M
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
I agree. It was quite entertaining.
Same here. I am a big fan of “the nuclear” as President Trump called it. It is the only short-term option to fossil fuels. “Free” energy is not free and viable in isolated places. A nuclear reaction produces energy wherever the reaction is, though as stated above, fault lines are not the best places for them.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
The problem is that “The Nuclear” is politically incorrect. President Trump supports it but doesn’t want to say it aloud.
President Trump is supposed to visit France next week. [DID YOU SEE MACRON SCRAMBLE TO GET PHOTOGRAPHED NEXT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AT THE G20 MEETING???] France gets 80% of their electricity from nuclear. They decided to no longer be hostage to middle east terrorism. Maybe he can ask Macron if he can sell Macron some of our surplus wind mills.
P
PJH_74
Guest
There’s a bit of a fallacy in what you are saying here. Unless you are very isolated, you want to be on grid even if you can fully generate most of the power you need locally. There’s a concept that is not obvious to most people without an electrical background, the grid can take the place of you batteries.
To live off grid you’ll need to size your system to your highest demand. When you turn on power tools, heaters, hair driers, washer, and especially electric water heaters/stoves/dryers you create a large spike in demand. Either your alternative energy sources along with your batteries need to be sized to keep up or you will eventually draw down your batteries and have power fluctuate as your power generation can produce.
If you put you excess self generated energy back into the grid when you have a surplus you are in effect storing it. Surges in use can temporarily be pulled back from the grid. What this allows for is a more modest power generation solution geared to providing constant power vs covering peak power needs.
G
GEddie
Guest
The problem with nukes is that we don’t yet have a safe means to sequester the high-level nuclear waste.
We as a species cannot afford any more Chernobyls or Fukushimas either. We don’t have that much good land to close forever from human life.
ICXC NIKA
We as a species cannot afford any more Chernobyls or Fukushimas either. We don’t have that much good land to close forever from human life.
ICXC NIKA
P
PJH_74
Guest
No all people who generally see Trump as a fool are against Nuclear. I for one am not, though its use must be better thought of in the future.
P
PJH_74
Guest
I hear you, but fossil fuels affect the entire earth so it’s debatable if high intensity local pollution vs difficult to reverse CO2 emissions are better.
P
Padres1969
Guest
Yep… but plenty of radioactive waste that they have to figure out where to store and which doesn’t become safe for several thousand years. But other than that yeah it doesn’t pollute or kill birds.
Now if we can ever figure out fusion I’d agree with you. Fission reactors though do pollute, just in a different way. And that’s presuming they don’t meltdown and/or release radioactivity into the environment as we’ve seen at Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, SL-1, etc…
T
Theo520
Guest
A home wind turbine will still run you >$15,000 to get installed,
and you will likewise need backup power. Mains power will always be more economical and home turbines are making a value statement, unless you are trying to live off-grid.
and you will likewise need backup power. Mains power will always be more economical and home turbines are making a value statement, unless you are trying to live off-grid.
While the larger wind turbines are… pretty terrible… I think that the smaller personal turbines intended to power individual homes are actually reaching a pretty viable point. They’ll never b the sole source of power for a home, but as a supplemental option to save money they look pretty promising.
T
Theo520
Guest
The newer Molten Salt reactors can actually burn what we now call nuclear waste as their fuel. The relatively small amount of radioactive waste they produce requires a few hundred years of isolated storage, not > thousands of years as with current nuclear reactors in production.
T
Theo520
Guest
Link to the court case please.
I only heard he was charged with fraud, and beating a fraud charge in no way proves what he was selling was economically viable
G
GEddie
Guest
Plants eat CO2. Maybe it’s time to make use of that effect and reforest the earth.
No natural process will reverse radioactivity within human time.
ICXC NIKA
P
ProdigalSun
Guest
Oh please that is ridiculous.
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
So, its magic?
P
ProdigalSun
Guest
Oh man that is hiliarious. This guy must believe in the old adage that there is a sucker born everyday!
P
pnewton
Guest
The area of the Earth is 196,900,000 square miles. The area in both of these zones is 1300 square miles, or 0.0007% of the area of the Earth. Please someone check my math.
If the ozone level, or sea level rose by 0.0007%, would you consider it significant?
P
pnewton
Guest
That is a great idea, if we could stop de-forestation first.
W
WarrenS
Guest
If you would have watched the videos’ you would have seen court documents. Dennis Lee has proved in a court of law that free energy devices work.
W
WarrenS
Guest
Science.
Dennis Lee - The Humming Bird Motor and the Sun Dance Generator
youtube.com/watch?v=MF8lq-cAVlE
T
Theo520
Guest
You really need to raise your standards. A guy waiving some papers around in a youtube video is not verifiable evidence of anything.
If you can’t link to a single article describing his court case, and that doesn’t concern you, then maybe you should give him the requested $25k for your local distribution rights to his amazing technology (which as of yet he’s failed to demonstrate with independent verification)
- Status