/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>24629581
Thanks for the bump from hell! Shameful.

>>17921132
>oil derived products have a shelflife of less than 4 months

probably never tbqh

>>12496799
>but I expect the proportions to be similar.
who cares about your "expectations"?
youre less than a nobody, your an anonymous person on the internet

>>12338622
>costs more energy to refine and manufacture than it will ever generate in its opperational lifetime
>kills all creatures that fly over it (flashcooking birds before they even hit the ground, not to mention the impact to any flying insects)
>kills all plant life underneath them (so cant be used over farmable land)
and they have efficiencies worse than internal combustion engines, 80% of energy is lost as heat waste (only 75% if you spend twice as much energy to manufacture "efficient" panels)

and thats not even mentioning the scaling problem, you could need to cover entire states with nothing but panels (so no sunlight whatsoever for those areas) and still not generate enough power for industrial use that a couple tiny power plants could make (coal, oil, or nuclear)

thats not even mentioning the local weather fuckups from having a new large thermal hotspot, which would basically cause intense global warming on a local scale (even disregarding the impact on any flying life above them, or plant life below them)

the only good thing about solar is that it can scale down nicely (but it still has shit efficiency) and most of the manufacturing impact is localized in china

the most efficient solar panels can maybe push about 30% efficiency, while a shitty nuclear power plant can top 66-70% energy efficiency easily

>>11730821
the only renewable that can work is fission or fusion

nothing else comes close, like >>11731020
said

solar can be good for residential use, but it cant scale up for industrial use, even covering the 50% of all land on earth it still wouldnt be enough to power the worlds current energy needs, not to mention future needs

wind and hydro are two others that cant scale up (and not really good at all for local wildlife)

and geothermal is far too restricted by geography, and wouldnt work for powering places far away because diminished efficiency over large distances

>>11731163
solar also has terrible efficiency (10% of energy is useable, compared to combustion engines very shitty 20%)

nuclear is the only way, and the cleanest safest power source there is already

government and initial costs are the only reason we havnt converted to more nuclear use already