/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14509132]

Alright, I get it. You convinced me. Solar power is a stupid meme. It isn't good for the environment, you have to replace them, nobody knows what to do with the waste, and they can't even replace gas plants for our needs. Get it over with - crush all my dreams - What is the problem with wind power? Are you just schizos who hate progress or do you also happen to have similar proof to eliminate wind power as a viable alternative? Sci doesn't seriously consider our only hope to be nuclear and far-off impossible bullshit like cold fusion, does it?

[Anonymous No.14509180]

>>14509132
It's all about costs. People like nuclear because it is cost-efficient, but when more countries start adopting it the price of uranium will rise. When the price rises high enough, alternative sources will be more cost-efficient, and their adoption will rise, causing the cost of their inputs to rise and so on. It's just a matter of in which order we adopt each source, eventually we will use all of them.

[Anonymous No.14509197]

>>14509132
>What is the problem with wind power?
You can only build them in certain regions where the wind blows.
They kill birds.
If it gets too cold, they can freeze up and stop turning.
They produce noise and aren't aesthetic.
If the wind stops blowing, your fucked.

[Anonymous No.14509198]

>>14509132
It isn't good for the environment, you have to replace them, nobody knows what to do with the waste, and they can't even replace gas plants for our needs.

[Anonymous No.14509217]

>>14509132
We should be. Utilizing all methods desu. Wind power works great in the Midwest where it's windy, solar is great for sun soaked land, and nuclear is still cheap even though there is no way to dispose of the nuclear waste perminantly. Geothermal and kinetic (ocean waves) can also produce.

[Anonymous No.14509229]

>>14509132
>why use a nuclear powered sub when we could use a sail boat

[Anonymous No.14509240]

>>14509198
Proof?
>>14509217
well thats very kawaii of you environmental-san, ayaya, and so on. I do believe the nuclear waste problem was thoroughly solved a long time ago, but big coal didn't want to lose profits. I think nuclear is the way forward, but it has issues for short-term requirements best filled with natural gas+cap banks.
Solar and wind are stupid because they're unreliable and cannot cover their own economic and environmental cost without assistance: they're worthless and literally need impossible future magic technology, free batteries, no emissions, grow on trees for it to work.
>>14509229
So, nuclear only? Are you aware of the problems of only having one source in the energy mix? How will you deal with low load scenarios? How will you deal with sudden changes in load? How will you deal with sudden changes in capacity?

[Anonymous No.14509246]

>>14509240
>So, nuclear only?
No oil and gas should be the number one energy source. Its cheap and abundant. All I'm saying is if you made an energy source tier list its probably F tier.

[Anonymous No.14509260]

>>14509246
And we should not keep waiting for dinosaurs to be distilled into useful oil.
A faster conversion of living organisms into efficient fuels needs developed.
The worshippers of oil and gas must show the way and demand to be converted first.

[Anonymous No.14509263]

>>14509132
what's the problem with solar power?

[Anonymous No.14509264]

>>14509260
>he doesn't believe in abiotic theory
hahahaha

[Anonymous No.14509292]

>>14509132
It seems the main problem with energy tech is not how efficient it is, its the waste. Seems like we are upon an age where waste studies should be introduced as to make things much more efficient.

[Anonymous No.14509296]

>>14509263
I only recently learned that it sucks and will never work. Apologies if I miss most things, and apologies for not having the numbers. You'll have to search archives for the thread.
Lithium: There isn't enough lithium on the planet to make enough batteries to meet our needs, so solar is a pipe dream. All the people who push solar happen to have a lot of money, connections, and all these weird shell companies.
Storage: Alternative forms of energy storage, such as moving water uphill, are not as efficient as batteries. Energy should not be stored long-term: 99% of it is instant use, and 1% of it is cap banks to solve undervoltage and transient issues.
Replacement: Solar panels need to be replaced often. They don't even last 20 years. Digging up all the minerals for them is very taxing on the environment, releasing all the things solar is supposed to avoid. it's not a renewable process, either, once we use those minerals the solar panels are difficult to recycle (which is why nobody recycles them) and the yield is poor.
So solar contibutes to and does not help with all of the problems it was supposed to solve.
but I don't want to make another thread on solar. This is the wind thread. After sci thoroughly destroys me, I will have to join either the nuclear cult or the cold fusion cult. I don't really like my options here. Perhaps our civilization is just fucked and I should fuck it more by sleeping around.

[Anonymous No.14509300]

>>14509132
Solar power is good though. why are retards so batshit obsessed over antagonizing certain sources of power generation like they are lobbyists lmao.

>>14509197
>They kill birds.
Not exactly. The studies on that haven't really been conclusive on it

[Anonymous No.14509304]

>>14509296
>Digging up all the minerals for them is very taxing on the environment
Only because we get the materials for them in from very corrupt states where companies dodge environmental measures. EVERY single form of resource extraction is "very taxing"

[Anonymous No.14509313]

>>14509300
and in places like Egypt or other parts of Africa, Solar will be major contributor to energy generation.

[Anonymous No.14509318]

>>14509304
so, environmentalists should advocate that we stop extracting resources, or they're just hypocrites? based.

[Anonymous No.14509331]

>>14509318
Just that we should actually get mining companies to actually adhere to the laws they so actively try to avoid. Canada among many other western nations have a lot of mining companies that have been known for their environmental destruction, human rights abuses and other bad PR.

[Anonymous No.14509336]

>>14509296
>Lithium: There isn't enough lithium on the planet to make enough batteries to meet our needs, so solar is a pipe dream.
So develop new technology that harvests and stores energy without lithium? Not utilizing free energy because we're too retarded is silly.

[Anonymous No.14509350]

>>14509336
>So develop new technology that harvests and stores energy without lithium?
all the politicians own solar/lithium company stock though
no one will get funds to study new tech

[Anonymous No.14509399]

>>14509336
Yeah, I agree with you, but the problem with your solution is that we really are too retarded to do anything better. In fact we're too retarded to even do this badly. At best we're going to half-ass the lithium thing even with free infinite nuclear energy being an available option.

[Anonymous No.14509442]

>>14509132
Being dependent on wind and solar energy is literally for the birds. What makes us human is that we light stuff on fire. If wind and solar ever become a significant portion of the electrical grid, a great number of people will die. Renewable energy is a Malthusian death cult

[Anonymous No.14509459]

>>14509132
I have nothing against it. Windmills had its purpose back in the 1600's. Worthless now though.

[Anonymous No.14509521]

>>14509296
Fundamentally no form of electricity generation is completely renewable. No matter what direction humanity goes in, we'll have to revert to pre-industrial-revolution society within 10,000 years or so.

It's best not to worry about it every little issue. If solar and wind work well enough to keep civilisation running for a few hundred years then let it be.

[Anonymous No.14509542]

>>14509132
Shut up and Read Pic rel

[Anonymous No.14509550]

>Solar power is a stupid meme.
The idea is to send them plants into orbit.

[Anonymous No.14509747]

>>14509550
how do you propose to transform capture and transmit this galactic bounty in a way that isnt stupidly inefficient

[Anonymous No.14509754]

>>14509521
Fundamentally? That can't be right. From what we've done so far, you're correct, but we can take what we used to have, dial the efficiency up, and coast on what we get. Horses just need some plants. They can spin turbines just fine. Water's perfectly renewable, we have a whole natural water cycle to thank for that - guess we don't need the horses. A few dams here and there is all the energy we can get, until the sun gets a bit warm and decides we don't deserve water. I'd call that renewable.

[Anonymous No.14509768]

>>14509747
Humans will also be in orbit.

[Anonymous No.14510027]

>>14509132
It's all sunshine and rainbows until the wind stops blowing.
>We'll just make a bunch of batteries so we can save the power made at good times to cover for the bad times.
We're still stuck with the same old 50 year old lithium-ion technology that is not at all efficient in the long-term at these kind of scales.
>We'll just build up the infrastructure to allow for vast amounts of power to be sent and received over long distances.
Because what could possibly go wrong with this incredibly cost-efficient and logistical cakewalk.

[Anonymous No.14510033]

>>14509542
It's only a "war" because many nations would prefer to destabilize certain rare metal providing states for various reasons.

[Anonymous No.14510037]

>>14510033
Also regardless of green being a thing or not they'd STILL extract Cobalt regardless

[Anonymous No.14510949]

>>14509197
>aren't aesthetic
wtf are you on? wind farms (specially when offshore) are aesthetic af

[Anonymous No.14511385]

>>14510949
>noisy towers of plastic ruining your view of the landscape

[Anonymous No.14511419]

>>14509300
It's a political issue now and half the board are sheep that watch cucker Carloson or tranny madow. It's not bad, but people will shill based on 25 second clips if their bubble says it's true.

[Anonymous No.14511458]

>>14509132
wind power can work if you combine it with nuclear power

you can actually use nuclear to generate wind 24/7

[Anonymous No.14511486]

>>14511458
this is obviously wasteful. you've spun a turbine using nuclear decays to create wind to spin a different turbine. still, that's hilarious, and stupid enough that people would vote for it. I think we have our winner.

[Anonymous No.14511495]

>>14511419
>le enlightened centrist
You are no where near as smart as you think you are

[Anonymous No.14511513]

>>14509132
Shill retard you were never "pro solar" were you?

[Anonymous No.14511519]

>>14511513
anti-coal, pro-dyson swarm, lean towards gas/nuclear is the right way. terrestrial panels never made economic or environmental sense.

[Anonymous No.14511563]

>>14509198
Stop using fiberglass and plastics as materials in your fucking eco-friendly inventions. Fixed

[Anonymous No.14511587]

>>14511495
Never said I was smart, just not a weak sheep like the one your dad raised.

[Anonymous No.14511599]

>>14511587
You included two generic strawmans that you assume everyone but you is like.

[Anonymous No.14511606]

>>14509132
Your messiah complex opinion doesn't matter. If you don't hekkin kekkin believe in a power source then stop investing into them and let's face it you don't do any investing so instead ask your power company to stop providing you power that includes these sources of energy.

Alternatively go back to
>>>/pol/
to make the world worse for everyone instead.

[Anonymous No.14511634]

solar wind power is best solar power
wind turbines made of wood are neat
nuclear power for base load

[Anonymous No.14511657]

>>14511606
index funds are the way man, everything else is just a cope.

[Anonymous No.14511660]

>>14511606
>>>/lgbt/

[Anonymous No.14511747]

>>14509132
Nuclear is the most environmentally friendly form of energy.
All those other "green energies" do a hell of alot more damage to the environment then nuclear ever did.
So I don't see why you hate it

[Anonymous No.14511752]

>>14509180
Uranium isn't the only source of nuclear energy

[Anonymous No.14511761]

>>14509198
>American retards just dumping things like usual
Why would anyone listen to anything they have to say

[Anonymous No.14511764]

>>14509217
>no way to dispose of the nuclear waste perminantly.
I can't remember properly but I think the nuclear waste of thorium had a half-life of 50 years. And the waste could be further used in another nuclear process to reduce the half life.
You should see the new data on nuclear before you kick it.

[Anonymous No.14511768]

Solar and wind are great, dumbass, imagine never relying on utilities again

[Anonymous No.14511914]

>>14511768
That right there is the difference between offgrid conservatives and ones that roll around in rascal scooters 'owning libs'

[Anonymous No.14511925]

>>14511914
>ones that roll around in rascal scooters 'owning libs'
Your obsession isn't healthy. Go outside or something.

[Anonymous No.14511964]

>>14510949
sleep in the pod, work in the pod, live in the pod

[Anonymous No.14512050]

>>14511599
statistically speaking, he's assuming right considering the state of this board

[Anonymous No.14512279]

>>14511761
The rest of the planet has the same problem with disposing of windmill blades. There have been some attempts at reuse, such as making weirdly oversized bus shelters out of them but they end up being more effort than they're worth. If you have information on some country that has discovered a scalable way to make use of out of service windmill blades, please share that with us.

[Anonymous No.14512297]

>>14509180
BS, the Uranium market is so small today that economies of scale are almost non-existent. If Nuclear energy output increased 20x, the price would likely half.

[Anonymous No.14512312]

>>14509300
Really? You are going to power Europe, anything above Texas, and all of Asia with solar? Lmao, read a goddamn solar distribution map for once.

[Anonymous No.14512316]

>>14509336
>Just simply develop new technology that solves a problem the world has been working on for a hundred years.
People like you scare me more than oil lobbyists. Get off /sci/.

[Anonymous No.14512327]

>>14511761
Because we are the ones that have been pioneering energy production, distribution, and consumption since its inception.

[Anonymous No.14512545]

>>14509180
Based economics anon.
Whats your view on electric cars? I heard one Anon saying they will only ever be a rich man's toy since any increase in their adoption will send the price of the rare metals used in their batteries skyrocketing. The batteries, having a limited lifetime before they need replacing, will become hellishly expensive as global supplies of rares dwindle. The idea of everyone driving a an electric car seems like a meme.

[Anonymous No.14512814]

>>14512327
based burger king

[Anonymous No.14512887]

>>14512297
Economies of scale are not a common feature of the mining sector, beyond the initial 'buying bigger machines' phase. The easily minable stuff is extracted first, but as the accessible reserves dry up the extraction gets increasingly costly.
>>14511752
That's great, but they'll be subjected to the same cost pressures as Uranium.
>>14512545
>Whats your view on electric cars?
I agree that there's no chance of going full electric, for the reasons you listed. However, the matter of whether electric cars will remain a rich people thing or reach a significant fraction of the population will depend on the future technological advances. I'm not nearly familiar enough with the technology to make this kind of prediction though.

[Anonymous No.14512962]

>>14512887
>That's great, but they'll be subjected to the same cost pressures as Uranium.
Nuclear energy is cheaper than natural gas in the long run which is the most popular form of anergy in Europe.
It's also literally the cleanest most effecient form of energy in the world

[Anonymous No.14512969]

>>14512962
althought that's true you can't run the entire grid off of just nuclear. you need some natl gas in your energy mix to deal with momentary fluctuations in demand.

[Anonymous No.14512986]

>>14512969
>>14512969
>momentary fluctuations in demand.
Nah. You just need a surplus. Which you can sell to your neighbors.
>you can't run the entire grid off of just NATURAL GAS. you need some natl gas in your energy mix to deal with momentary fluctuations in demand.

[Anonymous No.14513014]

>>14512986
a surplus of nuclear is wasteful. a surplus of natl gas is less wasteful. supplant with other cheaper alternatives and you're golden.

[Anonymous No.14513046]

>>14509132
Wind is worse than solar who have you been convinced by? Wind turbine sellers?

[Anonymous No.14513053]

>>14509542
If this is about rare earths, ind turbines don't actually require them. Electromagnet generators using steel and copper work perfectly fine.

[Anonymous No.14513102]

>>14513014
That's why I mentioned selling to your neighbors.
Also nuclear plants can slow down the reaction if they want to reduce output if necessary.
Only Oil shills shit talk nuclear

[Anonymous No.14513124]

>>14509132
Replace "solar" with "wind" in your post and it still applies but even worse. Literally every problem you listed for solar applies to wind. How are you this lacking in awareness?

[Anonymous No.14513175]

Coal and gas are fine. Global warming isn't real. Let the plants have some of that carbon.

[Anonymous No.14513181]

>>14511747
>Fukushima
>environmentally friendly

[Anonymous No.14513262]

>>14513181
Number of birds killed by fukushima: 0

[Anonymous No.14513298]

>>14509132
>only hope to be nuclear
This

[Anonymous No.14513324]

>>14513181
He may have a point. Even with Chernobyl and Fukushima combined I doubt nuclear ranks very high if we add up all the environmental impacts of other forms of energy.
We build modern reactors an not along the coastline in tsunami land or earthquake prone areas that should drop even more.
Biggest impact of nuclear is in the mining for fuel, not the waste, plants or accidents.

For accidents nuclear has these big horrific events we can point to, it's like the airliner crashes of power-plants.
Meanwhile magnitudes more get killed in regular traffic but it's so distributed and gradual nobody gets as scared.

[Anonymous No.14513332]

If everyone who got vaxxed just dies and we stop giving tech to Africa there is enough oil for everyone...except India...they need to drown in their own poo asap.

[Anonymous No.14513341]

Premise of thread is retarded, solar + nuclear for grid stability is clearly the near future til fusion may come along and save us, not fucking wind.

[Anonymous No.14513360]

>>14513181
>Fukushima
Fukushima was a 40+ year old nuclear power station. It had lots of standards though and shut down successful.
What went wrong is they never bothered to out a containment housing for the water waste. The water waste was stored outside for the containment where the reactors were.
So the only disaster there was some radioactive water leaking into the ocean.
The whole thing was overblown but it was a disaster.
It probably should have been decommissioned long ago.
>>14513324
Also Chernobyl itself was only a disaster because they didn't put any containment walls at all. Something all the nuclear scientists themselves said was a disaster just waiting to happen.
And they were proven right. The Russians just cheaped out

[Anonymous No.14513363]

>Caring about "the environment",
>Not retiring in your thirties with passive income from your solar farms.
ngmi

[Anonymous No.14514202]

>>14512969
>althought that's true you can't run the entire grid off of just nuclear. you need some natl gas in your energy mix to deal with momentary fluctuations in demand.
Energy storage and batteries are, ironically, a good fit for this short-duration (<8 hour) variations. They give the plants enough time to spin up/down and you don't need the gargantuan amount of backup power wind/solar need because it's firm generation. For example if you need between X and 2X power generation over a day, you can have the plant provide 1.5X continuously and store the surplus for when it is needed.
>>14512962
>>14512887
Prior to the laws of physics changing (but only within the borders of the US) after the 1970's, nuclear was actually quite cheap Pic very much related.

[Anonymous No.14514806]

Nuclear is great, and should replace most baseline power. But the state of modern battery/storage/transmission technology is ineffecient. The one thing fossil fuels have going for them is portability and storage. Lithium batteries are anus, hydrogen cells are rife with yet unsolved issues, and more esoteric forms like molten salt and gravity are still in their infancy.
That being said, there are alternatives, such as using surplus power for energy intensive tasks such as desalination or even carbon fixing. It's better than losing it to transmission length.

[Anonymous No.14515553]

>>14509180
>People like nuclear because it is cost-efficient
I have never seen this two things go together.

[Anonymous No.14515611]

>>14509132
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV9zZ3CuT4I