Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (78191)	7/10/2017 12:37:36 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 86356

Why the Greens hate nuclear power The radical environmentalists insist only wind and solar are legitimate sources of power By Stephen Moore - - Sunday, July 9, 2017 ANALYSIS/OPINION: Let’s stretch our imaginations for a moment and assume that the left is right that global warming will bring apocalyptic warming by the end of the century and that the only way to save the planet from extinction is to stop using fossil fuels right now. That will be a spectacular disruption to world economic prosperity because cheap fossil fuels account for about two-thirds of all electric power generation and at least 80 percent of transportation fuel. But if we did stop using fossil fuels, what would make the most sense as a mass scale substitute to coal, natural gas and oil? What could reduce carbon emissions but also keep energy affordable and reliable? If you answered wind and solar power you flunk. These are the most expensive and impractical alternatives. The obvious solution to keeping the world’s cell phones, computers, homes and factories powered up with minimal economic disruption, if it ever came to that, would be for the world to build hundreds of nuclear power plants. To state an obvious point that almost all the Sierra Club elites and the Michael Bloombergs of the world choose to ignore: nuclear power can give us all the power we need to keep our modern industrial and technological world economy rolling without emitting any greenhouse gases. Yet, nuclear power is declining as an alternative energy source and plants are being shuttered at a record pace. The big problem for atomic energy (as with almost all fossil fuel alternatives) is that it can’t compete on price with the new age of cheap shale gas and to a lesser extent clean coal. The regulatory burden on nuclear energy is also a killer, costing an estimated $9 million per plant, according to the American Action Network. Even still, a nuclear plant generates much cheaper electric power on a much wider scale than wind and solar power. In the U.S., for example, wind and solar require about five to 10 times the government subsidy to provide a kilowatt of electricity than does nuclear power. And just as important, nuclear power is a lot more dependable form of energy than wind and solar. One of green energy’s fatal flaws is that it isn’t scalable for large industrial economies and it thus these energy sources make nations highly vulnerable to crippling brownouts and blackouts as Europe and Australia have learned of late. For those who don’t drink the Kool Aid of the radical left environmentalists, these are incontrovertible facts. But here and around the world the left is about as hostile to nuclear power as they are to oil and coal. I just got back from an economic conference in Korea, which has 50 million wonderful people. While I was there the newly elected left of center president, Moon Jae-in announced a “nuclear free” era for Korea starting with the shut down of a major nuclear reactor. The greens were practically dancing in the streets. But why? Few nations have been as reliant on nuclear power as Korea. In many ways cheap and reliable atomic energy helped make possible the “Miracle on the Han River”- i.e., the swift post World War II economic surge of Korea. President Jae-in says that renewable energy will take its place. By the way, isn’t power from a nuclear reactor by definition the most inexhaustible and thus “renewable” form of energy? From an environmental perspective what is happening in the U.S., Korea, and around the world is asinine. Why would you want to shutdown a nuclear plant that requires at most about one square mile of land and to replace that power with windmills would require 300 square miles of land area paved over. Do environmentalists really believe that green progress means looking out at America’s majestic mountains, forests, green oceans, wilderness areas and deserts and viewing miles upon miles of nothing but the eyesore of windmills and solar paneling? What could be a greater despoiler of nature’s wondrous and natural beauty. I’m not a cheerleader for nuclear power. The storage of nuclear waste, and the accidents in places like Japan make everyone understandably nervous about China Syndrome types of disasters. In the U.S. Nuclear plants generally can’t get private insurance to cover accidents and so the industry relies heavily on the federal government for subsidized insurance. Perhaps the advent of smaller reactors would alleviate the public’s fears. My point here is that nothing exposes the insincerity of the global climate change movement as does the left’s hatred of nuclear power. We can save the planet from climate change and have all the power we need at affordable prices. But just like the greens are against clean natural gas and fracking, they oppose nuclear power options as well. The radical environmentalists are insisting that the only energy alternative that will save the planet is wind and solar power — the two options guaranteed to most decelerate modern industrialization and economic progress across the globe. Perhaps that is what the far left really wants: to force mankind to slow down growth and human advancement. If that is their real agenda, then forcing businesses and families to use inferior and expensive energy is a smart strategy. washingtontimes.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (78191)	7/10/2017 9:30:11 PM
From: miraje	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 86356

If battery powered trucks are ever adapted, it would seem to be most sensible for fleet operators, either otr or delivery trucks. If you're correct that Tesla batteries weighing around a combined 1,200 lbs are needed to power a slightly over 2 ton car, then extrapolate how much battery weight would be needed to move a 40 ton 18 wheeler. Big rigs will never be battery powered, either otr or local. Battery weight and mass will never make it practical. You'd be hauling nothing but batteries in lieu of cargo. Small electric delivery vans bopping around in the city might make sense, however.