Trump - Off to Destroy the World

[DezNutz]

ITs not how much you spend its how you spent it.
There are nations wich now are close to 100% of reneval energy. Windmills and dams.

Don't forget though that the US is one of largest nations in the world, both in land size and population, which makes producing enough energy for everyone harder then in a smaller nation such as Ireland for example. though it can be done, We could cut our military spending in half and focus that on renewable energy until we are using mostly renewable energy. Though some large corporations might not like that and try to stop it from happening.

Renewable energy standards are a joke. I work in the industry. The only reason you see the windmills and solar farms in the US is because of government subsidies. Solar get subsidized at just over 96 cents per kwh. The average consumer price of electricity in the US is 12.6 cents per kwh.

That means the US subsidizes solar power at almost 8 times the retail price. Solar Technology is currently not viable as a self-sustaining industry and the only reason it exists is because of government subsidies.

Ding Ding Ding.

[Marcellus Falcon]

Currently in the USA, natural gas is the cheapest means to create electricity, with Nuclear directly behind it. Nuclear is, however, the most effective and environmentally friendly (uranium is a naturally occurring element and can be recycled and reused to reduce waste). One metric tonne of uranium (nuclear fuel) produces 44 million kilowatts of electricity. It takes 20,000 metric tonnes of Coal and 8.5 Million cubic meters of gas to create the same amount of electricity.

I like this conversation. We are bouncing off arguments without getting too emotional and retarded about it... Believe me, I've been in many conversations that drifted into that direction! Speaks for PG's players...

Anyway, I looked into nuclear recycling. Currently, the US does not recycle its nuclear fuel. Europe, Russia and Japan are doing so.

I am aware that nuclear reactors appear to run clean, but I know of enough sites in Germany where nuclear waste from reactors are dumped deep in the earth with some of them barrels leaking (reported in German press a few years ago). In my own experience, I remember being in Kindergarten in Munich, Germany and we were not allowed to play outside for a while. My parents later explained to me that because of the radioactive fallout that came from Chernobyl, I was not allowed to go out.

Now you may say: "But that was some dodgy eastern block country and technology is much safer and better nowadays!" - I partly agree! But Japan is not a dodgy country and leaders in high-tech, safety and sticklers for almost anything! And still, it happened. Sometimes it is not in our control.

Nuclear reactors don't have to be built next to a city. You can build it in Death Valley, but you'll feel the fallout nonetheless. Even if the chance for a nuclear meltdown is 0.001%, there is Murphy's Law... That is not putting into account natural causes, crime, terrorism, blatant retardedness, etc.
These areas are contaminated for many decades. If that would happen in central Germany, it would be a massive disaster. Not only environmentally but also economically and social.

I've been to Fukushima this year by the way. I didn't go into the danger zone though!

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5368 ... ecialists/ (Article about chances of nuclear meltdown till 2050)

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... ear_energy (Nuclear article about casualties)

I'm very mixed in my view of nuclear tech producing energy. I think there are lots of potentials but also drawbacks. Like with all forms of energy production. Coal, Oil and Gas are finite. Not to mention it took billions of lifeforms to make over millions of years and we burn it like there is no tomorrow!

[Marcellus Falcon]

This is a good read about nuclear energy, how it works, gets recycled etc. Really interesting!

https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/recycling.html

[Blackbearad]

.

Don't forget though that the US is one of largest nations in the world, both in land size and population[/quote]

well china and India (the largest population/land mass) are not considered nation then
being an animal lover i don't like animal i cages.

@mar @denutz
the topic was about Paris Climate deal and trump backing out of it......green energy has a long way to go to become a viable option (except solar)


PS: i think everyone are crazy because TRUMP backed out, i doubt such fuss would be if Obama did the same

[Mack]

I don't know I think it would have still been made into a big deal just because of the many people that profit from the billions of dollars that get sent that way.. they definitely would not want their income to cease under any circumstances right

[Mack]

Osama just didn't want that to fall on him I imagine

[Blackbearad]

Obama* lol

[Mack]

Umm oops hehe

[DezNutz]

Fukushima was the result of poor location and setup.

A nuclear meltdown will not create a nuclear explosion, thus no fallout. A fire plume that was exposed to radioactive material is not fallout. The Chernobyl incident was a lot of things and resulted in numerous safety features being implemented.

And yes Murphy's law, but if we used Murphy's Law as a reason to not do something, we would still be sitting in caves with sticks.

Don't forget though that the US is one of largest nations in the world, both in land size and population

well china and India (the largest population/land mass) are not considered nation then
being an animal lover i don't like animal i cages.

@mar @denutz
the topic was about Paris Climate deal and trump backing out of it......green energy has a long way to go to become a viable option (except solar)


PS: i think everyone are crazy because TRUMP backed out, i doubt such fuss would be if Obama did the same

Out of context. The statement was in regards to the USA compared to smaller countries that already use green energy. Small nations can easily implement green energy solutions, as green energy works well in the small scale. When you start to look at larger nations with huge populations, green energy doesn't cut it. Furthermore, India and China are major polluters and are not bound to do anything to actually reduce their pollution via the PA, while the USA dumps billions of dollars into a fund that does nothing but gives other nations our money.

Green energy is relatable to this conversation.

[sXs]

There is a place for renewables, but the current structure means 100% renewable is nearly impossible for the US to achieve. Deez is correct in saying natural gas is the cheapest form of energy.

Also, if take into account the manufacturing process, materials required to create, waste, and the overall "carbon footprint", Natural gas is the "greenest" energy source currently used. The worst is coal, although new clean coal initiatives have made it much more viable. second is solar. The energy used to simply manufacture the solar panel and the solar cells cancels out any benefit received from the "renewable" side of things. The overall land area requirements needed by solar farms is so prohibitive as to make it hard to build. The footprint of solar is huge.

Now as far as wind power goes, it is subsidized at just over 5 cents per kwh or nearly half the retail price. The wind power subsidies under Obama were a joke. Here in Texas, they over built wind farms only because of the subsidies. There were several scams that went on up until 2012. Now not only do wind turbines only generate power when the wind blows, they do not start generating power until wind speeds reach 5-10 mph. At lower speeds they require a "Kickstart" In other words they consume energy before they start generating energy. In low wind environment that kickstart can at times be a constant energy feed. Just because the blades on the turbine are turning, doesn't mean they are producing.

Now several stories have been written about companies building these massive wind turbines to take advantage of the subsidies, yet they were not even connected to the grid. In some cases it was because the energy infrastructure did not exist and in other cases it was simply a way to scam a government program.

Solar and wind only work in specific situations, nuclear is the most efficient power source, but as far as overall viability, environmental impact and cost, natural gas is still king.

I could go on and on about this topic. If you want to get into which country has done more or is doing more in this area, don't believe the stories that the US is not a leader. The circumstances here are much different than almost any other nation.

Just out of curiosity, how many people know what the #1 greenhouse gas is. What greenhouse gas makes up the largest percentage of out atmosphere.

Hint: it is not even close to what you hear on the news media.