First some radioactive particles emit gamma rays. It's not the particles themselves that do the damage, it's the rays. So for gamma ray emitting radioisotopes, it's the same type of radiation that is doing the damage.
Some radioactive particles emit radiation that is actually smaller particles. That's alpha and beta radiation. Alpha particles are the same as the nucleus of the Helium-4 atom. Beta radiation is just electrons.
However, alpha, beta, and gammas all have a similar effect on the tissue in terms of the damage they do. All three can knock electrons out of atoms, or "ionize" the atom. That's why all three are called "ionizing radiation", because of the similar effect.
Now before someone brings up the "airplane analogy" and says that internal radiation is worse because it is over a longer time, I have another reference for you.
For the same dose; it is actually worse to have that dose concentrated in time; that is absorbed over a few hours in an airliner flight as opposed to a few months or years for an internal exposure.
From page 15:
This estimate is expected to be high by a factor of 2-10 and possibly more, according to NCRP 64, to account for the reduced impact of protracted radiation delivery, relative to the same dose received all at once
However, 20 mSv received over the course of one year is expected to have significantly less biological impact than the same dose received via medical imaging, because the dose is protracted over time.
I consider 0.2 % increase substantial when referring to an entire nation or two.Of course this is just my opinion. I also believe one of the reasons We don't have alternatives is corporate greed.Humanity should always be the biggest concern. Hard for me to shrug this off.
I hear about "corporate greed" all the time as the reason for every malady known to man.
Why is the lack of alternatives all the fault of "corporate greed". If solar and wind were really "free energy" as the proponents tout; then those greedy corporations would be harvesting energy for free, and then charging us for the product, and making 100% profit. How come they are not doing that?
Could it be like the National Academy of Sciences tells us that solar, wind and other renewables, because of their intermittent nature; can be no more than 20% of our electric energy generation capability? What do we do for the other 80% when we are trying to keep the carbon footprint in check?
That 0.2% is in the noise. Mother Nature's own radiation varies more than that from nation to nation, and from one place in a nation to another place within a nation. So 0.2% can't never really be considered "substantial" under those conditions; not if you are really being honest.
The lack of Alternatives is due to mismanagement of resources I.E "Corporate Greed". Renewable resources only can provide 20% of our electric energy demands because of the lack of research funding in the past and present. There's been a number of documented cases where the corporations dissuade scientific research of renewable energy because of the threat of discovering a superior product. They (corporations) also shelf patents for this same reason.
Let's not forget that the "noise" you refer to ,is man made not natural and can be completely avoided "if your really being honest." you obviously don't agree with my biggest concern.
The reason for the 20% limit is inherent in renewables.
They are intermittent. The Sun goes behind a cloud, and drops your solar power output. The 20% limit is so that the remaining 80% which is "dispatchable" ( i.e. "on demand" ) can back-fill for the intermittent nature of solar and wind.
Research isn't going to prevent clouds from shadowing your solar collector, and research isn't going to make the wind blow at constant velocity.
You have to understand the WHY before you start leveling ill-founded, slanderous talk about "corporate greed".
You demonstrate your manifest ignorance above by saying the "noise" I refer to above is "man-made". How did you ever get out of high school???
NO - Mother's Nature's radiation sources are stochastic; they are RANDOM!!!
There's a natural fluctuation in Mother Nature's radiation sources that is completely natural and not man-made.
Your biggest concern should be that you don't know your science.
" Rewnewable" sounds pretty constant to me.Can't you think outside the box? Also your list of "renewable"s seems limited. And, the ones you listed are completely viable. To suggest the lack of "Renewable" resources available is not directly related to "Corporate Greed" demonstrates complete ignorance . No need to be a Mad scientist.
Have you ever stood outside on a windy day? Do you mean to tell this forum that the wind blows at a constant speed? Have you never heard of a "gust" of wind? Come on; even a child knows that wind speed is not constant.
Have you never had the experience of standing outside on a sunny day and have the sun obscured by a passing cloud? Really, you've never had that experience???
If you've had the above experiences, then you should know that solar and wind are not "pretty constant to me" as your ill-conceived, out of hand fabrication above states. We are talking science. We are talking what it takes to power this nation, and solar and wind are NOT constant just because some "true believer" in renewables "thinks" ( term used loosely ) they are.
"Corporate greed" is just a simple explanation for simple minds. If renewables truly gave abundant "free" energy, then those greedy corporations would be using it. They would get all that abundant free energy, turn it into electricity and sell it to we consumers at the market price. They would realize 100% profit. How come those greedy corporations aren't doing that?
Can you give me an explanation and not just a "it's the way I say it is because I say it" attitude. That suffices for child-like minds, but not here.
Is there ever a day the sun does not shine or the wind doesn't blow? you superior banter is idiotic at best. Once again you've proven that your "simple mind" can't think beyond what other people preach to you. Your by the book explanations also prove your inability to think. We are talking Reality which includes science. Come on.
Of course there is. Have you never heard of a cloudy day? Many places have cloudy days in which the sky is overcast and solar arrays can't see the sun.
You've never heard of a windless day??? If you are in the Bay Area, on some really hot summer day when there is a nice high pressure center over the Bay Area; why not take a drive out I-580 between Livermore and Tracy. You will be driving through the Altamont Pass windfarm. On such days, very few of the wind turbines are turning, and if they do, very slowly. Since the power of a wind turbine goes as the cube of the wind speed; that very low speed means very, very, very, low power.
I've been citing "real world" examples like above to the above poster and the above poster "thinks" ( term used loosely ) that I'm just quoting "book learning", and says I have an inability to think.
I actually am a PhD physicist, so I have the book knowledge; but as above, I also give real world examples that I think anyone can connect with.
It's the anti-nuke eco-nazis that are the "true believers". They believe that there isn't a day the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. Again, anyone knows that there are cloudy days when the bulk of the sun's energy is not available to land based solar arrays. They have never experienced a calm day, and seen a windfarm that is standing stagnant.
This hypocrite says that I am the one that is not facing reality. On the contrary; it is the unfounded mantra of the renewables crowd that the days are always sunny and the wind is always blowing as expressed in the post above.
Some tend to think with their politics, instead of their brains.
No, of course I've never heard of a cloudy day,unless your talking about the day you got your degree. Listen, for you to pretend like there are no alternatives based on your scholastic blunderings, is just ridiculous. This mentality is one of the reasons the environment and the economy are in such dire straits. Wake up! In order to preserve this beautiful life we ALL enjoy,we need to come up with "alternative" answers. Just because you don't know them does not mean they don't exist. It amazes me that someone with your supposed credentials doesn't understand this. No need for a degree in order to come up with your "real world" citing ,Which is so obvious they don't warrant much of a response.Oh yea, all this intermittence that you repeatedly claim is the reason why we can't harness natures abundant "renewable" resources,can be overcome with some kind of "super" battery or capacitor or something. Why don't you try being a solution instead of pollution?
And to answer why those "greedy corporations" are not using all the "abundant free energy" to sell back to us and turn a profit, Because it's Free! What's to sell? Good reason for them not to invest in research,though.
Why don't you talk about how radiation causes mutations in DNA which can lead to cancerous tumors?The current "Science" that we use to harness nuclear energy is Unacceptable (based on it's threat to life) and needs to be halted. Sorry that your offended by this, but your denial offends me.
You are willing to pay for electricity just like the rest of us. If your power company were able to get it for "free"; that wouldn't mean they couldn't still sell it for a price, and you'd be willing to pay the price, because you are doing that now.
So your "what's to sell" argument is just meaningless rhetoric.
If I find a bar of gold, so I get it for free; I can still sell it for the market price; can I not??
Just because the electric company gets its power for free, it can still sell it for what people are willing to pay.
One of the things that the anti-nuke, anti-science types have to face is that the Laws of Physics, the Laws of Mother Nature put limits on us. Any time scientists and engineers develop a method of generating energy, we are using the laws that Mother Nature obeys. Mother Nature obeys some laws like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that put limits on what we can / can not do. The renewables crowd has yet to accept these. They just say, "Why don't you invent something that gets around that...". The problem is we can't. Mother Nature obeys these laws, and anything we do using Mother Nature's own laws is similarly constrained.
That's just reality. As far as the battery idea, the problem is the size. Solar power naturally has a 25% duty cycle. That is, the bulk of solar power comes in a 6 hour window centered on the local noon. That's only 25% of a day. However, we use energy 24 hours a day. So a solar plant has to store about 75% of its output for use when the sun is low in the sky, or isn't shining at all.
So how much do we have to store to replace a single large coal or nuclear plant. A typical large coal or nuclear plant is about 1 Gw(e) ( gigawatt-electric ). In a single day, the energy output of just one plant is a Gw-Day. ( The product of a power and a time is always a unit of energy ).
So 1 Gw-Day is a unit of energy and can be converted to any other unit of energy, just like a unit of length like the "foot" can be converted to any other unit of length. If you do the conversion, 1 Gw-Day is 20.6 kilotons or about the energy of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. A solar plant needs to store about 75% of its daily output; so this would be 15 kilotons or the energy of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
It's easy to "wave your hands" and say let's make a "super battery". However, when you do the arithmetic, you find that battery needs to store an atomic bomb's worth of energy. I'm not saying it is impossible; it is difficult; and we don't have it yet. Since we don't have it yet, we can't go 100% renewable. The National Academy of Sciences study on energy says we can at most go 20% renewable at present. So what do we do for the other 80% if we eschew fossil fuels do to their carbon footprint?
One of the things that the anti-nuke, anti-science types have to face is that the Laws of Physics, the Laws of Mother Nature put limits on us. Any time scientists and engineers develop a method of generating energy, we are using the laws that Mother Nature obeys. Mother Nature obeys some laws like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that put limits on what we can / can not do. The renewables crowd has yet to accept these. They just say, "Why don't you invent something that gets around that...". The problem is we can't. Mother Nature obeys these laws, and anything we do using Mother Nature's own laws is similarly constrained.
That's just reality. As far as the battery idea, the problem is the size. Solar power naturally has a 25% duty cycle. That is, the bulk of solar power comes in a 6 hour window centered on the local noon. That's only 25% of a day. However, we use energy 24 hours a day. So a solar plant has to store about 75% of its output for use when the sun is low in the sky, or isn't shining at all.
So how much do we have to store to replace a single large coal or nuclear plant. A typical large coal or nuclear plant is about 1 Gw(e) ( gigawatt-electric ). In a single day, the energy output of just one plant is a Gw-Day. ( The product of a power and a time is always a unit of energy ).
So 1 Gw-Day is a unit of energy and can be converted to any other unit of energy, just like a unit of length like the "foot" can be converted to any other unit of length. If you do the conversion, 1 Gw-Day is 20.6 kilotons or about the energy of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. A solar plant needs to store about 75% of its daily output; so this would be 15 kilotons or the energy of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
It's easy to "wave your hands" and say let's make a "super battery". However, when you do the arithmetic, you find that battery needs to store an atomic bomb's worth of energy. I'm not saying it is impossible; it is difficult; and we don't have it yet. Since we don't have it yet, we can't go 100% renewable. The National Academy of Sciences study on energy says we can at most go 20% renewable at present. So what do we do for the other 80% if we eschew fossil fuels do to their carbon footprint?
Now thats a good answer. totally agree that there are limits.needless to say if we use Germany as a case study,they were able to eliminate the need of two nuclear power plants just by installing a simply solar array on homeowners roofs. that being so, I would assume California could generate more then Germany has.
Personally I love science and technology. And It often seams that technology has a dramatic impact on what we call science.It's easy to wave your hand and keep consuming OUR limited resources(I.E fossil fuels) or continue to build power plants which threaten living things. Now I'm no scientist so I can't just pull the hard numbers off the top of my head(although give me a couple of hours and I could reference all your facts). There are alternatives and it starts with more research into them.
Funny how you like to generalize people who desire renewable energy. Also you do admit it is possible (no matter how difficult) to design some "super battery". You must be one of those "anti-science types". And I would also assume that you know we could cut back on our electricity demands. This being said those percentages that you quote me are not "Reality and Science" but more of an excuse to continue on building huge nuclear plants and mining OUR limited resources. What is wrong with trying to preserve life and resources? You act as if your "laws" prevent this.
Bottom line is we must come up with "Alternatives". They are out there and you know it. That's my point. Don't undermine these efforts with your nay-sayings.
However, I always here from people who think we can "conserve our way to energy independence". There will always be the need for some power generation no matter how much you conserve.
Additionally, you should check out the following seminar by Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore. In Europe, Denmark went "whole hog" with wind, and Germany with solar. In terms of carbon footprint, carbon emitted per capita; Denmark is the worst polluter, and Germany is the second worst. That's because both had to fall back on their fossil fuel back-ups for energy when the renewables didn't deliver.
The cleanest countries in Europe in terms of carbon footprint are France and Sweden. That's because France is almost 100% nuclear, and Sweden is 50% nuclear and 50% hydro:
YES!!
First some radioactive particles emit gamma rays. It's not the particles themselves that do the damage, it's the rays. So for gamma ray emitting radioisotopes, it's the same type of radiation that is doing the damage.
Some radioactive particles emit radiation that is actually smaller particles. That's alpha and beta radiation. Alpha particles are the same as the nucleus of the Helium-4 atom. Beta radiation is just electrons.
However, alpha, beta, and gammas all have a similar effect on the tissue in terms of the damage they do. All three can knock electrons out of atoms, or "ionize" the atom. That's why all three are called "ionizing radiation", because of the similar effect.
Now before someone brings up the "airplane analogy" and says that internal radiation is worse because it is over a longer time, I have another reference for you.
For the same dose; it is actually worse to have that dose concentrated in time; that is absorbed over a few hours in an airliner flight as opposed to a few months or years for an internal exposure.
From a report on Fukushima by the faculty of MIT:
http://http://mitnse.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/fukushima-lessons-learn...
From page 15:
This estimate is expected to be high by a factor of 2-10 and possibly more, according to NCRP 64, to account for the reduced impact of protracted radiation delivery, relative to the same dose received all at once
However, 20 mSv received over the course of one year is expected to have significantly less biological impact than the same dose received via medical imaging, because the dose is protracted over time.
Thanks for the response.
I consider 0.2 % increase substantial when referring to an entire nation or two.Of course this is just my opinion. I also believe one of the reasons We don't have alternatives is corporate greed.Humanity should always be the biggest concern. Hard for me to shrug this off.
Corporate greed?
I hear about "corporate greed" all the time as the reason for every malady known to man.
Why is the lack of alternatives all the fault of "corporate greed". If solar and wind were really "free energy" as the proponents tout; then those greedy corporations would be harvesting energy for free, and then charging us for the product, and making 100% profit. How come they are not doing that?
Could it be like the National Academy of Sciences tells us that solar, wind and other renewables, because of their intermittent nature; can be no more than 20% of our electric energy generation capability? What do we do for the other 80% when we are trying to keep the carbon footprint in check?
That 0.2% is in the noise. Mother Nature's own radiation varies more than that from nation to nation, and from one place in a nation to another place within a nation. So 0.2% can't never really be considered "substantial" under those conditions; not if you are really being honest.
Think About It.
The lack of Alternatives is due to mismanagement of resources I.E "Corporate Greed". Renewable resources only can provide 20% of our electric energy demands because of the lack of research funding in the past and present. There's been a number of documented cases where the corporations dissuade scientific research of renewable energy because of the threat of discovering a superior product. They (corporations) also shelf patents for this same reason.
Let's not forget that the "noise" you refer to ,is man made not natural and can be completely avoided "if your really being honest." you obviously don't agree with my biggest concern.
WRONG AS ALWAYS!!
The reason for the 20% limit is inherent in renewables.
They are intermittent. The Sun goes behind a cloud, and drops your solar power output. The 20% limit is so that the remaining 80% which is "dispatchable" ( i.e. "on demand" ) can back-fill for the intermittent nature of solar and wind.
Research isn't going to prevent clouds from shadowing your solar collector, and research isn't going to make the wind blow at constant velocity.
You have to understand the WHY before you start leveling ill-founded, slanderous talk about "corporate greed".
You demonstrate your manifest ignorance above by saying the "noise" I refer to above is "man-made". How did you ever get out of high school???
NO - Mother's Nature's radiation sources are stochastic; they are RANDOM!!!
There's a natural fluctuation in Mother Nature's radiation sources that is completely natural and not man-made.
Your biggest concern should be that you don't know your science.
"Wrong as always"!
" Rewnewable" sounds pretty constant to me.Can't you think outside the box? Also your list of "renewable"s seems limited. And, the ones you listed are completely viable. To suggest the lack of "Renewable" resources available is not directly related to "Corporate Greed" demonstrates complete ignorance . No need to be a Mad scientist.
Oh for Pete's sake!!!
Have you ever stood outside on a windy day? Do you mean to tell this forum that the wind blows at a constant speed? Have you never heard of a "gust" of wind? Come on; even a child knows that wind speed is not constant.
Have you never had the experience of standing outside on a sunny day and have the sun obscured by a passing cloud? Really, you've never had that experience???
If you've had the above experiences, then you should know that solar and wind are not "pretty constant to me" as your ill-conceived, out of hand fabrication above states. We are talking science. We are talking what it takes to power this nation, and solar and wind are NOT constant just because some "true believer" in renewables "thinks" ( term used loosely ) they are.
"Corporate greed" is just a simple explanation for simple minds. If renewables truly gave abundant "free" energy, then those greedy corporations would be using it. They would get all that abundant free energy, turn it into electricity and sell it to we consumers at the market price. They would realize 100% profit. How come those greedy corporations aren't doing that?
Can you give me an explanation and not just a "it's the way I say it is because I say it" attitude. That suffices for child-like minds, but not here.
Your attitude is an obstruction of truth.
Is there ever a day the sun does not shine or the wind doesn't blow? you superior banter is idiotic at best. Once again you've proven that your "simple mind" can't think beyond what other people preach to you. Your by the book explanations also prove your inability to think. We are talking Reality which includes science. Come on.
SURE!!!
Of course there is. Have you never heard of a cloudy day? Many places have cloudy days in which the sky is overcast and solar arrays can't see the sun.
You've never heard of a windless day??? If you are in the Bay Area, on some really hot summer day when there is a nice high pressure center over the Bay Area; why not take a drive out I-580 between Livermore and Tracy. You will be driving through the Altamont Pass windfarm. On such days, very few of the wind turbines are turning, and if they do, very slowly. Since the power of a wind turbine goes as the cube of the wind speed; that very low speed means very, very, very, low power.
I've been citing "real world" examples like above to the above poster and the above poster "thinks" ( term used loosely ) that I'm just quoting "book learning", and says I have an inability to think.
I actually am a PhD physicist, so I have the book knowledge; but as above, I also give real world examples that I think anyone can connect with.
It's the anti-nuke eco-nazis that are the "true believers". They believe that there isn't a day the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. Again, anyone knows that there are cloudy days when the bulk of the sun's energy is not available to land based solar arrays. They have never experienced a calm day, and seen a windfarm that is standing stagnant.
This hypocrite says that I am the one that is not facing reality. On the contrary; it is the unfounded mantra of the renewables crowd that the days are always sunny and the wind is always blowing as expressed in the post above.
Some tend to think with their politics, instead of their brains.
Thought I was done....
No, of course I've never heard of a cloudy day,unless your talking about the day you got your degree. Listen, for you to pretend like there are no alternatives based on your scholastic blunderings, is just ridiculous. This mentality is one of the reasons the environment and the economy are in such dire straits. Wake up! In order to preserve this beautiful life we ALL enjoy,we need to come up with "alternative" answers. Just because you don't know them does not mean they don't exist. It amazes me that someone with your supposed credentials doesn't understand this. No need for a degree in order to come up with your "real world" citing ,Which is so obvious they don't warrant much of a response.Oh yea, all this intermittence that you repeatedly claim is the reason why we can't harness natures abundant "renewable" resources,can be overcome with some kind of "super" battery or capacitor or something. Why don't you try being a solution instead of pollution?
And to answer why those "greedy corporations" are not using all the "abundant free energy" to sell back to us and turn a profit, Because it's Free! What's to sell? Good reason for them not to invest in research,though.
Why don't you talk about how radiation causes mutations in DNA which can lead to cancerous tumors?The current "Science" that we use to harness nuclear energy is Unacceptable (based on it's threat to life) and needs to be halted. Sorry that your offended by this, but your denial offends me.
You still pay for electricity...
You are willing to pay for electricity just like the rest of us. If your power company were able to get it for "free"; that wouldn't mean they couldn't still sell it for a price, and you'd be willing to pay the price, because you are doing that now.
So your "what's to sell" argument is just meaningless rhetoric.
If I find a bar of gold, so I get it for free; I can still sell it for the market price; can I not??
Just because the electric company gets its power for free, it can still sell it for what people are willing to pay.
Sure...
.. Would be nice if we didn't have to pay for it. What's the problem?
Reality and Science
One of the things that the anti-nuke, anti-science types have to face is that the Laws of Physics, the Laws of Mother Nature put limits on us. Any time scientists and engineers develop a method of generating energy, we are using the laws that Mother Nature obeys. Mother Nature obeys some laws like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that put limits on what we can / can not do. The renewables crowd has yet to accept these. They just say, "Why don't you invent something that gets around that...". The problem is we can't. Mother Nature obeys these laws, and anything we do using Mother Nature's own laws is similarly constrained.
That's just reality. As far as the battery idea, the problem is the size. Solar power naturally has a 25% duty cycle. That is, the bulk of solar power comes in a 6 hour window centered on the local noon. That's only 25% of a day. However, we use energy 24 hours a day. So a solar plant has to store about 75% of its output for use when the sun is low in the sky, or isn't shining at all.
So how much do we have to store to replace a single large coal or nuclear plant. A typical large coal or nuclear plant is about 1 Gw(e) ( gigawatt-electric ). In a single day, the energy output of just one plant is a Gw-Day. ( The product of a power and a time is always a unit of energy ).
So 1 Gw-Day is a unit of energy and can be converted to any other unit of energy, just like a unit of length like the "foot" can be converted to any other unit of length. If you do the conversion, 1 Gw-Day is 20.6 kilotons or about the energy of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. A solar plant needs to store about 75% of its daily output; so this would be 15 kilotons or the energy of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
It's easy to "wave your hands" and say let's make a "super battery". However, when you do the arithmetic, you find that battery needs to store an atomic bomb's worth of energy. I'm not saying it is impossible; it is difficult; and we don't have it yet. Since we don't have it yet, we can't go 100% renewable. The National Academy of Sciences study on energy says we can at most go 20% renewable at present. So what do we do for the other 80% if we eschew fossil fuels do to their carbon footprint?
Reality and Science
One of the things that the anti-nuke, anti-science types have to face is that the Laws of Physics, the Laws of Mother Nature put limits on us. Any time scientists and engineers develop a method of generating energy, we are using the laws that Mother Nature obeys. Mother Nature obeys some laws like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that put limits on what we can / can not do. The renewables crowd has yet to accept these. They just say, "Why don't you invent something that gets around that...". The problem is we can't. Mother Nature obeys these laws, and anything we do using Mother Nature's own laws is similarly constrained.
That's just reality. As far as the battery idea, the problem is the size. Solar power naturally has a 25% duty cycle. That is, the bulk of solar power comes in a 6 hour window centered on the local noon. That's only 25% of a day. However, we use energy 24 hours a day. So a solar plant has to store about 75% of its output for use when the sun is low in the sky, or isn't shining at all.
So how much do we have to store to replace a single large coal or nuclear plant. A typical large coal or nuclear plant is about 1 Gw(e) ( gigawatt-electric ). In a single day, the energy output of just one plant is a Gw-Day. ( The product of a power and a time is always a unit of energy ).
So 1 Gw-Day is a unit of energy and can be converted to any other unit of energy, just like a unit of length like the "foot" can be converted to any other unit of length. If you do the conversion, 1 Gw-Day is 20.6 kilotons or about the energy of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. A solar plant needs to store about 75% of its daily output; so this would be 15 kilotons or the energy of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
It's easy to "wave your hands" and say let's make a "super battery". However, when you do the arithmetic, you find that battery needs to store an atomic bomb's worth of energy. I'm not saying it is impossible; it is difficult; and we don't have it yet. Since we don't have it yet, we can't go 100% renewable. The National Academy of Sciences study on energy says we can at most go 20% renewable at present. So what do we do for the other 80% if we eschew fossil fuels do to their carbon footprint?
Thanks.
Now thats a good answer. totally agree that there are limits.needless to say if we use Germany as a case study,they were able to eliminate the need of two nuclear power plants just by installing a simply solar array on homeowners roofs. that being so, I would assume California could generate more then Germany has.
Personally I love science and technology. And It often seams that technology has a dramatic impact on what we call science.It's easy to wave your hand and keep consuming OUR limited resources(I.E fossil fuels) or continue to build power plants which threaten living things. Now I'm no scientist so I can't just pull the hard numbers off the top of my head(although give me a couple of hours and I could reference all your facts). There are alternatives and it starts with more research into them.
Funny how you like to generalize people who desire renewable energy. Also you do admit it is possible (no matter how difficult) to design some "super battery". You must be one of those "anti-science types". And I would also assume that you know we could cut back on our electricity demands. This being said those percentages that you quote me are not "Reality and Science" but more of an excuse to continue on building huge nuclear plants and mining OUR limited resources. What is wrong with trying to preserve life and resources? You act as if your "laws" prevent this.
Bottom line is we must come up with "Alternatives". They are out there and you know it. That's my point. Don't undermine these efforts with your nay-sayings.
I agree
I agree that we can cut back on some usage.
However, I always here from people who think we can "conserve our way to energy independence". There will always be the need for some power generation no matter how much you conserve.
Additionally, you should check out the following seminar by Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore. In Europe, Denmark went "whole hog" with wind, and Germany with solar. In terms of carbon footprint, carbon emitted per capita; Denmark is the worst polluter, and Germany is the second worst. That's because both had to fall back on their fossil fuel back-ups for energy when the renewables didn't deliver.
The cleanest countries in Europe in terms of carbon footprint are France and Sweden. That's because France is almost 100% nuclear, and Sweden is 50% nuclear and 50% hydro:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/199958-1
and this.
http://www.nuclearpowerdanger.com
I see your point.Can you see mine?
Maybe this will help.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-science-consumption-idUSBRE...
My concern
My concern is we wouldn't have to worry about this noise at all if mankind hadn't invented radioactivity in the first place back in 1945.
(No subject)
Stupid
Most likely just plain stupid
However, that's the typical response one gets from the typical anti-nuke.
They think that evil mankind "invented" radioactivity for their corporate masters.
They'd be funny if there were only a few of them.
correct URL
http://mitnse.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/fukushima-lessons-learned-mit-...