Mankind's ideas of energy production must be re-thought in order to survive... The relyance on fossil fuels or nuclar energy does not help. All sources of energy should be thought about, so tidal energy is OK, but not very efficient. It has be shown to work (e.g. in the Netherlands and France in estuaries of rivers)... Wind energy is efficient in costal areas but has been depending on state funding... But do you honestly think that coal mining or the production of nuclear energy/Waste is not depending from state funding/subsidies?
An introduction can be seen by the Open University, see URL:
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=73747
Do you have helpful ideas or thougths?
All of these advances inevitably led to the assumption that new resources were not needed in the development process. This is due to the fact that based on fossil fuels - on the other hand.In reality, this contrast is far from straightforward and requires more thoughtful study. Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) and methane management technologies at all stages of the increment in the cost of energy from fossil sources can help fulfill large-scale tasks to reduce CO2 emissions while fossil fuels are still part of the energy system. Thus, these measures allow fossil fuels to become part of the solution, rather than remain part of the problem. A rational economy plays an important role in the energy systems of each technology.
Research in renewable energy sources have started as early as the 1970ies and 1980ies (not only by Hippies).
And they have proven to work (Wind energy, Solar enrergy, Hydro energy, Geothermal energy).
They are in use in remote areas or in small scale set ups, e.g. for housing...
Still the industries of scale are strongly depending on huge amounts of energy - what can, what must be done?
To support and improve the current level of energy consumption, fossil fuels would be necessary for the next two-three decades more, until car and avia transportation, and houses heating transition to electrical/nuclear energy and new light-weight and /or better thermo-isolated materials. It will happen similar to how fossil fuel trains were replaced with electric ones.
In many cases, scientific and technological alternatives are available even today. However, their security and reliability, as it is clear from examples of Chornobyl Atomic Electro-Station (USSR, 1986), and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (Japan, 2011) nuclear disasters, were not sufficient enough.
The real danger for the human civilization and world-wide economic consequences of insufficiently tested and protected technologies, and their exploitation can far exceed the danger caused by the fossil fuel solutions. Hence, it's a matter of necessary time to built and test practical near 100% reliable nuclear/electrical power based solutions. Higher reliability and security would require a great deal more investment, which all together create a challenge for humans in this time race.
Sustainability includes:
-respecting the planet
-respecting the people
Energy from renewables helps for both.
There is another aspect to consider: low energy consumption by design.
Societal aspects: cars are immobile cages of metal for most of the time, sharing helps create critical mass at all granularity levels: 5 persons per car, 50 per bus, 1000 per train?
The whole picture is needed...
We have to learn to live without fossil fuels. State-funded research or use of sustainable methods of energy production are urgently needed.
The incredible increase in the humidity of the air has been causing us an epidemic of bronchial diseases and deaths as well.
The deterioration of the climatic conditions is unprecedented and is getting worse by the day. In the last 3 months we saw the sun in clear skies only 3 days! Before the climate change sunny days were more than 50% of the time during the winter. The difference is immense.
We have far more oil, coal and gas than we can safely burn. ... world accepts the mainstream view of man-made global warming. ... we need to start phasing out fossil fuels now at a fast enough rate to ... us all to use less energy – they are continuing to undermine all that by .... It should have a soul of its own.
Sorry Aleš Kralj, you are drawing the picture black and white where are about 500 shades of grey!
There are numerous ways but you have to apply them...
One is simply not to use your car when not neccessary...
You can buy local not global and have another way ot tackling things...
And of course nuclear is NOT the solution to everything!
In many countries where bicycles were in use everybody now wants to have a motor-craft/scooter and the air is not better that way...
Humans must adopt. And nuclear power is not the solution - I know that you are a knowledable engineer, but how do you reliably care for nuclear wastes for the next million of years or so? Are you sure that you can control that question?
All of these advances inevitably led to the assumption that new resources were not needed in the development process. This is due to the fact that based on fossil fuels - on the other hand.In reality, this contrast is far from straightforward and requires more thoughtful study. Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) and methane management technologies at all stages of the increment in the cost of energy from fossil sources can help fulfill large-scale tasks to reduce CO2 emissions while fossil fuels are still part of the energy system. Thus, these measures allow fossil fuels to become part of the solution, rather than remain part of the problem. A rational economy plays an important role in the energy systems of each technology.
Aleš Kralj have you ever considered to write your experiences up as paper or textbook?
It will prove helpful for future engineers/inventors in the environmental technology field...
But Aleš Kralj of course the disposal of nuclear wastes is a key question...
About 200 coutries may want to use this technology and not even Russia and Japan can control it...
In Germany we are still hopping on the idea of intermediate storage (Zwischenlagerung) because NIMBY (not in my backyard) is being played since the 1980ies...
And simply having 200 countries with 200 strategies and control systems (if any at all) will not help.
And ever thought of radiating material snatched by kids (as happened in Brazil) or terrorists (as is regularly happening) or despotic leaders of countries in order to build dirty bombs??? No, nuclear cannot be managed cleanly currently.
And do you remember Russias and the US history of discarding nuclear wastes in the (deep) sea??? No way you get me interested in a nuclear future, sorry...
Currently 31 out of 193 nations are using nuclear power plants for energy produciton, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
For those of you interested in badly managed nucelar waste (e.g. small radiating sources from radiologic clinics) and some bad experiences, see
Article The cross-border detection of radiological, biological and c...
This map shows, where the running nuclear power stations are situated and it must be stated it is a US vs. Europe question (with outliers in India, China, Japan, South Africa)... I do not like the idea that every single nation will have its own reactor... (out of security reasons that is)
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-the-worlds-nuclear-power-plants
Here is a list of emerging nuclear power nations (financed by the nuclear lobby), see https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/emerging-nuclear-energy-countries.aspx
"Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries
(Updated October 2019)
- About 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power programmes.
- These range from sophisticated economies to developing nations.
- UAE, Belarus, Bangladesh and Turkey are all constructing their first nuclear power plants.
About 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power programmes, and a further 20 or so countries have at some point expressed an interest. In the following list, links are provided for those countries that are covered by specific country papers:
- In Europe: Italy, Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Portugal, Norway, Poland, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ireland, Turkey.
- In the Middle East and North Africa: Gulf states including UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait; Yemen, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan.
- In west, central and southern Africa: Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Namibia, Rwanda.
- In Central and South America: Cuba, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay.
- In central and southern Asia: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan.
- In SE Asia and Oceania: Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore, Myanmar, Australia, New Zealand.
- In east Asia: North Korea.
Despite the large number of these emerging countries, they are not expected to contribute very much to the expansion of nuclear capacity in the foreseeable future – the main growth will come in countries where the technology is already well established. However, in the longer term, the trend to urbanisation in less-developed countries will greatly increase the demand for electricity, and especially that supplied by base-load plants such as nuclear. The pattern of energy demand in these countries will become more like that of Europe, North America and Japan.
Some of the above countries can be classified according to how far their nuclear power programmes or plans have progressed:
- Power reactors under construction: UAE, Belarus, Bangladesh, Turkey.
- Contracts signed, legal and regulatory infrastructure well-developed or developing: Lithuania, Poland, Vietnam (but deferred).
- Committed plans, legal and regulatory infrastructure developing: Jordan, Egypt.
- Well-developed plans but commitment pending: Thailand, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia; or commitment stalled: Italy.
- Developing plans: Israel, Nigeria, Kenya, Laos, Morocco, Algeria.
- Discussion as policy option: Namibia, Mongolia, Philippines, Singapore, Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Estonia & Latvia, Libya, Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Syria, Qatar, Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, Chile.
- Officially not a policy option at present: Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, Norway, Ireland, Kuwait, Myanmar, Malaysia, Cambodia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Zambia.
A July 2017 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on International Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power1 said that some 28 member states without nuclear power plants “are considering, planning or starting” nuclear power programmes at present. Of these 28 un-named countries, it said that two have started construction of their first nuclear power plant, two have ordered their first nuclear power plant, five have made the decision to invest and are preparing infrastructure, seven are actively preparing prior to final decision, and 12 are considering a nuclear power programme. The IAEA said that a further 20 countries have expressed an interest in nuclear power.
One major issue for many countries is the size of their grid system. Many nuclear power plants are larger than the fossil fuel plants they supplement or replace, and it does not make sense to have any generating unit more than about one-tenth of the capacity of the grid (maybe 15% if there is high reserve capacity). This is so that the plant can be taken offline for refuelling or maintenance, or due to unforeseen events. The grid capacity and quality may also be considered regionally, as with Jordan for instance. In many situations, as much investment in the grid may be needed as in the power plant(s). Kenya sought to evaluate its grid system before considering the generation options.
Another issue is that of licensing reactor designs. Emerging countries generally do not have the expertise for this, and must initially rely on design licensing by countries such as the UK, USA, France, Russia and China while they focus on building competence to license the actual operation of plants.
State-owned nuclear companies in Russia and China have taken the lead in offering nuclear power plants to emerging countries, usually with finance and fuel services. The following table charts the main influence in countries with various agreements but not yet any plants under construction (see also the relevant tables in the information papers on China and Russia):..."
These countries have decided to phase-out of nucelar power, e.g. Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out
The Heart of Europe has decided to phase out of nuclear power (German speaking Countries; NB: Belgium and Switzerland have German speaking minorities) but such decisions sometimes can be revoked...
What can be seen from that multi-lingual chart is that there are different views in Europa and the EU as well as in the World, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nuclear_power_station.svg
In Germany the power generated by nuclear power plants is shrinking and the amount produced by renewables is increasing, but the amount generated by coal (black and brown) is continous use, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#/media/File:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg
Two Wikipedia-entries on nuclear/radiological incidents by nuclear power plants (in the industrialized world that is) since 1957:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents
Anastas Ivanov Ivanov thank you for your thoughtful balancend and reflected response.
Yes, I agree, most likely mankind must accept an energy mix (energy generated by diverse sources) and must also invest into that area of research which is vital for future development...
Another thought occured when I thought about Geothermal Energy in Iceland - of course there is also a geographical situation to be considered and in case that you are living on vulcanic rifts you can use Geothermal Energy (and hydropower) at a large scale...
I have high hopes for space-based solar power:
- https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/plans-for-first-chinese-solar-power-station-in-space-revealed-20190214-p50xtg.html
- https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/australia-leans-into-space-race-for-solar-power-with-china-20190920-p52ta4.html
Karl Pfeifer thank you for this fresh view and insight - I never heard of that idea before...
Good contributions. I fully agree with dear Prof. Anastas Ivanov Ivanov.
Warmest regards
Hamid
The entire Pacific ocean is contaminated as a result of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (Japan, 2011) nuclear disaster:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CHuj34Aen8
The Power Plant was built considering anti-tsunami protection from up to level 8 tsunami, whereas maximum level is 10. The probability of a tsunami above level 8 is quite low, and that was the reason of optimization of the engineering solution in terms of time, money, and security. For many engineering decisions it's good enough. However, such scientifically complex objects as nuclear power plants require a comprehensive consideration of all possible vulnerabilities, and the eventual global threat analysis and risk factors before making a purely engineering decision.
There were rumors that Chornobyl Atomic Electro-Station (USSR, 1986) nuclear disaster had happened because the engineering team performing a scheduled cooling down reactor procedure for the following up prophylactic works decided to speed up the process by going down with a larger temperature hops. That was not a standard operating procedure, but it was April 26 before May 1st holidays, and the team wanted to be with their families by that time. A nuclear plant is a complex scientific object and just an engineering team cannot and should not make any decisions in changing standard operating procedures without participation of nuclear physicists, and other scientific personal qualified in working/experimenting with such a dangerous object. It seems obvious, but it didn't happen.
A medium approach should be considered:
- continue using fossil fuels
- search for really alternative ways
For the moment all renewable sources of energy cannot serve as a reliable provider for a large country, they can help small communities to be independent but not an entire state.
No, fossil fuel cant be used any more, we have to think of other alternatives like wind energy hydro-thermal energy
A great talk on "why renewables can’t save the planet"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w
Dear Aleš Kralj,
Let me go through several points we seem to disagree here:
1." The reality is that Chernobyl accident teached us that even blown open reactor is not a very dangerous event. Natural catastrophes of about the same magnitude happen annually. Loss of life in Chernobyl was 1000x less that predicted and contamination was well tolerated by life. No long-term harmful effects could be detected. Fukushima accident had a minor release of contaminants (100x less than Chernobyl) and had absolutely no "contamination level" effects anywhere, not even locally." - Aleš Kralj
You've got to be kidding! First, if the first several days after the explosion the cloud of numerous types of short living radioactive isotopes was blown by wind to the South (nearby located Kiev), instead of to the North (Belorussia) with relatively sparsely populated areas - the amount of casualties would be even fearful to imagine. Second, loss of life haven't stopped yet. There is a host of human diseases caused by radiation - it all has a long lasting effect. Third, "... blown open reactor …" is a very dangerous event - EU and Ukraine spend a lot of money to built and control the concrete "sarcophagus" covering the open forth block reactor, because the high level of radiation quickly deteriorate/destroy the sarcophagus material, and a new cover periodically ought to be budgeted and built. There is no clear cut picture yet what would be the future cost of that. And, yes, long-term harmful effects are very well detected. Large territories weren't' used for agriculture for more than 30 years already, genetic modifications in fauna and flora at those locations, sick people requiring a substantial medical support, a necessity to keep practically indefinitely security, technical support, and scientific forces to observe and control various aspects of the affected area.
So what that "Fukushima accident had a minor release of contaminants (100x less than Chernobyl) and had absolutely no "contamination level" effects anywhere, not even locally." It confuses people understanding of the ongoing tragic - The Chernobyl explosion created a radioactive gas of the whole spectrum of radioactive isotopes disseminated on large areas of the European ground, whereas Fukushima's damage due to tsunami led to the radioactive water spill into the Pacific Ocean. That's the reason that area contamination on the Japanese ground around Fukushima is 100x less than in a case of the Chernobyl disaster. However, the area consequences of the Fukushima's disaster are expended to the entire Pacific Ocean due to the diffusion / migration enhanced by various water flows in just five - six years since the event.
2. "This plan would take 200y (this is the time needed to experimentally verify reliability of nuclear reactors in small number). Alternatively, we could build 10.000 nuclear reactors and then assess whether they are safe?" - Aleš Kralj
Where this assessment about "200y" is coming from? Are you really serious in this idea to " … build 10.000 nuclear reactors and then assess whether they are safe"?
The World Health Organization has summarized the outcomes of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident here, see
https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/
I found these WHO summaries on the Chernobyl health effects, see
https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/en/
The most abundant is solar energy. A big question would be: how to utilize effeciently!
The topic is irrelevant and still relevant.
All types of energy can be used in the framework of maintaining the equilibrium of the earth. Fossil fuels have been heavily used so far. They developed strong in the Iron Age to this day. In the years of thinking about the use of energy and sources of supply, we ask ourselves important questions. What are the effective energy sources? How can we use them? What are the production methods and technologies? and other.
In recent years, solar collectors for the generation of energy, both electrical and thermal, have developed strongly.
However, they are not sufficient to provide the required amount of energy consumption. Maybe you should look for at least between the energy you receive and the energy consumed. In the area of the intersection is the truth about energy saturation.
There is also a clear need to look for solutions in energy generation through magnetic fields, biofields of terrestrial sources and radiant energy.
Aleš Kralj though you name many numbers I am not convinced that Chernobyl or Fukushina sites are safe now.
Here I am sharing two news stories on Chernobyl today (and some starte to live there at the boundary of the closed circle again) - I would not feel well about that Idea, sorry....
https://www.newsweek.com/chernobyl-safe-now-when-will-1414489
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/moving_to_Chernobyl
Fossil fuels must be subsituted by other sources of energy, renewable energy has a negative visual impact, and low power. Nuclear energy has very low visual impact in landscape and a lot of power.
The problem with nuclear is wasted nuclear fuel, That last thousand of years to decay on activity. There is no possibility at all to keep this wasted nuclear fuel safe in any place guaranteed for thousands of years. There are investigations about reusage by re-enrichment.
Other problem in nuclear is that it is impossible the safety guaranteed of nuclear plants during usage life against all the possible adverse effects. A unforeseen earthquake or impact can cause the reactor meltdown and the catastrophical radioactive emmision to the environment, the decay of the radioactive sources will also last thousands of years.
Research on nuclear safety show that it is impossible to keep the safety 100% guaranteed against all the adverse effect, as it has been sufficiently proven in Fukushima (Japan).
Nuclear fusion would end with all the problems about radioactivity releases, but it has not been sufficciently developed yet.
Aleš Kralj
There is a real problem about it. In Spain the pools of the nuclear power plant are full. And a lot of money is paid for carrying the nuclear waste outside Spain.
The near surface storage is not guarantee neither the deep geological storage of nuclear waste. Where do you want to put it? what geological process?
The nuclear fusion has less radioactive problems than fission, this is known Ales. Unless you need a fission for provoking the fusion.
Aleš Kralj
Subduction is a geological process that takes place at convergent boundaries of tectonic plates.
Are you going to go there to put the waste? How?
Normally waste is placed on disposal places more or less near surface or with some depth.
Aleš Kralj
Maybe if you guarantee that nuclear waste reach the magma under the plates following the subduction lanes.
I have heard about reuse.
That does not avoit the risk of the failure of the NPP during working life caused by unexpected actions, like the Fukushima accident.
New generations of NPP are more safe nevertheless.
Research in this subject is needed.
Yes, a lot of initiatives are neither good nor enough developed or researched.
Dear Ales:
"These and huge costs of nuclear accident clean-ups are real consequences of such events."
I agree with that. Also accident can happen even though redundant safeguards are foreseen.
For example, In Fukushima. ALL the solutions foreseen for cooling the reactors failed, therefore it was a MULTIPLE failure. Even, I think that emergency diesel generators for trying a emergency cooling couldn´t arrive at time cause the road was broken because of the Tsunami.
That indicates that even with redundant safeguards. If an unforeseen event comes, multiple failure can be expected.
No nuclear system (either NPP or nuclear fuel disposal) is 100% safe.
Plus you have to care for the waste for the next Million of years...
Mineral Oil is renewable: Article Synthesis of Hydrocarbons from Minerals at Pressures up to 5 GPa
Colonel Fletcher Prouty explains how oil was falsely classified a "fossil fuel" in 1892
(they would have to make it appear to be scarce)
and how that deception was advanced further in the 70's by Kissinger and Rockefeller. Prouty also explains that Nixon/Kissinger/Rockefeller were seeking a 'world oil price'. That effort created what many now call the "Petrodollar" and the impact of that mistake is playing out still today across the planet. Both Sadam Hussein and Libya's Ghadafi were stopped (murdered) when they attempted to sell oil in 1) Euros or 2) Dinars.
Approximately 28,000 wind turbines in Germany with a capacity of 57,000 megawatts (MW) and 46,000 MW of solar energy, which together account for 2.5% of all generated and required energy. Let that sink in!
The EU prefers to waste 11,500,000,000,000 euros (taxpayers' money) to CO2 reduction (which will result in nothing) than to help the poor. And they keep the borders wide open.
In fact, CO2 is indeed doing nothing wrong. On the contrary, CO2 makes the plants grow. Many studies confirm all that.
The Sun is heating up all the planets right now. Not man-made fuel.
Voltaic solar panels in the South where it doesn't rain much will be full of dust after a few days, Torsten Dos Santos Arnold . In the North, it isn't much efficient except for houses if strongly insulated (subsidized), not for industry. Only because the cost of energy is rising, due to windmills (which need a classic backup if windstill, hence doubling of prices), the prices on solar panels are tenable.
Very unnatural price settings!
Only because of these heavy subventions (decided by the politicians, paid by the taxpayers), the sham is kept alive.
It makes sense, dear Thomas Anthony Troszak . Inverse the figures, and you get the proof that during the test, there was a (tiny) production of fuel gasses under a big pressure, as in the deep Earth, and that fuel is not "fossil" but mineral and renewable.
Dear Torsten Dos Santos Arnold , it is nice to be nice for the Earth, but at some moment, one needs to take one's calculator and check what is nonsense and what is not.
What would your wife say if there is no wind or no enough sun during 5 days and the fridge is warming up, and the deepfreeze content ruined?
You need massive backup, for the totality of the production, and the probablility of no electricity during X days. What if you calculated it for 4 days or 5 days, and by exception, it became 6 days?
Do you really think that it is impossible that whole Germany would be windstill for a while?
Here is a graph of a recent windstill period in a large region without further backup (lowest graph: potential is 2400 MW during one day, the rest is zero). This shows that, even for rare occasions, there must be a full backup by classic centrals for all the production.
Hence, putting windmills elsewhere than places where there is always wind (which doesn't exist), is nonsense, because it are just expensive gadgets. The same reasoning counts for voltaic solar panels, which at night already give problems.
Best regards
Thierry
For the vast majority of the world, fossil fuels continue to be the primary source of energy production. More and more, however, renewable technologies like solar energy are rivaling the potential of traditional fossil fuels. However, there are some of the disadvantages for the fossil fuels:
1- Fossil fuels pollute the environment.
2- Fossil fuels are non-renewable and unsustainable.
3- Drilling for fossil fuels is a dangerous process.
Hamid Mohsin Jadah : Renewable Mineral oil: Colonel Fletcher Prouty explains how oil was falsely classified a "fossil fuel" in 1892 and how that deception was advanced further in the 70's by Kissinger and Rockefeller. (they would have to make it appear to be scarce). Prouty also explains that Nixon/Kissinger/Rockefeller were seeking a 'world oil price'. That effort created what many now call the "Petrodollar" and the impact of that mistake is playing out still today across the planet. Both Sadam Hussein and Libya's Ghadafi were stopped (murdered) when they attempted to sell oil in 1) Euros or 2) Dinars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdSjyvIHVLw
(Full text annexed.)
Sorry Thierry De Mees what you are posting here must be seen as Trumpism...
We have established before that both solar and wind power are working relyably but on a small scale...
But nuclear energy is by far the most expensive - you must model all costs for the next million of years and this is simply not done...
So there is a clear lie by the nuclear power advocates...
It will continue because the world will succumb to the idea that it is the best and safest fuel
I think it is about time to find other sources; i.e. solar energy and other green energy resources.
Since one contributor thinks CO2 is good for plants and not a problem in the atmosphere (and here is in full agreement with Trump), I post two basic links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
The so-called clean energy will return many regions of the world to the chaos of the ice ages, and this is not just talk but the reality that the world will witness.
Dear Thomas Anthony Troszak , it was a screenshot originating from here:
https://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx
Don't like Trump, Carsten Weerth ? Maybe because you look too much at TV, where these people tell you what to believe? Are you controlling your life, or is your life controlled?
Here, you can get the information from first hand:
https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2020/sessions/special-address-by-donald-j-trump-president-of-the-united-states-of-america-5e6010c5e7
"you must model all costs for the next million of years and this is simply not done..."
How about the costs of windmills, which are gadgets, for the next million of years?
Spending 11,500,000,000,000 € of EU's taxpayers' money to remove only a part of 1 molecule of CO2 out of 10,000 molecules of air is nonsense!
Windmills? They stand for max 30 years... Then they will be torn down and end of its life cycle... No worries...
You are an engineer? Just curious... You should know that...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking