/sci/ - Science & Math

solar panels are nuclear powered

:^)

>>11056916
>Quick reminder, renewable energy is THE ultimate pleb filter, if you are serious about climate change but wont accept any form of energy other than nuclear you are a literal brainlet, sorry, it's true, and you are also contributing to the destruction of this planet and in the short term world economies with your pigheaded devotion to nuclear energy

>>11056916
yup. but the thing is, i genuinely want to watch this world burn so i'm gonna support everything that leads to that.

>>11056916
Solar > Nuclear

Why?

Because it gives brainlets/morons/retards that only want to be flesh moving weight A to place B something to keep them occupied in terms of making/manufacturing/maintaining the copious amounts of solar panels.

Along with the 'remote generation' possibility and everything else.

>>11056947
It's already burning its sanity. What more would ya want?

I’m glad it isn’t be popular, makes it more likely that one day uncle Ted’s dream may come true

nuclear waste is what scares people

It can be rendered inert if encapsulated in glass.
Once inert, it can be used to produce power because it's still emitting energy. Laws prohibit this, but reusing our waste is the future. It's just like recycling.

>>11056949
>It's already burning its sanity. What more would ya want?
i wouldn't mind watching every landmass engulfed in flames. mass rioting and revolts.

>>11056940

>>11056960
So you want to watch Terminator and chill? Like, establish for me what the scenario is where you are the unaffected observer able to witness this occurring on a global scale, or do you want it to be a gradual burn with you as the prime observer bearing witness to a divine purging?

>>11056916
actually, the only solution to climate change is reducing the population size
but caring about climate change is for low iq fags anyway

>>11056976
All the way to 0 baby!

>I'm opting for all the way to a + b = c

>>11056916
I don't really blame solar/wind supporters. If I owned tons of land I'd also shill for it, as a low energy/area ratio is convenient.

>>11056974
i like how you put that. i'm not entirely sure the means by which it would occur but i see many destabilizing opportunities including climate catastrophe. but in none of them i could think of a scenario where i would just be an unaffected observer. i'm gonna die anyway, might as well go out with a glorious bang.

>>11056989
Orgy, gangbang, OR super promiscuous society with immortals and no disease/death, just mediated memory erasure to ensure a distributed sanity amongst Earth's current human population WITH preferential/pre-conversation filters along with digitally timed events that guarantee an inclusive match with at least one or more parties that will happily 'binary isolate themselves' with you.

>I'd go for the last option, OBVIOUSLY.

>>11056959
>trash economy
>unironically

>>11056976
Malthusian brainlet

>>11057000
i'd say i have something in mind that's a lot more pyrrhic than those options. but they sound fun.

>>11057009
2070

>>11057014
So you want to be immolated by attention?
>Yes, please.

They tried nuclear for like 50 years, it never worked.
It costs about $5000 to set up a residential home with solar reliably for about 25 years with battery back up.
If you were playing a real time strategy video game you would never choose solar over nuclear if it had real world physics.

When people talk about nuclear it only works if we use technology we don't have use. Thorium reactors, fusion, a way to process and store the waste we don't use yet.....
Yeah, different futuristic reactors and exotic fuels and a government that takes the environment super seriously.
If we had that we could make anything happen.
This is a fantasy no different to nuclear powered cars.
Yes we could do it if nuclear power worked completely differently than it does now.

But at the moment it makes no sense economically, politically, environmentally or practically.

Solar is easier, cheaper, more reliable, safer, more practical, and we are doing it now, with existing technology. Where is the debate?

You guys know solar is practically free after you install it right, and nuclear isn't free...

We just had the Fukushima meltdown a little while ago.

Japan is the most technogically advanced race and look what happened. You can't trust politicians with nuclear power plants.

>>11057068
Nuclear over solar*

>>11056916
Does anyone have the webm of the reactor turning on and you can see the cherenkov glow start?

>>11057068
>it never worked.
The fuck are you talking about?
I grew up in a town that was supplied by nuclear power.
France used it as their primary power source.
The problems with getting new nuclear power stations up and running is 2,000% political red tape. It's not a question of having the technology, or resources, it's the question of NIMBY's prodded along by the Oil and Coal lobbies.

>>11057068
>They tried nuclear for like 50 years, it never worked.

It worked perfectly fine, the backbone of France's electricity grid is Nuclear and they have the cheapest electricity in Europe, exporting it to Germany who are suffering from the most expensive electricity in Europe after switching to renewables

>It costs about $5000 to set up a residential home with solar reliably for about 25 years with battery back up.

[Citation needed] In my country you can blow 20 grand on trying to go off grid, plus batteries and panels will have to be replaced

>If you were playing a real time strategy video game you would never choose solar over nuclear if it had real world physics.

what?

>But at the moment it makes no sense economically, politically, environmentally or practically.
It makes perfect sense, economically, environmentally and practically, just not politically because 30 years ago some boomers whinged and whinged about EVIL NUKES so now we can't have cheap clean electricity

>You guys know solar is practically free after you install it right, and nuclear isn't free...

Ok, so at this point i know you are mentally retarded, do you know the lifespan of a Solar panel? 20 years, power generation decays at 1% a year, then they have to be replaced, while a Nuclear Power Plant can stay in commission for decades longer, and i assume in your simple mind solar being free means cheap electricity, well for some bizzare reason this isn't going down to consumers, i wonder why that is, could it be that renewable energy is NOT cheap?

>We just had the Fukushima meltdown a little while ago.

Lesson: Don't put nuke plants on tsunami prone coast, it's that simple, you'd do the same for any other power plant, oh and there was only ONE death from fukishima, compare that to the scores dying from fossil fuels every year, Nuclear has lowest death per terra watt hour of any energy source, it's a fact

>>11057118
Germany has the lowest greenhouse emissions in the world man, of course there is initial startup, nuclear power plants also have very high initial startup.
Using earth's lowest fossil fuel emitter on the cutting edge of renewable technology as a reference is technically true, but I think it's a bad example, it's also one of the most expensive countries to live in.


This is the first Google search result.
https://www.sunboost.com.au/nsw-country/?gclid=CjwKCAjwlovtBRBrEiwAG3XJ-ya4AUUWg22xXa3R9bn_YYfPJZ__D_c9x4x5OsSVgrUNMLpgeM7m9RoChBgQAvD_BwE

>[Citation needed] In my country you can blow 20 grand on trying to go off grid, plus batteries and panels will have to be replaced

I'm not sure why solar is so expensive where you are but retail prices for off grid here are as lower than $5000, secondhand setups such as if you buy ex commercial as they replace every 5 years cost about $2000,

So if it's $20000(!) Where you live then I understand.

With the video game analogy I mean if you were playing command and conquer, or starcraft or something, if you had the option of powering the buildings with moderately priced solar panels,
Or
Mining radioactive elements, processing them, building a power plant that took a long time and cost a fortune, then also having the occasional nuclear meltdown and having to store the neverending waste.

I would go solar ;)

I don't think protestors are responsible for a global nuclear deproliferation. It's that the people in charge know how dangerous they are, think about a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant, or a meltdown.
You know when protestors were running around with "no more Chernobyls" banners, no one listened and we had Fukushima.

I don't think 20 years of free solar for $5000 is that bad man, what is that per year, even if it's $20000 where you are (I'm suspicious of that claim)
That's $1000 a year. Or $250 a year where I live and you get to sell electricity back to the grid, so you are making money...

>>11057118
I like your argument but I have to say I still disagree. Playing meltdowns that should never have happened as minor is the only way you can make this work.

Solar is cheaper than nuclear, your examples of how it works for entire countries etc are invalid, solar works for the individual.

>>11056959
We have many different types of reactor designs which minimize nuclear waste too

And fusion of course, given it's not eternally 40 years away

There is a running theme with this debate that nuclear waste can be safely managed (history does not agree)
But that safely disposing of solar panels is outside our reach and will destroy the environment (we currently have effective recycling in place)

This is a pretty good example of how rediculous this argument is.

Nuclear waste = oh that's fine just bury it ;)
Old solar panels = *anon equipts gas mask and retreats to shelter*

Let's be realistic people.

>>11056940
b-but it's hard to give the 1% pork using it

>>11057273
Preference + Person = Sister of Memory

Hey sisters of /sci/, how you doing?

"The Sister of Science that Saved Earth From Itself!"

>>11057118
>there was only

>fukushima is over
hurr durr

>>11056947
Fuck you 1000% I want us to win, fucking defeatist.

>when you're so desperate for (You)'s you give them to yourself
Sad.

>>11057293
We've already won. What power phrase were you looking for?

>>11057302
Buddha of Disrespect gave 1 Fuck, that's enough for Life to be satisfied with. I continue this immortal game for the eternal memory + meme + 1 gainz.

>>11057229
>With the video game analogy I mean if you were playing command and conquer, or starcraft or something, if you had the option of powering the buildings with moderately priced solar panels,
Or
Mining radioactive elements, processing them, building a power plant that took a long time and cost a fortune, then also having the occasional nuclear meltdown and having to store the neverending waste.

you are completely ignoring the processing and manufacturing it takes to make solar panels, they need rare earth minerals ffs

>then also having the occasional nuclear meltdown and having to store the neverending waste.

again, Nuclear has lowest deaths per terra watt hours, the Nuclear waste problem is a literal non issue due to recycling

> don't think protestors are responsible for a global nuclear deproliferation. It's that the people in charge know how dangerous they are

They absolutely are, and ffs you are completely ignoring how dangerous fossil fuels are, considering you know.. they are the leading driver of climate change

>I don't think 20 years of free solar for $5000 is that bad man

i have no idea what country you're from where you can go off grid for 5 grand but its probably due to the most heavy subsidies, which taxpayers inevitably pay for.. And btw that figure is from my uncle who bought a battery bank, solar panels, and generator for him to live off grid, he has had to switch to gas hot water and cooking because he is still having teething issues with his setup (generator kicking in under load)

And once again you are so naive you ignore the engineering issues related to distributing electricity one way and deciding to switch it around the other way, people generating and selling electricity into the grid will never become large scale

>>11057234
>Playing meltdowns that should never have happened as minor is the only way you can make this work.

Are they REALLY that bad? Chernobyl killed 50 people, and much more from Radiation

CONT. 1/2

>>11056947
not important, is that you?

>>11057234
>>11057331

(2/2)

But Fossil fuels kills thousands and thousands each year from accidents in power stations and pollution, is it really as BIG as an issue as its made out to be? Nuclear has lowest deaths per terra watt hour https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy, fucking chernoybl, the Chernobyl Exclusion zone is a literal nature reserve where wolves and other previously absent wildlife thrive, meanwhile, renewables, which are made out to be an environmental saint, kill birds, force turtle species to be relocated, and take up a relatively larger footprint compared to other forms of power generation, land that could of been used for agriculture, habitat for animals OR humans.

Too bad nuclear power is completely incompatible with privatized energy sectors, I would be all for completly socializing the grid in the US and going all in on nuclear but it'll never happen because of muh socialism

>>11057331
>Nuclear waste problem is a literal non issue due to recycling
awww it's retarded

>>11057339
>awww it's retarded

You dense Dense DENSE fuck you're the poster child for eugenics

https://whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html

and even if nuclear waste can't be reprocessed, is it REALLY that bad if its stored a mile underground unable to harm anything? Think.

Face it, you people have been sold a lie, Renewables have been touted by greenies for decades as THE only way to solve climate change, why do we have to destroy our economy and industry while saving the planet when we don't? Its time to wake up and smell the roses, Renewables aren't the answer to climate change.

>>11057352
economics seems to disagree, we're already at the point where solar/wind + storage is cheaper than nuclear.

>>11057358
No Source
>>11057362
No Source

Nope, not convinced, as for the first pic why don't you look into it and see how subsidized to oblivion renewable truly are? Take note here of the 'renewables surcharge', yeah, absolutely renewables are cheaper, thanks to the taxpayer footing their bill! Show me REAL cheap renewables and we can talk.

Even so, why is it that prohibitively expensive Nuclear, the backbone of France's electricity grid, make it one of the largest energy exporters in Europe? While Germany is grappling with expensive electricity after their transition to renewables, how can you even begin to explain that?

>>11056916
My problem with nuclear is that it is centralized so if anything happens to the power plant there is a huge loss of power and potential power outage if there isn't a second one. Renewables can be decentralized, for example if everyone had a solar panel on the roof it's basically impossible for an outage to happen because if you don't get power from your own panel, you can always get it from those around you, similar to a peer to peer network.

>>11057370
Is France's energy affordable? They still pay close to double what Americans do, and that's with a 100% socialized grid, so no middlemen. Germany's expensive power comes from phasing out nuclear reactors before they paid for themselves, while also trying to reduce usage of fossil usage, they also slowed investment in renewables ensuring higher prices for longer. France on the other hand has been coasting on the same infrastructure for 20 years, and even then it's much more expensive than power in the US.
Which can't even keep existing power plants open without subsidies.

>>11057356
Yea well wheres your storage. Nuclear is here and ready to go, all that would be needed to is to start building them in smart places with good designs.

>>11057370
source is lazard LCOE v12 for all of it you dingus

>>11057380
Peer-To-Peer Consciousness Blockchain.

>>11057383
Storage can just be another 'eternal human job'. Make more storage, make more time, make more volume.
>Satan's Curse

>>11057383
>>11057362
cheaper per MWh than nuclear is where it is
it also doesn't take 10 years to build.

>>11057386
We don't have the capacity to store the electricity needed in a reasonable volume yet though. We still would need a backup generator running.

>>11057382

France enjoys one of the lowest electricity prices in Europe; at 14.72 euro cents per kWh, the average cost of electricity in France is 26.5% cheaper than the EU average (20.02 euro cents per kWh).

Stop lying, France is doing just fine. If they really pay twice as much as we do it’s because Euros worship taxes and regulations.

>>11057380
https://youtu.be/40Pvi1XVm_s
While you are right about the whole centralized thing to a point, you do not consider that solar power does not end up being efficient in a society that demands "light on 100% in one room". Also, there could be reserve stations charged by nuclear energy to switch to should a nuclear power plant gets decommissioned for some reason.


Also how come [[[everyone))) shills solar and wind? Hydroelectricity exists too.

>>11057389
Oh no! More physical labor jobs for those where intellectual discourse is somehow suffering/painful!

>>11057392
Hydro only works in some places, can't power everything. Switzerland is powered off of hydro, but that doesn't mean America could be powered off of it.

>>11057394
The materials to build those batteries has to come from somewhere. Our battery tech just isn't there yet.

>>11057391
https://www.statista.com/statistics/418087/electricity-prices-for-households-in-france/

.18 Euros per KWh
or .20 cents per KWh almost double most states and considerably higher than even CA

>>11057394
Most experts agree that we need a baseline power supply that works 24/7. Anti-nuclear experts usually suggest Hydropower, Geothermal, or other stuff like that even though it’s dependent on physical location

>>11057380
Unfortunately electricity grids across the world for the last 100 years have been designed for the flow of electricity one way, from Plant to house, and suddenly we want to switch it around and make a cluster fuck of an electricity distribution network, how much time and money would that need in an already expensive form of generation that neets Batteries and now grid overhaul?
>>11057382
>Is France's energy affordable?

Absolutely, so much so that they are the largest energy exporter in Europe, and now they are propping up Germany's shambles of an electricity grid.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-briefly-cover-100-germanys-power-demand-2nd-time/french-export-cheap-nuclear-power-germany-could-surge

>Germany's expensive power comes from phasing out nuclear reactors before they paid for themselves

Thanks for admitting the superiority of Nuclear

> France on the other hand has been coasting on the same infrastructure for 20 years, and even then it's much more expensive than power in the US.

You are of course completely ignoring the fact the US relies heavily on fossil fuels in their energy mix, you are comparing apples to oranges.

>Which can't even keep existing power plants open without subsidies.

What subsidies? And even so how is it that with Nuclear and Renewables receiving subsidies Nuclear proves to be the most economical efficient of the two?

>>11057398
Reducing/restricting output for optimal consumer 'diet of conversation' is a time-tested Chinese Tradition.

最佳消費者對話的飲食“降低/限產是一個經過時間考驗的中國傳統文化。

>>11057403
Why bother with the experts if nobody listens to either their calls for urgency or investment?

>>11057402
America has natural gas galore, while Europe has to import it. The site you provided specifically explains that Italy’s energy is expensive because they rely on Russian and Algerian gas after banning nuclear. France has some of the best numbers in the region

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/

>>11057405
>Germany's expensive power comes from phasing out nuclear reactors before they paid for themselves

A nuclear reactor costs billions, shutting it down early is going to be costly, that's the problem. Germany would be in way better shape if they had never wasted all that money on reactors they'd close right away.

>You are of course completely ignoring the fact the US relies heavily on fossil fuels in their energy mix, you are comparing apples to oranges.

exactly nuclear can't compete meanwhile renewable installations just keep growing in the US

>What subsidies?

thanks for admitting you're completely ignorant

>Nuclear and Renewables receiving subsidies Nuclear proves to be the most economical efficient of the two?

where lol?

nice 4 year old image by the way, why were you afraid to show a more recent one like I did?

>>11057392
Hydroelectricity is very dependend on where you live because good luck with Hydro if you're in a flatland. Also you can get 100% on demand if you couple solar with a storage. Anyways, >>11057405 has a point with peer to peer distribution being a infrastructure clusterfuck. Another option might be centralized nuclear in combination with solar panels on the roof. If your panels fail, you have nuclear grid as backup, if the grid fails, you have solar as backup.

>>11057420
>A nuclear reactor costs billions

a cost taken from British/American reactors thanks to layers of red tape on reactor construction by pigheaded greenies, and even so, a Nuclear reactor from commission will provide generation for decades longer than an equivalent renewable generator, plenty of time to pay that off while being a top electricity exporter

and also ignoring the fact solar panels will be replaced every 20 years (with 1% a year loss of generation) and wind being very maintenance intensive

>exactly nuclear can't compete meanwhile renewable installations just keep growing in the US

LMAO, i'm not agreeing with you at all, ofc fossil fuels is cheaper than Nuclear, or Renewables for that matter, the pic >>11057405 here proves it, all the countries below Finland in price are eastern euro countries that heavily use coal, but that doesn't matter, that assumes co2 emissions arent something to be considered.

>thanks for admitting you're completely ignorant

honest question, and like i said, even if Frances Nuclear industry is heavily subsidized, why is it so cheap? To the extent they are propping up Germany's (supposedly cheaper) renewables intensive grid?

>nice 4 year old image by the way, why were you afraid to show a more recent one like I did?

oh sorry, here's one from last year that shows Germany right at the top behind denmark like before, guess the whole renewables thing isn't doing so well isn't it?
This discussion so far really highlights the delusion of Renewables advocates, you could tell a renewables advocate the sky is blue and he will do all sorts of mental gymnastics on why it isn't and just completely deny reality in general, it's astonishing.

>>11057420
>exactly nuclear can't compete meanwhile renewable installations just keep growing in the US

US relies heavily on fossil fuels (a good chunk natural gas to prop up the unreliable intermittent renewables)

>>11057456
>just keep growing
lrn2read

>>11057457
Hi I've added a few fixes to your graph, i think it's much more accurate now!

>>11057452
Aren't operating costs of nuclear lower then anything else? I thought it was just the cost of the plant that made it rather expensive.

>>11057471
Wind & Solar > Coal & Gas

They are literally just 'two' words/variables/time investments that a human 'group' attaches to.

Are you all that fucking stubborn you can't tell that you guys are arguing about shit that nobody wants to listen to beyond being told WHAT to do WHEN IT IS IMPORTANT TO DO SO.

>For me that's with every message, retroactively written. Forever Time Smitten FUCK KITTEN!~

>>11057478
>I thought it was just the cost of the plant that made it rather expensive.

That's only the case in Britain and the US where Nuclear power is wrapped in layers of red tape, France has managed to keep construction costs constant over the decades, and South Korea has even managed to lower their construction price, but yeah, once they are up and running costs are low, and they will stay in commission for decades and decades beyond Solar and Wind, I would like to see how much the cost of solar will blow out every 20 years when they have to replace panels and batteries.

>>11057498
Per house you are looking at several hundred dollars.

>this retard is still replying to himself