Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: untergangsprophet on 12 Aug 2010 15:52 On 12 Aug., 07:51, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > The whole subsidisation of solar power, including feed-in tarrifs, is a > flawed policy. Always good to hear that from somebody else.
From: Jim Yanik on 12 Aug 2010 16:12 Koning Betweter <Koning(a)Stumper.nl> wrote in news:20100812172120803-Koning(a)Stumpernl: > On 2010-08-12 16:02:42 +0200, Jim Yanik said: > >>> I hope to find a place somewhere once, without neighbours and >>> surrounded with a lot of nature. >>> Connecting to the grid will be very expensive. I am finding ways to >>> do without the grid. >>> There are a lot ways to reduce the use of electricity. >> >> that's one way;lower your lifestyle,live as people did in the 19th >> century. Or,you could go modern,build nuclear plants and have >> safe,clean,reliable plentiful electric power 24/7/365 for decades >> before refueling,and have a better lifestyle. >> Lifestyle is tied to cheap,plentiful energy. > > I think it is easy to reduce electricity. > > 1. You can use a wind-up radio for hearing the news. you evidently have not actually used one of those.... "easy" is not a word I'd use WRT cranking on a wind-up radio or any other small "wind-up" appliance. > 2. you can make any cream by hand instead of a machine. > 3. you can warm your room by burning wood or gas, instead of > electricity. 4. you may use Led-lights, a laptop (not a desktop) > 5. make coffee on a fire!!! > 6. Don't warm other rooms as the one where you are most of the time, > You might use better blankets, so you don't need to warm the bedroom. > > If you use the same fire for warming your house, as making > coffee/tea/chocolate and cooking meals, > You reduce a lot of energy too. > > And yes, I know it is partially using other energy, not always > reducing energy. If I burn my garbage, it will warm my room for a > little bit. As I said,return to a 19th century lifestyle. Not most people's idea of "better". > > I absolutely think I'm not primitive, I'm just efficient and have fun > with saving energy and money. > It's also better for our environment. > Burning gas,wood and coal is good for our environment? It wasn't "good" for it even back in the 19th century. go modern,build nuclear plants and have safe,clean,reliable plentiful electric power 24/7/365 for decades before refueling,and have a REAL "better lifestyle". Lifestyle is tied to cheap,plentiful energy. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: Koning Betweter on 12 Aug 2010 18:26 On 2010-08-12 22:12:28 +0200, Jim Yanik said: > Koning Betweter <Koning(a)Stumper.nl> wrote in > news:20100812172120803-Koning(a)Stumpernl: > >> On 2010-08-12 16:02:42 +0200, Jim Yanik said: >> >>>> I hope to find a place somewhere once, without neighbours and >>>> surrounded with a lot of nature. >>>> Connecting to the grid will be very expensive. I am finding ways to >>>> do without the grid. >>>> There are a lot ways to reduce the use of electricity. >>> >>> that's one way;lower your lifestyle,live as people did in the 19th >>> century. Or,you could go modern,build nuclear plants and have >>> safe,clean,reliable plentiful electric power 24/7/365 for decades >>> before refueling,and have a better lifestyle. >>> Lifestyle is tied to cheap,plentiful energy. >> >> I think it is easy to reduce electricity. >> >> 1. You can use a wind-up radio for hearing the news. > > you evidently have not actually used one of those.... > "easy" is not a word I'd use WRT cranking on a wind-up radio or any other > small "wind-up" appliance. > >> 2. you can make any cream by hand instead of a machine. >> 3. you can warm your room by burning wood or gas, instead of >> electricity. 4. you may use Led-lights, a laptop (not a desktop) >> 5. make coffee on a fire!!! >> 6. Don't warm other rooms as the one where you are most of the time, >> You might use better blankets, so you don't need to warm the bedroom. >> >> If you use the same fire for warming your house, as making >> coffee/tea/chocolate and cooking meals, >> You reduce a lot of energy too. >> >> And yes, I know it is partially using other energy, not always >> reducing energy. If I burn my garbage, it will warm my room for a >> little bit. > > As I said,return to a 19th century lifestyle. > Not most people's idea of "better". > >> >> I absolutely think I'm not primitive, I'm just efficient and have fun >> with saving energy and money. >> It's also better for our environment. >> > > Burning gas,wood and coal is good for our environment? > It wasn't "good" for it even back in the 19th century. > > go modern,build nuclear plants and have > safe,clean,reliable plentiful electric power 24/7/365 for decades > before refueling,and have a REAL "better lifestyle". > Lifestyle is tied to cheap,plentiful energy. Burning gas and wood isn't as bad as burning coal. I did not mention coal. Besides, did you see pictures of winning uranium? That's not clean either, the same as with winning gas or oil. I've been in an Uranium-mine in france about 20 years ago, there was very dirty unhealthy air, low radioactivity and a lot of damage to the nature. The mine is closed now, but the environment is still damaged, I heard. If you know how much it cost to get a nuclear plant running and how much it cost to keep the radioactive garbage save for a few hundred, no a few thousand years, you wouldn't be a fan of nuclear plants. I believe in reducing and durability, but we have to deal with possibilities. So I use as much as possible new (nature-friendly) generators, recycle as much as I can. I don't have a car, just a bicycle, and so on. I know somebody who hung his bed to the ceiling. Used a stairway to get into his bed. While he is sleeping his bed turns a dynamo and fills a battery. The next morning he put on the lights. The next evening he pulls up his bed again, and so on. We are just experimenting to make a smaller footprint. Unfortunately, I'm to busy at the internet yet, so my computer (which is an old desktop) is making my footprint bigger. At the moment I don't have the money, space and knowledge to be totally independent, but I hope to generate that state in the future. -- Ik praat liever tegen een domoor, dan tegen dovemansoren.
From: Richard the Dreaded Libertarian on 12 Aug 2010 20:22 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 02:56:07 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > On 09/08/2010 02:33, Mark wrote: >> >> It's easy to tell when solar becomes economical... >> >> when the factory that makes solar panels has them on the roof and uses >> them to power itself.. > > And the factory making nuclear power plant elements has its own nuclear > reactor for just that purpose. Aren't they doing just that in Japan and France, even as we speak? Thanks, Rich
From: Richard the Dreaded Libertarian on 12 Aug 2010 20:26
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:41:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > > But actually, if we ignore the carbon crazies, we have plenty of > natural gas and coal for a long time. Could coal miners be retrained to build and operate nuclear plants? Thanks, Rich |