Subj : Re: I watched the 'talk'
To   : DR. WHAT
From : Rob Mccart
Date : Mon Apr 07 2025 01:52 am

RM> are not nearly as efficient as they claim they are. My sister bought
RM> a bunch of solar panels and they don't make near the power claimed, not
RM> near enough to handle all their needs and they paid $80,000 for them.

DW>I see this a lot.  And here in Michigan, it's even worse since it's overcast
  >much of the time **and** if you don't brush the snow off them, they produce
  >nothing.

Yes, my sister talks about that all the time, plus the money saved,
since it's so much less than the original estimate, means that the
panels will wear out long before they pay for themselves, rather
than being paid off about half way through their estimated life.

RM> Nuclear is highly efficient but has very expensive waste product
RM> problems and it's horrendously expensive to build plants.

DW>The newer nuclear technology doesn't have nearly as big a waste problem.  And
  >the expense is mostly due to gov't regulation (usually useless regulation).

There is new technology that is so efficient that it can use waste from
old nuclear power plants to make electricity, but those are a lot more
expensive to build. Maybe that's what you're referring to.
But you still end up with waste that is dangerous for several hundred
years rather than 25,000 years, but both numbers are a long term problem.

Another new thing is tidal generators on the ocean shores, but that
messes up a lot of shoreline. Some areas are super well set up for
that though like the Bay of Fundy between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia
in Canada. Depending on things the tide from low to high changes by
between 40 and 53 feet each day, so it's like loading up a waterfall
every day without having a one way river..   B)

---
 * SLMR Rob  * Go ahead: Ask what your country can do for you
 * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

.