# False hope of renewables...settled science



## Manonthestreet (Nov 23, 2014)

Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible. Renewable energy simply WON T WORK Top Google engineers The Register


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 23, 2014)

I'd pump a few hundred billion into fusion. We could end up with a real replacement.


----------



## Mr. H. (Nov 23, 2014)

But gosh, we have to give it the ol' college try!

Never mind the  financial cost, the human cost, the societal cost.


----------



## westwall (Nov 23, 2014)

Matthew said:


> I'd pump a few hundred billion into fusion. We could end up with a real replacement.







Just imagine If the fusion researchers had had the 120 BILLION dollars that these charlatans pissed away.  Just imagine where we'd be now....  Makes me sick.


----------



## Discombobulated (Nov 24, 2014)

Manonthestreet said:


> Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible. Renewable energy simply WON T WORK Top Google engineers The Register



The link is a really nice source of entirely politicized information with just a dash of actual science thrown in for good measure.


----------



## westwall (Nov 24, 2014)

Discombobulated said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> > Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible. Renewable energy simply WON T WORK Top Google engineers The Register
> ...







It's actually factual, and that just pisses the hell out of you doesn't it.


----------



## Politico (Nov 24, 2014)

Matthew said:


> I'd pump a few hundred billion into fusion. We could end up with a real replacement.


Except fusion is not possible. But you go on with your imaginary money and believe that.


----------



## initforme (Nov 24, 2014)

Fossil fuels are being used at a much faster rate than they are being formed. At some point, even those will become rare..... they resource is not infinite.   Some kind of alternate source will have to emerge down the road.  Fossil fuels are the future for the next couple hundred years or so probably.  Then?   That being said, I can not say one good thing about the way big oil companies operate.  They get away with just about anything they want, yet whine like little babies about regulations.  Heck, they don't follow them anyway.  Look at BP, they got away with a disaster they knew was going to happen.


----------



## DGS49 (Nov 24, 2014)

I interviewed for a job one time at the Fusion Physics Laboratory at Princeton University.  This is a large black hole into which pittances (couple hundred million a year, I guess) is spent by the Feds  every year on nuclear fusion research.  Although I'm sure if you asked one of their PhD researchers if she was making progress you would get a positive response, I'm not inclined to put much faith in it.

Any energy source that is more cost effective than what is currently available will do well.  But to the great chagrin of the world's enviro-weenies, we keep finding more sources of carbon fuels, thus rendering their warnings about "running out of oil" just so much oral flatulence.

The next great breakthrough will be figuring out what to do with the CO2 that comes out of power plants (mainly).  If some bastard can figure out how to turn it into a liquid or a solid, it would be a spectacular breakthrough.


----------



## RGR (Nov 25, 2014)

Manonthestreet said:


> Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists.



Bit of a strawman isn't it? Eco-fascists are ultimately interested in one thing, and that is primarily population control or...in the case of the people they don't like (people of color, Africans in general, Republicans, grubby poor people) population reduction. Control and reduction would be best in their minds, the assumption being that as long as it is only them left standing and enjoying the benefits of life, the world would be a far better place.

They laid out these plans some years ago, and have done quite an excellent job, corrupting and politicizing science, convincing the young that they need to be part of the good, wholesome, green group as opposed to all those others, and all everyone needs to do to bring about their utopian vision is stop participating. In anything causing CO2 which just so happens...coincidentally...to be what all those people they don't like do when they exhale. Now how convenient is that!


----------



## RGR (Nov 25, 2014)

Politico said:


> Except fusion is not possible. But you go on with your imaginary money and believe that.



Come on people, can we please THINK before we hit the "post reply" button? Of COURSE fusion is possible.

Naturally, and caused by humans.


----------



## DGS49 (Nov 25, 2014)

The second one is FISSION, not FUSION.


----------



## RGR (Nov 25, 2014)

Not when it's a hydrogen bomb it isn't.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 25, 2014)

Manonthestreet said:


> Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible. Renewable energy simply WON T WORK Top Google engineers The Register



Wait a minute.  If renewables are an impossibility to sustain civilization, then civilization can only last until the non-renewables are gone?

lol


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2014)

LOL. All this flap-yap, and the renewables appear to have already won the race. The cost of natural gas and coal fired installations continue to rise, the cost of wind and solar continues to fall. To the point that the renwables now produce electricity cheaper than do either coal or gas. It is all laid out in the thread, "Alternatives on the rise".


----------



## Politico (Nov 26, 2014)

RGR said:


> Not when it's a hydrogen bomb it isn't.


So? That's not what we're talking about.


----------



## JFK_USA (Nov 27, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. All this flap-yap, and the renewables appear to have already won the race. The cost of natural gas and coal fired installations continue to rise, the cost of wind and solar continues to fall. To the point that the renwables now produce electricity cheaper than do either coal or gas. It is all laid out in the thread, "Alternatives on the rise".



No kidding. If using renewable energy sources was so terrible and costed so much money, why are so many businesses installing solar panels? I know big liberal government conspiracy. The truth only comes from Rush Limbaugh


----------



## Roguewave (Dec 6, 2014)

Businesses install PV on their roofs first to soak up government subsidies and second to impress gullible nitwits in the deluded pubic with what great corporate citizens they are.

Note: The authors of the OP report work(ed) for Google which bought half interest in the collosal boondoggle, Ivanpah, which corporation through a subsidiary and its partners in crime are demanding the public fork over $539M to help pay a $1.6B loan to build the failing solar bird furnace in the dessert. Their employers should have been listening.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 6, 2014)

Unsubsidized wind, presently 3.7 cents per kilowatt on the low end. Subsidized coal, presently 6.6 cents per kilowatt on the low end.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 9, 2014)

Politico said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I'd pump a few hundred billion into fusion. We could end up with a real replacement.
> ...


It's "not possible?"  It occurs every day in the Sun.  So how can that be true?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2014)

May be possible, but we don't seem to able to figure out how to do it. 

However, using photovoltaic is certainly taking advantage of that large fusion reactor in the sky.


----------



## Politico (Dec 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


Because that's not what we're talking about.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 10, 2014)

Politico said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



My mistake.  I thought you were talking about nuclear fusion.


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. All this flap-yap, and the renewables appear to have already won the race. The cost of natural gas and coal fired installations continue to rise, the cost of wind and solar continues to fall. To the point that the renwables now produce electricity cheaper than do either coal or gas. It is all laid out in the thread, "Alternatives on the rise".







They only are rising because government, at the behest of the green companies, have levied enormous fees on coal and natural gas so that renewables can be more competitive...and they STILL are losing out.


----------



## Politico (Dec 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


No mistake. You know we're not talking about the freaking sun.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 10, 2014)

Politico said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



Since the process obviously occurs naturally, what gives you the gonads to claim it can't be reproduced artificially?  Aren't you one of the morons who claims that solar can be made competitive with fossil fuels if only enough money is invested in it?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL. All this flap-yap, and the renewables appear to have already won the race. The cost of natural gas and coal fired installations continue to rise, the cost of wind and solar continues to fall. To the point that the renwables now produce electricity cheaper than do either coal or gas. It is all laid out in the thread, "Alternatives on the rise".
> ...


*LOL. Ol' Walleyes is still trying to pretend that tomorrow is not happening.*

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

Oncor proposes giant leap for grid batteries Dallas Morning News

Oncor, which runs Texas’ largest power line network, is willing to bet battery technology is ready for wide-scale deployment across the grid.

In a move that stands to radically shift the dynamics of the industry, Oncor is set to announce Monday that it is prepared to invest more than $2 billion to store electricity in thousands of batteries across North and West Texas beginning in 2018.

Utility-scale batteries have been a holy grail within the energy sector for years. With enough storage space, surplus electricity can be generated at night, when plants usually sit idle, to be used the next day, when demand is highest. Power outages would become less frequent. Wind and solar power, susceptible to weather conditions, could be built on a larger scale. The only problem has been that the price of batteries has been too high to make economic sense. But if they’re purchased on a large enough scale, that won’t be the case for long, said Oncor CEO Bob Shapard.

“Everyone assumed the price point was five to six years out. We’re getting indications from everyone we’ve talked to they can get us to that price by 2018,” he said in an interview Wednesday.

The Dallas-based transmission company is proposing the installation of 5,000 megawatts of batteries not just in its service area but across Texas’ entire grid. That is the equivalent of four nuclear power plants on a grid with a capacity of about 81,000 megawatts.

*And that makes wind and solar 24/7. That will start the phasing out of coal fired generators by 2020, and gas fired by 2030. Will also result in the canceling of plans for nuclear reactors on the basis of cost.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Any process that occurs naturally can be done with the proper technology and knowledge. Seems thus far, we are a bit deficient in both. And then there is the cost per kilowatt.


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...









And look at the section that that lying bastard olfraud left out....


*"Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies* that could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources."


And then there are these fees that are being added to the cost of coal.  Some are warranted, and some are not.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-mssp/coal.pdf
Richmond Sunlight 2014 Landlord and tenant law energy submetering local government fees. HB614 
Resource fee for coal miners to rise
CleanEnergy Footprints Archive Countdown to coal ash rules from EPA

Above are a very few of the regs and fees.  The facts are those "generous subsidies" that your story spoke of are generated by taking the money from coal, and oil, and natural gas, and giving it to the "green" companies.

Not exactly a level playing field...........is it....


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scalesolar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

*That was right there in the post.  Wind at an unsubsidized price of 3.7 cents a kilowatt, solar at 7.2 cents a kilowatt, and prices still dropping for both. In the meantime, lowest for dirty coal is 6.6 cents a kilowatt, and 6.1 cents a kilowatt for gas.*

*The market is deciding the future right now, and luddites like Walleyes cannot do a thing about it.*


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0
> 
> According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scalesolar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.
> 
> ...









You idiot!  It's only because of this fact...*Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies"  *that you keep leaving out of the post, you dishonest twerp, reveal ALL of the facts why don't you?   Oh yeah, because the facts.....*expose you for the lying POS that you are!*
E


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 10, 2014)

Matthew said:


> I'd pump a few hundred billion into fusion. We could end up with a real replacement.



Modern nuclear technology is a renewable source of nearly unlimited power and it's safe as well

Pity we can't get past the Jane Fonda hype and do something real.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukashima.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0
> ...


Oh my, Walleyes has his tit in a wringer. Yes, the prices that were made possible by the subsidies, at present, were 1.4 cents a kilowatt for wind. 5.1 cents a kilowatt for solar. However, that one Texas utility signed a contract for 20 years to deliver electricity for less than 5 cents a kilowatt. Knowing full well the subsidies may be dropped. They are betting on the economies of scale making the solar much less than a nickel a watt in the near future. Unsubsidized wind can be had today for 3.7 cents a watt. 

Poor ol' Walleyes is just squealing like a stuck pig for the lack of oppertunity to expose the children of this nation to mercury, arsenic, lead, and uranium. All products out of the smokestacks of coal fired plants. Less of each for plants built since 1975, but they produce electricity that costs more than 6.6 cents a watt. That figure is for the dirty coal plants.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I'd pump a few hundred billion into fusion. We could end up with a real replacement.
> ...


Pity that nuclear power did not deliver on the promises they made in the '50's. Absolutely fail safe, and power so cheap we would not have to meter it. Instead, we have seen two serious disasters, and one near disaster, and nuclear is very high priced electricity.


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukashima.









More people have died skate boarding.  In a year.


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...









The only person who is squealing is you dickhead.  You're lying through your teeth trying to say that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels which is an outright lie.  And you know it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukashima.
> ...


You are a fucking liar. And know full well the extent of the lie you have told. 

Chernobyl Death Toll 985 000 Mostly from Cancer Global Research

_This past April 26th marked the 24th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. It came as the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear government officials in the United States and other nations were trying to “revive” nuclear power. And it followed the publication of a book, the most comprehensive study ever made, on the impacts of the Chernobyl disaster._

_Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment was published by the New York Academy of Sciences._

_It is authored by three noted scientists:_

_Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president;_

_Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and_

_Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus._

_Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity._

The book is solidly based — on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports — some 5,000 in all.

It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

The book explodes the claim of the International Atomic Energy Agency– still on its website that the expected death toll from the Chernobyl accident will be 4,000. The IAEA, the new book shows, is under-estimating, to the extreme, the casualties of Chernobyl.

*Minimum death toll of 4000, max of nearly a million. You are a liar totally without any kind of ethics.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

*Fukushima s appalling death toll The Japan Times*

*Fukushima’s appalling death toll*

ARTICLE HISTORY

PRINT

SHARE


As the third anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake approaches, new studies of the ongoing effects of the triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown show that the disaster is far from over.

The latest report from Fukushima revealed that more people have died from stress-related illnesses and other maladies after the disaster than from injuries directly linked to the disaster. The report compiled by prefectural authorities and local police found that the deaths of 1,656 people in Fukushima Prefecture fall into the former category. That figure surpasses the 1,607 people who died from disaster-related injuries. Another 434 people have died since 3/11 in Iwate Prefecture and 879 in Miyagi Prefecture. These indirect causes are just as deadly as the direct causes, and are likely to last much longer unless the central government takes action.

In another report, the first of its kind since the disaster, the lifetime risk of cancer for young children was found to have increased because of exposure to radiation. While the increase was relatively small — a mere 1.06 percent in areas close to the crippled nuclear plant — the results, which were published in the U.S. science journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, were the first projections of the harmful effects from exposure to radiation released by the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant.

*From Japan.*


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...









Talk about a biased source!  Here's what the UN has to say about it....


"In 2005, the UN Nuclear Watchdog indicated that the final direct death toll from Chernobyl could be as low as 56 and it dismissed reports that the toll ran into hundreds of thousands. It did however acknowledge that the figure related to those deaths that were 100% attributable to the accident and it estimated that the final figure including those that had contracted cancer following the explosion to be around 4,000."
How many people died at Chernobyl 8211 History of Russia
So, that's the range that is accepted by REPUTABLE PEOPLE.   Notice the emphasis on REPUTABLE?  Not your tinfoil hat wearing loonies.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


LOL. I did not say that. The utilities in Texas and Oklahoma stated that. You know, those ultra-liberals in Texas and Oklahoma. Old man, you have been rendered completely irrelevant to anything at all today by your continual lies. And you have totally lost the respect of any but other liars here.


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *Fukushima s appalling death toll The Japan Times*
> 
> *Fukushima’s appalling death toll*
> 
> ...










Oh, so they died of stress and not radioactivity did they.  What a 'tard.  When it comes to lying, you've got that corner covered.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

Hey Walleyes, you lying dog, what you are claiming is that the people that died from the after affects of Hiroshima should not be counted as victims of the bomb.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

_Chernobyl Death Toll 985 000 Mostly from Cancer Global Research

It is authored by three noted scientists:_

_Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president;_

_Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and_

_Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus._

_Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity._

The book is solidly based — on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports — some 5,000 in all.

*Real scientists doing real science.*


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



For someone who tries to speak of how technology can improve life, you are still living in the 50's when it comes to nuclear power. The new tech is safe. 

Tell me rocks, how many Americans have died from nuclear power production. You realize the total number is zero, right. And those reactors are very old technology. 

You also realize that the new technology actually recycles the fuel. Absolutely renewable and nearly limitless. 

And you want to play with wind turbines and mirrors?

If you were truly interested in limiting carbon, you would open your mind.


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> _Chernobyl Death Toll 985 000 Mostly from Cancer Global Research
> 
> It is authored by three noted scientists:_
> 
> ...



Lol, you realize that reactor had zero containment, right? It was built and maintained by possibly the most dis functional government on the planet, right?

Get with current engineering. 

You really aren't green at all, are you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

Sure Walleyes, no more deaths from the results of this than from skateboarding. You are truly a total idiot.


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *Fukushima s appalling death toll The Japan Times*
> 
> *Fukushima’s appalling death toll*
> 
> ...



Do you still drive a 1965 impala?

Comparing Fukushima to the new generation reactors implies you do. 

Link

A New Molten-Salt Reactor Could Halve the Cost of Nuclear Power MIT Technology Review


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

*CDC - Uranium Miners 1 - NIOSH Study Summary*

*Results for White Uranium Miners*
The study looked at all causes of death. Only the causes of death listed below were significantly above normal. The results for all other causes of death were within the normal range.

*Lung cancer*
We found strong evidence for an increased risk for lung cancer in white uranium miners. We expected about 64 deaths, but found 371. This means we found about 6 times more lung cancer deaths than expected.

There was an exposure-response relationship with exposure to radon daughters in the mines. When radon daughters are breathed in, they decay radioactively in the lung. This can cause lung cancer.

*Pneumoconiosis*
We also found strong evidence for pneumoconiosis, a type of lung disease (other than cancer) which is caused by dust. We expected less than 2 deaths, but found 41. There were about 24 times more of these deaths than expected.

This category includes silicosis, a disease caused by breathing in a particular mining dust, silica. Silicosis causes scarring of the lung and severe breathing problems. The risk of these lung diseases was greater the longer miners had worked in the mine.

*Tuberculosis*
We expected to see about 3 ½ deaths from the infectious lung disease tuberculosis (TB), but we saw 13. This is about 4 times more deaths than expected. This could have been related to the silicosis. People with silicosis are more likely to get TB.

*Emphysema*
We expected to see about 22 ½ deaths from emphysema but found 56. This is 2 ½ times more deaths than expected. Some of this result could have been related to cigarette smoking. People who smoke are more likely to get emphysema.

*Injuries*
We expected to see about 68 deaths from injuries and found 143. This is over 2 times more deaths than expected.

*Benign cancers and diseases of the blood*
We also saw a greater risk of deaths from the categories "benign and unspecified cancers" and "diseases of the blood". Both of these categories had small numbers of deaths. Therefore, it is possible that the increased risk may not be due to mining.

*All deaths*
Finally, we saw a greater risk for "all deaths combined". We expected 986 deaths and found 1,595. This is 1 ½ times more deaths than expected.

*Pretty bad numbers.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

*CDC - Uranium Miners 1 - NIOSH Study Summary*

*Results for Non-White Uranium Miners*
The study looked at all causes of death. Only the causes of death listed below were significantly above normal. The results for all other causes of death were within the normal range.

*Lung cancer*
We found strong evidence for an increased risk for lung cancer in non-white uranium miners. We expected about 10 deaths, but found 34. This means we found over 3 times more lung cancer deaths than expected.

There was an exposure-response relationship with exposure to radon daughters in the mines. When radon daughters are breathed in, they decay radioactively in the lung. This can cause lung cancer.

*Pneumoconioses and other lung diseases*
We also found strong evidence for pneumoconioses and other lung diseases (other than cancer). We expected about 8 deaths, but found 20. This means there were about 2 ½ times more of these deaths than expected.

This category includes many different diseases. They include silicosis. a disease caused by breathing in a particular mining dust, silica. Silicosis causes scarring of the lung and severe breathing problems. The risk of these lung diseases was greater the longer miners had worked in the mine.

*Tuberculosis*
We expected to see about 4 ½ deaths from the infectious lung disease tuberculosis (TB), but we saw 12. There were about 2½ times more of these deaths than expected. This could have been related to the silicosis. People with silicosis are more likely to get TB.

*Same kind of results.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

A New Molten-Salt Reactor Could Halve the Cost of Nuclear Power MIT Technology Review

High costs, together with concerns about safety and waste disposal, have largely stalled construction of new nuclear plants in the United States and elsewhere (though construction continues in some countries, including China). Japan and Germany even shut down existing plants after the Fukushima accident two years ago (see “Japan’s Economic Troubles Spur a Return to Nuclear” and “Small Nukes Get Boost”). Several companies are trying to address the cost issue by developing small modular reactors that can be built in factories. But these are typically limited to producing 200 megawatts of power, whereas conventional reactors produce more than 1,000 megawatts.

*Two very important points here. We have heard the 'cheaper' song and dance many times from the nuclear industry. Has not happened yet. Second, who do you suppose is funding the research on these reactors? You and I, and every other taxpayer, with many more dollars than wind or solar has ever seen.*


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 10, 2014)

Solar more deadly than nuclear?

Who knew

Obviously not the greenies

How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt We Rank The Killer Energy Sources - Forbes


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> A New Molten-Salt Reactor Could Halve the Cost of Nuclear Power MIT Technology Review
> 
> High costs, together with concerns about safety and waste disposal, have largely stalled construction of new nuclear plants in the United States and elsewhere (though construction continues in some countries, including China). Japan and Germany even shut down existing plants after the Fukushima accident two years ago (see “Japan’s Economic Troubles Spur a Return to Nuclear” and “Small Nukes Get Boost”). Several companies are trying to address the cost issue by developing small modular reactors that can be built in factories. But these are typically limited to producing 200 megawatts of power, whereas conventional reactors produce more than 1,000 megawatts.
> 
> *Two very important points here. We have heard the 'cheaper' song and dance many times from the nuclear industry. Has not happened yet. Second, who do you suppose is funding the research on these reactors? You and I, and every other taxpayer, with many more dollars than wind or solar has ever seen.*



Red herring. Technology can't become efficient until it's built. Lol

What was the price of a HDTV ten years ago? Today?

You guys crack me up. 

Of course you're living in the 50's


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt We Rank The Killer Energy Sources - Forbes

Energy Source               Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average         170,000  (50% global electricity)

Coal – China                        280,000  (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S.                               15,000  (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil                                               36,000  (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas                                4,000  (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass                    24,000  (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop)                              440  (< 1% global electricity)

Wind                                                 150  (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average  1,400  (15% global electricity)

Nuclear – global average  90  (17%  global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

*Interesting list. Obviously they lowballed the nuclear deaths at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Would like to know to what they attributed the 440 deaths for solar. Falling off of roofs?

The death toll from Chernobyl looks to top 1,000,000 before the total effects are over. 
Chernobyl Death Toll 985 000 Mostly from Cancer Global Research*


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

Pop23 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > A New Molten-Salt Reactor Could Halve the Cost of Nuclear Power MIT Technology Review
> ...


Point is, that nuclear is at present real spendy. And I see nothing in the future to change that. Whereas solar and wind are steadily coming down in price. And, with the advent of grid scale batteries, will be 24/7.


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt We Rank The Killer Energy Sources - Forbes
> 
> Energy Source               Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
> 
> ...



Back to talking 1st generation reactors again???

Does your TV still have a tube?

You do realize that engineers fix problems, Right?

You do realize that the French have reduced their carbon footprint to half of that of their neighbor Germany by building reactors while Germany decommissions theirs in favor of wind/solar, right? Not very green of the Germans. 

You also realize that much of the early "no nukes" protest was funded by......

Wait for it


You're good friends known as.......



Big oil!


Seriously, you can't make this stuff up!


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukashima.


How many people were killed by all three put together?


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *Fukushima s appalling death toll The Japan Times*
> 
> *Fukushima’s appalling death toll*
> 
> ...



"died from stress-related illnesses and other maladies"

They didn't die from radiation.  That's the bottom line.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 10, 2014)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Almost all of those 4000 deaths could have been prevented simply by having people in the vicinity take Iodine.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt We Rank The Killer Energy Sources - Forbes
> 
> Energy Source               Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
> 
> ...



Your death figures are totally made-up figures manufactured from thin air by the EPA.

Whenever an environmental wacko posts figures of any kind, you can count on the fact that they are totally bogus.


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Hey Walleyes, you lying dog, what you are claiming is that the people that died from the after affects of Hiroshima should not be counted as victims of the bomb.









People die all the time.  To claim "stress related" due to a nuclear accident is simply retarded and is indicative of the biased shit that politically motivated "scientists" such as those you favor spew out on a regular basis.  When they do it for the tobacco companies you're all up in their face, when they do it for something you support you're A-OK with it.  Talk about an unethical POS, you are that in spades.


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> _Chernobyl Death Toll 985 000 Mostly from Cancer Global Research
> 
> It is authored by three noted scientists:_
> 
> ...







Fake bullshit by politically motivated asshats.  Like you.


----------



## westwall (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt We Rank The Killer Energy Sources - Forbes
> 
> Energy Source               Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
> 
> ...







Even the UN laughs at the number of 985,000.  As does every other reputable person on the planet.  The only people pushing your number are the tin foil hat wearing lunatics.


----------



## Politico (Dec 11, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


No you're the moron who imagined I did. If you're going to discuss my positions on solar and fossil fuels you should at least know what they are. Not like I haven't made my position clear.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 11, 2014)

Politico said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



So you're saying  you don't believe solar and wind power can be made competitive with fossil fuels?


----------



## elektra (Dec 11, 2014)

Solar is a joke, when will Solar supply the energy needed to manufacture solar panels. The answer is never, solar is weak for the weak.


----------



## Politico (Dec 12, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


No I said you should get a clue on my positions if you are going to argue with them.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 12, 2014)

U.S. Solar Market Insight SEIA

The U.S. installed 1,354 megawatts (MW) of solar photovoltaics (PV) in the third quarter of 2014 to total 16.1 gigawatts (GW) installed PV capacity, with another 1.4 GW of concentrating solar power (CSP) capacity, enough to power 3.5 million homes. This quarter was the second largest quarter in history for solar growth, and SEIA and GTM Research predict another record-breaking year for 2014, with total installed capacity reaching three times the size of the market just three years ago.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 12, 2014)

Politico said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



In other words, you're a spineless weasel who doesn't want to admit what your positions are.


----------



## Politico (Dec 13, 2014)

No I said I have stated my positions many times and everyone knows them. And also that you are a compulsive quoter who quotes quotes. Were you dropped on your head as a child?


----------



## RGR (Dec 14, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> U.S. Solar Market Insight SEIA
> 
> The U.S. installed 1,354 megawatts (MW) of solar photovoltaics (PV) in the third quarter of 2014 to total 16.1 gigawatts (GW) installed PV capacity, with another 1.4 GW of concentrating solar power (CSP) capacity, enough to power 3.5 million homes.



Installed MW is nice. Any estimates of EFFECTIVE MW from these folks? Lets face it, until the sun starts shining 24/7, capacity isn't the correct metric, but effective is. Perhaps delivered? All the CAPACITY in the world isn't worth a dime without sunlight, or the number of hours of sunlight in a day to calculate an EFFECTIVE generation number. 

It is like claiming you've installed 500HP in your garage because you bought a Corvette, but really, you don't USE all that power and are far more likely to putter around town using 100HP here or there to outrun some family sedan at a stoplight....the 500HP is just a bragging number utilized only by very few, and not very often, and in the case of solar panels, you KNOW you can't ever use the capacity 24/7.


----------

