Unfortunately for the Greentards they are trapped in a gordian delimma: Solar and wind won’t work… not now, not in 50 years from now, as Germany has already discovered and they are anti-nuclear so they are left with being boxed into the fiction that coal can be made “clean.”.N2N&H is the only cost effective and viable solution to our energy needs for the forseeable future. That is, natural gas to nuclear and moving to hydrogen as a portable fuel. That is the cleanest and most cost effective energy path.Solar is the absolute worst for costs with wind only being a bit better. But, the Greenies just stick their fingers in their ears and start shouting “LALALALALAL! I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” like petulent six year olds..So, Obama being a Greentard himself definitely deserves all the coal we can heap on him.
Wind (even without subsidies) is now cheaper than coal (which is heavily subsidized) and no it’s not an on demand 24/7, but IS a component of a necessary complex of sources if we’re going to survive. MANAGING coal use is not “banning” coal use, our dirtiest source, even if it’s “clean coal”.
Ignorance is the watchword of “conservative” PR strategies.
Nuclear is a political problem not an economic or technical one. .“It’s a futile argument to say…”.No, that is an irrelevant argument as Chernobyl was a graphite moderated fast fission reactor of a design not used ANYWHERE in the Western industrialized world. There are numerous reasons that design is NEVER used for commerical production of power:.First, it produces weapons grade plutonium as a side product of its operation..Second, it is an unstable design in that it has a positive delta T for neutron flux when operating. That is, the hotter it gets the better it works. Water moderated thermal fission reactors have a negative delta T..They are an incredible clean up and maintenance nightmare as you have to deal with a huge amount of radioactive graphite..nuclear per kW produced is about 5 to 10 times cheaper than solar not to mention that a single nuclear plant can generally outproduce dozens of solar plants in terms of power out. in 2013 all commercial solar for part of one hour on one day in California almost equaled the output of San Onofe nuclear (when it ran) on a typical day of operation..Solar is the single WORST way to commercially produce electricity there is of the various means available. It is the least efficent, most costly, has the worst reliability. It cannot be used for base loading due to its unpredictable output..I will also state that small residential and commercial business systems would not be flourishing whatsoever if it wasn’t for heavy government subsidies. Without sustained, permanent subsidy nobody would buy these systems as they have no payback on investment..Oh, on spent fuel for nuclear; Same thing. There are safe means to both recycle that fuel and for long term storage. Again, the problem is political not economic or technical.
chuckercan over 10 years ago
PUT THAT ON TOP OF THE AGENDA FOR NEXT YEAR!!
Enoki over 10 years ago
It’s “clean” coal. It’s the in thing this season for the Greentard in your life!
Enoki over 10 years ago
Unfortunately for the Greentards they are trapped in a gordian delimma: Solar and wind won’t work… not now, not in 50 years from now, as Germany has already discovered and they are anti-nuclear so they are left with being boxed into the fiction that coal can be made “clean.”.N2N&H is the only cost effective and viable solution to our energy needs for the forseeable future. That is, natural gas to nuclear and moving to hydrogen as a portable fuel. That is the cleanest and most cost effective energy path.Solar is the absolute worst for costs with wind only being a bit better. But, the Greenies just stick their fingers in their ears and start shouting “LALALALALAL! I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” like petulent six year olds..So, Obama being a Greentard himself definitely deserves all the coal we can heap on him.
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
Wind (even without subsidies) is now cheaper than coal (which is heavily subsidized) and no it’s not an on demand 24/7, but IS a component of a necessary complex of sources if we’re going to survive. MANAGING coal use is not “banning” coal use, our dirtiest source, even if it’s “clean coal”.
Ignorance is the watchword of “conservative” PR strategies.
Enoki over 10 years ago
Nuclear is a political problem not an economic or technical one. .“It’s a futile argument to say…”.No, that is an irrelevant argument as Chernobyl was a graphite moderated fast fission reactor of a design not used ANYWHERE in the Western industrialized world. There are numerous reasons that design is NEVER used for commerical production of power:.First, it produces weapons grade plutonium as a side product of its operation..Second, it is an unstable design in that it has a positive delta T for neutron flux when operating. That is, the hotter it gets the better it works. Water moderated thermal fission reactors have a negative delta T..They are an incredible clean up and maintenance nightmare as you have to deal with a huge amount of radioactive graphite..nuclear per kW produced is about 5 to 10 times cheaper than solar not to mention that a single nuclear plant can generally outproduce dozens of solar plants in terms of power out. in 2013 all commercial solar for part of one hour on one day in California almost equaled the output of San Onofe nuclear (when it ran) on a typical day of operation..Solar is the single WORST way to commercially produce electricity there is of the various means available. It is the least efficent, most costly, has the worst reliability. It cannot be used for base loading due to its unpredictable output..I will also state that small residential and commercial business systems would not be flourishing whatsoever if it wasn’t for heavy government subsidies. Without sustained, permanent subsidy nobody would buy these systems as they have no payback on investment..Oh, on spent fuel for nuclear; Same thing. There are safe means to both recycle that fuel and for long term storage. Again, the problem is political not economic or technical.
bernardgarner over 10 years ago
Ramirez still can’t draw worth a damn. Why anyone would pay such a devoid of talent “cartoonist” is beyond me.