Author Topic: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide  (Read 8399 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9843
  • Country: gb
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #125 on: March 18, 2019, 08:52:02 pm »
Agree on human issues. I don't want nuclear because of the human issues, not because of the physics or the technology.

Case in point, we have this nightmare in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield

There are 10,000 people employed just to decommission this site.
 

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #126 on: March 18, 2019, 10:01:12 pm »

Case in point, we have this nightmare in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield

WOW!

In 2014, the undiscounted decommissioning cost estimate for Sellafield was increased to £79.1 billion,[23] and by 2015 to £117.4 billion.[14] The annual operating cost will be £2 billion in 2016.[24]


So much for cheap Nuke Power!!


Between 1950 and 2000 there were 21 serious incidents or accidents involving off-site radiological releases that warranted a rating on the International Nuclear Event Scale, one at level 5, five at level 4 and fifteen at level 3

So much for them being safe and clean!
Oh yes, I know, That was the old reactors and these accidents can't happen with the new ones..... none of which have been built yet and few to none of the old ones that are known to be flawed have been shut down.... Many have been licensed to operate beyond their design life.

I'm sorry but no one is going to convince me these things should even exist!
 

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9843
  • Country: gb
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #127 on: March 18, 2019, 10:22:45 pm »
They're a fucking nightmare.

This one always sticks in my mind



Only options are:

1. Less travel.
2. Make higher quality things that last 3-5x longer and can be repaired.
3. Make more energy efficient things.
4. Avoid using energy.
5. Avoid creating too many more people (I'm a bad example - 3 kids  :-DD)
« Last Edit: March 18, 2019, 10:24:29 pm by bd139 »
 
The following users thanked this post: mtdoc

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4235
  • Country: gb
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #128 on: March 18, 2019, 10:33:10 pm »

Case in point, we have this nightmare in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield

WOW!

In 2014, the undiscounted decommissioning cost estimate for Sellafield was increased to £79.1 billion,[23] and by 2015 to £117.4 billion.[14] The annual operating cost will be £2 billion in 2016.[24]


So much for cheap Nuke Power!!


Between 1950 and 2000 there were 21 serious incidents or accidents involving off-site radiological releases that warranted a rating on the International Nuclear Event Scale, one at level 5, five at level 4 and fifteen at level 3

So much for them being safe and clean!
Oh yes, I know, That was the old reactors and these accidents can't happen with the new ones..... none of which have been built yet and few to none of the old ones that are known to be flawed have been shut down.... Many have been licensed to operate beyond their design life.

I'm sorry but no one is going to convince me these things should even exist!
Actually, most of the incidents at Sellafield don't relate to the reactor. Sellafield started its life with a very nasty reactor incident at the very beginning of the UK's nuclear energy development. However, since then most of the problems have been in the adjacently located spent fuel reprocessing facility.
 

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #129 on: March 19, 2019, 12:34:00 am »

 However, since then most of the problems have been in the adjacently located spent fuel reprocessing facility.

Still nuke material having come from reactors.

EVERY reactor has safety issues. A lot are also covered up either by operators or authorities that don't want panic/ protest.
 

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9843
  • Country: gb
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #130 on: March 19, 2019, 12:49:58 am »
To be fair the newer ones are a lot better but the problem is always that there is waste be it spent fuel that can't be reprocessed or reactor parts. Our modern policy here in the UK is grind these up and cast them in heavy leaded glass then bury it and shrug  :palm:

We're still dealing with building 41 which was basically a side result of the sudden ramp up of nuclear power for pile 1 and 2 in the 1950s. Basically we needed to jump on the nuclear band wagon to get us a nice little seat in the UN. To do this we ramped up production massively but didn't have a waste story so we just chucked it in a big vat and crossed fingers. This didn't work as bits of it kept catching fire spontanously so they filled it up with inert gas to stop that. They're working on that now. The same thing is going to happen when we ramp up nuclear power here as we've not increased the budget to handle waste and we don't have the land mass to bury it safely (not that it's particularly safe). Ergo we're just pushing the problems somewhere in the future.

Also fusion, if they ever get that off the ground, has the same outcome. A lot of waste from the reactor components which need to be disposed of.

Total nightmare.

I'm going to buy myself a recumbent trike. That runs on baked beans pretty well.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2019, 12:52:34 am by bd139 »
 

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #131 on: March 19, 2019, 01:04:18 am »

This one always sticks in my mind

Scarily realistic in attitudes of those with vested interests.

Only options are:

1. Less travel.
2. Make higher quality things that last 3-5x longer and can be repaired.
3. Make more energy efficient things.
4. Avoid using energy.
5. Avoid creating too many more people (I'm a bad example - 3 kids  :-DD)
[/quote]

I think there are a few more. .....


I started on a long list of things but then I realised, it all came down to the very self same thing...... Putting profits behind doing what was best. ATM it's completely the other way round and everything is profit first.

As I have mentioned, here in OZ we have loads of sunshine and a LOT of homes have the ability to generate an excess of power from solar.  A lot don't too, particularly these new homes destined to be the slums and ghettos of the very near future by cramming people into the tiniest little piss ant boxes on the smallest  pocket handkerchiefs of land.

For those that have the ability to make decent power, instead of limiting it for profit reasons, let them do what they can to support the ones that can't.... Like unit blocks, shopping centres, businesses etc.
This way would could stick to the best, most flexible option of all, coal, and off set the negative side with solar. Turn the power plants down through the day and then back up again at night saving 50%?  of the emissions/ waste and negatives while still having a reliable source of power that can be ramped up in poor weather or when needed.

This option wont happen because the power companies will pull the strings of the dancing Politician puppets and not let it through because it will hurt the power co profits and it's ALWAYS all about the profits!

The greenwashed are supposedly so worried about reducing emissions, well here is a way to slash emissions in a few years.
Instead of putting money into turbines and other gubbermint crap, put it to subsidizing private  solar installs, pay a DECENT amount for the power generated and put pressure on gubbermint to make it happen.

If there is 2 things this country is blessed with it's sun and coal. instead of trying to get an overnight ideal, lets use what we can to offset the drawbacks before trying to reinvent the wheel and be happy in what we achieve while we work on or wait for technology to come up with a TRULY better alternative.

All it will take is putting doing the best thing over concern for profits and revenue that will still be there anyway.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1666
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #132 on: March 19, 2019, 03:53:35 am »
Agree on human issues. I don't want nuclear because of the human issues, not because of the physics or the technology.

Case in point, we have this nightmare in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield

There are 10,000 people employed just to decommission this site.
Stellafield was used for producing material for nuclear bombs, not civilian nuclear power, wasn't it? That is a different can of worms.

Human issues makes me sceptical as well, but we can look at what have happened so far and do the math. If you calculate damage/kwh so far, it turns out nuclear power is on par with solar and wind. No energy source is perfect, but coal (energy generation based on burning in general) is much worse than anything else, including nuclear. I don't understand why people think dying from radiation is so much worse than dying from air-pollution and heavy metal poisoning. The latter is a much much bigger problem.
 

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9843
  • Country: gb
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #133 on: March 19, 2019, 04:00:11 am »
Initially yes. It turned into a dumping ground for everything radioactive in the end. There's even medical waste there now.

Edit: Problem is both are bad. Hence why I said we need to reduce energy requirements. We got used to having power at our fingertips all day every day. That's not sustainable. Screw the "sustainable energy" thing. The only thing that is, is less of it. I'm not proposing we cast ourselves into a post-apocalytic dark age for ref.

Let's put it this way. I was sitting half way up an office block the other day in a meeting, staring out across London. Hundreds of thousands of people shipped in for the day, consuming power for the sake of being in the same place. That's GWh being pissed away on trains, transport, lighting, computing, food production etc which can be distributed easily if it wasn't for some fucked up old fashioned values of making sure everyone is there because you can't trust them if you can't see them. I know people who drive 150 miles a day to sit at a desk for 7 hours.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2019, 04:07:24 am by bd139 »
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1610
  • Country: pl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #134 on: March 19, 2019, 05:18:13 am »
They're about to decomission a nuclear in Almaraz, Spain. They say they're going to replace it with as many PVs as needed... yeah. 15439 GWh per year, do the math (*) and you'd need 7000 hectares of PVs + many more for aisles.

(*) 15439e9/365/100/6/(100*100) (6 hours of sun per day, 365 days a year, 100W/m2)
int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9843
  • Country: gb
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #135 on: March 19, 2019, 05:21:14 am »
That’s not an awful lot of land. But it is a lot of storage problems and expense.
 

Offline boffin

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Country: ca
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #136 on: March 19, 2019, 05:36:22 am »
They're about to decomission a nuclear in Almaraz, Spain. They say they're going to replace it with as many PVs as needed... yeah. 15439 GWh per year, do the math (*) and you'd need 7000 hectares of PVs + many more for aisles.

(*) 15439e9/365/100/6/(100*100) (6 hours of sun per day, 365 days a year, 100W/m2)

just over 4 times the existing site size of 1683ha. 

really not that much



 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1610
  • Country: pl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #137 on: March 19, 2019, 05:51:04 am »
They're about to decomission a nuclear in Almaraz, Spain. They say they're going to replace it with as many PVs as needed... yeah. 15439 GWh per year, do the math (*) and you'd need 7000 hectares of PVs + many more for aisles.

(*) 15439e9/365/100/6/(100*100) (6 hours of sun per day, 365 days a year, 100W/m2)

just over 4 times the existing site size of 1683ha. 

really not that much

LOL Boffin, you and your maths! It's 210x times more, the nuclear is 50 ha, 7000 ha of PVs + aisles is about 10500 ha.
int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1666
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #138 on: March 19, 2019, 05:51:28 am »
I'm all for energy reduction, but that will be harder to achieve politically than a CO2 tax I suspect. How do you make people use less energy? I know of people who turn on all their (incandescent) lights whenever it's earth hour. A lot of other people fill their homes with tea lights. If some people refuse to travel by air, prices will drop and other will take their place instead.

What I really care about is getting rid of coal (burning). As long as the options are coal(/gas/oil/wood) or nuclear, nuclear is a much better option. A lot of people say we should just use less energy and more solar panels. Fine, if that is possible it's great, but until then, as long as coal is still around it's better to replace coal with nuclear. What is happening in many places today is that nuclear is being replaced with coal and gas.

They're about to decomission a nuclear in Almaraz, Spain. They say they're going to replace it with as many PVs as needed... yeah. 15439 GWh per year, do the math (*) and you'd need 7000 hectares of PVs + many more for aisles.

(*) 15439e9/365/100/6/(100*100) (6 hours of sun per day, 365 days a year, 100W/m2)
The problem, as I see it, is that they could have used the same solar panels (money) to shut down one of their coal power plants instead. They might not realise it but they are effectively choosing coal instead of nuclear. Electricity production in Spain is about 40% fossil fuels, 20% nuclear.

electricity production in spain
 

Offline boffin

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Country: ca
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #139 on: March 19, 2019, 06:22:50 am »
They're about to decomission a nuclear in Almaraz, Spain. They say they're going to replace it with as many PVs as needed... yeah. 15439 GWh per year, do the math (*) and you'd need 7000 hectares of PVs + many more for aisles.

(*) 15439e9/365/100/6/(100*100) (6 hours of sun per day, 365 days a year, 100W/m2)

just over 4 times the existing site size of 1683ha. 

really not that much

LOL Boffin, you and your maths! It's 210x times more, the nuclear is 50 ha, 7000 ha of PVs + aisles is about 10500 ha.

Your ability to pull a number out of your sphincter, to back up your factless claims, is without equal.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaraz_Nuclear_Power_Plant
... The first reactor began operating in 1981 and the second in 1983. It occupies an area of 1683 hectares ...

Reality 1683 hectares
George 50 hectares

 :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1610
  • Country: pl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #140 on: March 19, 2019, 06:49:15 am »
« Last Edit: March 19, 2019, 06:57:22 am by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4274
  • Country: nl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #141 on: March 19, 2019, 08:54:14 am »
Reality 1683 hectares
George 50 hectares

https://goo.gl/maps/SvUTWB4HGrB2
You have to include the water reservoir which was built to cool the plant.
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1610
  • Country: pl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #142 on: March 19, 2019, 10:35:29 am »
You have to include the water reservoir which was built to cool the plant.

Look, I have measured fukushima for boffin and you: 11584700 ha  >:D
int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Online NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5106
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #143 on: March 19, 2019, 01:58:15 pm »
Let's put it this way. I was sitting half way up an office block the other day in a meeting, staring out across London. Hundreds of thousands of people shipped in for the day, consuming power for the sake of being in the same place. That's GWh being pissed away on trains, transport, lighting, computing, food production etc which can be distributed easily if it wasn't for some fucked up old fashioned values of making sure everyone is there because you can't trust them if you can't see them. I know people who drive 150 miles a day to sit at a desk for 7 hours.
On the flip side, there would be less HVAC energy use since that can be turned off or set way back when the house is empty - a few large offices use less energy for HVAC than many (comparatively) small houses thanks to the smaller combined surface area. I don't see how food production would change significantly - those working from home still have to eat. Transportation is indeed the biggest problem, maybe the most effective solution is encourage more working from home.

I have always advocated requiring higher MPG for new cars, although that only solves one problem with cars. Increasing fuel taxes would stress the poor.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #144 on: March 19, 2019, 04:24:15 pm »
I'm all for energy reduction, but that will be harder to achieve politically than a CO2 tax I suspect.

Geez I am so bored with all this Co2 Bullshit.  |O 
I think from now on, whenever I hear  or see it mentioned, I'll go out and burn a tyre  in protest.
Give the whingers something whinge about!  ::)

Co2 is never going to be reduced, energy consumption is never going to be reduced ( well until our grid here falls over which is on the cards in the not too distant future)  because both of those thing are against the fundamental principals and Ideals of business and gubbermints of constant growth and consumption..... no matter what green apeasing propaganda they put out claiming different.
Watch the actions not the words.

Never going to change so may as well shut up and accept it because to do other wise is just using more energy and generating more c02 on a pointless argument.


Quote
I know of people who turn on all their (incandescent) lights whenever it's earth hour.

Yep, do it whenever I remember it's on.  The more lights the better the photos are going to look!
I'm all for doing my bit like that and I have a LOT of lights.   Stupid ideas deserve appropriate responses.


Quote
[/b] A lot of other people fill their homes with tea lights.

And then put a flower pot over them and make YT vids claiming they are heating their house cheap and saving the world.
There is just no limit to stupid and ignorance.

Quote
If some people refuse to travel by air, prices will drop and other will take their place instead.

Yep, you are never going to beat the Big biz machine and it's useless trying or for a tiny little group to whine and sook about what the rest of the population loves and craves. Besides, it's harder to get a ship to most places than a plane, especially in and out of land locked countries. I have also found that a lot of companies won't give employees an extra month off for travel time just to get to and from their destination before their Holiday time starts.

Quote
What I really care about is getting rid of coal (burning).

Of course you do because you have swallowed the globull boring scam hook line and sinker and think  getting rid of coal in favour of unreliables  is going to cure the problems of the world. Are you going to put your hand up to be the first to load shed when the renewables fall over and there isn't enough power to go round?  Are you prepared to put your money where your beliefs are and sell everything you own to compensate people who loose their job when companies close or move to places where they have lower emissions standards but reliable power and therefor the net result is still NIL?
No, you'll want all the unicorns and rainbows but no responsibility with the inevitable happens.

Quote
As long as the options are coal(/gas/oil/wood) or nuclear, nuclear is a much better option.

 |O |O |O  Yeah.  ::) Especially if you drink enough of the green Koolaide and smoke enough of the Nuke industry propaganda.  Drink and smoke a bit more and you'll see we can just saddle up the flying pigs  to turbines and make them provide all our power needs!

Lets make a big song and dance about doing away with one source of pollutants to replace it with another source that is a million times more deadly, longer lasting, and more dangerous. Makes perfect sense. We'll just ignore the fact the waste has the potential to wipe out the world a with just a ton of the stuff and as illustrated on this very thread, costs BILLIONS to clean up after when it's done.

The hypocrisy of people claiming to be concerned about the planet and the environment and then championing a power source that produces the most Toxic, deadly and damaging substances know to man with NO possibility of making it safe would be laughable if it were not so moronic and worrying as to how gullible and easily fooled society has become.  :palm:
The irony of arguing over the health of the planet when those in charge have become so dumbed down and incapable of thinking for themselves is beyond imagination.


Quote
A lot of people say we should just use less energy and more solar panels. Fine, if that is possible it's great,

It's technically possible but the same forces in the world that are going to keep increasing co2 levels and driving people to consume more are the very same ones blocking the use of more Rooftop solar that could greatly reduce the centralized energy supplies which is the last thing they want.


Quote
but until then, as long as coal is still around it's better to replace coal with nuclear.

NO, it's not.
No matter how many times you read it and parrot the same flawed bullshit, it's still moronically flawed bullshit.


Quote
What is happening in many places today is that nuclear is being replaced with coal and gas.

Well thank Fk humans are doing something right!! There is hope for us yet.

And what is the problem with gas? No waste there to worry about. it's clean as!
Oh, yeah, that's right, the Co2, the Co2 sky is falling garbage. yeah, cause if you make all power generation gas the world will end next week and if you take it away the worlds problems will be cured. how could I forget?   ::)

Quote
The problem, as I see it, is that they could have used the same solar panels (money) to shut down one of their coal power plants instead.

If that's the way you see it, Time for a visit to Specsavers so you can get some new glasses that are clear rather than  Nuke rose coloured see things clearly and stop being so badly mislead.
The proposal to push an old reactor beyond it's designed service life pretty much gives away the brain washing that says champion the cause blindly and never let the potential effects, problems and dangers take up any thoughts in your head at all.

Quote
They might not realise it but they are effectively choosing coal instead of nuclear.
Oh I'm sure they realise and I commend them on their wise decision to do so.

Quote
Electricity production in Spain is about 40% fossil fuels, 20% nuclear.

And thankfully the nuke number is going down.

Unlike the complete and utter Bullshit the greenwashed like to spread about everything at every opportunity, Coal is not dying as a power source at all and Nuke IS going down.

Atm Sources site there are 700+ Coal plants under construction or sheduled to be built.
For Nuke, the number is 20 with half  of those  in China.
Can't seem to find numbers for unreliables construction but there seems to be a hysteric race to see who can build the biggest unreliable facilities around the world.
 How they can claim to be saving the world at the same time they are defacing is and destroying habitats and landscapes in beyond me.

The place for solar is in the citys where it can be used on rooftops and takes up no more land nor does any further damage to the landcape or natural environment. That however means putting control back into the hands of the people and loosing profits so that is simply unacceptable and unfathomable.
 

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9843
  • Country: gb
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #145 on: March 19, 2019, 07:05:18 pm »
Let's put it this way. I was sitting half way up an office block the other day in a meeting, staring out across London. Hundreds of thousands of people shipped in for the day, consuming power for the sake of being in the same place. That's GWh being pissed away on trains, transport, lighting, computing, food production etc which can be distributed easily if it wasn't for some fucked up old fashioned values of making sure everyone is there because you can't trust them if you can't see them. I know people who drive 150 miles a day to sit at a desk for 7 hours.
On the flip side, there would be less HVAC energy use since that can be turned off or set way back when the house is empty - a few large offices use less energy for HVAC than many (comparatively) small houses thanks to the smaller combined surface area. I don't see how food production would change significantly - those working from home still have to eat. Transportation is indeed the biggest problem, maybe the most effective solution is encourage more working from home.

I have always advocated requiring higher MPG for new cars, although that only solves one problem with cars. Increasing fuel taxes would stress the poor.

There’s almost no AC here in UK and we only have the heating on three months a year at average. It’s more food supply than production.

We have charges for going into London by car. Firstly there’s the congestion charge which is a daily pollution tax $14 a day. Then there’s the ULEZ charge, a pollution tax on poor performing cars, again around $14. Then there’s parking which can reach $32 a day. Pretty punishing for car owners. EVs and get low emission vehicles are exempt from everything other than parking.

So everyone just gets the train in which is up to $330 a month for the Greater London zone.

So London is pretty sorted but once everyone gets in there needs to be a supply of goods which are brought in via armies of trucks, all of which are taxed heavily. Thus your food costs more at lunch.

People are being punished with long commutes, expensive food, expensive tickets or charges on top of the unnecessary energy. I just don’t get it all.

I go in perhaps once every couple of weeks for a meeting and that could be done on skype.
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1610
  • Country: pl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #146 on: March 19, 2019, 07:32:20 pm »
IMO we are too many already. Doubling the population makes no thing better. Halving it would.
int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4274
  • Country: nl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #147 on: March 19, 2019, 10:54:32 pm »
IMO we are too many already. Doubling the population makes no thing better. Halving it would.
OK, thread can be closed now.
 

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9843
  • Country: gb
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #148 on: March 19, 2019, 11:15:31 pm »
I don't think he's suggesting full Thanos there...  :-DD
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1666
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #149 on: March 20, 2019, 01:41:05 am »
Since most people are not willing to get rid of coal power, nature will probably halve it for us soon enough.
 
The following users thanked this post: mtdoc


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf