Discussion: Solar Energy in America
 

Fox News Claims Solar Won't Work in America Because It's Not Sunny Like Germany [slate.com]

Thanks to Fox News and its expert commentators, millions of Americans now understand the real, hidden reason why Germany's solar-energy industry is so much further along than ours. Turns out it has nothing to do with the fact that Germany's government has long supported the industry far more generously, with policies like feed-in tariffs that stimulate investment in green technologies. No, the real reason is much simpler, explained a trio of journalists on Fox & Friends: It's always sunny in Germany!

Fox and Friends "expert", Shibani Joshi, claims solar energy will never work in the U.S. (esp. the east coast) because we don't get enough sunshine. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJN0B2RIIMI

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/sla...e568-large.jpg

Did you mean to post this in the Lounge?

:facepalm:

Nope. Please discuss the video.

What's there to discuss? A Fox News Business reporter said something crazy. /Thread.

No. Solar energy in the US vs. Germany. They (in the video) say we're not able to compete but yet fail to acknowledge the fact that the Germans are much more invested in their infrastructure that we are. Why can't we follow their lead?

Why didn't you frame this thread in that direction then? Instead you highlight the stupid statement by a Fox Business reporter.

Hell, you didn't even have a side note about US v Germany solar differences. But to answer the non-existent question [washingtonpost.com]:

Because you were supposed to watch the video. Did you? I can't help what the title of the article was. I'm not allowed to change it. Furthermore, I didn't highlight anything. I copied the first paragraph and the links/pics.

Fox & Friends; satirical morning show- did you get this worked up when they interviewed Santa?

It costs a shitload of money and solar only makes 6% of their total electricity. They are shutting down their nukes and building 10 to 20 new fossil plants. So they are kinda green. I guess?

They do get flashy headlines on sunny/low use days where 50% comes from solar (for an hour)!

You can sure as hell help which paragraph you quoted. ;)

Why take out the first paragraph when you intent for the thread is completely separate from the intent of the paragraph?

And was this sentence part of the article? "Fox and Friends "expert", Shibani Joshi, claims solar energy will never work in the U.S. (esp. the east coast) because we don't get enough sunshine. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry." A Firefox find returns no results... :rolleyes:

So the intent of the thread was to discuss differences in US v German solar technology; while quoting a Slate blog, pasting the first paragraph of said blog which highlights the misinformation from a Fox Business reporter, and your own opinion as to that statement and specifically the reporter. :crazy:

It will work where I live tons of son and super hot in the summer I guess it just depends where.

I'm sure op was similarly outraged when msnbc purposely edited a video clip to manufacture a false story about gun rights advocates heckling a newtown victim's father. :lmao:

The question is whether Shibani Joshi is credible when she says that the reason for Germany's success in solar is that Germany gets more sunshine than the United States. I've been to Germany many times, and I know that's not so.

According to maps put out by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, virtually the entirety of the continental United States gets more sun than even the sunniest part of Germany. In fact, NREL senior scientist Sarah Kurtz said via email, "Germany's solar resource is akin to Alaska's," the U.S. state with by far the lowest annual average of direct solar energy.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/sla...e568-large.jpg

Yet FX thinks it is always sunny in Philadelphia.

HarHarHar

The best way to do solar is panels at the house or business, but electric companies don't want that competition to happen. In CA, in order to meet new laws, IIRC 20% -25% of electricity supplied by the utility must come from green energy. The energy companies are going to build solar panel farms on 40,000 acres of land. IMHO, that's a big eye sore, waste of land and probably will have unintended negative environmental impacts on that land.

Do you have any facts to back any of that up? Where did you read the 40,000 acre figure? How much power is that estimated to provide?

You think that 40,000 acres of solar panels will be an eyesore. Ok, fine... but compared to what? Let's say you had to live very close to one if these facilities, which would you choose to live near, if forced?
1) Oil Refinery
2) Nuclear Power Plant
3) Coal mine
4) Fracking operations
5) Wind Farm
6) Solar Farm

Bear in mind that constant truck traffic associated with oil, coal, and natural gas production.

I lived in Germany for a few years and I can tell u that it more overcast in Germany than many parts of the US.
Also take into consideration Germany is the size or Oregon, so they have less cost to build solar installations country wide.
Of course if we did not give billions to our friends in the mid-east, we might be able to focus on alternative energy (and a few other things) too.

she also clearly says that this would be a great solution for the west coast. I take her to say that there is more regional benefit and not a national benefit (my interpretation of her comments).

I know a couple home builders who generally talk people out of solar (I am not claiming they are experts). but I think that last year or the year before they said it would take 20 years to break even on the investment. not bad if you live there for 40 I suppose.

If local codes required solar or passive solar (windows facing the best direction) then you would start to see a long term benefit. Just like geothermal - you would see massive decreases in gas/electric heating costs but it's an initial investment up front.

Why have solar or geothermal technology when you can burn coal cheaply for electricity? We live in the Midwest where almost 90% of our electricity comes from coal burning plants. Look at Minnesota - super cheap electric but you have numerous nuclear plants. It depends on what you value. We tend to be rather short sighted on our energy.

I think it speaks volumes when the rich on Cape Cod don't want their view blocked by wind turbines. And local codes don't allow solar panels on newly built homes because they don't like the "look"

But that doesn't mean they'd prefer to house a nuclear or coal plant instead.

Well, that is a benefit of being rich and in Cape Cod - you don't have to have a coal or nuclear plant in your backyard. You can also throw your weight (and money and political clout around) to keep wind turbines from blocking your view.

If we were serious about clean energy, we would make changes to make solar and wind more accessible to the masses. The vast majority of Americans get their electricity from coal and nuclear. There is an increase in natural gas plants making electricity. So long as natural gas is cheap.

I would personally choose #4. I think it would be fun to live near 40,000 acres of farcking operations.

:lmao:

I have a friend in Pennsylvania who lives near fracking. The narrow two- lane roads are constantly filled with noisy, filthy trucks dashing about at high speed all day and night. She hates it.

Did you try google :

http://www.trivalleycentral.com/t...f887a.html

"With California mandating that 33 percent of electricity be generated from renewables by the end of the decade, there are 227 proposed solar projects in the pipeline statewide."

"Planning department records in four of the valley’s biggest farming counties show about 100 solar generation plants already proposed on roughly 40,000 acres, or about the equivalent of 470 Disneyland theme parks. Planners in Fresno County say their applications for solar outnumber the ones they received for housing developments during the boom days."

Taking out fertile CA farmland for solar panels. I wonder how that will effect the price of food once the land is converted?

I think 1 or 2 good nuke plants wouldn't occupy near the quantity of land and would deliver enough energy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/20...JA20120827

So the Germans pay taxes to support the creation of green energy and now have to fight to keep their KWH prices from becoming the most expensive Europe? Democrats are so enthusiastic about green energy but when low income people can't pay their bills what happens? Another government program I gather.

What makes you think they're using fertile farmland?

A lot of CA is desert and/or too hilly/rocky or w/o enough water to grow crops.

False. You are not allowed to troll via thread title. Changing it is not forbidden. But most people can't help themselves, so often they don't find that they are capable of changing it. In reality this would be a good title to change b/c otherwise this is nothing more than a someone said something crazy thread. Talking about why Germany can do it, or not, is a worthwhile topic. I would encourage you to edit the OP to something more constructive.

The term is "insolation"

I don't see why nuclear reactor sites aren't supplemented with solar power because there's a ton of unused land at some, like Palo Verde, AZ.

Insolation

I think the fact that Fox' so-called "expert" claims that Germany has sunnier climate is an issue is worthy of a thread. Why lie to people like that if you aren't driving an agenda?

It would help if you read the article I posted a link to.

"Developers are flocking to flat farmland near power transmission lines"

"Solar developers have focused on the southern San Joaquin Valley over the past three years for the same reason as farmers: flat expanses of land and an abundance of sunshine. Land that has been tilled most often has fewer issues with endangered species than places such as the Mojave Desert, where an endangered tortoise slowed solar development on federal land."

What do you think would happen in a place that apparently has similar sunlight to Alaske, where its dark out half the year???

clean power vs. saving endangered species. woud love to see democrats debating that issue. :lmao:

for the record, I am in favor of both but still would be fun to see.

Anyone who has done 5 minutes worth of research would quickly know that the reason Germany is so much farther along is because of their government mandated high buyback rates. Basically utilities are forced to pay a premium on extra electricity that people generate. I don't recall the exact rate, but it's either similar to the utilities' retail sell rate or very close. In the US the utility only has to buy it back at their wholesale rate, which is like 20% or less of the retail sale rate.

I've never heard about it but I'm sure I would be. :thumbup:

Alright, thanks. I thought the rule was you couldn't change it at all (because of others trolling). I will change it now.

You're claiming there is an 80% profit margin on electricity?

Would you rather eat food grown next to a solar farm, or next to a nuclear power plant? What about food grown near a fracking operation, where undisclosed chemicals are injected into the ground at high pressure? How do you feel about eating sushi from Northern Japan?

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/C...b-302966ddfeec

Are you asking a rhetorical question? It's called google. At least get off your lazy rear and come up with an argument. I'm not making any claims about profit margins.

Wholesale prices are like $0.02 to $0.04 /kWhr. Depending on where you live, what the current rate is and what your transmission rate is, etc., the profit margin can be quite high clearly depending on operating costs. Honestly though, the difference in profit margin isn't really material to this discussion.

It's mentioned in the article (and quoted in the OP) and they link to this:

The German Solution: Feed-In Tariffs [nytimes.com]

You said wholesale cost is less than 20% of retail. That implies an 80% profit margin.

If you're making the claim, it's your burden to provide the data.

Wholesale cost is related to profit margin, so PM is relevant.

And at least here, transmission costs are billed separately, so they are not relevant.

An 80% PM would be quite high compared to most products. Esp gov regulated monopolies.

This is the most stupid thing I have heard. We're avoiding empty, useless desert in favor of rich farmland because of a single animal?? I get the endangered species thing but there are better ways to get around this minor issue than replacing farmland with solar panels.

California needs to get its priorities straight and provide an expedited process to convert the Mojave desert into a solar electricity factory.

I think you're right.

No it doesn't. It would imply revenue on that product alone. Again, completely not relevant to the discussion except to say that a payback rate of $0.02 or $0.03 vs say $0.18 in Germany is a massive difference.

I sat next to this woman on a plane recently that was a rather big wig at SDG&E (local power company). One thing she mentioned was that they're trying to make people who have solar pay for the distribution portion of the electricity their solar panel system generates.

What that means, atleast to me out here is that an upper tier kw costs me say 16 cents for electricity and 12 cents for distribution (28 cents total which is about what half my bill is at). If I use and generate 800 kw my bill is $0 however under their new proposal it will cost me 800 * .12 or $96. They would still charge you the distribution cost for how much you use, regardless if they provided it to you or you generated it yourself. Initially I was like, "oh that's BS, you guys are ridiculous" but then when you think about it they still have the same infrastructure whether you use home made power or not. Talk about making it hard to justify the financial cost of a PV system. I don't know if it will happen or if old systems will be grandfathered so they don't have to pay for it but just something to watch out for. Those relatively decent ROIs may become not so good anymore if something like this happens.

I mentioned profit margin on that product.

But in any case, the wholesale price of electricity was between .026 and .07 in 2011. [eia.gov]

Probably more now.

Profit margin is relevant to the credibility of your unsubstantiated claim.

Few businesses can sell a product for 5 x their cost.

The alternative is to be completely off the grid. Either this proposal (if implemented) will drive a greater adoption of solar PV so that people can be off the grid completely OR it will reduce the adoption of solar PV. It all depends on how much you hate your local electricity company and/or how much of a survivalist/environmentalist you are.

For starters, get your terminology right. Profit margin is not what you think it is. Profit margin is net income/revenue x 100. What you mean to say is revenue, NOT profit margin. No one, except you, is talking about profit margin.

It's entirely plausible that the income generated from the sale of electricity is 5X the cost of that wholesale electricity. In fact many many business sell their products for over 5X the cost, retail products are a perfect example.

Now for example, we have an article about New England wholesale electricity prices being at $0.036/kWh. http://www.gazettenet.com/busines...al-england. Now we have another article about Boston consumers paying $0.15/kWh, http://www.bls.gov/ro1/cpibosap.htm. That would mean that the business is selling their product for 4.167 times the wholesale rate. So it's at least plausible that this could happen, which is all I really care about. Oh and btw, it's even worse in NY, at $0.20/kWh, http://www.bls.gov/ro2/avgengny.pdf.

Again, this is completely unrelated to the thread topic, stop thread crapping! The issue was to compare Germany's massive subsidies on solar compared to the US which would be an prime indicator as to why they are leading the world in solar installations.

No, I was talking about the profit margin on the sale of a product. AKA markup.

Maybe some boutique retail products have an 400% markup (80% PM), but 80-120% of wholesale is far more typical.

You're mixing years. Your own cite says the wholesale price is the lowest it's ever been this year, but you're comparing wholesale this year to retail prices set in the past. IOW, a temporary situation.

Comparing like years gets you 4.6 / 15 or about 34% of retail, or about a 3X (200%) markup.

Of course that is for Boston, not average for all of NE.

It's not thread crapping to question your claims.

You'd be surprised, not just boutique crap...


http://www.eia.gov/electricity/mo...epmt_5_6_a
Vermont, Hawaii, etc. All I said was plausible, I think we've established that.

And yes, it is thread crapping when it has abso-fing-lutely nothing to do with the OP.

You're the one who posted unsubstantiated claims about the wholesale price of electricity being 20% of retail. If it has nothing to do with the OP, why'd you post it?

May be "plausible" under extraordinary circumstances.

I don't need to substantiate every little point I make here, particularly if the point is only cursorily relevant to the topic at hand. I also like how you used the Boston rate, instead of the NY rate, which would have made it over 5X. I substantiated that it was plausible, even if it represented a best case scenario. The entire point was clearly missed, which was that if consumers could get paid for electricity at a rate that's even similar to the rate they pay to the company then our solar industry would be growing just as fast as Germany's. It should also be noted though that Germany is scaling back their solar subsidies, so they may not be a hotbed of growth in the long run.

Nuclear. Solar farms have cleaning and coating chemicals that get into the soil.

I'm sure they are sent through a full cleaning process after being manufactured, not to mention most of them are encapsulated/weatherproofed so they can last 25 years. Nuclear is dead in the US. Although your job security should be safe as China will still be churning them out for a while I gander.

Nuclear will be fine in the US, the only real threat to nuclear in the long term is natural gas.

Solar panels have to be cleaned regularly of dust particulates to keep efficiency high. I'm just talking detergent and rain-x style coatings that come off these panels regularly.

I guess these are just corpses (they are new builds):
http://southerncompany.com/nuclea...llery/new/

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=34...4&t=h&z=16

I didn't mention NY cause I did not see the wholesale cost in NY. NY is not NE.

And that is a fair point. I think consumers should be paid somewhere between wholesale and retail prices. At least until the cost of solar comes down, which it probably will.

I have been to Germany and I can't believe they are trying solar power.. It is dark and gray all winter

Thank you! My figures may have been slightly exaggerated or represented a best case scenario, but in order to further the adoption of solar you have to get power companies to buy back excess home power at a rate at least double the wholesale rate, if not more. Basically allow them to continue making money off of you, but don't put Joe Schmoe consumer in the same wholesale market as a power plant.

I guess these are corpses:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh..._explosion.jpg

Interesting that you bring up foreign reactors when we are talking about nuclear power in the united states. The negligence on behalf of TEPCO at Fukushima was pretty bad. I'm not going to say that wasn't the case (even though the accident still resulted in no prompt fatalities) because I have done my own research and know that the lead safety engineer was screaming about the need for more tsunami protection since 2007 at the latest. He was ignored by management and the Japanese regulatory authority is much weaker than the NRC here in the US. So, thanks for playing, but the US is building and will continue building new reactors.

The nuke out by me has been shut down for a year because of parts that wore WAY too quickly and released some radiation (a small amount). After a year, and not actually having a way to solve it the solution is to restart the plant and operate it at less than full capacity. I am not adverse to nuclear power, I actually think we do ourselves a huge disservice by not reprocessing spent fuel like the French (we'd just rather they sit in a fancy swimming pool in an earthquake ridden area), but given recent events you think people in charge wouldn't be so stupid to essentially say "we've got a problem, we don't know how to fix it or exactly what caused it so we're just going to run it a little slower and keep our fingers crossed"!

http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/02/...-san-onof/

Also, the NRC was founded in 1975. Then that whole little thing called 3 Mile Island happened in 1979. What was the damage to the surrounding area/population? Not a whole lot but it could have been far worse. I can't say one way or another which agency is more stringent but let's not put it out there that plants operating under the NRC haven't had mistakes in the past nor will they not have any in the future...

There have been a great many advances in nuclear safety, both in industry in terms of INPO and in the NRC. Some of which are because there wasn't enough sharing of reliability and failure data between plants before Three Mile Island (which resulted in no deaths, and no significant exposure).

As for San Onofre, the culprit is steam generator tube leaks (which leak mildly radioactive primary water into the secondary steam line, not to the public). While I haven't kept a close eye on them, it looks like the new steam generators suffered from flow induced vibration. It seems like it may have been poor design.

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/re...l#publicly

Do you think Japan is under-regulated or US is over-regulated?

I think both have about the right amount of regulation. The problem is that the regulatory authority didn't have the teeth to force corrective action and levy significant fines like the NRC does.

The NRC lacks agility in terms of regulating anything other than traditional light water reactors.

Is the Japanese system under-teethed or the US over-teethed?

Japan was under-teethed, IMO. They are rebuilding their regulatory structure as we speak.

Agreed on both and my point stands. They don't have a solution other than "let's run it at less than full power and cross our fingers". Again, with the recent problems and negative spotlight on the industry you would think they would have a better plan...

The Japs aren't going to fix the problems that led to the accident, it's pretty much inherent to their culture. Everything is very hush hush, can't talk about it. There's a shame in admitting error.

Actually they did a bunch of testing, plugged a bunch of tubes that failed the testing, and I think they are altering the tube support bar in some way to help reduce the vibration. They will start it at low power and keep an eye on the loose parts monitor for vibration. If they see it again, they will probably have to do even more work on the steam generator.

Overt racial slurs aren't usually your style.

Japs? That's racist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jap

So yeah, it's offensive. Did you not take US history in school?

I didn't realize I was being racist either??? Jap is an abbreviation for Japanese.

It's all about perspective, some people find the word retard offensive even when used in a manner that doesn't indicate a mentally handicapped person. Funny that he's calling racism when Japan is one of the most racist countries in the world.

Japan has a very xenophobic culture, but that doesn't mean I would use a derogatory term to describe them. I'm surprised that multiple posters on this board that are normally pretty aware about stuff like this don't know about this slur for Japanese people.

It's not a slur, no more than Brit is a slur for a British person. The fact that a certain segment of people at one time or another have used the word in a derogatory context, doesn't suddenly make my usage of the word derogatory. Definition wise it has a legitimate usage, which is exactly how I am using it. People tend to give words this power, even though context nor the technical base or origin of the word are ever actually understood. We see the same thing with words like "retard" or "gay", where one person finds it offensive in a context that actually is offensive and then suddenly the word is off limits in all contexts. Sorry but that's BS.

Definition wise negro is legitimate, but you still sound like a racist grandpa when you use it.

So, "Jap" is considered racist but "gorilla" is just a fat person?

Would you mind linking some historical major use of the word "gorilla" to describe black people in a derogatory way? I would think with your confidence in this, it should be as easy as coon or "jungle monkey". Gorilla is just a fat person especially when saying "big fat gorilla". If the kid had said "big fat jungle monkey" I would say, yeah, obviously racist.

In that case it would have had more e's in it.

I respect your skill and knowledge. The problem with nuclear power is that, no matter what you do, there is always a probability of failure. And the outcome of that failure can be catastrophic.

Rather than fire a broadside, I'd like to ask something specific: Fukushima proved that it is extremely dangerous to store spent fuel in an active reactor containment vessel, or even in the same facility. But this is still common practice in the US. So here is my question: Has the US moved a single spent fuel rod out of a reactor containment vessel since Fukushima? Because I've heard nothing about reviving efforts to do this.

Your analogy is not equivalent and therefore irrelevant to the discussion. In order to show equivalency you need to demonstrate that the offensive word would simply be an abbreviated form of the original word. Abbreviating a word doesn't inherently make it racist, regardless of historical usage.

EDIT: Didn't see your negro comment. Yes, technically speaking negro would be non-racist unless your intention was racist. However directly addressing someone as a "negro" would be racist, because it would be akin to addressing someone as "black" or "white" or "asian". Case in point... "A large proportion of negroes are genetic carriers of sickle cell anemia..." vs "Hey negro, fetch me my boots." Although negro is still not an abbreviation.

"Gorilla" and "monkey" are synonymous in their racial sentiment. I've never heard of "jungle monkey" before either. Just "monkey" would suffice. I can't link to something like WWII (which is the only reason for "Jap" being considered offensive) because a similar event never happened. I just know what I've heard/read throughout my life. When speaking about a black person, gorilla and monkey, are meant as racial slurs. Go look at any list of derogatory terms and those two words are on there.

If I showed you a picture of a black person and you said "Look at that monkey" or "Look at that gorilla", then I would take that as a racial slur. If I showed you a picture of a Japanese person and you said "Look at that jap", I would think you were weird for not using the full name but not racist.

I can't be the only one thinking it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWdVwt2deY4

It did?

Wind power is way more viable in many places in the US.

I'll first correct a bit of misunderstanding, that might actually alarm you (I am personally of the opinion that spent fuel pool risk has not been taken seriously enough, with too much focus being on the reactor core). Spent fuel pools are generally outside of containment, in the reactor building (so at the same facility). Some reactors have moved some of their spent fuel to air cooled storage casks still on site. Harry Reid has blocked final disposal of nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain site (which may not have been the best technical choice in the first place). Deep bore holes and geological salt deposits are popular choices among technical experts for final disposal of radioactive waste.

There is always a probability of failure for a great many sources of electricity and energy. Many of these failures can lead to large consequences for the public. The normal everyday manufacture of solar PV cells has a significant chemical danger to the public that is offloaded to superfund sites, or more frequently to the Chinese countryside. Failure of a superfund site to contain chemicals can lead to large scale poisoning of the population. Even a single facility of PV manufacturing has the danger of silane explosions and venting toxic gasses.

http://www.khq.com/story/18798212...moses-lake

Rooftop solar panels introduce increased fire risk to the community. Fires that can be catastrophic to the surrounding buildings and population.

The important thing is to balance the aggregate risk from each source of power. Nuclear is by far safer than fossil fuels which kill people on a daily basis, hydropower that leads to extremely deadly dam break scenarios, wind power which is more dangerous to maintain (though deaths to the public are rare, they have occurred due to ice throw accidents), and about on the same footing as solar power (though there isn't much data because so little power is produced by solar). Fly ash spills and increased asthma and lung cancer are the price we pay for using coal for 50% of our electricity, not to even mention global warming. Oil has oil spills plus again, the other known bad effects of fossil fuel air pollution.

I am for a good mix of power sources. I am for using renewable resources in a variety of applications (especially lower power and more remote locations). I just think building a base of nuclear power is the single best solution currently available for about 50-60% of all electricity usage. You can probably push renewables (including hydro) to 30% and another 10-20% of natural gas for peaking/close load following. I think that would provide the lowest combined economic, environmental, and social cost of electricity for hundreds of years.

People should be called what they prefer to be called. British people do not mind being called Brits. I hear and I assume Japanese people mind being called Japs. I also hear Pakistanis mind being called Paks (or is it Pakis?).

I say it is rather clear that people who use Brits do not mean to be offensive but those who use Japs or Paks likely are being intentionally offensive.

I am reminded of people who insist using BHO for Obama but MR for Mitt Romney. They can play dumb and deny deny deny but their prejudice comes across loud and clear, IMO.

Because it's better to call the president "BO",.. :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

How about:

compare with:

The negros aren't going to fix the problems that lead to the gang violence, it's pretty much inherent to their culture. Everything is very bling bling, I'm a gangsta. There's a shame in adopting mainstream values.

If you point at a fat (especially if they are also hairy) person and say "Look at that big fat gorilla" I'm not going to think it is racist even if they are black. "Big fat gorilla" is literally in two different kid's songs: "Down in the jungle" (sometimes sung as great big gorilla) and the extra verses of "itsy bitsy spider". It is not a racial slur and is not historically used as one.

Monkey has more historical usage as a slur than gorilla. I stand by that statement. Especially "big fat gorilla". This will be my last post on this subject in this thread.

That's a good thing. You still want to be able to climb out after all.

Anyway, BACK ON TOPIC:

What's stopping the U.S. from instituting feed-in tariffs? Lobbyists? Capitalism?

Again with the bad analogies. Jap vs negro aren't even the same classification. Aside from that, the definition of negro is not racist, but the word can be used in a racist or derogatory manner, as I already pointed out. Also you keep repeating negro because you have no example of an analogous term which is also an abbreviation.

Yes, increased risk of fire, just like nuke (omg that's an abbreviation) plants have an increased risk of radiation exposure. Without quantifying the increase in risk, saying there is an increase in risk is scare mongering tactics, only appealing to the dumb and uneducated.

Nuclear is fine under two conditions, solve the storage problem or just allow reprocessing and remove government backed loans to build them. If they are such a great money making venture then private backers can put up the cash.

I am against the government backed loans.

I agree that without quantifying the risk and consequences, it is fear mongering, and that was the point I was trying to make. Terrible low probability things can happen for different power production methods. The nuclear industry does detailed risk calculations and has used these techniques to reduce the risk to the public. When you install a rooftop solar panel, no such calculations are made. No one asks what the probability of starting a fire is due to an arcing fault and what the probability is that the fire spreads before local firefighters can respond or whether local firefighters are even allowed to fight a fire on a house with a rooftop solar installation (it is sometimes against policy).

i worked for a consultant for nye county while they were doing feasibility studies on yucca mountain back in the day. i'm still miffed i missed out on the trip to vegas i would've gotten that summer if it wasn't for prior obligations.

We all know that the probability of a nuclear failure is lower than with other energy sources, but the problem is that the cost of a nuclear failure can be immensely higher than failures of other energy sources. No other form of energy production can leave a city uninhabitable. No other form of energy can cause a mass evacuation, except maybe a dam break. But even after the worst dam break, people can recover. A nuclear accident can leave an area uninhabitable for very long periods of time... so much so, that it doesn't matter if it's ten or 100 times more safe, because a failure can be vastly more devastating.

LIAR!!!!!!!!

:lol: j/k

But it is not vastly more devastating than the 60,000 estimated extra deaths per year thanks to coal. It simply isn't.

The risk is similar to the risk posed by a variety of chemical plants. The benefits are electricity rather than certain chemical products but the risk is similar in terms of permanent contamination leading to unlivable land.

True, and I'm sure there are millions of deaths that would be beyond the scope of that estimate due to either mercury poisoning or air pollution and God only knows what else. Coal is an invisible killer and while these bureaucratic schmucks scream bloody murder about second hand smoke, outdoors no less, no one bats an eye at coal pollution.

Risk wise nuclear is far less risky than coal in terms of total deaths, but it's the fear factor that freaks out the NIMBY people. People don't think in terms of statistics, which is also why most people make bad leaders, totally off the topic though.

Resolve the financing issue and the storage issue and nuclear is a great choice, minus the fact that it takes way too long to build a plant.

Koreans have their build times at just over four years, which isn't too long, all things considered. It looks to be a hugely profitable business for South Korea to build OPR-1000s globally.