[ 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

View post   
File: 439 KB, 2000x1145, Australia-First-Wind-Solar-Farm-Hybrid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10369029 No.10369029 [Reply] [Original]

[ ] yes
[ ] no
[ ] not sure

And please tell us why.

>> No.10369049

By save if you mean take up lot of space and make world uglier while giving low energy then yes.
There is more than enough clean energy in atom.

>> No.10369089

>>10369029
no. Because solar is poised to eat up wind power

>> No.10369104

>>10369029
Why would you think it would? Nothing added can do that. You have to remove the problem, not add something to the problem.

>implying that is a problem

>> No.10369129

>>10369049
Atomic power is racist. Guess where the nuclear power plants are? Hint: None are within sight of Trump Tower.

Any new plants will be put the same place the chemical and sewage plants are built - near the poor and ghettos.

Nuclear power is just whitey not wanting to lower their million dollar property values.

>> No.10369131

>>10369029
>it stopped blowing during the night

heh, checkmate, combrero

>> No.10369177

>>10369029
1. it's already too late
2. climate will change anyways, no matter if humans even exist or not
3. you should worry more about the next ice age

>> No.10369188
File: 407 KB, 1000x1000, 1514728247260.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10369188

>>10369029
>be winter
>lots of energy is needed
>daylight is spare
>barley wind
I dont want to crush your dreams Anon but the calculation doesnt go up. Hydroelectric is more reliable but can fail you during dry seasons aswell. Nuclear will still be the most efficient way to generate power until corefusion becomes a thing.

>> No.10369209

>>10369188
just build more. Alternatively, don't live in a northern shithole. Nuclear would be nice, but we just can't build it fast enough.

>> No.10369218

No. No single technology or small collection of technology will save us.

However, wind and solar are important parts of a comprehensive approach to climate change.

>> No.10369292

>>10369029
No
it's not nuclear

>> No.10369297

>>10369188
geothermal is good too, IF you live in an area with accessible volcanic heat

>> No.10369302

>>10369209
we can, but corruption and red tape from the government and from contractors means that we don't

>> No.10369309

>>10369029
>Will wind and solar save us from global warming?
No
it's way too late to be "saved" from global warming
nuclear war and mass starvation are probable within your life

>> No.10369314

>>10369029
Everyone in this thread is retarded. The Earth receives millions of times more energy from the sun each year than humans use in all forms. Solar is practical at any efficiency

>> No.10369315

>>10369314
Solar is not practical at scale. You need significant amount of surface area to create a significant amount of energy.

>> No.10369339

>>10369315
No you don't. You only need to cover 0.00005% of the Earth in solar panels and store some energy for night in order to replace 100% of humanity's energy requirements.

Do some math before speaking out of your ass

>> No.10369343

>>10369339
or you could put it in spesss

>> No.10369354

>>10369343
That's a great option for later. I like ringworlds and Dyson swarms/spheres but ground-based solar should probably come first

>> No.10369455

For some definition of "save us". They will be anywhere from 50% to 80% of future energy generation.