Okay, so how much of domestic power is produced by nukes, again?

So, do you seriously think that percentage is worth the risk? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

That sounds awfully high.

And do you still think it's worth the risk, even if it IS 20%?

But the quickest is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States

"As of 2008, Nuclear power in the United States is provided by 104 (69 pressurized water reactors and 35 boiling water reactors) commercial nuclear power plants licensed to operate, producing a total of 806.2 TWh of electricity, which was 19.6% of the nation's total electric energy consumption in 2008.<1> The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power."

That info comes from the Dept of Energy:

PDF file of 2009 report showing 20%
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec9.pdf

It is a very high percentage and I would love if wind and solar were properly invested in (and subsidized) so that it was a high percentage.
I do not support nuclear because not only are the effects of disaster so much worse than other technologies, but we never solved the problem of
what to do with the waste.

What do you think will happen? Look where most of the reactors are located while you are at it.

I am for the closeout of nuclear power, but we need to have replacement sources ready and online as we do.

It's a much smaller percentage of total energy.

We have to start shutting down the old nukes, they don't last forever.
Wind is cheaper than new nuclear on a per-kwh basis, and in a few years so will solar.
And by the time we need storage, it will be cheaper to build the extra renewables+storage than new nuclear.
New nuclear is a waste of money.

Hi-res version here: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov

As we know, the majority of petroleum is used for transportation so it's not really part of the electrical energy picture nor am I suggesting it should be.

I love these graphics.

Note where the CO2 sources are and aren't.



:patriot:

I mean even if people are anti-nuclear you have to accept it will take decades to build out renewables. So say next you renewable energy goes up 5% would you want 5% less coal or 5% less nuclear?

Until coal is something for the history books the idea of cutting nuclear is lunacy.

There are 227 dams in the Columbia River drainage basin.

Living here in the great northwest, I tend to think that hydro is much more ubiquitous than it actually is nationwide. Anyway, don't look for that hydro line to thicken anytime soon as I'm pretty sure that we've long since exploited any damnable waterways and are actually entertaining the idea of tearing some of them down.

I don't have an easy solution but I appreciate the problem!

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

Before you complain it is wiki there are cites to German Government sources.

Conversely say we increase wind capacity 10% would you want 10% less nuclear or coal?

http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2004/update42

Since Chernobyl that is about 10 million people globally and 600,000 in the US.

Nuclear *might* kill somebody. Coal will kill somebody every single day.

Lets crunch some numbers:
25,000 x 100 years = 2.5 mil people die from coal
1 nuclear plant blows near a major metro area= 5 million or more people die. Millions more sickened. Environment and local economy never to recover.

And you know with some tweaks, fewer people would die from mining. It would just take some regulation and enforcement.

I'd rather hedge my bet on coal until we have clean and safe energy in place.

The idea that we can conserve our way out of our energy problem is probably wrong.

First of all, the only thing that will get people to conserve is cost. As the price of energy goes up, people will use less. Unfortunately, the people who get to conserve first are the poor. If you jack prices up to force a 20% reduction in usage the people who will be paying for that are the poor.

Secondly, conservation is not the direction humanity needs to go. Historically, the technological growth of mankind has been proportional to the amount of energy he is able to harness to bring to bear solving problems. Conservation is good for efficiency's sake, but you don't want to stifle technological growth for want of energy. We need to look at how to harness more energy to encourage more technological growth.

Thirdly, conservation is not going to solve the C02 problem. See this video:

http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html

It is critical for our environment that we get to a carbon-neutral state as soon as possible, or we are going to suffer dramatic changes due to global warming. Conservation will not be sufficient to solve this problem.

New energy sources are required.

They're rationing power in Japan right now.
That's a good way to do it. Give people a quota and if they go over, the power shuts off.

They are rationing power in Japan because there is a shortage of electrical power generation capacity.

Since there is no actual shortage of power outside of Japan, not selling it would cost the power companies money. They are going to sell it to anyone with the money to buy it. Poor people would no doubt have to comply with the rationing, but rich people would make sure they could get what they wanted.

Additionally, again you run into the problem of stifling energy-intensive innovation. The technological growth of mankind is probably going to require more energy, not less.

Additionally, again, neither conservation nor rationing will solve the CO2-generation problem.

We're talking about consumption, not cost, right?

Explain that then we'll talk about co2

We're talking about consumption, not cost, right?

I thought we were talking about artificial ways to limit consumption.

I submitted that the only way to do this is to raise the cost of the energy.

You suggested rationing "instead" of raising the cost of energy.

I submit that all this does is shift the cost onto the supplier, who now has an excess of energy he is unable to sell, due to people being limited on how much energy they are allowed to consume. Since the cost of power generation will then have to be divided among fewer Joules of energy, this will make the cost per Joule of energy rise.

Basically you are telling the power companies they are now allowed to sell 20% of their product. Either the power companies would have to keep prices the same, thus reducing income, and cut costs, or they would have to raise prices to maintain revenue. Guess which one would probably happen?

But this all assumes that power is distributed evenly around the country, and it is not. Power use and generation is fairly local, due to voltage losses in long-distance transmission. Places that rely on nuclear power do so because it is the most cost-effective way for those locals to obtain electricity. So a 20% reduction in overall use won't do - you'd be causing a much higher loss in generation in areas that are heavily dependent in nuclear power. In other words even if you just carte blanch eliminated nuclear power, a 20% reduction in the rest of the country's usage would not restore power to the places that rely on nuclear power for electrical generation. Those places would be forced to make due with a much higher reduction in usage than 20%, while other places that do not rely on nuclear as much, or at all, would not be affected at all.

Conservation is nice for the sake of efficiency, but it's not a viable plan for solving our energy and environmental needs.

even if there was a surplus of energy and the providers cut back on generation of electricity, there still need to be nuclear reactors in some areas because there's no other cost effective way for some locales to get electricity?

Whether the the consumer's cost goes up, goes down or stays the same doesn't really matter, does it? I mean this is the planet we're talking about.

So you're saying even if there was a surplus of energy and the providers cut back on generation of electricity, there still need to be nuclear reactors in some areas because there's no other cost effective way for some locales to get electricity?

There's never a surplus of energy, just surplus energy production capacity. In other words, they can take power generation plants off-line as power demand decreases, but then you've got very expensive power plants sitting around on stand-by waiting for increases in demand.

It doesn't need to be nuclear reactors, it could be coal, or natural gas, or whatever. It will just cost more. If there were cheaper options than nuclear in those areas they probably would have pursued them. Power generation and consumption is relatively local. For example, you can't easily distribute electricity generated in California to Florida. We should be thankful that this is the case, otherwise we would be off-shoring our power generation, too.

Whether the the consumer's cost goes up, goes down or stays the same doesn't really matter, does it? I mean this is the planet we're talking about.

If your goal is rationing power, then no, it doesn't matter.

My points were that the only way people will cut back on consumption voluntarily is if it costs them more (which would disproportionally effect the poor), that cutting back on consumption won't solve the CO2 problem, and cutting back on consumption nationally won't eliminate the cost-effectiveness, and thus attractiveness, of nuclear power in those places served by it. My latter point was that rationing is the same thing as raising costs, it just pushes the cost onto the supplier.

I mean this is the planet we're talking about.

We have to drive CO2 production to zero. Watch that video I linked you. Burning fossil fuels to generate electricity is probably far more harmful to the global environment than having a Chernobyl every 25 years or so, if that is what turns out to be the case.

But there are other designs for nuclear reactors that don't have the problems associated with current reactors (again, see the video). They are cleaner, safer, don't produce weapons-grade materials, and can consume our current nuclear waste by-products providing us with enough energy for centuries.

Ultimately, it is my hope that we can harness the sun for our power needs. It provides more energy than we could ever possibly use. But that day is not today.

How do we raise the cost for the largest consumers of energy (Industry) to make it more fair?
They're paying the least.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Global Warming is also increasing earthquake activity -- and the intensity of quakes!

Some also say the same re volcanic activity.

Capitalistic exploitation of nature is suicidal -- and we're living the proof of that now!!

Try sea shells -- they've always worked --

Survivial of the fittest actually means survival of the species which best cooperates

with nature --

How do we benefit from a polluted earth?

Had we never had industry/corporations we'd be better off -- in every way!

I was just wondering if you had another mass economic system in mind as an alternative which wouldn't be suicidal.

question is "Why should we exploit and destroy a system/Nature of which we are a part" -- !!!????

Is there some blockage here in your getting that?



You want a system -- let's do Democratic socialism -- but the main point is EXPLOITATION OF

NATURE has to be stopped -- that means no more burning fossil fuels -- NATIONALIZING our

natural resources -- investing in GREEN energy --

Ending suicidal concepts like "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" --

ending exploitation of antimal-life and even other human beings according to various myths

of inferiority!!


:eyes:

Solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy...attempting to harness and concentrate diffuse energy. That's about as far from ending the concept of dominion as we could get.

you should look up "exploitation" --

Do you really think we can destroy the sun?

Or maybe you think when we use windmills we destroy the wind?

Consider that vs fracking -- or what BP drilling into ocean floor just did to the Gulf --

or nuclear power plants!!


Wow -- !!

:eyes:

is about the increase of our control over nature. With oil, coal, etc, all we have to do is harness it, and use it. With solar, wind, etc, we have to add another step in the process, which is the concentration of that energy.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exploitation

1. The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.
2. Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers.
3. An advertising or a publicity program.

I don't know, that sounds like what I was talking about.

which has fallen upon the earth -- ?

There's an old saying ...

"You can't wake up a man pretending to be asleep!"

If that's not the problem, you need more help than you'll be able to get here at DU!

Please, take the anti-science stuff somewhere else.

nt

:nuke:

nt

the :nuke: symbol has been here as long as I've been here -

and is a "wake up" call -- and/or a sign of displeasure!

In fact, I'm sure of it.

:rofl:

of earthquakes --

Some also think volcanic activity, as well --

nt

but at some poin after 9/11 --

where they were "warning" him that Global Warming was a more serious threat to

the US than "terrorism."

They outlined that Global Warming would create increasingly chaotic weather conditions --

from droughts/floods to hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes -- also increasing their intensity.

They also listed earthquakes --

but that reference was later scrubbed --

Some also think that volcanic activity should have been included --


And, repeating what scientists told us in their 1992 warning to Humanity re Global Warming --

no one can say how all of this may compound. Japan is a perfect example of that --

earthquake -- 300 and more aftershocks still ranging from 8 to 6 and 4 -- Tsunami --

and volcanic activity.






The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

Please show us any scientific evidence of this.

I bet you will just spout more conspiracy theories.

You're straight up wrong.

That's delusional nonsense. Tectonic movement causes earthquakes. A three-degree shift in air temps will not impact the movement of continent-sized plates.

that global warming causes earthquakes. Apparently it was in some Pentagon report that's been "scrubbed" so she cannot actually provide ANY evidence to her ridiculous claim.

People should be required to pass some basic science courses before they are allowed to post to a message board.

but again the reference to "earthquakes" has been scrubbed --

Meanwhile, plate shifting caused by glacier melting will create more earthquakes --

and of higher intensity!!

Here in Japan you have just seen all three -- earthquake -- more than 300 aftershocks

registering still in high levels from 8's to 6's and 4's -- a tusunami -- and

volcanic activity.


"Pentagon Warning to Bush re Global Warming" -- try it!

And, if you're really interested in this subject, check "bananas" post with links

on these subjects ... just below this post --

Why should I waste my time reading something that you've already admitted to doesn't substantiate your point?

Japan's on the edge of a tectonic plate, that's why they've always gotten a lot of earthquakes.

Japan has INCREASING earthquakes and seismic activity -- which has been made clear

by those discussing these current reactors, which were created for circumstances 40

years ago!!

There has been increasing seismic activity since then -- and it will continue to increase --

which is why nuclear reactors are an insane way to go!!

But glad you've finally made the connection with "tectonic plates" -- !!



:eyes:

Jeff Masters: http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/21/was-the-2010-haiti-earthquake-triggered-by-deforestation-and-the-2008-hurricanes/
UK’s Royal Society: http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/19/global-warming-link-volcanoes-earthquakes-landslides-tsunamis-royal-society-scientists/
From 2007: http://www.livescience.com/7366-global-warming-spur-earthquakes-volcanoes.html
From Friday: http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-11-todays-tsunami-this-is-what-climate-change-looks-like/

Lots of info could be disappearing if right wing gets their way re internet!!





The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

and the resulting shift in distribution of the earth's surface mass.

Still sounds a little :tinfoilhat: ish to me.

WTF?

Edit: that's right up there with your belief that the moon landings were a hoax.

Sid

Natural gas is not the answer either.

And, I thought I knew something about this subject but had no idea how

far they had progressed in destroying water resouces -- even headed northeast now!!

And some of the land is now in questionable ownership!!

Capitalism is suicidal exploitation of nature -- if we are to survive we have to

move on to Democratic socialism and bury Captialism !!


:scared:






The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

and they're not worth what they cost -- or the dangers of them --

ACLU did an interesting piece on that which I'll try to summarize a bit later - !!

And consider the WASTE we are left with!!

have gone to alternative energy research --

We're pretty much set with solar -- and wind --

I'm sure there is other research being hindered --


If Obama goes thru with this, I want a RECALL!!!

*************************************************



The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

Based on irrational fear yet happily invest in coal.

Smart money knows Japan will need to replace 5GW of power and it will come from more LNG.

and working their asses off to change the atmosphere to one more welcoming

of nuclear energy -- that's all over the map and in Congress right now!!

Anyway Big Oil makes CEOs a more cost efficient means for making big money.

I think nuclear power requires much more govt. overnight than other sources.

Your alternative of solar and wind are funded by coal, oil and gas companies who know they'll be the still selling nonrenewable resources due to capacity shortfalls. Wind and solar energy don't operate at even close to the capacity nuclear does because wind speed isn't constant.

Are you willing to have numerous power fluctuations?

We need government investing in GREEN alternative energy --

and certainly NOT in nuclear as Obama has set out to do --

If Obama goes any further with pushing a new generation of nuclear reactors --

I'll be working for a RECALL!!






The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

With archaic solar and wind power.

I also find it funny you want to cut nuclear energy budget and thus less funding of safety standards.

The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

I find it funny you would want to push any further use of nuclear after Japan --

and it isn't even over yet!!





The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

Let's ban all use of flammable gas.

:rofl:

:crazy:

Propaganda fail.

Here is a table showing the nuclear share of electricity production by country:

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

at it as has been wasted on poisonous, unreliable, uncontrollable nukes.

If he goes on with that I want a RECALL!!





The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89nergie_nucl%C3%A9aire link is in french but scroll down and you can read the table for yourself. I have no idea how we would replace 78% of our electricity if we just stopped using nukes as you call them.

remember the French population is about 20% of our population

we still have to find another sorce for 78% of our energy, that has a cost, split by a people with a population 20% that of the USA so i don't think population size matters in cost per person or electricty replacement per person.

The issue was hydrogen gas being released by oxidization of metal tubes.

Should we also ban xray machines because a hospital may catch on fire and release radiation?

Would you rather get 20% more energy by burning coal?

Is our only other alternative COAL?

Lousy arguments.

Isn't the radiation but the oxidization of the metal rods.

but it's also expensive -- and creates radiation WASTE we still don't know what

to do with ...

Not cost effective -- and dangerous --

And why if you understand Global Warming are you talking about burning coal?

:nuke:

There are other ways of fulfilling all our energy needs, nice, clean, green renewable ones.

enough to provide cities with electricity all night long all through the winter months. I would love to have it that way but i have yet to see the technology to make it happen. Wind and solar can generate during windy and sunny times, tides are more reliable but we dont realy have any in chicago even in the lake, currents as a source there perhaps but with what at the moment? you need to keep the grid electrified or it goes down so how would you keep the juice coming with todays technology? nukes? coal? diesel? natural gas? lots of people pedaling stationary bikes hooked into the grid?

They come as standard equipment with most solar panel arrays. They can store enough energy to fully power an average household for forty eight hours or more.

You can also supplement that with windbelts. An array of windbelts can be mounted on rooftops and generate power in winds as low as four mph. During the winter months, the wind is generally blowing that hard or harder all the time.

Ooo, and we can build a smart grid, one that ships power hundreds and thousands of miles, from places where the sun is shining and/or wind is blowing to places that are dark and still.

Then there are things like methane digesters, which would take our shit, pull off the methane, and use it to generate electricity.

The list of green solutions goes on and on, and the fact of the matter is that it has been shown, scientifically, that we don't need fossil fuels or nukes, just green renewables.
<http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>

As the article states, the only remaining barriers from taking the path of renewables are political and/or social. So which category do you fall into?

For my house a rooftop array of thin film photovoltaic shingles runs at right around twenty thousand. Add on the five thousand dollar installation fee, and given my current average electric bill, the array will be paid off. Furthermore, since my house will be a net producer of electricity, I will be getting money back from my local electric company. Not to mention the fact that we're simply not going to be seeing electric prices do anything but go up.

Which means that the ten years of completely free energy will pay for my next array.

Not bad for a one time investment.

Hey, I might just purchase, or better yet make, an array of windbelts. They are cheap to buy and easy to make yourself.

More energy to feed back into the grid, clean and renewable.

You've got a calculator function on that 'puter of yours, do the math yourself.

probably at your library --

We've probably had more than 60 years of alternative GREEN energy being

suppressed --

We need government investing in GREEN energy -- every last dollar -- and certainly

not in any more nukes!




The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

the goal should be energy independence through gree sources and funded at a maximum but alas, nuclear can make lot of money for the people that mine it.... Imagine "Since 2042 the peoples energy company has provided electricity by making energy out of what nature gives to all of us each day, energy costs decreased dramatically and electric cars became the norm all thanks to the organized utility workers at The Peoples Energy Company" i can dream can't i?

What could go wrong? We at least do define that energy as clean and green though, so they must be that, since we define clean and green as well.

I doubt we can fulfill all of our energy needs...and wants, never forget about the wants...in any sustainable fashion. Our entire civilization, every institution that we've built, is based on the exact opposite of that. Why that would change simply because of a change in energy source, especially to one that may very well be limitless(at least with oil or coal and all the rest, there are a few limiting factors, like pollution, etc), is something that doesn't make sense to me. I mean, we've changed energy sources before, and here we are, the reality of March 16th, 2011.

think Rand and he "elites" also decided we needed some population weeding out a while back?

Survival of the fittest is based on a species cooperating with nature --

not trying to destroy it -- !!

that is what would go wrong

Why is there an all or nothing attitude present?

Nukes and coal, or living in caves are our only choices?

Really?

and don't forget that our population is still growing so even if we reduce demand per person overall consumption can go up if the population grows enough.

conservation is great in principle becuase we use less per person and is great in application too and must be continued and at a higher rate, much like what jimmy carter called for in the 70s. Green sources should be dramatically increased. A new "TVA" program could be created and solar, wind, current, tides and what not would all be explored and developed where it could generate more engery in a reasonable time frame than it takes up in making it and see how great of a % we can get but the production is not stable, wind is varibable production but solar can be more calculated but clouds do happen. there is the issue of the night and how to store green energy or what to do when wind is calm?

green for the moment means that at differeing times according to nature we can produce a certain % of the energy we use, once we develop a way to store the energy for when it is not windy or sunny we will simply have to put enough infrasructure in place to make energy independece happen, that could really reduce unemployment in my opinion too. we just need an efficiant way to store and draw a reliable current rate from variable sources of production.

I know that my power company, Puget Sound Energy, has an online tool to analyze power usage compared to similar homes.

Our house is totally electric (baseboard heat, water heater, dryer, and stove).

We use 56% of the power that the average house consumes, and I don't think we did all that much compared to what we could do.

Our light bulbs are all CFL, except for a couple of oddballs, we have programmable thermostats on most of the baseboard heaters, and we have insulated vinyl siding (adds like between R3 and R5 I think).

Windows leak heat pretty bad, and we have two ancient skylights I eventually want to get rid of because of heat loss.

Stove and clothes washer (Energy Star rated) are new. Dryer, water heater, and dishwasher are ancient.

that's what they do here in Europe anyways.

25% of northern California's electrical power.

Guys, please. Just stop it. Get a sense of perspective.

US causes of death....

Heart disease... 930,000 people per year
Cancer.... 550,000 people per year
Influenza and Pneumonia... 65,000 people per year
Alzheimers.... 50,000 people per year
Motor Vehicle Accidents... 43,000 people per year
Poisoning.... 13,000 people per year
Fire, smoke, etc..... 3300 people per year
Firearms accidents... 770 people per year
Nuclear accidents... 0 people per year

Known radiation deaths in this current nuclear "disaster".... 0
Radiation deaths in the worst nuclear disaster in history (per the world health organization)... about 50 (expected to rise to about 2000 over the next several decades)

Hey you made the list. Quick too.

I come here for discussion. If others are here for unchallenged validation of their existing beliefs, and refuse to consider anything but those beliefs parroted back to them, then there was no point engaging them in discussion anyway.

Teabaggers and dittoheads are this way. If you don't believe as they do you are a heretic.

There are too many other ways to generate electricity that do not have the catastrophic consequences that Nuclear does.

I don't know about any of you, but no amount of benefit is worth this:

There's a reply down thread of the number of, I guess immediate deaths, attributable to nuclear accidents. The number is incredibly small in comparison to causes of death to diseases, etc. I believe this number to be disingenuous considering deaths that surface years later.

I also don't think nuclear power is worth the trouble of disposing the very toxic, long lasting, waste products.

I don't think it's worth the risk considering what an accident can do to the earth in regard to growing food.

I don't think nuclear power is worth the high maintainance necessary and even with diligent efforts cannot render itself safe in light of all contingencies.

OTH, I am not thrilled with coal. All the above is, of course, imho, most humble opinion.

Here in Connecticut, the Millstone Nuclear Power plant produces a full one third of the state's electrical power! 500,000 households cook, watch TV, use PCs, and read under lights from this single power plant alone 24/7. Wind can't do that - not enough coast line. Solar can't so that - hell, I got zero power for weeks from my roof panel because it was buried in snow (and when I could have used a smaller bill frankly).

Sure, I support putting solar panels on buildings and adding wind turbines away from people (they are quite noisy), but I acknowledge that we need a lot of base load power production. It cannot be done with wind and solar only, it's a bullshit dishonest argument. The numbers don't add up, especially if one factors in the increasing needs of a post-fossil fuels society like electric cars and electric heat. To maintain the power grid, the power must be adjusted by bringing plants online or offline to keep the frequency at ~60 Hz. That cannot be done without some stability! There will always need to be some stable base load generator to ramp up or ramp down.