Shared publicly  - 
Thanks for sharing +Phillip Reagin and +Lauren Weinstein. I haven't read about alternative energies in the last year. Any good updated analysis on the prevailing technologies that will save this sad state we are in? (e.g. good articles summarizing wind, solar, etc.). Thanks in advance:)
Branko Badrljica's profile photoWerner Brock's profile photoRené LeSage's profile photoDavid Averill's profile photo
How naive, hehe.

And not even a word about wind conditions and other "tidbts".

3x cheaper than nuclear ? Sure, this is kidstuff - like for example ON NEPTUNE ;o)))
Solar is popular topic only for the amount of greed and corruption that follows it, especially throughout EU.

Maybe that would change someday, but not today .

You don't need to follow some distant names that might or might not mean anything to you, you just have to be enough technically apt to be able to get the info and filter bullshit.

There are enough of solar powerstations in SLovenia today to pull some conclusions.

Main one is- solar power is at this moment worth crap - to the precision of araound 7 decimal places. Only ones that are profiting from it are "investors" that are doing this to pump out money from subsidies.
Funniest ( but AFAIK sadly true) fact about solarpanels is that in this climate of recycling etc most ecofriendly useage of panels would be to RECYCLE THEM.

That is, instead of each scavenger buying his own panels just get subsidies they could all buy just one set and use that to show their "project" to be stamped by the same EUrocrat.

We'd be all much better off...
Thanks +Phillip Reagin yes I suppose +Shaker Cherukuri and I are always chatting about nuclear but we both follow Thorium liquid fueled solutions not the solid Uranium ones.

Alternative power is also bit of a passion from an engineering point of view too, solar is an engineered solution to the location, a lot of people forget that and try to stick it any were just on its green credentials, what they end up with can be disappointing, not familiar with the project +Branko Badrljica is referring too though.

Hi +CJ Liu nice to meet you ;-)
Worst of all, EUrocracy is expecting for domestic industry to be able to compete with Chinese running on nuclear, thermal and other sources of cheap and dirty energy sources all while using "green" crap.

There is no room for subsidies in capitalism. Solar either is or isn't competitive. Where it is, market forces will make sure it is used and vice versa.

Other problem is constant "sex up" factor of such news, where laic reader is lulled into some false "it's done deal" feeling, like we can see here.

Researchers have invented lens for turbines and end result i 3x cheaper electricity than nuclear !!!

What are we waiting for ?

OK, they might be tired, so let's wait for them to catch a breath, take a piss, sleep it over and take a shower, and then we can surely start serial production...
Or maybe not ? ;o)))
+Branko Badrljica there is often a gap between a promoters marketing and the actual products performance, solar and other "green" technologies suffer from this in the same way that early nuclear did and many other technologies, natural gas fired power plants are the new cause celeb too...

The wind lens has its own problems and its own marketing going on so take 3x cheaper with a pinch of salt ;-)
Wait until they go through Galilei's footsteps and recognise that they can combine several lens into telescope.

With that aperture and wavelength of my fart they should be able to use that field to prove organic methane production in SLovenia. NO need for lighting farts on YT anymore ;o)))
+Ed Ellis:

methane as an energent is "green" and "in".

Recovering farts of a driver straight into engine's air collector should be a part of every "green" vehicle sold in EU ;o)))
CJ Liu
Honestly, it's hard for the average Joe or JoAnne in this case to make sense due to the marketing claims. I dug into this awhile ago and it seems that little has changed. No one prevailing technology where the economics pan out. Should I start preparing my kids for the end of the world?
In short +CJ Liu no ;-)
Expenditure expands to fit available income, this holds true for energy budgets as well as household expenses, as energy becomes more expensive we use less, we use better lights and better insulation, car mpg goes up and so on.

Energy production is in a transformational stage and every one is trying to bet on what will win, the marketing we see is a result of that.

Centralised energy production focuses money and political control in the hands of the few, its good business and good government ;-)

A solar power plant of a 1000 panels is good for the above reason, a small town with a 1000 home owners with panels on their roofs feeding power to a local smart grid is the same thing as a big centralized power plant and not good for the above reasons...
Sure. Solar has its strengths.

Had Hitler gone solar&wind route in 1940, war would be over two years earlier and we would save countless lives, on all sides.
Truth of the mater at this moment, as I see it, is that nuclear wins BIG TIME. There are no contendants that come even close.

One notable exception would be MODERN coal plant- if you forget that green hysteria with CO2. If not, that leaves nuclear.

As I said, maybe this will change sometime in future, but NOT today.

And even nuclear is not all the same and it's changing rapidly.
there is no more costly form of energy than nuclear energy. Please think of the suffering of the generations to come. The Japanese might have learned or will learn the lesson!
How many wictims are caused by ONE coal powered powerstation EACH YEAR ? Or even hydropower plant ?

How many die TODAY in USA because you can no longer compete with China as much as you used to while you freely import their stuff ?

Let's suppose your electricity bill rises a mere 10%.
Do you really think it wthis would affect just you or EVERYTHING around you ?

If you were 10% more expensive for your employer, do you really think he would employ you just a little bit less ?
And, when we are talking about Japan or even Chernobyl for all I care- how many wouldn't EVEN BE BORN if it eren't for these poweplants ?

I don't mind talking about negative side. It is essential in order to keep objectivity. Just be sure to just as vigilantly and diligently load the positive side of the scale...
+Branko Badrljica no doubt we do not want the coal CO2 pollution, but nuclear radiation set free in large scale in a nuclear accident is much worse for a very long time span (thousands of years!!!). And nuclear accidents like Tchernobyl or Fukushima are unavoidable. Worse will come!
Really ? We live with radiation all that time.

And somehow we survived.

Take ALL victims of nuclear radiation into account and compare them with victims of cacner due to classical powerplants impact ( air exhaust etc)- I gurantee you that they won't even be a blip in the graph.

So, what is the fuss about ?
+Branko Badrljica I am not convinced at all by your argument. Think of the Hiroshima victims, how many cancer victims do we have in Europe due to Tchernobyl? How many genetic deformations? There is no reliable statistic because you cannot prove the cause and effect. But the increase in cancer rate should be alarming.
The energy industry is maximizing short time profit, not caring about long time effects. But we humans should care about saving our nature and environment as the most important condition for continuous survival of humans, animals and other forms of life.
Fine. Now compare that to effects of coal and other energents. There are studies and data available.

They are even made for industrial production and powerplants.

These numbers are NOT small.

And that is even BEFORE taking into account any effects of expensive energy.

My father died a year and a half from effects of untreated prostate cancer and even though we weren't in best of terms, we had some sort of gentlemen agreement.

He needed me and I did evrything I could.
From that experience I can tell you that MAJORITY of painfull, gruesome deaths go completely unnoticed by media.

If you want to see mess that you couldn't see in Beirut or Bosnia, take a tour through some onkology department, especially in some country which economy is crumbling.

Srebrenica masacre is afternoon walk, compared to that.

For example, did you know that NATO used extensively uranium ammo when bombing Srbia ?

Many have died from the aftereffects and still no one cares.

But all it takes is one faulty pipe to leak radioactive fart that wouldn't kill a rat and media goes crazy in a nanosecond.

BY all means, use expensive electricity if you want.
But before that, DO explain your folks ALL effects of that.
Including closing much of the industry.
I still remember all the shitty "green" insanities that Slovenian parliament was full right after our seccession from Jugoslavia.

BTW:I don't mind marihuana, but I really think that bong line of reasoing doesn't belong in politics.

One of those smart ideas was that we have to stop our nulcear power plant IMMEDIATELY.

Greens were relentles and debates could not stop. All the data did not help much because it was immediately labeled as "lie of nuclear lobby".

So, one day Chief of powerplant staff apperad in parliament and said ( I'm paraphrasing):

"I've had enough of this shit. We are prepared to close the powerplant. We are highly educated scintists and technitians, so we are not afraid for our job prospects.

Pleas, just allow us a couple of weeks to gradually power down, and a couple more weeks to put it in inactive state. Then do what you want.

But I do demand one thing:

Before we start, tell the taxpayers WHO EXACTLY ordered the shutdown and who will be responsible for aftermath ( be it positive or negative ) INCLUDING the price of electricity from now on."

ANd that was it. Not a word was said after that. More than 15 years later, Krško still works 100% and nuclear power is cheapest by a margin, even though France and Italy are neighbours ( each one AFAIK having quite a few nuklear powerplants)...
+Branko Badrljica I am very sorry about your father´s death and also from my own family experience I know the suffering from cancer and its treatment very well. We also agree completely on the criminal act of using nuclear amunition. Some countries even think of of starting a nuclear war and we are getting prepared psychologically. This war might destroy nuclear power plants anywhere in this world. That´s the kind of risks I see. Nobody seems to care. But when it happens we might not be able to care any more. So who cares?
Americans are being prepared to pay for Zionists goals.

Israel was formed by ppure aggresion and basically teroristic act.

Their stance was "we don't give a fuck".

Whatt they did not say is that a lot of their power comes from our pockets- basically people around the globe.

I don't see the need to be involved in another holly war.
If americans are eager to pay for it, fine by me.

And above all, I don't see Iran as some dark power.

USA was amongst other things one of crucial factors of Iran-Iraq wars ( in fact, USA instigated it) in which some 5% of Iranians lost their lives.

I am not religious at all and I would be majestically pissed, if someone did that to me.

I wouldn't need a promise of 72 virgins to kick someone's ass and I don't see them as extremists.
+Branko Badrljica I agree completely, we do not need a holy war, we do not need a nuclear war, we do not need any other war. When I was young there was a saying: "what would be if there were a war and nobody would participate?"
We should think and meditate about this strategy.
But brainwashing is very effective nowadays.
Add a comment...