If tomorrow the US connected 40 billion kWh of NEW wind & solar capacity to the grid ...

Statistical

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Mar-16-11 05:07 PM
Original message

Poll question: If tomorrow the US connected 40 billion kWh of NEW wind & solar capacity to the grid ...

Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 05:12 PM by Statistical

Which would you want to see permanently shutdown?

BTW: 40 billion kWh is about 10% of US annual electrical consumption.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tansy_Gold

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Mar-16-11 05:10 PM
Response to Original message

1. And if you had posed this question three weeks ago I'd have given the

same response.

There is no such thing as a safe nuclear plant.

TG

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kristopher

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Mar-16-11 05:12 PM
Response to Original message

2. As you know I'm against investing in nuclear power.

But given the framing of your question I'd shut down coal plants unless there is an unsafe result of safety reviews of existing plants.

But I WOULD NOT advocate investment in MORE nuclear power nor would I spend any funds extending lifespans or uprating plants.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Modern_Matthew

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Mar-16-11 05:13 PM
Response to Original message

3. Nuclear. Getting rid of coal would decimate my local economy and I won't have that. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DODI

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Mar-16-11 05:14 PM
Response to Original message

4. I will even live next to the nuke -- but not the coal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DCKit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Mar-16-11 05:18 PM
Response to Original message

5. Split the difference between coal and Nnuquelur and, next year, rinse and repeat. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TNLib

(683 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Mar-16-11 05:27 PM
Response to Original message

6. Coal plants

I read 48 tons of mercury annually. That's kind of scary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Maine_Nurse

(688 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Mar-16-11 05:45 PM
Response to Original message

7. Other-None of the above.

If you'd have said hydro instead of those two options I'd have probably chosen coal to go away, but neither wind nor solar can actually "replace" other sources as they are not reliable (as in there are days that sun doesn't shine and wind doesn't blow). All other forms of production need to stay to cover those situations. In fact, with a few exceptions like hydro or specialized turbines, the others have to even stay running so they can generate power immediately when needed instead of warming up for an extended period first.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue Apr 30th 2024, 10:36 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.