Greta Thunberg

[moon]

Take your snake-oil and shove it ;

Nuclear plant accidents and incidents
with multiple fatalities and/or more than US$100 million in property damage, 1952-2011[10][25][27]
Date Location of accident Description of accident or incident Dead Cost
($US
millions
2006) INES
level[28]
September 29, 1957 Mayak, Kyshtym, Soviet Union The Kyshtym disaster was a radiation contamination accident (after a chemical explosion that occurred within a storage tank) at Mayak, a Nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the Soviet Union. Estimated 200 possible cancer fatalities[29] 6
October 10, 1957 Sellafield aka Windscale fire, Cumberland, United Kingdom A fire at the British atomic bomb project (in a plutonium-production-reactor) damaged the core and released an estimated 740 terabecquerels of iodine-131 into the environment. A rudimentary smoke filter constructed over the main outlet chimney successfully prevented a far worse radiation leak. 0 direct, estimated up to 240 possible cancer victims[29] 5
January 3, 1961 Idaho Falls, Idaho, United States Explosion at SL-1 prototype at the National Reactor Testing Station. All 3 operators were killed when a control rod was removed too far. 3 22 4
October 5, 1966 Frenchtown Charter Township, Michigan, United States Meltdown of some fuel elements in the Fermi 1 Reactor at the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station. Little radiation leakage into the environment. 0 132[30]
January 21, 1969 Lucens reactor, Vaud, Switzerland On January 21, 1969, it suffered a loss-of-coolant accident, leading to meltdown of one fuel element and radioactive contamination of the cavern, which before was sealed. 0 4
December 7, 1975 Greifswald, East Germany Electrical error in Greifswald Nuclear Power Plant causes fire in the main trough that destroys control lines and five main coolant pumps 0 443 3
January 5, 1976 Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia Malfunction during fuel replacement. Fuel rod ejected from reactor into the reactor hall by coolant (CO2).[31] 2 1,700 4
March 28, 1979 Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, United States Loss of coolant and partial core meltdown due to operator errors and technical flaws. There is a small release of radioactive gases. See also Three Mile Island accident health effects. 0 2,400 5
September 15, 1984 Athens, Alabama, United States Safety violations, operator error and design problems force a six-year outage at Browns Ferry Unit 2. 0 110
March 9, 1985 Athens, Alabama, United States Instrumentation systems malfunction during startup, which led to suspension of operations at all three Browns Ferry Units 0 1,830
April 11, 1986 Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States Recurring equipment problems force emergency shutdown of Boston Edison's Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant 0 1,001
April 26, 1986 Chernobyl, Chernobyl Raion (Now Ivankiv Raion), Kiev Oblast, Ukraininan SSR, Soviet Union A flawed reactor design and inadequately trained personnel led to a failed backup generator test. This test led to a power surge which overheated the fuel rods of reactor no. 4 of the Chernobyl power plant, causing an explosion and meltdown, necessitating the evacuation of 300,000 people and dispersing radioactive material across Europe (see Effects of the Chernobyl disaster).
Around 5% (5200 PBq) of the core was released into the atmosphere and downwind.

28 direct, 19 not entirely related and 15 minors due to thyroid cancer, as of 2008.[32][33] Estimated up to 4000 possible cancer deaths.[34] 6,700 7
May 4, 1986 Hamm-Uentrop, West Germany Experimental THTR-300 reactor releases small amounts of fission products (0.1 GBq Co-60, Cs-137, Pa-233) to surrounding area 0 267
December 9, 1986 Surry, Virginia, United States Feedwater pipe break at Surry Nuclear Power Plant kills 4 workers 4
March 31, 1987 Delta, Pennsylvania, United States Peach Bottom units 2 and 3 shutdown due to cooling malfunctions and unexplained equipment problems 0 400
December 19, 1987 Lycoming, New York, United States Malfunctions force Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation to shut down Nine Mile Point Unit 1 0 150
March 17, 1989 Lusby, Maryland, United States Inspections at Calvert Cliff Units 1 and 2 reveal cracks at pressurized heater sleeves, forcing extended shutdowns 0 120
October 19, 1989 Vandellòs, Spain A fire damaged the cooling system in unit 1 of the Vandellòs nuclear power plant, getting the core close to meltdown. The cooling system was restored before the meltdown but the unit had to be shut down due to the elevated cost of the repair. 0 220[35] 3
March 1992 Sosnovyi Bor, Leningrad Oblast, Russia An accident at the Sosnovy Bor nuclear plant leaked radioactive iodine into the air through a ruptured fuel channel.
February 20, 1996 Waterford, Connecticut, United States Leaking valve forces shutdown Millstone Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2, multiple equipment failures found 0 254
September 2, 1996 Crystal River, Florida, United States Balance-of-plant equipment malfunction forces shutdown and extensive repairs at Crystal River Unit 3 0 384
September 30, 1999 Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan Tokaimura nuclear accident killed two workers, and exposed one more to radiation levels above permissible limits. 2 54 4
February 16, 2002 Oak Harbor, Ohio, United States Severe corrosion of reactor vessel head forces 24-month outage of Davis-Besse reactor 0 143 3
April 10, 2003 Paks, Hungary Collapse of fuel rods at Paks Nuclear Power Plant unit 2 during its corrosion cleaning led to leakage of radioactive gases. It remained inactive for 18 months. 0 3
August 9, 2004 Fukui Prefecture, Japan Steam explosion at Mihama Nuclear Power Plant kills 4 workers and injures 7 more 4 9 1
July 25, 2006 Forsmark, Sweden An electrical fault at Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant caused multiple failures in safety systems that had the reactor to cool down 0 100 2
March 11, 2011 Fukushima, Japan A tsunami flooded and damaged the plant's 3 active reactors, drowning two workers. Loss of backup electrical power led to overheating, meltdowns, and evacuations.[36] One man died suddenly while carrying equipment during the clean-up.[37] The plant's reactors Nr. 4, 5 and 6 were inactive at the time. 1[38] and 3+ labour accidents; plus a broader number of primarily ill or old people from evacuation stress 1,255–2,078 (2018 est.)[39] 7
September 12, 2011 Marcoule, France One person was killed and four injured, one seriously, in a blast at the Marcoule Nuclear Site. The explosion took place in a furnace used to melt metallic waste. 1

 

[BartenderElite]

I love the idea of nukes, but they're generationally irresponsible. The half-lives and duration go well beyond our comprehension in terms of calculating earth & societal changes that may take place.

 

[moon]

The sun is all the nuke we need. Spend all the nuke budgets on solar storage and distribution capabilities.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Take your snake-oil and shove it ;

Your list actually proves what I'm saying. It reconfirms nuclear is reasonably safe and much safer than many alternatives... Unless you are using it in a corrupt dictatorship like the Soviet Union...

 

[moon]

That's just a list of accidents up to 2011. It doesn't even go into the impossibilities of ' safe ' storage of waste nor any other moronic environmental damage .

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I love the idea of nukes, but they're generationally irresponsible. The half-lives and duration go well beyond our comprehension in terms of calculating earth & societal changes that may take place.

So?

in 1920 oil was becoming our primary energy source
In 1820 coal was becoming our primary energy source
In 1720 we chopped down forests and burned them for energy

Where will we be 300 years from now? Adopting nuclear makes total sense. We can safely store the waste and if there's enough of it, someone will figure out how to make money off it.

The proof solar and wind don't work is already out there. Germany's got the highest cost per kilowatt hour of any country and is the leader in solar. All the other top solar users have high per kilowatt costs too. Germany's grid is less stable because of solar as well, just as California's is becoming (highest kilowatt cost in the US). Germany is also experiencing an INCREASE in CO2 emissions because of increased use of wood pellet heaters (due to banning natural gas use), and a return to "clean" coal to replace nuclear they got rid of, along with the need to have a power source when solar isn't producing.

 

[BartenderElite]

So?

in 1920 oil was becoming our primary energy source
In 1820 coal was becoming our primary energy source
In 1720 we chopped down forests and burned them for energy

Where will we be 300 years from now? Adopting nuclear makes total sense. We can safely store the waste and if there's enough of it, someone will figure out how to make money off it.

The proof solar and wind don't work is already out there. Germany's got the highest cost per kilowatt hour of any country and is the leader in solar. All the other top solar users have high per kilowatt costs too. Germany's grid is less stable because of solar as well, just as California's is becoming (highest kilowatt cost in the US). Germany is also experiencing an INCREASE in CO2 emissions because of increased use of wood pellet heaters (due to banning natural gas use), and a return to "clean" coal to replace nuclear they got rid of, along with the need to have a power source when solar isn't producing.

When computers used to fill 2 rooms, people said that they would never have any practical personal use.

Wind & solar just need time. They're the future.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Believe that crap if you can. I don't. Nuclear is astronomically expensive, from the mining through to the unsafe storage of deadly waste. Then there are the ' accidents '.
The sun provides all the energy the earth needs daily. Only myopic fools want to mine it. Of course, as there's no Planet B you have to be stopped- as a matter of urgency.

Then prove it. I can prove my side of things. I can go through the accidents you listed and describe them in detail and the aftermath, particularly the US ones like SL-1 or TMI. I know you can't. But you can go ostrich all you want if you don't have an open mind about these things.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

When computers used to fill 2 rooms, people said that they would never have any practical personal use.

Wind & solar just need time. They're the future.

You cannot get around the watt density of sunlight. You can't get around the fact that the planet rotates and solar doesn't work at night. You can't change the laws of chemistry (batteries and thermocouples which is essentially what solar is) and physics. You can't get more energy out of wind than there is in it. Wind is better than solar, but not enough better to make it worthwhile.

 

[moon]

Then prove it. I can prove my side of things. I can go through the accidents you listed and describe them in detail and the aftermath, particularly the US ones like SL-1 or TMI. I know you can't. But you can go ostrich all you want if you don't have an open mind about these things.

I made up my mind even before Chernobyl. Chernobyl should have made up yours. The Japanese disaster is impossible to ignore. That's just in terms of accidents. Nobody wants your nuclear shit anywhere near them. It's a zombie technology. It wasn't even a good try.

 

[moon]

You cannot get around the watt density of sunlight. You can't get around the fact that the planet rotates and solar doesn't work at night. You can't change the laws of chemistry (batteries and thermocouples which is essentially what solar is) and physics. You can't get more energy out of wind than there is in it. Wind is better than solar, but not enough better to make it worthwhile.

Again- turn all the nuke funding to storage technology. You're not even listening, are you. You're another ego-freak like Comrade maggot, deceased.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I made up my mind even before Chernobyl. Chernobyl should have made up yours. The Japanese disaster is impossible to ignore. That's just in terms of accidents. Nobody wants your nuclear shit anywhere near them. It's a zombie technology. It wasn't even a good try.

Chernobyl was caused by a corrupt, dictatorship using Socialism and Communism more than anything else. The reactor there was a graphite moderated, fast fission, type that isn't used commercially anywhere in the free world for several reasons:

1. This reactor is inherently unsafe. The hotter the reactor gets the better it works. PWR and BWR reactors self shutdown as they work less and less efficiently as they get hotter. The use of carbon (graphite) as a moderator is a problem as graphite is a solid. Water irradiated has no more than about a 14 day period before any radioactives (hydrogen or oxygen) decay to very low levels of activity. Carbon has isotopes that last for millennia.

2. The graphite moderated fast fission reactor makes plutonium--lots of plutonium--as a byproduct of operation. That was a two fer for the Soviets. They got power and bombs from the reactor. Reasonable and free nations refused to do that as they didn't want nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon materials proliferating.

3. The corruption of the Soviet Union meant that the containment for their reactor was grossly substandard and poorly built.

So, Chernobyl is a lesson in why you don't want a big irresponsible, and unaccountable government running things. As an example of a nuclear accident it is irrelevant to the Western world and how nuclear power is used there. IRRELEVANT.

Fukushima is a reasonable example, but it too demonstrates where improvement is needed. No one died as a result of the initial accident from a nuclear related cause. Only a few workers, most in the early / initial response got cancer or other health issues because of the accident. The evacuation was largely precautionary. The problem in Japan's plant design was there was no secondary containment. The reactors sat in large tin sheds for all intents. In the US and France the large concrete secondary containments prevent what happened at Fukushima.
The whole of the Fukushima disaster is still far better than the BP Deepwater Horizon accident but we still use oil... That's just one of many oil industry accidents that have been far worse than Fukushima. Some of the Leftist environmentalist stuff on Fukushima is beyond hilarious. They get things so wrong you wonder how anyone could be that stupid... Then there's the outright lies.

Here's a classic!

https://chernobylguide.com/fukushima_disaster/

That site opens with that picture at the top on their article about Fukushima and what a disaster it was (and is). That isn't Fukushima. It's an unrelated chemical fire near Sendai in Japan.

This is the Fukushima nuclear plant (before the accident)

That site I listed, and hundreds more like it spew nothing but lies about things nuclear. It is often hilarious just how badly they get things wrong. I won't say facts wrong, because they usually aren't using any.

I don't mind if nuclear was near me. Better that than a huge wind farm.

I can go into far more detail. You are completely wrong, but if you like living in the state of denial so be it.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Again- turn all the nuke funding to storage technology. You're not even listening, are you. You're another ego-freak like Comrade maggot, deceased.

Why should I? You have no facts. You have presented no cognitive argument. Your position is essentially, It's nuclear and therefore its bad! I can bet you haven't the foggiest clue what the effects of radiation, or their types, even are. You are driven in this case by irrational ignorance and belief that others with similar opinions to your own could not possibly be wrong even as you have no substantial understanding or evidence to back your claims.

 

[moon]

Why should I? You have no facts. You have presented no cognitive argument. Your position is essentially, It's nuclear and therefore its bad!

That's my secondary position. My primary position is that ' It's solar and therefore it's good ' You nuclear dinosaurs are simply in the way.

 

[moon]

Anybody seen Comrade maggot ?

Where's this apology, old chap ?


Haw, haw............................haw.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

That's my secondary position. My primary position is that ' It's solar and therefore it's good ' You nuclear dinosaurs are simply in the way.

Except that too shows an ignorance of the true costs of solar. It is those who want something but haven't got a clue about it that are the "dinosaurs." New and improved doesn't mean it's better. Solar is an economic loser and the proof is the cost of electricity in places and countries where it has become a dominant source of electrical power. Not one nation, state, country, that has adopted large use of solar has seen lower power costs. Instead, those costs have shot through the rafters. It is also a FACT that solar does little or nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. Germany is a great proof of that. Because electricity has virtually become a luxury item there, people are turning to using wood pellet stoves for heat because Germany has also banned new natural gas installations. People can't afford to heat their homes with inefficient electrical heating. CO2 emissions go up. Then because solar can't be relied on and can't be used at night, and Germany eliminated nuclear, they've been forced to build 25 new "clean" coal plants to replace the 8 nuclear ones and back up solar and wind with coal. The result is Germany's CO2 emissions are rising whereas in the US wider adoption of natural gas and slow elimination of coal is seeing a decrease.

Solar is an expensive fail...

 

[cancel2 2022]

The casks have been tested far beyond any reasonable level of damage expected.

I already showed that nuclear isn't astronomically expensive. That's a complete lie. Mining uranium is being done today and safely. You clearly and obviously know NOTHING about nuclear power, or anything else nuclear. Your response is based solely on nonsense, lies, and propaganda spread by the same sort of scientific illiterates in the environmental movement.

The worst nuclear accident in the US has been Three Mile Island. Nobody died from that. Nobody even got cancer from it. It's been cleaned up. The cost of that clean up was less than for the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and fire that killed 11 and caused massive environmental damage over hundreds of thousands of square miles. Nuclear isn't cooking birds like Ivanpah solar. It isn't getting smacked with huge environmental fines like the Solana array got in Arizona. It isn't subject to the weather either. Solana in Arizona got hit by a microburst thunderstorm that destroyed nearly half the array. Nuclear doesn't create new weather through heat island effects like solar.

Nuclear also works 24/7 whether the sun shines or not. It works at night too. Solar is grossly inefficient and costly. It is utterly uncompetitive with other means of electrical generation. It is a complete loser.

You're wasting time and energy with that ignorant peasant, all it ever does is spout bullshit constantly. Even Zion Lights has seen the future.

A former Extinction Rebellion (XR) spokeswoman left the environmental group to campaign for nuclear power because she says it is the only way to deal with the climate crisis. Zion Lights, writing in the Daily Mail, also said that she had become unable to defend some of the group's claims. XR "peddle messages of doomsday gloom that alienate" and offer "little in the way of positive solutions", she added.

The group calls on governments to take immediate action on climate change. It describes itself as an international "non-violent civil disobedience activist movement" and has been involved in a number of high-profile protests since it was formed in 2018. Last week it targeted UK newspapers - which it has accused of failing to report on climate change - by blocking printing presses and delaying distribution.

She told the Mail she initially joined XR because its message was "listen to the scientists" and the role of spokesperson gave her a platform "to talk about what I truly felt mattered". However, she says she began to rethink her support for the group after an appearance on the BBC's Andrew Neil Show last October.

She was asked about co-founder Roger Hallam's claim that science predicts six billion people will die this century due to climate change - a claim that he made to BBC's HARDtalk. Ms Lights said: "It's a headline-grabbing assertion - but unfortunately, it's also not true, or certainly not backed up by any evidence. As was obvious to anyone who knows me - and even to the casual viewer - I was plunged into a PR nightmare. "I could not defend the number, but as the official spokesperson nor could I be seen to condemn it. All I could do, instead, was flounder under the hot glare of the studio lights for what felt like an eternity."

Ms Lights, who began campaigning about the environment as a student in the early 2000s, said she also had doubts about XR's approach of telling people "what not to do" and "peddling the notion that the solution to the climate crisis was to turn back the clock to a simpler time".

Writing in the Telegraph, she said the campaigners who argued that we needed to all live with less - as she once did - had to accept this was not going to happen "and look to solutions instead".

She said that "many within XR argue in favour of replacing fossil fuels entirely with renewables" but this was not a realistic option and she favoured "a pragmatic approach, rather than peer-group tribal pressure to stick to an outdated mainstream green line". Much of the green movement was "steeped in an anti-nuclear mindset", she said, "when any rational, evidence-based approach shows that a strategy including nuclear energy is the only realistic solution to driving down emissions at the scale and speed required".

She denied she was making a U-turn, instead saying it was a "logical next step" in looking for solutions rather than "shouting ever more loudly about the problem".

Ms Lights said she has since taken a role at campaign group Environmental Progress UK, whose campaigns include supporting the building of the Sizewell C nuclear power station in Suffolk. Nuclear power is planned to be a key part of the UK's future energy strategy.

BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin said its key benefit is it helps keep the lights on while producing hardly any of the CO2 emissions that are heating the climate.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54103163

 

[cancel2 2022]

When computers used to fill 2 rooms, people said that they would never have any practical personal use.

Wind & solar just need time. They're the future.

Another idiot that doesn't understand basic physics, chemistry or indeed engineering, come to that. There is no Moore's Law for renewable unreliable energy, only fools think otherwise.

Manhattan Institute scholar Mark P. Mills explains in layman-friendly physics and economics why mandates and subsidies cannot jumpstart an energy revolution that rapidly replaces fossil fuels with wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries.
The entire 20-page study is worth reading. Here I highlight some of the report’s key points regarding batteries, Moore’s Law, and the physical limitations of wind turbines and solar photovoltaics.

“Availability”—having energy when you want it—“is the single most critical feature of any energy infrastructure.” The pervasive non-availability of energy is what chiefly hobbled economic and social progress in pre-modern times. The comparative ease and low cost of storing fossil fuels and other conventional energies is “why, so far, more than 90 percent of America’s electricity, and 99 percent of the power used in transportation” come from those sources.

Climate campaigners claim battery technology will soon make renewable electricity available to all with little or no fossil-fuel backup. However, the expense would be formidable. It costs less than $1 a barrel to store oil or energy-equivalent quantities of natural gas and coal, but battery storage of the same amount of energy “costs roughly $200.” In other words, “the cost to store energy in grid-scale batteries is . . . about 200-fold more than the cost to store natural gas to generate electricity when it’s needed.”

Batteries are getting cheaper and lighter, but not enough to economically replace fossil fuels for machines that move large numbers of people, grow food, or mine minerals and raw materials. For example, “the energy equivalent of the aviation fuel actually used by an aircraft flying to Asia would take $60 million worth of Tesla-type batteries weighing five times more than that aircraft.”

Faced with such impediments, some new energy economy enthusiasts claim renewables are on the verge of the same sort of accelerating efficiency gains that occurred in the information technology sector, as predicted by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore in 1965.

That is not happening. As Varun Sivaram, chief technology officer of India’s largest renewable energy company, observed in April 2015:

Earlier this month, Moore’s law—the prediction that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit would double every two years—turned 50 years old.

It so happens that the silicon solar panel, the dominant variety in the market today, is about the same age—roughly 52 years old. And over the last half-century, while the computing power of an identically sized microchip increased by a factor of over a billion, the power output of an identically sized silicon solar panel more or less doubled.

Here’s how Mills puts the same point: “If photovoltaics scaled by Moore’s Law, a single postage-stamp-size solar array would power the Empire State Building. If batteries scaled by Moore’s Law, a battery the size of a book, costing three cents, could power an A380 to Asia.”

Why doesn’t Moore’s Law apply to the energy sector? Miniaturization dramatically increased the power of integrated circuits and decreased the cost of computational devices. However, miniaturizing renewables would turn them into children’s toys. To collect enough of nature’s diffuse energy to power a modern society, wind turbines and solar arrays must be huge. Unsurprisingly, the size, mass, and industrial footprints of renewable facilities increased over time.

Moore’s law does not apply because the “challenge in storing and processing information using the smallest possible amount of energy is distinct from the challenge of producing energy, or of moving or reshaping physical objects.” Mills elaborates:

The world of logic is rooted in simply knowing and storing the fact of the binary state of a switch—i.e., whether it is on or off. Logic engines don’t produce physical action but are designed to manipulate the idea of the numbers zero and one. Unlike engines that carry people, logic engines can use software to do things such as compress information through clever mathematics and thus reduce energy use. No comparable compression options exist in the world of humans and hardware.

The cost of renewables has declined 10-fold in recent decades. However, as with fossil fuel combustion, which also achieved rapid efficiency gains when first commercialized, the “path of improvement” for renewables has begun to exhibit “diminishing returns.” That is inevitable given the inherent “physics-constrained limits of energy systems.” Mills explains:

Solar arrays can’t convert more photons than those that arrive from the sun. Wind turbines can’t extract more energy than exists in the kinetic flows of moving air. Batteries are bound by the physical chemistry of the molecules chosen.”

For combustion engines, the Carnot Efficiency Limit dictates a theoretical maximum conversion of heat into useful work of about 80 percent. Today’s best hydrocarbon engines achieve about 50-60 percent conversion efficiency, so there’s “still room for improvement” but nothing like the “revolutionary advances” achieved in the early “decades after invention.”

For wind, the Betz Limit holds that a spinning blade can capture no more than about 60 percent of the kinetic energy of moving air. “Modern turbines already exceed 45 percent conversion.” Hence, a further “10-fold improvement is not possible.”

Similarly, for photovoltaic cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit determines that PVs can convert no more than about 33 percent of photons into electrons, and modern PVs achieve more than 26 percent efficiency. Thus, there are also “no 10-fold gains left” for PVs.

Mills concludes “there is no possibility of a near-term transition” to a new energy economy. Coal, oil, and natural gas “are the world’s principal energy resource today and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future.”

https://cei.org/blog/world-not-cusp-energy-revolution-study

 

[rjhenn]

So?

in 1920 oil was becoming our primary energy source
In 1820 coal was becoming our primary energy source
In 1720 we chopped down forests and burned them for energy

Where will we be 300 years from now? Adopting nuclear makes total sense. We can safely store the waste and if there's enough of it, someone will figure out how to make money off it.

The proof solar and wind don't work is already out there. Germany's got the highest cost per kilowatt hour of any country and is the leader in solar. All the other top solar users have high per kilowatt costs too. Germany's grid is less stable because of solar as well, just as California's is becoming (highest kilowatt cost in the US). Germany is also experiencing an INCREASE in CO2 emissions because of increased use of wood pellet heaters (due to banning natural gas use), and a return to "clean" coal to replace nuclear they got rid of, along with the need to have a power source when solar isn't producing.

That last can be handled by hydrogen.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[BartenderElite]

"Moore's Law."

I guess it applies. Until human ingenuity finds an efficient way of storing the energy.

I'm sure Moore's Law applied to big computers for awhile, too.