Solar Energy 50 years late and still in the big talk, no delivery phase.

[NNadir]

I might add it is still prohibitively expensive, for all except anti-science daydreaming brats living on trust funds.

Oodles of money and subsidies have been dumped on it, but the total energy output of the scam, 50 years of bull, still can't produce as much energy in this country as two large Areva EPR can produce in a year in a two relatively small buildings, with a correspondingly smaller environmental impact and without the destruction of huge tracts of land.

This can be determined by simple data and mathematics, although this will not deter dangerous fossil fuel apologists, like the BP funded Amory Lovins and his admirers here from complaining about nuclear energy.

The data is here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

By the way, the reason that nuclear power is the largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy in the United States is that the United States built 104 reactors in a twenty five year time span. I note with due contempt that the anti-nuke complaints about nuclear power delays constitute a case of arsonists complaining about fires. They deliberately, out of ignorance, encouraged the destruction of the intellectual and industrial infrastructure in this county, filed specious lawsuits designed to appeal to ignorance and then remark that nuclear power plants are difficult to build. Not in Japan. Not in China. Not in India.

Why not in those countries? Because they couldn't care less in those countries what illiterate anti-science light weight bloggers with no educations think.

According to this, um, data, the solar PV dangerous fossil fuel greenwashing anti-nuke industry, funded by the likes of BP "beyond petroleum" has been able to produce after 50 years (and trillion ton quantities of dangerous fossil fuel waste dumped) just 0.091 quads of the roughly 100 quads of energy used by the United States.

0.091 quads = 0.096 exajoules if one can do math, which leaves the anti-nuke cheering and chanting cult out of following it.

As I often note, the number of seconds over the last 50 years of "solar will save us" dangerous fossil fuel greenwashing is still 31,577,600 seconds, and thus the average continuous power production of the entire solar industry in the entire United States is just 3,000 Megawatts, ignoring the thermodynamic losses for a putative and toxic energy storage industry.

Still, dangerous fossil fuel apologists, inspired by BP funded rhetoric, banality, limited and selective attention and denial of what has happened in the last 30 years of their unchanged denialist bullshit designed to attack the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy - at the very hour that the entire gulf of Mexico, including parts of Florida are being destroyed by one of their paymasters, come here demanding we throw money down their ignorance pie hole.

Cretins, all of them.

[msongs]

1. yeah, death to all non-believers right away nt

[On the Road]

2. You Are Correct that Solar is Too Expensive

On the other hand, a lot of progress is being made on efficiency and cost reduction. I am not keen of solar for similar reasons to yours, but in ten years, it could be the most cost-efficient way to produce electricity.

Nuclear, on the other hand, has its own problems. It depends on a limited fuel source, has safety and waste issues, and has been used as an entry point making to nuclear weapons.

Nuclear may be the best option if those downsides really outweigh the cost savings. But it's preferable if they are reduced substantially. Starting to replace uranium with thorium would go a long way towards doing that.

[kristopher]

3. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=246050&mesg_id=246050


http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. The right answer is a mix

I live in prime solar country. Payback is under 10 years, faster if the rates go up. It won't work in NYC.

[jpak]

5. Solar Will Save Us

the made-up NJ moltensalt breeder reactor will not

the end

:rofl:

[Kolesar]

6. There is that Richard Cheney message system again...eom

[jpak]

7. No new nuclear plant was ordered in the US between 1973 and 2009

talk about yer all talk no delivery phase

no pronuclear knows any science whatsoever

nope!

:rofl:

[fpublic]

8. What he said...

Case closed! Nuculer Nadir wins the day!

I'm glad Mr. Nadir has such great respect for those who prefer non-nuclear solutions to energy production. From one read of his post, isn't it obvious to all pro-science, alert, mature, financially-independent, heavyweight thinkers, science-and-math literates? I think we can crown him as "the nadir of nuclear power apologism".
Personally, I certainly won't think this through myself or rely on any alternate energy technologies now that my understanding approaches "the nadir" in depth and breadth. I only hope that one day, my suasion can to rise to a similar "nadir" in rhetoric.
And I knew, (don't we all?) that:
solar solutions are equivalent to fossil fuel (reject both!)
investment and progress in solar (relative to nuclear) development shows it has no
potential to match nuclear's results (let's just divert that research money to nuclear!)

"anti-science daydreaming brats living on trust funds"

"illiterate anti-science light weight bloggers with no educations"

"if one can do math, which leaves the anti-nuke cheering and chanting cult out of following it"

"Cretins, all of them"