Quote (sir_lance_bb @ Mar 13 2017 12:56pm)

Real ambition would be expanding nuclear energy.

You aren't solving any long term energy problems without embracing the expansion of nuclear energy.

This is good though, I just get annoyed when people who consider climate change to be one of their most important issues are also against nuclear energy.

The narrative needs to change regarding Nuclear energy.

Quote (balrog66 @ Mar 13 2017 11:46am)

https://thenextweb.com/eu/2017/03/13/check-out-europes-crazy-clean-energy-plan/

Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands are considering creating a new island in the North Sea filled with windmills, enough to power the life of 80 million Europeans.

Denmark's Energinet and DE/NL TenneT are currently negotiating for an agreement to build 70-100 GW of wind power in the North Sea. The island would cover 6 km2 and would be mainly used for servicing the windmills at sea. Building the windmills on the Dogger bank will be cheaper, easier and better than building them on land according to both energy providers. The plan is part of meeting the 2050 goals set in the Paris agreement.

Quote (Knaapie @ Mar 14 2017 10:09am)

You mean: In co-operation with massive wind farms ? Thanks for linking the article, wanted to read about it when I heard the news 2 months ago.

When you rely on sun/wind, you'll need a local storage, perhaps one in every home, for when it's dark and no wind.
There is the need for peak power mitigation and more variation of the inconsistent suppliers, year round.

Quote (ofthevoid @ 14 Mar 2017 17:24)

Small potatoes.

Unless India, China, US and other heavy weight polluters decide to take meaningful steps towards clean energy what Denmark and others like them do is meaningless.

Quote (the_rest @ 14 Mar 2017 21:45)

the most important factor to consider is this: my goddam power bill is high. As far for the industrial needs of power, accountants gona compute if the price is right. Including the price of the investment.

Quote (sir_lance_bb @ Mar 14 2017 09:35am)

Chernobyl happened almost 31 years ago and the technology of nuclear now so much more complex beyond that.

Fukushima survived an Earthquake and Tsunamis and the damage dealt from it is mostly very minimal. And Fukushima isn't exactly one of the better run nuclear plants and it survived a natural disaster.

Nuclear isn't some evil boogey man where there's a threat of meltdown. And the risks of natural disasters compromising the plants should be of no concern when compared to what is happening with fossil fuel.

And considering we already have nuclear technology that is safe but there's so much taboo that nuclear expansion is hesitant.

The shroud of the cold war nuclear doom is still in people's heads. When the reality is that the fears of nuclear energy that persisted from the past is irrelevant with current technology.



These types of fears don't have any solid foundation other than a baseless fear because the past issues and fearmongering around nuclear has incorrectly shaped the view of it.

Quote (Knaapie @ Mar 14 2017 10:09am)

You mean: In co-operation with massive wind farms ? Thanks for linking the article, wanted to read about it when I heard the news 2 months ago.

When you rely on sun/wind, you'll need a local storage, perhaps one in every home, for when it's dark and no wind.
There is the need for peak power mitigation and more variation of the inconsistent suppliers, year round.

Quote (taekvideo @ 15 Mar 2017 22:35)

"Smart charging" of electric vehicles will help to smooth out the grid once they reach wider adoption... they'll prioritize charging during peak supply when electricity is cheapest (and some suggest they might one day sell back some energy during peak demand).