>still believing renewables can save the planet

[Anonymous No.10514023]

https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/

You can make solar panels cheaper and wind turbines bigger, but you can’t make the sun shine more regularly or the wind blow more reliably. I came to understand the environmental implications of the physics of energy. In order to produce significant amounts of electricity from weak energy flows, you just have to spread them over enormous areas. In other words, the trouble with renewables isn’t fundamentally technical—it’s natural.

[Anonymous No.10514028]

>>10514023
not to mention that solar panels are created the same way the chips in our phones are: silicon wafer production which is extremely toxic to the environment and releases tons of toxic gases, produces tons of waste water and waste material, and the solar panels themself - while they can be recycled with high efficiency - it’s inherently more expensive and is always going to be than to just make another one. Solar panels can’t be thrown in landfills as they contain danger chemicals that can break down and have to be treated in a similar way to nuclear waste


Also like you said they take up 100x+ more space than a nuclear plant does and don’t last very long

this has been brought to you by NUCLEAR GANG

[Anonymous No.10514034]

Fossil fuels can't yield more energy, you can only burn more quantities of them, so the argument is moot. Such silly logic is why you shouldn't take gutter press oil lobbying news outlets like Quilette seriously. They don't care about the science or the facts, they're just trying to justify consumerism and fossil fuel use.

[Anonymous No.10514038]

>>10514023
>This shilling

We use lots of space to produce energy. And? Who cares?

[Anonymous No.10514039]

>>10514034
>they're just trying to justify consumerism and fossil fuel use
what the fuck are you talking about dumbass? the article is about the benefits of nuclear power over renewables

[Anonymous No.10514057]

>>10514039
Nuclear is a renewable.

[Anonymous No.10514060]

>>10514039
The argument still stands, a fission reaction yields definite energies as well. Its a dumb argument. Also, Shellenberger was praised by the wall street journal for his advocation of nuclear energy and embracing "embracing economic dynamism" - a clear indication of what the actual motive is, solving an issue caused by consumerism with more consumerism. Nuclear power is not good for the environment either. You've seen the kind of garbage wastelands we create without nuclear power, imagine if the whole world ran on it. Where's it all going?

[Anonymous No.10514070]

>>10514023
energy storage
/thread

[Anonymous No.10514074]

>>10514057
can you shut the fuck up you dumb semantic retard? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy

>>10514060
>they're just trying to justify consumerism AND fossil fuel use.
Your argument doesn't stand at all dumbass even if I accepted all of your points there. Also he's trying to increase consumerism by shilling nuclear power? Are you fucking retarded?

>Nuclear power is not good for the environment either
that's the literal nature of all power production

>You've seen the kind of garbage wastelands we create without nuclear power
you mean the safest form of energy production known to man? haha
>muh chernobyl
high iq poster

[Anonymous No.10514078]

>>10514074
>you mean the safest form of energy production
No it isn't. Renewables are.

[Anonymous No.10514080]

>>10514078
LMAO kill yourself dumbass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

[Anonymous No.10514092]

>quillette
Brainlet central for brainlets that were too stupid for real academia and shills that want to pretend they are real persecuted academics.
All funded by some propaganda think tank of course.

[Anonymous No.10514094]

>>10514074
“can you shut the fuck up you dumb semantic retard? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy”

Your rage is adorable. Thanks for linking something that literally says nuclear is a renewable.

[Anonymous No.10514113]

>actually reading quilette
lol why do you do that to yourself

[Anonymous No.10514119]

>>10514094
holy fuck someone this retarded cant possibly be real

literally the first fucking sentence
>Whether nuclear power should be considered a form renewable energy has been a subject of debate.
also you dont understand what semantic means. this article was referring to solar/wind as "renewable" and nuclear as something separate

[Anonymous No.10514124]

>>10514094
>Whether nuclear power should be considered a form renewable energy has been a subject of debate. Statutory definitions of renewable energy usually exclude many present nuclear energy technologies, with notable exceptions in the states of Utah,[1]. Dictionary sourced definitions of renewable energy technologies often omit or explicitly exclude mention to every nuclear energy source, with an exception made for the natural nuclear decay heat generated within the Earth/geothermal energy.[2][3]
>The most common fuel used in conventional nuclear fission power stations, uranium-235 is "non-renewable" according to the Energy Information Administration, the organization however is silent on the recycled MOX fuel.[3] Similarly, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory does not mention nuclear power in its "energy basics" definition.[4]
yikes

[Anonymous No.10514130]

I sometimes wonder what /sci/ would be like if we banned all these obvious nutjobs.
An anon can dream.

[Anonymous No.10514133]

>>10514080
>coal-plant accidents
Because coal plants are popular in third-world countries with no safety or environmental controls

[Anonymous No.10514143]

>>10514133
i agree obviously but i dont get where you are going with this

[Anonymous No.10514147]

>>10514023
Sauce