Radiation Tax proposed to protect DNA ?, page 1

My understanding with geothermal is that it is not suitable for all areas, and also cannot generate large amounts of electricity like Nuclear / Coal can. Most forms of electricity generation that take energy from the environment, like solar and wind, have low power densities which means a large, open, space is required, and then they also have the limitation of being intermittent because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.

For example, to get the power of one nuclear power plant, a few hundred square miles of wind turbines would be required, that is, of course, for something that cannot even provide power all the time, and also due to engineering reasons, is limited to a maximum of 20% of total power generation because it has difficulty integrating with the grid. That's where Nuclear comes in because it is extremely reliable at providing a base load - like coal - and that's where renewables simply cannot compete because. simply put, they cannot provide reliable power, nor can they generate lots of it.

It's also how some renewable proponents suggest Nuclear energy is super expensive and requires subsidies, then turn around and suggest that we blow billions of dollars on their own pet project renewable power that is usually far more expensive on a per megawatt hour basis. Also renewables would also benefit from the carbon tax just as much as Nuclear would.

In one state of Australia alone, we have 4000 megawatts of coal power plants being proposed. That's around the equivalent of 12,000 of the largest wind turbines, which would require 264,000 acres of land or over a thousand square kilometers of non-stop wind turbines, for something that cannot even produce power the whole time. It's a joke stating that renewables can replace these coal plants. The only thing that can is Nuclear or gas. Also, the proposed plants are under the category, "BASE LOAD POWER GENERATION", something that most renewable cannot do anyway.

I was having a rather amusing discussion (in real life) about the energy crisis. It was rather amusing. I stated that renewables are useless since they cannot replace coal. They suggested energy storage. My reply - "and how much does that cost?" Their reply... "cost doesn't matter". Among other statements they made were, renewables supply 75% of Europes power (WRONG), Australia is the worst country per capita CO2 (WRONG), and also apparently nuclear control rods make more energy than nuclear creates (WRONG). Absolute joke - these same people failed high school physcs. Honestly most of these people have no bearing on reality and are in their little dreamland.

[edit on 29/10/2009 by C0bzz]