/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10532829
Well sure the mining process itself will produce co2. In terms of driving trucks and equipment, but that isn't absolute. E trucks are possible.
The concern is mainly that batteries contain toxic materials and don't have unlimited life. Eventually they end up in the waste. Namely cadmium, lithium, mercury, lead.
>EVs green?
God no.
>nuke the only option?
It's a good one, but spooky because of disasters and people worry about the waste being so hazardous even though it's comparatively less waste than alternatives.
I'm not aware of any usable energy source that truly has zero negative environmental impacts.

>>10532829
What studies is he citing for his claim that “battery mining” pollutes almost as much as oil? It’s worth noting that lithium recycling is very efficient so what’s already out there is staying out there.

>>10532843
>The concern is mainly that batteries contain toxic materials and don't have unlimited life. Eventually they end up in the waste.

Not true. While lithium batteries degrade over time, they can be recycled and the constituent materials rebuilt into new batteries with new lifespans.

>>10532829
>How does mining raw metals release co2 into the atmosphere?

Equipment tends to rely on fossil fuel generators, unfortunately.

>Are electric cars truly green?

Sure, depending on how green the grid they’re on is.

>>10532850
>can be recycled
But instead you chose Diversity.

>>10532843
Well I’m not necessarily looking for zero waste alternatives, that’s for some nasa bigbrain to figure out. I’m just trying to tell whether or not electric vehicles and batteries in general have less of an environmental impact than oil powered, or if this is another one of his exaggerations he gets from propagandists that he likes to repeat with zero fact checking.

Last time he claimed texting and driving causes more fatal car crashes per year than gun violence in USA and DUI deaths combined, which was horseshit after 30 seconds of googling the statistics. I have literally no idea where he gets his information from but he’s very hardheaded about it until direct counter information btfo whatever he’s been peddling.

>>10532857
>But instead you chose Diversity.

No idea what you’re talking about. Landfills themselves can be “mined”.

>>10532863
>Well I’m not necessarily looking for zero waste alternatives, that’s for some nasa bigbrain to figure out. I’m just trying to tell whether or not electric vehicles and batteries in general have less of an environmental impact than oil powered, or if this is another one of his exaggerations he gets from propagandists that he likes to repeat with zero fact checking.

Yes, obviously.
https://youtu.be/hwMPFDqyfrA

>Last time he claimed texting and driving causes more fatal car crashes per year than gun violence in USA and DUI deaths combined, which was horseshit after 30 seconds of googling the statistics. I have literally no idea where he gets his information from but he’s very hardheaded about it until direct counter information btfo whatever he’s been peddling.

Even if that were true, it’d be an appeal to worse problems fallacy.

>>10532863
Well it probably is better than oil. Not researched, just common sense

>>10532863
It's a matter of getting over the hump of initial energy we need to put into mining for battery materials and manufacturing and setting up all the green energy sources, which has to come from fossil fuels initially. But when we have enough green energy and the technology to use it to power things on large scales the pollution will start to drop to lower than currently.

>>10532872
That depends on how green the local energy grid is. Somewhere like France where most of the electricity is from nuclear will have greener lifetime emissions for electric cars than, say, Estonia that gets 90% of its electricity from shale.

>>10532876
This is what I figured. I don’t know why I keep engaging in these discussions with him if he constantly just spouts shit he hears without ever considering what they’re trying to accomplish (oil companies slandering electric ventures).

>>10532911
PragerU is literally funded by oil baron brothers

>>10532916
I’m not sure he gets stuff from PragerU, but it wouldn’t surprise me. He seems to get a lot of info from Facebook groups of “insiders”.

Apparently there’s some underground group of ex-military from within the last 20 or so years that is planning a coup once things get bad enough and the government strips away our rights. Apparently the 4th amendment is completely irrelevant to them from his responses to my questioning of the patriot act.

Also a civilian with a “class 3” gun license can own tanks and military jets n shit, I have no idea what the fuck he’s talking about but I can’t refute it for the same reason. it’s just fun to poke holes in these discussions.

>>10532943
>Apparently there’s some underground group of ex-military from within the last 20 or so years that is planning a coup once things get bad enough and the government strips away our rights. Apparently the 4th amendment is completely irrelevant to them from his responses to my questioning of the patriot act.

This is the same schizo rambling about FEMA camps I’ve been hearing from my own uncle since the 2008 election.

>>10532863
>facebook insiders
top kek.
there's an entire boomercentric fake news industry.
a boomer prayer group in my neighborhood was going around saying that Obama was clearly planning a military coup of the nation ("he's going to declare martial law to stop the election"), one of those insane stories making the rounds on facebook with a million shares from fearful and concerned boomers

>>10532829
he is right. maybe the retard is you.
>how does mining raw metals release co2 into the atmosphere?
USING FUCKING OIL TO POWER THE MACHINES, BRAINLET.
And hte electricity comes mostly from cola, so nothing green about it, not taking to account all the fucking hazardous trash produced in the process.

>>10533757
So oil is still the problem dipshit. Once batteries are sufficient enough they essentially cancel out their initial waste by becoming recyclable and electricity use can by and large come from renewables.

>>10533757
>he is right. maybe the retard is you.

No he isn’t, because battery-powered cars produce less CO2 emissions over their lifetime than ICE cars even when mining emissions are accounted for, and this only exists anyway because we don’t use green energy for mining equipment, a solveable conundrum.

>USING FUCKING OIL TO POWER THE MACHINES, BRAINLET.

So stop using oil for that.

>And hte electricity comes mostly from cola

Uh, where shithead? Most of France’s electricity is nuclear. Coal is ONLY FOURTEEN PERCENT of the U.S’s energy as of 2017. So where the fuck do you live that uses mostly coal?

>>10532829
mining is terrible. its not even about the pollution. oxidization. we lost about 5% atmospheric oxygen over 20 years and a good portion was simply exposing material to oxygen

this is what modernizing the southern hemisphere and the development of china and india did. some would try to say its all china. not even close. they made modern suburban areas across south america and africa. right now you can go to africa and see a general lack of mud huts and s america cleared out the rain forest and built over at least half of what they cleared the rest is farm land

>>10533909
>muh China India boogeyman

Daily reminder they subsidize our pollution in the West by taking the brunt of it cause we allow our companies to outsource there.

>>10533877
>Coal is ONLY FOURTEEN PERCENT of the U.S’s energy as of 2017.

U.S. fossil fuel electricity generation in 2018.


Natural gas 35.1%
Coal 27.4%
Petroleum 0.6%

FOURTEEN PERCENT MY ASS.

>>10533909
>Let us all live in prosperity destroying the environment while keeping other countries poor

>>10532829
The material needs to be mined, processed, shipped, and then processed again for use in batteries, which are then thrown out in a short period of time.

The batteries are also used to generate more pollution, e.g. charging an electric powered car which requires more energy

The regions mined are now toxic wastelands too

Just because your dad is a boomer doesn't mean your millennial snarky attitudes trump his. Having fancy new gadgets doesn't guarantee you'll be "green"

>>10535397
>batteries which are then thrown out

t. Boomer

They’re by and large recycled, something you can never do with the oil you waste.

>>10532829

It causes more pollution to make one lithium battery for an electric car than it does to run a petrol car for 75 years or something like that.

The real concern is that a lot of electricity comes from oil anyway. So before buying an electric anything to substitute your combustion something, you should check where does the electricity in your town comes from. If not, you're just paying a premium to feel good about yourself. But hey, isn't that what environmentalism is all about?

>>10532829
There's more than one kimd of pollution OP. We're going to dump those used batteries somewhere, and that will seep into the ground.
Not to mention where still charging and making them with standard energy sources, some of which release CO2.

>>10535411
Prove they won't end up in a dump. Theres still no law in place and extracting new materials is cheaper than recycling.

>>10536000
Some industries like server farms use "spent" EV batteries as part of a massive power backup array, because the batteries still function at 60-80% and that's good enough if they're cheap.

>>10532850
That recycling process also releases co2. Not to mention co2 for freight and some for storage of spent batteries.

>>10532856
Last I read the grid was incredibly inefficient. Losing as much as 30-40% of the original supply to resistance of the cables and equipment.

Too lazy to find recent data.

>>10535121
damn coal is at under 30%?
from just 5 years ago people were saying it was still going to be above 30% in 2050

>>10536336
8-15% it's still much better than having to physically haul fuel to bumfuck nowhere gas stations.

Hmmm I wonder

>>10532829
He's right.
>Is nuclear energy the only actual future we can hope to achieve?
Yes.

>>10536553
t. controlled opposition.
The only viable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear. Renewables are a meme.

>>10532829
sorry ur dad is right

nuclear energy is the future

>>10536557
>we're running out of land
is this the argument?

nuclear is dead. Literally every green group has ditched it, so there is something wrong with it.
Yes, I value their opinion more than yours

>>10536894
>is this the argument?
this is the argument retarded renewablefags end up making with
>MUH NUCLEAR WASTE
in spite of the fact that theres enough space on this planet for waste to keep nuclear viable until the sun swallows the earth

green groups ditch it for the same reason retards like you not making any arguments ditch it
>muh fukushima

>>10536905
>MUH NUCLEAR WASTE
yes, it is a huge problem. Who is going to pay for keeping nuclear waste safe? The government? And when taxpayers change their mind, then what?
>muh fukushima
Literally happened, you want a repeat? Or are you just being ignorant to danger, on purpose?

>>10536894
>Literally every green group has ditched it, so there is something wrong with it.

Yeah it couldn't possible be because the groupthink is retarded or anything. How dumb do you have to be to promote solar panels instead of nuclear? The difference is night and day (literally because you get nothing at night with solar). Accounting for peak solar hours, winter, clouds etc. , you will never get your money back from initial cost even if it's subsidized. Not only that but it will take 12 100 watt solar panels to power a fucking hairdryer.

Wind is a bigger meme
Wave power is an even greater meme

Name me one problem with nuclear energy if the plant is built in a safe location. No "waste" is not an argument anymore because we can actually get more energy out of "spent" rods.

>>10536916
1.waste
2."safe location" is hypothetical
you're taking a gamble, and for what? To "save" some money? It doesn't make sense.

>>10536914
>yes, it is a huge problem. Who is going to pay for keeping nuclear waste safe?
No it isn't you massive dunderhead. We literally used to throw it in the ocean, and in the nuclear power plant you can walk across the fucking waste as long as it's in water.
Plain fucking water. Now encase them in lead or graphite or bismuth or whatever special snowflake package you want and throw it in the fucking ground. But no, we can't do that because green energy groupthink retards who couldn't even define "energy" won't let us. Some of these morons still believe the steam coming from the top of those plants is "radioactive".

>Literally happened, you want a repeat? Or are you just being ignorant to danger, on purpose?

No we don't. So build them in a better spot. Like where there are no fucking earthquakes or flood prone areas.
>whut? This mile high from the seafloor place called "Colorado" exist? Oh, and did you know that america also has a rocky EASTERN part of the country not prone to earthquakes? Imagine that.

>>10536924
1.waste
dropped, learn to read

2."safe location" is hypothetical
It is for solar panels and fucking wind turbines too. Not an argument.

>you're taking a gamble, and for what? To "save" some money? It doesn't make sense.
Okay, oil it is then. Why fix what isn't broken? We have experience with it and it's cheap enough. Oh wait that's right, you'll bitch about that too. You green energy tards will bitch about anything, even if it was made by fucking Nikola Tesla himself.

>>10536929
>We literally used to throw it in the ocean
keywords: "used to", but no longer don't. Wonder why.
>Now encase them in lead or graphite or bismuth or whatever special snowflake package you want and throw it in the fucking ground.
and when it breaks? gambling again.
>build them in a better spot
and why didn't they? retarded argument; you don't know, I don't know, but they must've had a reason.

>>10536935
>dropped, learn to read
>if I turn a blind eye to one of the biggest problems, then I can argue
k
>It is for solar panels and fucking wind turbines too. Not an argument.
the chernobyl/fukushima of solar panels. Right.
>Okay, oil it is then.
full retard

you're both retards. go back to /pol/ or whatever

>>10532916
>literally
You have to go back

>>10536951
>keywords: "used to", but no longer don't. Wonder why.
Care to answer that or you just gonna let it go in the wind?

>and when it breaks? gambling again.
Everything breaks, even you. Do you feel like you're gambling your life when you go and eat a candybar? Also I'm pretty sure that construction methods have drastically gotten better since the last plant we built (1973-1990).

>and why didn't they? retarded argument; you don't know, I don't know, but they must've had a reason.
I'm not talking about "they" I am talking about the future. Does it makes sense to learn from mistakes anymore? Or are we just supposed to give up and act like babies now in this "new normal" world of yours?

>blind eye
>k
coming from the person who didn't read or respond to the reply

>the chernobyl/fukushima of solar panels. Right.
Just remember to reinforce your roof otherwise the thousands of pounds of glass and silicone might crush you while you're sleeping. Strip mines are great for the planet!

>full retard
Well what the fuck do you want? It works and we know how it works AND we already have the goddamn infrastructure. The world needs energy and doesn't care about people who can't even define energy. Sorry. You're not getting all the power you need from solar panels and wind, I don't care how many infographs you've read.

>you're both retards. go back to /pol/ or whatever
>/pol/ boogeyman I don't have to respond.

You are such a devils advocate that I don't even take offense to this. Contribute or gtfo.

>>10536561
>posts 2013 graph
Looks like they need to control the opposition better.

>>10536990
"under certain circumstance"
Loling at your psychosis.

>>10537004
I really wish you could read
>Such observation does not take into account other factors that would also have a potentially significant effect on the results contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this analysis. These additional factors, among others, could include: import tariffs; capacity value vs. energy value; stranded costs related to distributed generation or otherwise; network upgrade, transmission, congestion or other integration-related costs; significant permitting or other development costs, unless otherwise noted; and costs of complying with various environmental regulations (e.g., carbon emissions offsets or emissions control systems). This analysis also does not address potential social and environmental externalities, including, for example, the social costs and rate consequences for those who cannot afford distribution generation solutions, as well as the long-term residual and societal consequences of various conventional generation technologies that are difficult to measure (e.g., nuclear waste disposal, airborne pollutants, greenhouse gases, etc.).

Gee I wonder if any of these trends could possible continue in the future.

>>10532829
You need finite batteries, or you can use thermoelectricity and thermal capacitator.

>>10536990
i really don't get why people post this in every thread. the subtext there invalidates the whole fucking thing

>>10537048
Not really It does a really good job of comparing current costs of existing power sources.

Ni

>>10536951
>and when it breaks? gambling again.
what do you mean? that's literally why it's underground AND encased

>and why didn't they? retarded argument; you don't know, I don't know, but they must've had a reason.
are you actually fucking brain-dead? DURR maybe because the average nuclear reactor is roughly 30 fucking years old, built when commodore 64s were new on the market

>>10537061
>it does a good job of comparing costs while completely and openly ignoring anything remotely difficult to measure including the whole reason we are having this conversation in the first place i.e. airborne pollutants including those created from silicon wafer production

it's a bit too convenient for solar imo and ignores most of the issue, like if you didn't know coal was necessarily destroying the environment this would look great for coal. in reality we are paying for it in the longterm, same with solar, with there being no real longterm payment for nuclear outside of coming up with ridiculous hypotheticals like "ok what if a gang of dudes managed to break into a nuclear storage facility with a bunch of semitrucks and then stole it and got away and then dumped it all secretly in the sewers of some city" or some fukushima-esc disaster with the backup pumps on a low elevation during a tsunami

>>10535121
“U.S. fossil fuel electricity generation in 2018.


Natural gas 35.1%
Coal 27.4%
Petroleum 0.6%”

The mistake is that I said “energy” where you refer specifically to electricity, because the “14%” statistic I gave includes transportation.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_home

Even still, we observe a gain of natural gas, significantly cleaner than coal, over coal, and a gain in renewables, so coal is definitely not where “most electricity” comes from, which is what the person I replied to claimed.

>>10536954
literally

“: with exact equivalence : with the meaning of each individual word given exactly”

Some of PragerU’s biggest funders are Dan and Farris Wilks, fracking billionaires.

>>10537013
>>10537061
>current
Now I wonder what would happen if the US government stopped subsidizing green energy, and crude oil drops down to $40 a barrel again (which it will because it's becoming a more volatile market thanks to hysterics). I also like how you read off an entire paragraph factors not included and didn't think to yourself that maybe it's inaccurate.

>>10537114
It's unsubsidized prices you fucking idiot.
And quite a bit of those factors hurt fossil fuel costs more than solar.

>>10537110
>Reddit spacing
I rest my case.

>>10537104
Do you have any evidence for increased emissions from production of solar plants vs production of nuclear facilities with emissions fuel mining for continuous operation factored in? If so please provide it if not I'll assume your talking out of your ass and ignore you.

Ignoring the environmental impact is the point of the study, unsubsidized green energy is starting to become cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear on a pure cost basis.

>>10537139
>Reddit spacing

Not an argument.

>>10537139
>being

>a

>2016

>baby

imagine

>>10537123
>It's unsubsidized prices you fucking idiot.
It also doesn't account for a shitload of other factors which makes it USELESS.

>And quite a bit of those factors hurt fossil fuel costs more than solar.
Yeah, one of the was the precedent set by this fucking stooge.

>>10536561
Nuclear is a fucking joke. Billions of dollars in capital expense per unit and you still have massive safety and waste issues. Your graphic is pretty meaningless when no new projects have come online in the last 30 years.

>>10537151
Name factors you feel are extremely relevant which are not included

Could a nuclear shill please explain your solution to the nuclear proliferation issue?

>>10537161
The kinds of reactors used to produce fissile material are not the kind used to make commercial energy.

>>10537161
percentage uranium enrichment is the main determinant if you can make a weapon. I think it's about 8% enriched uranium that's suitable for reactor use and 50% enrichment is weapons grade. For instance, everybody was talking about how Obama was giving Iran money to produce nuclear weapons, not true, they were going to have UN inspectors limit the uranium enrichment level to 8% voluntarily, making a bomb would not have been possible.

>>10537164
>However, most commercial nuclear power reactor designs require the entire reactor to shut down, often for weeks, in order to change the fuel elements. They therefore produce plutonium in a mix of isotopes that is not well-suited to weapon construction. Such a reactor could have machinery added that would permit U-238 slugs to be placed near the core and changed frequently, or it could be shut down frequently, so proliferation is a concern; for this reason
Got it so all i need to do to enrich weapons grade plutonium is turn my reactor on and off. Or drill a hole.

>>10537156
How about we start with all the factors your "proof" didn't come with. Also "Burden of proof" doesn't mean "fix the flawed date I gave you in this argument".

>"This study has been prepared by Lazard for general informational purposes only, and it is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, financial or other advice"

TL;DR: No argument.

>>10537187
Have fun with the plutonium, I guess. Nukes will never be used so no one actually cares.

>>10537193
Try giving Africans nukes and saying that.

>>10537199
Wow

>>10537199
>Hur dur niggers wud blow up da world cus they t stooped xD

>>10537192
I've provided an extensively researched cost analysis of costs of energy. You claim this is completely invalid while providing no evidence or even moderately compelling arguments to support this assertion or even studies showing different results. Too bad.

>>10537204
>>10537207
Considering how many national treaties and agreements exist to prevent exactly that I think it's a valid concern.

>>10537110
Everyone is a shill and no one believes what they say they believe. They only say they do because some billionaire pays them. Because it's just unbelievable that anyone would disagree with you. The only reason anyone would dare to disagree with your obviously true opinions is greed. It's not even remotely possible that people ally themselves with others who are already politically aligned with each other.

>>10536916
>completely dismissing renewables with "it's a meme"
Very nice argument. There is a vital place for them in a carbon-free grid, and there are ways to incorporate them. Even without storage, giving renewable plants priority to power the grid is a typical strategy. If they work, great. If not, other power plants come online or ramp up. Luckily, there is also storage for solar thermal collectors. The heat tanks have already been used to operate such a plant continuously over 24 hours (admittedly with ideal conditions). If batteries are connected to the grid, they provide another sink of demanded energy when renewables overproduce. Wind and solar should be probably be 40%-60% of the grid's power. Hydroelectric and nuclear are the other half that provides stability of producing power on demand. 100% renewable doesn't seem feasible since it has to be managed so intensively to use the power effectively.

>>10537249
>Everyone is a shill and no one believes what they say they believe. They only say they do because some billionaire pays them. Because it's just unbelievable that anyone would disagree with you. The only reason anyone would dare to disagree with your obviously true opinions is greed. It's not even remotely possible that people ally themselves with others who are already politically aligned with each other.

Lovely paragraph. No idea what you’re rambling about.

>>10537228
There are no international treaties specifically created to prevent “Niggers” from getting nukes.

>>10536985
Dude, just throw all the nuclear waste in the ocean? Seriously? Water /does/ get irradiated, you know. You're here saying waste isn't an issue but it IS, and despite that you somehow you still think we'd rather use petrol

>>10537263
Saying Africans was hyperbole, the fact of the matter any fragile state and nukes is a recipe for disaster. If iraq, sudan, Yemen, the congo etc had nukes they absolutely would have used them by now.

>>10532829
MAKE IT ALL DC SOLAR

>>10537286
>the fact of the matter any fragile state and nukes is a recipe for disaster.

Prove it. Can’t, since it’s never happened.

>If iraq, sudan, Yemen, the congo etc had nukes they absolutely would have used them by now.

Conjecture.

>>10537325
>You can't prove letting ISIS have nukes is a bad idea because it hasn't happened.

fuck, when will I learn to stop taking the bait. Here's your (you)

>>10537338
>You can't prove letting ISIS have nukes is a bad idea because it hasn't happened.

>We should let anyone use nuclear energy if they want

>We should let ISIS have nukes

Love that rewording.

>>10532829
my dad has conspiracy theories about how free energy is out there and easily acquirable but they want us gas and coal because evil people rule the world

>>10537218
>I've provided an extensively researched cost analysis of costs of energy
In the words of the article you provided; "no".
>You claim this is completely invalid
It claims it itself you idiot.
>roviding no evidence or even moderately compelling arguments to support this assertion or even studies showing different results
"oil and nuclear work" -empirical evidence.
>>10537254
>There is a vital place for them in a carbon-free grid, and there are ways to incorporate them.
Oh that's right, I forgot to mention the regulations imposed on coal and oil to reduce their emissions which subsequently (and to no surprise) rose the cost of gas."Carbon-free" is another meme perpetuated by greenies due to their own self-induced psychosis of CO2 hurting the planet.
>blah blah all these bells, whistles and particulars and also combine it with the oil that already works and then you'll see returns!
Fuck off.
>Wind and solar should be probably be 40%-60% of the grid's power
Wind is an engineering nightmare and the loss from transmitting it though miles of cable (cause mills need space) is enough to reconsider another option. With solar, well like I said, you need 10-12 100 watt panels to power a hairdryer. At peak solar. In Arizona where there's boatloads of sun? Sure why not. East coast? Fuck no.
>Hydroelectric and nuclear are the other half that provides stability of producing power on demand. 100% renewable doesn't seem feasible since it has to be managed so intensively to use the power effectively.
Which is great. Lets use those more. Fuck the other shit that doesn't work.
>>10537264
>Dude, just throw all the nuclear waste in the ocean? Seriously? Water /does/ get irradiated, you know.
"used to". What is a "manmade lake"/giant fucking hole? As longs as it's far away, it's not really a problem. Hell, lets make Elon Musk useful for a change and have him launch it to space.
>you still think we'd rather use petrol
it has no half-life so maybe that instead of nuclear?

>>10537343
We should let anyone use nuclear energy if they want = we should let anyone have the means to enrich weapons grade plutonium if they want = we should let anyone have nukes if they want = we should let ISIS have nukes

>>10537411
>we
>we
>we
Who are you thinking of when you say this?

>>10537392
Still no evidence or even arguments discrediting this. The report stating that it is not 100% accurate in every conceivable situation is not
>It claims it itself you idiot.
The fact you are unable to provide any energy cost analysis that is more accurate says it all. The fact of the matter is renewables are already competing with fossil fuels and nuclear power sources and are only getting better.

The fact you are so ignorant that you ignore 97% of scientific consensus just proves your ignorance.

>>10537412
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons
everyone on this list hypothetically.

>>10537392
>Oh that's right, I forgot to mention the regulations imposed on coal and oil to reduce their emissions which subsequently (and to no surprise) rose the cost of gas."Carbon-free" is another meme perpetuated by greenies due to their own self-induced psychosis of CO2 hurting the planet.
Carbon emissions are causing rapid global warming that needs to be addressed. Did you forget that part? There's more to life than plants. Decarbonization of energy sources is a necessary component of addressing AGW.
>blah blah all these bells, whistles and particulars and also combine it with the oil that already works and then you'll see returns!
>Fuck off.
Once again, completely ignoring AGW and you probably deny it's even occurring. The point was that renewables can be made viable with appropriate management responses to them being integrated into the grid. Fuels are great for reliability, but the climate issue means they must be phased out.
>Wind and solar should be probably be 40%-60% of the grid's power
>Wind is an engineering nightmare and the loss from transmitting it though miles of cable (cause mills need space) is enough to reconsider another option.
You know the voltage is transformed, right?
>With solar, well like I said, you need 10-12 100 watt panels to power a hairdryer. At peak solar. In Arizona where there's boatloads of sun? Sure why not. East coast? Fuck no.
Theres a difference between demand-side solar and a solar power plant. The power plant output dictates how many buildings are powered by it.

>>10537436
>I can't read my sources
>posts yet another self negating source of information

Get yourself checked dude. Read the other part too:
"No part of this material may be copied, photocopied or duplicated in any form by any means or redistributed without the prior consent of Lazard.
Now guess why that portion is there? Partly because copyrights and partly because Lazard is not a fucking research/publishing/energy company. They DON'T want you using this information in a way that THEY THEMSELVES wouldn't.

>Lazard has a simple and powerful model, focused on two businesses: Financial Advisory and Asset Management.
You are posting information that is relevant and tailored to a banker.

>>10537539
hmmmm I wonder if there's any possible reason bankers would be interested in the financial viability of renewable sources compared to nuclear and fossil fuels. If anything you've convinced me my source is even more useful than I originally thought.

>>10537539
>https://about.bnef.com/blog/tumbling-costs-wind-solar-batteries-squeezing-fossil-fuels/

>https://www.irena.org/publications/2018/Jan/Renewable-power-generation-costs-in-2017

>https://www.ebrd.com/news/2018/ebrd-says-renewables-are-now-cheapest-energy-source-.html

>>10537496
>Carbon emissions are causing rapid global warming
Other way around, retard.
>Fuels are great for reliability, but the climate issue means they must be phased out.
the climate is what made the fuel though..
>You know the voltage is transformed, right?
Ahahaha. Yeah go ahead and tell me how the voltage is transformed across 50-100 windmills with the resistance of the wires and the varying rotations of the turbines. Yeah go ahead and tell me how green thousands of dead birds are and the infrasound that will piss everyone off and drive every living animal as far away from them as possible. I guess that's a good thing since they'll end up breaking anyway.
>Theres a difference between demand-side solar and a solar power plant. The power plant output dictates how many buildings are powered by it.
No buddy, I don't think you understand me. If it takes 10 100 panels (a rooftops worth) of 20-30% efficient solar panels to power a hairdryer at peak solar in the middle of summer in Arizona, how many do you think they will need in colder climates and where will they get the space? To power your waterheater? You heatpump? Your fridge? A computer is easy so they could pose some use for perhapsa a 200 square foot closet studio in California. It isn't feasible even if they get as cheap as gas.

10537581
>No conclusive point from a Fake News corporation looking for clickbait.
>article from a groupthink that would have bias against fossil fuels
And it still lists biomass as the cheapest.
>another banking site

lol no more (you)'s for you

>>10537562
>hmmmm I wonder if there's any possible reason bankers would lie

>>10537644
nice try oil shill get absolutely btfo

>>10537644
Considering you won't accept >97% of published climate research as valid it's no surprise you ignore everything that challenges your fragile fantasy worldview.

10537662
At no point in this conversation did I "shill oil" so I fail to see who got "btfo'd"

10537670
>Considering you won't accept >97% of published clickbait it's no surprise you ignore everything that has no explanations nor evidence to theories being proposed

It's like this is a science board or something

>>10537644
>Other way around, retard.

This is bait. Don’t reply.

>>10537670
Avatarfags are always trolls. Don’t interact with them.

>>10537176
nah, different types of uranium do different things
you can make a uranium bomb out of highly enriched U-235, but you can't make plutonium out of that (plutonium is made from U-238 that's been bombarded by neutrons in a reactor)
U-233 is the patrician choice for Uranium isotopes but it's only created by neutron bombardment of thorium, which is why thorium is the meme fuel of choice for next gen reactors

>>10537264
water doesn't get irradiated
salt gets irradiated

>>10537718
>vostok ice core samples are bait.

Correct, when used improperly by unscientific minds that is.

>>10532829
Maybe? Batteries are still terribly inefficient at storing energy long term, while you can store oil in a container for a really long time. People who advocate batteries as the future (for storing renewable energy) really need there to be massive breakthroughs for it to be more efficient than oil.

>>10533863
>batteries can just become infinitely recyclable
but that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics
Also electricity is still at large oil/gas powered, you are just moving the intake point.

>>10532829
What people fail to understand is that (at a global level) most of the electric power comes from combustion sources. That means that it is generated at an 35-55% efficiency rate (55% coming from combined cycle ones which are the fewer). Cars with combustion engines are near 35-39% of efficiency rate. Guess where electric cars get their electricity from. Thats right the power grid that is mostly powered by combustion sources. In the long run it will be good though but it won't solve the contamination problem by itself. Even less if a great deal of people replace their fully working cars with electric new ones, contributing to a sudden increase in the carbon footprint due to a rise in demand and production.

>>10537948
Even in grids powered almost entirely by coal EV's produce less carbon over their life cycle. Once you get to grids with NG, nuclear, renewables etc things get wild. Your last point is pretty silly as very few people can afford to replace cars for no reason. People replace vehicles when they need/want a new one. It being electric is a sweet incentive, but for most people not enough of a reason to replace an adequate vehicle early.

>>10537892
yeah but you can't make oil out of electricity
I guess you could make methane out of carbon dioxide and water with electricity but there's not enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for that to be as easy as it needs to be (it will be the power storage solution on Mars, however

>>10537644
>CO2 causes warming
>Other way around, retard.
Typical denialtard, deliberately ignoring the absolute fact of absorption and emission of EM radiation. Surface warming with changing concentration of greenhouse gases is just the truth.
>Fuels are great for reliability, but the climate issue means they must be phased out.
>the climate is what made the fuel though..
not an argument
>You know the voltage is transformed, right?
>Ahahaha. Yeah go ahead and tell me how the voltage is transformed across 50-100 windmills with the resistance of the wires and the varying rotations of the turbines. Yeah go ahead and tell me how green thousands of dead birds are and the infrasound that will piss everyone off and drive every living animal as far away from them as possible. I guess that's a good thing since they'll end up breaking anyway.
1. you don't give a shit about birds faggot

2. Anti-technology revolution is the only option long-term. Uncle Ted knew this. Resources are finite, and so are the parameters of habitability.
>Theres a difference between demand-side solar and a solar power plant. The power plant output dictates how many buildings are powered by it.
>No buddy, I don't think you understand me. If it takes 10 100 panels (a rooftops worth) of 20-30% efficient solar panels to power a hairdryer at peak solar in the middle of summer in Arizona, how many do you think they will need in colder climates and where will they get the space? To power your waterheater? You heatpump? Your fridge? A computer is easy so they could pose some use for perhapsa a 200 square foot closet studio in California. It isn't feasible even if they get as cheap as gas.
Cost parity is already competitive for renewables per energy generated. Renewables already are worth the money, before you add the gains in reducing emissions in. A carbon-free energy grid is both viable and desirable. Solar PV and thermal, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear form the ideal short to medium term grid.

>>10536990
>doesn't read the subtext or methodology
Keep seething, BP funded "renewables are the future" retard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Jj2wD3GjE

Wind and solar will ALWAYS be a meme and are going to be plagued by intermittency even when widely adopted, meaning a gas/oil/coal backup plant will always be required. They require 100s of square miles of land and need to be build close to urban centers. The lifespan is extremely short for both wind turbines and photovotaic panels relative to nuclear

Nuclear is the only force that could today, be fully implemented and make fossil fuel power generation entirely obsolete. That's why oil and coal just does not care about renewables and sometimes even shills for them.

>>10532843
>It's a good one, but spooky because of disasters and people worry about the waste being so hazardous even though it's comparatively less waste than alternatives.
>I'm not aware of any usable energy source that truly has zero negative environmental impacts.
with nuclear power people at least are forced to take good care of the waste.

>>10532843
>m not aware of any usable energy source that truly has zero negative environmental impacts.
hydro? lol

>>10540649
Nuclear impacts the environment less than hydro.

>>10540684
depends, hydro effects the habitat of the fishies, (so do coolant towers) but with nuclear you have to account for the continuous mining of fissile material, and carving out massive underground vaults to store waste.

>>10540999
The sum total of all nuclear waste ever generated in the US is the size of one football field a few feet high.
Hydro effects more than fish.

>>10532943
>Also a civilian with a “class 3” gun license can own tanks and military jets n shit, I have no idea what the fuck he’s talking about but I can’t refute it for the same reason.
Use google, you fucking imbecile. US civilians can own artillery - and fire it - by doing some paperwork and paying a hefty sum for the shells and armament.

The sad thing is that we have the technology for passively self regulating liquid fueled nuclear reactors with on-line fuel reprocessing which avoids all of the biggest pitfalls regarding safety and waste but they can't be built because of existing fuel contracts and muh nuclear bogeyman. Meanwhile the ancient death traps we already have will remain in service because until distaster strikes because we can't do without the power.

>>10537740
so the water that the rods are in is not radioactive? Assuming it's filtered.

nice bit of trivia right there

>>10542058
actually, the rods aren't in water? I remember the webm with the blue glowing light so now I'm confused

>>10542058
it'll become heavy water, which is probably not good to drink, but neutron bombarded oxygen isn't radioactive (most oxygen is O16, and both O17 and O18 are stable)
look up Crossroads Baker for more information

>>10533909
Atmospheric oxygen has been 20.95% for millions of years, its extremely stable...

Anyone remember that UFO guy who saw inside an alien craft that had a drive with only water in it?

>>10538091
>Typical denialtard, deliberately ignoring the absolute fact of absorption and emission of EM radiation. Surface warming with changing concentration of greenhouse gases is just the truth.

read>>10537750
>Fuels are great for reliability, but the climate issue means they must be phased out.
>the climate is what made the fuel though..
>not an argument

What do trees breathe? Do you not care about them too?

>1. you don't give a shit about birds faggot
Sounds more like YOU don't give a shit about birds actually since you'd rather have an inefficient and unwanted product killing them. Wind is on par with DDT.

>2. Anti-technology revolution is the only option long-term. Uncle Ted knew this. Resources are finite, and so are the parameters of habitability.
>he believes the peak oil meme
>references parameters of habitability yet wants to use sources that require thousands of miles of space

>>10542684
What do trees breathe? Do you not care about them too?
They have far more than they'll ever need at this point. And besides, trees pale in comparison to algae for that.

>>10541055
This. the amount of hazerdous material produced is absolutely minuscule compared to oil and the like, even accounting for its long life you could section off a few miles in the desert and we would be good on nuclear waste for a good long time.

>>10537139
>being a newfag

>>10543373
spacing was gay back then and it's gay now

>>10532829
>because mining for batteries pollutes at an almost equal rate as that of oil.
What do you think they're burning at the power station that makes the electricity that charges the batteries?

If you already have a relatively fuel efficient car, it might be worse for your overall carbon footprint if you buy a new electric car instead of just continuing to use your current car. However, if your car is already old and needs to be replaced or has really horrible efficiency then it is probably beneficial to get an electric car, although it's better still to buy a used one instead of a new one if possible

>>10536914
>Literally happened, you want a repeat? Or are you just being ignorant to danger, on purpose?
In Fukushima literally nothing happened. The amount of leakagfe was miniscule and non life threatening to anyone. The fucking tsunami itself polluted the environment million times more. Chernobyl Zone is the cleanest, most natural life abundant area in all of Ukraine.
Even in fucking Horishima only few thousand people died prematurely due to verifiable radiation poisoning.
Nuclear pollution is a meme that needs to die.

>>10537155
>massive safety and waste issues
Nuclear is the safest and most failure prone technology, you brainlet mong. Chernobyl - the biggest nuclear catastrophe in history - caused only 37 deaths out 600 000 liquidators and 50 000 Zone inhabitants. And thise people were in the immediate contact of the melted cores.

>>10542684
what a dreadful post

I can't seriously respond to such a retarded attempt at arguing as this. You have no conception of the magnitude of the problem, nor the solution. I can't waste time on your 80 IQ baboon babble. There are better and more serious discussions to be had.

>>10544414
>thinking soviets or any other country at that time wouldn't cover up full numbers in such catastrophy

>>10538048
Thats why I said it would be good in the long run. Its the "WE MUST GO GRREN BEFORE ITS TOO LATE" meme thats bad.

Threadly reminder that liberals are cockblocking all green energy and only want gibs/more taxes

>>10532829
>having a wife
>being on /sci/
literally how?

>>10537192
kek.. what an embarrassing line of argumentation

>>10532829
On an unrelated kind of tangent. Why do your retard "developed" nations insist on having electric trucks when you can have trains that do their job better? Why have electric busses with batteries when you can have trams or some kind of bus connected to wires?

>>10544937
>what a dreadful post
And no reasons why. Doesn't surprise me coming from a retard with no explanations to anything

>I can't seriously respond to such a retarded attempt at arguing as this. You have no conception of the magnitude of the problem, nor the solution. I can't waste time on your 80 IQ baboon babble. There are better and more serious discussions to be had.

>"it's settled science"-t. person who doesn't know what "science" is

No I do know the "magnitude" of the problem. The same retards saying that we're running out of space for people to live are the same retards who want to fill the empty space left with meme technology. Solar and wind are a joke, the rest is fine as far as I'm concerned. Hydro is fantastic, but of course those green retards have to complain about those too. Even if solar and wind were efficient as oil, I bet they would invent some bogus environmental excuse not to use them too.

>>10547476
"how dare you take this article literally".

So why the fuck was it posted to begin with? Seriously, how fucking daft are you?

>>10547877
No your last post was full of bad arguments that discussed nothing and went nowhere. It's just a scattershot malaise of doublethink. You don't make sense.

And there's literally nothing wrong with solar and wind energy.