/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4916333
>University of Cambridge
>British education system

>>4916333
>wind
>not black slaves turning turbines
What a bleak future it will be.

>>4916333
I think I trust this expert from the University of Cambridge more than I do some random guy from /sci/. Wind power probably is the future of energy.

>>4916356
It's in his best interests to promote wind. He's in the process of making a better generator for wind turbines. He stands to make a shitload of money if wind is heavily adopted using his generator.

Wind and solar will play a part in energy production but in a complementary way. A main continuous power source is still needed and nuclear is the best option. Only hippies think a country can be powered by breeze and sunshine.

why does everyone hate me. I work hard and do my best. So, why?

>>4916367
Of course. But he's actually suggesting that wind be used to power the grid. How can an "expert" be so ill informed? It baffles the mind.

Unless >>4916358 is right and he really is promoting it to turn a profit.

EE here

Wind power will never be feasible on a large scale (i.e. providing all or a large part of the electricity needs of an area) because of the unreliability of winds. Power output of a wind farm can go from 100% to 5% of capacity very quickly, so another generator capable of delivering full load power (usually coal power plant) must be kept spinning regardless. Emissions are reduced, but you will never eliminate dirty power generation using wind.

inb4 just put 1000MWh in a battery

>>4916369
You're inefficient and uneconomical. Your best is an idiot. Go kill yourself.

>>4916374
Just use some fans to turn them when there's no wind. man you scienstists think you're so smart but you couldn'ty even solve that when even i could

>>4916390

lol

When will I ever get love again?

>watch video
>no mention of nuclear
>why

>>4916408
>saging wrong

>>4916409
When people stop being afraid of you. So, never.

What I'm confused about is just why so many "environmentalists" think it so right to use wind and solar power.

There are far better, consistently reliable 'green' generator solutions.

I can't find the video, but there was a generator that would rely off of the ocean's tide, and as the water came in and out, it would move the air inside of the chamber. The air would pass over a special turbine that would spin in one direction regardless of which way the air current was passing.

I also found a turbine system that could be placed at the bottom of a river, and would do the same thing as a hydroelectric dam but without disrupting the local ecosystem.

Call me a hippie if you will, but both of these seem like very cheap, very effective alternatives.

>>4916414
You weren't listening close enough. Near the end of the video one of the guys says the word "nuclear" in passing.

>guardian
>most left bleding heart shit NEWSPAPER ever

>reading newspapers (or anything related to the newspaper) at all
>taking anything the guardian says seriously
>2012

>>4916423
>Call me a hippie if you will, but both of these seem like very cheap, very effective alternatives.
They may well be, but they could only ever be used in a complimentary respect. The sheer level of energy required to power the grid just can't be met by these types of energy production.

>>4916428

Gotta start somewhere, right?

>>4916421
You said it
>in passing
Its as if engineers (at least the ones that get press) are afraid of talking of further development and design of new generation nuclear plants.

>>4916423
That tidal energy thing seems even more convoulted and expensive than wind and solar. The "energy" source is too diffuse.

>>4916427
Doesn't matter what site is publishing the video, the point is that the people in the video are bigshots at a major university.

>>4916427
Call it what you want, bit those people have enough power in politics that nuclear reactors are being shut down all over the world. Look at Germany for example.

>>4916431
>Its as if engineers (at least the ones that get press) are afraid of talking of further development and design of new generation nuclear plants.
Sad but true. The general population typically throws a shitfit at the very suggestion of expanding nuclear energy production. And because of that kind of attitude, some countries are even planning on shutting down what few nuclear reactors they have.
In my country (Australia), there were plans to revisit the possibility of adopting nuclear power. That was shortly before the Fukushima incident. The idea was thrown right the fuck out the window then.

>>4916433
I can dissect the bullshit in the video for you if you are too dimwitted to see through high register wordfaggotry.

guy one-
>wind power is accountable for SEVERAL percent of the world's energy output, but is growing rapidly

guy 2-
Wind energy accounts for 1 percent of power generation in the wrold

its growing rapidly because it's fucking useless and nobody wants it. So the few gulliuable mucks who demand subsidies are building a couple of sites, growing proportionally by a large scale.

ok, now onto other things..

>1/3 of energy is used for electricity
>the rest should be converted to electrical, rather than fuel powered generation.
>wind farms could supply this energy
complete wishfaggotry bullshit. You would have to cover africa in wind farms to supply this much energy.

>talks about industry, heating, goods energy usage
>talks about using stuff less/less cars/smaller cars/less buildings
this is typical energyfag wishfaggotry.
''hey guys, wind power can power everything, you just have to stop using all industry and halt modern development''

complete and utter bullshit, the entire video. I could go into further detail, but I would just be sifting thrtough more bullshit.

as a civilization, power generation and develiopment is out life blood. The more energy we use, the mroe affluent and survivable we are. You can see this on a national level. Compare how lit up Africa is at night compared to the USA, then compare wealth, health and wellbeing.

we need to find ways to generate drastically MORE energy by better, high tech means... (for example thoruim, nuclear or orbital solar)

wind power and similar complimentary energy sustems are a waste of resources.

>>4916444
You're preaching to the choir, man. I wasn't implying that he was right because he's a bigshot, I was implying that what he is saying is especially dumbfounding because of his position.

>put solar arrays in orbit
>continuous, highly efficient solar power generation
>no atmosphere/photon scatterin to disrupt power generation
>build them on the surface of the moon and launch them into orbit from low-gravity environment

problem solved.

it could be done easily if we had even a whiff of a space industry.... but no... 95% of the population wants to live in the dark ages and think isolating ourselves on the planet is a good idea

>>4916451
That is in no way viable for now, or any time in the near future.

Solar in general isn't viable at the moment. I don't know why so many people can't stop riding it's dick.

>>4916453
>it's
I meant its. Man, I'll never forgive myself for this.

>>4916442
>Fukushima incident
>mfw the entire anti-nuclear shitstorm that followed
The reactor didn't even do shit. The only thing that did any damage was THE FUCKING TSUNAMI which no one cared about. No one cared about the fact that the reactor was old as shit either, and that it was the fucking jap's fault for not upgrading it. Nonono what it meant was that nuclear power is a ticking timebomb that cannot be trusted.

>>4916453
>Solar in general isn't viable at the moment

That's because we are doing it wrong. The expense is where it fails on the most part.
On the moon you have ALL the materials needed to build them, aswel as a vacuum and low gravity environment to ost-effectively launch them into orbit. Or you couled just leave them on the moon I guess.

outside of earth's atmosphere you generate more than double the energy you do at ground level, plus it is continuous (no day-night) and weatehr doesn't affect it.

itm wouldn't even be that hard. I say again
if we onlt had even a whiff of a space industry... hopefully planetary resources and spacex can solve that

>>4916459
damn, my typing is bad today

>>4916459
You know that solar panels degrade really fast right? They would need to be replaced very often to remain at peak efficiency. We also don't have a way to store that much energy for transportation back to earth (even if we did, that would be a real bitch to do, really inefficient.), or a good way to beam it down directly. Until these problems are addressed, it's simply not viable.

>>4916458
You forgot your face, here's a suitable one.

>>4916459
I'm not >>4916453
That could work, but it just doesn't look possible in the near future. Why not further develop nuclear energy?

>that article
>all of that article

>>4916468
Right, there will be the same problems with the atmosphere diffusing the beam and collectors not working at full capacity.

I don't like the wind turbine model personally, I think there has to be a way to harness wind power with smaller devices that could be integrated onto the exterior of buildings.

The decreased size would make them that much more sensitive to even the slightest air movement so you could I think get more power just by having a lot of easily produced units.

>>4916458
funny how every one of japan's other, what, 130 reactors? shut down completely fine during the earthquake.
but no, nuclear power is unsafe and dangerous, we'll all die from it!

>>4916492
Stop getting hung up on logic and facts. Nuclear is SCARY. End of the discussion. Shut 'em all down.

>>4916444
>talks about industry, heating, goods energy usage
>talks about using stuff less/less cars/smaller cars/less buildings
>this is typical energyfag wishfaggotry.

Those are actually good ideas though, not just for wind power but from a materials conservation standpoint in general.

Cars for example spend most of their life cycle not moving at all. Inefficient as fuck without even talking about the hilarious fuel efficiency. I like the system they're working on in Mazdar, public cars that park and charge at station.

Why was the Yucca Moutain storage facility cancelled?

>>4916511
NIMBYs, except it wasn't in anyone's backyard, but still got it closed due to nonsense reasoning and easily miseducated people

>>4916511
Brainless hysteria

Should just use fission power, natural gas and coal for the mean time and invest more money into fusion power capabilities. Then we can just get power by using heavy water which there is an insane amount of in the ocean.

no, but I love thorium. I really, really do.

>>4916492
if the words radioactive and cancer didnt exist we'd be just fine with it. But nope.

Seriously though, someone invent perpetual energy please.

>implying wind isn't a significant resource

>implying wind isn't significantly cheaper than thoridumb

>implying the UK isn't going ahead with new nuclear plants at an investment worth over £40bn


>implying this article isn't newer than OPs http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/30/fast-breeder-reactors-nuclear-waste-nightmare?news
feed=true

>>4917182

Note. I haven't read either articles yet.

I hate people.

>Wind is shit
>Nuclear is shit
>Oil is shit
>Coal is shit
>Gas is shit
>Petrol is too expensive
>Don't drill there
>Electric cars are shit
>Solar is shit
>Give me more stuff

FUCK

>>4917184
>>foot power
the one true savior

>>4917193
>Meat is murder
>Fertiliser is evil
>GM tomatoes gave me autism
>Child labour for shoes is immoral

If renewables, then solar thermal with molten salt energy storage, not shitty wind.

Yoohoo

>>4917273
Magnets? perpetual energy? nah, not happening.

Duude.. Thorium badges are a good idea! Post it on reddit and get thousands of customers.

>wind becomes the main source of energy
>wind farms everywhere on the globe
>people are happy, the air is cleaner, energy is abundant
>more wind farms
>every hint of a wind is now captured and transformed into electrical energy
>they begin to spin less and less
>energy levels begin to drop
>we create more wind farms to compensate for that
>the wind stops all around the globe because we don't let it circulate without getting past one of the turbines

>mfw I see the worst in every situation

>>4917352
What is this I don't even

>>4917352
>>capturing wind
what.

the "wind" has around 52,000 ft to play in, what do?

stupid hippies! Wind doesn't grow on trees

>>4917084
i'd rather invest in solar more then fusion, really. fusion can keep on keepin' on but that's a more long term thing

now, about the LFTR..

>>4917182
>thoridumb
pffffffffffffffft

>>4917490
if grows in the water and behind mountains, which is like 90% of the planet, fuck your trees.

>>4917273
the soviets gave us the design for a reason
>it'll never work

Fun fact: Just about every village in Britain already has water ways dug for mills. They are fucking everywhere, usually full of crap, but have been used for hundreds of years before being filled with shopping trolleys. These are very rarely considered for power generation despite the investment being minimal

My guess is everyone's got their fingers in the wind turbine pie and they hardly try to hide their corruption anymore

GUYS GUYS! A few months ago my friend's parents brought a women over that wanted us to invest in a wind farm thing similar to this? She kept stressing that wind turbines are the future and that we could make a lot of money from this. Was she scamming us? I didn't invest but my buddie and his parents did

>>4917564
it's a scam
wind generation would have to fundamentally change for it to be worthwhile. most of the revenue for wind comes from subsidies and government bonuses, basically. it isn't cost competitive (and more importantly, probably wont be for a long time)

In california, a law was passed stating that all utility lines had to be shared with all utilities, and that people could purchase from any source.

This was to fight a percieved monopoly.

Californians being hippies decided they wanted to buy electricity exclusively from wind farms. Which drove up the price when supply could not meet demand.

The competing companies saw that people were willingly pay X for energy and raised their prices too. One notable example was enron.

Wind energy does not live up to the hype in the media
Electric companies only do it because they are forced to have a certain amount of "green" generating capacity, and they get government subsidies for installing the wind farms.

One of the biggest problems with wind is that it is unpredictable and unreliable. Rarely is the wind blowing strong when electric demand is highest, and utilities have to supplement wind with fossil fuel generation because it is unpredictable.
Wind will only be viable if we can find a way to economical store large amounts of energy

lenr aka cold fusion
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf

why are all the power houses radioactive? who in the universe made up that rule?

>>4917895
even big oil sees it
http://d27vj430nutdmd.cloudfront.net/16748/116298/116298.1.pdf

Why don't we harvest energy directly from the sky? All you need is weather balloons and long cables to tap into the electrically charged atmosphere.

>>4917958
why dont we harvest energy from a volcano?

>>4917975
I don't get what you're implying.

Most of the video was shit, but the whole storing liquid CO2 underground looked cool.

anyone who played simcity 2000 got the gist of the wind power's role

not saying it's evidence but somehow... they just know to be skeptical when someone is claiming a magic solution.

>>4917975
>Implying we don't

I vote for turning this into a completely nuclear thread.

LETS DO THIS SHIT!

Wind turbines are a mature technology, it's highly improbable they'll ever reach the 25% or so of current prices that they'd need to reach to be competitive after you factor-in energy storage and/or on-demand spare capacity.

Out of geothermal/solar/wind, geothermal is the only power source that's not Full Fucking Retard right now(and even then, its more expensive than the alternatives)

Why not stick a solar updraft tower onto the windmill?

The solar updraft mirrors also let through infra-red light at certain frequencies which can be used to power nanoantennas at 80% efficiency or whatever, the surface of the updraft tower is covered in some kind of material like carbon nanotubes which absorbs 99% of sunlight, turning almost all of it into heat.

>>4916423
>very cheap, very effective alternatives.
lel have you looked at the estimated costs and the resource availability of either? Spoiler alert: cheap, effective tech doesn't need cheerleaders (unless there's political obstacles like nuclear)

http://fora.tv/2011/10/26/Reinventing_the_Leaf_Future_Sources_of_Fuel

>>4916333
Good. I hated all those birds anyways.

Today I watched the new Batman movie. The media apparently already tries to fuel the fear of nuclear fusion before we're able to do it properly.

i like how he's putting forth all these ways we can "use less", without even mentioning the cost of anything he says.

and then talks about "working with policy makers to MAKE things like this happen" and i weep slightly

>>4917975
Why don't we? Run some heatpipes down on in there boil some water spin some turbines and hey PRESTO

We have powwa

Thorium's largest problem is that it needs a decade and a billion dollars at minimum to be economically viable, when wind farms and even solar PV is economically viable at present. I'm not even counting solar thermal which not only has been viable for decades, also allows solar to provide 'baseload' power vis a vie thermal storage.

Unless you can prove that a power-generating system even with fuel costs less than a fuel-free system over a long timespan (10 years or greater,) you're going to have a hard time attracting private capital in as soon as a decade. Even natural gas is getting trounced by renewables installation growth. Renewables have been >80% of new installed capacity every year for the last 5 years consecutively, and there is no obvious reason why costs for renewables will not continue to go down, given that the market is brand new and learning curve costs are being depressed steadily every year.

The argument that renewables are too unreliable for baseload power generation is idiotic and assumes a dumb grid, but Denmark and Germany already power a large portion of their economies purely through renewable energy. They're so economical now that even Texas, land of Oil, Muh Freedoms and Big Hair has jumped on the renewables boat.

>>4918922
People like you fail to understand why they are not economically viable. You fail to understand just how much electricity were talking for the base-load in a country like the USA.

I for one feel the solution will be a mix of current and future technologies, and changes regarding how we use this energy.

>>4918862

>without even mentioning the cost of anything he says

It's because the cost of efficiency upgrades are paid for by their energy savings. And not just in straightforward ways like "we use less energy," but in a snowballing fashion. Using less energy actually opens up more options to use even less energy in many cases.

Look up the Empire State Building renovation if you'd like a case study, but the point of what I'm saying is that energy efficiency doesn't have to cost money, and it can provide expanding returns, instead of diminishing returns. In other words, the energy efficiency can be worth many times their cost, instead of costing extra money and having to wait decades for a payback.

I'm also going to skip ahead a scene and preempt the "but if it made that much money, it would already have happened!" post, which is a fallacious argument. For one, businessmen are in the business of making their product, which makes them money. Energy efficiency has never been a traditional core competency in business managers.

For two, many companies are doing this. Exelon, Dow Chemicals, Wal-Mart are all playing this game in some form or another, and they are reaping huge savings.

>>4918935

You want to give me a reason why my opinion is unfounded? Or are you just going to call me an idiot and promote your own opinion with zero foundations for it whatsoever?

Perhaps I am a dumb hippy, but you're going to have to explain to the people in Texas why they're dumb hippies for installing 5000 MW of wind power in their state and are making money hand over fist in that new market.

Here's the solution to any energy crisis: There isn't a solution.


For most, this answer may seem pessimistic. In reality, the scenario of having to supply energy to a massive population is rather grim. The only worthy forms of energy accommodation on this isolated rock are extremely limited within a large time frame. Things such as solar or wind energy that every claims to be green could never supply us with what we need. We're a race that has become heavily dependent on what provides us with light every night, a warm home to sleep in, or an incandescent box that tells us stories. One day when those resources become scarce, their true value will be realized, consequently driving us mad with greed.

That dream of a shining city that would harbor life for an eternity is all a dream. We've built a crumbling city around our progression as a race where population and limitation is ruler. No amount of politics, engineering, or "Hollywood magic" can save us in a dying universe.

Nothing last forever. At least from the view of a dirt-stained window.

>>4918964

*Excellent* summary, Friedrich. Oh wait, it ignores reality completely. Oil is the primary energy source for transportation. 80% of all oil pumped is devoted to gasoline and related transportation products, but it's entirely possible to make transportation use less oil, or even none at all (not just electric, there's also compressed natural gas.)

>>4918974

I felt like going a little crazy for a moment.

But honestly, this shit will happen eventually.

>>4918954
Well I guess I will call you dumb now, seems you very well may be cognitively impaired.

I never said they should not do just that. Just dont forget. 5000mw of wind power state wide taking vast amounts of space, is still dwarfed by the capacity of a single nuclear facility. Kashiwazaki-Kariwa of japan produces a net capacity of just under 8000MW. One. Single. Facility.

Albeit Kashiwazaki-Kariwa has had it's own list of problems.

>>4918922
>when wind farms and even solar PV is economically viable at present. I'm not even counting solar thermal which not only has been viable for decades, also allows solar to provide 'baseload' power vis a vie thermal storage.

Gonna need some citations. Here's mine:
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2437&start=75#p46496

>>4918944
Oh god. My mother spouts the same bullshit.

I don't care how you slice it. Even at 10% of current usage, wind and solar are still insane.

>>4918980

They claimed the world was ending when whales became scarce, too. It's willful ignorance to claim that society is doomed because the oil age is coming to an end. It presumes that only you and a select few others see the problem squarely and it ignores that people work constantly, feverishly even on rectifying this problem.

The oil age was great. It gave us the jumpstart we needed to become truly advanced beings. It has become old, outmoded, inefficient, dirty, and costly to the world, and people are rejecting it. Not rejecting it for a life of simple primitivism, but for a fully modern life, where fuel does our work without working our undoing.

I'm not the only one to see this future, either. In fact Deutchebank saw peak oil not in supply, but in demand, possibly as early as 2014. I am secure enough in my opinion to believe we will see the demand peak of oil before the supply peak.

Just as the demand peak of whale oil happened two full years before the invention of kerosene (saving the whales in the process,) we will see oil become noncompetitive at relatively low prices, before it becomes unavailable at any price.

>>4919001

Well put. I have no further words.

>>4918990

>One. Single. Facility.

That's part of the unattractiveness of centralized power at this juncture. When a single 8000MW plant goes down, be it for scheduled maintenance or unexpected plant failure, you're losing 8000MW of power. It is easier on the demand curve to have a multitude of smaller generating stations that deliver power intermittently, because the consequences of a single wind farm not producing energy is much lower than the consequences of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa going down.

Let us not forget that wind can be forecasted to some extend, so while it has random generated, it is not blindly random.

>Gonna need some citations.

http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-5119e.pdf
And since you're going to post a possibly biased source, I will post a possibly biased source to compensate: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/01/cost-of-wind-power-kicks-coals-butt-better-than-natural-gas-coul
d-power-your-ev-for-0-70gallon/

>>4918999

Well, how do you explain renewables having massive market share in installed capacity over the last little while? Perhaps there is something the market knows about renewables that you fail (or refuse) to see.

>>4919027
You see that's the thing, this is how I know you are not particularly sharp. You see, that 8000MW is just about... 3 percent of japans needs...

>>4919053
texas is larger then japan. that 8000MW plant produces 3 percent of JAPANS baseload. Your suggesting wind drive the base-load for the UNITED STATES?

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY CORRECT ME IF THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

>>4919053

So I'm gonna go ahead and ask: Can you actually explain why centralized electric generation is beneficial? Or are you going to continually attack my character and not what I'm saying? Why is centralized electric generation good? Clearly the market seems to think it's not, because nuclear hasn't managed to attract any private capital despite a decade of 100% subsidy in the US, and for every megawatt coal and natural gas has been newly installed worldwide, renewables have installed 4 MW worth.

I'm disappointed in /sci/ tonight, while posters may not always agree with me they can at least be objective about what I'm posting.

>>4919067

>>4919057

That isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm suggesting a mix of wind and solar and natural gas, over the next several decades can (and probably will) displace coal-based electrical generation. I am also suggesting that in 30 or 40 years, renewables will be in a position to displace natural gas in electrical generation.

I think the problem is that you think I'm saying this will all happen immediately, when I'm meaning it'll happen over a span of decades.

>>4918922
We spend way more than a billion dollars on other useless bullshit.

A billion is a drop in the bucket.

>>4919078

Yeah but you still have to get that funding, numbnuts. And you'll be hard-pressed to find that funding in the US because it's a nuclear process. If Sorenson gets a sweet military contract making army base generators with his idea as he suggested he would pursue, more power to him. I just don't think it's a likely shot.

>>4919067
Centralized power generation is not good, it's bad. there are losses when having to send this shit all the across the country, resistance, E/I*R all of that crap.

I would take a single small car sized burried nuclear power plant cell thing (early 2000 pop-sci style) over the windFARM it would take to power my home

>>4919079
were not even talking about the same thing, it would seem.

>>4919087

What if you and millions of others lived in homes that use half the energy it does now, so that a single windfarm could power a neighborhood with excess energy to feed back into the grid? That's beginning to happen already as well, not because it helps the cute squirrels and the birds and the goddamn Truffula Trees, but because it makes the builder and homeowner money?

>>4919087
You do realize that with current technology, centralized power generation is more efficient (both in terms of energy AND cost), right? Making a 40% thermally efficient nuclear or fossil fuel power plant is relatively straightforward. Making a 40% efficient micro-nuclear reactor, or diesel electric generator, to power you home, is virtually impossible due to economies of scale (i.e. it's easier to make larger systems more efficient).

>>4919094
yes I do, atleast in relation to the first line of your comment.

Problem?

I live in kansas. We have wind farms, because we have a lot of fairly constant wind. They are pretty great, actually doing better than expected.

But they are not a silver bullet, and won't ever save the world. The wisest thing, is to never have all your eggs in one basket. Wind power works great for us because we also have real power plants (natural gas and coal-fired ) to use. when the wind isn't blowing.

Thorium is a fantastic backup for sun based energy sources

>>4919096
I would be mad when i went to plug in my welder and got bitched at because everybodys lights go out every time I strike an arc.

>>4919109

You wouldn't, because in addition to having a local generator, with houses that interlink through a smart micro-electric grid, your community would be connected to a larger national grid, which your community feeds electricity to other places when it has excess and other places have dearth, and those other places reciprocate. Your arc welder turns on, and you weld your piece without any problems.

>>4919117
You interpreted that far too literally.
I must say, in class /sci/ style.

Im missing where this thing turned into me not liking the idea of green power and wasting less energy?

>>4919127

I'm sure you do like the idea of green power. I interpreted it literally because it gave me a good way to exemplify the type of power distribution I feel would be ideal for my country, and because I've somewhat muddled my posts tonight.

Local generation while connected to a national network that can engage and disengage seamlessly when prices fluxuate. So you can connect to the grid and feed energy when prices are high and you have excess supply, making the community money. And then disengage when you need the power for yourself.

>>4919136
I was just arguing with some guy that felt wind farms would perpetuate to the point of being able to with some effectiveness, contribute to the grid in terms of base load power. atleast I think thats what he was saying .


Wait, are you that guy?

>>4919138
Ill add that this is what got me to the point on the welder . If you are living in a house that is capable of being run off local wind and solar power. you are not the baseload. Because industry will not go away.

>>4919146

Industry won't stay the same as it has been, it's already starting to work pretty vigorously to lower its energy consumption. That said in the US, industry doesn't consume as much as residential and commercial buildings anyway. Something like 4/5ths of all electricity to to power non-industrial buildings.

>>4919157
Well you've got me thinking, and one can never call that a bad thing.

>>4919027
> http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-5119e.pdf
I skimmed it. It seems to give prices in mythical kW. It seems it fails to describe how to change wholly unreliable wind to anything resembling baseload power. Baseload and on-demand power are what is required, not "when it feels like it" wind. Thus, if you are trying to compare the cost of wind to nuclear using those numbers, you are being wholly idiotic.

>>4919169

There's a guy you should take a look at, if you're into TEDTalks, name of Amory Lovins. He's a physicist who's been talking about the oil endgame for about 40 years now. And he correctly predicted the massive falloff in energy consumption:GDP that happened with the USA in the late 70s.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/amory_lovins_a_50_year_plan_for_energy.html

In my opinion this is just as inspiring and empowering as Kirk Sorensen's talks on the LFTR and I think it's a shame that /sci/ doesn't talk about this guy.

>>4919067
>So I'm gonna go ahead and ask: Can you actually explain why centralized electric generation is beneficial?

It's not. It's merely that wind is super expensive because of its lack of on-demand nor baseload power characteristics. You're confusing issues. It's not "centralized good", it's "reliable and on-demand good".

it's unfortunate that most of these new energy plans are contingent on everyone going into hermit mode and reducing their power consumption by, sometimes, a lot.

i guess nuclear power is just that distasteful? and i'm not even talking about thorium specifically

>build more wind generators
>climate change
>formerly ideal spots either become dead calm or sudden death to windmills
>someone digs up the idea for wave generators
>hundreds of billions of pounds later someone realizes that the idea was buried for a reason
>re-develop nuclear