/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11107509]

Aren't solar panels a complete retarded idea? Most of our energy consumption take place in winter when the days are short and when we need to heat our houses. During winter the solar panels barely produce anything. This seem so stupid, yet this energy is heavily pushed by some, why?

[Anonymous No.11107513]

>>11107509
>There's no sun in the winter
>It's snowing everywhere at the same time
>There aren't multiple sources of renewable energy

[Anonymous No.11107519]

>>11107513

>There's enough sun in winter to meet demand for heating, electricity and electric cars
>Weather patterns never move in groups
>There are other sources of renewable energy which are entirely reliable and don't need favorable weather

[Anonymous No.11107574]

>spend 10k on home solar panel set up
>harness enough energy to power my electric tooth brush

[Anonymous No.11107590]

Solar panels are cheap enough they can do fine in winter. For example 10Kw solar panel will generate ~3-4Kwh for ~6 hours. That's enough to keep your daily usage.You can increase that to 15kw and you'll get ~6kwh for ~6 hours and you have the daily average energy usage for US house.

If you want to be extra safe, you can use 20kwh solar panel. 20kwh complete solar kit costs ~ $20K. That's before 30% federal tax and any state tax credit.

For batteries, you can get a 3x Tesla powerwall that gives 40kwh for $16K.

That's for complete solar independence without reliance on grid.

[Anonymous No.11107600]

>>11107509
It's a simple calculation, really. Solar is the most inneficient way to produce energy in terms of how much energy you get per square meter of land. This means that if you own a lot of land and you manage to trick governments into going solar congrats, you just became a whole lot richer.

As always, it is just some families that made bad investments buying a lot of land in the middle of nowhere for farming or other activities but it never picked up trying one last scheme before trying to sell their land at market values.

[Anonymous No.11107623]

>decades of cheap fossil energy
>gets used to waste it like there's no tomorrow
>owns oversized cars, buys useless electronic appliances, doesn't insulate home...
Change your consumption habit, make it rational and efficient, and you won't have any trouble to live decently, even during winter. It's even cheaper in the long term.
>inb4 prove it. Do your homeworks.

[Anonymous No.11107667]

Because the more people use solar power the more they will rely on natural gas

[Anonymous No.11107673]

>>11107590
That's great for a family I guess. How do you plan to make enough energy for a city using renewables then?

[Anonymous No.11107691]

>>11107509
>Most of our energy consumption take place in winter
No, most of the energy use is during hot days in the summer when the solar index is the highest. AC has been a huge boon to the energy sector. Don't heat your fucking house with electric like a god damn fucking moron. At the very least, design houses and buildings to take advantage of passive solar energy for heating purposes. You can save a shit load of energy and energy costs with that alone.

>During winter the solar panels barely produce anything.
Not true. Solar panels are the go to thing to use for homesteaders in Alaska and bases on Antarctica when they don't want to use fossil fuels.

The real problem is not the solar panels or wind turbines or micro hydro power. The real problem is energy storage. Batteries are absolutely fucking terrible and holding everything back. They are a monumental waste of precious resources and money. It is unfortunate that micro nuclear power plants like RTGs are not used and the normal nuclear power plants are not the main utility power available. It is too bad there's not enough research going on in those sectors to make them far more viable and cost efficient.

The biggest thing you can do with any form of energy generation is to fucking stop using so much god damn energy in the first place. Do you really need a dragon dildo lotion warmer or 63" tv and electric baseboard heating?

Hell, we don't even use our wastes efficiently. Like effluent can easily be turned into biogas methane for heating & electric generation while the waste from that process can provide tons of high nitrogen fertilizer for crops.

[Anonymous No.11107695]

>>11107513
these are true anywhere above 40° north (but only because hippies fucking hate hydro)

[Anonymous No.11107803]

>>11107509
>Most of our energy consumption take place in winter
I've never heard of rolling brownouts because too many people were running their heat.

[Anonymous No.11107830]

>>11107673
Solar cost per kwh is cheaper on industrial scale, cheaper than nuclear and coal and cheaper than wind.

[Anonymous No.11107833]

>>11107509
>>11107673
Based retard

[Anonymous No.11107835]

>>11107830
Cheaper than wind, but other two are just wishful thinking.

[Anonymous No.11107837]

>>11107673
Multiply by city households

[Anonymous No.11107860]

>>11107835
Look up chats from 2016+. Is cheaper. Last year it dropped to half of what coal cost. It's 1/3 of what nuclear cost. Wind/solar are near equal.

[Anonymous No.11107893]

>>11107830
>>11107835
>>11107860
Not even remotely true. It is merely getting more subsidies now. There's a limited pool of subsidy money and if one sector of power generation gets more it means another gets less. When one gets more, the power made from that will be cheaper for users while the one that gets less will cost more for users. If subsidies didn't exist the cost of 1KWH would be around $10 regardless of power generation type. This even trickles down to the DIY level, but only if you are purchasing kits. If you make your own wind turbines from scratch then the only true cost is going to be energy storage. Batteries are terribly expensive and don't last all that long.

[Anonymous No.11107914]

>>11107803
You are now coming to the realization that all the criticism of renewable energy is just baseless fearmongering theorycraft.

[Anonymous No.11107942]

Sorry, unrelated question in the same vein, but why do people who support renewable power hate the only form of renewable energy proven to be a good/cheap power source? (Hydroelectric) I mean, obviously it's because the green movement is funded by coal, but what excuses do they use?

[Anonymous No.11107949]

>>11107509
Of all the complaints to levy against solar panels, you go with that?

[Anonymous No.11108003]

>>11107942
Negatively influences ecological systems, and negatively disrupts a lot of peoples lives such as having to move to make space

[Anonymous No.11108028]

>>11107914
Renewable energy isn't bad, but trying to transition to an energy economy where it is the dominant form of power is very hard due to intermittency and storage issues. I live in a state that gets 35 percent power from wind, but its very seasonal-we only get half that amount of power in the summer.

[Anonymous No.11108036]

>>11108003
I've even seen the excuse that it slows the rotation speed of Earth. Which it does, but insignificantly so.

>>11107914
Yeah, OP most likely has electric base board heaters and a $15 Honeywell thermostat. That will ensure a 20'x20' space costs about $200+ for heating. Things like this are highly anecdotal, going by what I've had people tell me irl.

>>11108028
Regardless of anyone's stance on power generation, it makes sense to diversify energy generation and decentralize it across the power grid as a way to make power more stable. Storms, attacks, accidents, fuel price hikes, etc that may occur will have less impact on the whole both for consumer cost and power outages. Thus, we should use everything from nuclear to home solar for power generation.

[Anonymous No.11108046]

>>11107509
Solar is popular because it's cheap and you can just put it on your roof or in your backyard and make money. Also only a retard would heat his home with electricity. Especially not in winter.

[Anonymous No.11108058]

>>11107893
Dumb. All energy sectors get subsidies. Coal had subsidies for 100 years. Nuclear had subsidies for 50 years. Solar/Wind are just now getting subsidies. Solar/Wind are getting more today simply because its a new technology and research/development is critical.

[Anonymous No.11108066]

>>11108058
>Solar/Wind are getting more today simply because its a new technology and research/development is critical.
Not at all. It is because the power generation sector are better at lobbying for the money. The R&D sector are completely different from the power generation sector with a completely different pool of subsidy money to war over.

[Anonymous No.11108070]

>>11108046
>and make money
Only in a few places.

[Anonymous No.11108072]

>>11107509
Everything is retarded compared to hydrocarbons and nuclear.
Hydroelectric included, what a waste of real estate and disaster in waiting.

[Anonymous No.11108098]

>>11107509
>Most of our energy consumption take place in winter when the days are short and when we need to heat our houses.

It’s still better to have that energy source than not, and it works quite well in the rest of the year, which is much longer than winter, and that’s only true for the 1-2 billion people in North America and Europe. They don’t have a fucking winter in India.

You have to pretend there aren’t like five billion people in Africa, South America, and Asia.
Fuck off lol

[Anonymous No.11108099]

>>11107942
Some countries use a shiton of hydro. China and Brazil, for exemple. The problem is that you can only buid hydropower stations in some specific places.

[Anonymous No.11108106]

>>11108072
>nooooo don’t generate terrawatts of energy from rolling downhill it’s wrong reeeeee

[Anonymous No.11108112]

>>11107509
>Most of our energy consumption take place in winter when the days are short and when we need to heat our houses

You mean in summer when the days are hot and we need to cool our houses.

[Anonymous No.11108132]

>>11108106
One missile.

[Anonymous No.11108168]

>>11108132
You mean the same thing that could destroy ANY power plant?

Fucking retards these days lol

[Anonymous No.11108170]

>current year + 4
>any power source besides nuclear

[Anonymous No.11108200]

>>11107509
>During winter the solar panels barely produce anything.
They produce less but it's still a decent amount as long as you don't live in Svalbard. Also you don't need solar panels to heat your home, you can build cheap ass solar thermal boxes to heat your house for like 50$. It's also easy and cheap to store energy in the form of heat.

[Anonymous No.11108203]

>>11107893
>If subsidies didn't exist the cost of 1KWH would be around $10 regardless of power generation type.
Opinion discarded.

[Anonymous No.11108207]

>>11108072
This

[Anonymous No.11108209]

>>11108106
>>11108132
>>11108168
one beaver lol

[Anonymous No.11108210]

>>11108072
Actually other way around on hydroelectric. All of Georgia and most of Alabama for example wouldn’t have lakes without dams. The dams create a shitload of valuable property.

[Anonymous No.11108213]

>>11107509
>This seem so stupid, yet this energy is heavily pushed by some

Oh my god, do you think people could be stupid?

[Anonymous No.11108304]

>>11108200
>still a decent amount as long as you don't live in Svalbard.
Alright, so basically, you just need to cook, stop using internet or your fridge at 17h since that's when the sun comes down.

[Anonymous No.11108391]

>>11108203
It seems you know nothing about utility energy generation.

[Anonymous No.11108420]

>>11108304
solar is good enough, even in places like Germany or Alaska, but the highest demand for new power plants is in developing nations, Africa, south Asia, central and south America, these regions are famous for being sunny and there is no winter

[Anonymous No.11108452]

>>11108304
You don't need a fridge in the winter, you dumdum.

[Anonymous No.11108511]

>>11108420
Even in winter in the worst of those places, solar is pretty good. The charts like that just look scary to people who are ignorant.

[Anonymous No.11108517]

>>11108452
Yeah, you also don't need internet, trains, you know, electricity in general.

[Anonymous No.11108518]

>>11107509
>what is summer air conditioning

they are a retarded idea though, unless you're in a remote location or mobile

[Anonymous No.11108541]

>>11108304
>It is impossible to transmit power over international distances
>Only solar will be ever used

[Anonymous No.11108887]

>>11108420

>solar is good enough in Germany

The country that spent 220 billion on renewables to end up with the 3rd highest cost of energy in Europe and increased reliance on fossil fuels?

[Anonymous No.11108900]

>>11107509
That's why we need global warming to reduce the amount of clouds in the winter, thus resulting in more sun year-round.

[Anonymous No.11108915]

I live in a neighbourhood that on my side of the street sunlight exposure is higher the the other side. Such to the point that my side loses snow 3-7 days early then the other side when spring arrives or during winter my side of the street is notable shorter in snow height.

[Anonymous No.11108936]

>>11107509
>t. butt blasted nuclear power shill making 3 spam threads a day over his terminally dying industry.

[Anonymous No.11108944]

>>11108887
>completely rebuilding your electricity generation infrastructure is more expensive than coasting along on 30 year old infrastructure

golly anon who could have seen this coming.

[Anonymous No.11108959]

>>11108936
From the lacklustre formuleic debating approach I feel like it could be small group of bored paid shills using Google and and some kind of chat bot or something to auto generate posts.

I have read that
>Germany has the highest power cost in the world!!!

Post several hundred times lol, and then when challenged
>Germany has the most expensive power in the world if you factor in complex tax calculations we don't apply to nuclear or thus making the statement void

It's the linking to news stories where the headline is deliberately misleading and hoping no one reads it thing that's the worst.

OP knows they are wrong.
Who has the time to create a database of misleading links and misleading argument and spend days posting all day?

There is something strange about the pro nuclear shill OP.

[Anonymous No.11109141]

>>11108168
Coal and even nuclear plants can be built be more quickly, do not present any particular danger except for the immediate area in case attacked by a missile, and they can be built underground if needed.
Well, a dam can also be underground, but that would be an engineering feat of world wonder-tier.


One missile.

[Anonymous No.11109184]

Accountant here.

Explain this to me.

Why should I buy a $20,000 solar array when I can buy $20,000 worth of dividend stock and pay my electric utility bill with them?

[Anonymous No.11109200]

>>11109184
You are not an accountant. You know what you are and you could never admit it because you have to go home to your family and pretend you care about them.

As a guide, a typical home uses 20kWh of energy a day. A 5kW solar system would meet most of the daytime power needs of such a home.

A 5kw setup costs about $5000, that's on grid, with excess electricity sold back to the grid and no problem with running high power devices like air conditioners.

You are fabricating prices, values and data by a factor of four on average to make this mentally ill narrative fit.

[Anonymous No.11109201]

>>11109184
https://www.choice.com.au/home-improvement/energy-saving/solar/buying-guides/solar-panels

[Anonymous No.11109210]

>>11107509
>If actual science and logic determined the best source of energy.

[Anonymous No.11109213]

>>11109184
And you are an accountant huh?
Why don't you tell me what $20 000 in dividends will pay out per year, about $500?

On grid solar setups in the $5000 range can reduce your electricity bill to $0 a quarter and even generate income, so a average quarterly bill is what approx $800 times four, so you save about $3000 a year.....

What stocks you investing in bro?
And they stocks in the failing nuclear companies that utilities won't touch because of high risk?

Your advice is technically insane, but I know you are technically just a data prostitute so I understand.
We have all done things for money that make us ashamed I guess.

[Anonymous No.11109216]

Solar energy makes perfect sense, if it’s limited to solar thermal and photosynthesis. Photovoltaics are a toxic nightmare that wouldn’t even be considered if our sense of scale and proportion hadn’t been completely fucked by cheap fossil fuel energy insanity.

[Anonymous No.11109219]

>>11107590
Solar panels are cheap because manufacturers are dumping toxic byproducts on Chinese peasants.

[Anonymous No.11109224]

>>11107691
Humanure shout-out!

Close the metabolic rifts, shit in the soil like nature intended.

[Anonymous No.11109226]

>>11109210
Estimates of the total number of deaths potentially resulting from the Chernobyl disaster vary enormously: A UNSCEAR report proposes 45 total confirmed deaths from the accident as of 2008.[1] This number includes 2 non-radiation related fatalities from the accident itself, 28 fatalities from radiation doses in the immediate following months and 15 fatalities due to thyroid cancer likely caused by iodine-131 contamination; it does not include 19 additional individuals initially diagnosed with acute radiation syndrome who had also died as of 2006, but who are not believed to have died due to radiation doses.[17] The World Health Organization (WHO) suggested in 2006 that cancer deaths could reach 4,000 among the 600,000 most heavily exposed people, a group which includes emergency workers, nearby residents, and evacuees, but excludes residents of low-contaminated areas.[18] A 2006 report, commissioned by The Greens and sponsored by the Altner Combecher Foundation, predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of worldwide Chernobyl fallout by assuming a linear no-threshold model for very low doses.[19] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[20] A disputed Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[21]

Kyshtym disaster Edit
The Kyshtym disaster, which occurred at Mayak in Russia on 29 September 1957, was rated as a level 6 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the third most severe incident after Chernobyl and Fukushima. Because of the intense secrecy surrounding Mayak, it is difficult to estimate the death toll of Kyshtym. One book claims that "in 1992, a study conducted by the Institute of Biophysics at the former Soviet Health Ministry in Chelyabinsk found that 8,015 people had died within the preceding 32 years as a result of the accident."[22] By contrast, only 6,000 de

[Anonymous No.11109229]

>>11109210
You are fradulantly misrepresenting data.

[Anonymous No.11109230]

>>11109226
Still doesn’t hold a candle to fossil fuel damages.

[Anonymous No.11109231]

>>11109224
I have read "the humanure handbook"
10/10 would recommend.

[Anonymous No.11109232]

>>11109219
And that has forced Americans/Canadian solar companies to find new innovation to compete. Yeah chinese may do crazy shit at the expense of their people, but Americans are innovating as a result of these artificial competition.

[Anonymous No.11109235]

>>11109230
I don't recommend non-reneable fossil fuels because of this reason :)

[Anonymous No.11109237]

I'm waiting for the guy that claims his source is "der speigel" but is just making it up as he goes.

[Anonymous No.11109245]

>>11109219
Mobile phones, televisions and umm...food, clothes, etc, all made by Chinese.

[Anonymous No.11109247]

>>11108518
>they are a retarded idea though
why?

[Anonymous No.11109250]

>>11109229
>"H3 SUPP0RT5 T3H NOOKULAR PWER!!! H3 15 T3H H3R3T!C!!!!!!!"

Kill yourself, faggot.

[Anonymous No.11109253]

>>11109245
Yes, cheap consumer goods are produced through human deprivation and immense suffering, glad you’re aware.

[Anonymous No.11109270]

>>11109247
They're inefficient and the toxic waste byproduct of their manufacturing process is worse than fossil fuel emissions.

[Anonymous No.11109280]

>>11109253
All work is inhumane.

[Anonymous No.11109281]

>>11109280

[Anonymous No.11109439]

>>11108944
>completely rebuild infrastructure
>energy cost goes UP
that's a major feat of incompetence that flies in the face of economics

[Anonymous No.11109444]

>>11109270
Normally when you claim something like that you would have something other than your opinion backing you up.

[Anonymous No.11109447]

>>11109226
>by assuming a linear no-threshold model
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110920163320.htm

if I assume the visual disruption of wind turbines causes AIDS I can pin millions of deaths on wind turbines, that doesn't make it a valid assumption

[Anonymous No.11109549]

>>11108959
That's great and all, but so far, no one in this thread have proved a developed economy could produce all its electricity with renewables. Germany may have spent billions, their reliance on coal and russian gas in backup to renewables intermittency mean their CO2 production barely evolved.

[Anonymous No.11109818]

>>11109549
It’s magic anon, believe it.

[Anonymous No.11109824]

Solar panels lose 20% efficiency by year 7, and drop exponentially after. They only produce about 50% after 10 years then drop to zero within the next three. I worked for a company that would charge you over the course of 15 years, and would mark it up to rising energy costs as your panels slowly died.

[Anonymous No.11109853]

>>11109237

>anti-nuke shill hates reading: world shocked

[Anonymous No.11109936]

>>11109824
Yeah your numbers are way off retard

[Anonymous No.11110710]

>>11109936
>true believer triggered over having his favorite religious dogma disputed

Wind turbines and terrestrial solar <<<<<<<<<<< nuclear power and hydroelectric power

The longer the solar cult obstructs reliable sources of carbon neutral power, the more damage fossil fuels will do the environment.

[Anonymous No.11110735]

>>11109447
Another thing to consider. Our cells have built-in mechanisms to correct copying mistakes in DNA specially designed to take counter environmental factors like radiation. Even when a mutation takes place, the vast majority of them are neutral. Just ask any biologist who had to deal with bogus claims by young earth creationists that mutation rates would end all biological life on geological time scales as evidence that god made the universe in 6 days some 6000 years ago. It's only when there is a large enough dose of radiation to overwhelm the cell's natural DNA editing mechanism is there a significant chance of an adverse, cancer-causing mutation. The fact that cells correct copying errors and not allowing them to accumulate over a lifetime contradicts the linear no threshold model.

[Anonymous No.11111701]

Funny, as soon as you criticize solar panels, you're a nuclear shill. Of course there is no lobby for solar panels, even though most of them are made in China. Sounds weird.

[Anonymous No.11111718]

>>11111701
That's because the concept of a world with nuclear power plants everywhere is better than a world with solar farms everywhere is absurd.
Occasional meltdown, accident and spill vs having to replace the panels every thirty years and recycle them.
Russia estimated the overall deaths from Chernobyl at almost a million, a similar amount to the holocaust.
Shill is a word for someone that supports something you could only support if you had something invested in it.

There are always people who adamantly oppose new ideas outnof principle.
When Ralph Nader tried to make seatbelts mandatory there was huge opposition to the idea, to the extent GM tried to blackmail him.

It's annoying because people who for instance lie to discredit solar and have some kind of personnel vendetta against it, like maybe your father was killed before your eyes in a freak solar panel related accident or something, are literally slowing down our technological evolution, there will be no utopia with meltdowns and poison food.

[Anonymous No.11111720]

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/april/pv-net-energy-040213.html
>The energy used to produce solar panels is intense. The initial step in producing the silicon at the heart of most panels is to melt silica rock at 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit using electricity, commonly from coal-fired power plants.
yep, it's retarded

[Anonymous No.11111721]

>>11111720
Or you could just you know, use literally any other source of electricity. Especially as factory hours exactly line up with peak solar production hours.

[Anonymous No.11111728]

>>11111701
Lets be honest, nuclear companies are so bankrupt and irrelevant they can't afford shills, but redditors do it for free.
Solar on the other hand is winning so hard they don't need shills. Given big oils funding of propaganda like the heartland institute, it's pretty easy to believe they pay actual shills though.

[Anonymous No.11111729]

>>11111718
>Occasional meltdown, accident and spill vs having to replace the panels every thirty years and recycle them.
Still doesn't answer how we can find solutions for renewables intermittency...unless we use gaz, and coal which is what the UK and Germany are doing.

[Anonymous No.11111730]

>>11111729
storage is more cost effective than nuclear per MWh so we might as well just do that, makes more sense than wasting billions on nuclear power.

[Anonymous No.11111735]

>>11111730
>storage
Oh yeah...with batteries that don't even exist yet.

[Anonymous No.11111753]

>>11111735
yup these battery systems which cost up to 50% less than nuclear per MWh totally don't exist

[Anonymous No.11111759]

>Most of our energy consumption take place in winter
That depends on the country, in hotter countries it's summer which has the highest energy consumption because of Air conditioning.
But you're right, solar energy won't be as reliable during winter, which is why no one with more than half a brain is advocating for it, and while it won't cover ALL our energy needs ALL of the time, it will still be able to provide a good amount of power for very cheaply (in the long term).
Even if solar panels could only supply, say, 10% of the area's power needs, that's still 10% less than needs to be produced conventionally, and that's a very big difference.

[Anonymous No.11111765]

>>11111759
honestly heating should be the one of the last areas we phase out fossil fuels in, considering it's near 100% efficient compared to the sub 40% efficiency you get from converting it to electricity, transmitting it, etc. You are correct though, peak consumption in most countries is in the summer.

[Anonymous No.11111766]

>>11111753
And how many years do these lithium batteries last?

[Anonymous No.11111778]

>>11111759
>Even if solar panels could only supply, say, 10% of the area's power needs, that's still 10% less than needs to be produced conventionally, and that's a very big difference.
But it will still be a very unreliable energy that will sometimes produce way more than needed and other time barely anything. I'm not sure it helps in any way, seems more disrupting to me.

[Anonymous No.11111804]

>>11111778
Can you please doing such antisemitic thinking.
Just accept solar, ok bigot.

[Anonymous No.11111805]

>>11109824
Compared with other appliances, solar panels actually have a long life expectancy. Most panels come with warranties assuring 80 percent system performance or higher for up to 25 years.
One of the oldest solar panel installations can be found in Germany on the building of the University of Oldenburg. To the surprise of researchers, their “experimental” solar array installed on the roof in 1976 is still producing energy with almost the original output.

[Anonymous No.11111898]

>>11111804
I just don't understand. Nuclear seems the obvious way to go if you know just enough about energy production. Why do smart people promote dumb ideas like renewables?

[Anonymous No.11112315]

>>11111718
The Chernobyl plants were designed in the 60s. Meltdowns don’t happen in modern plants. It’s never happened in gen 3 and it’s literally impossible to happen in gen 4.

[Anonymous No.11112322]

>>11111765
>sub 40% efficiency you get from converting it to electricity, transmitting it, etc.
Which Facebook group told you that? Conversion of electricity to heat is 100% efficient and transmission losses are on the order of 1% per 100 miles.

[Anonymous No.11112353]

>>11107830
Solar in small quantity is extremely cheap. This does not scale well.
Once you've taken out a multi % bite into total generation with solar, you have to deal with the shitty capacity factor. No, it doesn't just average out. Weather systems usually engulf huge areas of land, and nightfall engulfs half the planet. Unless you're planning on running HVDC around the whole globe (which would be cool as hell, but it isn't happening anytime soon), you have to install 2-3x the capacity you really want, and smooth the output with batteries sufficient to cover several hours of your total desired capacity. This increases the cost of solar by 5-8x, putting is squarely outside any kind of competition with coal, gas and nuclear.
This is with subsidies. If you take them all away, nuclear looks great (because it's already getting squat for subsidies), hydro looks great, gas looks alright, solar and wind look somewhat prohibitively expensive, and coal looks like something so irresponsible to deploy that anyone caught doing it should be criminally charged.

>>11107893
>$10/kWh
I happen to work in the energy industry. I've done lots of work with the generation and consumption markets especially.
You're full of shit. Average unsub costs are more like $0.50-2.00 depending on region, and some sources beat that by a fair margin. Hydro, geothermal and nuclear being the shining examples of cheap energy that's TRULY cheap, with locally sourced gas not far behind.

[Anonymous No.11112358]

>>11111898
I already asked you to stop being antisemitic once.
Do not make me repeat myself a fourth time.
If you question renewable a sixth time, you will be sorry.

[Anonymous No.11112453]

>>11111753
>someone received money for making that chart
Imagine having such poor understanding of the field that you post this.
Those are the costs for kWh, not MWh. If lithium-ion was ~200-something $ per MWh, we would've been an all-electric utopia by now- a Tesla car battery would be ~20 dollars.

>>11107893
>cost of 1KWH would be around $10 regardless of power generation type
Never post on this subject or on this board ever again.

[Anonymous No.11112477]

>>11112453
>Those are the costs for kWh, not MWh.
The chart only says MWh not KWh.

[Anonymous No.11112519]

>>11109200
>You are not an accountant.
>>11109213
>And you are an accountant huh?

Not sure why a common profession requires proof, nor am I sure how to provide that proof other than posting my degree, but yeah I am an accountant.

An S&P 500 index fund has a 2% dividend yield, which would reduce the electric bill by about $34/month with $20,000 invested plus of course capital gains based on a rising market. If we went full dividend, such as a utility stock (oh the irony) we could expect to triple that yield giving us about $100 a month in dividends. My electric bill is around that price, though I live in PA, not CA, so cheaper electricity, but not as a good of location for solar, nor as many tax benefits.

[Anonymous No.11112531]

>>11111720
>https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/april/pv-net-energy-040213.html
>When u cite an article that makes the exact opposite point you were trying to make

[Anonymous No.11112538]

>>11112477
The chart is retarded and so are you.

[Anonymous No.11112571]

>>11112315
>Meltdowns don’t happen in modern plants
Maybe because there are no modern plants. Everybody stopped building nuclear plants after Chernobyl.
Also making plants safer raised costs. Now nobody can afford to build a new plant.

[Anonymous No.11112578]

>>11107695
There's a secret, green way to do hydro.
It's called run-of-the-river floating turbines. Basically you have waterproof turbines in the middle of a whitewater area like, say, the Kazan River that produce nearly free electricity while not needing dams. There is also bladeless wind power, useful because of how windy the north is.

[Anonymous No.11112581]

>>11112538
So please provide a better source for the price of storage, you do have one right? Surely you aren't just making shit up because of irrational emotional attachment to an energy source.

[Anonymous No.11112585]

>>11112353
>Solar in small quantity is extremely cheap. This does not scale well.

This is obviously nonsense. Utility scale solar is even cheaper then wind.

[Anonymous No.11112593]

>>11112571

>now nobody has the political will to build a nuclear plant

Again. Nuclear is purely a political problem masquerading as a financial or engineering problem.

[Anonymous No.11112595]

>>11112538

[Anonymous No.11112596]

>>11112585

Even your source doesn't consider solar and wind effective for baseload.

Stop talking out of your ass and posting graphs from a source you don't understand.

[Anonymous No.11112601]

>>11112593
Yes because we all know nuclear power plants require neither monetary investment nor high engineering standards.

[Anonymous No.11112606]

>>11112596
How about since you know the source so well you post the parts that support your side instead of claiming they are there without backing yourself up.

[Anonymous No.11112675]

>>11112581
https://about.bnef.com/blog/behind-scenes-take-lithium-ion-battery-prices/
>average battery pack fell 85% from 2010-18, reaching an average of $176/kWh

>Surely you aren't just making shit up because of irrational emotional attachment to an energy source.
Honestly, defending that chart shows a complete and utter ignorance on the subject- you are off 3 orders of magnitude. Have a little dignity and just stop.

>>11112595
The first thing I said was that MWh and kWh was mixed up in the first chart, something anyone who has even the most superficial understanding of batteries and energy storage knows- basically refutation. What are you supposed to call a person that pretends (is possibly) retarded?

[Anonymous No.11112713]

>>11112571
Gen III plants should be less expensive than gen II plants as they rely on a simpler passively safe design instead of thousands of active valves and a crack team of engineers watching the thing. The fact that they're generally more expensive is a factor of people being scared of them for no reason.

>>11112578
Hydro power output is pressure * flow, just like electric power is voltage * current. Having lots of one without the other gives middling results. Sticking turbines in a fast river gives lots of flow, but little pressure. They'll power a house or two, not much else.

[Anonymous No.11112715]

>>11108036
>slows the rotation speed of Earth
we can just ask everyone to run around the earth a few times to compensate

[Anonymous No.11112727]

>>11108170
nuclear is perfect to transition to renewables, but still limited to a comparatively short time

[Anonymous No.11112741]

>>11109210
why solar tho? people falling off roofs during installation/maintainance?

[Anonymous No.11112747]

>>11112585
The cost of grid improvements and stabilizing storage like building pumped hydro or fuckhueg batteries is never included in these "hey look economies of scale makes it cheaper!" charts.
Of course building a 1MW solar farm is cheaper per kW compared to joe asshole putting a few kW on his roof. The problem is putting that much solar on a grid makes peaking plant owners lots of money as they stabilize the grid when a cloud comes over your farm. Those peaking plants have to stay warm all the time too, so they're sitting there burning gas even when your farm is making energy, just so they can spool the turbines quickly when the sun isn't so strong.
So you need batteries, or pumped hydro. This isn't optional. You NEED it. Adding storage to stabilize without needing peakers will easily double your costs. If you want to get rid of the load following baseload plants too, then you need to overbuilt by a factor of two to three, and add enough battery to get through a few shitty days and nights. Now you're playing in the prohibitive costs even with subsidies zone.

[Anonymous No.11112749]

>>11112727
How so?

[Anonymous No.11112751]

>>11109224
>>11109231
I prepose we use the biomethane route to get the most out of the waste.

[Anonymous No.11112753]

>>11112353
>Average unsub costs are more like $0.50-2.00 depending on region
>the unsub cost is the same range as sub
Where the fuck do you live that you can pay under $0.50/kwh????

[Anonymous No.11112778]

>>11112322
you forget the trash efficiency from heat to electricity conversion

[Anonymous No.11112792]

>>11112675
Welcome to the joys of citing your sources.

[Anonymous No.11112793]

>>11112749
the sun is going to be around much longer than Uranium

[Anonymous No.11112794]

>>11112741
Yeah, when you divide up industrial solar from home solar there is a vast difference between the two.

[Anonymous No.11112799]

>>11112794
that's not a death toll of solar, that's evolution

[Anonymous No.11112835]

>>11112753
>t. German
I pay 14 cents per kWh because I'm in New England where we have based Seabrook nuclear plant (40%) and Pennsylvania natural gas. My power bill is usually $80-100 a month.
If only Mass gov. Dumbfuck Dukakis and the """ green""" protestors didn't cockblock building and trash prospects for the second reactor with frivolous lawsuits. That shit was a shining example of how democrats fuck the environment just as badly as republicans in the US.

>>11112793
There is so much uranium and thorium on this planet it's fucking mind boggling. Current reactors use about 1% of the energy in their fuel, which is why the waste is dangerous for so long. If we get over ourselves and build some breeders, just the known reserves of land uranium will last for thousands of years, and waste will be inert in a few hundred years instead of tens of thousands. Then there's the uranium in ocean water, which is effectively unlimited since it comes out of the mantle and stays at a more or less constant concentration in the ocean. It can currently be extracted for $200/lb, which is double what is cost to mine uranium. However, the price for fuel in a nuclear power plant is miniscule compared to the cost of construction, operation and maintenance. Even at $200/lb and even burned in an inefficient current day PWR, you get about 1/16th of a cent per kWh for just the fuel. I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't notice that on my bill.

[Anonymous No.11112885]

>>11112778
No I didn't, and that's a disingenuous argument as the measure of efficiency in this case begins with the electricity, the source of the electricity was unspecified, and cogeneration power plants can have efficiencies of 60+%. Besides that, on the consumer end electricity and gas cost about the same per unit of energy (at least in my area) so electric heating is cheaper because you don't lose heat venting the fumes.

[Anonymous No.11112909]

>>11112606

>do my research for me because I only vomit graphs I don't understand because anti-nuke doesn't read

Here you go. Not that it matters since your goal is to hate nuclear.

[Anonymous No.11112914]

>>11107509
Solar panels on earth are retarded, but in space they're an excellent investment.

[Anonymous No.11112945]

>>11112909
You should charge your phone.

[Anonymous No.11112948]

>>11112945

Nah bro. It's solar powered, so it should be fine.

[Anonymous No.11113071]

>>11112885
>heating should be the one of the last areas we phase out fossil fuels in
I'm pretty sure that guy meant efficiency of burning fossils for heat vs converting it to electrical power, though there is still the problem of transportation

[Anonymous No.11113098]

>>11112675
kek, you're comparing up front price of a battery pack to levelized cost of storage, if you can't figure out the difference you're beyond help.

[Anonymous No.11113259]

>>11112315
>The Chernobyl plants were designed in the 60s. Meltdowns don’t happen in modern plants. It’s never happened in gen 3 and it’s literally impossible to happen in gen 4.

When was Fukushima?

[Anonymous No.11113260]

>>11113259
Fukushima was built in the sixties you mongoloid

[Anonymous No.11113297]

>>11113098
>kek, you're comparing up front price of a battery pack to levelized cost of storage

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve (late 2017)(388$ per kWh)
>Hyundai & Korea Zinc energy storage system (late 2018)(281$ per kWh)
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andasol_Solar_Power_Station (2009)(50$ per kWhth, meaning +150$ per kWhe)
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Station (159$ per kWh)
Damn, it's even more expensive...
Not to mention that Li-ion (and other misc battery tech) probably won't go under 80-100$ ever, molten salt is garbage, pumped hydro is unscalable and anything else not mentioned is basically never going to be relevant.
Not to mention that with the future electrification of everything (which is 100% necessary in order to scrap fossil fuels), the storage needs will probably quadruple. At a theoretical ~20k TWh yearly energy cunsumption in the US (assuming large efficiency gains that would lower it from the current 30k TWh), the country would need hundreds of TWh of storage to not turn into a 3rd world shithole with constant multi-day outages and rolling blackouts. And this is impossible- even at 100$ per kWhe, you're looking at shilling out tens of trillions on batteries.

[Anonymous No.11113330]

>>11113259
Shocking for the Japs, that plant was a total train wreck before the tsunami. Short seawall, generators below grade, no catalytic hydrogen recombiners in the outer containment even though the fuel rods were zircaloy clad. What a shit show. Other plants along that same coast, getting hit with that same tsunami, were totally fine, and were even used as shelters.

[Anonymous No.11113368]

>>11113297
bitch did you really just divide construction costs by nameplate capacity and call it fucking LCOE? Please for the love of god google how it's calculated before you further embarrass yourself.

[Anonymous No.11113398]

>>11113297
>>11113368
using this big brain math we can conclude that the """"LCOE""""" of the Vogtle reactors 3 & 4 comes out to 12,500 $ per KWh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant

[Anonymous No.11113442]

>>11112519
>>11112519
>>>11109200 (You) #
>You are not an accountant.
>>11109213 (You) #
>And you are an accountant huh?

Not sure why a common profession requires proof, nor am I sure how to provide that proof other than posting my degree, but yeah I am an accountant.

An S&P 500 index fund has a 2% dividend yield, which would reduce the electric bill by about $34/month with $20,000 invested plus of course capital gains based on a rising market. If we went full dividend, such as a utility stock (oh the irony) we could expect to triple that yield giving us about $100 a month in dividends. My electric bill is around that price, though I live in PA, not CA, so cheaper electricity, but not as a good of location for solar, nor as many tax benefits.


Are you still claiming that powering your house would require a $20 000 solar setup? Even though the real value is closer to $5000, so even if solar for a house costs $20 000, and you invest for dividends, you will still save significantly less money with on grid mains vs on grid solar,
And that's not factoring in money you make from selling the unused solar energy back to the grid,

So your hypothesis of solar being non viable is only true if you
-alter and misrepresent the data to fit your narrative
-make fraudulant claims
-deliberately mislead people with lies
-use unreferenced unsourced graphs that are wildly inaccurate
-avoid questions that disprove your theory

Soooo regular power with $20 000 in dividends doesn't even cover your electricity bill
On grid solar costs $5000 but save about $3000 plus unused energy rebates.

So basically it's $5000 with solar for thirty years of free electricity......
And you vehemently opposed this in favour of hundreds of nuclear power plants and electricity costing people a significant amount of money forever.

It's not financially viable Mr Shillington
It's not ethical, logical, it costs more, it's more dangerous, and the majority consensus vote is that you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.11113447]

>>11113442


>30 years
>best solar panels can get 20
>uber cheap chinesium that is quoted in everyone's costs is lucky to get 15

[Anonymous No.11113457]

>>11113442
he mad

[Anonymous No.11113459]

>>11113447
>So your hypothesis of solar being non viable is only true if you
-alter and misrepresent the data to fit your narrative
-make fraudulant claims
-deliberately mislead people with lies
-use unreferenced unsourced graphs that are wildly inaccurate
-avoid questions that disprove your theory

>30 years
>best solar panels can get 20
>uber cheap chinesium that is quoted in everyone's costs is lucky to get 15
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf

>A history of degradation rates using field tests reported in the literature during the last 40years has been summarized. Nearly 2000 degradation rates, measured on individual modules or entire systems, have been assembled from the literature and show a mean degradation rate of 0·8%/year and a median value of 0·5%/year. The majority, 78% of all data, reported a degradation rate of <1%/year. Thin-film degradation rates have improved significantly during the last decade, although they are statistically closer to 1%/year than to the 0·5%/year necessary to meet the 25-year commercial warranties. The significant difference between module and system degradation rates observed early on has narrowed, implying that substantial improvement toward the stability of the balance-of-system components has been achieved.

standard warranty guarantees 25 years.
panels still function at >70% original efficiency after 30 years.

>-make fraudulant claims
check
>-deliberately mislead people with lies
check
-avoid questions that disprove your theory
coming up next!

[Anonymous No.11113462]

decentralization is good but solar panels are patented and monopolized like batteries

even wind turbine technology is patented

meanwhile biofuel can be made by niggers and that's why it's being taxed as if it wasnt carbon neutral

also biofuel doesnt require substitution for peak demand or batteries

[Anonymous No.11113465]

>>11113447
How do you know the theoretical life span of new, cutting edge technology,
The 6000 watt solar setups you buy in Australia have a thirty year warranty, so by law they have to be replaced if they don't work for thirty years.

I fear you are using outdated and wildly inaccurate (also boldly speculative) data to try to win an argument.

Should we talk about how dangerous old solar panels are compared to nuclear waste again to get you back on track.

Oh hey guys, I finally worked out the shill argument shiposting template.

You just say the opposite of the truth.
Over and over, and hope no one has the time to point out the vast inconsistensies,

Inb4
>A solar setup for a residential home is $20 000

>solar panels break after a few years
>Broken solar panels are far more dangerous that nuclear waste
>Meltdowns (Chernobyl death toll almost 1 000 000 people) are a minor inconvenience
>Let's pretend Fukushima didn't happen, because we don't have meltdowns anymore ;)

[Anonymous No.11113467]

>>11113368
>>11113398
Dividing construction cost by storage capacity is fine. For that plant, it would be $12,500 per kW, not kWh. This doesn't carry very much meaning, as the plant will likely operate for 40 years with a 93% capacity factor, making for a kWh cost of 3.1 cents.
But for battery, it makes lots of sense. We can calculate how much storage we need to cover the largest expected generation gap, and we can figure out if covering that will cost mere tens of billions, or completely infeasible tens of trillions. If we need to cover one full high usage hour in the US, that's a PWh. How much battery do we need to build?
Assuming we can get batteries to $100/kWh at scale, we need one hundred billion dollars in battery. That's well within the realm of possibility, and if wind/solar is 30% of our generation capacity we might very well get away with one full hour of storage. The battery requirements go up drastically with decreased average supply CF though. Germany is discovering this right now. I'm eager to find out what a realistic relationship between CF and storage requirements looks like.

[Anonymous No.11113477]

>>11113459

>standard warranty is 25 years

Source. Your ass.

[Anonymous No.11113481]

>>11113459

>avoid data like a vampire to sunlight

[Anonymous No.11113491]

>>11113477
>>11113481
>we're clearly discussing panel performance and degradation so any rational person would know we were talking about performance warranty right?
scroll down on the page you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.11113506]

>>11113368
I'm ranting about the costs of storage capacity and its practical non-scalability, not about generation nameplate. Those are basically 2 battery parks, 1 solar park with molten salt storage and the biggest pumped storage station (given its capacity and cost adjusted for inflation). Measuring the LCOE of batteries is also retarded, since they don't generate shit and are fundamentally constrained differently than electric generation sources- I didn't even know they measured battery LCOE.
>Vogtle
The anti-nuclear hysteria-induced rape of Westinghouse (and nuclear in general) to death and general mismanagement fucked it- tough shit. Doesn't change the fast that nuclear is literally the best energy source currently available and, if done with an ounce of competency- like in China, cheaper than fossils.
>""""LCOE""""" of the Vogtle reactors 3 & 4 comes out to 12,500 $ per KWh
You mean capital costs per kWh. LCOE will be way lower, possibly sub-100$, given that hey can function for 60-something years at ~90% capacity factor.
>muh LCOE
Raw LCOE estimates also ignores other vital future factors like that nuclear is the only carbon-neutral source that can mainatain the baseload. And without vast amounts of energy storage, this will never be replased by stochastic renewables. And given that vast amounts of storage are practically impossible, nuclear will be vital- either that or fossils forever. It also ignores the amount of peaking power from said fossils that rememeables without storage require so the grid doesn't collapse.
Also, people not taking fusion development seriously is basically a crime against humanity at this point.

[Anonymous No.11113543]

>>11113491

Except warranties are only executed for drastic failures and year by year analysis is unreliable and heavily influenced by location of installation.

This is a fact. And the places installed where we would expect the least wear on panels would also lead to less effective utilization. An open desert would thought to be best for solar except that sees rapid degradation from UV.

So people make "25 year warranties" for panels they know will at least not break, and no-balls yuppies to not track actual degradation.

[Anonymous No.11113544]

>>11113506

>You mean capital costs per kWh. LCOE will be way lower, possibly sub-100$, given that hey can function for 60-something years at ~90% capacity factor.

you missed the point retard, what I did was use the exact same math >>11113297 this idiot used to calculate his """""" levelized cost of storage"""""""" which gets you 12500$ per KWh for a nuclear plant. Now I've provided a source for levelized costs of storage compared to nuclear and it's up to 50% cheaper. Those are the facts, now try again.
>https://www.lazard.com/media/450774/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-version-40-vfinal.pdf

[Anonymous No.11113549]

>>11113465

>chernobyl death toll 1000000

The fuck kind of greenpeace crystal healing essential oil anti vax shit are you smoking?

[Anonymous No.11113556]

>>11113544

Man. Look at those cons. Literally spelling out what their data shouldn't be used for AND that sun worshippers use it for in these threads.

[Anonymous No.11113557]

>>11113477
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/solarwatt-solar-panels-30-year-product-warranty-is-worlds-best/

When it comes to product warranties for solar panels, the American company SunPower has long been king with one that lasts for 25 years. Not only will they replace any of their panels that fail in that time, but they will send people around to install a new one free of charge and cart away the corpse of the dead panel for autopsy to discover why it died so young.

But SunPower is no longer king. They have been dethroned. Their quarter of a century product warranty has been beaten by the 30 year product warranty Germany’s Solarwatt has placed upon their double glass panels, which is three times the 10 year industry standard.

That is a very long time. With the average age of first time home owners in Australia now around 38 years, people could buy a set of Solarwatt panels for their first home and they won’t be out of warranty until after they retire. And maybe they’ll die of old age before any of their panels start to fail.

[Anonymous No.11113561]

>>11113557

Assuming the yuppies notice a degradation that isn't catastrophic.

It's literally what all warranties are based on.

[Anonymous No.11113585]

>>11113549
>>11113549
That's according to the Russian government , its on Wikipedia , should I post the link again?
Like I did earlier in the thread.

How many people do you think died from Chernobyl? Let's not worry about cleanup cost and the permanent evacuation of two cities.

You have manifested a meticulously crafted fantasy world. In which you believe your consciousness is somehow independent of those around you, and you can alter the fabric of reality with sheer will alone.
It's called solipsism, it's a lesser form of sociopathy.
If you would like proof just remember you believe solar is more dangerous that nuclear ;)


You know when your at some highschool party and one of the teenagers decides to say pour petrol on themselves an run around on fire because they are having troubles at home and are sortof in the middle of a mental breakdown?
This argument is like that, except we just saw two people horrible burned and mutilated from the idea.
But this time, the mentally ill teenager wants to pour petrol on everyone and run around on fire.

So yes. I will continue to use what little effort it takes to watch a nuclear shill get tossed around like a ragdoll in this thread, because all the pro alternative sources of energy posters are making me think there is hope for the future.


Also your chatbot auto-generated responses are hilarious,

>The fuck kind of greenpeace crystal healing essential oil anti vax shit are you smoking?

This is gold,
What kind of Chernobyl Fukushima three mile island not economically viable million death toll just dump it in the ocean and it goes away shit are you ingesting ?

[Anonymous No.11113605]

>>11113556
standard liability stuff, hardly discounts any of the value of the data. If you could provide alternative studies of the cost of storage I would be happy to look at them.

[Anonymous No.11113612]

>>11113543
I posted the fucking study on degradation, so how about you fucking read it rather than talk out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.11113614]

>>11113556
>Literally spelling out what their data shouldn't be used for AND that sun worshippers use it for in these threads.
I'm not really sure what you're even complaining about anymore. That the analysis isn't exhaustive enough for your tastes?
https://www.powerengineeringint.com/2019/11/02/renewables-cover-42-of-power-german-consumption/

[Anonymous No.11113623]

[Anonymous No.11113689]

>>11113614
Haha this is from 1993, this is so good,

"Let me just consult my outdated data from almost three decades ago"
*OP browses vintage pro nuclear propaganda*
"Solar is too expensive and the panels don't last very long and what's a Fukushima?"

[Anonymous No.11113706]

>>11113585

>wikipedia

I'll raise you the WHO.

https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/

50 people through 2005.

Your anti-nuclear argument flies in the face of actual data because of your anti-science political axe to grind with effective solutions to climate change.

[Anonymous No.11113711]

>>11113689

And then Germany pulled the trigger in 2012 and proceeded to prove all those aspects correct.

[Anonymous No.11113721]

>>11107590
Won't charge a 60 to 100 kwh EV

[Anonymous No.11113735]

>>11113071
Obviously that's what he's referring to, but again, the source is irrelevant because we're starting with electricity. If you apply this reasoning to solar then you can say it has like a 0.0000000000000001% efficiency because your original energy source is fusion and you're only collecting ~20% of a tiny fraction of the sun's light.

If the electricity in your area comes from fossil fuels then by all means use gas to heat your house, but let's not pretend that all electricity is made from fossil fuels. Plus any electric device serves as a heater so you can use that energy twice. I run the lights for my plants at night to heat their enclosure and prevent the humidity from climbing too high.

[Anonymous No.11113748]

>>11113706
Haha you are right

] A disputed Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[21]

I missed the disputed bit, damn selective dyslexia.

It's the first time a pro nuclear advocate was actually correct in a post :0

As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day ;)

But the reports of deaths range from 50 to almost a million, so let's just safely assume that someone is lieing ;)

And people nuclear shills have an almost perfect track record of drastically altering data.
Statistically that is probably what happened.

[Anonymous No.11113752]

>>11113748

Whatever boomer.

[Anonymous No.11113838]

>>11113752
Someone has to act like the adult.
To keep the children from playing with fire.

[Anonymous No.11113860]

>>11113838

And some of us need to defy the lazy, selfish, and complacent powers that be to bring fire to the uneducated plebs and make some actual progress.

[Anonymous No.11113935]

>>11113860
By fire to the plebs you mean nuclear fire? Because of the statistically inevitable meltdowns. And because the power plants will of course be in the poorer areas.
What an apt statement.

Let's get back to nuclear waste being a hoax, because you can just endlessly process the waste through different reactors like a perpetual motion machine. Until it breaks down into nothing.

And the people that make and own nuclear power plants can't do this though, because of regulations ;);), and these regulations were because of protestors....
Who protested because of a nuclear meltdown and several other accidents, then with the regulations we had another meltdown recently. And all we need to do is build special reactors that can't melt down, new breeder reactors for the waste processing and reuse, and we do this all over planet earth, like thousands of reactors, and then we get to pay more for power than currently with solar.
That's your argument and you get irritated when we disagree?

[Anonymous No.11113945]

>It's another nuclear shill thread
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
We all live on the same planet.
You can't just buy your way out when you destroy the world with radiation.

Educate yourselves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQtbbBWeLCM

[Anonymous No.11114273]

>>11113935

So In the face of all studies and real world data, you oppose nuclear?

How do you feel about vaccines?

[Anonymous No.11114276]

>>11109439
stems from retarded hasty decision to shutter nuclear plants

[Anonymous No.11114278]

>>11113945

>over the course of 20 years, the world's worst nuclear accident has killed only half the number people wind does in a single year.

[Anonymous No.11114279]

>>11112519
The solar array raises the value of the home too. And some people like the idea of being self-reliant.

[Anonymous No.11114287]

>>11113935

>pay more than using solar

Yet everywhere green energy is pushed over nuclear, prices of electricity go up?

Your beef isn't with people on the internet. It's with reality.

[Anonymous No.11114313]

>>11107590
>Tesla
Elon Musk deserves to be executed. He is probably the second largest welfare queen in the US, Jeff Bezos is first and also deserves to be executed
>>11109219
Solar panels are cheap mostly because of subsidies

[Anonymous No.11114332]

>>11113945
>Educate yourselves with this youtube video

you poor soul