I don't usually bother with this sort of discussion, but I will this time. You wrote,
"...spare me your anti-renewable, pronuclear accusations again. We've danced this dance before, and you're always failed to substantiate that claim of me (which makes sense, seeing as I'm PRO-SOLAR and PRO-WIND, and have repeatedly stated I'm agnostic on nuclear at best)."Anyone who reads your posts over time knows that is complete nonsense.
I googled "NickB79 Energy" and this is typical of what was in a random selection from half of the first 20 hits:
1) You claim that a distributed renewable grid maintains corporate control over energy just like nuclear. That is false, Nick. The present structure based on fuels creates a bottleneck where competition cannot be brought to bear. The concept is explained fully in the thread, but you don't want to hear it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x104767#1048782) In 2007 you wrote,
" I want meaningful solutions, not greenwashing. Instead of waiting a few centuries for renewables to start making a difference, I agree with many other posters here that we should a) conserve like hell, and b) build more scalable energy-generating facilities (cough, nuclear, cough, cough).
But if you want to be all roses and sunshine about wind producing only 0.6% of world energy demand after 20 years of intense development, be my guest."http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x122585Renewables deploy faster and for less money than nuclear, Nick.
3) You hijack a positive renewable thread about Saudi Arabia installing 5 GW of solar to focus on an
obvious typo.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x2930834) You defending nuclear:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x290797 5) You try to help smear Germany for moving away from nuclear:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x308535#3085956) And the final sample for the guy that is "agnostic on nuclear at best":
". Nuclear is the only choice we have left
Like it or not, nuclear is the lesser of two evils. That or coal are the only two power sources left on this planet that could replace oil at the moment. I say nuclear is the lesser of the two evils because coal produces more toxic waste per day in this country than nuclear does in an entire year, and the nuclear waste is far more easily contained than the soot, CO2 and waste ash from coal-fired plants. Wind, solar and biomass are all excellent ways to reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels or nuclear, but to put all your hope in them as replacements to oil is sadly overly optimistic. Even if our demand for energy doesn't increase in the future (it more than likely will increase), without massive technological advancements in solar cells and wind farms, they will be unable to supply us with the required energy. This subject has been discussed thoroughly on the Environment Board, and there are numerous threads there to browse through. Honestly, I don't like the idea of nuclear power plants near my home, or anyone else's. My college physics professor told us years ago that by the time we were his age we'd be relying on nuclear for more than 50% of our energy needs, and I scoffed at the idea. But, after reading up on the subject of Peak Oil and life after we no longer have cheap oil-based fuels, there doesn't appear to be any alternative. I only pray they perfect fusion reactors, but they've been saying they're 20 yrs away from a working fusion reactor for the past 40 yrs now. -
NickB79http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x352957Now lets bring it back to the current thread. The OP is about a global resource assessment for solar that is looking at a landscape that has previously been ignored. It is a basic comprehensive assessment, not a development plan.
In fact, such basic work is crucial to good planning; let me give an example to show why. The US turned to renewables under Carter as a response to the Arab Oil Embargoes of the 70s. The first thing that was accomplished in this effort was a basic, comprehensive resource assessment. The results showed that the US had a good amount of solar potential, but very little wind. We therefore crafted policies designed to promote solar and placed very little emphasis on wind. Progress on solar was slow and come Ronny Ray-gun the entire policy approach was nearly abandoned.
After Ray-gun gutted the renewables program people had time on their hands and around the mid 80s, in reviewing the work that had been done to date, someone noticed that the early wind resource assessment on which Carter's policies had been based was accomplished using the best wind data available at the time. Unfortunately, that wind data was mostly collected at the nation's airports - all located by design in areas of the lowest winds that were locally available.
We had made a substantial blunder. Given the capabilities of existing technologies, if we had focused on wind in those early days of OPEC motivated renewable development, it is very possible that results could have been delivered that would have made abandoning the renewable efforts much more difficult politically.
These types of studies might seem pointless and stupid to someone predisposed to looking at renewables as pointless and stupid, but the fact is they are crucial to our future. Neother you nor I know what might come of this work. But without it, it is certain that any possible good will never materialize.
Your attempt to ridicule it as if it were a mindless development proposal is nothing more than a hijacking of the thread and given your past posting history, seems designed to turn people away from the subject.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
