Renewable Energy

[Anonymous No.12779230]

Can somebody tell me more about renewable energy? Can half the world really shift to using 100% renewable energy by 2050? Is renewable energy actually good? Is it feasible in the long run?

[Anonymous No.12779296]

No, the world can not run on renewables.

t. engineer for Georgia Power

[Anonymous No.12779300]

>>12779296
>georgia power
honestly after vogtle 3 and 4 I'm not sure I would admit to working there.

[Anonymous No.12779302]

>>12779296
what about those big metal tubes you reflect the sun on and they get hot and make an updraft
that looks pretty neat and easy to make
we could probably all make our own out of scrap metal

[Anonymous No.12779319]

>>12779300
That's contract work, and mainly politics trying to sabotage it like VCS.

[Anonymous No.12779320]

>>12779230
You've got to remember that renewable energy is a political phrase rather than a realistic end goal.

There's a lot of watermelon taxes like carbon taxation (green on the outside but red, socialist, on the inside).

You can build as many wind farms as you like, as many solar farms. The energy might be renewable but the emissions from the development, build and running costs sure aren't.

We can larp renewable as much as we like but it's not going to help a god damn thing.

I'm no eco-faggit. It's just disgusting that in Australia were actively trashing things like the great barrier reef and nobody seems to care. They implement plastic bag bans and 'renewable' energy 'offsets' but it's all absolute bullshit.

I fucking hate eco-karens and their poorly thought through plans and agenda

Execute the journalists, media and corporate lobby groups

[Anonymous No.12779331]

>>12779320
the great barrier reef is fucked no matter what due to bleaching from warming oceans, it's about 40 years too late to do anything about that

[Anonymous No.12779353]

Wind farms will eventually be banned as solar takes over. Hopefully, 4th gen nuclear will be ready by then as well. Wind generators are nonviable, because they fall apart before they even reach a third of their designed life. They then end up in massive landfills because they can't be recycled.

[Anonymous No.12779358]

>>12779230
it's a trick to get the first world to kill itself by limiting its own power production, and simultaneously funding china by buying solar panel garbage while china burns all the "fossil" fuels they want.
https://www.brighteon.com/8c770254-e4d5-4d0c-a7af-44278da17fa0

[Anonymous No.12779370]

>>12779353
nah wind isn't going anywhere, it's just too cheap and does a really good job of filling in the gaps in solar's production.Turbines are already completely recyclable, it's just cheaper to throw them away (like almost all recycling.) which is an issue that is easily solved through proper regulation.

[Anonymous No.12779385]

>>12779370
No one uses wind to fill in the gaps of solar. That doesn't even make sense.

[Anonymous No.12779418]

>>12779385
Solar produces zero energy at night when onshore turbines produce the most power, they also produce more power during weather that's typically bad for solar (storms blizzards etc) If you actually care there's plenty of research showing how they're pretty strongly complementary.

[Anonymous No.12779422]

>>12779320
Between 2018 and 2020, UK wind generation reached new heights with reports of the country’s wind farms supplying more electricity than eight of its nuclear power stations combined. At one point, wind energy was providing as much as 50% of the UK’s electricity.

[Anonymous No.12779462]

>>12779418
I'm literally a grid engineer at a power company, why would I need to read research papers on what I do for a living? At night the power usage drops below baseload, and wind is offloaded, in fact we have only used 2% of installed capacity in 2020. All of that was used to throttle down fast thermal plants i.e natural gas. Nuclear especially, and most coal plants can't fast throttle. During the daily peak, solar does all the heavy lifting.

[Anonymous No.12779471]

>>12779462
So what do you think will happen when all those coal plants close?

[Anonymous No.12779478]

>>12779230
Of course it can, at least the 100% part; by 2050? Maybe not. Ocean waves have more than enough energy, and it's much cleaner than solar panels. The main thing holding back are energy companies.

[Anonymous No.12779485]

>>12779353
that picture is the dumbest thing ever. why would you bury them, even if you were done with them? All that fiberglass or prefab material, or whatever it is, you would think you would just stack them all up somewhere and sell them out for material when someone came up with a use for them. There's got to be so many things you make from them.
Buckets, canoes, boat paddles, mailboxes, idk, something, pen cases, toothpicks.

[Anonymous No.12779521]

It could if we develop more effiecient energy storages which will take some years

[Anonymous No.12779524]

>>12779353
burry rotor baldes.. is this usa? wonder how old this pic is, because you can shredder and reuse the material

[Anonymous No.12779539]

>>12779524
of course this USA, nobody else would do bury something you can reuse

[Anonymous No.12779545]

>>12779230
https://discord.gg/eJv6S9QJ9a

[Anonymous No.12779583]

>>12779422
Cool. And when there is no wind the UK will have blackouts. Except they are not stupid so they will indeed keep the pilotable power. So they will produce more co2 than France using nuclear, pollute more in general because they have a double size electricity generation system for the same service, and they will pay more.

[Anonymous No.12779590]

>>12779296
Admitting right out the gate that you're a drone working for an industry that doesn't actually have renewables in mind. Thank you for that, I will now disregard your opinion.

[Anonymous No.12779595]

>>12779583
> double size electricity generation system for the same service
Literally what France has lol

[Anonymous No.12779665]

>>12779230
>Can half the world really shift to using 100% renewable energy by 2050

Yes, the technology is already there

>Is renewable energy actually good?

In a way, yes. since people often don't take into account that combustion of fossil fuels kills globally a shitton of people and causes long term respiratory illness for large swaths of populations.
But if we don't electrify logistics and private transportation we won't go anywhere

>Is it feasible in the long run?

Eh, it depends, for now there's still the issue of storage and grids.
Is it feasible for the developed nations?
Sure.
For other less developed ones?
Not at the moment and if nobody intervenes it won't be for decades.

[Anonymous No.12779685]

>>12779590
I take it you have no idea how electricity works, or how it gets to your mom's basement.

[Anonymous No.12779700]

>>12779590
Yeah you sure do have more knowledge about electricity then an engineer

[Anonymous No.12779720]

>>12779230
>Can half the world really shift to using 100% renewable energy by 2050? Is renewable energy actually good? Is it feasible in the long run?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.12779746]

Here's an oversimplification of the grid, but it should be instantly clear to you why renewables don't work.

[Anonymous No.12779749]

>>12779746
I am completely clueless about Electric grids. Mind if you explain this?

[Anonymous No.12779753]

EE here
Renewable energy is actually a huge problem in circuits because we rely on fossil fuel electrons to carry microparticles of oil to "lubricate" the circuit traces
If you run a circuit on purely renewable energy for prolonged periods of time, the resistance will change and values will be off. For most systems this means it has to be disposed of, leaving a larger climate footprint than you'd expect and essentially nullifying the effect of renewable energy

[Anonymous No.12779759]

>>12779753
I am into physics. Can you give a bigger run down on what you are talking about?
I have never heard of the term microparticles in energy generation - it's just electrons moving either through AC or DC current.

Also, does your problem works with Nuclear?

[Anonymous No.12779764]

>>12779749
Just imagine watt, as kg or meter or what ever you are more izzy with, its a unit of power, if sth. produce 1 watt and the other thing 700 watt the other thing is 700 times stronger.

[Anonymous No.12779766]

>>12779759
It has to be fossil fuel because there's no oil in nuclear energy either
It's called resistance drift

[Anonymous No.12779768]

>>12779753
>>12779759
>>12779766
for any scientifically illiterate tourists here, this is pseudoscience made to sound like real physics, just ignore it.

[Anonymous No.12779773]

>>12779764
OK, but how does that make renewable bad?
Note: I know that it is actually bad. I want to know how your picture implies that it is hopeless

[Anonymous No.12779775]

>>12779768
I am scientifically literate.
But OK, that got me.

[Anonymous No.12779777]

>>12779768
buzzkill :(

[Anonymous No.12779778]

>>12779759
I think he is worried that lubricating mechanical parts use up to much fossil flue.

[Anonymous No.12779784]

>>12779753
Train engineer here, we have that same problem, which eventually will cause derailment.

[Anonymous No.12779788]

>>12779773
No its not bad specially not water. Energy is never bad. But you know what bad? Build 300 super huge wind mills like Germany and then don't connect theme to the grid and just let them rot.

[Anonymous No.12779793]

>>12779583
>UK will have blackouts
write us back when you see them.
meanwhile texas

[Anonymous No.12779797]

>>12779788
Ah, you mean the ol argument about being inefficient, weak, and unstable.

Well, OK
But we can make your argument more powerful by listing these factors:
>Solar produces DC energy (all others produces AC) which makes it useless/dangerous for common appliances. Converting it to AC causes it to lose 30% of its energy
>solar and wind farms are located far away. The transmission of energy causes huge losses on energy due to resistance
>instability means that if it produces too much, powergrids can explode
And then the issue of energy storage.

[Anonymous No.12779803]

>>12779797
No they just didn't hang it to the grid cause after the invested like (the numbers are not real, just to give an example) 60 billions, they didn't want to invest 3 more to strengthen the grid to transport that power save.

[Anonymous No.12779810]

>>12779797
Also you can simply build a massive concrete gyroscope to store energy. Concrete is cheap.

[Anonymous No.12779822]

>>12779797
Also DC is perfectly fine because at very high voltage it loose lesser energy as ac.

[Anonymous No.12779829]

>>12779810
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itbwXMMkBQw
These energy vaults are cool, but when you realize it takes over 10,000 of these to replace 1 nuclear reactor...

[Anonymous No.12779830]

>>12779822
It's useless as almost all appliances are AC. Solar Panels come with an inverter to convert it to AC for any homes.
But because they are jews, they never mention that the power output is less than advertised due to the convertion

[Anonymous No.12779836]

You have two choices
1. fossil fuels
2. nuclear

pick one

[Anonymous No.12779838]

>>12779836
Cold fusion.

[Anonymous No.12779856]

>>12779829
This is not the same as a gyroscope. Old cares used the access energy of gyroscopes during breaking, to start more izzy. Some of the gyroscopic busses back then had a reach of 30 min. (just with the scope)
I am not talking about regions with mountains cause there you can izzy use systems as usual.

[Anonymous No.12779893]

Aus bros or anyone with thoughts to add, I need some copium. What are some plausible ways a power generating nuclear plant could be created in australia? There are two acts banning the use of nuclear power in aus, is it possible that land could become independent/considered outside of australia for the purpose of circumventing this? Reformation of the laws to allow nuclear power plants seems unlikely rn and I can imagine the government having energy lobbyists objecting to removal of the ban. I'm trying to figure out what the hypothetical fastest way for development of a nuclear power plant to take place in australia would be

[Anonymous No.12782754]

>>12779893
nuclear is tough because you can't really rely on the private sector because literally every aspect fucking sucks for the business. So your options are either a carbon tax that more than doubles costs for fossil fuels, or complete socialization of the energy sector by a nuclear friendly government. The first one is risky because it'll probably benefit renewables more, and good PR, comparatively low capital costs and much much faster construction speeds almost guarantee nuclear will be left in the dust. The second option is kind of just a pipe dream.

[Anonymous No.12783440]

>>12779230
>burn carcinogenic garbage for electricity
>burn your own forests for electricity
>Call yourself an environmentalist for boosting your waste and biomass "renewables"
How is this shit fucking allowed?

[Anonymous No.12784098]

>>12779665
Based. People don't consider the long term health effects of fossil fuel combustion. Focus should be shifted towards the health effects as well, but politicians and normies are too fucking retarded to consider that