Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hunter

(38,304 posts)
6. Infancy stage??? Really?
Sat May 5, 2018, 03:46 PM
May 2018

That's like calling the misbehavior of some 30 or 40 year old Republican a "youthful indiscretion."

The Wright brothers made their first flight on December 17, 1903.



The Douglas DC-3 flew 32 years later. It's considered the first airliner that could make money by carrying passengers alone.



The first heavy water nuclear nuclear reactor was fired up on May 15th, 1944.



Canada was running 600 MWe CANDU heavy water reactors less than 30 years later.

I'm very familiar with early 1980's wind and solar technology. Wind and solar are no longer infant technologies.

Even with perfect hardware wind energy requires a substantial commitment to fossil fuel energy for no other reason that the wind doesn't always blow. A megawatt of wind turbine capacity requires a megawatt of "backup," usually natural gas, and it's not really backup power at all since most of the overall power generated by the combined system is likely to come from fossil fuels.

Without substantial and environmentally unacceptable inputs of fossil fuel energy, a wind and solar powered economy would look nothing like the economy many affluent people now enjoy.

Wind power enthusiasts often become inadvertent promoters of the natural gas industry.

The increased use of wind and solar energy will drive innovation. procon May 2018 #1
It will drive waste. The remark that this industry is in "infancy" is delusional. NNadir May 2018 #2
To do nothing is better? procon May 2018 #3
Infancy stage??? Really? hunter May 2018 #6
Chronology is probably not the best comparison to offer. procon May 2018 #7
Even if wind turbines were perfect machines lasting 100 years without service... hunter May 2018 #9
I mentioned innovation above because there is need procon May 2018 #10
"wind turbines will match the lifetime of the Surry Nuclear Station in 104 years" Nitram May 2018 #4
Not a complet and fair and complete comparison between Wind Turbines and Nuclear Plant. mackdaddy May 2018 #5
Nuclear power plants have had consistently the highest capacity utilization of energy systems... NNadir May 2018 #12
I wonder why you cherry-picked one nuclear plant ... GeorgeGist May 2018 #8
Presumably, more than 45 years later, we could build something more durable. hunter May 2018 #11
I'm not sure this is true, since the infrastructure has been destroyed by ignorance and greed. NNadir May 2018 #16
This post originated with a comment on Dominion's decision to build gas plants to go "renewable." NNadir May 2018 #13
Should you not include the time and cost of safely decommissioning Ghost Dog May 2018 #14
The climate scientist Jim Hansen has done this... NNadir May 2018 #15
Incapable of seeing the forest for the trees... Finishline42 May 2018 #17
If wind turbines could be bought as seeds that you could plant like trees... hunter May 2018 #18
The use of wind and solar increases the cost of coal and nat gas Finishline42 May 2018 #19
For grid applications battery capacity is measured in minutes. hunter May 2018 #20
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Average Lifetime of Danis...»Reply #6