Discussion:
Hungary/Russia new nuclear power
Add Reply
JTEM is right
2018-12-03 19:54:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
So Russia is investing $10 billion into two
new Hungarian reactors, each with about a
1,200 MW capacity. That's enough energy, in
theory, to power 2.4 million homes going by
the 1k homes per MW standard...

The Brits are building 3,200 MW in new
nuclear power right now. For a country that
keeps "Proving" how cheap & reliable wind
energy is it sure is investing a lot of money
into very expensive nuclear power.

...so those "Energy Poverty" predictions
are looking mighty accurate!

Come on, people! Nuclear power was dead in the
water FOR DECADES. It's ridiculously over
priced to build and operate, the costs go on
for millions of years and yet all over the
world governments are seeing nuclear planets
as cost effective against wind & solar.

Yes, because of reliability. Because an economy
can't survive on energy guesswork. And because,
once the subsidies stop, nuclear really is cost
effective against wind & solar...





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/180749985146
Byker
2018-12-03 22:17:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is right
Come on, people! Nuclear power was dead in the
water FOR DECADES. It's ridiculously over
priced to build and operate, the costs go on
for millions of years and yet all over the
world governments are seeing nuclear planets
as cost effective against wind & solar.
Yes, because of reliability. Because an economy
can't survive on energy guesswork. And because,
once the subsidies stop, nuclear really is cost
effective against wind & solar...
We've done wind and solar already. They don't work too well. Solar is great
if you're sending a satellite into space outside the atmosphere. If you want
to power a modern home, it doesn't work unless you raise the price of
electricity so sharply that solar suddenly becomes competitive.

And that's the environmentalist tactic.

Instead of making better energy technologies, they generate electric poverty
and make their old inefficient systems competitive by making energy into a
luxury good.

Meanwhile they keep misrepresenting "renewables" as advanced energy
technologies. They're only advanced if you're living in 1891. Time for
environmentalists to join the modern world where truly modern technologies
like nuclear energy and fracking revolutionize the way we live and make it
possible for the poor to heat their homes without sinking into electric
poverty the way they do under the eco-frauds of the UK and Germany.

Ever notice that the higher the energy consumption, the higher the standard
of living?

If you watched "Pandora's Promise" on CNN in 2013, it pointed out that
global energy requirements grow at about 3% per year, and "alternative"
energy sources simply won't be able to keep up. If you want to give up
fossil fuel, then the only alternative is nuclear power, and the leadership
of the environmental movement will not support that. Check it out on
YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/k6nhw7j

"[B]y the end of the year, more than 400,000 individual solar projects will
be operating across the country":
http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-2013-q3

They you'd better get building: Since about 15 terawatts is consumed
globally each year, and demand grows by 3% a year, then 450 extra gigawatts
will have to be produced each year and increased 3% the next year and so on
until you'll be needing 5 more TW by 2024.

Let's see, the world's most powerful wind turbine
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/02/meet-the-new-worlds-biggest-wind-turbine

generates 8 megawatts of power, so you'd need to come up with 56,250 of
them, and that's just for one year.

That ought to create a lot of jobs <snicker>

Let's see, the output of the world's largest solar thermal plant in Ivanpah,
California, is estimated at 377 MW net. You'd need 1,194 bird-roasting
thermal plants to fill the need of 450 GW.

The largest photovoltaic array in the world is the 250 MW (AC) of the still
under construction 290 MW (AC) Agua Caliente Solar Project in Yuma County,
Arizona. 1,552 such arrays ought to do the trick

Now, if you wanted to distribute the methods of wind, thermal, and
photovoltaic evenly then you'd need:

18,750 wind turbines

398 solar thermal plants

517 photovoltaic arrays

And that's what you'd need for EACH year.

Like I said, you need to get building, buahahahahaaa...
Eric Stevens
2018-12-05 03:26:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Byker
Post by JTEM is right
Come on, people! Nuclear power was dead in the
water FOR DECADES. It's ridiculously over
priced to build and operate, the costs go on
for millions of years and yet all over the
world governments are seeing nuclear planets
as cost effective against wind & solar.
Yes, because of reliability. Because an economy
can't survive on energy guesswork. And because,
once the subsidies stop, nuclear really is cost
effective against wind & solar...
We've done wind and solar already. They don't work too well. Solar is great
if you're sending a satellite into space outside the atmosphere. If you want
to power a modern home, it doesn't work unless you raise the price of
electricity so sharply that solar suddenly becomes competitive.
And that's the environmentalist tactic.
Instead of making better energy technologies, they generate electric poverty
and make their old inefficient systems competitive by making energy into a
luxury good.
Meanwhile they keep misrepresenting "renewables" as advanced energy
technologies. They're only advanced if you're living in 1891. Time for
environmentalists to join the modern world where truly modern technologies
like nuclear energy and fracking revolutionize the way we live and make it
possible for the poor to heat their homes without sinking into electric
poverty the way they do under the eco-frauds of the UK and Germany.
Ever notice that the higher the energy consumption, the higher the standard
of living?
To reinforce this point you should watch

Post by Byker
If you watched "Pandora's Promise" on CNN in 2013, it pointed out that
global energy requirements grow at about 3% per year, and "alternative"
energy sources simply won't be able to keep up. If you want to give up
fossil fuel, then the only alternative is nuclear power, and the leadership
of the environmental movement will not support that. Check it out on
YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/k6nhw7j
"[B]y the end of the year, more than 400,000 individual solar projects will
http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-2013-q3
They you'd better get building: Since about 15 terawatts is consumed
globally each year, and demand grows by 3% a year, then 450 extra gigawatts
will have to be produced each year and increased 3% the next year and so on
until you'll be needing 5 more TW by 2024.
Let's see, the world's most powerful wind turbine
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/02/meet-the-new-worlds-biggest-wind-turbine
generates 8 megawatts of power, so you'd need to come up with 56,250 of
them, and that's just for one year.
That ought to create a lot of jobs <snicker>
Let's see, the output of the world's largest solar thermal plant in Ivanpah,
California, is estimated at 377 MW net. You'd need 1,194 bird-roasting
thermal plants to fill the need of 450 GW.
The largest photovoltaic array in the world is the 250 MW (AC) of the still
under construction 290 MW (AC) Agua Caliente Solar Project in Yuma County,
Arizona. 1,552 such arrays ought to do the trick
Now, if you wanted to distribute the methods of wind, thermal, and
18,750 wind turbines
398 solar thermal plants
517 photovoltaic arrays
And that's what you'd need for EACH year.
Like I said, you need to get building, buahahahahaaa...
--
Regards,

Eric Stevens
Byker
2018-12-05 04:54:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Byker
Ever notice that the higher the energy consumption, the higher the
standard of living?
To reinforce this point you should watch
http://youtu.be/FACK2knC08E
Good points.

"[A] world of only swedes." In the UK they might think he was talking about
a root crop...

Loading...