Renewable Energy + Battery Storage = Fossil Fuels Obsolete, Even Natural Gas

Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
I like to name call and bring no facts.

Nothing about the proposal is true and was fake news, nor is it even possible given it was fake news and once again I was duped.

I can’t prove it will work and I’m just another know nothing loudmouth on rollitup.
Click to expand...
FIFY it’s also the perfect apology FYI
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
There are dark forces (people in positions of power in governments, local and federal, lobbyist for fossil fuel, etc) at work in order to bring down Tesla Motor Co. Why? Well, although car companies have made a pledge to shift to electric motors in the near future, the bar that has set the standard is Tesla and bringing down Tesla to its knees will all but reassure the oil industry, skeptics, critics, that EVs engines alone are not feasible and or sustainable. That is why critics always point to demand here in the states, which are low (in compsrison to other countries like China, Denmark) due to the unwillingness of the country to give incentives to make EV ownership easier and affordable. If those in power can continue to lobby against incentives for EV ownership, and direct sales in some cases those numbers will stay down and that argument will be continued to be made.

Lets speak about short-sales of stock. When we speak about people in this line of work, they are not dealing with hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands, they are dealing with millions and tens of millions of dollars, this are people whose sole purpose is to make money in the short time and not in future investments. Global change requires vision and patience, and that is not profitable, but what is? Fossil fuels, they can make millions daily by trading in that arena.

Tesla is a unicorn. If you look back in time, new automotive companies did not last, even when backed by well stablished companies. Saturn, Studebaker, Mercury, Pontiac, Packard, Plymouth and so on, some of them introduced new technologies, but none that changed the world like Tesla. Not only is Tesla changing the world but setting the bar on what an EV should be. Its technologies include, AI (for visual recognition), computer chips for processing, self driving technology, safety technology, manufacturing, battery tech, and many more. Tesla is more than just a vehicle manufacturing and its vision for the future is disrupting the status quo and these forces will not allow that.
Click to expand...
Almost biblical huh. Like I said Tesla guys can be a little over the top lol, but I like your enthusiasm, and you grow some of nicest plants I’ve seen ;).
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
There is no operating thorium per generation station on Earth as yet. Therefore it's still an experimental technology, far from 'mature', but for someone who goes by the numbers you sure play fast and loose with words.

Geothermal energy generated from Yellowstone would also create nothing but steam- and no radioactive chaser!
Click to expand...
I'm talking about standard fission reactors, not thorium reactors. The reactors in service today are generally somewhere in the region of 5 tech generations behind the newest and greatest generations of reactors.

They've gotten to the point where some Universities have non-electricity producing reactors in their basements for experimental reasons.

Tapping into Yellowstone in my opinion is a bad idea, I wouldn't encourage anything that changes the heat and pressure profile of a dormant super volcano.

Nuclear, solar and wind are all we really need. Solar and wind as the primaries, with nuclear as a backup for during high demand or bad weather.
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
I'm talking about standard fission reactors, not thorium reactors. The reactors in service today are generally somewhere in the region of 5 tech generations behind the newest and greatest generations of reactors.

They've gotten to the point where some Universities have non-electricity producing reactors in their basements for experimental reasons.

Tapping into Yellowstone in my opinion is a bad idea, I wouldn't encourage anything that changes the heat and pressure profile of a dormant super volcano.

Nuclear, solar and wind are all we really need. Solar and wind as the primaries, with nuclear as a backup for during high demand or bad weather.
Click to expand...
I doubt using the heat from the area would have any effect of the actual workings of the volcano, it would take 1000’s of holes to achieve any change. That is why Tty’s assertion there is an actual plan to cool the mantle and avert an eruption by drilling is not believable. I am keeping an open mind waiting for reliable sources of said plan but they must be elusive lol. Although, there is a huge power source under our feet and we should be utilizing it more IMO. As of now solar and wind can not be primary sources due to storage pitfalls but hopefully someday.
 
Last edited:
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
Budley Doright said:
I doubt using the heat from the area would have any effect of the actual workings of the volcano, it would take 1000’s of holes to achieve any change. That is why Tty’s assertion there is an actual plan to cool the mantle and avert an eruption by drilling is not believable. I am keeping an open mind waiting for reliable sources of said plan but they must be elusive lol. Although, there is a huge power source under our feet and we should be utilizing it more IMO. As of now solar and wind can not be primary sources due to storage pitfalls but hopefully someday.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of energy requirements are during the day, so storage wouldn't even initially be required if we had reactors ready to take over at night.

And let's face it, they won't drill one hole for geothermal, they'll drill hundreds to get the most energy output.

In places like Alaska, geothermal is a good idea for both electricity and distributed community heating, I just don't think we should try tap a beast like Yellowstone.
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
The vast majority of energy requirements are during the day, so storage wouldn't even initially be required if we had reactors ready to take over at night.

And let's face it, they won't drill one hole for geothermal, they'll drill hundreds to get the most energy output.

In places like Alaska, geothermal is a good idea for both electricity and distributed community heating, I just don't think we should try tap a beast like Yellowstone.
Click to expand...
Why would Alaska? Why not the lower 48? Geothermal works everywhere you can drill a hole to save on heating and cooling costs but again just one piece of the puzzle. I’m really not a fan of nuclear though. As much as it’s safer the aftermath of an accident is catastrophic and the waste is another issue altogether.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
travisw said:
There's a lot wrong with it?

The guy who wrote it has a Ph.D. in geology and a B.A. in Geosciences.
https://personal.denison.edu/~klemettie/Erik_W._Klemetti_-_CV.html

I for one find it fascinating, that you, with no experience or credentials in the field, were able to find lots wrong with it, that a scientist and the editors and fact checkers and Discover somehow missed.

Can you prove where they're wrong?

I also read through the wiki on the Golden Gate, and it doesn't mention your version of events at all. Care to share the origin story on your claim?
Click to expand...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton

This says he decreed that a bridge be built to Oakland.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
No it's up 7%....
New York (CNN Business)Tesla delivered 95,200 cars in its second quarter, a record for the company.

The numbers, released Tuesday, met the company's own goal and easily outpaced the 63,000 cars delivered in the first three months of the year. They also far surpassed the 40,740 cars delivered to customers in the year-ago quarter, when Tesla was still struggling to ramp up production of the Model 3, its best-selling car.
Shares of Tesla (TSLA) jumped roughly 7% in after-hours trading.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/tech/tesla-sales/index.html
Click to expand...
Nowhere near its high, though.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
I'm talking about standard fission reactors, not thorium reactors. The reactors in service today are generally somewhere in the region of 5 tech generations behind the newest and greatest generations of reactors.

They've gotten to the point where some Universities have non-electricity producing reactors in their basements for experimental reasons.

Tapping into Yellowstone in my opinion is a bad idea, I wouldn't encourage anything that changes the heat and pressure profile of a dormant super volcano.

Nuclear, solar and wind are all we really need. Solar and wind as the primaries, with nuclear as a backup for during high demand or bad weather.
Click to expand...
Nuclear can't compete with solar and battery storage now, let alone with magic '5th generation' technology.

Solar is under 2¢ kWh, battery power even less, under a new contract signed in California recently.

Please stop promoting a technology that will poison our great grandchildren's great grandchildren, just to run more screen savers.
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton

This says he decreed that a bridge be built to Oakland.
Click to expand...
You reek of desperation. You stated that NASA was planning to drill into the mantle and use water to cool it. Now your bringing up anyone who had an ideal that eventually came to fruitation to prove that you weren’t duped by fake news? Let me get my morning coffee, this should be entertaining lol.
Edit: just found this Tty quote as well
“The research on the use of geothermal power stations to draw down the heat has been checked and verified. The plan, while expensive, would not only alleviate the threat to a great degree but would also pay for itself in terms of energy produced. It would not emit any more greenhouse gas than the region already does.”
So let’s review the terms so you don’t get confused while verifying lol. “Been checked and verified”, “alleviate the threat”, “pay for itself”. Dolt.
 
Last edited:
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Nuclear can't compete with solar and battery storage now, let alone with magic '5th generation' technology.

Solar is under 2¢ kWh, battery power even less, under a new contract signed in California recently.

Please stop promoting a technology that will poison our great grandchildren's great grandchildren, just to run more screen savers.
Click to expand...
Tty, quote statistics or stfu.

You're not even educated in anything, let alone an expert.

2c per kWh and less for battery storage?

And bullshit. The material cost alone is exponentially higher than that.

I haven't read the documention you describe, but with those sort of numbers I suspect that's the cost per kWh over the course of 20+ years.

Nuclear is only a "problem" if you havent checked the actual numbers. Build the reactors in geologically safe areas and they have a near 100% safety rating and use so little fuel that the waste is minuscule compared to the damage other sources produce.

And as much as I'm for renewables, they do have a somewhat messy manufacturing process, whereas nuclear only requires refined uranium. The reactor chamber itself can produce gigawatts of power over its lifecycle.
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
whereas nuclear only requires refined uranium.
Click to expand...
Not anymore.

New pressure reactors use depleted uranium; the waste fuel of present reactors.

They also can't melt down. It's physically impossible even in a complete power outage.

We presently have enough depleted uranium to power the U.S. for 400 years.

What's more, when the fuel is spent its half life is 300 years.

Unfortunately, we'll not use it because it will put all other forms of energy out of business for 4 to 5 centuries.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
Not anymore.

New pressure reactors use depleted uranium; the waste fuel of present reactors.

They also can't melt down. It's physically impossible even in a complete power outage.

We presently have enough depleted uranium to power the U.S. for 400 years.

What's more, when the fuel is spent its half life is 300 years.

Unfortunately, we'll not use it because it will put all other forms of energy out of business for 4 to 5 centuries.
Click to expand...
The most common reactors still use refined fuel, but if/when commercial wave reactors are built, they can be part of the chain.
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
The most common reactors still use refined fuel, but if/when commercial wave reactors are built, they can be part of the chain.
Click to expand...
Wrong again.

If and when any new reactors are built, molten salt reactors will be it. That's why construction on almost every reactor in the United States has been either halted completely or changed so dramatically that they might as well have torn them down and started over.

There will be no more reactors built beyond the very few almost completed that use enriched uranium.

And if you're wondering if it's "tried and true" technology, we've had one running in Iowa for the last 45 years without a single hitch.

Administrations don't like them because they're cheap, efficient, and virtually maintenance free. It's very hard to bilk all kinds of kick-backs and maintenance contracts off of them. If fact, it's impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top