* Posts by dwieske

100 posts • joined 11 May 2011

Page:

Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers

dwieske

Re: And thorium cycle nuclear power is even better!

no need to wait for a thorium design to do this, any gen IV (like the GE PRISM) can do this today, it's even safer than a MSTR and you don't need to mine anything to power it, we already have enough nuclear waste and nuclear warheads to power the world for centuries with this type of reactor

1
1
dwieske

Re: Nuclear Power

indeed thorium has no advantage over other gen IV designs like the IFR and is much less mature

0
0
dwieske

Re: Nuclear Power

there is no advantage in using thorium over any other GEN IV design, but the thorium designs are much LESS mature..I"ll take a GE Prism (IFR type reactor) over a thorium pipedream every time

3
1
dwieske

Re: I seem to remember

the neverending cost is the infrastructure you need to cope with the unrealiability (inttermittency)

3
0
dwieske

Re: Then we're fucked

not true, we will much sooner run out of the resources to built the renewable shit than run out of eg nuclear fuel we have a 20k+ years of supply, and that's not even into account filtering uranium from seawater

3
1
dwieske

Re: I seem to remember

you make no sense at all, making ignorant statements is easy, but useless...

ONLY 20km from geothermal energy? we have never, in the history of humanity drilled that deep, the current record is 12km, drilling deep isnt as simple as you are....

the wattage per square meter from solar radiation is next to nothing, not "impressive", the surface area you would need to replace a single proper plant is enourmous, and I'm not even bringen unrealibility (mistaken for intermittency) and limited production hours into the equation.

renewables as stop gap to fusion is beyond retarded and the fact you propose that shows you did not even read this article, or didn't understand it....the only sensible stopgap to fusion is called nuclear energy, preferably GEN IV as that would give us a few centuries to get rid of our nuclear waste while generating power with it.....getting rid of nuclear power and destroying humanity by going "renewable" is also an EXPLICITE choice to get stuck with nuclear waste forever....

you are absolutely clueless on this subject and should really stop putting that on display you used many many words, but not a single statement you typed made ANY sense in this reality....could we please divert the money wasted on "renewable" to education so we can put a stop to this kind of destructive nonsense? fyi, nuclear reactors are SMALL but produce enormous amounts of power very reliably 24/7, they are FAR cheaper than renewables (eg. 1billion euro for a 700+MW prism plant that runs on nuclear waste vs 3 billion for a 300mw solar collector which only produces a few hours a day)....

stop being a part of the problem, STOP lobbyen for us to get stuck with nuclear waste forever and mainly stop participation in discussion on subject you are 100% clueless about...

24
6
dwieske

Re: I seem to remember

I guess your house is representative for the whole society....can I have some of what YOU are smoking?

2
2

POWER SOURCE that might END humanity's PROBLEMS: A step forward

dwieske

prime example of trying to seem smart, but exposes your lack of knowledge on the subject

0
1
dwieske

Re: where there's a will

it's actually worse than the radioactive material created by nuclear power toxis stuff stays toxic pretty much forever, radioactive stuff decays (and this can be accelerated WHILE producing more energy)... we really should stop destroying the environment and people's wallet, one windmill/solar panel at a time.

0
0

'Beat the lie detectors' trainer sentenced to 8 months in jail

dwieske

polygraphs don't work, what's next, jailing a pastor because he prevented "the wrath of god" for someone who cheated on his taxes?

0
0

Foxconn mulls solar panels, sticking Apple where sun doesn't shine

dwieske

Re: Anyone know of the Fire Brigade issue ?

there's also the increased risk of fire, and due to the insulating effect the size of the fire increases much more rapidly in a house with PV cells...Those things kill

0
4
dwieske

Re: Nuclear -> Solar?

solar/wind guarantee a lockin with fossil plants as they are the cheapest form of backup capacity.

anyone lobbying for solar/wind is in fact lobbying for more coal/gas/oil plants

1
3
dwieske

Re: Why you should install them

you clearly are ignoring the 20+ fossil plants the krauts are building as backup for their pv/wind bullshit, of which at least 7 coal plants btw....you can not in any way or form just "close" plants due to PV/wind UNLESS you have installed the necesarry buffer capacity, which incidently costs multiples of the production capacity.

on a society which needs power 24/7 making the (very dubious and most likely falsified) claim that for 1 hour on 1 single day 'it did well" is completely irrelevant. people buying into crap like that are a huge part of the problem and are the ones guaranteeing stuff that actually kills, like coal plants for a looooong time.....hood thing you got 30k, better thing your lack of conscience doesn't cost you any sleep in the knowledge that that money come from poor have-nots...

the road to hell is paved with good intentions is the PERFECT motto for this nonsense....steal from the poor, give to the richt, destroy the environment in the process.....and claim you're doing good

3
2
dwieske

Re: If...

it would also be awesome if the REAL cost of this nonsense, meaning the adaptation of the power network and the installation of buffer/replacement capacity from when sun/wind is absent would not mainly be payed by those who can't even afford PV panels.....this PV/wind scam is just a reverse robin hood situation, give to the rich, steal from the poor, destroy the environment and our longterm future in the process

1
0
dwieske

Re: If...

true, any real environmentalist would be lobby'ing for more nuclear production...stats don't lie, nuclear is best for the environment by an ENOURMOUS margin (esp. GENIV like GE PRISM reactors)

3
0
dwieske

implementing solar is NOT a move away from coal/gas etc. but a lock-in as those provide the necessary backup capacity for the hidiously unreliable and inefficient solar panels....this massive trend towards solar is one of the biggest environmental disasters of the recent years. The main issue with solar/wind is it's intermittency, studies have been done and implementing the needed energystorage en smartgrid/storage would consume WAY too much resources and drive up energyprices factor 10 or 20.

so called environmental organisations are actively campaigning the destruction of our environment with their ideas of implementing these techs in industrialised countries.

There is only ONE place where solar/wind makes sense: developping countries without an electricity grid.....place em there and you increase the living condictions astronomically....place em here and you are actively helping to destroy the environment while turning electricity into a luxury commodity

1
0

Obama appoints intelligence boss to run 'independent' review of NSA

dwieske

I wonder how long before they drop the "we're a democracy" sharade...same goes for europe btw.

We live in scary times, I don't see this kind of stuff changing for the best tbh

1
0

Robot cop called in after MAD BONGER blown up in LIQUID MARIJUANA EXPLOSION

dwieske

Re: Not so much stoners but thieves

ban this troll please

0
0
dwieske

Re: Very unfortunate...

people like you are the real degenerates, and the downfall of society

0
0

Bill Gates' nuclear firm plans hot, salty push into power

dwieske

A perfectly working, mature design of an MSR can be built TOMORROW: the GE PRISM reactor based on the reactor that ran for decades at Argonne Labs (the IFR design) untill "Friends of the Earth" handed a big pile of cash to Bill Clinton to cancel the program in 1993.

Yep a perfectly working, extremely safe GEN IV design that can run on waste and can be built tomorrow...

0
0
dwieske

Re: No Radiation?

actually the senseless evacuation has made more victims that the radiation, your can' count deaths/sickness caused by poorly reacting to an accident to please immoral fearmongerers as "deaths due to nuclear power"

Greenpeace and other scum are causing the real damage when it comes to nuclear power, not the tech itself

4
0
dwieske

Re: No Radiation?

I guess you're one of those illegical beings that value "potential for problems" more importantly than the several hundreds of thousands of fatalities from other power sources EACH YEAR. stop the fearmongering pls

2
0

NASA: Our ALIEN HUNTING star-scan 'scope is KNACKERED

dwieske

Re: So

don't confuse your incapacity to understand something with it being pointless...

7
0

Hemp used to make graphene-like supercapacitors

dwieske

Re: Hemp!

name one such country. the US forcefully exported it's war on sanity throughout the world

1
0

Scottish SF master Iain M Banks reveals he has less than a year to live

dwieske

Re: Get a real 2nd opinion, cancer can be beat

I'm sure you're hinting to the oral application of CBD-acid through eating/drinking raw hemp....yes there are some very good options out there with NO downsides, the above, but also generous and daily ingestion of garlic and lemon

0
5

NASA chief: Earth is DOOMED if we spot a big asteroid at short notice

dwieske

Re: Yes the Rothschild Bank and the US Federal Reserve....

nukes asteroids has been exposed as a completely retarded concept decades ago....how about you do a minimum of study on the subject before defecating your nonsense

2
0

Fukushima switchboard defeated by rat

dwieske
FAIL

Re: Pity no-one did the maths......

or people are tired wasting time on comments made by clueless people and just want to get rid of the comments... not a single doomsday scenario has even come close to fruition, barely a single argument contra has any basis in science.....people need to learn to be quiet about topics they are totally clueless about (which sadly seems to be pretty much all the science articles)

1
0

Wind now cheaper than coal in Oz: Bloomberg

dwieske

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Data from the W.H.O. was used

but how about you stop being lazy and start doing your own research? any time you voice you uniformed oppinion, or criticise some else's informed oppinion could be used to increase your knowledge...

Anyone with a high school education understands why coal is deadly and is smart enough to realise amount of victims is huge, as coal is widely deployed...

One of the issues that pisses me off most is the fact that people who don't even have an elementary school level of scientific knowledge never let this stop them from voicing their "oppinion" which is usually just a regurgitation of some moronic group like greenpeace

1
0
dwieske

why even post this kind of nonsense

why store nuclear waste when you can use it to generate power from it in new plants... oppinions based on ignorance are pretty useless...how about you catch up on stuff....like the fact that the nuclear waste issue was solved decades ago....

2
0
dwieske

you think you sound smart, but you miserably fail to consider the scale of using storage for mass energy production.....unless you have no issue running depopulation programs to create room for storage...

1
0
dwieske

Re: @Invidious Aardvark

there are no nuclear waste dispocal issues as nuclear waste from GEN I and II plants is fuel for GEN III/IV, the stuff that comes out of GEN IV needs to be stored for appr. a century before it's safe......the toxins from eg. making PV cells however do stay toxic forever....

3
0
dwieske

people will never get it....coal costs 100000+ lives each year, and most of the very very vocal but very poorly informed public still thinks that it's nuclear that kills......doing an honest evaluation (deaths per produced quantity of power eg. per TWH) nuclear is the safest form of electricity BY FAR, this is perfectly illustrated in many countries eg. belgium where 4 decades of nuclear has not made a single victim, while coal/oil/biomass kills several each year, and the placing of PV has already cost 3 lives in the past 5 years...

if you are ideologically blind like most so called environmental organisations/parties then dead people only count if their death is caused by something you object too.....this completely disrespect for the fact that EACH human life counts by greenpeace and other scum is scandalous....

4
1
dwieske

Policy based on beliefs is shit (sharia etc)...how about we look at it scientifically.....when looking at the reality of the situation there is no denying nuclear is the SAFEST form of energy, and the waste problem got solved decades ago, yet the anti-nuke jihadi still propagate the lie that it hasn't...

3
0
dwieske

There is no "nuclear waste problem" it was solved in the 70's!!!!!!!

there is no nuclear waste issue, providig we finally start building new plants....A lot of the new design RUN on waste (eg. the GE PRISM, the Myrrha reactor being built in belgium).....people lobbying AGAINST new plants being built are actually lobbying to be stuck with nuclear waste forever (like greenpeace and other scummy orgs)

8
0
dwieske

Re: Well...

I would prefer a pollution free gen IV plant like a GE prism, running on nuclear waste or retired warheads...wind power does not solve the issue of medical isotopes or the problem of our current stockpile of waste and warheads....GEN IV's do, and they are FAR less lethal and far more environmentally friendly than wind (than anything actually)

6
0
dwieske

This is plain wrong as it’s obvious they did not take into account the increased network cost, NOR the required storage/backup for wind (backup would be fossil). Also this kind of data tends to be manipulated as well by “playing” with the cost factors of coal….it’s a big difference if you take the cost of plain coal vs coal +css vs coal +css + carbon certs…

Also just looking at eg. The Danish situation, it’s blatantly obvious wind does not even come close to coal…. Nuclear does however and it’s still the “greenest” tech we have in the long run (meaning lowest amount of carbon + fine dust pollution) also there is no WASTE PROBLEM, not since the waste issue was solved in the 70's ....that doesn't stop greens extremists from lobbying to stop the implementation of the solutions...while simultanously continue to harp on the non-existant "waste problem"

You guys aren’t stupid, take your fact checking a bit more serious please…

3
1

Solar undercuts coal in New Mexico

dwieske

IFR NOW!!!

still the better solution for the wallet, the environment, hell for everything

0
0
dwieske

Re: Typical anti-renewable ignoramus

you really think it's a good idea to depend on an completely unreliable way of production to supply peak demand? this IS typical renewable misinformation, as again it fails to take into accout the cost of the subsidies, the major increase in transport cost, and the enourmous cost of backup-capacity.......We're not helping ANYONE least of all the environment by systematically lying to ourselves....

3
1

Greenpeace, unions attack 'secret UN plans to seize the INTERNETS'

dwieske

when greenpeace speaks, be extremely skeptical as their "facts" are decided on the base of what might garner most donations.....greenpeace has been completely corrupted, the original founders loathe the current incarnation, not in the least because of the fact they wilfully spread misinformation (eg about nuclear technology) and subsequently cause enormous damage (the rise of coal use is a direct result of GP campaingning to close nuclear plants and raise "renewables".....which are pretty much always mainly covered by coal and other fossil fuels)

in short: stop donating to GP, this scummy organisation needs to go the way of the dodo so a more ethically, scientifically oriented organisation can take its place

1
0

Hitachi buys Horizon to save UK's nuclear future

dwieske

Re: The upside for Hitachi is...

they are "expecting" 45% reneawble, but are EFFECTIVELY building over 20 new fossil plants, of which at least 5 on coal....post nuclear german power generation will be a lot less environmentally friendly in reality,

You battery remark is pretty much nonsense, there are not enough resources on this plannet to build the amount of batteries needed to support large scale "renewable" crap...

also the current energy policy of germany, belgium, holland etc....is one of the main drivers of the economic crisis due to simulateous rises in price 10-20% per year, and billions in green power subsidies putting a noose around the neck of the economy and population

0
0
dwieske

IFR NOW!!!

seriously how long till someone wakes up, smells the coffee, and order a slew of PRISM reactors to be built?

4
0

Oz gov to test ‘all renewable’ options

dwieske

renewables currently still are useless, and only used for either political profiling (political parties), draining naieve people of their cash (greenpeace and other scum), or steal money (pretty much every subsidizing scheme). they are HORRIBLE for the environment as they are very costly and EVERYWHERE where they are built you get fossil backup plants......take eg. germany's move to "renawable" from nuclear which will be carried in REALITY by over 20 fossil plants to be built, of which at least 5 coal plants....

implementing renawbles, esp. solar/wind in an industrialised and/or densly populated country is absolute nonsense and counter-productive

Read up on the subject here:

http://bravenewclimate.com/?s=australia

4
0

New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

dwieske

Re: we know that nuclear power is safe

unfortunately for you a handfull of coal plants kill more people each year than tjernobyl ever did......add to that the fact that another tjernobyl incident is pretty much impossible to happen and....it would seem you are just plainly fearmongering

10
4
dwieske

Re: The Usual Silliness

ever heard about hormesis? and don't talk about safety UNLESS you are willing to talk about the death/health toll of all methods of power generation....in which case nuclear power generation comes out as best and safest by an astronomical margin....

30
5
dwieske

Re: Cool

unfortunately this fiction can not happen in our reality... get help with your drug/mental issues dude

6
17

Solar, wind, landfill to make cheapest power by 2030

dwieske

Re: Gas?

yep if we had storage, it would be an option, unfortunately we don't have storage, no matter how much you try to troll

1
0
dwieske

Re: Cheapest?

very good demagoguery....the storage that exists is a tiny, tiny fraction of what is needed for unreliable(renewable some people seem to call it), your claim about supergrids have been proved not technically feasable NOR affordable.... supergrid = current price X20 and shitloads of outages......there have been studies showing the anunaki will visit us on 12/12/2012.....they are about as acurate as the claims you seem to make (which contradict pretty much every study I've read that's NOT from an ideological extremist source).......we're all going tits up energywise due to this continuation of lies on nuclear, and renewable....for nuclear nonsense disproven decades ago STILL is the primary argument (no solution for waste >> solved in 1963, supergrids and storage are feasable > see bravenewclimate.com for proper scientific studies on what it really means)

2
1
dwieske

Re: @Why Not? A small question

do you have ANY idea on the scale of the needed storage? clearly not...the capacity has to be 80-100% of the windpower BUT it needs to last for days.....prepare to give up 10% of your countries surfface area JUST for energy storage......stop believing the eco-jihadi please, their are destroying the environment with their irrational hatred for foreigners....oops nuclear power

3
1
dwieske

Re: A small question

important detail: denmark has some of the highest energy prices and carbon generation....read the article "danish fairytales" at bravenewclimate.com for the details.....gas powered, non bareload generation is HORRIBLY inefficient vs baseload gas due to the design difference... so many issues, who don't matter untill we stop looking at the energy problem through extremist ideological goggles (if we had a pragmatic look we'd all be building GE prisms, and producing cheap, clean and RELIABLE energy with our current nuclear waste)

1
0
dwieske

GE PRISM is the only way to lower pollution/carbon, guarantee energy thats cheap

the storage issue will not be solved by that time, so it will still be the most expensive as it is currently...the only REALISTIC, technically feasable solution that guarantees cheap, clean, dependable energy (which solar/wind still can not) is building GE PRISM nuclear reactors....

I don't really care how much people make on their PV installations as it's a scam, and you steal that money for those less fortunate...it acts like a revers-robinhood tax where renter/people with bad finances have to cope with 15-20% -yearly pricehikes to pay for the redicilous feedback tarifs......the extra cost needed to adapt the grid to support an extremely variable and unreliable energy source like solar/wind is also carried by those least fortunate.....the current renawable energy scam going on in europe is nothing less but a re-establishment of a class based society where the poor get plundered by the not so poor......the fact the greens support this makes them anti-social, the fact that everywhere they get their way (germany, belgium, denmark) the 1ste result is new fossil fuel plants being built makes them dangerous hypocrites.... Greenpeace is one of the biggest enemies of the environment, their actions mainly benefit fossil fuel giants...

5
1

Page:

Forums