[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:

View post   
>> No.12486771 [View]
File: 44 KB, 584x451, Mining requirement.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12486771

>>12486766
Shut the fuck up

>> No.12427524 [View]
File: 44 KB, 584x451, Mining requirement.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12427524

>>12427512
Am not

>> No.12377836 [View]
File: 44 KB, 584x451, Mining requirement.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12377836

>>12377439
>INSTEAD OF RENEWABLES
I was so with you.
Was

What the fuck man, renewables are a fucking meme. Their consumption of rare earth is beyond the roof and their lifespan is inexcusable. Not to mention the abyssal efficiency

It's either you like Nuclear or you are completely misinformed

>> No.11827581 [View]
File: 44 KB, 584x451, Materials.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11827581

>>11827397
Nuclear Plant: 60-100 years design life
Solar Plant: 20 years design life

Nuclear Plant: 1400 MW gets you 11 TWh
Solar Plant: 1400 MW gets you 3.5 TWh

Nuclear Plant: Can follow load
Solar Plant: Cannot follow load

Nuclear Plant: Doesn't require storage
Solar Plant: Requires storage

Nuclear Plant: Kills just about no one
Solar Plant: Kills more people than nuclear

Even if we assume you were not lying about $900K vs $6B, we would need to build the 3 solar plants to get the same amount of elecitrity. We would also need to build storage or gas power or whatever for when it doesn't shine. Then we need to keep building new solar plants every 20 years. Solar could be a bit cheaper if you only consider the first 20 years and think the world ends after that.

>> No.11773224 [View]
File: 44 KB, 584x451, Materials.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11773224

Nukes would be optimal for minimizing mining.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]