![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The way we do nuclear now, its a disaster. we are doing nothing with the waste. I think canada and russia (maybe one other?) are the only few who reproccess waste.
Not with coal gasification it doesn't. They use coal to make syngas, which can be burned or converted into LNG, methanol, or gasoline. The only big "pollutant" in the process is lots of carbon-dioxide release, but we don't know for sure that's a bad thing.
1) Says who?
I wasn't questioning efficiency, I was questioning your comment that it "pollutes like crazy".
No you're not, and it has nothing to do with pricing. It has to do with whether or not its windy. Like solar, wind is an intermittent and inconsistent power source, which means that occasionally there's overproduction and luckily they can sell that to nearby countries. On other days they have shortages, and have to buy electricity accordingly: https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/13/renewables-produce-56-denmarks-domestic-electricity/
Source? Alternative energy enjoys large subsidies, and coal has always been taxed with that increasing drastically in recent years. The reason that the majority of the world's power production is coal, particularly in developing nations, is not because its more expensive... that makes no sense. C'mon now. Coal and NG are inexpensive and abundant power sources.
) At 5pm, as the needles flicker to the left and enter the yellow zone, what do they do? Easy: they use the gas turbines they have standing by. If wind is only creating 0.6 GW instead of 1.0, then they fire up enough gas turbines to create another 0.4 GW. Whew. Crisis averted. Wait! Now the needles are flickering to the right! The isobars on the wind chart are closer together. The wind is blowing strong and hard! It's making 0.9 GW. Cool. Shut down enough gas turbines so only 0.1 GW are coming from them. And so on for the season. ), they buy electricity from the large wind farms operating by, primarily, the Netherlands and Denmark. They use this electricity to pump water back up behind the dams. That works: the inefficiency doesn't really matter because otherwise the wind power would be lost. This approach works due to the abundance of fresh water to be pumped back up (it's not used for irrigation), and the close proximity of the wind farms.
This is the first time I've ever seen the "view" of them used by anti renewable power people...considering most other forms of power (not nuclear) pollute the air providing shitty views of the world.
from a purely aesthetic stance I actually find them very beautiful to look at. Just peacefully sitting there minding their own business, the other trees looking up at them like "wut da!?"
Go back to how wind power is generated and distributed on the grid. Remember those gas turbines? They are VERY efficient and produce low pollution: they do burn natural gas (usually). The two combustion by-products of burning natural gas are H2O and CO2. If you're AT ALL concerned about CO2, you should be twenty-fold more concerned about water vapor: it has a MUCH HIGHER greenhouse effect. Anyhow, ignore the H2O, because it'd be silly to get concerned about that, right?
Never said it was, mentioned it to indicate there were other sites where radiation leaks had occured. That's where the 'etc.' comes in. While right now nuclear power is a better option than, say, coal, NOT developing renewable energy sources where possible is simply idiotic. Of course, if you own stock in the companies that supply oil or power from nuclear sources, then I understand why you'd prefer that those be used instead.