Friday, April 23, 2021

While Biden and handlers want to cripple our power grid

in the name of 'net-zero carbon', note this on the EU situation:
The climate goals of the EU are not only very costly, they are unachievable in practice. A simple calculation shows that in order to reach net zero emissions in 2050, the EU will have to deploy a new nuclear power station every week, from now until 2050. In total, 1650 new nuclear power stations would be needed. Yet today, 60 years after the first nuclear power plan went into production, there are only 450 such plants across the world.

The EU has a strong preference for ‘renewable’ energy sources, such as wind and solar, instead of nuclear. Achieving net zero with wind would require 450 new 2.5-MW turbines to be installed every two days until 2050; 82,000 windmills a year! Where would you place them all?

Since the EU acts like a vampire to sunlight at the mention of 'nuclear', they'll want to prevent ANY new nuke plants.  Which means they're screwed.  So would we be.

Now throw in: to make all those windmills, how many millions of tons of concrete and rebar for the bases?  How much copper and carbon fiber and aluminum and on and on for each one?  And don't forget the service roads to each one.  All that just going to magically become available via the Magic Underpants Gnome?

All the solar panels they dream of, how much mining for the crap to make them?  How much farm and wild land do you plan on covering with them?  And where do you plan to dispose of them when they break or wear out?

They invited St. Greta instead of him because she's a kid they can use to push their crap, and this guy wouldn't play.  Much better not to confuse the peasants with unpleasant facts.


robert william orians said...

I retired from the power industry in 2012 . Unknown to most people not deeply involved in the industry China has been placing a brand spanking new coal burning power plant online every ten days since 2000 . They will have plenty of reliable cheap energy with which to clean our industrial clock.

Justin_O_Guy said...

I'm So confused. I don't understand how it's possible to call nuclear power CLEAN ENERGY when it creates a waste product that is literally RADIOACTIVE! I think the proponents of it should have to store the waste products in their garage.

Firehand said...

Short version: reactor waste is a solid product that can be safely stored in a suitable location. A reactor produces lots of power without any of the carbon output the EU and others are having fits about, doesn't require coal, gas, or oil, and is far more reliable and less damaging to the environment than solar panels and bird cuisinarts(look up all the mining and construction to make them, and the mess trying to dispose of them when they wear out/are damaged).

MrKelly said...

Florida has mountains of raw uranium sitting everywhere why aren't we using it? Mosaic