they also integrate well with other human activities and have no impact on future generations' ability to cover their energy needs nor pass on the possible burden that waste disposal has.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yet another straw man. Yes, most locations are not optimal for wind power the same way most rocks are not optimal for uranium extraction.

Seawater extraction is the preferred method, actually. This is because seawater circulates faster than crustal material.


Your original argument was that wind power requires too much land usage. It doesn't. Waste heat from concentrating solar power can accomplish similar tasks, without any of the problems nuclear power has.

I did not say that the land could not be used for other purposes - the problem is that windmills are spread out over a large area, which results in increased use of materials. CST still faces the problem having more specific locational demands than nuclear.


Of course not; however the cost of extracting uranium will increase and the needs for safer nuclear plants will increase the cost further and phase out concepts such as molten sodium breeder reactors which could reduce the demand for uranium a lot.

Who says molten sodium reactors cannot be made safer? Also, thorium can be used as a nuclear fuel and is three times as abundant as uranium.


Surely a chemical plant doesn't care whether the electricity it uses is generated by nuclear plants or wind turbines.

Energy sources should be diverse and there are many types of sustainable energy sources, such as geothermal, solar, wind, hydro and others.

It's a question of distribution. Solar and wind are diffuse energy sources; there may be an awful lot of energy in the world's winds and sunlight, but it is all spread out and in the case of solar, limited to the daytime unless you want to invest in storage systems and extra plant to fill them. Hydro and geothermal are limited by local conditions such as suitable valleys or hot spots etc.

You need machines to concentrate the diffuse energy, and since machines are made of matter, it costs energy to turn into useful forms. A nuclear power plant is concentrated in a single area, which reduces transportation costs, especially if it is being built near an already existing efficient transportation system such as a railway. So even making the generous assumption that a renewable plant of equivalent mass to a nuclear plant can generate the same amount of energy (generous because nuclear reactions have a high energy density), nuclear is better if you want constant, large loads of energy. In fact, just the sort of loads that heavy industries require.


My initial post was to debunk the myth that nuclear energy is necessary and that sustainable energy is not practical.

I have not said that renewables are not practical, only that they are not a panacea.


You have yet to post any arguments that proves otherwise and instead continue to ramble on issues nobody cares which will lead to yet another argument-counter argument thread which has nothing to do with the purpose of the thread. Again, the thread is about why many leftists oppose nuclear power; I oppose nuclear power because the issues it raises are unnecessary since alternative technologies can provide similar or smaller costs in terms of human labor, health effects, risks and impact on the environment, while they also integrate well with other human activities and have no impact on future generations' ability to cover their energy needs nor pass on the possible burden that waste disposal has.

I've been giving reasons why I think your position is wrong. If this annoys you, perhaps you should consider what the purpose of discussion forums are.

[Ovi]

Seawater extraction is the preferred method, actually. This is because seawater circulates faster than crustal material.

Whose preferred method? Extracting uranium from seawater today is as practical as mining helium from the moon. At least the latter could, in theory, provide nuclear energy without any radioactive materials in the entire production cycle, no possibilities for catastrophes and no health impact on any of the workers, a huge step ahead.


I did not say that the land could not be used for other purposes - the problem is that windmills are spread out over a large area, which results in increased use of materials.

Now that makes absolutely no sense.


CST still faces the problem having more specific locational demands than nuclear.

Uranium mines face the problem having more specific locational demands than CST.


Who says molten sodium reactors cannot be made safer?

Remember the sodium+water reaction in high school chemistry labs? Sodium explodes on contact with water and molten sodium instantly catches on fire in air. I can only imagine how safe a water-molten sodium heat exchanger must be.:D


It's a question of distribution. Solar and wind are diffuse energy sources; there may be an awful lot of energy in the world's winds and sunlight, but it is all spread out and in the case of solar, limited to the daytime unless you want to invest in storage systems and extra plant to fill them. Hydro and geothermal are limited by local conditions such as suitable valleys or hot spots etc.

You need machines to concentrate the diffuse energy, and since machines are made of matter, it costs energy to turn into useful forms.

I'm not sure what you mean by concentrating wind power. Anyway, it takes energy to make nuclear power plants too. Unless you supply some statistics, this is irrelevant.


A nuclear power plant is concentrated in a single area, which reduces transportation costs, especially if it is being built near an already existing efficient transportation system such as a railway. So even making the generous assumption that a renewable plant of equivalent mass to a nuclear plant can generate the same amount of energy (generous because nuclear reactions have a high energy density), nuclear is better if you want constant, large loads of energy. In fact, just the sort of loads that heavy industries require.

Fortunately, that's not the case. Wind and solar power, for instance, are complementary; solar power is at its peak during the summer and day; wind power during the winter and night; and of course, by connecting together power sources on large ares, using hydroelectricity or more novel concepts such as molten salt thermal storage, the production can easily be balanced with the demand.


I've been giving reasons why I think your position is wrong. If this annoys you, perhaps you should consider what the purpose of discussion forums are.
All I'm saying is to keep it on topic; nobody wants another endless thread about a subject that has little to do with the thread.