Are wind and solar just memes?

[Anonymous No.12321957]

>Be western politician
>Initiate "energy transition" to save the planet from CO2
>Close down nuclear power plants that produce none
>Keep Coal and Gas power plants open to ensure the transition
>Deploy wind and solar
>Built even more Coal and Gas power plants to ensure grid stability for cloudy windless days
>OMG our emissions are up, time to tax and gaslight our middle class.
>Tell them to eat bugs
>Tell them to only have one child to save the planet
>Meanwhile import millions of low IQ third world financial leeches because of "irredeemable low fertility"
>Go into debt to finance the early deficit
>Enslave your country to the banks
>Enjoy 3 000k yearly do-nothing job at bank/ think tank/ energy company.
>Profit

[Anonymous No.12321960]

>>12321957

[Anonymous No.12322353]

>>12321957
Yes solar and wind are just memes. Nuclear is the only real low-CO2 energy solution. Hydro is the real deal too, but not as adaptable, it needs the right geography and a political willingness to flood things and disrupt river systems.

[Anonymous No.12322355]

>>12321957
You have this thread up multiple times already.

[Anonymous No.12322817]

>>12321957
They're good as supplementary energy sources, and solar is great for microgeneration. Certainly not as powerful as nuclear and hydro, but still useful.

[Anonymous No.12322825]

>>12321957
Solar and wind only work if you are the only consumer of it. The output will never be able to match the demand of large cities. If you were off the grid, I could see Solar and Wind being viable.

[Anonymous No.12322853]

The Earth receives thousands of times more energy from the sun than we use in all forms. It's just a matter of storing that energy.

[Anonymous No.12322957]

>>12322853
>It's just a matter of storing that energy.
This is the largest issue with renewable energy. It's all so variant, for solar day/night, wind/no wind, you have to be able to store it when there is energy in order to use it when there isn't

[Anonymous No.12322974]

>>12321957
Why would you actually adapt to nuclear when you can just exploit normies for the rest of your life?

[Anonymous No.12323029]

>>12322957
Thermoradiative panels ("anti-solar" in the news) seem pretty promising. They can operate 24/7 if designed properly and currently produce around 50 watts per square meter. Assuming that output stays constant they produce the same amount of energy over 24 hours as conventional PV collects over 6 solar hours. In case you're unfamiliar with the terminology "solar hours" are regularized units of solar irradiance corresponding to 1000 watts per sqare meter of sunlight for 1 hour. Most places get less than 6 solar hours each day.

[Anonymous No.12323035]

>>12322853
For me, it's prehistoric plants.

[Anonymous No.12323060]

>>12323035
this pmt

[Anonymous No.12323065]

>>12323035
You and like 90% of the energy budget. Kind of silly to dig up old sunlight and burn it.

[Anonymous No.12323068]

>>12321957
Nobody told you to eat bugs.
Take your meds, schizo.

[Anonymous No.12323070]

>>12322853
Or we build a global power grid, or use tesla designs to build a wireless power grid.

[Anonymous No.12323071]

>>12321957
sorry to break it to you bro, but all the climate hysteria is fake. that kind of chicken little bullshit has been going on since before the dawn of recorded history

[Anonymous No.12323112]

>>12323070
I like the idea of transcontinental HVDC, but the cost would probably be staggering and the politics would probably kill the project. Wireless transmission isn't really feasible at that scale right now because magnetic coupling has low transmission efficiencies, somewhere around 80% over a meter compared to around 99% over 100 miles with regular AC power lines.

[Anonymous No.12323123]

>>12323070
>>12323112
I just realized you meant the inventer instead of the company. Tesla's designs create a lot of radio noise, so I don't think we would be able to use them without disrupting communication.

[Anonymous No.12323125]

>>12321957
If you run for king in the next election I'll vote for you.

[Anonymous No.12323184]

>>12323112
Tesla was going to use the earth as a transmission line. Its not magnetic coupling like you think.

[Anonymous No.12323187]

>>12323184
The company Tesla uses magnetic coupling

[Anonymous No.12323232]

>>12322355
The kippah tippers have when people talk about renewable energy that is competitive with their products.

[Anonymous No.12323234]

>>12321957
Hydro and nuclear (fission for now, fusion if we achieve it) are the only viable energy sources.

[Anonymous No.12323243]

>>12322817
But that's wrong all electricity is made on demand, there's no storage for the power generated by anything commercial, no giant batteries. If you have to produce energy on demand and can't be 100% certain about the amount of wind/solar generated you have to supplement it by making sure you burn enough fossil fuels to cover the demand otherwise you'll outages and blackouts.

The only viable alternative is nuclear, or theoretically speaking hydroelectric because you know the river will always flow and can gauge how much it generates easily, but the actual logistic of setting up large scale hydroelectric is a nightmare.

[Anonymous No.12323427]

>>12323243
>nuclear
>viable alternative
Pick one. Nuclear is so expensive that it's pretty much cheaper to just use batteries.

[Anonymous No.12324103]

>>12323029
why do all these memeshit when you can just use nuclear

[Anonymous No.12324110]

>>12323427
>subsidise solar
>tax nuclear
omg it's so expensive

[Anonymous No.12324117]

>>12321957
solar has practicality, wind is basically bird genocide.

[Anonymous No.12324360]

>>12324103
Because it's so much cheaper

>>12324110
Nuclear is subsidized. It's still too expensive to attract investors.

[Anonymous No.12324373]

>>12323123
Lmao so you're saying tesla also came up with ways to fuck with 5g 6g 4973g?

[Anonymous No.12324383]

There is no solution to climate change under capitalism

[Anonymous No.12324387]

>>12324373
Pretty much, but if you're one of the idiots who think it gives you cancer then you probably wouldn't like being bathed in several times that amount of electromagnetic radiation.

[Anonymous No.12324389]

>>12324387
Idk enough about that stuff but fucking up coms can have it's uses

[Anonymous No.12324392]

>>12324389
There's easier ways to do that then using the noise from wireless power transmission

[Anonymous No.12324522]

>>12324360
small module reactors, dingus

[Anonymous No.12324567]

>>12324383
Indeed we need fascism to sterilize Subsaharan Africa.

[Anonymous No.12324790]

>>12324567
This is the biggest elephant in the room in human history.

[Anonymous No.12324843]

>>12321957
Yes. Literally the only thing that's kept them competitive the last twenty years is the hundreds of billions in subsidies going out to them. For the same cost we could have built dozens, maybe hundreds of modern nuclear plants.

[Anonymous No.12324945]

>>12321957
You are rambling a fuckton op

[Anonymous No.12324952]

>>12324843
>Literally the only thing that's kept them competitive the last twenty years is the hundreds of billions in subsidies going out to them.
Brah every energy is like that. The thing is those two got weaned off it and are doing well. Nuclear on the other hand needs it due to how expensive financing and building plants are.

[Anonymous No.12325275]

>>12324522
Good luck with that, bro

[Anonymous No.12325279]

>>12324790
What is? I dont see anything. Okay, lets keep moving along.

[Anonymous No.12325281]

>>12324945
Had sex with his mother. The post.

[Anonymous No.12325285]

>>12321957
>Be western politician
>Initiate "energy transition" to save economic growth from dwindling fossil fuel resources
>Desperately grasp at any alternative source including nuclear
>Initiate "economic growth" by importing millions of third world migrants
>Know you're full of shit but it doesn't matter because 95% of people can't figure out your game and the ones who can have no power to stop you
>Enjoy 3 000k yearly do-nothing job at bank/ think tank/ energy company.
>Enjoy a decadent lifestyle like every other psychopath

[Anonymous No.12327355]

>>12324945
Yes.

[Anonymous No.12327483]

>>12321957
Don't you retards ever learn anything new? This question comes up every week!

[Anonymous No.12327614]

>>12321957
>>12322853
You could use CSP in any area with more than 10 days of sunshine to power thermal driven processes such as hydrothermal liquefaction and biodigestion of organic waste into hydrocarbons and biogas for power storage
If you had extra sun, you could add a big thermos bottle to store excess heat for a couple days

[Anonymous No.12327922]

>>12327614
If you're using CSP then you already have built in storage in the form of molten salt or by using fluidized beds. Synthesizing hydrocarbons isn't very efficient and burning them limits you to a fraction of the energy they store so there's not really any reason to do that and lose a bunch of energy. If the point is to make fuel for vehicles then it would be more efficient to use electric vehicles and power them directly from the grid.

[Anonymous No.12327938]

>>12327483
>This question
Most of OPs post was just describing reality in an accurate way.

[Anonymous No.12327978]

>>12321957
>>Built even more Coal and Gas power plants to ensure grid stability for cloudy windless days
This is where you're wrong. You NEVER build coal as peaker plants, it takes way too long time to spin up a coal plant and they're not economical. What's happening right now is that wind/solar gets build and so does gas plants, coal is being phased out everywhere in the western world, and this is a net benefit from an emission point of view.
It remains to be see how we will transition to 100% green power, but there's plenty of possibilities.

[Anonymous No.12327988]

Anyhting alternatice energy source that isn't nuclear or hydro is a meme by default, and should only be used in a supplemental role.

[Anonymous No.12328009]

>>12327988
>nuclear
lmao global warming will be solved before any new nuclear reactor is build from scratch anywhere in the west

[Anonymous No.12328013]

>>12327978
>but there's plenty of possibilities.
Yeah. Like turning the amazon rainforest into a biomass plantation for example.

Solar and wind is 2% of US electricity, the by far dominant supplier of US renewables is biomass and it's also the one set for expanding the most.

This is what happens when we let retards like you make rules. You'd rather have a corporation burn the last redwood tree as virtue signaling biomass than just using what works and running gas, nuke and coal.

[Anonymous No.12328025]

>>12328009
Of course, because in addition to being expensive all the hippies bitched about it so now it's reputation is ruined.

[Anonymous No.12328049]

>>12328013
>Solar and wind is 2% of US electricity, the by far dominant supplier of US renewables is biomass and it's also the one set for expanding the most.
Why do you lie? Or are you just too dumb to know the difference between energy and electricity?
Also the US has done nothing to build renewable, Europe is far, far ahead.

[Anonymous No.12329243]

>>12328009
>>12327988
>>12328025

How do we screw the hippies out of the conversation to bring back nuclear?

[Anonymous No.12329321]

>>12329243

micro modular reactors on mars.

Just explain that it can't melt down, but the trade off is that instead of 1000 mega watts you only get 5.
https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/new-plants/evinci-micro-reactor

Transportable energy generator

Fully factory built, fueled and assembled

Delivers combined heat and power – 1 MWe to 5 MWe

40-year design life with 3+ year refueling interval

Target less than 30 days onsite installation

Autonomous operation

Power demand load following capability

High reliability and minimal moving parts

Near zero Emergency Planning Zone with small site footprint

Green field decommissioning and remediation

[Anonymous No.12329700]

>>12322853
"Just''.

[Anonymous No.12329713]

>>12327922
As if the grid doesn't lose energy.

[Anonymous No.12329716]

>>12327978
Biofuel replaced a tiny fraction of fossil fuel but doubled food prices.

[Anonymous No.12329845]

>>12329243
Explaining them that the geological stability of deep clay soil (-500m) is 200 000 000years.

[Anonymous No.12329860]

>>12329243

[Anonymous No.12329907]

>>12329243
Also

[Anonymous No.12330604]

>>12329713
1% per 100 miles is not as significant of a loss as 2/3 of your fuel just for playing. Whoever told you that transmission losses are significant either lied to you or is an idiot.

[Anonymous No.12330664]

Why isn't geothermal power discussed as frequently as wind and solar are. The core is ridiculously hot, and by the time it cools we'll have much bigger problems than energy concerns.

It's not dependent on weather conditions like wind, solar or hydroelectric, it taps into what amounts to an unlimited source of energy for humanity, so what gives?

[Anonymous No.12330675]

>>12330664
Most of that heat is radiogenic rather than primordial, so geothermal is really just a different kind of nuclear

[Anonymous No.12330686]

>>12330675
Yeah, but it has none of the issues that hippies bitch about with regular nuclear plants, no capacity for meltdown and the nuclear waste is is stored "safely".

[Anonymous No.12330693]

>>12330686
I'm a hippie and my main complaint with nuclear is the price. Same with geothermal. Too expensive and restrictive to be an effectively be used as our main power source.

[Anonymous No.12330697]

>>12330693
>to be an effectively
Lol ignore the "be an". I reworked that sentence and didn't proofread.

[Anonymous No.12330699]

it's probably a good idea to diversify energy sources, as long as it makes sense. solar where it's sunny, wind where it's windy, hydro where there are rivers. solar and wind projects also tend to force places to upgrade aging transmission lines and stations

[Anonymous No.12330700]

>>12329860
also brown coal comes from the ground and is always contains trace amounts of uranium and other isotopes, a coal plant releases more radioactive material through its smoke stack than a nuclear power plant.

[Anonymous No.12330712]

>>12321957
>wind and solar don't replace fossil fuels, you need more fossil fuels to use them
Oh no, it's retarded.

What is your objective here? If you're pro- nuclear just say it. If you're pro-fossil fuels just fuck off instead of pretending to be against them.

[Anonymous No.12332520]

>>12324567
its no longer just africa, they spread like mad the more the breed. subsaharans are subsaharanizing every continent with human civilization on it, only asia seems to know how to keep africans under control
https://guardian.ng/news/genetic-makeup-of-12-year-old-angolan-boy-in-dispute/

[Anonymous No.12333240]

>>12332520
They are extreme R-strategists, hence will fuck with anything, that's why low facial feminisation is observed among females.

[Anonymous No.12333274]

>>12323071
You're on a science board denying the greenhouse effect. Get the fuck out, retard.

[Anonymous No.12333276]

>>12324117
Solar reflectors kill birds too

[Anonymous No.12333416]

>>12333276
fuck birds

[Anonymous No.12333448]

>>12321957
Absolutely

Looked at the data for today and Renewables are absolute memes.

Solar supposedly 14% of the grid
>REALITY 6.5%
Wind supposedly 24% of the grid
>REALITY 4.6%

MEANWHILE NUCLEAR
>REAL 70%

[Anonymous No.12333453]

>>12333448
forgot pic

[Anonymous No.12333456]

>>12321957
not at all. the real bottleneck is energy storage

[Anonymous No.12333470]

>>12333456
>energy storage
Which doesn't really exist, hence the need for fossil backups.

[Anonymous No.12333474]

>>12333470
not yet. i believe in the innovation of human beings to create something great, but then again i am an optimist

[Anonymous No.12333488]

>>12333474
No doubt about that, but until then, the number of reactors must be multiplied by at least 6 to carry the grid (according to the IPCC recommendations).

[Anonymous No.12333493]

>>12333488
don't know if you're op but i have to ask, why worry?

[Anonymous No.12333516]

>>12333493
By exclusively targetting nuclear energy, and forcing leaders to close down nuclear power plants ecologists are the useful idiots that will precipitate the downfall of western industrial edge.

[Anonymous No.12333647]

>>12333516
ah, i agree that NIMBY is a pretty silly mindset to have, but i think that people will come around eventually

[Anonymous No.12333711]

>>12321957
The problem with those conspiracy is that it imply someone have long (actually long) plan where most of the other industry sit and die until it make it all up decade later, unaware of what could go wrong for them in the mean time.

Also you fail at
>>Built even more Coal and Gas power plants to ensure grid stability for cloudy windless days
You would not get this to pass, not even stealthily.
It rank as low as those evil genius plan to secretly replace the Status of Liberty with a mind control tower
The rest don't bother hiding the racist intent and is another reason /pol/tard shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Plus we all know nuclear power is the future.

>>12328009
Actually the obsolete west will be in a prime position to upgrade from utter shit coal to the lastest generation nuclear when it become more attractive. Without having to deal with 1st generation dismantling.
Those making money out of coal will be selling their action and buying into nuclear without trouble.
They are already doing that by massively investing in showy industries like TESLA, so much it can't fail anymore even if Chinese made better.

>>12333470>>12333456
We want the tech, we know how ridiculously lucrative it would be.
Therefore it's only a matter of time before someone discovers a cheap battery with higher energy density than petrol.
We will still be fucking the planet but in a different way.

[Anonymous No.12333846]

>>12333711
>racist intent

Keeping Europe majority white isn't Racism it's just pragmaticism.

[Anonymous No.12333856]

>>12333453
france is based and the kang of nuclear energy

[Anonymous No.12333870]

>>12333711
>The problem with those conspiracy is that it imply someone have long (actually long) plan where most of the other industry sit and die until it make it all up decade later, unaware of what could go wrong for them in the mean time.
>Also you fail at
>>>Built even more Coal and Gas power plants to ensure grid stability for cloudy windless days
>You would not get this to pass, not even stealthily.
>It rank as low as those evil genius plan to secretly replace the Status of Liberty with a mind control tower
>The rest don't bother hiding the racist intent and is another reason /pol/tard shouldn't be allowed to breed.
>Plus we all know nuclear power is the future.


It doesn't make sense in my strawman version of Reality, therefore it doesn't work in Reality.

>It shouldn't surprise anyone that you still believe that race realism is unfounded.

[Anonymous No.12333879]

>>12333711
>racist intent
it's not racist, it's humanist
you can't trust n*ggers and moslems to safely run nuclear power plants

[Anonymous No.12333891]

>>12333856
>>12333711

Not for long. Macron is slowly but surely killing the industry and following down Markel's footsteps.

>He nominated a Jurist as head of the CEA (Center for Atomic Research) whereas up until now you had to be an engineer from a top school to get the job.

>He Closed Fessenheim Nuclear power plant when it was perfectly safe to run and had been renovated a few years before.

>He announced that 14 900Mw reactors will be closed before 2035.

[Anonymous No.12333897]

>>12333711
Reality is racist.

[Anonymous No.12333900]

>>12333897

[Anonymous No.12333916]

>>12333891
He only promised to close the oldest reactor because Fukushima happened and actually want a shift toward 50% nuclear 50% renewable.
Which is just good practice to avoid a catastrophic failure while encouraging other technologies depending on context. We'll still want battery, solar panel for space and you can't build micro nuclear reactor everywhere.

He's french pro-nuclear as long as it doesn't trigger the retarded anti-nuclear ecologist who don't know nuclear is cleaner. Splitting up is the best you can do in France to please eco crowd

[Anonymous No.12333923]

>>12333897
>t. "Social science is co-opted by the left, I refuse to hear anything about socioeconomic factors"

[Anonymous No.12333933]

>>12333923
No one cares about theses lame excuses. Get the leeches out!!!

[Anonymous No.12333940]

>>12329907
>death rate of nuclear radiation is already finished
>amount of nuclear waste doesnt pile up
>nuclear waste doesnt kill people in 100.000 years
anon I ...

[Anonymous No.12333954]

>>12333916
>Splitting up is the best you can do in France to please eco crowd

It's never enough for these morons, one green member on nancy's city council said that "poisoning rats is unethical and a blatant act of specism".

Idealists like them are the reason why France is turning into Pakistan.

[Anonymous No.12333960]

>>12333940
>>death rate of nuclear radiation is already finished
>>amount of nuclear waste doesnt pile up
>>nuclear waste doesnt kill people in 100.000 years

75IQ

[Anonymous No.12333985]

>>12333940
The answer of those are:
>Yes
>Still better than alternative
>Number is too low to be worth mentioning and will stay that way
Regardless of all the problem with nuclear energy, it remain the best choice. Only improvement you can do is rush nuclear fusion.

[Anonymous No.12333990]

>>12333960
France has only produced 10 tons of Highly Radioactive Long Term Waste in all its history.

[Anonymous No.12334084]

>>12333960
>>12333985
how about if we judge something like this by say 10% of the time the fuck still radiates and not now?

besides that I did not comment at all on what I think would be better. I just stated that this here
>>12329907
definitely is bullshit.

an embarrassing misrepresentation, which people use as a basis for a long-term decision making that have an iq of
>>12333960
or even less.

[Anonymous No.12334096]

>>12325275
>spend absolutely no money on nuclear research
>proceed to complain that nuclear power is expensive
Hurr

[Anonymous No.12334916]

>>12334096
Whine about it to someone who cares. Nuclear has been around much longer than solar and has received more in subsidies and R&D over that time. The fact that it's still too expensive for investors demonstrates that it's only suitable for niche applications like powering satellites, rovers, and other space-faring vehicles.

[Anonymous No.12334933]

>>12321957
>Are wind and solar just memes?
Yes. Nuclear is and always has been the answer, but midwit normies are too scared of muh radiation and muh bombs.

[Anonymous No.12334949]

>>12321957
Where are you reading that they are shutting down nuclear?

[Anonymous No.12335001]

>>12334916
Feels good being an Ohio chad getting all my power from pic related. Get fucked, solarfags, we don't need your shitty sun.

[Anonymous No.12335089]

>>12335001
>we don't need your shitty sun.
How about a more high-tech one kept in a magnetic field?

[Anonymous No.12335237]

>>12323070
>more wireless shit
He doesn't know...

[Anonymous No.12335268]

>>12335089
Fusion is always 40years away.

[Anonymous No.12335320]

>>12335089
I'm listening...

[Anonymous No.12335377]

>>12321957
Solar and wind aren't popular because of "green energy". They are popular because they are so cheap. The only reason that is the case are the subsidies at the moment, but they are still getting cheaper. They are absolutely worth it in places with a climate that can support them.

[Anonymous No.12336745]

>>12335268
No no, it's 20years ahead, keep up with the meme.

[Anonymous No.12336860]

>>12321957
They aren't going to be a major source of relibale energy...yet.

They are still a scientific curiousity. Solar dyes, controling the absorption spectra of molecules etc.