Green (as in money) Energy

[EatTheRich]

I was.

Thank you.

The current rates of course reflect the massive subsidization of coal and oil.

 

[UPNYA2]

The current rates of course reflect the massive subsidization of coal and oil.

Ok.

I'm just trying to figure out if I can make it in life long enough to see us exist as best we do or can using only wind, rain and sunshine which would be most desirable.

 

[EatTheRich]

Ok.

I'm just trying to figure out if I can make it in life long enough to see us exist as best we do or can using only wind, rain and sunshine which would be most desirable.

Not guaranteed; we don’t have the technology in place to store energy created by wind and solar efficiently or transport it to consumers on the scale needed. However, we could EASILY replace fossil fuels with nuclear (supplemented by solar and wind) in a matter of 2-3 years, cut the costs of producing energy, and save hundreds of thousands of lives every year.

 

[middleview]

Ok.

I'm just trying to figure out if I can make it in life long enough to see us exist as best we do or can using only wind, rain and sunshine which would be most desirable.

So renewable energy is currently 11% of the total. Coal is a little less than renewables.

Petroleum is high because of automobiles and EV vehicles are starting to make a dent
.
Natural gas has killed off the use of coal because of the difference in price as well as issues related to pollution.

 

[UPNYA2]

Not guaranteed; we don’t have the technology in place to store energy created by wind and solar efficiently or transport it to consumers on the scale needed. However, we could EASILY replace fossil fuels with nuclear (supplemented by solar and wind) in a matter of 2-3 years, cut the costs of producing energy, and save hundreds of thousands of lives every year.

Sounds good.

I worry about the odds against having enough people to agree so that could be done right now. (By done I mean at least started)

 

[middleview]

Not guaranteed; we don’t have the technology in place to store energy created by wind and solar efficiently or transport it to consumers on the scale needed. However, we could EASILY replace fossil fuels with nuclear (supplemented by solar and wind) in a matter of 2-3 years, cut the costs of producing energy, and save hundreds of thousands of lives every year.

Nuclear has it's own issues. Creating a contaminated and dangerously radioactive zone around a power plant that then has to be guarded for decades after decommissioning doesn't seem very attractive to me.

We do need effective battery storage for solar and wind generated electricity. There are also a lot of opportunities to improve the performance of those systems... That is in progress.

 

[EatTheRich]

Sounds good.

I worry about the odds against having enough people to agree so that could be done right now. (By done I mean at least started)

Expropriating the energy companies would make it easier to educate people without the distortion of lavishly funded propaganda.

 

[EatTheRich]

Nuclear has it's own issues. Creating a contaminated and dangerously radioactive zone around a power plant that then has to be guarded for decades after decommissioning doesn't seem very attractive to me.

We do need effective battery storage for solar and wind generated electricity. There are also a lot of opportunities to improve the performance of those systems... That is in progress.

Coal waste is radioactive too, and dangerous to water regardless. The total amount of high-level radioactive waste from nuclear is quite small, and the most dangerous radioactive elements decay quickly into more stable forms ... low-level waste just isn’t that dangerous. I think a bigger concern with nuclear is the potential for terrorism (including the greater availability of material for dirty bombs) on one hand and nuclear proliferation on the other.

 

[middleview]

Coal waste is radioactive too, and dangerous to water regardless. The total amount of high-level radioactive waste from nuclear is quite small, and the most dangerous radioactive elements decay quickly into more stable forms ... low-level waste just isn’t that dangerous. I think a bigger concern with nuclear is the potential for terrorism (including the greater availability of material for dirty bombs) on one hand and nuclear proliferation on the other.

The Maine Yankee plant was built in 1966 and commissioned in 1968 at a cost of $231 million. It ran from 1968 to 1996 and was decommissioned and dismantled from 1997 to 2005. It cost $500 million to decommission. The land it occupied is still quarantined and patrolled by private security personnel.

 

[EatTheRich]

The Maine Yankee plant was built in 1966 and commissioned in 1968 at a cost of $231 million. It ran from 1968 to 1996 and was decommissioned and dismantled from 1997 to 2005. It cost $500 million to decommission. The land it occupied is still quarantined and patrolled by private security personnel.

Due to a significant danger compared to normal background radiation, or due to public hysteria?

 

[middleview]

Due to a significant danger compared to normal background radiation, or due to public hysteria?

Would you want to buy a home built on the land previously occupied by a nuclear power plant? Notice how few have been restored to "greenfield" status.

Nuclear decommissioning

en.wikipedia.org

.