/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10586705
>i dont have free will
>i have no choice but to say this but trust me i dont have free will
thanks for the keks

>>10572435
>Not him, but this is completely false. In 25 years the average panel will be about 92% as efficient but still work fine. There are already solar panels that are 60+ years old.
Try roughly 80% and this is precisely why they are replaced; because they are cheap to make, replace, and are already only 20% efficient in the first place, along with the fact that millions of them would be degrading at the same time with intermittency on top of this making replacing them constantly a necessity for a reliable energy source

> A half of percent of the total land in the US could power the rest of the country with solar. Space isn't a serious issue.
t. Electrical illiterate that doesn't understand what the Joule effect is
You can't just build them in remote areas far away from society. You have incremental losses of efficiency with distance. They need to be built relatively close proximity to urban centers where losing millions of acres of land is a real concern.

> You could easily recycle solar panels without issue, it just hasn't become enough of a problem that we made a system for it yet.
What? Are you retarded? They aren't recycled because it's cheaper just to make new ones. And it's 100% unequivocal fact that they are toxic and just thrown in landfills. Not to mention recycling doesn't solve the issue of silicon wafer production, and doesn't solve the issue of them still eventually ending up in landfills (just like coal waste has since the beginning of coal plants).

>You're just drawing people away from nuclear with this exaggerated 'SOLAR POWER IS LITERALLY HITLER' whining. Most of the people here would agree with you if you weren't set on shitting yourself and blaming it on everything that isn't nuclear.
No, I'm pointing out that you guys are fucking retarded and brainwashed for thinking solar power waste isn't a bigger issue. 1/10000th of a crate of packaged synroc vs hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic sludge wow hard choice (for a brainlet)

>>10537563

>>10520017
>>10520171
>>10520190
>>10520216
>he doesn't know about hyperreals

>>10514094
>Whether nuclear power should be considered a form renewable energy has been a subject of debate. Statutory definitions of renewable energy usually exclude many present nuclear energy technologies, with notable exceptions in the states of Utah,[1]. Dictionary sourced definitions of renewable energy technologies often omit or explicitly exclude mention to every nuclear energy source, with an exception made for the natural nuclear decay heat generated within the Earth/geothermal energy.[2][3]
>The most common fuel used in conventional nuclear fission power stations, uranium-235 is "non-renewable" according to the Energy Information Administration, the organization however is silent on the recycled MOX fuel.[3] Similarly, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory does not mention nuclear power in its "energy basics" definition.[4]
yikes

>>10508833
>woah dude i'm too fucking retarded to understand a tantamount arbitrarily retarded relation between two things that are nothing alike
retarded beyond repair

>>10509199
>if bad things happen your whole region is gone
>if bad things happen
>literally safer than every other form of energy generation
>bad things

>problem of nuclear waste
fallacy of presupposition. you haven't established that a problem actually exists, you've just presupposed it.


what you do with it is what we are already doing with it. we put it somewhere, same as coal (except it takes up 10,000x less space for the same power output). the majority of nuclear waste actually contains useable fuel but uranium is to plentiful relative to the cost it takes to reprocess it.

since coal waste takes up 10,000 times more space yet no one is complaining, obviously the argument is 110% just "durr its super crazy dangerous omg what do we do with this moderately radioactive stuff omg" .. you just use a small fraction of the space that coal would have taken up to store nuclear waste. what's the ""problem"" again? that we are going to eventually run out of space? lmao what?

>>10509210
>If ignoring building costs wind, hydro and solar are without a doubt the cheapest
[citation needed]

maintaining and supervising over 20,000 acres of solar panels to produce what a single nuclear plant can produce is "cheaper" after building costs?

>>10507284
>>10507290
>>10507295

>>10504324
>>**Sal wrote out simple in 6 different colors, he meant to do it in 7** dialogue box pops out