For climate /sci/fags

[Anonymous No.15675403]

Have you noticed a new trend where people try to promote natural gas and nuclear as the best option? I like nuclear but it takes 20 years to permit and build and it runs billions overbudget. And LNG plants will have to operate for at least a decade or two after being built which is obviously bad for emissions. Is this just a fossil fuel psy-op to take momentum away from wind and solar energy which is getting exponentially cheaper and faster to install?

[Anonymous No.15675429]

>>15675403
I'd describe it more as general seething but yes shills and bots are also very active on this board.

[Anonymous No.15675695]

Cheapness of solar and wind is not the main problem, the main problem is output instability. You still need gas/coal or batteries to keep the base load on. Which incurs additional costs and makes their economic viability questionable.

[Anonymous No.15675743]

>>15675695
I agree but saying you should completely do away with renewables and completely replace everything with nuclear within 27 years is a retarded plan. I think the plan is to overproduce electricity so much during sunny and windy days that we can sequester more carbon than we emit on cloudy and windless days with LNG plants. After reaching net zero, I support replacing a majority of our electricity sources with nuclear for baseload. Nuclear isn't fast and cheap which is what's needed. Solar panels are going to become cheaper than dirt in the next few years and thats how we'll get massive electricity overproduction.

[Anonymous No.15675760]

>>15675743
solar panels will get cheaper than dirt
either cope or shilling hands wrote this

[Anonymous No.15675771]

>>15675760
>solar panels will get cheaper than dirt
lmao
lm-fao
you know nothing about solar panels.

[Anonymous No.15675777]

>>15675760
>>15675771
Not cope. Real. With America, Europe and China ramping up production I don't see how prices will stop dropping anytime soon.

[Anonymous No.15675809]

>cover your productive farmland with silicon
what could go wrong...

[Anonymous No.15675820]

>>15675760
>solar panels will get cheaper than dirt
The cost reductions in solar panels have come entirely from outsourcing the entire production and supply chain from raw materials all the way to assembly, to China.

[Anonymous No.15675824]

*quack*

[Anonymous No.15675835]

>modifies the weather the stimulate a hail storm
>all your panels smash
>have to buy new panels

glaziers hiring window smashers

[Anonymous No.15675849]

>>15675403
nuclear+renewables is the way
>I like nuclear but it takes 20 years to permit and build
An ancient chinese proverb says:
>the best moment to start building a nuclear power plant was 20 years ago, the second best moment is right now
or maybe it talked about trees or something

[Anonymous No.15675853]

>>15675743
you don't need to replace everything with nuclear, you can keep renewables and build nuclear plants

[Anonymous No.15675864]

>>15675403
>Is this just a fossil fuel psy-op to take momentum away from wind and solar energy which is getting exponentially cheaper and faster to install?
It's not, shilling for 100% renewables is the psy-op because everyone knows that it's not possible. As far as cost goes, it's not exactly fair to say that renewables are cheap because you're not taking into account the cost of energy storage devices that are needed.

[Anonymous No.15675930]

Nothing natural to burn LNG. We just opened 1600 MW nuclear plant and it just works. Instant drop of electricity price.

[Anonymous No.15675936]

abiotic oil

[Anonymous No.15675939]

>>15675403
>take momentum away from wind and solar energy
If you actually believe this, when even countries like Germany are giving up on this meme and reverting back to literal coal, I have one thing to say: don't shake your duvet too hard.

[Anonymous No.15675941]

>>15675403
>Is this just a fossil fuel psy-op?
Yes. Existing monopolies are terrified of cheap, clean and abundant energy. They like LNG and Nuclear because of the very high bar-to-entry. Although they're trying to buy/control renewables too, they do not trust them because they know the low bar-to-entry means competition. The transmission infrastructure in most places is not being upgraded to accommodate renewables for this reason.
>>15675864
>you're not taking into account the cost of energy storage
non-problem. with abundant energy you can make clean-hydrogen.

[Anonymous No.15675947]

Why is knowledge of "free" energy generators suppressed?

Guys like Tom Beardon have attested to their use yet people are still getting disapeared for developing tools based on the principles behind it.

[Anonymous No.15675948]

>>15675939
>even countries like Germany
Well sure, with no relevant geopolitical events to explain the changes, clearly they're just >giving up

[Anonymous No.15675950]

>cheap, clean and abundant energy

[Anonymous No.15675955]

>>15675948
> relevant geopolitical events
What "relevant geopolitical events" are stopping them from doubling down on your green scam, except for the fact that they're cut off from Russian gas and can't compensate with green memes? LOL

[Anonymous No.15675959]

>>15675950
>a fault
imbecile

[Anonymous No.15675965]

>>15675959
>uh oops, we're experiencing some technical difficulties, so we're gonna have to generate some of that green energy by burning diesel
>don't worry about it
>don't think about it
>don't talk about it
And most imporetly, don't shake your duvet too hard.

[Anonymous No.15675970]

>>15675955
>can't compensate
Didn't say they could. I said they couldn't because energy monopolies are fighting to make sure they can't.

[Anonymous No.15675972]

>>15675970
>I said they couldn't because energy monopolies
You said they couldn't because "geopolitical events". Make up your mind, normalcattle.

[Anonymous No.15675974]

>>15675965
You're embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.15675978]

>>15675974
Reminder that your agenda is dying as we speak. People aren't getting any more receptive to your scam. They are only getting more violently angry. :^)

[Anonymous No.15675982]

>>15675972
>>15675941 was also me. Also, I said that geopolitical events explain the recent changes to production, not the reasons that monopolies are fighting renewables-adoption.

[Anonymous No.15675991]

>>15675978
>My agenda: I would like energy to be cheaper, cleaner and more abundant.
Why would ""people"" be violently angry about that, anon?

[Anonymous No.15675995]

>>15675982
>geopolitical events explain the recent changes to production
In what way? Did "geopolitical events" make the your cheap and effective green energy expensive and ineffective somehow, or are the energy boogeymen suddenly fighting harder against your green scam? :^)

[Anonymous No.15675999]

>>15675403
>I like nuclear but it takes 20 years to permit and build and it runs billions overbudget.
I'm glad we have the government there to save the day :)

Fast-neutron was fully fleshed out and proven before the turn of the millennia. It doesn't melt down, you can make SMRs out of it, it produces less waste, and it uses what waste we do have as fuel.
Good thing all of those nuclear engineers retired before we could build jack shit and let the next generation learn because of political quagmires from the government.

[Anonymous No.15676003]

>>15675941
>with abundant energy you can make clean hydrogen
Yeah you're a fucking retard. It's not like we can store the shit, and even if you do solve that (in an economical way) what is around in storage is probably a worse disaster than any coolant explosion in a fast reactor.

[Anonymous No.15676008]

>>15675995
Supply and demand, anon. There was an acute reduction in supply while demand remained the same. What renewables (plus a compatible infrastructure) do is to increase supply at a low cost. Hence: sustained reduction in prices.

[Anonymous No.15676014]

>>15676003
I think that you have an unnatural affinity for nuclear reactors, anon.

[Anonymous No.15676019]

>>15676014
Hydrogen fags are the one who have the unnatural affinity for hand waving away storage.

[Anonymous No.15676027]

>>15676008
>There was an acute reduction in supply while demand remained the same.
This feels like talking to a literal bot. If there's an acute reduction in the supply of "dirty" energy, that should only make your green scam even more economical (relatively speaking) and more appealing to a ruling class trying to handle the crisis of malcontents with ballooning energy bills. So what happened? Did the imaginary energy boogeymen start to oppose your green scam even harder in order to exacerbate the crisis and lose their government pawns?

[Barkun No.15676048]

79% of energy waste is wasted energy, leaving shit on, not even using it, bad products, etc. We should opt for solar energy, the time spent letting batteries charge is time to relax. People just need to be more organized and use their sense of adventure. Tired of this faggot humanity, me included.

[Anonymous No.15676053]

>>15675941
>non-problem. with abundant energy you can make clean-hydrogen.
Then you have to take into account the cost of electrolysers that make hydrogen

[Anonymous No.15676082]

i just want small molten salt nuclear reactors
something to power a city of 50-100k people

[Anonymous No.15676083]

>>15675824
Just shows why wind is better than solar. Solar only produces during the day while the wind still blows during the night and during winter. You get less peak energy during the summer but that can be solved by just building more wind turbines.

[Anonymous No.15676087]

>>15675991
They are paid to be angry.

[Anonymous No.15676090]

>>15675939
I don't think that the Germans believe that, but it seems to be a bit of a growing sentiment around the San Francisco tech types. Its also the sentiment of Vivek Ramaswamy and his supporters (I posted because I saw a meme from one of his supporters) who's growing in popularity. Although the chances kf him becoming president are slim.

[Anonymous No.15676093]

>>15676027
>Increase production via renewables
>Tailor transmission infrastructure to distribute it
not that hard

[Anonymous No.15676103]

>>15676083
Energy grid operators would consider it insanity to use wind and solar alone for baseline load. There will always be gas. oil, and coal power plants on "backup" to turn on if the wind is intermittent and there is cloud cover. California, Hawaii, and Germany have all had to "temporarily" turn back on oil and gas plants for years.
You retire oil and gas plants with nuclear. And the real point is that nuclear and wind/solar are not either/or. Energy grids should be diverse for the same reason you diversify anything else: to minimize risk and maximize efficiency.
A town of 2000 people does not need a nuclear or geothermal plant. A city of 500000 is not doing it alone with wind and solar. The only people saying otherwise are never seriously involved with the energy grid.

[Anonymous No.15676108]

>>15676087
>They are paid to be angry.
This is full-blown psychosis. It's legit time to start institutionalizing the green crowd.

[Anonymous No.15676115]

>>15675695
>muh base load
I got a base load for you, from my dick

[Anonymous No.15676155]

>>15675809
Yeah, you could accidentally double your money and then you'd be in real trouble.

[Anonymous No.15676163]

>>15675403
>I like nuclear but it takes 20 years to permit and build and it runs billions overbudget.
So? It's a good investment. And unless you're one of those people who thinks that climate change is going to end civilization in [eqn]CurrentYear+NextElectionCycle[/eqn] 20 years isn't a long time.

[Anonymous No.15676201]

>>15675403
I want to like nuclear but you know that meme
the "competency crisis?"
Well I'm not one for memes usually but nuclear power is squarely in the crosshairs of such a thing. The nature of nuclear power is such that it simply cannot suffer idiots.
That's my issue with proliferate nuclear power.
t. works in nuclear power

[Anonymous No.15676243]

>>15676201
Aren't the next gen of nuclear reactors meant to be idiot proof? Small and simple enough to be installed in disaster afflicted areas to provide emergency power.

[Anonymous No.15676261]

>>15676155
design not viable. every farmer or someone who has worked in a cropfield will tell you so
> crops get less sunlight
> irrigation becomes more difficult
> broken silicone and electronics will remain in the earth
> farming the crops difficult, unless solar panels are set up at a significant height, where maintenance will become a problem

[Anonymous No.15676265]

>>15676155
You can't be this fucking retarded bro.

[Anonymous No.15676269]

>use nuclear for base load
>cucked hippies can have their solar and wind with batteries
>helion fusion becomes mainstream
>fission is slowly replaced with fusion
>cucked hippies refuse to give up their solar and wind with batteries when they get past obsolete
>f-fusion bad they run on greenhouse gas i'm sure

[Anonymous No.15676280]

>>15675403
How the fuck does a "fossil fuel psyop" meme persist in the 21st century when it's literally the fossil fuel corporations who are (by far the most heavily invested in alternate energy?

[Anonymous No.15676298]

>>15676261
>>15676265
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaics

[Anonymous No.15676330]

>>15676243
They market it as idiot proof but there's no such thing. From creation to operation to disposal the capability of disaster due to human error simply cannot be mitigated with engineering. This is true in all areas of life, surely, but the consequences of human error are usually contained; the worst of it never exceeds the destruction of a few city blocks. I wish it were the case with nuclear, but it isn't.

In addition, the more something tries to be idiot proof with redundant safety measures, it inevitably pushes the potential "failure conditions" into increasingly exclusive design areas, which can increase the potential for human error to create failure.
Let's say you have 5 people doing calculations for operation and verifying each other's calculations. You have to have a functioning IQ of 110 or above to get these calculations correct, and originally that's 4 out of your 5 people. The idiot gets error checked out normally. A bad day happens, you get 2 idiots today, and the other 3 still error check them out. Now introduce a competency crisis and you simply can't reach the "4 out of 5 people" to be able to suffer a bad day human error event without issue.
So you engineer "idiot-proof" safeguards so that those that do calculations for operation only need 100 IQ to reach 4 out of 5. Well, who engineers the safeguards? You have a team of "4 out of 5" people designing it, and they needed 130 IQ. Okay. You need 4 out of 5 people manufacturing it correctly to specification with 120 IQ. etc. etc.
So introduce safeguards for the engineers, right?
Introduce safeguards for the manufacturing, right?
But who designs and implements those?
And who designs and implements those?
How long until you get two bad days at the same time or worse, you slip up and forget to have any kind of cross checking? also why there is so much red tape.

And worse, you can't outengineer true stupidity. A committed idiot can singlehandedly undo everything by himself.

[Anonymous No.15676341]

>>15676330
That's an awful lot of pilpul just to avoid the simplest solution where you don't hire people with IQs below 110 to do the first job. Do you "work in nuclear power" as a janitor?

[Anonymous No.15676376]

>>15676341
It's not that simple. You can't just hire more intelligent people- there aren't enough intelligent people to go around. That's the core issue. The IQ analog is a simplification of the concept of competency anyway. Do you work at all? You should be more familiar with the prevalence of incompetent people.

[Anonymous No.15676393]

>>15676376
I'm using your own metric. There are certainly more than enough 110 IQ people to go around. You can easily curate a group of incompetent people that aren't dumb enough to melt down a Gen III nuke juicer.

[Anonymous No.15676403]

>>15676330
Yeah, it's impossible to difficult things.

[Anonymous No.15676416]

>>15676298
did you even read the disadvantages on the page?

[Anonymous No.15676418]

>>15676403
Not impossible. Limited. For example, we can do space stuff, but we still blow things up.

[Anonymous No.15676470]

>>15676418
The risks of doing space stuff and operating a nuclear plant aren't commensurate.

[Anonymous No.15676508]

>>15676470
And the point of your observation is?

[Anonymous No.15676550]

>>15675403
It's patently clear that nuclear is indispensable if we want to mantain a high standard of living without emitting CO2. The fossil fuel industry is a great supporter of "renewableists" because the former, while evil, are not stupid. They know that there will always be a need for baseload electicity, and you can do it either by burning stuff or with nuclear. Fossil fuel is not in competition with renewables, they in fact complement each other quite well (from a grid perspective), instead it competes directly with nuclear. Natural gas only makes sense as a transitional technology, until the nuclear plants are ready. 100% renewables is the biggest meme there is. Renewables shouldn't be more than 20%-50% (rough numbers) of your grid, otherwise you start to run into curtailment/instability/cost problems.

[Anonymous No.15676555]

>>15676416
Yep. Did you read the part about certain crops yielding better under the solar panels?

[Anonymous No.15676640]

>>15675403
The top left should be "I'm going to take a drive" becaues people are [h]oping that EV battery storage is the future (it's not). Storage of renewables is a real, hard problem that so far has no clear way forward. Every solution is either stuck in the labs with no way out or prohibitively expensive.

[Anonymous No.15676655]

>Like nuclear but it takes 20 years to permit and build and it runs billions overbudget.
It only takes about 7 years to build a nuclear plant from 1st shovel to commercial operation. Every country that has under 100 gCO2/kWh in their grid did so by following one of two routes:
>Use non-carbon natural resources to generate power (dam rivers, geothermal)
>Build nuclear power plants
No country--not even a region--has had a sustainable low-carbon power generation from wind/solar/storage. Maybe wind/solar/storage works but as of today it is all theoretical models. But nuclear is the only option built today that has been proven to work regardless of naturally-occurring geothermal/hydro.

[Anonymous No.15676691]

>>15676508
The complexity of space stuff is irrelevant to the complexity of nuke juicers. Did you really not understand that?

[Anonymous No.15676754]

>>15676691
Explain why it's relevant.

[Anonymous No.15676762]

>>15676754
It's (ir)relavant because more bad things can happen more often when you shoot something into space.

[Anonymous No.15676778]

>>15676762
That is still just an observation with no point.
>The risks of driving and space stuff aren't commensurate.

[Anonymous No.15676782]

>>15676778
They aren't. Why would you think they are?

[Anonymous No.15676799]

>>15676782
I don't.

[Anonymous No.15676806]

>>15676799
>>15676778
I'm so stupid that I replied to myself. Imagine how stupid you must be. Lol.

[Anonymous No.15676826]

>>15676155
peak industrialism

[Anonymous No.15676833]

>>15676201
as long as there is Russia there will be competent nuclear engineers that do not raise the same red flags that more, ermmm.. diverse "engineers" do

[Anonymous No.15676842]

[Anonymous No.15676860]

Build nuclear plants, supplement with hydro, wind and solar fields and use oil/gas as an intermediary until we do. This all or nothing crap is just big oil and their bagholders trying to prevent the end of their monopoly

>meltdowns
Nearly all have been user error or picking a retarded location. Dont build on fault lines or on coasts or islands. How many meltdowns has france had?

>disposal
Bury it. We bury literally every other piece of waste. Maybe in the future we can dump it on mars or something. But our current use of fossil fuels is significantly worse for the environment as well as society than using nuke and burying the waste.

>not enough smart ppl
There are ways to increase the number of intelligent offspring. Remove immigrants, remove predatory criminals, limit welfare, end foreign aid, curtail military expenditure, improve soil quality to improve vit/mins in food stuffs, incentivize intelligent couples to be stay at home moms and have children, adjust public school system.

[Anonymous No.15676864]

>>15676782
I don't. It's an observation, just the other one, that has no point in this discussion.

[Anonymous No.15676881]

>>15676864
The discussion isn't about driving, it's about nuclear energy.

[Anonymous No.15676890]

>>15676860
>How many meltdowns has france had?
A meltdown has a very specific definition. Meltdowns aren't the metric you're looking for. A radioactive spill into the environment isn't considered a meltdown but can be very damaging regardless. Even so, France still has had at least two fuel-melting incidents in a reactor, the second of which cost at least $33 million dollars.

[Anonymous No.15676902]

>>15676890
>cost
But the cost of nuke is still cheaper. Factor in the wars we've fought over oil and the pollution caused by oil, and oils cost far exceeds 33 million dollars. And that was two spills in how many years? And what was the cause of the spill? Human error or structural?

[Anonymous No.15676906]

>>15676890
>the second of which cost at least $33 million dollars.
Hollande's baby mother probably makes more than that in a week for posting her cooch on coochstagram. No one cares about your definition of meltdown.

[Anonymous No.15676954]

>>15676902
I'm for nuclear power over oil. I don't even think oil is bad, nuclear power is just better. Just need to be aware of the degrees of nuclear accidents and the actual number that they occur.
And everything that isn't accounted for by extreme acts of god is considered human error.
>>15676906
It's not my definition you moron. Just pull away the bullshit and have people be informed about what they're buying into.

[Anonymous No.15677019]

>>15676954
It's not my defintion, either. The only bullshit here is shoveled by you.

[Anonymous No.15677045]

>>15676954
My point still stands.

Cost of oil > cost of nuke
When you factor in meltdowns, wars, pollution, leaks, oil spills, political deals, Nuke is cheaper and cleaner than oil.

>human error
Any violation of the standard operating procedure resulting in metldown/leak

>Structural error
Anytime the physical structure of the building fails due to a flaw in the design or materials resulting in a leak/meltdown

>Government Error
Anytime a earthquake or tsunami hits, resulting in a leak/meltdown, the fault lies with the goverment for picking a poor location

[Anonymous No.15677065]

Here's the reality of nuclear power
You start talking about what you need two years ago.
Then you come to a conclusion and give permission to build a facility starting next year.
Sometimes it takes 7 years to finish construction, but more often, it takes 15 years.
The facility operates for 25 years, and nets a several billion in revenue, then gets shut down. Not yet decommissioned, it continues to function as radioactive storage for a while, with plans to decommission over several decades to allow radiation levels to decline, expected to occur between 2100 and 2120. The expected cost of decommissioning will be at least half the revenue the facility earned.

[Anonymous No.15677131]

>>15677065
>big oil jews force their pet senators to pass bills that make nuke energy hard to build
>see seee nukes no good, look at all the red tape!
>what do you mean start building them now? No we already put it off for too long!
>muh revenue

Nuke power isnt about revenue you fucking Big Oil (((green energy))) shill. Its about providing power to people, at a low cost, while not polluting the earth.

[Anonymous No.15677143]

>>15675777
>Per watt
Motherfucker no one cares about 10 watts, change that graph to kilowatts to show the actual progress.

[Anonymous No.15677151]

>>15676155
>How do I fit a header under these solar panels.
Are you going to put them on 20 meter stands lol?

[Anonymous No.15677181]

>>15675760
>>15675777
You fucking wish. With forced EV mandates everyone and their mother will be trying to set up a solar farm. Panel prices won't drop, because the manufacturers and installers will be taking those profits even with lower production costs. Sustainable energy is just another racket.

[Anonymous No.15677191]

>>15676155
>wheat
Possibly the dumbest post in this entire thread and that's saying something.
Best you'll get from a practical system is grazing sheep or small animals

[Anonymous No.15677204]

>>15677151
nah you just rotate them and drive in between

[Anonymous No.15677244]

>>15676341
Anon, you do realize countries just end up making the tests easier? Just look at modern IQ tests and tell us that they reflect actual human intelligence. In the end governments find a way to fill demand which eventually results in a tragedy every time.

[Anonymous No.15677264]

>>15677204
>adding solar panels to the crop rotation.

[Anonymous No.15677297]

>>15677244
Anyone who could own a nuke juicer buys politicians. There's no credible situation where politics makes nuke juicers hire retards.

[Anonymous No.15677315]

>muh narcissistic god complex world building fantasies
we already have perfectly good power production that works just fine, nothing needs to be changed.
reinventing the wheel is just a big stupid waste of time, just like all you twats with your "this is what i would do if i was king of planet earth" daydreams that nobody cares about

[Anonymous No.15677320]

Nuclear energy and renewables are outdated.

Current technology is outdated.

There exists infinite energy using electromagnetism and a special element already ready to be harnessed yet the US government doesn't want to release it.

They would rather use zero point ether energy to RND weapons, teleportation and aircraft.

The day zero point free energy becomes open source the world goes into a new era. We are stuck in the old era.
We are 200 years behind.

Space faring civilizations exist, and they look at us as apes because the US government keeps shooting them out of the sky every time they come and try to help

[Anonymous No.15677450]

>>15677264
I meant that you just rotate the solar panels so they're vertical and out of the way

[Anonymous No.15677453]

>>15675695

[Anonymous No.15677523]

>>15675403
>new trend where people try to promote natural gas and nuclear as the best option
In Australia the conservative party has jumped on the nuclear band wagon because they have to start appealing to millenial voters more as the boomers start to die off.
In this specific case it's 100% a scam because they're going to use the cost and time to build(based on legacy tech) as excuses not to do it and keep kicking the can down the road.
For nuclear to work you need a government that's willing to take a gamble on SMR which at the moment only China is doing.
It unironcaly sucks because a mid-sized country like Australia of 30m with large uranium resources could feasibly switch to SMR nuclear and be close to 100% energy independant for a couple of 100 billion dollars which we are IRONICALLY spending on fucking nuclear submarines to fight the chinks with....

[Anonymous No.15677535]

>>15677191
You should look into the subject before you pretend you know what a "practical" system would look like.

[Anonymous No.15677735]

>>15676555
did you read about he part that these types of crops (like cabbage) are rather a small part?

[Anonymous No.15677754]

>>15677735
So? There's 58,600 acres of cabbage fields in the US alone. Even at half the usual spacing and assuming 4 sun-hours a day that's 94 TWh each day, which is more than 10 times the electricity used by the US.

[Anonymous No.15678105]

>>15677754
Why do you want to contaminate productive farmland with industrial hardware?

[Anonymous No.15678108]

>>15677535
You're too dumb to even read your own links
>Agrivoltaics will only work well for plants that require shade and where sunlight is not a limiting factor. Shade crops represent only a tiny percentage of agricultural productivity. For instance, wheat crops do not fare well in a low light environment and are not compatible with agrivoltaics

[Anonymous No.15678127]

>>15675403
Nuclear is great for base loads to keep the grid stable, France is a great example of this.
Natural gas is a good intermediate step away from coal because it is cheap, reliable and can run on bio methane produced by sewage treatment plants and animal farms which is just using most nations already have
Solar concentrators are great renewable base load plants because they have good storage and fairly cheap, however require a lot of insolation
PV and wind are good for providing extra power and take some of the load off the other plants
Panels work best on roofs where it’s close to the consumer and reduces the strain on the grid or on floating solar farms near dams because they help compensate for each other’s weaknesses

It’s always a good idea to have a diverse energy mix so that you are not dependent on just a couple sources which WILL get fucked eventually. People just don’t understand that different power sources have different niches they work well in and opt for all one thing

[Anonymous No.15678130]

>>15675695
Normalised cost of renewables+storage is not difficult to calculate and is generally cheaper than natural gas, which is the main competitor
coal is economically dead in the water for power generation purposes

[Anonymous No.15678132]

>>15675849
the main obstacle to nuclear is not time to build alone, it's also expertise.

[Anonymous No.15678142]

There's no economic argument for using nuclear as "base load" in a system with renewables, because nuclear plants typically require close to 100% output to maintain profitability, but there's no demand/money for that extra power during the periods of peak renewable generation.

[Anonymous No.15678148]

>>15678142
Nuclear is great for base load though it's the renewables that are difficult to fit in since they have no demand sensitivity.

[Anonymous No.15678171]

>>15677754
>the entire US could be powered by 10,000 acres of solar panels
is that really all it takes?

[Anonymous No.15678231]

>>15678105
Why not? It's been contaminated by hundreds of herbicides and pesticides over the years.

>>15678108
See >>15677754

>>15678171
Yep. Solar is about 20% efficient, a sun-hours is a standardized unit of measure that is equivalent to 1,000 w/m^2, nearly all of the US gets more than 4 sun-hours per day, and an acre is 4046.8 square meters, so yeah. We would need storage, but with a high voltage DC grid spanning the nation we could extend the amount of time solar generates power by about three hours which would significantly reduce the need for batteries or other types of power generation/storage.

[Anonymous No.15678242]

>>15678132
It's regulation, the nuclear plants built in France in the late 70s/early 80s took 6 years to be built

[Anonymous No.15678257]

>>15678242
The ones that all went down last year due to corrosion? Or was that 2 years ago? Time flies when you have depression.

[Anonymous No.15678291]

>>15675760
>sure, i had to install 300 solar panels on what little yard space i have available, but it only cost me 150 dollars!

[Anonymous No.15678298]

>>15678291
It's basically free if you're due for a new roof on your house (i.e. every 30 years)

[Anonymous No.15678316]

>>15678298
sure, i can generate enough power at peak power in a window of like 3 hours to fully charge my phone 3 times!

[Anonymous No.15678362]

>>15678257
If you're thinking about Fessenheim, then it has been close only because our dear president wanted a TV star as minister of ecology and that was the deal. All safety agencies said it was safe.

[Anonymous No.15678371]

>>15678316
You are legit a retard

[Anonymous No.15678757]

>>15675695
>Cheapness of solar and wind is not the main problem
its not not a problem. the price is wholly dependent on cheap chinese coal. if you havent noticed fiat money just died and will be replaced with commodities backed money. after everything gets rebalanced, if your country depends on solar then you're fucked.

[Anonymous No.15678873]

>>15678231
> 4 sun-hours per day
>on average
what about the cloudy spells?
>it can be overcast longer than your grid can stay solvent

[Anonymous No.15678896]

>>15675403
>Have you noticed a new trend where people try to promote natural gas and nuclear as the best option?
It's a meme that the conservitards have swallowed so they can admit to believing in climate change without admitting they believe in climate change

[Anonymous No.15678909]

>>15675403
Even if you stopped using coal/oil and went all in with nuclear/renewables, you'd still have to mine coal and oil. Nothing would change. Industrialists just want to diversify the amount of products they can sell you. More hands in the pie.

[Anonymous No.15678951]

>>15678896
No that's retarded there literally isn't evidence of anthropogenic climate change of any significant non local degree

[Anonymous No.15678988]

>>15678896
I don't care if conservitards don't believe in climate change as long as something gets done about it, and frankly gas (as a transitionary technology) + nuclear is the way forward. Progressitards are still pushing degrowth and 100% renewables.

[Anonymous No.15679004]

>>15678988
Making you believe something must be done about it is literally the whole purpose for the AGW psyop.

[Anonymous No.15679008]

>>15675403
> it takes 20 years to permit and build and it runs billions overbudget.
Not if you remove the statist regulations on it. If you omit the half a dam's worth of concrete and the laborious Xray inspections on the containment building, you can drop that price right down.

>>15676860
>bury waste
Don't even bother burying the spent fuel. Quite literally throw it into the sea. Vitrified in glass at the bottom of the ocean, it cannot leak into ground water, it cannot be stolen by some pikeys, it cannot irradiate you. Litterally the best solution all round. Safest AND cheapest. No one discusses this because it's yet another reason to go nuclear, too many communists, statists and corporations don't want nuclear.

[Anonymous No.15679014]

>>15678231
Here's an idea: deregulate the energy sector completely. Privatize everything. That way, if solar panels are really that fabulous, people will start plonking them down anywhere.

[Anonymous No.15679200]

>>15678873
Not even cloudy days. What about when something catches on fire and blankets the area with smoke for weeks on end?

[Anonymous No.15679240]

>>15678988
natural gas is here to stay, eventually green natural gas is going to happen

[Anonymous No.15679252]

>>15679240
Biogas is already here, but it's a bit stinky.

[Anonymous No.15679253]

>>15679252
no no no, Casey Handmer style unburning carbon dioxide and water with solar power green methane

[Anonymous No.15679261]

>>15679008
Ocean disposal is the most reasonable and easiest but most people are stupid and stupid people have a hard time appreciating scale. It's always fun to watch greenpeacers' heads explode when they rail on about fukushima and you explain to them that there's already millions of tons of radioactive elements in seawater

[Anonymous No.15679283]

>>15679014
>deregulate the energy sector
Ah yes. I love acid rain and breathing in toxic smog.
And all that money the electric company saves will definitely be felt by me, a customer, and not just be spent on sabotaging other electric companies or given to the company owners.

[Anonymous No.15679378]

>>15679008
>Not if you remove the statist regulations on it.
Don't even need to go that far. Drop the requirement that the plant has to survive a direct impact by a plane and change the charter of the NRC to encourage a nuclear industry.

[Anonymous No.15679391]

>>15678873
>>15679200
You just buy your power from neighboring states and sell it back to them when they're having a cloudy day or a large fire.

[Anonymous No.15679402]

>>15679014
Deregulating the energy sector is the most retarded idea anyone could possibly have. If someone said that to me while I was watching you cut off your own leg with a chainsaw I would think that you are the smarter of the pair.

[Anonymous No.15679406]

>>15679391
lol there is no "just" there. You're talking about pushing 10's GW on systems that currently measure in the 10-100 MW range. And you want to do it all over the country because you can't predict where is going to have long-duration outages. That would sink the project financially.

[Anonymous No.15679423]

>>15675403
>like nuclear but it takes 20 years to permit and build and it runs billions overbudget
Why the fuck do you think that is? Seriously, why would a company trying to make profit let any of these things happen, use your fucking brain.
>Is this just a fossil fuel psy-op to take momentum away from wind and solar energy
It is literally the fucking opposite. Wind and Solar are pushed by fossil fuel companies to subvert nuclear because they know they will never be able to actually compete with fossil fuel plants

[Anonymous No.15679432]

>>15676155
>this is how urbanites view farming
You are so detached from reality it is insane. We already have thousands of wind turbines spraying toxic fibreglass and PFAs all over our food supply.

[Anonymous No.15679435]

>>15676833
Russia's retarded engineers are the sole reason we aren't 100% nuclear. There one idiotic mistake 40 years ago doomed humanity

[Anonymous No.15679446]

>>15679014
This, just look at the seething shills response to your simple and obvious solution:
>>15679283
>>15679402
Guess what retards, we have a more privatized electric grid than most of Europe. Our electricity production for everyday consumers is 1/4 of that in Europe. Cope, seethe, and dilate. The fact you need the government to half the price of all these new technologies for even 10% of the population to consider using them is hilarious

[Anonymous No.15679491]

>>15679446
Meanwhile in China (where it's public-owned), electricity is $0.076 per Kwhr vs $0.23 per Kwhr in America (where it's relatively more private-owned).

[Anonymous No.15679535]

>>15679491
how is it in the uk where it's china-owned?

[Anonymous No.15679548]

>>15679491
Funny how polluting your whole country into an environmental shit hole makes things cheaper, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.15679576]

>>15678132
they built thirty of them without digital calculators, anon. its a giant tea kettle, its just not that hard.

[Anonymous No.15679589]

>>15679491

[Anonymous No.15679604]

>>15679548
Funny how you'll complain about regulations making electricity more expensive, then double-face and complain about how powerplants shit up the air and environment when they aren't strictly regulated.

[Anonymous No.15679616]

>>15679604
>you'll complain about regulations making electricity more expensive
No I won't.

[Anonymous No.15679660]

>>15679406
You are a retard. We currently sell energy back and forth between the states. It's trivial.

[Anonymous No.15679667]

>>15675777
All with state subsidies. None with mandatory storage for dispatchable power.

[Anonymous No.15679669]

>>15679432
>better hose it down with pesticides and glyphosate. How else am I going to grow this wheat get this it dry?

[Anonymous No.15679671]

>>15679667
So? The US subsidizes it's power too. The difference is where that money ends up.

[Anonymous No.15679676]

>>15679261
Yep, this is why I hate government. Gives power to people who aren't worth it.

[Anonymous No.15680169]

>>15679671
I know O&G are subsided, they are profitable without those supports. The issue is that renewables are not.
If they were, then we would've seen considerably more investment from the private market. We didn't, and that's why the state is subsidizing them.

The sooner we drop this climate change nonsense, and state interference in the free market as a whole, the better.

[Anonymous No.15680211]

>>15679660
We sell small amounts between states. You're talking about increasing it by a factor of 1000x.

[Anonymous No.15680690]

>>15675777
Zoom in

[Anonymous No.15680775]

>>15680211
That's irrelevant. US infrastructure needs to be updated anyway.

[Anonymous No.15680778]

>>15680169
Nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15680800]

>>15680775
Maybe so, maybe not. But that's not included in the costs presented.

[Anonymous No.15680932]

>>15680800
No costs have been presented. Go be a retard somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.15681754]

>>15680932
>No costs have been presented

[Anonymous No.15681761]

>>15680932
>No costs have been presented
>"cheap" mentioned throughout the thread
>>15675777

[Anonymous No.15681768]

>>15681761
Why did nuke coosts spike?

[Anonymous No.15681809]

>>15675403
>and it runs billions overbudget.
At some point people gotta realize that everything big does and the budget is just a guess, right?

[Anonymous No.15681971]

>>15681761
You are reaching way too hard. The costs in that graph wouldn't include infrastructure upgrades or energy storage for the grid because it just shows the cost of a solar panel in dollars per watt. Learn to read.

[Anonymous No.15682256]

>>15681768
Partially because we don't build them anymore, partially because it's comparing old technology to 1st-of-ts-kind builds, and partially because the regulations have gotten tighter.