Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well estimates vary, but also factor in the indirect casualties of these disasters. All the people getting various cancers due to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl alone are estimated to be close to a million. If a wind turbine falls over and kills someone, at least it isn't going to make the whole area uninhabitable for centuries.I don't know about that. It remains a very expensive way to boil water. Then there is the matter of what to do with the radioactive waste produced by these plants. The public is rightfully pretty leery of these plants after the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.It's worst than that. Many environmentalist support building more nuclear plants because it will reduce CO2 while other are more concerned with the safety to the environment. If we put aside all the fears and bullshit, we would be building more nuclear plants.It has been about 30 years. One has been approved and started in GA to be added to the Vogtle plant outside Waynesboro.
France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear. Are the frogs ahead of us on energy and in calling radical muslim terrorists what they are?
We are well behind in using nuclear power. Yes, France generates most of its power in nuclear power plants. Unless I am mistaken, I believe I remember reading that the gov't built or funded almost all of those plants.
So, on the one hand you have environmentalists screaming against nuclear power, and on the other you have people complaining about the gov't funding to build them. Those two reasons are why we are behind.
Fewer people have died, worldwide, from nuclear power than from wind turbine accidents.
"In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources).
Forget Eagle Deaths Wind Turbines Kill Humans - Forbes
Well estimates vary, but also factor in the indirect casualties of these disasters. All the people getting various cancers due to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl alone are estimated to be close to a million. If a wind turbine falls over and kills someone, at least it isn't going to make the whole area uninhabitable for centuries.I don't know about that. It remains a very expensive way to boil water. Then there is the matter of what to do with the radioactive waste produced by these plants. The public is rightfully pretty leery of these plants after the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.It's worst than that. Many environmentalist support building more nuclear plants because it will reduce CO2 while other are more concerned with the safety to the environment. If we put aside all the fears and bullshit, we would be building more nuclear plants.France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear. Are the frogs ahead of us on energy and in calling radical muslim terrorists what they are?
We are well behind in using nuclear power. Yes, France generates most of its power in nuclear power plants. Unless I am mistaken, I believe I remember reading that the gov't built or funded almost all of those plants.
So, on the one hand you have environmentalists screaming against nuclear power, and on the other you have people complaining about the gov't funding to build them. Those two reasons are why we are behind.
Fewer people have died, worldwide, from nuclear power than from wind turbine accidents.
"In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources).
Forget Eagle Deaths Wind Turbines Kill Humans - Forbes
Well estimates vary, but also factor in the indirect casualties of these disasters. All the people getting various cancers due to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl alone are estimated to be close to a million. If a wind turbine falls over and kills someone, at least it isn't going to make the whole area uninhabitable for centuries.I don't know about that. It remains a very expensive way to boil water. Then there is the matter of what to do with the radioactive waste produced by these plants. The public is rightfully pretty leery of these plants after the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.It's worst than that. Many environmentalist support building more nuclear plants because it will reduce CO2 while other are more concerned with the safety to the environment. If we put aside all the fears and bullshit, we would be building more nuclear plants.France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear. Are the frogs ahead of us on energy and in calling radical muslim terrorists what they are?
We are well behind in using nuclear power. Yes, France generates most of its power in nuclear power plants. Unless I am mistaken, I believe I remember reading that the gov't built or funded almost all of those plants.
So, on the one hand you have environmentalists screaming against nuclear power, and on the other you have people complaining about the gov't funding to build them. Those two reasons are why we are behind.
Fewer people have died, worldwide, from nuclear power than from wind turbine accidents.
"In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources).
Forget Eagle Deaths Wind Turbines Kill Humans - Forbes
Well estimates vary, but also factor in the indirect casualties of these disasters. All the people getting various cancers due to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl alone are estimated to be close to a million. If a wind turbine falls over and kills someone, at least it isn't going to make the whole area uninhabitable for centuries.I don't know about that. It remains a very expensive way to boil water. Then there is the matter of what to do with the radioactive waste produced by these plants. The public is rightfully pretty leery of these plants after the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.It's worst than that. Many environmentalist support building more nuclear plants because it will reduce CO2 while other are more concerned with the safety to the environment. If we put aside all the fears and bullshit, we would be building more nuclear plants.We are well behind in using nuclear power. Yes, France generates most of its power in nuclear power plants. Unless I am mistaken, I believe I remember reading that the gov't built or funded almost all of those plants.
So, on the one hand you have environmentalists screaming against nuclear power, and on the other you have people complaining about the gov't funding to build them. Those two reasons are why we are behind.
Fewer people have died, worldwide, from nuclear power than from wind turbine accidents.
"In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources).
Forget Eagle Deaths Wind Turbines Kill Humans - Forbes
So require the operators have proper training. That would have prevented the Chernobyl disaster.
Why I don't drive electric.
Cost too much.
I drive 500+ miles per day.
I don't have 8 hours to waste waiting on my next fill up.
Fuck electric.
Well estimates vary, but also factor in the indirect casualties of these disasters. All the people getting various cancers due to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl alone are estimated to be close to a million. If a wind turbine falls over and kills someone, at least it isn't going to make the whole area uninhabitable for centuries.I don't know about that. It remains a very expensive way to boil water. Then there is the matter of what to do with the radioactive waste produced by these plants. The public is rightfully pretty leery of these plants after the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.It's worst than that. Many environmentalist support building more nuclear plants because it will reduce CO2 while other are more concerned with the safety to the environment. If we put aside all the fears and bullshit, we would be building more nuclear plants.
Fewer people have died, worldwide, from nuclear power than from wind turbine accidents.
"In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources).
Forget Eagle Deaths Wind Turbines Kill Humans - Forbes
So require the operators have proper training. That would have prevented the Chernobyl disaster.
Maybe, maybe not. Chernobyl was a very poorly designed reactor. The majority of those who died though were the ones fighting the fires and the people who massed on the bridge so they could watch what was happening. They were looking right into the reactor so they all received lethal doses and died within weeks.
Why I don't drive electric.
Cost too much.
I drive 500+ miles per day.
I don't have 8 hours to waste waiting on my next fill up.
Fuck electric.
Why I don't drive electric.
Cost too much.
I drive 500+ miles per day.
I don't have 8 hours to waste waiting on my next fill up.
Fuck electric.
Right. It doesn't fit what you want so fuck it? lol
Cool. I'm 6'2" tall. Any car not built for people my size? Fuck it.
Nobody has suggested that a Tesla is suitable for someone who drives for a living over long distances. But that will come.
What do you do that has you driving 500 miles a day? Are you a trucker?
So, on the one hand you have environmentalists screaming against nuclear power, and on the other you have people complaining about the gov't funding to build them. Those two reasons are why we are behind.
Why I don't drive electric.
Cost too much.
I drive 500+ miles per day.
I don't have 8 hours to waste waiting on my next fill up.
Fuck electric.
Right. It doesn't fit what you want so fuck it? lol
Cool. I'm 6'2" tall. Any car not built for people my size? Fuck it.
Nobody has suggested that a Tesla is suitable for someone who drives for a living over long distances. But that will come.
What do you do that has you driving 500 miles a day? Are you a trucker?
The best way to gauge true range for EV's is to watch the racing world. The absolute top of the line in technology is involved in it. F1 has Formula E Formula E - Official FIA Formula E Championship which, while relatively boring compared to standard F1 does at least show the absolute pinnacle of the technology. And the Isle of Man TT has their own electric superbike formula.
Here is video of the two different types. Now, the electric bike is 4.3 million dollars and can make ONE lap of the circuit. The ICE powered bikes are all under 200,000 and can do two laps before refueling and replacing the rear tire.
Why I don't drive electric.
Cost too much.
I drive 500+ miles per day.
I don't have 8 hours to waste waiting on my next fill up.
Fuck electric.
Right. It doesn't fit what you want so fuck it? lol
Cool. I'm 6'2" tall. Any car not built for people my size? Fuck it.
Nobody has suggested that a Tesla is suitable for someone who drives for a living over long distances. But that will come.
What do you do that has you driving 500 miles a day? Are you a trucker?
The best way to gauge true range for EV's is to watch the racing world. The absolute top of the line in technology is involved in it. F1 has Formula E Formula E - Official FIA Formula E Championship which, while relatively boring compared to standard F1 does at least show the absolute pinnacle of the technology. And the Isle of Man TT has their own electric superbike formula.
Here is video of the two different types. Now, the electric bike is 4.3 million dollars and can make ONE lap of the circuit. The ICE powered bikes are all under 200,000 and can do two laps before refueling and replacing the rear tire.
An electric motorcycle that costs $4.5 million and has a 5 mile range? Obama and the warmies want to order 2 million units asap...at taxpayer expense naturally.
Hybrids will probably remain the vehicle of choice for those looking for high gas mileage and low emission while the market and technology comes up with the best solution in zero emission class.In Los Angeles people would love to drive electric cars. They don't. It's not practical. In high density buildings like condos and apartments there are maybe two charging stations for 100 units. Bristol Farms put one charging station in a parking lot. That charging station slot is the nearest to the door so it's taken by non electric vehicles.
So many EVs got stuck on the freeway that BMW put a small gas powered extender in their new EV just to get people off the freeway when they run out of power.
Hybrids are very popular but electric vehicles are a loser where they should be better sellers.
Well, that is the hype. When we see one delivered, then we can believe. In the meantime, the wind mills and solar panels are for sale.So, on the one hand you have environmentalists screaming against nuclear power, and on the other you have people complaining about the gov't funding to build them. Those two reasons are why we are behind.
US firm unveils plans for mini nuclear reactors - physicsworld.com
They've been working on these tykes down the road from me at Los Alamos for the past two decades. They're no bigger than a dumpster. They can provide electric power for 20,000 households for 30 years. Bury-and-forget in 300 foot deep concrete-sealed chambers . They were developed originally for the third world, but there's no reason we couldn't be using them in small rural American cities as well. They're very expensive, but worth it in the long run.
View attachment 36093
New Battery Boasts 7 Times More Energy Density
An 1855 mile range for a Tesla S?
There is a great deal going on in the field of creating an EV battery that will go head on with the ICE for range.
Newsitems - AUVAC
as the story says "imagine that"
let me know when it is widely available
and can be recharged in minutes
The Tesla Model S can do a complete battery swap in less time than it takes to fill up a regular gasoline car. I have no idea what the cost is, but those things always go down with volume.
Still too expensive when compared to gas vehicles, and 2017 is too far away.The car industry bought all the patents they could to shut down competition to oil and hybrid vehicles, and Tesla focuses on the luxury market.
Tesla has big plans for the non-luxury market:
Chevrolet’s debut of the Bolt EV concept at this year’s Detroit Auto Show led many to state that the proposed vehicle’s 200-mile range and $30,000 price tag will give Tesla Motors cause to be nervous, but CEO Elon Musk isn’t breaking a sweat just yet.
Speaking at the Automotive News World Congress during this year’s Detroit Auto Show, The Car Connection reports that Musk covered a myriad of subjects during an on-stage interview with a group of journalists. Among them was his statement that the Tesla Model 3, a vehicle planned for 2017, will run less than that, starting at $35,000. The keen math wizards among you have surely realized Musk’s number is larger than the one for the Chevy Bolt, but the Bolt’s planned price includes government tax rebates whereas the one for the Tesla 3 doesn’t.
Tesla Model 3 to cost less than Chevrolet Bolt EV vehicle Digital Trends
Most of your major car companies are investing heavily in EVs. When we get version below 30k that has a consistent 100 mile range, you'll likely see their sales skyrocket.
The ultimate test will be how many they sell in comparison to hybrid cars, but I doubt they will out sell them or change the market.
The EV market will continue to grow. Generating electricity will also grow. The renewable generation of electricity has come a long way, and will continue to do so.
As the need grows, so will the need for nuclear power plants. Properly run they are our best option right now.
However, the market is barely keeping pace with current projected electricity needs, any increased use is bad for the environment and will make it difficult to meet 'green energy' targets. What electric cars will lead to, is more non-renewable power and coal or gas plants.Still too expensive when compared to gas vehicles, and 2017 is too far away.The car industry bought all the patents they could to shut down competition to oil and hybrid vehicles, and Tesla focuses on the luxury market.
Tesla has big plans for the non-luxury market:
Chevrolet’s debut of the Bolt EV concept at this year’s Detroit Auto Show led many to state that the proposed vehicle’s 200-mile range and $30,000 price tag will give Tesla Motors cause to be nervous, but CEO Elon Musk isn’t breaking a sweat just yet.
Speaking at the Automotive News World Congress during this year’s Detroit Auto Show, The Car Connection reports that Musk covered a myriad of subjects during an on-stage interview with a group of journalists. Among them was his statement that the Tesla Model 3, a vehicle planned for 2017, will run less than that, starting at $35,000. The keen math wizards among you have surely realized Musk’s number is larger than the one for the Chevy Bolt, but the Bolt’s planned price includes government tax rebates whereas the one for the Tesla 3 doesn’t.
Tesla Model 3 to cost less than Chevrolet Bolt EV vehicle Digital Trends
Most of your major car companies are investing heavily in EVs. When we get version below 30k that has a consistent 100 mile range, you'll likely see their sales skyrocket.
The ultimate test will be how many they sell in comparison to hybrid cars, but I doubt they will out sell them or change the market.
The EV market will continue to grow. Generating electricity will also grow. The renewable generation of electricity has come a long way, and will continue to do so.
As the need grows, so will the need for nuclear power plants. Properly run they are our best option right now.
yeah it is a good thing however windmills and solar panels do not do much
for demand times
we need many more nuke plants but good luck getting that through
However, the market is barely keeping pace with current projected electricity needs, any increased use is bad for the environment and will make it difficult to meet 'green energy' targets. What electric cars will lead to, is more non-renewable power and coal or gas plants.Still too expensive when compared to gas vehicles, and 2017 is too far away.The car industry bought all the patents they could to shut down competition to oil and hybrid vehicles, and Tesla focuses on the luxury market.
Tesla has big plans for the non-luxury market:
Chevrolet’s debut of the Bolt EV concept at this year’s Detroit Auto Show led many to state that the proposed vehicle’s 200-mile range and $30,000 price tag will give Tesla Motors cause to be nervous, but CEO Elon Musk isn’t breaking a sweat just yet.
Speaking at the Automotive News World Congress during this year’s Detroit Auto Show, The Car Connection reports that Musk covered a myriad of subjects during an on-stage interview with a group of journalists. Among them was his statement that the Tesla Model 3, a vehicle planned for 2017, will run less than that, starting at $35,000. The keen math wizards among you have surely realized Musk’s number is larger than the one for the Chevy Bolt, but the Bolt’s planned price includes government tax rebates whereas the one for the Tesla 3 doesn’t.
Tesla Model 3 to cost less than Chevrolet Bolt EV vehicle Digital Trends
Most of your major car companies are investing heavily in EVs. When we get version below 30k that has a consistent 100 mile range, you'll likely see their sales skyrocket.
The ultimate test will be how many they sell in comparison to hybrid cars, but I doubt they will out sell them or change the market.
The EV market will continue to grow. Generating electricity will also grow. The renewable generation of electricity has come a long way, and will continue to do so.
As the need grows, so will the need for nuclear power plants. Properly run they are our best option right now.
yeah it is a good thing however windmills and solar panels do not do much
for demand times
we need many more nuke plants but good luck getting that through
