Google Wants To Help More Homes Switch To Solar Energy

[Political Junky]

Things are moving quickly to alternative energy.

Google Wants To Help More Homes Switch To Solar Energy

Google on Monday launched Project Sunroof, an online tool that helps people determine whether they should get solar panels for their home. The experiment, part of Google's push to increase awareness of solar energy, analyzes your house's location, roof space and energy bill, and tells you how much solar panels will cost you -- and how much money you could save on electricity.
<more>

 

[Iceweasel]

Google is full of shit. Nuclear is the way to go, solar panels create toxic wastes as well and is a small return on the dollar unless you live in the desert and have low energy needs. Somehow France manages 70% or more nuclear and we let liberals scare us out of it and chase the wind and sun..

 

[Stephanie]

Follow the money. Google isn't doing this from the kindness of their hearts

I guess BIG Corps are now in this year

 

[Auld Phart]

I'd just like to figure out a way to use solar to melt the snow on my pool house, before it gets too high.

 

[Claudette]

I live in Florida and if Solar energy was viable everyone in Florida would be using it.

As would everyone in the Southwest.

It may become viable at some point, but it isn't right now.

 

[Stephanie]

I'd just like to figure out a way to use solar to melt the snow on my pool house, before it gets too high.

In Alaska you'll see a lot of metal roofs. they don't install solar panels. they just RELY on the sun to melt it and it SLIDES right off. We'd sit in our Solarium when it happened and listened to it and watched it for hours. boredom, after almost three months of total darkness. LOL

 

[Two Thumbs]

panels cost to much, so you would have to be in the home you plan on dying in to get any real return.

but good luck to any that want it and have fun climbing up there to clean them off

 

[Brain357]

Google is full of shit. Nuclear is the way to go, solar panels create toxic wastes as well and is a small return on the dollar unless you live in the desert and have low energy needs. Somehow France manages 70% or more nuclear and we let liberals scare us out of it and chase the wind and sun..

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You lazy slob. Reactors can be made safer, why not scare people with Chernobyl? Do some homework and get back to us.

If it can happen in Japan it can happen anywhere.

 

[Iceweasel]

For those interested, I recently watched a movie on Netflix "Pandora's Promise" that gives the low down on nuclear power. Most of the people interviewed were former anti-nuke leaders and scientists. The guy making the film goes around to disaster sites with a meter and the surprising results, along with blowing away the myths and hysteria.

The bottom line is that electricity is the single most important element in improving human life and nuclear power is cheap and can be made safe.

 

[Moonglow]

For those interested, I recently watched a movie on Netflix "Pandora's Promise" that gives the low down on nuclear power. Most of the people interviewed were former anti-nuke leaders and scientists. The guy making the film goes around to disaster sites with a meter and the surprising results, along with blowing away the myths and hysteria.

The bottom line is that electricity is the single most important element in improving human life and nuclear power is cheap and can be made safe.

nuclear reactors for ever home...

 

[Iceweasel]

Google is full of shit. Nuclear is the way to go, solar panels create toxic wastes as well and is a small return on the dollar unless you live in the desert and have low energy needs. Somehow France manages 70% or more nuclear and we let liberals scare us out of it and chase the wind and sun..

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You lazy slob. Reactors can be made safer, why not scare people with Chernobyl? Do some homework and get back to us.

If it can happen in Japan it can happen anywhere.

Not everywhere is a major earthquake zone.

 

[Iceweasel]

Germany Sets New Record Generating 74 Percent Of Power Needs From Renewable Energy ThinkProgress

No content? You sure are a lazy fuck. You think a one second search settles the matter. LOL



Safety of Nuclear Reactors

• From the outset, there has been a strong awareness of the potential hazard of both nuclear criticality and release of radioactive materials from generating electricity with nuclear power.
• As in other industries, the design and operation of nuclear power plants aims to minimise the likelihood of accidents, and avoid major human consequences when they occur.
• There have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. One was contained without harm to anyone, the next involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and the third severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity.
• These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 16,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 33 countries.
• The evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of generating electricity. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining. The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Radiological effects on people of any radioactive releases can be avoided.

The three significant accidents in the 50-year history of civil nuclear power generation are:

• Three Mile Island (USA 1979) where the reactor was severely damaged but radiation was contained and there were no adverse health or environmental consequences
• Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986) where the destruction of the reactor by steam explosion and fire killed 31 people and had significant health and environmental consequences. The death toll has since increased to about 56.
• Fukushima (Japan 2011) where three old reactors (together with a fourth) were written off and the effects of loss of cooling due to a huge tsunami were inadequately contained.

And bear in mind Chernobyl was a fast and dirty nuclear weapons plant from the old USSR days, not a safety minded power plant.

 

[warf]

There is no safe storage for nuclear waste.

Solar works, is affordable and clean.

Doesn't seem like a difficult decision.

 

[martybegan]

Google is full of shit. Nuclear is the way to go, solar panels create toxic wastes as well and is a small return on the dollar unless you live in the desert and have low energy needs. Somehow France manages 70% or more nuclear and we let liberals scare us out of it and chase the wind and sun..

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You lazy slob. Reactors can be made safer, why not scare people with Chernobyl? Do some homework and get back to us.

If it can happen in Japan it can happen anywhere.

Anywhere that has a 40 foot high wall of water hit it, and has an improperly shielded backup generator.

Don't you think that all of those backup generators have been hardened since then?

 

[martybegan]

There is no safe storage for nuclear waste.

Solar works, is affordable and clean.

Doesn't seem like a difficult decision.

Actually encasing it in concrete in a secure facility is more than safe.

 

[Brain357]

There is no safe storage for nuclear waste.

Solar works, is affordable and clean.

Doesn't seem like a difficult decision.

Actually encasing it in concrete in a secure facility is more than safe.

That's why so many states want to store nuclear waste. You must be joking.

 

[martybegan]

There is no safe storage for nuclear waste.

Solar works, is affordable and clean.

Doesn't seem like a difficult decision.

Actually encasing it in concrete in a secure facility is more than safe.

That's why so many states want to store nuclear waste. You must be joking.

NIMBY and BANANA, nothing more.

People also don't want things like wastewater plants, or garbage transfer stations near them, but they still want their sewage treated and their garbage picked up.

 

[Brain357]

There is no safe storage for nuclear waste.

Solar works, is affordable and clean.

Doesn't seem like a difficult decision.

Actually encasing it in concrete in a secure facility is more than safe.

That's why so many states want to store nuclear waste. You must be joking.

NIMBY and BANANA, nothing more.

People also don't want things like wastewater plants, or garbage transfer stations near them, but they still want their sewage treated and their garbage picked up.

Do those things remain dangerous for millions of years?

 

[Iceweasel]

There is no safe storage for nuclear waste.

Solar works, is affordable and clean.

Doesn't seem like a difficult decision.

Actually encasing it in concrete in a secure facility is more than safe.

That's why so many states want to store nuclear waste. You must be joking.

NIMBY and BANANA, nothing more.

People also don't want things like wastewater plants, or garbage transfer stations near them, but they still want their sewage treated and their garbage picked up.

Do those things remain dangerous for millions of years?

You're assuming technology won't advance in the future? Also you should know the cheaper production light water methods have more waste than the better reusable type.

 

[martybegan]

There is no safe storage for nuclear waste.

Solar works, is affordable and clean.

Doesn't seem like a difficult decision.

Actually encasing it in concrete in a secure facility is more than safe.

That's why so many states want to store nuclear waste. You must be joking.

NIMBY and BANANA, nothing more.

People also don't want things like wastewater plants, or garbage transfer stations near them, but they still want their sewage treated and their garbage picked up.

Do those things remain dangerous for millions of years?

What does it matter the duration if it is dangerous? If properly made and maintained the storage will last as long as we do.