Is wind and solar a meme? Is there any way that we can realistically power a decent percentage of the world with them? Or are they so utterly useless that we might as well not invest a single cent in them ever again.

File: 253 KB, 1250x650, 05_renewable_280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 05:32:34 2018 No.9783635 [Reply] [Original]

Is wind and solar a meme? Is there any way that we can realistically power a decent percentage of the world with them? Or are they so utterly useless that we might as well not invest a single cent in them ever again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 05:34:47 2018 No.9783640 >>9783635 And by decent I mean around 25%

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 06:00:14 2018 No.9783661 >>9783635 If we ever become advanced enough to create organic/digital connections like androids then plants will be able to fuel our needs 10000000x over.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 06:05:01 2018 No.9783664 >>9783635 Some industrialised nations are already nearing producing 50% of their electricity through wind and solar. The US is still living in the 80s in that regard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 06:59:53 2018 No.9783702 >>9783635 Yes we can. However producing all these generators might damage ecosystem more than burning fuel needed. Which all is still inferior to fusion and potentially fusion reactors.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 07:00:57 2018 No.9783703 >>9783702 >fusion I mean fission.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 07:01:44 2018 No.9783705 >>9783635 It's really more of a supplement because of the weather dependency issues, and there's a diminishing returns issue as well. That doesn't mean it's worthless though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 07:10:06 2018 No.9783714 >>9783635 I wonder how long nucleartard shows up.... oh wait, there >>9783702 he is. Took him all of an hour and a half or so. He must be off his game for such a slow reply. I guess that means he didn't start this thread himself. Which is unusual.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 07:20:03 2018 No.9783728 >>9783635 >Is wind and solar a meme? Yes

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 07:22:56 2018 No.9783735 File: 31 KB, 540x360, enhanced-buzz-26895-1445458041-7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9783714

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 07:25:44 2018 No.9783740 >>9783714 Is anyone who's positive in regards to nuclear a tard or is it one autistic person in general you refer to?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 07:32:28 2018 No.9783750 >>9783702 Nuclear is too dangerous, mate.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 07:34:07 2018 No.9783753

>>9783740
Seems like it was mostly one guy. He had shitloads of blog and journal links. I think it might be the same guy who posted all the 'radio waves harm humans' links and shit. However, there's quite a few other people who seem to seek out wind and solar threads and shit nuclear all over them. I can't fathom why since wind and solar have nothing at all to do with nuclear, but boy they sure get triggered.

I think solar and wind are just really good for power segregation to help stabilize power distribution. I'd have it myself if it weren't for how shitty energy storage is in relation to cost.

>>9783735
Lurk moar.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 07:35:11 2018 No.9783755
File: 92 KB, 1030x730, hypothetical-number-of-deaths-from-energy-production.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9783750
>Nuclear is too dangerous, mate.
Alright folks, heard it here, nuclear's too dangerous, far too many people dying, better continue producing greenhouse gases and carcinogens.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 07:37:28 2018 No.9783760

>>9783664
>Some industrialised nations are already nearing producing 50% of their electricity through wind and solar.
Not that I'm aware of. There are countries that have traditionally been able to meet most of their needs through hydropower thanks to favorable geography, such as Norway and Austria, which puts them at the top in "renewable energies" charts, but no one could possibly rely on wind and solar for half of their electricity, the yield is just too unreliable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 07:51:52 2018 No.9783778 >>9783664 Please provide a source that shows which country, other than small shitty islands, is being powered 50% by wind and solar and WITHOUT geothermal being included in the number to boost it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 07:54:39 2018 No.9783783 >>9783635 Bitcoin energy usage is so much that it has single handily erased all the gains we made on solar for the past two years.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 08:00:37 2018 No.9783792 >>9783755 How would people die from other forms of energy production? Are you telling me that explosions and other forms of massively dangerous accidents are more common in non nucler power plants than in nuclear ones?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 08:02:23 2018 No.9783797 >>9783792 Environmental pollution.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 08:07:42 2018 No.9783803

>>9783792
Black lung and explosions go with coal, so that is hard to beat in terms of fatalities. I am not sure about fatalities with solar short of home roof installation accidents. Wind turbines are dangerous due to being tall structures, so most fatalities are likely from falls. The modern nuclear powerplant has very very few accudents, but these are of high consequence. You obviously don't want nuclear plants on a faultline, in a tornado alley, in a hurricane-struck coastline, etc.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 08:11:25 2018 No.9783808

>>9783755
Yet, I'm all for solar, even though it kills more people than nuclear ever has. Why? Because people fall off the roofs while installing, replacing, or maintaining them and die. That's quite fine, because it means the stupid people are getting killed while the smart ones, who use proper safety mechanisms while on a roof, live.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 08:15:18 2018 No.9783812

>>9783797
Use other forms of clean energy then, faggot. I said nuclear is dangerous, not harmful, which means that, should a nuclear accident occurs, the consequences would be terrible. But obviously its normal operation isn't harmful like burning coal.

>>9783803
From that wind and solar seems to way better alternatives. Maybe that's why they weren't included in the chart.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 08:20:13 2018 No.9783816

>>9783635
Solar power is a good idea but nowadays is still shit. I mine crypto and wanted to install solar power, a waste of money. If you need a lot of energy is not suitable so yes, it's a meme, good for heating up your house water but not for real things. Technology may be improved tho.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 08:24:13 2018 No.9783824 >>9783816 Solar thermal is able to return on investment in many locations

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 08:37:06 2018 No.9783843

>>9783812
Reactor technology and safety mechanisms have been vastly improved since the image of nuclear as a ticking bomb was cemented in the public. It's not the '80s anymore, stupid technicians simply can't override safeties and destabilize reactor cores anymore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 08:45:29 2018 No.9783850 >renewable energy >so cheap and such a low economical risk that you can easily find investors and earn some money >nuclear energy >a big money sink

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 09:38:55 2018 No.9784031 >>9783850 It's not a competition you know, you can invest and build both.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 09:41:21 2018 No.9784035 >>9784031 And investing in nuclear energy is not good business.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 09:43:22 2018 No.9784040

Fossil fuels can be realistically replaced by renewable energy any time we're prepared to completely overhaul the system we have in place. In the long term we'd actually be saving a shit ton of money beyond the initial investment and changeover. The problem is the people who run our countries are the ones profiting off of fossil fuels, the most lucrative thing in the world today, dinosaur juice.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 10:42:33 2018 No.9784113 >>9784040 No retard, even if we devoted our entire global economy to do something like that, it's still gonna take decades to fully switch over

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 10:48:11 2018 No.9784124 >>9784113 Switching within a decade is pretty much instantly. Building a single nuclear power plant can easily take 2 decades.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 11:16:32 2018 No.9784168
File: 354 KB, 2122x1415, nuclear-power-plant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9783635
Wind and solar are indeed memes. Nuclear power is the only long term solution to humanity extreme energy crisis. If civilization switches to wind and solar power it will end in chaos within 2 decades. If civilization switches to all nuclear power, it will spread across the stars and beyond,

The technology of future nuclear power is outstanding:

https://www.scientific.net/AMR.1084.275
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/211440/
https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:48075492
www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/GJ/archives/data/52/MS484.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X15000156
https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:45087989
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170287574A1/en
http://ajms.co.in/sites/ajms2015/index.php/ajms/article/view/2314
https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:47073873
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-26542-1_49
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029549315001429
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/rout/2fbefh/2016/00000001/00000001/art00018

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 11:28:33 2018 No.9784194 >>9783753 I thought you were kidding, but then >>9784168 happened

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 11:32:06 2018 No.9784203 >>9784194 I'm pretty sure that's "Scientist". When he's not btfo'ing flatearthers, or explaining how the meaning of life is materialism, he's shilling nuclear.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 11:51:01 2018 No.9784236 >>9784203 >btfo'ing flatearthers Is such a thing even possible?

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 11:52:33 2018 No.9784238
File: 31 KB, 838x644, 56564564.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9783640
You can't even get 10% out of them. Most of the numbers you get from wind and solar power papers are incorrect in that the people who report about the papers take the "peak" numbers. Unless your solar panels are on the equator, at the highest elevation, with no clouds, and no air pollution, at noon, you'll never reach those crazy ass numbers. The same goes for wind. They are designed to stop functioning during high winds so they don't get torn up. They require a specific range of wind speed or they simply do not work. This is the main reason why nuclear power will forever be better than any other type of power generation. The technology is getting better and better for it, unlike solar and wind power. Those two have peaked about as much as they can. They are also seriously bottlenecked due to power storage.

>>9783661
Plants are extremely inefficient at turning solar energy into plant-usable energy. Most of the energy radiates out as heat. some reflected, and a smaller % converted into plant-usable energy.

>>9783664
Those nations will fall within 2 decades. You can't run a country on solar and wind, because you can't run a military on solar and wind.

>>9783702
While your first statement is incorrect, the rest is correct. A good point you made about the generators. The parts needed for an entire solar and wind system is far more extensive than that of a single nuclear power plant, if both are producing the same amount of megawatts. The solar and wind systems need far more maintenance, kill more people, and rob the Earth of resources that takes tons of nature-rape to replace. It is the hidden secret "they" don't want you to know.

>>9783705
Except for your last statement, you are correct.

>>9783750
This is a completely baseless statement. Pic related.

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

>>9783755
kek

>>9783760
Hydropower is completely irrelevant.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 12:02:43 2018 No.9784253

>>9783812
>Use other forms of clean energy then, faggot. I said nuclear is dangerous, not harmful
Dangerous means able to cause harm. If nuclear is the least harmful power source why do you call it more dangerous? Because you are irrationally against nuclear.
>From that wind and solar seems to way better alternatives. Maybe that's why they weren't included in the chart.
Wrong.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 12:05:29 2018 No.9784256

>>9783850
LOL it's a good investment up to the point where you need to provide a baseload for a large population rather than just add to it. If you are going to provide consistent levels of energy on demand you are going to have to also invest in large scale batteries which will make it very unprofitable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 12:05:59 2018 No.9784257 >>9784236 The average kindergardener can.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 12:06:18 2018 No.9784259
File: 182 KB, 1442x771, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9783783
We never had any "gains" with solar. All the costs leading up to the point where they create energy make them irreverent for gains and that's even before maintenance is involved.

>>9783792
See the link I posted in >>9784238

>>9783803
You entirely underestimate the amazing technology that is a nuclear power plant. These are not some flimsy toy power plant like a wind turbine or roof mounted solar panel. Nuclear power plants are the tanks of the energy generating industry. Pic related. A coast line that gets pounded by hurricanes all the time.

>>9783808
You are psychopathic.

>>9783812
Nuclear isn't dangerous. People are dangerous.

>should a nuclear accident occurs

You'll more than likely stub your toe more times in a year than there will be nuclear accidents in all the combined history and future of human-related nuclear power plants.

>>9783816
Imagine owning a home RTG specifically used for bitcoin mining.

>>9783824
Only if the investment includes used stuff like cardboard boxes, aluminum foil, and old thrown out windows. Like making a solar cooker or batch water heater. Stuff like that is really the only okay use of solar, but only because there's almost no maintenance needed at all. Too bad everyone in a massive apartment complex can't have solar batch water heating. Which is why solar will never work on a civilization scale.

>>9783843
This is 500% or more correct. Good job, anon. Nuclear power plants are some of the most technologically advanced systems on the planet. Even more so than DARPA, NASA, and Space-X combined.

>>9783850
Money really doesn't matter at all. All forms of power generation are heavily subsidized. Solar, Wind, Hydro, Nuclear, Coal, etc all fight for the same pool of government subsidies. They are why your power bill isn't 2000% more expensive than it already is. However, if all the systems where moved t o nuclear, the plant cost would plummet greatly and prices would be lower than they are right now without any subsidies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 12:07:27 2018 No.9784261 >>9784124 The only reason it would take 2 decades is because of anti-nuclear shills lobbying the government to halt production. I love when shills use their own obstruction of something as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 12:12:28 2018 No.9784269
File: 18 KB, 1564x178, Nuclear power.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9783635
>Companies willing invest in solar/wind
>Companies don't want to touch nuclear with a 1000' pole
>Companies in solar are making bank
>Companies in nuclear power are declaring bankruptcy right and left

The markets have spoken, nuclear power is a failed meme.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 12:14:23 2018 No.9784271 File: 85 KB, 323x366, no_nuclear.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9783635 Oh look, it's that blatant nuke shill again that only appears once every few months exactly when there's bad news trending about nuclear power.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 12:21:16 2018 No.9784279
File: 123 KB, 2468x1416, Nuclear_Plant.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9784031
It is 100% a competition. As I mention in the end of this post >>9784259 power company are fighting for the same pool of government subsidies.

>>9784031
This isn't >>>/biz/ however, Nuclear Power is good civilization and good civilization is good business, even if you can't see that in the short term.

>>9784040
Good luck running a military to defend your country using renewable resources. You can do it with nuclear power, because it can be scaled down and the military can change to accommodate it. Those things that would need shielding can be drones instead so no one is harmed and shielding isn't needed.

>>9784124
>>9784261
Actually, nuclear power plants only take 40-60 months to be built. Japan builds them in about 46 months. Korea build them at about 56 months. China averages 68 months. Google it up, it is amazing. In a single decade we could power the entire world with nuclear if we wanted to do so.

>>9784253
*golf clap* You are correct, good sir.

>>9784256
Energy storage is one of those big massive "fuck you!"s to renewable energy. I wish that wasn't true, but power density technology seems to be stuck at the current level despite big claims for the future.

>>9784269
>Companies in solar are making bank
>Companies in nuclear power are declaring bankruptcy right and left

As already mentioned, they both are fighting for the same pool of government subsidies. Due to the grass roots campaigns started by wind and solar companies, as well as their lobbyists, nuclear has been loosing bids for subsidy money they were previously getting. This is a HUGE setback for the USA and civilization as a whole. In fact, it undermines civilization so much in power hungry areas that this tactic can be construed as a direct assault against the country itself. There's a chance that outside forces, enemies, of those countries are doing that very thing on purpose.

>>9784271
Seek help or come up with a better debate method.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 12:27:28 2018 No.9784289 >>9784279 Fuck off shill

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 12:27:43 2018 No.9784290 >>9783778 >>9783760 >>9784238 Scotland, Denmark and Spain are all on around 30-35% wind and solar. Those are the ones I know from the top of my head, but there were others, too. Germany is approaching 20% wind and solar.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 12:29:26 2018 No.9784291

>>9784279
>Actually, nuclear power plants only take 40-60 months to be built. Japan builds them in about 46 months. Korea build them at about 56 months. China averages 68 months. Google it up, it is amazing. In a single decade we could power the entire world with nuclear if we wanted to do so.

And use up all of the worlds uranium in two, nice plan.

Inb4 you are that breedeer reactor retard, those are insanely expensive to operate which is exactly the reason why nobody is using them, except for lowering the amount of nuclear waste you have to handle.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 12:33:11 2018 No.9784298

>>9784279
>they both are fighting for the same pool of government subsidies

No, government money is not a zero sum game. It's like saying teachers are fighting NASA for "the same pool of government subsidies". Solar companies are only fighting other solar companies to get SOLAR earmarked subsidies that could never go to nuclear power.

>This is a HUGE setback for the USA and civilization as a whole
>In fact, it undermines civilization so much

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 12:39:22 2018 No.9784305 >>9784298 You don't know how taxes and subsidies work do you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 12:40:41 2018 No.9784307 biofuel is carbon neutral and current (nondiesel) engines can use it we just need some chemists to figure out how to unlock the aromatic hydrocarbons in lignin and all our energy problems would be solved forever It's literally one thing

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 12:47:20 2018 No.9784320 besides Uranium, are there any other suitable isotopes worth harvesting on the planet? I know next to nothing about this

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 12:49:02 2018 No.9784323 >>9784307 I'm willing to bet enzyme engineering will solve this problem within our lifetimes

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:12:40 2018 No.9784358
File: 65 KB, 508x291, 1-s2.0-S1364032114008284-gr9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

/sci/ I expected more of you.
Renewables are terrible. An industrial economy requires constant electrical power. Due to the insanely high cost of storage intermittent renewables must be backed up with fast response energy sources. This is either hydro, where geography permits, but more usually is Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) running on NatGas. Since there's always the potential for "cloudy, calm, two weeks in January" a non-renewable on-demand full-scale 100% backup must be maintained at ALL times.
Due to engineered-in overcapacity in most advanced economy grids, introducing around 30% renewables has been difficult, but not a show stopper, as we try to push past this number the problems begin.

If you read this article:
http://euanmearns.com/beyond-the-spin-of-green-energy-storage/#more-22093
You can see the massive amount of extra engineering required to accommodate high levels of renewables into an electrical grid. Here, as usual, the back up is provided by CCGTs the rapid ramping of the plants, significantly reduces their useful lifetime and efficiency. In Ireland, at least, these unaccounted for inefficiency losses have reduced predicted CO2 and Gas import saving by 50%. This is only for the small grid of Ireland.

Impossibility of Seasonal Storage at reasonable cost + Huge Grid Upgrades + 100% Fossil Fuel Back up = Massive increase in electricity cost w/no real reduction in C02 or increase in EORI.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:13:55 2018 No.9784362
File: 44 KB, 774x660, china-nuclear-power-plant-construction-2016.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9784358

In short, you cannot run a large industrial economy on renewables. Germany is trying it and failing. France runs on Nuclear and is doing fine in this regard.

China, which is run by engineers not lawyers, has just merged two of it's largest nuclear firms:
http://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/2131431/beijing-approves-merger-two-state-owned-nuclear-giants
This company will have over 150,000 employees, they're also pushing the boundaries with reactor designs (MSRs, FBRs, PBRs) and want to have transitioned to near total nuclear by 2100. They understand that in a world with increasingly difficult to acquire hydrocarbons, the only real option is nuclear.

Renewables are a sideshow for fucking MUCH FEELS dummies. The future is going to be owned by nuclear-powered Chicks.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:17:59 2018 No.9784371

>>9783753
>I can't fathom why since wind and solar have nothing at all to do with nuclear
But they do for the following reasons:
baseload power generation
subsidy, pricing, and purchasing guarantee contracts
social narrative

Granted these problems reduce down to normies are retarded but thats not a problem we can solve.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:19:07 2018 No.9784375 >>9784362 based China getting rid of both fossil fuels AND libtards in one go

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:21:02 2018 No.9784378

>>9784362
China is investing trillions in solar, Germany is the economic powerhouse of Europe in part precisely because they saw the surge of renewable coming 20 years ago. By the way, Germany is governed by a post-graduate theoretical phycist (Dr. Angela Merkel).

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:21:34 2018 No.9784381

>>9784238
>>>9783664
>Those nations will fall within 2 decades. You can't run a country on solar and wind, because you can't run a military on solar and wind
Do you think that the energy breakdown is uniform for every usage? Guys we cant have a military because we absolutely MUST power it with 40% renewables.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:21:53 2018 No.9784383

>>9784279
>As already mentioned, they both are fighting for the same pool of government subsidies. Due to the grass roots campaigns started by wind and solar companies, as well as their lobbyists, nuclear has been loosing bids for subsidy money they were previously getting. This is a HUGE setback for the USA and civilization as a whole. In fact, it undermines civilization so much in power hungry areas that this tactic can be construed as a direct assault against the country itself. There's a chance that outside forces, enemies, of those countries are doing that very thing on purpose.

So ISIS and related groups are pretending to be renewal energy lobbyists?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:23:23 2018 No.9784387 Honestly I welcome Chinese conquest of usa

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:23:47 2018 No.9784388 >>9784291 There is enough easily obtainable uranium in sea water to last tens of thousands of years.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:27:27 2018 No.9784397

>>9784298
>No, government money is not a zero sum game
It absolutely is you mongoloid, there is a finite amount of tax revenue each year and nations dont spend wildly into public debt consistently.
>Solar companies are only fighting other solar companies to get SOLAR earmarked subsidies that could never go to nuclear power.
All of those subsidies fall under a bill congress passed or re upped that determines the total dollar value spent on energy infrastructure.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:30:30 2018 No.9784404 >>9784388 I doubt that would be a net positive energy gain.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:31:15 2018 No.9784408
File: 165 KB, 1536x1072, BNEF_Investment_2016_1_1536_1072_80.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9784378
Congratulations. You fell for the memes.
First off, China is not investing "Trillions" in solar. The entire APAC region only invested $135bn in "Clean Energy" in 2016. China does lead the world in solar hot water heating, which is a very, very sensible idea. Now, don't get me wrong, in some places Solar is a welcome addition to the grid, in small amounts, but not at utility scale. Look up the problem California is experiencing with it's "Duck Curve" from solar overproduction. China is actually reporting overcapacity in solar manufacturing ATM.

Germany is a powerhouse due to:
1. Some of the lowest industrial electricity rates in the world, partly due to running on cheap brown coal.
2. The generations-long development of the Mittelstand as niche industrial leaders, and their auto-industry.
3. The under-valuing of the euro due to the car-crash economies of the med.
It has nothing to do with renewables.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:33:07 2018 No.9784412 >>9784378 Oh, and as to Merkel being a theoretical phycist that would explain why she seems detached from reality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:33:21 2018 No.9784413 >>9784397 >It absolutely is you mongoloid, there is a finite amount of tax revenue each year and nations dont spend wildly into public debt consistently. are you 12?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:38:38 2018 No.9784423 >>9784408 "Only" 135 billion in 1 year, by god you are retarded. In germany, around 500.000 jobs are connected to the solar and wind industry, you have no clue what you are talking about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:39:56 2018 No.9784432 >>9784412 Not every nation on this earth has the privilege to be governed by a demented reality-tv-star.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:46:04 2018 No.9784451

>>9784423
If you add up the total investments in "Clean Energy" across the entirety of Asia Pacific it comes to $1,124bn over 12 years. So the idea that China alone is investing TRILLIONS in just solar is false.

This report:
https://www.irena.org/documentdownloads/publications/irena_re_jobs_annual_review_2017.pdf

Says the number in Germany (2015) is 333,700, 6% lower than the year previous. That includes hydro, csp and geothermal. To suggest wind and solar employ over 1/2 mil is silly.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:47:07 2018 No.9784457 [DELETED]

>>9783635
Technology will continue to get better with time.

Batteries will charge faster and last longer, solar panels will be made more efficient and nuclear reactors will be made water and more reliable.

We should diversify our power generation portfolio and never invest too much in only one method.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:50:42 2018 No.9784464 >>9784404 That's because you don't know what you're talking about. Extraction is not an energy intensive process. It uses amidoxime fibers to passively harvest uranyl.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:51:30 2018 No.9784465

>>9783635
Technology will continue to get better with time.

Batteries will charge faster and last longer, solar panels will be made more efficient and nuclear reactors will be made better and more reliable.

We should diversify our power generation portfolio and never invest too much in only one method.

Fusion power may in time yield results.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:54:45 2018 No.9784469 There are great amounts of resources under the oceans which will be mined by autonomous robotic vehicles.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:57:43 2018 No.9784477 >>9783792 Coal mining is incredibly dangerous and there are gas explosions all the time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 13:58:40 2018 No.9784480 >>9784477 silly goy that doesn't matter compared to Chernobyl 100 years ago

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 14:00:23 2018 No.9784485

>>9784464
The amount of Uranium in the oceans is so tiny, it would be like suggesting we solve the water crisis in several countries by extracting water from rocks.

>>9784451
China wants 20% renewables by 2030. They can only reach that by investing trillions.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 14:12:48 2018 No.9784503

>>9784485
>China wants 20% renewables by 2030. They can only reach that by investing trillions.
OK. Cool man. I'm not sure where you get that number from. For the 13th Five Year Plan [FYP] period [2016–2020], they're aiming for 11.25% renewables, excluding hydro.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ese3.161

This is impressive growth for sure, but it's still not in the realm of TRILLIONS. A billion buys you a lot in China.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 14:14:08 2018 No.9784506 >>9784503 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-energy-idUSKBN17R0QK 20% by 2030 and 50% by 2050.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 14:18:47 2018 No.9784514

>>9784506
>"BEIJING (Reuters) - China aims for non-fossil fuels to account for about 20 percent of total energy consumption by 2030,"
>non-fossil fuels

Yeah. That includes nuclear, that's where you get to Trillions, eight to ten new plants a year for the next ten to fifteen years.
China's total nuclear capacity seen at 120-150 GW by 2030
https://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL3N16M3QX

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 14:22:54 2018 No.9784532

>>9784485
>The amount of Uranium in the oceans is so tiny, it would be like suggesting we solve the water crisis in several countries by extracting water from rocks.
No, stop making shit up. Extracting water from rocks would be many many many times more expensive than the normal method of providing water. Uranium extraction from seawater on the other hand is only twice as expensive as mining it, and that ratio will get lower as extraction technology improves and mine-able uranium decreases. So the argument that there is not enough uranium to power the world is false. There are 100 trillion tons of uranium in rocks on the surface of the Earth. 4 billions tons are in the ocean, and it's constantly being replenished by the ocean pulling uranium from surface rocks. We could power civilization solely on uranium for a billion years and not run out.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 14:29:21 2018 No.9784554
File: 214 KB, 1069x856, cloasedfuelcycle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9784532
If the price of Uranium increased over what it is now then even non-MSR reprocessing technology becomes viable. Originally U was so expensive that reprocessing was seen as essential, new discoveries of U was the reason the FBR plants never got built; U became too cheap.
There's no chance we'll run out of atoms to burn.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 14:31:57 2018 No.9784560 >>9784532 Not who you responded to, but i agree completely, especially when you consider it could be done on a much larger scale using automated equipment we could have enough to power civilization indefinitely.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 14:32:59 2018 No.9784563 >>9784514 150GW total capacity means around 5% of the energy consumption, the other 15% is going to come out of wind, solar and hydro.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 14:41:21 2018 No.9784579

>>9784563
Conventional Hydro is gonna do 5.76% by 2020.
Wind + Solar + Biomass is gonna do 11.25% by 2020.
Nuclear is going to make up the change, 3.01% by 2020.
So, by 2020 they're already at 20% "non-fossil"
By 2030, their going to have roughly, doubled their nuclear share, with plans going forward for nearly 1,500GW before 2100. To me it seems like business-as-usual for renewables, but a massive expansion and investment in nuclear. I wager the 50% by 2050 is currently planned to be nearly all nuclear.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 14:44:23 2018 No.9784582

>>9784532
He says
>No, stop making shit up

and then continues with
>Uranium extraction from seawater on the other hand is only twice as expensive as mining it

which is the dumbest bullshit that has been posted ITT so far, emphasising on so far, because this retard will probably keep posting.

FYI: The world's nuclear power plants right now are consuming around 50.000 tons of Uranium per year. If you wanted to produce all of the worlds electricity through uranium, that number would grow to 1.000.000 tons. So if all of the worlds oceans are holding 4 billion tons, that means you will have to filter 1/4000 of the WHOLE water of the planet in one year. That is literally impossible, even if you had endless funds.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 14:50:11 2018 No.9784586

>>9784582
Getting U from Seawater is questionable, but possible, the Japanese have done it. However, it's not really required. This is a very wide subject, but essentially we have loads of U, without even going to reprocessing or breeders:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 14:53:07 2018 No.9784594 >>9784586 Of course its possible, its also possible to drill rocks in the desert for water, doesn't mean its a good concept to solve water shortages in California. Breeder reactors would without a doubt be way cheaper than this super-retarded idea.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 14:53:30 2018 No.9784596 So just a question for the nuclear advocates, if we somehow manage to develop a cheap, easy to produce super battery that allowed to for grid energy storage to become a reality, then would solar and wind become viable?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 14:56:25 2018 No.9784602 >>9784279 >>9784259 >>9784238 >>9784168 You're forgetting that certain solar designs, like solar thermal power can be used to generate power even in the night.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 14:58:13 2018 No.9784607
File: 181 KB, 1476x901, Nature-Climate-Change-Batteries-Cheaper-than-2020-Projections.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9784596
As a 100% nuke head. Yes.
The intermittency is the killer.
As much as I would like this to happen getting something in range is not looking good.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:01:53 2018 No.9784619
File: 12 KB, 649x180, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9784602
Solar Thermal is a meme.
Old Tech. US plants only have a 30% capacity factor. Lots of malfunctions. Thermal salt is hard to handle. They also burn a lot of natural gas to warm the salt. Costs more per/kw than even EPR's.
http://euanmearns.com/concentrated-solar-power-in-the-usa-a-performance-review/

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:08:00 2018 No.9784628

>>9784596
Current battery prices are at around 15 cents per KW/h. This means that for example if the generation of one KW/h costs 10 cents, and the battery costs 15 cents, one KW/h of electricity that is stored in a battery first before usage will cost 25 cents.

However, you don't need to store most of the energy generated. Most of it would be consumed immediately. So that cost factor isn't that gigantic. Even if you want to save 50% of your energy in batteries, meaning that you could go 6 months without any electricity production, you would only increase the price of the electricity by 7,5 cents. More realistic is a storage capacity of 1-2 months, which would increase the price by 1,5-3 cents per KW/h.

And this is all with current market prices. Grid batteries can be big and heavy, so theoretically they should be way cheaper than the currently cheapest Li-Ion batteries, which where designed to be small and light. Those are the cheapest, because the electronics industry invested heavily in them. A similar investment into grid batteries (like Sodium-Ion) would drive down their cost to a fraction of Li-Ion batteries.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:13:04 2018 No.9784633

>>9784582
>which is the dumbest bullshit that has been posted ITT so far, emphasising on so far, because this retard will probably keep posting.
Mined uranium can be as expensive as $120 per pound U3O8. Current extraction technology is only double that. Not to mention that the price of uranium barely effects uranium power costs.

>FYI: The world's nuclear power plants right now are consuming around 50.000 tons of Uranium per year. If you wanted to produce all of the worlds electricity through uranium, that number would grow to 1.000.000 tons.
I don't want to produce all the world's power with uranium, just the baseload.

>So if all of the worlds oceans are holding 4 billion tons, that means you will have to filter 1/4000 of the WHOLE water of the planet in one year.
So what? The price of doing that is already known. If you wanted to provide all the world's power with solar and wind you would need to spend even more on building and maintaining large scale batteries. You have no argument.

>That is literally impossible, even if you had endless funds.
How is it literally impossible? Is it literally impossible to store most of the world's energy in batteries?

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:19:19 2018 No.9784646

I mean, soon they aren't going to compete, solar/wind is getting so cheap that government subsidies aren't needed to make them cost competitive with fossil fuels. And that's the thing, solar/wind is gonna be much easier for the average joe to get into and buy or to invest or start a company in. Not many companies can operate and build nuclear power plants, nor do we want to outsource building one to the lowest bidder.

So maybe in 10/20 years, I could see solar and wind being a purely private operation, able to compete with fossil fuels without a drop of taxpayers money backing it up. In that case, it shouldn't take any money away from nuclear, that likely only gonna be funded by governments. Even when the majority of our electricity does come from cheap nuclear plants, if solar panel gets cheap enough, I and I think a lot of people, wouldn't mind just spending a few hundred bucks for a 5 kilowatt system that would last us the next 20 years. In case of any accidental power outage or natural disaster, or just wanting to shave a few cents off the monthly bill.

It's not like we can build a nuclear plant in our backyard after all. And more power is never bad, especially when it's on already used spaced instead of giant solar farms Nuclear can run the baseline, with solar and wind and some minimal level of grid storage to back it up in case of any sudden peaks. And with improved A.I systems, predicting those power peaks as well as dips in solar and wind output is probably going to be a lot better then we have today. And we are already quite good at predicting the average wind speed of a certain area a month in advance.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:20:29 2018 No.9784647 >>9784323 >>9784307 That's easy. Use fungi and bacteria. There's some that produce ligninase.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:22:20 2018 No.9784650 >>9784647 but you have to convert it into something useable like ethanol

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:22:34 2018 No.9784651

>>9784238
>The same goes for wind. They are designed to stop functioning during high winds so they don't get torn up. They require a specific range of wind speed or they simply do not work.

First time I heard of this, fuck that's lame. Why can't we just engineer them to be able to function in high wind speeds?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:22:41 2018 No.9784652 >>9784383 Possibly, but more likely China and Russia.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:25:59 2018 No.9784658 >>9784646 And what happens when the law saying the power company HAS to buy this terrible power delivered when they don't need it is removed ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:28:58 2018 No.9784664 >>9784658 >this terrible power delivered when they don't need it is removed ? The fuck are you saying nigger?

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:31:39 2018 No.9784668

>>9784633
First of all thinking that filtering trillions of litres of water to produce a few kg of Uranium will cost only twice than digging it out of the ground directly, is so retarded it hurts.

Second of all, it doesn't even matter how much it costs, it is literally impossible to filter that much water, even if you had endless funds, but since you are scientifically completely irrelevant, you dont understand this, and keep repeating like an idiot that it would cost only twice than digging it out of the ground.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:31:43 2018 No.9784669 >>9784646 >It's not like we can build a nuclear plant in our backyard after all. You can build one anywhere there is a coal plant.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:31:58 2018 No.9784670

>>9784651
They do, but it doesn't turn that wind energy into electrical energy. They do everything from aerodynamic breaking to mechanical breaking. Sometimes they simply stop the entire thing completely. It depends on the design. The home units normally turn away from the wind in a special manner to slow their blades, a form of aerodynamic breaking.

>>9784646
They are getting cheaper because they are taking more subsidies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:33:00 2018 No.9784672 >>9784669 Touche moment right there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:33:03 2018 No.9784673 >>9784669 Thats not true Nuke plants need access to plenty of water for cooling purposes, at least the old dated designs do

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:35:51 2018 No.9784678 whatever happened to solar shingles

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:37:43 2018 No.9784682

>>9784670
>They are getting cheaper because they are taking more subsidies.

And with improved technologies and economy of scale. In a few decades they won't need subsidies. Not to mention that all they need to do is be cost competitive with fossil fuels and we can't expect cheap natural gas and coal to last forever.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:38:46 2018 No.9784684

>>9784668
>First of all thinking that filtering trillions of litres of water to produce a few kg of Uranium will cost only twice than digging it out of the ground directly, is so retarded it hurts.
Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. There is no filtering or processing of the water as a whole. You place the fibers in water, you don't run water through them.

Just fuck off if you need to lie to defend your position.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:39:52 2018 No.9784685 >>9784673 There are methods of dry cooling, and all conventional thermal plants, including coal plants, need water for cooling.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:40:27 2018 No.9784686 >>9784678 Screw that, where is the solar paint from 20 years ago? Also, solar shingles are what people use now on lots of roofs. They are just expensive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:40:54 2018 No.9784687 >>9784678 Whatever happened to solar roadways?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:41:45 2018 No.9784688 >>9784684 As correctly predicted, you have surpassed your own retardedness. So tell me, what exactly do you think those fibres are doing?

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:43:56 2018 No.9784691

>>9784686
They are literally more expensive than building a normal roof, and than put solar modules on top of them, and this way your normal roof tiles would last much longer, so the cost would go down even further. Plus, solar modules are easy to clean, those shingles aren't, so you have a much higher maintenance cost.

They are purely cosmetic, for rich people who for some reason dont like the look of solar modules.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:47:47 2018 No.9784698

>>9784691
>They are purely cosmetic, for rich people who for some reason dont like the look of solar modules.

That's because it looks too, "hippy," generation to them. I think if I were to make a solar roof, I'd pretend the regular ones were big pieces of slate and overlap them. lol I just wouldn't put any cells under the overlaps.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:50:36 2018 No.9784702

>>9784688
They are adsorbing charged ions of uranyl. These fibers can be placed directly in the ocean, which does all the mixing necessary. Then the fibers can be collected and treated with acid, at which point the uranyl goes through the same extraction process as uranium ore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 15:53:48 2018 No.9784707 >>9784702 They are filters, you idiot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:02:57 2018 No.9784723 >>9784707 So please explain to me how it's "impossible" to filter trillions of tons of water this way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:03:42 2018 No.9784725 >>9784723 The tide alone could do it for you. lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:04:24 2018 No.9784728 >>9784725 Exactly. We are not filtering trillions of tons of water, the ocean is doing it for us.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:09:17 2018 No.9784742

>>9784725
>>9784728
>>9784723
The oceans are on average 4000 metres deep. To filter 1/4000 of the oceanic water, you would need to cover the whole surface of the oceans with 1 metre filters (or an equivalent of that, like 100 metre filters in 1% of the oceanic surface), and that is assuming that those filtres can actually filter 100% of the uranium out of the water.

But lets assume you have endless funds, and you are actually doing that. How exactly are you going to let the other 3999 metres of oceanic water going to let through the membranes in just one year, you goddamned retard?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:10:58 2018 No.9784746 File: 41 KB, 562x437, haha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9784742 >he doesn't realize ocean water circulates

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:13:39 2018 No.9784750 >>9784746 Oh yes, since you have demonstrated to be such a great scientific mind, please tell me more about oceanic currents, another field you are obviously an expert in.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:22:45 2018 No.9784769

>>9784750
You don't need to cover any specific amount of the ocean with filters. Uranium will redistribute through the ocean and gets replenished from its source, the rocks on the bottom of the ocean. The amount of filter required has no relationship to the amount of water. There is a certain amount per day that a filter will accumulate per mass of filter, that's it. Divide the 2700 tons of uranium you would need per day by that and you get the mass of filters required. This is no less practical to accomplish than the millions of tons of oil that get processed each day.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:26:39 2018 No.9784778

>>9784769
You are so goddamned retarded, Im going to tell you now, because I have wasted enough time talking to a retard. It takes thousands of years for any cubic metre of water to complete the journey through the currents, so it is literally impossible to filter these amounts of Uranium out of the water on a yearly basis.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:27:23 2018 No.9784782

>>9784253
>If nuclear is the least harmful power source why do you call it more dangerous?
I didn't say nuclear is the least harmful, but it is indeed less harmful to the enviroment than, say, burning hydrocarbons. But that's during its normal operation. It is still more dangerous because one nuclear accident can kill thousands and render land unusable for years. The chance of such a nuclear accident occurring is small (for well designed plants), but its consequences are massive. That's why it is dangerous, even if not harmful; under normal conditions it causes no harm, but there's the risk of an accident that can cause the greatest harm.

This was pretty clear in the sentence following the one you quoted. Now tell me, are you retarded or have some kind of reading disability/attention span? Or am I just being baited repeating myself?

Also,
>trying to prove something posting paid content

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:34:47 2018 No.9784793

>>9784778
>You are so goddamned retarded, Im going to tell you now, because I have wasted enough time talking to a retard. It takes thousands of years for any cubic metre of water to complete the journey through the currents, so it is literally impossible to filter these amounts of Uranium out of the water on a yearly basis.
What does going through the entire current system have to do with anything? It's like you are just throwing out random sentences and hoping they form a coherent argument. Fuck off already.

Also, it's 1000 years according to multiple sources on the first page of google. But we already know you have no problem making shit up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:38:32 2018 No.9784797 >>9784793 You filter 1/4000 of the oceanic water in year 1, where is the next 1/4000 of the oceanic water coming from in year 2, you idiot?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:40:03 2018 No.9784799 >>9784742 >>9784750 >>9784778 >>9784797 Are you a fucking idiot?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:42:41 2018 No.9784804 >>9784793 >>9784799 >samefagging Kys you retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:44:22 2018 No.9784807 File: 46 KB, 1461x619, Wrong again.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9784804 >being this retarded

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:48:46 2018 No.9784817 >>9784807 yeah, editing that you out is like three clicks in MS paint, would fit to a retard like you to do that.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:49:20 2018 No.9784818

>>9784797
The question doesn't even make sense but I'll try to accommodate your mental disability as much as possible. Let's say the ocean is like a giant conveyor belt with 1000 containers of water that moves once every year. That means each container has 1/1000 of the ocean. To be even more generous, let's say that there is only one spot with filters. This spot needs to filter out 1/4 of the uranium in that container before the year ends. Then it has a year's supply of uranium and the next container comes and the process repeats.

In reality, it's even easier than this since the there are no containers and there is more going on than thermo-circulation but obviously you are too far up your own ass to understand that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:54:44 2018 No.9784827 >>9784817 >i-i-t's impossible that two people could disagree with me >it must be edited! Pathetic.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 16:59:31 2018 No.9784837

>>9784818
>here is a completely false analogy that has nothing to do with the fact that the water wouldn't perfectly mix and move around they way I would want it to do in my filtre fantasy

Imagine being so retarded you though filtering water for Uranium was a good idea, and then so insecure about yourself that you are incapable to admit it's a truly retarded idea.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 17:02:49 2018 No.9784840

>>9784837
The idea that the water doesn't mix and takes 1000 years to replenish uranium came from you! I was being generous to you by adopting your talking points and showing how it still worked. You have no argument and you know it. You're just posting out of ego now. Time to grow up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 17:06:33 2018 No.9784848 >>9784840 You are still not getting it, if you are trying to filter such huge amounts of water in such a short time, a lot of that water will be filtered twice.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 17:11:58 2018 No.9784858 >>9784848 No, water is constantly being circulated through the system, uranium is constantly being redistributed and replenished. There is no way we could filter faster than the uranium is being redistributed, nor would we ever need to.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 17:23:35 2018 No.9784876

>>9784858
>There is no way we could filter faster than the uranium is being redistributed,

If you want to produce 1.000.000 tonnes PER YEAR of Uranium out of water, this is literally what you would be doing.

For example, to produce that amount, you would need to filter roughly 10% of the whole mediterranean sea in one year, this mean that every 10 years the whole meditarranean basin need to be replaced with new water, which is not the case, it takes around 200 years to do that.
The same principle is true on a global scale, filtering that much Uranium out of the water is impossible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 17:30:17 2018 No.9784893 >>9784678 >whatever happened to solar shingles They just started to sell them recently.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 18:00:22 2018 No.9784957
File: 156 KB, 960x339, IMG_20180602_165819.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9783640
I'll be the layman here and remind you that all that suburban sprawl roofspace is going unused, you don't need plants with whole fields, you need better infrastructure and power storage organization in a portable form for the land already being left to waste. I'd save nuclear for submarines docking with... another project...

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 18:08:51 2018 No.9784969

>>9784876
>If you want to produce 1.000.000 tonnes PER YEAR of Uranium out of water, this is literally what you would be doing.
No, the halothermal circulation alone provides uranium faster than that. Stop making shit up.

>For example, to produce that amount, you would need to filter roughly 10% of the whole mediterranean sea in one year, this mean that every 10 years the whole meditarranean basin need to be replaced with new water, which is not the case, it takes around 200 years to do that.
That would make sense if the Mediterranean basin was the entire ocean, it's not. Again, the halothermal circulation replenishes every 1/1000th of the entire ocean each year. We only need to capture 1/4 of the uranium in any 1/1000th in a year to get enough uranium. Not to mention that local circulation is moving water from the filter to the ocean floor which is replenishing uranium without any halothermal circulation. So the idea that water needs to be completely replaced is false.

Anonymous Sat Jun 2 18:31:22 2018 No.9785008

>>9784782
>one nuclear accident can kill thousands and render land unusable for years
Chernobyl killed 31. The land in the immediate surroundings is unusable for humans but it is thriving otherwise. Fukushima killed zero-all the casualties were from the tsunami or from the stress caused by unnecessary evacuations. I'm not sure where you are getting "thousands" of potential deaths from, but whatever chance a nuclear plant failure has of causing thousands of deaths is small.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 18:41:25 2018 No.9785030 File: 79 KB, 700x492, American Cow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9783750 >not knowing about Thorium >not knowing that still using Uranium how we do is literally safer than any other type of energy we have thus far

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 18:51:54 2018 No.9785043 File: 284 KB, 2100x1500, DAMAGE CONTROL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9784817 >>9784804

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 2 22:02:49 2018 No.9785401 >>9785008 >Chernobyl killed 31 IAEA estimates about 4000 deaths. Other organizations estimate more.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 00:11:53 2018 No.9785660 >>9784291 >the reason why nobody is using them LOL The reason people don't use them is because the fuel they produce is plutonium, which is scary to retarded faggots like you. It is 100% political.

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 00:24:46 2018 No.9785682

>>9784596
Sure, but it's besides the point. Nuclear technology that can power humanity for as long as we can look into the future has been proven for over half a century. Why would we sit around doing nothing while we wait for a mythical breakthough when there's a solution that's been ready for decades?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 00:33:33 2018 No.9785691 How do you anti-nuclear folk feel about the fact that nuclear regulations actually made nuclear power less safe, by preventing the construction of, or upgrade to, newer safer model plants and forcing us to keep outdated technology?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 01:00:03 2018 No.9785713 >>9785691 Great, because our only arguments against nuclear are self-fulfilling prophecies of it not working because we won't allow it to work.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 01:01:44 2018 No.9785717 >>9783635 its not a meme but neither of them are a singular solution

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 01:23:16 2018 No.9785736
File: 1.41 MB, 320x240, 1432593172998.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9784876
What does it feel like to get so utterly BTFO? Or are you trying to pretend you're trolling now?
Your opponent was polite and clear from beginning to end and you're making a complete and utter fool of yourself.

I bet the next time a thread like this comes up, you'll still argue the very same things because admitting you were wrong would be too much for you to handle.

Your posts are bad and you should feel bad.

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 03:22:32 2018 No.9785866

>>9784969
>Not to mention that local circulation is moving water from the filter to the ocean floor which is replenishing uranium without any halothermal circulation.

It is not doing that fast enough, not even close, you goddamn monkey.

The only way this could theoretically work is by having mobile filtres, but moving these insane amounts of filtres around every year is going to be very energy intense, in fact so much that it probably won't even be a net energy gain.

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 06:33:16 2018 No.9786085
File: 42 KB, 935x806, Unavngivet.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Wind energy is very real and usable where I live. I've seen a lot of comments denouncing it's usefullness or saying that high numbers are "fake" in the sence that they're taken from peak periods, but here's the actual numbers from Denmark:
As we speak we are moving towards 50 % of our electricity being covered by wind. Those are yearly averages, not peak periods or records. Of course there will be days where the wind is not blowing, but this is why we cooperate across borders. On days with plenty of wind we export power to our neightboors and when there isn't we buy from them - hydropower from Norway for examble.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 07:02:38 2018 No.9786132 File: 46 KB, 918x561, carbon-footprint-from-electricity-generation.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] PV SOLAR is dirty. Nuclear produces less co2 and uses less land. It doesn't need batteries or massive grid improvements.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 07:10:49 2018 No.9786143 >tfw geothermal is already saturated terrible feeling

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 08:03:18 2018 No.9786196 >>9783750 oh just fucking end yourself you spastic twat

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 08:28:20 2018 No.9786248 Based Quebec running on hydro

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 08:39:16 2018 No.9786262 >>9786248 This is what the fags here don't want to talk about. They deliberately push the thread towards the nuclear x solar/wind meme, but the truth is that hydropower is the best alternative (where it can be used, at least).

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 08:54:35 2018 No.9786283 >>9786132 Just stop shilling. Everyone knows nuclear power is unprofitable and your propaganda is fooling no one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 09:19:23 2018 No.9786319 >>9784307 Yeah, I always wondered why nobody is focussing on developing genetically optimized plants to produce ethanol. Whoever achieved that would be the world's first trillionaire.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 09:25:06 2018 No.9786331 File: 158 KB, 1709x962, arc-reactor-mit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This kills renewable power for good. Waste of billion of $ each year that would gave us fusion a decade or 2 ago instead of terrible unstable sources like solar and wind.

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 09:57:31 2018 No.9786366

>>9786262
Hydropower can't produce enough power to do anything for anyone of note. It is a very limited technology. This is due to location. you have to have a water source and a shit ton of land to damn up in order to get real use out of hydro. It just isn't worth it unless the flow already exists.

>>9786283
There's no power generation on earth that is profitable. It is all government subsidized. It'd be nice if that was taken away. Then companies would charge the real price instead of stealing tax dollars. There would be power company collapses all over. Most renewables would be gone overnight leaving only the juggernauts behind.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 10:01:01 2018 No.9786370 >>9784432 It perplexes me that your supposed "scientist" leader Merkel claims to fight climate change by scrapping nuclear power in favor of coal power plants. Has dementia finally taken over the former DDR collaborator?

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 10:03:10 2018 No.9786373

>>9784465
>Batteries will charge faster and last longer
No, they won´t. We simply cannot create more efficient alloys at an increasing rate for every year that passes; at some point in the very near future, the physical limitations of the chemical elements will ensure a permanent halt in battery technology.
>

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 10:12:13 2018 No.9786387 >>9784238 How does Hydro have a 1400 deaths per petawatt? What the fuck? How does anyone even die from Hydro?

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 10:14:54 2018 No.9786390

>>9786283
>Everyone knows nuclear power is unprofitable
It produces far more power per invested dollar than any other fuel source.

Without massive politically motivated subsidies, only natural gas, oil and nuclear power would receive any interest from investors.

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 10:27:30 2018 No.9786408

>>9786390
>per invested dollar

Because no dollars are invented. It runs on government welfare with the understanding it will trickle down in campaign donations back to the government.

>Without massive politically motivated subsidies, only natural gas, oil and nuclear power would receive any interest from investors.

Is this b8?

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 10:39:28 2018 No.9786421

>>9783635
>Or are they so utterly useless that we might as well not invest a single cent in them ever again.
No need for extremes, buddy.
The technology has issues in that we don't have a good scalable solution for energy storage. So beyond 50%, some say only towards 80% you'd probably start running into issues right now. But you can probably manage 30% comfortably right now if you have a decent electricity grid in your country.
That's for countries with average temperatures anyway. If you're in a desert, you're a fool if you don't put up as many solar panels as you can possibly manage. Those things are cheap as dirt right now.

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 10:44:16 2018 No.9786432

>>9786387
Hippies and greentards love hydro because they usually don't live downstream that micro mudtsunami generator. Excessive rain, combined opening flood gates to prevent dam damage or god forbid direct dam damage and you've got yourself a wasteland below. Very common in shitholes where priority is on keeping the dam perfectly functional for them energy subsidies and the responsibility for wasting small towns or villages doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 10:49:51 2018 No.9786437 File: 35 KB, 1386x284, hydro.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9786387

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 11:05:05 2018 No.9786449

>>9784362
>Germany is trying it and failing
Mostly because of political reasons. The subsidees Germany provides make no fucking sense for establishing a decent power grid. And then there's the fact that the politicians desperately refuse to retire any amount of coal plants because there's some 30,000 highly subsidized jobs attached to them and some small towns will probably become unemployed and it will create outrage and politicians fear for their votes. Basically they want to keep coal around until everyone in the business has safely retired, despite the fact that coal power is highly incompatible with solar and wind.
I don't know if 100% renewables is technologically or economically possible right now. But I do know you can do much better than Germany is doing right now and has been doing in the past two decades.

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 11:08:11 2018 No.9786454

>>9784378
>precisely because they saw the surge of renewable coming 20 years ago
I don't know how much wind Germany builds, probably a decent amount, but I definetly know that all their investements into solar research basically just gave the Chinese blueprints to steal so they could produce at the fraction of the price and kill any German company that might've wanted to enter the market. Solar is too easy of a technology to boost any industrialized country's economy.

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 11:15:03 2018 No.9786464

>>9786370
She scrapped nuclear power because she wanted to stay in power. Germany has probably the biggest anti-nuclear movement in the world and when Fukushima blew up, Merkel knew that she had to do something immediately or lose the next election over anti-nuclear hysteria.
Especially since her party only just got done stopping the exit from nuclear energy at the time. Of course this exit from the exit of the exit of nuclear power then turned everything into a huge legal clusterfuck and Germany has been paying billions to the electricity companies ever since to help them recover from the turmoil they created.

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 11:33:43 2018 No.9786501

>>9785866
>It is not doing that fast enough, not even close, you goddamn monkey.
What is fast enough? The halothermal circulation alone replaces water fast enough, the fact that the ocean floor is constantly replenishing uranium concentration only adds to that. You have no argument and you know it. Stop posting and grow up.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 11:39:09 2018 No.9786507 >>9786408 Can you show me a single solar or wind project with energy storage that is not dependent on subsidies?

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 11:41:42 2018 No.9786516

>>9786331
Fusion will arrive in a few decades. At that point humanity will already have put too much carbon into the atmosphere to prevent several of the bad results of climate change. Hence we need to do something now.
And while Fusion power will definetely be developed to completion, we still don't know if it will be an (economically) viable energy source.
Sure, the fuel costs basically nothing, but building the reactor itself and the plant around it is on the cutting edge of high tech. Tolerances during construction will be incredibly low, judging by current projects in the field, meaning you can't have this assembled by some random chinamen. And on top of that, it's still unclear how much maitenance one would need to do on such a reactor, which would cause both material costs for replacement parts as well as downtime of the reactor itself.
Oh and then on top of all of that, the most researched form of fusion reactor can't work continuously and will need to shut probably around twice times a day or because of its design.

I like fusion a lot, but betting it will definetly solve all of humanity's energy problems reliably in a few years seems very risky to me.

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 11:42:34 2018 No.9786519

>>9785401
IAEA estimates 4000 additional cancer deaths using linear nonthreshhold model. That's tantamount to nothing. If the same model was applied to additional deaths, coal would be "responsible" for millions of additional deaths, and solar will be thought to cause hundreds of thousands of additional deaths.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 11:45:37 2018 No.9786521 >>9786507 Can you show me a nuclear plant that does? Hell, even coal is often susidized in some way or another.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 11:49:00 2018 No.9786527 >>9786516 >and will need to shut probably around twice times a day or because of its design. *and will probably need to shut down around twice per day because of its design

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 11:52:31 2018 No.9786531 By the time fusion reactors actually generate commercial power, pretty much everyone will have solar power on their roof, making fusion an event that just isn't as important as people thought it would be.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 11:52:43 2018 No.9786532 >>9786521 In the US, renewables get 60 times more subsidies than nuclear but produce less than half the power nuclear does.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 11:53:36 2018 No.9786534 >>9786507 Even fossil fuels receive billions in subsides every year. And unlike fossil fuels, wind and solar are just getting cheaper and cheaper every year.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 11:53:49 2018 No.9786535 >>9786521 >>9786532 And that doesn't even include the extra subsidies that would be required for energy storage.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 11:57:19 2018 No.9786538 >>9786534 How does this respond to my point? Renewables are much more reliant on subsidies than nuclear. They receive 120 times the subsidies per unit of power.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 11:58:06 2018 No.9786541 >>9786532 They once got a shit load more when renewables weren't a thing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 12:00:13 2018 No.9786545 >>9786538 There's no power type that can survive as a business without subsidies. This is because subsidies exist to drive prices down for each kwh. Anyone trying to go without subsidies or who can't get subsidies goes under.

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 12:12:48 2018 No.9786569

>>9786541
>>9786545
The question was which energy types would survive if subsidies were removed. You can't tell me that the current trajectory of stagnant nuclear and renewable growth would continue if nuclear stopped getting $1 per unit of power and renewables stopped getting $120 per unit of power.

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 12:17:36 2018 No.9786582

>>9786545
Of course there are power types that can survive. The price of power from nuclear and gas will increase by a small amount and the price of power from renewables will balloon. Who needs further subsidies to survive in the current market is determined by how cheap the (subsidized) competition is, not how viable they would be if all subsidies vanished.

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 12:19:56 2018 No.9786583
File: 654 KB, 1536x2048, the last of my 3D printer plastic to make something great.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9786569
>>9786582
To bad you are too stupid to understand any of this, but here goes one more time,

Subsidies would need to be 100% removed from all across the board. If any subsidies remained, the power getting them would be the only one that would succeed.

If all subsidies were removed then only the cheapest per kwh would ultimately survive. This would change the entire world's perspective on how energy is used in daily life.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 12:37:22 2018 No.9786614 >>9786583 >To bad you are too stupid to understand any of this, but here goes one more time, Apparently you're too stupid to understand simple English, since nothing you said conflicts with either post.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 12:42:07 2018 No.9786616 >>9786614 Oh the massive irony in your post. Second language I'm guessing, kid.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 12:58:39 2018 No.9786627 >>9786616 OK please show me where I'm not talking about 100% of subsidies removed across the board. This should be good.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 13:04:04 2018 No.9786630 >>9786627 Autism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 13:06:43 2018 No.9786634 >>9784750 >oceanic currents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_current

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 13:17:05 2018 No.9786654 >>9786630 Illiterate retard.

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 13:18:04 2018 No.9786657
File: 83 KB, 556x406, solar price trend.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9786569
>You can't tell me that the current trajectory of stagnant nuclear and renewable growth would continue if nuclear stopped getting $1 per unit of power and renewables stopped getting $120 per unit of power.
It would, though. Renewables aren't growing because of subsidies, but because of rapid technological advancement with no end in sight. Photovoltaics is a semiconductor technology, and it's been advancing right alongside computer technology as our understanding of the physics and chemistry involved grows, and we become more industrially familiar with processes to apply this knowledge.

They're capturing subsidies because of their rapidly improving efficiency. Government sees progress, and politicians and bureaucrats want to claim their share of the credit for the inevitable. The subsidies are mostly unhelpful, encouraging premature deployment of immature, unsuitable technology rather than contributing to technological progress.

Consider the dandelion: one tiny seed becomes a hundred in two months, using only solar power, common local materials, and the "tooling" in the seed itself, with no input of labor. The seeds distribute themselves by wind power. Without competition by other plants, they'd cover a barren continent in solar collectors within a few years.

Nature shows us how cheap solar power can be. Soon, surfaces that are solar collectors will cost no more than surfaces that aren't solar collectors. There's no physical barrier to it, it's just a matter of R&D. And the amount of energy available far exceeds that offered by other technologies.

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 13:34:02 2018 No.9786692

>>9786657
>It would, though. Renewables aren't growing because of subsidies
They are only allowed to grow because of subsidies in the first place. Once net metering ends and you either factor in the cost of providing power from other sources during down times and/or energy storage, solar becomes non-competitive. If these subsidies have no affect on solar competitiveness, then lets see what happens when they're removed.

Anonymous Sun Jun 3 14:27:09 2018 No.9786764

>>9786692
>solar becomes non-competitive
Without any subsidies, solar would still be competitive for air conditioning, which is a major energy cost.

Indeed, solar + storage still isn't competitive (with conventional power that is, it could easily compete with building new nuclear plants, especially when you take into account how slow nuclear projects are), but due to rapid recent progress, solar and storage are now each competitive within significant niches, which is funding their continued rapid progress. Storage is now cheaper and simply better than specialized peaking generators.

The battery problem is overrated. Grid power is one of the least interesting applications of solar energy. Soon it'll be cheap enough for fuel synthesis to compete with oil extraction and refining, then it'll beat natural gas, and finally it will make digging coal look expensive.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 14:57:00 2018 No.9786805 Solar electricity is being sold for like 4 cents per kwh in India. It is cheaper there than fossil.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 3 15:10:35 2018 No.9786819 >>9786805 Only cheap because of all the cheap solar panels from China. Still grid storage is expensive so they still have a lot of coal power plants.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 08:01:17 2018 No.9788171 >>9786819 >It's only cheap because it's cheap The fuck are you saying you double nigger

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 08:24:55 2018 No.9788201 >>9783635 In the time it takes for a nuclear powerplant to get built, solar cells become five times cheaper and twice as thin. Photovoltaics are the future.

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 08:34:20 2018 No.9788213

Renewable energy has the advantage that output and investions are linear.
So long investors are interested in building renewable energy they can do it. From putting some solar panels on your own family house to large scale solar parks - everything is possible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 08:39:51 2018 No.9788217 >>9788201 New nuclear power plants get built in 40-60 months. This is the 21st century after all, not 1982.

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 08:40:48 2018 No.9788219

>>9783635
>Or are they so utterly useless that we might as well not invest a single cent in them ever again.
'ever again' is a long time anon.
What about orbital solar collectors?
What if we built a fucking dyson sphere?Couldn't that make solar a bit more competitive as a consistent power source?

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 08:44:08 2018 No.9788225
File: 222 KB, 502x200, Lake Turkana Wind Power Project.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

There will be a solar and wind bubble. This bubble will burst when their waste of land usage becomes a big problem. However, the bubble may burst for other reasons far sooner than that distant event.

>>9788219
>What about orbital solar collectors?

Not plausible really.

>dyson sphere

We will build that when we build an Earth-based space elevator. Meaning it will never ever get built because both are complete science fiction.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 08:48:54 2018 No.9788234 >>9788225 A Dyson Swarm is inevitable and very easy to build once we have industry in space. Space elevators could be built today (through orbital rings).

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 08:52:31 2018 No.9788241 >>9788225 >We will build that when we build an Earth-based space elevator. Meaning it will never ever get built because both are complete science fiction. What are orbital rings and space based orbital infrastructure?

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 08:58:27 2018 No.9788249

>>9788225
>Dyson Swarm
>Swarm

That I can agree with and we have the science for that now. We don't need anything other than normal rockets to build that.

>>9788234
>>9788241
>orbital rings

No, this is 1,000,000% fucking bullshit fantasy sci-fi.

>space based orbital infrastructure

These have to do with anything mentioned you autists. Do neither of you realize I was making a simile and not a solution to something?

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 09:01:01 2018 No.9788251

>>9788249
>No, this is 1,000,000% fucking bullshit fantasy sci-fi.
Based on?
>These have to do with anything mentioned you autists. Do neither of you realize I was making a simile and not a solution to something?
You said that a dyson swarm is never happening unless a earth-based space elevator is build, I pointed that you don't need a space elevator if you're just building everything in space

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 09:05:14 2018 No.9788256

>>9788225
>>9788249
>orbital solar collectors?
>Not plausible

>Dyson Swarm?
>That I can agree with and we have the science for that now. We don't need anything other than normal rockets to build that.

What? Also, now I'm having a real hard time figuring out where you stand on this whole "can solar be worth investing in" discussion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 11:05:37 2018 No.9788425 Solar and wind is really going to depend on battery tech (or capacitor tech if it suddenly sees an enormous boom in breakthroughs). Solar a lot more than wind. But I'm not seeing it, improving batteries is really hard.

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 11:20:39 2018 No.9788441

>>9788251
>>9788256
Orbital rings and Earth-based space elevators are impossible because no material exists that can withstand the forces involved. A Dyson swarm (not shell) is doable right now because we already historically have the technology and are using it every single day. A Dyson swarm is just a bunch of satellites after all.

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 11:29:43 2018 No.9788451

>>9788441
A orbital ring doesn't need at special high strength material to make. It's uses active support from a loop of electromagnetically charged wires. Not tensile strength. It would require large scale fusion use, extremely large scale and precise engineering and probably some kind of A.I system to control the active support system but it doesn't need physically impossible carbon nanotubes

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 11:29:56 2018 No.9788452

>>9788441
>A Dyson swarm is just a bunch of satellites after all

Yeah, but what confused me was that earlier you said putting a solar panel into space wasn't plausible. Now you're saying that putting a bunch of solar panels around the sun is easy peasy.

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 11:48:46 2018 No.9788481

>>9788452
Being easy doesn't make it plausible for energy return. It is a worthless venture for an Earth-based need. To have it be worth anything you'd need to use colonies as the swarms. That's not ever going to happen because there will never be a need for that specific niche.

>>9788451
>A orbital ring doesn't need at special high strength material to make

You do not know anything about it. You are spouting pop sci non-sense.

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 11:58:29 2018 No.9788492

>>9788481
http://orbitalring.space/OrbitalRings-I.pdf
http://orbitalring.space/OrbitalRings-II.pdf http://orbitalring.space/OrbitalRings-III.pdf

Go ahead and disprove it then faggot. Again, Kevlar is already strong enough to build the tethers and the ring itself isn't experiencing any mechanical stress since it's in freefall.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 12:02:02 2018 No.9788499 File: 67 KB, 1469x496, Orbital Rings.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9788492 Do you know anything about material physics in space?

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 13:04:32 2018 No.9788602

>>9783635
Thin-film photovoltaics are absolutely incredible for space based applications. Cutting edge panels get you on the order of 1000 Watt/kg nowadays, while the best nuclear reactors on Earth manage 50 W/kg. And you can expect those numbers to get even better, 10'000 Watt/kg is possible in 10 years and very likely within 20.

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 15:31:45 2018 No.9788866
File: 417 KB, 2000x1000, German-1993-NuclearorClimatechange.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9784238
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34292
Nukies are pretty pissed today. Of course I would be pretty pissed too if I had dedicated my life to a false god and now even my allies in fossil fuels and the utilities are abandoning me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 15:41:04 2018 No.9788881 File: 44 KB, 290x480, 20130601_USC718.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9786583 >If all subsidies were removed then only the cheapest per kwh would ultimately survive. You mean fracking?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 15:49:04 2018 No.9788898 >>9788171 >The fuck are you saying you double nigger China, ISIS and hippies have teamed up to sap and impurify our precious electrical fluids

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 15:50:10 2018 No.9788900

>>9788881
Fracking is a huge fraud scheme for taxes, debt, subsidies, and bankrupcy. None of the wells even break even. Several companies and child companies will own a single well, all making nothing in return and all writing off losses. Most are owned by the same parent company. They get anywhere from $10 billion to $50 billion a year in subsidies.

The cheapest per kilowatt hour would end up being nuclear.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 15:57:50 2018 No.9788916 >>9784652 >Possibly, but more likely China and Russia. MAGA!!! https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/trump-plan-bails-out-coal-and-nuclear-plants-for-national-security.html

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 16:06:41 2018 No.9788931 File: 58 KB, 970x674, natgascoal-chart11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9788900 You need to go tell all those utility companies how fucking wrong they are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 16:11:47 2018 No.9788944 >>9788931 You don't get how we are talking about a hypothetical situation that has not happened and never will happen? (no subsidies scenario)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 16:53:48 2018 No.9789042 >>9788171 I'm saying countries that aren't in proximity to China have higher solar costs due to shipping. Meaning India by itself is not a place to look up to in solar development.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 17:20:57 2018 No.9789126 >>9789042 Bullshit, like solar tech is some secret

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 18:11:33 2018 No.9789251 >>9784413 If you dont understand what a budget is I cant help you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 18:16:12 2018 No.9789262 >>9784782 >REEEEEEEE No nuclear plant that is in operation in the west can fail in anyways that renders anymore land than the footprint of the building(s) its built on.

Anonymous Mon Jun 4 18:21:54 2018 No.9789276
File: 450 KB, 491x565, 1502249539964.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9786583
>Pose hypothetical that has no bearing on reality
>Doesnt even have bearing on the other anons argument
>Thinks profitability is equivalent to success or even entirely relevant to the discussion of energy production
>Doesnt understand subsidies to any discernible degree.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 20:53:55 2018 No.9789478 >>9789276 The irony here is that all of that is speaking about you. Way to fuck up, bro. He laid you out cold. lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 21:15:18 2018 No.9789515 >>9789126 >Bullshit, like solar tech is some secret Who says it is? China just makes the best solar panels for the price.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 4 23:50:45 2018 No.9789765 >>9786366 Dams provide fresh water storage, flood control, habitat for animals, recreation areas,

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 04:13:26 2018 No.9790095 >>9784194 exactly what I thought lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 14:22:09 2018 No.9790945 >>9789478 I'm a different anon, so no he didnt. I'm just observing the the pathetic state of discourse on this board.

Anonymous Tue Jun 5 16:14:13 2018 No.9791136
File: 92 KB, 1000x958, 2.15.13-IER-Web-LevelizedCost-MKM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9783753
>However, there's quite a few other people who seem to seek out wind and solar threads and shit nuclear all over them. I can't fathom why since wind and solar have nothing at all to do with nuclear, but boy they sure get triggered.
The collapse of natural gas prices due to fracking and the rise of combined cycle gas power plants as the lowest cost electricity producers has broken their brains.
>But that has nothing to do with renewable energy.
That's just how badly their brains got broken.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 17:52:48 2018 No.9791312 File: 277 KB, 1250x832, srb energy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Solar thermal, yo. < --Evacuated flat plate.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:33:03 2018 No.9791371 >>9784691 >They are purely cosmetic, for rich people who for some reason dont like the look of solar modules. then why don't they just build different looking solar moduals?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:35:54 2018 No.9791376 >>9784778 >so it is literally impossible to filter these amounts of Uranium out of the water on a yearly basis. what if you put the filter on a boat?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 18:54:19 2018 No.9791395 File: 92 KB, 754x847, mit germany.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Why did solar fail in Germany? ? ?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 23:15:42 2018 No.9791768 >>9783664 holy shit you are a fucking retard that's because those countries have much smaller populations hooked up to the grid.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 23:17:50 2018 No.9791771 >>9791395 it didn't, germany is just now developing their oil resources in west germany where there's nothing, thus spiking their carbon emission again oil is the culprit

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 5 23:20:19 2018 No.9791774 >>9789262 Elaborate.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 00:28:56 2018 No.9791909

>>9783635
Inherent inefficiencies in both.

>wind
propeller turbine on a 30-70m high straw.

Ask helicopter and propeller aircraft if this is a good idea or not.
The whole thing is constantly resonating and vibrating apart. In addition the turbine ideally wants to rotate at the same RPM all day every day with no variance on how and how much force is applied. Unfortunately this is never the case with wind and as such it needs more tolerances which means lesser efficiency. The turbulence around the blades is variable and so is the force exerted on the shaft, grime and dust also builds up on the blades and it consists almost entirely out of moving parts.
Because of this it needs a lot of maintenance in a very awkward high up position that is often located in places away from infrastructure like at sea or on mountains and hills so in addition to maintenance being impractical you also need to do it in remote locations.

All in all, there is little if any possibility for further efficiency with this technology, the maintenance needs to happen regularly and is very costly.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 00:37:19 2018 No.9791914

>>9783635
A lot of people praise solar panels without knowing how they work, photons are not converted into a flow of free electrons.
An artificially created material (which took a lot of energy to make because melting melting glass takes a lot of energy) is being drained with the help of solar radiation. It is basically a battery.

It will not become more efficient because the panel can only use a very specific frequency of light for this purpose, coatings may convert a bit of light to a usable wavelength but we are talking a 20nm bandwith within the visible spectrum out of potentially the entire EM spectrum, it is trash technology for these reasons alone.
Mirrors and vanta black heat absorption or heating up salt solutions is great if you are Spain or Arizona but otherwise not so much.

In the northern hemisphere light intensity is so low that the panel will basically earn back its installing costs within 20 year as opposed to simply buying the electricity in the best case scenario which is ridiculous when you consider that the price for electricity from the next is 50-80% taxes.

It can not compete and the technology can not advance on the base of how it works and what is possible within that frame.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 00:37:30 2018 No.9791915 >>9791395 Just stop shilling retard, nuclear power is dead.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 00:45:15 2018 No.9791921 >>9791914 >>9791909 cute and wrong

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 00:46:23 2018 No.9791922 >>9791395 Actually, the per capita output is shrinking.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 00:52:48 2018 No.9791927 >>9791921 funny and wrong about me being wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 04:07:11 2018 No.9792081 >>9791768 Spain, population around 40 million: 47% Wind, solar and hydro. Germany, population around 80 million: 30% Wind, solar, biomass and hydro.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 05:19:39 2018 No.9792123 >>9792081 You neglect to mention that the only reason this works in Germany is because France has about 16 nuclear reactors powering the European grid. Without that a continuous power supply could not be guaranteed.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 05:28:32 2018 No.9792129

>>9792123
Germany is net-importing around 9TW of nuclear energy from France, that's around 1,5% of it's total electricity consumption.

https://www.wiwo.de/technologie/green/energiehandel-atomstrom-importe-aus-frankreich-erreichen-rekordhoch/13550910.html

Also, the article says that the net-importing is only true for France, overall germany is net-exporter of electricity, sells electricity worth 4 billion and buys electricity worth 2 billion.

Also see this:

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

The only relevant nations that are below 25% are France (because of its big nuclear sector), Japan, Russia and the US.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 05:40:38 2018 No.9792134

>>9783635
They are more harmful to nature than nuclear even. NPPs have a 1/10000~ chance to meltdown while solar panels and wind turbines to constant and continuous harm to surrounding nature, especially birds.
The least harmful natural energy harenesing is hydro-electro, but even that causes flooding on one end and drought on the other, and it also completely obliterates fish water life.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 05:43:54 2018 No.9792137

>>9792129
My point was that Germany's heavy reliance on solar and wind also means it's output can vary a lot and not coincide with peak usage.

Nuclear has a nice and stable output that can accomodate a bigger difference in output and demand on the German net.

If France and its nuclear sector wasn't there Germany would have to resort to its own alternatives for alternatives to prevent not being able to meet its own demands when conditions and output are not sufficient.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 05:54:35 2018 No.9792142 >>9792137 Yeah, because 1,5% of the electricity consumption is make or break of the german electricity grid, retard. The base load can be done by Hydro, biomass, and some gas turbines - no need for nuclear.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 05:55:57 2018 No.9792144

>Wow wind is so cool and clean
>*destroys your native bird life and fucks with established wind patterns*
>Solar panels man it's like, energy from the sun dude
>*builds with literal child slave labour and processes open pit mine material with huge amounts of energy from fossils fuels or nukes*
>Look man we are storing excess energy in batteries haha isn't that cool?
>*rapes the environment processig tons of rare earths*

Fucking environmentalists don't have a clue about the real impacts of their wonder products.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 05:59:00 2018 No.9792147 >>9792144 >fucks with established wind patterns WTF did I just read.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 06:02:39 2018 No.9792149

>>9792147
You take momentum out of air currents in exchange for turning turbines, this is a well known and obvious side effect, you don't get energy for free. This has effects on everything from pollination to bird migration patterns and a whole host of other shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 06:06:42 2018 No.9792150 >>9792149 Are you the same guy who said a while back you shouldn't store energy by synthesising methane because it might leak?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 06:10:19 2018 No.9792154 >>9786437 >China and India Kek everytime, they just don't give a fuck. Imagine the death toll when three gorges pops, hundreds of thousands at least if not millions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 06:16:15 2018 No.9792160 >>9792142 You are using an average percentage and thereby demonstrating a tremendous lack of understanding in powergrid usage. You are being misled by a %. Averages do not exist in reality.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 06:16:42 2018 No.9792162

>>9792150
So please clarify whether or not wind turbines are extracting energy from the air current? Because I'm pretty sure that is the fucking definition of their function.

And no I am not that guy and have no opinion on Methane. Mite b cool to try and store Methane from livestock in some sort of backpack or bladder to fuel generators though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 06:24:14 2018 No.9792171 >>9792162 Do you know how many wind turbines would be needed "to fuck with established wind patterns", whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean exactly?

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 06:26:40 2018 No.9792176

>>9792160
Lol, in a whole year 10-12TW come from France to germany, 70% of that being nuclear, please tell me what germany would look like without these insane amount of energies coming from France that amount to a bit more than 1% of total electricity consumption in germany.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 06:32:53 2018 No.9792179

>>9792171
There has been a study on a small wind plant in Texas where they detected immediate temperature gradients (read, thermal dissapation changes in atmospheric medium) in the locations around the farm. That's only a small one, what do you think these huge fucking scale ones are doing? It takes a shitload of energy to moves hundreds of these massive turbines.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 06:36:32 2018 No.9792181 >>9792179 You are so retarded it hurts.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 06:37:33 2018 No.9792182

>>9792137
>Nuclear has a nice and stable output
>except around peak Winter and Summer

>If France and its nuclear sector wasn't there Germany would have to resort to its own alternatives for alternatives to prevent not being able to meet its own demands when conditions and output are not sufficient.

that's not how it works

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 06:45:26 2018 No.9792192 >>9792181 Nice rebuttal.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 07:51:16 2018 No.9792272 >>9792192 >We can use PV because it uses the energy of the sun up

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 07:54:37 2018 No.9792277 >>9792192 >We can't use PV because it will use the energy of the sun up

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 07:57:43 2018 No.9792281 >>9792182 what? why would you think npp output less energy in winter and summer?

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 08:04:20 2018 No.9792294

>>9792281
>frozen rivers in Winter
>water temperature too hot in Summer

That are typical problems of nuclear power plants in France.
And that are the moments when energy security is truely in danger.

The 1.5% Germany is importing from France is a result of the energy prices as part of the European energy market.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 08:06:46 2018 No.9792301

>>9792137
You dont have a point. Germany's electrical grid is not depended on ~10TW that are coming from France.

Also, the main reason Germany is net importing from France is because they can sell electricity more expensive to other neighbours than they are buying from France. So they buy cheap from France, and sell high to other neighbours. This has nothing to do with grid stability, Germany has plenty of coal, biomass, nuclear, and other energy sources to guarantee that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 14:59:47 2018 No.9792871 >>9792176 You mean TWh. Learn the difference between power and energy before you try to talk about the grid you fucking retard.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 15:31:23 2018 No.9792938

>>9785008
The cancer rates around fukushima and chernobyl are absurdly high, many millions have died from this, if humanity keeps existing and we dont develop a cure it is likely hundreds of millions will die from this alone.
The same is true from nuclear test sites.

But since it cant be measured directly and theres no telling who will draw the short straw we dont care. As a society literally were gambling that it wont be us who gets cancer because it gives us a little energy. God i hate right wing capitalist people who dont know love

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 15:41:38 2018 No.9792952

>>9785691
Nuclear energy is safe and the energy from the future
>gets used in combat and kills as much people as WW1
Well ok but now we wont use it anymore because of MAD
>thousands of nuclear tests in the atmosphere elevate rad levels worldwide and will cause hundreds of millions of deaths in passive cancer rates
WEll well ban testing except underground, dont fight us you hippie! you dont imagine the great benefits from nuclear power that will come a new golden age of free energy for all!
>chernobyl, huge meltdown, lose of money in that accident alone is enough to offset the economic benefits of nuclear power even if every country constructed 1000 nuclear plants and operated them for 1000 years. (also more hundred millions of deaths in passive cancer rates)
Well that only happened because theyre evil communists!!
>three mile island, more hundreds of millions in passive cancer rates
Well then the americans are bad too, we need a race that is known for doing everythign perfect all the time with great precision, if they operate it nothing can go wrong
>fukushima disaster, more hunderds of millions of passive cancer rates.
Well OK but if you dont take ANY of that into consideration it's super cheap energy!
>considering waste disposal running a power plant is more expensive per killowat that using solar panels from the 1950s.... COATED IN GOLD!!!!!!
well ok! i wont dispose the material then what can go wrong???
>more hundreds of milllions of passive cancer death rates

The absolute only true is that nuclear power is good for onyl two things: nuclear bombs that explode in cities and kills a lot of inocent babies with shards of glass that go trough their heads (this is what youre for when you support nuclear power) AND nuclear submarines that go underwater a lot...

thats literally it, only military application, the idea of civilian nuclear power is pure poetry, its like an opinion, someone with money liked it in the 50s and it stuck as a fad.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 15:43:05 2018 No.9792956 >>9786516 once we have fusion its free infinitey energy, and with that the carbon problem ends. you can literally build one robot per each molecule of carbon and have that robot take that molecule and fly it to mars

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 15:43:13 2018 No.9792957 Imagine being so pathetic you nitpick over a typo instead of having an argument >>9792871

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 15:46:48 2018 No.9792964

>>9792149
if each person on earth consumed twice the amount of electricity that disney world consumes in one century PER DAY and you supplied all of that power with wind, it would still not be enough to even make a dent in wind patterns.

People who didnt finish high school usually lack a sense of scale

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 16:09:59 2018 No.9793000 >>9792956 >once we have fusion >once we have >once we >once >never

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 18:11:57 2018 No.9793236

>>9792952
Are you anti-car? Did you know the same research that made guns possible (the study of air pressure), also lead to the invention of the engine? And after we made cars, we started making tanks.
You know, you're right, we need to ban all engines right now. They only lead directly to war and death.
Fuck, I should probably also get rid of my microwave too.
And satellites. Someone go shut down SpaceX! We go to space on rockets. Fucking rockets man! aka MISSILES!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 18:18:54 2018 No.9793248 >>9792294 Tell me the last time a river froze over into a solid iceblock in France. Or the last time the water temperature rose so high it couldn't cool a fucking nuclear power plant.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 18:20:07 2018 No.9793251 >>9792938 >The cancer rates around fukushima and chernobyl are absurdly high, many millions have died from this Cancer rates around Fukushima is lower than most places in the world. About 3000 additional cancers have been estimated from Chernobyl.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 19:12:23 2018 No.9793333 >>9783664 >producing Kek, which is meaningless because they import most of the energy they actually consume from countries with fossil fuel, nuclear or hydro.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 19:17:13 2018 No.9793339 >>9784271 Not an argument

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 19:19:20 2018 No.9793340 >>9792952 This post is a great illustration of how insane and dishonest anti-nuclear tards are.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 19:23:54 2018 No.9793344 >>9792952 >kills a lot of inocent babies with shards of glass that go trough their heads (this is what youre for when you support nuclear power) This HAS to be ironic shitposting (which is still shitposting btw, nigger)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 19:46:44 2018 No.9793378 >>9793000 Fusion is literally just around the corner thanks to recent advances in superconductors. Google SPARC.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 20:14:11 2018 No.9793409 >>9789765 Are you a fucking moron? Yes you are. You can't build dams everywhere. >>9791136 No, its due to more subsidies because the government wants the US to be more energy self-sufficient. The fracking is being drilled at a massive loss.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 20:21:36 2018 No.9793423

>>9783750
FFS, nuclear power has the lowest deaths/kWh record of any energy production method, by far. If we had a chernobyl-scale disaster once every decade it still wouldn't be a millionth as dangerous as fossil fuel combustion.
That's dumb as fuck. I swear to god, you have to be numerically illiterate to be scared of nuclear power but OK with coal, oil, and natural gas.

Fuck, even hydro is deadlier!

OP, wind power is incredibly useless for powering an electrical grid. Great for grinding flour though.

Solar power has promise, but the simplest forms of it are the best and nothing we can do yet rivals plant photosynthesis.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 20:26:31 2018 No.9793435

>>9784238
>Plants are extremely inefficient at turning solar energy into plant-usable energy. Most of the energy radiates out as heat. some reflected, and a smaller % converted into plant-usable energy.

They're as efficient as they need to be. You may not have noticed but there's an absolute shitload of sunlight. In fact, most plants are typically more concerned with dissipating heat than they are with improving effeciency; if they were any *more* effecient at capturing sunlight, they'd fucking cook themselves.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 20:29:22 2018 No.9793439 >>9793435 Higher stomatal density for heat dissipatation You ain't seen nothing yet

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 20:29:44 2018 No.9793440 >>9784307 So what you're saying is that we need to be doing what life has already been doing for millions of years. Shocking. Industrial civilization was a mistake.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 20:33:52 2018 No.9793446

>>9792952
>>9793344
i am the author of that post, it was indeed ironic shitposting, i apologize for it, i wrote so much of that shit trying to be as cringey as possible that it actually got in my head and i got a huge nightmare about it. We were in a pit filled with people and during a given interval a nuclear bomb exploded in the distance, kinda far but not that far. every time one exploded everyone cried in fear because they knew we were getting dosed with radiation and would surely die.

This is my punishment for greatly exagerating the increase in cancer rates because of nuclear accidents and tests. Altough it is a thing it is by no means "confirmed hundreds of millions" it is actually much less.
I apologize for my autism and for ruining everyone's day

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 20:38:02 2018 No.9793452
File: 334 KB, 1024x1110, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9789765
Dams are enormous environmental disasters that destroy the ecosystems of entire watersheds, and there's not a hydroelectric dam on earth that produces a net gain in energy over time. They're too expensive to build and maintain. They're basically just old fucks' ways of saying "FUCK YOU, FUTURE HUMANS, MWHAHA WE HAVE HEAVY MACHINERY AND CONCRETE AND YOU WILL HAVE NOTHING BUT ECOCIDE AND DESSICATION."

Seriously, dams are the worst. If you like dams please go jump off one.

Anonymous Wed Jun 6 20:44:10 2018 No.9793455

>>9789765
>fresh water storage
By depriving the local watershed of ground water and preventing water from reaching healthy biotic cycles, subjecting it to vastly increased evaporation rates.
>flood control
By requiring permanent, costly maintenance to prevent catastrophic flooding orders of magnitudes more destructive than annual water cycles, often putting densely-inhabited areas at risk (looking at you, Mosul dam).
>providing animal habitats
By destroying hundreds of times as much riparian habitat as they create - not to mention that newly-created shorelines are susceptible to monocultures of invasive species and often support minimal biodiversity, in contrast with the much more extensive stream and riverbeds they destroy which support ancient, healthy communities.
>recreation
wow, waterskiing, woohoo!

How does it feel to be this damn wrong?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 21:06:19 2018 No.9793480 >>9793435 Who fucking cares? It is still extremely inefficient.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 21:11:08 2018 No.9793487 >>9793378 People keep saying that but it never happens.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 21:12:44 2018 No.9793489 >>9792301 >So they buy cheap from France, and sell high to other neighbours. So basic a buy low sell high an being clever with energy? Why does this trigger people?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 21:14:08 2018 No.9793492 >>9793452 Absolutely everything you said in your post is completely wrong. This is probably the worst post in /sci/'s history.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 21:37:50 2018 No.9793513 >>9793378 I already know all this and about these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yttrium_barium_copper_oxide The problem even these are not good enough for fusion, hence why MIT is making magnet research a top priority to advance their fusion research.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 6 21:43:25 2018 No.9793519 >>9793492 Well color me convinced

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 7 06:30:24 2018 No.9794044 >>9793409 >No, its due to more subsidies because the government wants the US to be more energy self-sufficient. The fracking is being drilled at a massive loss. False https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/

Anonymous Thu Jun 7 06:51:39 2018 No.9794074

"Suppose that 1% of the earth's land surface were covered with solar collectors, efficiency 10%, then the radiation converted to electricity would be 10^14 watts. This would support about 10 billion people at the same level as that of present day America"
And that was with 1975 solar technology, make of that what you will.
from Bockris 1975, in "Hydrogen Energy" "Is massive solar energy conversion a practical prospect?" plenum press.

Anonymous Thu Jun 7 07:55:07 2018 No.9794138

>>9791395
because politicians refuse to shut down coal in favour of gas. They are trying to keep coal power and mining going as long as possible because MUH JOBS!
So instead of supplementing variable energy sources with an energy source that can be throttled on demand at any point, they try to make this work with plants that are designed to produce the same amount of power for long periods of time and it turns into a mess. Oh and coal is dirtier than gas by default, especially the kind of stuff Germany uses. Oh and then on top of that, German coal power plants are fucking ancient, some still dating back to the communist days of east germany.
Oh and to top it all off Germany is currently also phasing out nuclear so a lot of the wind and solar is replacing carbon free nuclear instead of the fucking coal plants.

TL;DR: German politicians are stupid, this isn‘t representative, just looking at "renewables up, carbon not down" is too simplistic

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 7 07:58:06 2018 No.9794142 >>9791909 >30-70m high straw Mate, we‘re nearing 200 meters now

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 7 08:10:47 2018 No.9794152 >>9792160 Germany has 30 GW of gas plants doing basically nothing all year. I‘m sure they could do without a few GW of French nuclear power. It‘s just cheaper and doesn‘t use russian import gas.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 7 08:16:36 2018 No.9794156 >>9794138 >disband coal mining and all down the line related industries >suddenly hundreds of thousands if not millions of people with the with the desire to disband you wat now greenfag? free weed?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 7 08:22:41 2018 No.9794163 >>9793248 >Or the last time the water temperature rose so high it couldn't cool a fucking nuclear power plant Happens quite frequently actually when you look into it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 7 08:23:10 2018 No.9794165 There MUST be a way to boost photovoltaic efficiency. Why isn't anyone working on this?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 7 08:28:49 2018 No.9794166 >>9793423 May not be that deadly, but Fukushima and Chernobyl were plenty fucking expensive.

Anonymous Thu Jun 7 08:42:20 2018 No.9794175

>>9794156
It‘s around 30,000 people and all the domestic mining was all heavily subsidiesed anyway.
I don‘t even know why people make such a fuzz about this in a country of 80,000,000. We took in a million people recently and get told every day that that‘s no problem and they‘ll find work no problem. But 30,000 educated people from coal require years of planning before shutting their jobs down. It‘s kind of insane. Nobody asked this for nuclear either. Deutsche Telekom lays off as many people every few years.

Anonymous Thu Jun 7 08:47:48 2018 No.9794183

>>9794165
Lots of people are working on it and are making progress every day. But it‘s incremental improvement, just like with batteries. People keep expecting there to be a breakthrough with +50%, but they overlook that it all improves steadily by a few percent every year. But because there is no one marketable wonder breakthrough people complain about the lack of progress all the time.

Anonymous Thu Jun 7 10:44:48 2018 No.9794360

>>9794183
Monocrystalline solar cells are already about 25 percent efficient and approaching dirt cheap levels. I don't see the high efficiency 30 to 40% multi junction solar cells ever being able to compete in terms of price. However thin film can with efficiency 10 to 20 percent because they weigh so much less and are a lot cheaper to ship.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math