Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Who will apply for work at Tesla in Tulsa?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rez Exelon" data-source="post: 3369000" data-attributes="member: 5800"><p>I'm not even disagreeing with you on either point, but I think I might be looking further out past my lifetime. In a couple posts earlier I've mentioned that we are definitely not ready for a complete cutover for two reasons --- efficiency of generation and, to your point, the storage capability. They go hand in hand because even if we can store it and run off it for a period, the generation side has to be able to pump the battery back up before the next "on battery" period. Again, why I think have nuclear as a baseload make sense. I'd have to look the numbers up before I feel like I could say it with authority, but I think even now with the advances in O&G nuclear is still a cleaner source. Cost might be higher though because it does get more regulations since "it's so scary". </p><p></p><p>To your other point, I don't disagree there. I just would rather us be at the forefront of oil and gas technology AND be at the forefront of renewables. Seems like we don't have to be one or the other.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rez Exelon, post: 3369000, member: 5800"] I'm not even disagreeing with you on either point, but I think I might be looking further out past my lifetime. In a couple posts earlier I've mentioned that we are definitely not ready for a complete cutover for two reasons --- efficiency of generation and, to your point, the storage capability. They go hand in hand because even if we can store it and run off it for a period, the generation side has to be able to pump the battery back up before the next "on battery" period. Again, why I think have nuclear as a baseload make sense. I'd have to look the numbers up before I feel like I could say it with authority, but I think even now with the advances in O&G nuclear is still a cleaner source. Cost might be higher though because it does get more regulations since "it's so scary". To your other point, I don't disagree there. I just would rather us be at the forefront of oil and gas technology AND be at the forefront of renewables. Seems like we don't have to be one or the other. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Who will apply for work at Tesla in Tulsa?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom