yeah but nimby exists, and coal still beats the pants off of hydro and solar and wind. Nyseg heavily relies on coal and it is clean if you filter it properly.
>Tom Clancy, Metal Gear plot happens >insurrectionists take over several nuclear plants, the police don't have enough bullets for the bodies >breach the reactor and C4 the thing unless suicidal mind controlled schwarzneggers pull the control rods out of the vessel with their bear hands and chornobyl the reactor
The most moronic take. It would be easier for insurrectionists to build a dirty bomb than to invade or sabotage a nuclear plant. Keep dreaming up your Hollywood script tho
If only there was a source of energy that didn't create CO2 and that didn't rely on random or semi-random factors such as weather or rainfall in the past week or season...
>Between hydro energy and solar energy, which is "less" of a meme?
Solar. Decentralised, leverages battery storage or other storage means, and can be integrated into networks. Very good from a national security perspective. Hydro can be pumped, which acts as a firming supply. Traditional hydro has very large ecological impacts, and from a security standpoint it is very vulnerable to disruptions.
yeah but nimby exists, and coal still beats the pants off of hydro and solar and wind. Nyseg heavily relies on coal and it is clean if you filter it properly.
>coal still beats the pants off of hydro and solar and win >coal and nuclear, nothing else comes close
The rationale and logic for these statements? Otherwise it's just opinion.
based bird hater
Yes, and they're terrible for flight paths. Not to mention highly centralised.
"He who controls the flow of energy controls the people", to paraphrase and adapt the quote from Marx.
That's a nice solar roof you've got there...
Easy to harden. A lot of the issues around solar can be addressed with regulation. There are significant issues with recyclability. Germanium in panels complicates recycling.
Aren't they already required to filter that, at least in the US?
>Aren't they already required to filter that, at least in the US?
Filter particulates. Coal emits massive amounts of thorium and nanoparticle carbon. Coal stocks are also vulnerable to coal fires, not to mention CFP and NP make enormous targets that are hard to repair, very central to generation, and stick out like sore thumbs.
>national security
honestly I didn't even think about this, that makes sense, with Europe's recent energy crisis because of Russian gas shortage I think it opened a lot of politician's eyes on the issue. I guess for this issue solar truly is the best, anything else can just get bombed
Russia completly cucked Germany after they got sanctioned for invading Ukraine and now they are back to using coal but they pinky promise they'll be full renewable by 2035
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Germany hasn't built one single pumped storage, is massively behind on power grid expansion, and regulatory inspection autism with undrstaffing in regions prevented fully constructed medium sized installations from going online for months and years.
Doing it like germany is quite stupid.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Japan is building a long-distance intercity maglev to cut down a 3h travel down to 55m.
When they're done building in late 2020 or early 2030, the city of Berlin will have planned to have built 800m S-Bahn railroad tracks.
*Planned* to have built.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Oh and they were an actual global leader in solar tech but essentially let their whole industry die even while they boomer "planned" going carbon neutral. They also lost the last wind turbine blade manufacturer. Also while this green change thing is being forced through. It shouldn't be possible but it is.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Notice how most of the cited sources are just predictions and not facts
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
note that the US directly cucked Germany by blowing up nordstream and Germans, being the biggest cucks on the planet watched it happen with a smile
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
According to the discord leaks which I would trust over any other hearsay it was the Ukrainians.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It was Ukrainians who took a scuba diving trip.
Wasn’t even that hard for them since the Baltic is only like 55 meters deep.
>honestly I didn't even think about this, that makes sense, with Europe's recent energy crisis because of Russian gas shortage I think it opened a lot of politician's eyes on the issue
Well it did ensure the US provided gas to Europe, thereby locking them into the US sphere of influence further. Some hands are made to be bitten, the US hand is not.
This has made the US financial and political capital. No wonder Europe bends the knee, especially in an era where interest rates are low so renewables are harder to deploy due to upfront costs.
>consumption driven economic models.
isn't that what the grid is based on now? plants will cycle on based on demand because we have no way of reliably storing power at scale
>isn't that what the grid is based on now? plants will cycle on based on demand because we have no way of reliably storing power at scale
Not quite so simple. If infrastructure didn't exist, political lobbying were nonexistent, and regulation more conducive then you would see a mass exodus to renewables. Already been seen as they're cheaper, but infrastructure lock-in is the biggest factor which constrains change. Turns out markets aren't very good at forward planning because they're inherently responsive, requiring policy that reduces long-term uncertainties. Very hard in current political models that favour short-termism as pragmatic outcomes of short electoral cycles.
Russia completly cucked Germany after they got sanctioned for invading Ukraine and now they are back to using coal but they pinky promise they'll be full renewable by 2035
>Russia completly cucked Germany after they got sanctioned for invading Ukraine and now they are back to using coal but they pinky promise they'll be full renewable by 2035
Without the provision of Russian gas via pipeline there's a reason for Germany being so pro-support for a conflict that could have been de-escalated. The US monopolar system hasn't accommodated threats to dominance well. Doesn't help the US has little foresight now, as opposed to sixty years ago (which explains their current dominance).
>national security
honestly I didn't even think about this, that makes sense, with Europe's recent energy crisis because of Russian gas shortage I think it opened a lot of politician's eyes on the issue. I guess for this issue solar truly is the best, anything else can just get bombed
Most hydro turbines/dams are quite small, and they're spread out all over the the place. There's >1500 in the US, it just wouldn't make sense logistically for an enemy to target any but the very largest.
>There's >1500 in the US, it just wouldn't make sense logistically for an enemy to target any but the very largest.
Sure it does. Flooding is a major natural disaster. Or perhaps not so natural in this case. Great for defense in that regard: "flooding the marshes".
geothermal since it's infinite and works 24/7
>geothermal since it's infinite and works 24/7
Yes. Requires readily accessible sources and has significant technological complexity. Great if you're in the position of Iceland. Not so great if sitting in the middle of a craton.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Yes. Requires readily accessible sources and has significant technological complexity. Great if you're in the position of Iceland. Not so great if sitting in the middle of a craton.
Can confirm, our power company tried it, drilled a hole ~4 miles deep. They failed to fracture the ground sufficiently for heat exchanger and the hole collapsed. There was no sufficient heat and they wasted ~80million bucks on it
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Can confirm, our power company tried it, drilled a hole ~4 miles deep. They failed to fracture the ground sufficiently for heat exchanger and the hole collapsed. There was no sufficient heat and they wasted ~80million bucks on it
Was this in Germany?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Finland, here's the article if someone's interested. You'll probably need a translator:
https://www.lansivayla.fi/paikalliset/4558850
Coal and nuclear produce more energy with less down time due to maintenance and refueling, Nuclear is particular is several orders of magnitude more reliable than any renewable because they only have to refuel a reactor every 1.5-2 years. Renewables need to mature another 300 hundred years before even coming close to nuclear.
>https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b
This refers to operational production and uptime. Solar and other renewables obviously cannot match this (no power generation at night for solar). That's not the issue being addressed.
The question is: "what is the future vision for energy production", which requires a long-term (foresighted) view that approaches issues using systemic thinking. It requires addressing;
>What are the plausible future scenarios for energy demand? >Which factors might influence demand? (market, societal, technological) >How can we account for these potential demand requirements? (Options, alternatives) >Where are the barriers and limitations to implementation? (Where is there leverage) >Why are these alternatives desirable? (cost, ecological impact, practicality, risk)
This informs an understanding of the existing system, potential futures, options and alternatives, and pathways for implementation with clear milestones and actions. This is a complex process and relies on forming a vision, articulating goals, and considering how to meet these goals with measurable outcomes.
Renewables have key advantages and also disadvantages across multiple scales. Some advantages are: decentralisation, robustness, redundancy, diffuse vulnerability and existential benefits (reduced reliance on extracted fuels, health benefits, existential considerations [climate impacts], integrated electrification etc). Contrasted with weaknesses: supply chain complexities, challenges with existing infrastructure compatibility, political stakeholders, up-front costs, social norms, recyclability etc.
It is impossible to eliminate carbon based fuels entirely - nor desirable (e.g., cooking stoves). There are many benefits vs fossil fuels, not just climate change mitigation. They're by no means perfect and they obfuscate structural considerations: consumption-driven models, human use of landscapes, societal models.
the reseviors created by the dams end up filled with pollutants, heavy metals, ect and whenever you churn the water in those resevioirs by empting them, you create a giant underwater cloud of toxic debris that kills everything. This also makes dams not-carbon neutral (not that carbon neutral isnt a meme itself, but for arguementative purposes ibring it up) because all the dead matter that settles at the bottom of a resivoir also has to be disposed of eventually, making hydro 'not clean' in the eyes of modern carbon-conscious grifters, i mean enviromentalists.
Hydro has already been built where-ever it’s feasible, it’s old tech, and while reliable the impact on the local environment can be immense.
Solar has issues, but it’s still relatively immature, it has plenty of room to grow, and you can stick solar panels in all sorts of places without needing to destroy whatever is already there. Its primary shortcoming is that it doesn’t generate at night, requiring either storage (flywheels and/or batteries) or traditional base load generation services (hydro, coal, CGT, e.t.c.) for overnight and very cloudy days.
yeah but nimby exists, and coal still beats the pants off of hydro and solar and wind. Nyseg heavily relies on coal and it is clean if you filter it properly.
I guess you don't care about the health of the grid then.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
understanding how our modern electric grid works and the difficulties of "selling" back power is beyond the understanding of the average 90 IQ IQfy user. it's just not even worth broaching because too many people here read headlines and then think they're experts on the subject.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
[...]
Solar adoption definitely hurts the grid. For every solar panel you buy, that's less money you're paying toward maintaining the grid. If things really get dire for the electric companies, the government will probably start taxing people with solar panels to "pay their fair share."
Depends. For decentralised local grids with the right technologies (smart metering etc) it is very advantageous. The problem is infrastructure and lock-in. All those transmission lines are very vulnerable to disaster events, expensive, create linear infrastructure intrusion (e.g., fire risk in fire-prone areas) and ensure the need for centralised generation.
The IEA produced a massive report on this. Efficiency is one area of improvement, as is recycling of "waste" heat. That requires market mechanisms and regulation to enforce, which is complicated by stakeholder interactions, normative practices, subversion (e.g., corruption), and international relations.
Very complex and doesn't address the root: consumption driven economic models.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>consumption driven economic models.
isn't that what the grid is based on now? plants will cycle on based on demand because we have no way of reliably storing power at scale
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>All those transmission lines are very vulnerable to disaster events, expensive, create linear infrastructure intrusion (e.g., fire risk in fire-prone areas) and ensure the need for centralised generation
We just bury them underground. A tree's got to fall pretty hard to get six feet under the ground, through the couple protective sheathing and metal layers
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's extremely expensive to bury high voltage transmission lines because they need to cool them while also insulting them. You can do this over short distances at a cost, but not for the national girds it's just way too much to take care of.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>It's extremely expensive to bury high voltage transmission lines
Sure is, we can see the clear increase in our bills since we implemented it country-wide.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You can replace mid voltage without much issues, 14.4kV and 28.8kV can be buried and insulated with a protective coating that can be passively cooled. 100kV can be buried but needs active cooling with some sort of liquid cooling medium.
You can bury local distribution without issue.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Don't know what they're doing for 100kV, but this is what we saw everywhere there's trees
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
https://yle.fi/a/3-9542539
>According to the national power grid operator Finngrid, the use of underground cables is limited because they are prohibitively expensive due to the long transmission distances. The buried cables also restrict land use in the areas where they are installed. >The Energy Authority's objective is to eventually put 47 percent of the medium-voltage network and 65 percent of the low-voltage network below ground by the year 2029.
If you have any information on new high and ultra high being buried I'd like to know how they did it over a long distance. In North America we only buried VH and UVH in cities for a few 10s of miles/km.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Looks like it's doing steady progress, you don't replace an entire country's worth of wire in a night afterall. The additional cost is already very visible to the consumer
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yeah but that is only low voltage and medium voltage. The context was high voltage lines. No one is burying lots of long distance high voltage.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I don't think trees generally fall on high-voltage lines though. They seem to withstand wind pretty well, and the area doesen't have tornadoes or earthquakes
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I don't think trees generally fall on high-voltage lines though.
Mostly because they cut massive right of ways for them. You could do the same for lower voltage transmission if you didn't care about cutting back around them. Although the context for Finland seems to be ice storms coating wires and trees.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>solar is a problem (for the grid operator who makes less money)
Solar adoption definitely hurts the grid. For every solar panel you buy, that's less money you're paying toward maintaining the grid. If things really get dire for the electric companies, the government will probably start taxing people with solar panels to "pay their fair share."
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Companies who own the grid aren't necessarily the ones generating power or the one you have your contract with, at least here in Europe
And it's fair that if you use less of their energy you pay less
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
That worked fine when no one made their own power during the day then stopped making power at night and demanded the same levelized price when peak demand hit.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
understanding how our modern electric grid works and the difficulties of "selling" back power is beyond the understanding of the average 90 IQ IQfy user. it's just not even worth broaching because too many people here read headlines and then think they're experts on the subject.
dude watched Practical Engineering's video on solar power grids and now thinks he's the expert
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Not my problem. That's the problem of the corpos that have a government-approved monopoly to deploy and maintain the grid.
it's a problem because the grid needs non-solar energy production, and that production needs to be able to spun up and shut down quickly, which coal and nuclear plants can struggle with later in their operating life.
They're trying to reframe the issue by saying only the rich use solar at home therefore solar should be shutdown for "equity" reasons. lmao
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Lol, their own worst enemies.
You can't make this shit up.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Its the environmentalist left vs commies left
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
solar should be shut down for EOL cadmium pollution
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Lol, their own worst enemies.
You can't make this shit up.
this fricking state literally made it mandatory to install solar on your roof for every single new residental building put up.
Its the environmentalist left vs commies left
the globalist gays wanted everyone to do solar so they could switch everyone onto a microgrid, because that kind of localized totalitarianism gets their dicks hard as rocks. the power companies said 'lol no'.
It's called net metering
No one buys solar to specifically send it to the grid, it's just when there is over-production, that gets sent to the grid and you get a credit
Most systems are going to over produce in certain parts of the day and certain parts of the year if the system is designed to sustain your needs even with low sunlight (like in winter)
There is basically zero reason to not to net meter unless you're actually off-grid
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>There is basically zero reason to not to net meter unless you're actually off-grid
also many states just won't let you off the grid. i think PGE in CA won't let you disconnect or some shit
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
this is gay and shit, mutts should enforce their freedom
>Everyone that gets solar and just dumps it into the grid is an idiot
Fun fact: in germany you get up to 3x the price as reward for dumping your solar power into the grid and then using the cheap coal energy for yourself. People actually make cash like this and you would be a moron if you didn't.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Weenergies (gas and electric provider) here in Wisconsin, USA charges residential PV owners a service fee for being connected to the grid. They are billed as a private power generator using Weenergies power lines.
Its a small fee, every month. Wtf
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Weenergies
lol
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Formerly WEPCO. Why they changed names is a merger mystery. Pronounced Wee-energeez
"He said weener, heh heh heh"
Europe is interconnected and we see that cheap noon time solar electric hammers down the cost of electricity in the Nordic countries. The power generator companies complain but there are indications of wide spread fraud.
this is not a production issue, moron. the problem is storage
Hydro: immense environmental impact BUT is renewable BUT with temperatures rising up everywhere some powerplants even had to shut off temporarily because their dams were running too low
Solar: Doesn't generate at night, less envrionmental impact but has terrible efficiency (like 30%), lasts less (15-30 years) and manufacturing panels has some environmental impact too.
Coal: Terrible impact on nature
Nuclear: Most efficient, less environmental impact (unless shit goes down then it's terrible), powerplants occupy a very small area.
>terrible efficiency (like 30%)
more like 20% or less
Both are memes if they require you to be part of the system to use. Passive solar water heats don't need any complicated electronics/computers, it not any different that putting out a water bottle out in the sun to warm it up, but much more efficient and insulated so that warmth lasts you longer. Large hydro electric generators like that destroy local ecosystems and you have basically no control over them at all. So between solar and hydro, I'd say hydro is a bit more of a meme, unless you've got a stream in your backyard you can rig up yourself.
fricking THIS
For the cost of evacuated tubes you can buy 10x the area in PV. Panels are ridiculously cheap, to the point you could use them as siding and fencing if you don't mind the look.
you could also DIY solar water heater. evacuated tube panels work much better in cloudy days, though
homie if you are going the solar heater route, you may use solar panels and a dc water heater, you can still use the dc for something else. You dont need an inverter or anything fancy for most stuff. Almost all installations are just moronic and don't adapt at all to having a dc power source. I dunno why there isnt a bigger market for dc appliances
[...]
big solar installations should have rotary dc to ac converters, those add stability and inertia to the grid, and are not that inefficient.
>homie if you are going the solar heater route, you may use solar panels and a dc water heater
are you moronic? PV is 20% efficient, heating is >80%...
>PV is 20% efficient, heating is >80%...
I can buy a 400W panel for 50 Euro at the moment ...
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
you can diy solar heat energy roof installation with pvc pipes and black paint
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It doesn't have to be one or the other, solar energy can take care of your hot water.
PV can run your AC in the summer.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Only works in summer. Waste of space when you can just get more PV.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I can buy a 400W panel for 50 Euro at the moment ...
bs. show evidence or frick off
also, 400W is what, 2 m2? in those 2m2 you could have a single solar water heater and a lot more heat than with those PV panels.
also, the panels themselves might be cheap, but you still need cabling and maybe an inverter and battery system.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>bs. show evidence or frick off
Okay I lied, 58 Euro.
Prices are moronic because my country is going bankrupt and cutting subsidies. Massive bankruptcies, huge excess stock.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
that's nice. are those used or new?
cheapest I could find in my country is ~40% more than that. not as expensive as I thought but still not as cheap as you said.
dude is cheaper per money, is a simpler system more durable with easier maintenance, unless you are really space starved you shouldn't care about the rest
and again, you can use that energy for more uses
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
"dude", you can do both things at once. but if you need a lot of thermal energy, you would be moronic not to use a solar water heater...
Between hydro energy and solar energy, which is "less" of a meme?
solar, hydro messes with the water supply and kills the fish (potential food source)
Solar IS a meme because if a significant amount of people put solar panels on their roofs, they produce energy when nobody is at home to use the energy WHILE AT THE SAME TIME needing a lot of energy from the grid when they produce nothing in the mornings and evenings.
They are using grid power they produced a portion of when they are away from home.
The sun is out in the morning and part of the evening to produce some PV power. Peak usage of electricity is mid-day. The same time of day that PV are at peak power production.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The sun is out in the morning and part of the evening to produce some PV power.
Maybe if you are a neet.
When people usually wake up to get to work, use the stove, hairdryer, electric kettle etc solar produces jackshit in comparison (if at all)
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Batteries (good old fashioned car batteries. 10 of them in series = 120V)
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Batteries (good old fashioned car batteries. 10 of them in series = 120V)
(me) >electric kettle...
UK? 20 car batteries or introduce a transformer and carefully calculate how many watts you need in the morning and evening so as to minimize the number of batteries.
It will be a thoughtful, well planned, less convenient life. But we'll sleep better (more, maybe not better).
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
This car battery (lead-acid) shit I'm talking about isn't new or a joke
I used to read about it in Popular Mechanics magazine as a kid. In the '90s I worked on some home and commercial PV installs wiring banks of lead-acid batteries to inverters and transformers for constant power. I've been aware of this stuff and hands-on for 40 years. UPS isn't something new that arrived with home computers. Lithium tech batteries have their place in the discussion, bit lets not forget tried and true tech like PbAcid batteries.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Peak usage of electricity is mid-day.
Grid peak is 6 to 9 PM or just as solar output drops to zero.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
California
There are other places, states and even countries.
Who tf would average the entire state of California and pretend it's realistic to apply that information EVERYWHERE. San Diego all the way north to Oregon, the same?
Yeah, ok.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Not to even mention the coast to the mountains into the desert.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's the same in Texas, Ontario, NY, (Brandenburg) Germany.
People come home, turn on lights, TVs, stoves, washing machines, microwaves, sometimes AC or electric heaters, and now more often EVs.
Why would you think the peak electrical use is in the middle of the day when your heating and lighting demand is at the lowest and the least number of people are cooking?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Offices, factories, commercial spaces, shops, stores, malls, businesses...
You know, all those environmentally controlled places people go when they aren't at home?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Offices, factories, commercial spaces, shops, stores, malls, businesses...
You know, all those environmentally controlled places people go when they aren't at home?
(me)
I found some graphs too.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Follow the link to the source data and you will find the daily peak in every location is between 1800 and 2200.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/US48/US48
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
That's fascinating. It corresponds with the exact times businesses close and people go to sleep. Huge, well lit, climate controlled commercial spaces with shops and restaurants to round out a busy day.
You don't seriously believe residential lighting, hot water for a shower and 20 minutes using a stove creates that peak?
Yor graph and the graphs I provided show power usage rising steadily (for the most part with seasonal variations) with a sharp drop as people finally go and stay home for sleep.
Solar is financially viable for homeowners under some circumstances.
t. homeowner who spent dozens of hours researching it
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yes FOR YOU because your government is a meme itself and literally drops the burden of responsibility to your energy supplier and tells them >deal with it
If everybody adopted solar tomorrow, the whole grid would die.
Just add local buffers to the grid to store excess production and provide energy when demand peaks. Also focus on self-consumption more.
Getting lots of solar and not using it? Heat a tank full of water with it. With proper insulation it'll stay warm for days and you need warm water anyway. That's a battery right there.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
And the same goes for heating or cooling your house. Just do that with excess PV production as much as possible.
Take it a step further and automate home appliances that don't necessarily need to run at a specific time to smartly turn on to use excess production. Laundry, dishwasher, dehumidifier, you name it.
Hydro has already been built where-ever it’s feasible, it’s old tech, and while reliable the impact on the local environment can be immense.
Solar has issues, but it’s still relatively immature, it has plenty of room to grow, and you can stick solar panels in all sorts of places without needing to destroy whatever is already there. Its primary shortcoming is that it doesn’t generate at night, requiring either storage (flywheels and/or batteries) or traditional base load generation services (hydro, coal, CGT, e.t.c.) for overnight and very cloudy days.
Hydro, solar panels has short lifespans and is unreliable. Its waste ends up in landfills and the hazardous materials used to make them leak into the environment, poisoning the water, soil, and air. Solar panels also have a larger ecological footprint because of its inefficient use of land.
I had solar panels and they lasted me about 7 years before they started to degrade to 80%. By year 10 they were at 64%. I took them down and sold them on facebook and never looked back.
>solar panels has short lifespans and is unreliable
Wrong, even old damaged ones from the 1980s were still mostly working when people inspected them decades later. > Its waste ends up in landfills
They are mostly glass, which can be recycled easily. >the hazardous materials used to make them
Such as? >Solar panels also have a larger ecological footprint because of its inefficient use of land.
You don't have to put them on empty fields.
Thermal solar panels are clean and recyclable (glass, copper, other abundant metals) and are actually capable of storing energy for the night. There are already several plants in testing where they manage to produce power 24/7 by storing heat in salt tanks and using it during the night. PV solar is better from a price standpoint and flexibility (people can install it on their roof).
Based moron, google what solar thermal power is, and how it stores energy.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Try reading the post before replying
How much electricity does this stored heat actually produce? Will it do more than keep my water lukewarm for my morning shower?
Propane user here.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It takes less time to google this question than making another reply and solving another captcha and waiting for an answer. But who am I kidding, you don't want an answer, you want to keep playing identity politics, and since the people supporting trannies and eating bugs also support green energy, then it means you should be as dishonest as possible regarding anything good they might argue for. Consider not breathing because I heard trannies do it constantly.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>How much electricity does this stored heat actually produce? Will it do more than keep my water lukewarm for my morning shower?
Not much. The largest solar thermal plant in the US made about 40% of it's 'solar' power by burning natural gas. That is before going bankrupt even while CA was paying them a premium for being solar power *actually gas*.
Pic semi related not the solar thermal plant but nearby solar PV plants mysteriously built around natural gas turbines and HRSGs.
>You frickwits always ignore the batteries and the mining it requires and the fact very little lithium ever gets recycled
Few reasons:
The same as plastics - it's cheaper to use new source material than recycle. Plastics have their own issues though, like the whole "circular" model being more of a hairball and not infinitely recycleable.
Lithium batteries develop fissures that penetrate through the substrate. Recycling these can improve the function of lithium batteries. Happy to find the paper when on lunch.
[...]
How much electricity does this stored heat actually produce? Will it do more than keep my water lukewarm for my morning shower?
Propane user here.
>How much electricity does this stored heat actually produce?
Do not respond to this idiocy. It is just distraction.
Anyway... a lot of the issues with energy relate to societal models and barriers to change - laws, norms, existing regulation, markets. You cannot just rip up a city and rebuild it in a smaller area (which would be more energy efficient and easier to service provision - but does increase vulnerability through concentration of population). Or force changes to transportation that has been institutionalised (cars and highways) despite how effective that might be. Or force changes to how households work and resource sharing (shared laundries - not everyone needs a washing machine per household) as that has normative and market barriers. Nor is it possible to easily change work arrangements and the requirements for "office space". New models of living would require massive changes that could easily reduce these energy and broader resource needs to a fraction of their current levels. It just sits at odds with the economic logic that dominates society.
This isn't the point of this discussion anyway, it's just a meandering thought. Just like the thought experiment where you could fit all of London's population in 150sqkm of area (12.2x12.2km - 1/10th of the current area) and still have plenty of open space. All that grey infrastructure (roads, carparks, worthless office space) gone.
Lead acid batteries were (and still are) the most used battery chemistry used for PV (and other small scale alt energy generation) storage. That's right, car batteries. They are serviceable, renewable, the chemical byproducts (lead sulfate) used can be seperated reused at scale (not at home).
Le bad points?
Lead
Sulfuric acid
Plastic cases
Heavy
Big
Le good?
We've been dealing successfully with all of the above for >100 years.
Kino aesthetics.
I've always loved that look - thick green grass and deep blue skies, but a power plant or wind turbines in the image. I've just found it so pleasing.
hydro doesn't really work or is not even possible when your country is flat as frick and doesn't have enough rivers
solar is fairly ok imo, like sure you're limited by sun irradiance, but you can theoretically use solarPV-thermal with heat storage and batteries combo, and be virtually off gird (bar internet fiber). IF you have enough money.
nuclear (as in fission) needs frickhuge amount of water for cooling, can't really follow load, modern projects are way overbudget, you like still need to fuel. SMRs turned out to be a complete that do not save money (fricking nuscale went bankrupt) but they're interesting due to higher "steam" temperatures.
>Between hydro energy and solar energy, which is "less" of a meme?
Solar. Decentralised, leverages battery storage or other storage means, and can be integrated into networks. Very good from a national security perspective. Hydro can be pumped, which acts as a firming supply. Traditional hydro has very large ecological impacts, and from a security standpoint it is very vulnerable to disruptions.
[...] >coal still beats the pants off of hydro and solar and win >coal and nuclear, nothing else comes close
The rationale and logic for these statements? Otherwise it's just opinion.
[...]
Yes, and they're terrible for flight paths. Not to mention highly centralised.
"He who controls the flow of energy controls the people", to paraphrase and adapt the quote from Marx.
[...]
Easy to harden. A lot of the issues around solar can be addressed with regulation. There are significant issues with recyclability. Germanium in panels complicates recycling.
[...] >Aren't they already required to filter that, at least in the US?
Filter particulates. Coal emits massive amounts of thorium and nanoparticle carbon. Coal stocks are also vulnerable to coal fires, not to mention CFP and NP make enormous targets that are hard to repair, very central to generation, and stick out like sore thumbs.
so like first you scream about "climate emergency" and need to "do something", when people buy solar panels your "solution" to alleged "problems with recycling" is to introduce "more regulation" (probably by restricting certain elements or compounds like a moron)
get chocked on government dick if you like it so much, fricking cuck
Both are geographically limited. solar doesn't work as well in high latitudes. Hydro needs valleys that can be flooded.
And you forgot wind. That's less limited.
If it weren't for regulators rendering nuclear uneconomical nuclear would be the best option.
>nuclear (as in fission) needs frickhuge amount of water for cooling,
Build it near the ocean. >can't really follow load
They can to some extent, but plants have to be designed for it otherwise it stresses them. >modern projects are way overbudget
We've gone too far with safety. Developing countries can still build them reasonably fast.
Once a plant gets a permit to build it should be exempt from regulation changes that require significant redesigns. If the design was deemed "good enough" in 2005 then it should also be "good enough" in 2030. Perhaps a new problem gets discovered where we can "do better" in the future. But that doesn't mean all the in-progress builds need to be redesigned. If you follow that moronic strategy then things will go overbudget. >you like still need to fuel.
Yeah, and hydro needs concrete and solar needs semiconductors and batteries. Nothing is perfect. If you build fast breeders then we have fuel for a thousand years at least.
But really, we need all of the above. Solar/Wind are great when the sun shines. Nuclear is great for baseload.
There's one in the UK that melted plastic parts on cars parked near it, if memory serves.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>There's one in the UK that melted plastic parts on cars parked near it, if memory serves.
Yes, both buildings were designed by the same architect, Rafael Viñoly.
Globohomosexual buttholes love him both because his designs are soulless glass&steel monstrosities and because they cause havoc in the surrounding areas. When asked about his crimes, Viñoly just blamed it all on "global warming:"
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/sep/06/walkie-talkie-architect-predicted-reflection-sun-rays
According to the discord leaks which I would trust over any other hearsay it was the Ukrainians.
Both Biden and Trump have all but admitted that America did NordStream:
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
fricking kek, thanks anon, I did not know about this one. Global warming lol
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Viñoly just blamed it all on "global warming:"
top kek
PV gets cheaper, mechanical tracking mechanisms are fixed cost. PV wins in the end, if you really want a thermal battery put some resistance wire in concrete. Shitty round trip efficiency though.
Canada has such cheap electricity from hydropower and exports a lot of it. It's standard that apartments there just include electricity cost in the rent.
I'd say it's definitely more mature and reliable.
Hydro: immense environmental impact BUT is renewable BUT with temperatures rising up everywhere some powerplants even had to shut off temporarily because their dams were running too low
Solar: Doesn't generate at night, less envrionmental impact but has terrible efficiency (like 30%), lasts less (15-30 years) and manufacturing panels has some environmental impact too.
Coal: Terrible impact on nature
Nuclear: Most efficient, less environmental impact (unless shit goes down then it's terrible), powerplants occupy a very small area.
Aren't they already required to filter that, at least in the US?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Not for long anyway, the EPA is too woke I guess
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/27/project-2025-dismantle-us-climate-policy-next-republican-president
The issue is there is no way to prove this. This isn't like a randomized controlled trial where if you have a large enough sample size you basically prove something works with a low enough P value.
Even medical RCTs end up being found to have bias and issues later which invalidate them.
So now we're talking about climate science, which isn't even as close to as good as a large scale RCT. You're going to screw over everyone with higher energy and food prices for something you can't prove 100%?
Seriously?
Sure CO2 in a controlled environment traps heat predictably, but the thing is there's tons of other factors when you're talking about the entire planet. They don't *really* know how much of recent rises are out of line with historical norms going back thousands to millions of years.
There is no way literally starving people in third world countries and making the poor suffer more with higher prices is moral given you can't prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>They don't *really* know how much of recent rises are out of line with historical norms going back thousands to millions of years.
Yes. "They". Do.
CO2 & methane
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Nothing is 100% certain, anon, but 99.999% is effectively "proven" >but how do you pro-
Math. Models. The scientific method. Got a better idea?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Oh yeah, here's another point I like to bring up when dealing with intellectually dishonest people:
If the sudden climate change is actually natural, doesn't that mean we're even more fricked? Doesn't that mean we should do everything in our power to stop it?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
morons said the same thing about the CFC ban and the ozone hole. The ban was very effective
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Those didn't require impoverishing people. There's also the fact the IPCC originally couldn't find anything until they were threatened with losing their funding and being shut down.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>very effective
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
so what's going on here? we all were told that the CFC ban fixed everything
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
so what's going on here? we all were told that the CFC ban fixed everything
[...]
Exxon-Mobil makes lots of money off of "green" energy. They get tons of subsidies for it too. These oil companies make a killing off of it.
[...]
No u.
Those didn't require impoverishing people. There's also the fact the IPCC originally couldn't find anything until they were threatened with losing their funding and being shut down.
Thanks for making air conditioning so much more expensive moron.
I like how it shrinks and gets bigger again all the time, kinda like it has fricking nothing to do with us, but of course you'll make up some horseshit.
China and India are literally increasing their use of these every year, yet it seems to not be doing shit, and if they don't care given they will always output more than us, why should we?!
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Thanks for making air conditioning so much more expensive moron.
i thought the "bad" refrigerants were phased out years ago. at least that's what my AC tech told me last year. my place apparently still has the "bad" kind but since i rent and my landlords are too cheap to upgrade, i have to continue getting it
Try living in China or a nearby country. Or any other country that uses a lot of coal power plants. The air quality is absolutely horrible. Even if you don't care about CO2, coal creates absolutely terrible air quality.
>Nuclear efficiency is around 33-37%, like fossil fuel plants. Not a big difference to solar.
Depending on how you measure it nuclear is either way worse like 0.03% efficient, about as a efficient as a none super critical coal at 40%, or comically efficient like 27,000,000 times as efficient as coal/gas.
So rather than caring about efficiency care about total cost. Which puts nuclear about tied in 2nd place with coal behind large hydro.
>Nuclear: Most efficient, less environmental impact (unless shit goes down then it's terrible), powerplants occupy a very small area.
And then you have store all the nuclear waste somewhere and hope you don't spring a leak and the waste starts seeping into ground water and the environment.
>And then you have store all the nuclear waste somewhere and hope you don't spring a leak and the waste starts seeping into ground water and the environment
They key issues with nuclear are:
1. Supply chain vulnerability
2. Security concerns
3. Vulnerability to disaster events (centralisation, skill requirements)
4. High upfront costs
5. Waste management, and,
6. Infrastructural lock-in (grid systems)
Nuclear can be a great option. It has deployment widely and safety is generally excellent, as is leakage (they release far fewer contaminants than expected, with much smaller environmental impact). Other broader considerations can involve water availability and changes due to climate change, and security (operational, technological, geopolitical effects e.g., supply chains, warfare, societal changes, and exclusion of alternatives).
>And then you have store all the nuclear waste somewhere and hope you don't spring a leak and the waste starts seeping into ground water and the environment. >spring a leak
You know almost all high level nuclear waste is a solid, not a barrel of green glowing goo right?
>You know almost all high level nuclear waste is a solid, not a barrel of green glowing goo right?
?
How does that address anything?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Solids are a rule don't leak.
Pic related is one rather annoying to undo way to store waste nuclear fuel that still has 99% of it's potential energy left.
Do you think the glass is going to leak out of a container?
Dry casks are pretty secure. The NRC thinks the casks at Diablo Canyon, the worst case scenario for salt water atmosphere because it's a stone throw from the pacific ocean on the US west coast where the Jetstream prevails off shore 99% of the year, will make it 1800 years at present rates >The assessment of the conditions on the Diablo Canyon canisters are described in the Electrical Power Research Institute report EPRI-3002002822 and the Sandia National Laboratories report SAND2014-16383. The canister surfaces appeared in good condition with no signs of degradation or corrosion. Researchers noted a mixture of dust and pollen, along with sodium chloride (NaCl) and some magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) on the surface of the canisters. Sodium chloride can cause corrosion in some metals, but it is unlikely given the environment the casks are in.. Using temperature and humidity data from the Vandenberg weather station, the time required for chloride induced stress corrosion cracking (CISCC) to corrode through the cask would be greater than 1,800 years.
I wonder how feasible it would be to build a reactor underground.
Just dump the waste in a tunnel next door.
If the reactor blows up its fine because it’s underground.
Maybe you could skip past safety inspections since the environmental risks are now null and void.
Why couldn’t it work?
Got rivers? Use hydro.
Got sunlight? Use solar.
Got both? Use both.
The whole debate over what power generation is best is the meme. You use what you can where you can.
Both are memes if they require you to be part of the system to use. Passive solar water heats don't need any complicated electronics/computers, it not any different that putting out a water bottle out in the sun to warm it up, but much more efficient and insulated so that warmth lasts you longer. Large hydro electric generators like that destroy local ecosystems and you have basically no control over them at all. So between solar and hydro, I'd say hydro is a bit more of a meme, unless you've got a stream in your backyard you can rig up yourself.
For the cost of evacuated tubes you can buy 10x the area in PV. Panels are ridiculously cheap, to the point you could use them as siding and fencing if you don't mind the look.
homie if you are going the solar heater route, you may use solar panels and a dc water heater, you can still use the dc for something else. You dont need an inverter or anything fancy for most stuff. Almost all installations are just moronic and don't adapt at all to having a dc power source. I dunno why there isnt a bigger market for dc appliances
[...]
Depends. For decentralised local grids with the right technologies (smart metering etc) it is very advantageous. The problem is infrastructure and lock-in. All those transmission lines are very vulnerable to disaster events, expensive, create linear infrastructure intrusion (e.g., fire risk in fire-prone areas) and ensure the need for centralised generation.
The IEA produced a massive report on this. Efficiency is one area of improvement, as is recycling of "waste" heat. That requires market mechanisms and regulation to enforce, which is complicated by stakeholder interactions, normative practices, subversion (e.g., corruption), and international relations.
Very complex and doesn't address the root: consumption driven economic models.
big solar installations should have rotary dc to ac converters, those add stability and inertia to the grid, and are not that inefficient.
Evacuated glass tubes are awesome I use them to passively heat my pool, the only issue I have is that I need more to maintain heat in the winter. I have solar panels to run the circulation pump.
hydro has powered las vegas, a literal city of lights, for almost a century. if that is what you moronic ass zoomers call a meme then go frick yourself shit for brains.
Hydro is a horrible idea
The 3 gorges dam is going to be the downfall of China come WWIII
It'll get bombed to rubble and release millions of gallons of water, flooding the eastern coast of China (the wealthy parts)
I heard large Bitcoin mining operations like to use hydroelectric. My friend owns a massive company that mines BTC. He told me that hydroelectric energy is cheapest because it's hard to transport the energy profitably, but if you go to the source, it's very efficient.
Is this accurate? I tend to believe him, but also I tried to find info about this online and failed to.
Hydro. But solar isn't a meme either, with pumped storage/hydro it can do a lot even at grid scale.
Even without you could supply maybe 15% of power consumption AND do things like serve as residential backup power (not all the power anyone needs but enough power that modern life can continue somewhat) but you just can't meme it to 100% with no additional infra.
wat hydro is waaaaaaaay too powerful to every be replaced by anything because wherever there's water it makes the most sense
solar gets better and better but the sun don't I guess that's the meme
for a lot of small cooling applications I'd argue that sitting still under hot panels would be rather inefficient thermal efficiency because the panels warm the roof further limiting potential cooling, however if the system had a downdraft or better yet utilized that heat for warmth it makes more sense, otherwise a detached system and getting the solar array off your house/RV makes better sense for cooling it, so that's a half assed meme if you ask me
>full fusion test in 11* years
oh yeah, no rush, fricking pieces of shit
***
If 100% succesfull the real powerplant can be approved for construction. ITER is like a 1943-tier german nuclear power plant (when fully operational).
>casually generates huge frickloads of power >makes pollution-worshiping ameritards seethe (despite also being used in their country) >occasionally drowns thousands of chinks
hydro power is the hero we don't deserve
Hydro is top tier. There is no better or cheaper source of electricity.
Solar is great for transient production. Lots of third world farmers use it in rural areas to pump up ground water or run whatever machinery they need when working the fields during the day.
It causes problems such as the groundwater being totally used up, but that's a problem for the future.
both of them are memes, solar is less so if you want to be off grid. >hydro
Problem 1: In regards to climate change, well done you just committed climate change. by transforming an area like that you just changed the climate of the area. It happened in my area. We used to have way more snow and now we don't.
Problem 2: morons start building houses where there was once a river flowing, so now you have to maintain it otherwise people will die in a flood. >solar
Problem 1: many people buy them with the expectation getting money out of it. In this regard solar is like crypto, where you are supposed to use it as an uncensored non government controlled currency and people use it as an investment.
Providing solar back to the power grid is only wanted and viable while government is moronic and has banned useful means of generating power(see germany). Once germany stops being moronic then solar makes less sense.
Problem 2: They actually pollute. Because in many countries farmers have started installing solar panels instead getting money from the government for "being green", solar panels have toxic chemicals that leak if you buy cheap ones, and you've got motherfrickers installing a shit load of them in their grandparents' farm. The soil dies because it can't get enough sunlight, and the countryside fills up with these pieces of shit.
You lowered the water level of the river and created an artificial lake
Do you think you haven't also changed the humidity of the entire area that the river passes through?
Do you think you haven't changed the percentage of water in the soil?
Do you think you haven't change the precipitation at all?
Do you think you haven't affected already smaller rivers that broke off from the main one?
before building our river dam we had heavy snowfall every year and now we just don't.
>You lowered the water level of the river and created an artificial lake
Only for the duration of it being filled after that, the rate of flow returns to almost the same amount. Otherwise you would over flow the dam. >Do you think you haven't also changed the humidity of the entire area that the river passes through?
Not by any meaningful amount, you need lakes on the scale of the great lakes before you start affecting the humidity to a measurable amoount. >Do you think you haven't changed the percentage of water in the soil?
No, water in soil is unchanged. Because the rate and amount of water flowing is almost unchanged and the lake isn't going to be built in an area that has a lot of water seepage. >Do you think you haven't change the precipitation at all?
No until you are on the scale of a massive lake, like the great lakes. Prove me wrong with data of rainfall before and after a dam was built you will find it effectively unchanged. >Do you think you haven't affected already smaller rivers that broke off from the main one?
No. >before building our river dam we had heavy snowfall every year and now we just don't.
Check your data going back as far as you can and what your post dam rates are, once you have enough time to cover actual cycles that change yearly amounts you will find no change.
The "well I think I remember it snowing more" is almost a perfect example of why humans are terrible at data collecting without records and are super pattern finders in random noise that doesn't exist.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Only for the duration of it being filled after that, the rate of flow returns to almost the same amount. Otherwise you would over flow the dam.
you are wrong, otherwise hyrdo would simply not work as water needs to flow downwards from the dam.
In addition to that we control the amount of water that can fall at any point so that it doesn't overflow.
And frankly wrong on other takes.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
100 units of water flow through a valley. We build a dam.
Once the dam is full due to the larger surface area of the lake you evaporate 5 units of water off but 95 units flow on average down the same river. Over a period of time the inflow of water is exactly equal to the outflow, otherwise the dam overflows.
>I don't think you know what climate means.
Mesoscale impacts are different from global and regional impacts. Changing the vegetation in an area alters the mesoclimate (canopy effects on humidity, transpiration rates, ground surface temperatures, wind speed; reflectivity); increasing humidity can create water stress due to higher wet-bulb temperatures (which includes streamflow and standing water); which can result in significant local climate effects. There's a great example from China where irrigating valleys led to higher evaporation that trapped heat and moisture, meaning workers couldn't pick the crop of fruit. The fruit was planted due to greater market value and drive to irrigate, resulting in an unforeseen maladaptive outcome.
>Problem 1: In regards to climate change, well done you just committed climate change. by transforming an area like that you just changed the climate of the area. It happened in my area. We used to have way more snow and now we don't.
What? That isn't causally related, is it? If anything extracting the energy into a power grid that takes it away from the area after taking it out with a turbine should make the area a little colder than the equivalent of it dissipating in water turbulence, noise, abrasion, whatever else... but also for the most part you REALLY don't take out that much of the energy that a whole river will end up having overall as it goes down to sea level. You take, IDK, 60-80m height difference, and the energy is probably even often consumed somewhat nearby (sure a few hundred km in some instances but more often mostly within a bunch of few dozen to one hundred km actually?)
> many people buy them with the expectation getting money out of it.
It makes sense that you would in many places.
Solar panel isn't like crypto in that in most regions it ACTUALLY produces more power than it took to produce and transport on site within 2-3 years tops. In ideal locations less than that. There is a reality behind why this should be a net money production over 30-40y lifespan unless the power grid has too much power and no one can profitably use more and also no other technology that just scales up cheaper is actually deployed.
Sometimes the last happens due to some producers not paying for emitting trash into the environment. But that rationally should be punished to some degree. In the end it causes damage - health damage, building renovations, environmental damage, climate change and necessary adaptions to protect property... all of which it does far more than solar panels even including mining and panel recycling. Just admittedly there is a problem of deciding on a fair value.
Geothermal is the ultimate answer. If tech to drill super deep for cheap is developed more than you could build it anywhere and it's basically unlimited.
It’s not so much drilling as it is maintaining the stability of the hole you drilled.
Trying to keep kilometer deep holes from collapsing on themselves as heat is cycled through them is actually rather hard.
Hydro is very reliable and adjustable, the pinnacle of current renewables. The sun on the other hand doesen't rise above the horizon for months at a time. This is my backyard at 4pm
Because energy is critical to standard of living and letting fricktards try and force a useless source of energy on everyone will lead to a decline in the standard of living.
If you must reduce CO2 from electrical generation then use hydro or nuclear.
Nuclear is the safest form of energy generation ever created. Nuclear waste is irrelevant
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You're obviously a crank so you won't get a legit reply from me.
Solar panels could be free on every building surface and it would still cost more than a conventional nuclear reactor, gas, coal or hydro plant. This is because you need firming (storage) and batteries are just too expensive for anything other than extremely limited carry over service while they wait for a backup diesel generator to run up.
I love to hear about the many downsides you think nuclear has.
>I love to hear about the many downsides you think nuclear has >Enormous amount of initial capital >Extremely long design and build time >Extremely high maintenance costs >Extremely long and costly decommissioning >Extremely large water requirements >Complicated waste management >Reliance on a very limited resource (uranium)
You're making a strawman argument by the way, you're implying that I suggested we should only use solar, which I didn't. An energy grid should be based on many different types of generation systems, dependent on which is the most appropriate geographically and in terms of infrastructure.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
amount of initial capital
About 6 to 8 billion per GW that pays back in 20 years of a 60+ year operational span
long design and build time
Average time is 8 years.
high maintenance costs
2nd cheapest form of power that includes the maintenance.
long and costly decommissioning
Who cares how long it takes? Also unless you stopped needing electrical power why would you decommission a 3 or 4th gen plant after we figured out how to make quality large scale?
large water requirements
All thermal plants use water because it's cheaper to use water to build condensing steam turbines than to leave the last bit of potentially useful power unused. You can build a nuclear reactor that uses almost no water for cooling if you really wanted to.
waste management
Sure, but not expensive or impossible.
on a very limited resource (uranium)
Yeah like tens of thousands of years at current extraction tech and cost. But you can expand the supply by 95 times using breeding rectors like a the EBR II demonstrated. Get the other 98% of the energy in the fuel out.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>But you can expand the supply by 95 times using breeding rectors like a the EBR II demonstrated. Get the other 98% of the energy in the fuel out.
Also has the added benefit of making the spent fuel not-deadly in a very low timespan compared to the undecillion years the fuel from a normal reactor produces
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I got chatGPT 4.0 to address your argument as I don't want to type on my phone
1. Nuclear power plants have substantial initial investment requirements, often around $6-8 billion per gigawatt, which can be prohibitive for developing countries and smaller energy companies.
2. The construction period for nuclear power plants, typically around eight years, is significantly longer than for renewable energy projects. This extended timeline delays both energy generation and financial returns.
3. Despite relatively low operational costs, nuclear energy requires specialized handling of radioactive materials and adherence to stringent safety regulations, adding complexity not found in other energy sources.
4. Decommissioning nuclear plants is inevitable due to aging infrastructure. This process is lengthy and costly, requiring significant resource allocation over an extended period.
5. Nuclear plants often have significant water usage needs, which can strain local resources, especially in areas with limited water availability.
6. Managing radioactive waste, though technically feasible, is costly due to the need for secure, long-term storage facilities to mitigate potential environmental risks.
7. Uranium supplies are limited, and while breeder reactors may extend fuel supply, they involve significant technical and proliferation challenges.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
If you don't want to actually converse, just don't make a comment. Nobody wants to read the tripe a bot generates.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's all correct though
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's not and I'm not going to fact-check a bot. You literally told us you copy-pasted it, so you literally can't know whether any of it holds true.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Where is it wrong?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I told you I'm not going to fact-check any of your autogenerated bullshit. Either make a comment of your own or just don't comment.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You aren't familiar with the downsides of nuclear then because all it did it summarise them
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>so you literally can't know whether any of it holds true.
P.s.
I know because I'm familiar with the issues around nuclear and I wouldn't have copy/pasted it otherwise
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You claim to be, but there's nothing to show for it, is there?
You aren't familiar with the downsides of nuclear then because all it did it summarise them
It could have summarized them, but it could also be not. Since you so openly admit you don't think we're worth a minute of your time to actually write an actual comment, I'm not going to give your copypaste any either.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Fair enough, I can understand your point of view and why you don't want to reply, but the summary is still correct.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
P.s.
I'm not anti-nuclear, but the pro nuclear fanatics simply omit or lie about the problems with nuclear
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_15080/uranium-2018-resources-production-and-demand?details=true
Also a goo read. Colleagues from here but working on efficiency. Captcha: MD PHD
My captcha for you after I ate an icecream: SN3ED
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>It's all correct though
None of it is correct. The bot just said everything I said was correct but it didn't like it.
We don't care about small economies or small companies. So it doesn't matter. Just use it for Europe North America and China. That's like 80% of the worlds human CO2 if you cared about that.
So saying it's not good for small economies is stupid.
Who cares if it takes 8 years to build? I remember when people said you can't drill for more oil to lower the price it would take 5 years for it to come online. That was 20 years ago.
A nuclear reactor is no more complicated in operation than any other large thermal plant. The power engineers running the system will be experts, the safety culture of the 1980s is considered by todays industral safety standards to be criminally lacking.
Decommissioning is for closing a plant. Why would you close the nuclear plant because the power lines connected to it are old? When a reactor gets near to the end of it's life you take it apart and inspect it. In Ontario the largest reactor complex in the world is getting inspected upgraded and being put back into service for another 40 years because so far everything inside it is in pristine condition after 45 years of operation.
Nuclear power plants use a lot of water in a similar way that a dam uses a lot of water. Most of it being used is directly returned where it came from. The huge conical cooling towers evaporate less water than a similar sized farm. A single 4 section of almonds uses more water than a 5GW NPP.
If you are reprocessing waste you don't need to store very much for a long term. A 95% reduction in high level waste volume.
Everything in the universe is limited, so saying we will run out of uranium thousands of years from now if we don't use breeders and millions if we do if fricking moronic when you just fricking complained that it takes 8 years to build. Frick 8 years is too long but 1000 plus is too short.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Frick the developing world. Every time white people give them handouts it's to the detrement of the rest of humanity
Solar panels could be free on every building surface and it would still cost more than a conventional nuclear reactor, gas, coal or hydro plant. This is because you need firming (storage) and batteries are just too expensive for anything other than extremely limited carry over service while they wait for a backup diesel generator to run up.
I love to hear about the many downsides you think nuclear has.
Hydro already supports most of the PNW while solar still does frick all. Nuclear is where we need to be but morons can't get past using seventy year old designs.
> Nuclear is where we need to be but morons can't get past using seventy year old designs.
Even funnier we have designs that can extract over 20x the energy and that can run on literal nuclear waste ( breeder reactors ), that don't create toxic waste and actually exist today in several places. But politics prevents us from building more because of muh proliferation concerns.
>But politics prevents us from building more because of muh proliferation concerns.
Yes, yes that is a concern. For good reason.
Finland, here's the article if someone's interested. You'll probably need a translator:
https://www.lansivayla.fi/paikalliset/4558850
I was going to say "Finland" but started and went with "Germany". Also hello, a familiar name: Professor Peter Lund *Aalto University*
Haha I have colleagues there: Sirkku Juhola. Picrel.
amount of initial capital
About 6 to 8 billion per GW that pays back in 20 years of a 60+ year operational span
long design and build time
Average time is 8 years.
high maintenance costs
2nd cheapest form of power that includes the maintenance.
long and costly decommissioning
Who cares how long it takes? Also unless you stopped needing electrical power why would you decommission a 3 or 4th gen plant after we figured out how to make quality large scale?
large water requirements
All thermal plants use water because it's cheaper to use water to build condensing steam turbines than to leave the last bit of potentially useful power unused. You can build a nuclear reactor that uses almost no water for cooling if you really wanted to.
waste management
Sure, but not expensive or impossible.
on a very limited resource (uranium)
Yeah like tens of thousands of years at current extraction tech and cost. But you can expand the supply by 95 times using breeding rectors like a the EBR II demonstrated. Get the other 98% of the energy in the fuel out.
>Yeah like tens of thousands of years at current extraction tech and cost
~1000. Vulnerable to Supply chain disruptions and political considerations (dependence, war etc).
You can make some yourself. Grab some used oil-barrels and cut them in half for some Savonius-type wind-turbines. They're self-starting and self-directing, meaning no circuitry needed. They also produce tremendous torque, so you can use the shaftpower directly for a wellpump for example
Laminar flow issues.
Unfortunately the EU labeled trees as fossil fuel and is now considering banning it
More complex than it looks. The reason was it was being abused (unsurprising) by using feedstock from forestry (Drax UK ex.). It prolonged infrastructure life (leading to risks of restarts with coal) and does not address particulate emissions. Burying wood products or substituting materials for wood though... useful.
Lots of these measures (e.g., biochar, bioenergy, ocean sequestration) receive lots of attention but have significant limitations. Hard when money is involved: reality gets obfuscated.
Solar because there are more land space where we can install panels than the very conditionally dependent Hydro. It's not like can have a dam in every body of water.
I know wind power is objectively worse than solar if you want homosexual energy, but I want more of it just because of the sheer amount of seethe it causes. Solargays need to make a panel that makes sheltered suburban people lose their minds.
You can make some yourself. Grab some used oil-barrels and cut them in half for some Savonius-type wind-turbines. They're self-starting and self-directing, meaning no circuitry needed. They also produce tremendous torque, so you can use the shaftpower directly for a wellpump for example
Also the activation energy needed is much lower than commercial high-in-the-sky types. Even at ~2m/s you can have power from a Savonius-type turbine so unless you live in the middle of the forest you should be able to gain relatively steady power from one
Maybe at global scale, but locally where it grows well it works really well. Just plant a tree when you take one down and it'll be back there in a few decades.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Soil micronutrients are going off a cliff, you just need a little patience to see the impact.
It's like pumping ground water, went great for the last century, now we're hitting the wall almost everywhere with dense population. If it's not outright depletion then losing massive amounts of land through subsidence near the coastline.
Except for niche hydro there are exactly two options, nuclear+hydrogen and solar+hydrogen. If the latter gets cheap enough you won't need nuclear, if not you don't need solar.
Solar cost per watt installed can go very very low. If you DIY at the moment, panels are cheaper than the inverter.
well my grandparents had solar installed about 15 years ago, it is powerful enough that they have almost never needed to use grid power. it's never needed maintenance or presented any kind of issues
so i'll say solar
Solar nerds, why aren't white solar panels a thing? Most are blue or black, black ones get hotter because of absorbing sun's heat, causing it to heat the roof and then the house then people to use air conditioners and even more energy. If they were white they would reflect sun's heat
>If they were white they would reflect sun's heat
and seeing as how you want as much of the sun's energy as you can get, do see how that could be a problem?
Correctly installed rooftop panels have an airgap between the the panel and roof. There is no (or negligible) heating of the roof from the panels. In fact, the panels & airgap shade the formerly sun heated roofing material resulting in a cooler surface in direct contact with the building environment.
Hydro is essential for controlling water levels to prevent floods and droughts. Energy production is an added bonus. The catch is that they are being build with these purposes inverted and, as such, causing more harm than good.
Solar is also important, but not in large scale, due to the materials for the solar panels and their lifespan (recycling of solar panels).
The large scale solution would have been the nuclear options, at present fission and in the future fusion.
>all this talk about environmental waste in this thread
just makes me lmao. it's funny how rightoids only give a shit about the environmental impact of something when it's politically expedient for them
Well there's 'identity' politics that have some vague "left/right" connection (which is crude and ill-informed anyway - for both the social and economic dimensions) it isn't very comprehensive. You find the "right" you speak of adheres to very unusual ideas because it's a form of resistance. These terms have also been co-opted over time - visibly so by big business. Those on the "left" have also been co-opted by big business. They just adhere to a different set of beliefs - which also conveniently support the status quo... and sells lots of products.
If you look at some historical "conservative" examples: Theodore Roosevelt (King Shit Supreme) stands out as someone who was very much pro-environmental and anti-big business. Turns out we live in an era dominated by an economic logic because it suits those in power. It suits them very, very well - and those who live under them. Not so much now unfortunately, which is the undoing.
Solar works best on a small scale i.e. a single building and it's not a meme.
Anyone who's been in the industry for over 10 years will tell you that the pace of innovation is quite fast and that prices are less than half of what they used to be.
At this point it makes sense at the market price, without any subsidies.
Of course people with a knee jerk reaction to anything "green" continue to parrot memes and misconceptions about it.
Hydro is less of a meme.
It has one of the highest ROIs of any energy source.
It’s such easy gains that even beavers do it.
Solar has one of the lowest ROIs and creates more waste long term.
Hydro is basically the ideal power source but it's completely dependent on region and already established in basically all the locations where it's possible.
Solar energy for anything that's already on a grid is profoundly moronic and would be better served by nuclear. Solar only makes sense for off-grid purposes.
hydro >find a suitable river >block it >piss off environmentalists that complain about muh fish >piss off farmers and downstream nations that complain about muh water >needs constant maintenance, if the dam collapses thousands of people die of flooding >decent power I guess but not very scalable
solar >make solar panel >make battery for night >make a long-ass cable >go at the middle of nowhere >point solar panel at the sky >??? >profit
>>make a long-ass cable >>go at the middle of nowhere
that's the big problem, there's a huge amount of energy loss when you build a powerplant in the middle of nowhere.
For solar you have loss when using the panel (they're at most 30% efficiency), then you convert the DC to AC (the best inverters are something 98% effiency) and then you lose even more in the transmission lines (up to 6% depending on system).
That's why nobody just slapped a gigantic photovoltaic powerplant in the middle of the Sahara yet, they need to be somewhat close to major population centers
>For solar you have loss when using the panel (they're at most 30% efficiency)
Solar energy is free of charge and would have been wasted anyway without solar panels harvesting 30% of it, so that's not really a loss >then you convert the DC to AC (the best inverters are something 98% effiency) and then you lose even more in the transmission lines (up to 6% depending on system). >what is HVDC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
I am not the one you're replying to. I agree the 30% thing is a red herring, but the fact is rooftop solar will already flood the grid during peak hours, so what's the point of building one in the Sahara etc at all?
The issue is it only provides it during peak hours during the day on sunny days. Batteries are expensive and it is very polluting to mine and dispose of them. This is why Solar is only useful as supplemental to reduce usage of fuels.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
batteries are not the only way to store energy. the current problem is that there is no better way of doing it, at least (AFAIU) not without inundating massive areas with water or some shit like that
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Batteries are expensive
Batteries are cheaper than ever, and even cheaper chemistries like LFP and Sodium ion are gaining traction which will make batteries even cheaperer >and it is very polluting to mine and dispose of them
The aforementioned chemistries require less mining, whereas battery recycling is a rapidly growing industry e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redwood_Materials
>nuke all the way
We just want the uranium and plutonium around for weapons.
There are safer nuke alternatives.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-advanced-reactor-systems-watch-2030#:~:text=The%20sodium%2Dcooled%20fast%20reactor,and%20safety%20of%20the%20system.
Here's another link for fun
https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
>The issue is it only provides it during peak hours during the day on sunny days.
Only? No. False.
PVs production is proportional to the light they receive. Only "Peak" and "sunny" are not true. Peak output is on cloudless days in mid afternoon (for fixed mount panels) when the panel position is relatively perpendicular to the sun.
PVs produce electricity on cloudy days, they produce power from dawn until dusk if environmental shading permits.
the environmental effects from nuclear plant discharge is generally from the temperature of the water (which is usually solved via cooling towers or cooling ponds), its not radioactive unless something seriously goes wrong because it is not in direct contact with the fuel.
the environmental effects from nuclear plant discharge is generally from the temperature of the water (which is usually solved via cooling towers or cooling ponds), its not radioactive unless something seriously goes wrong because it is not in direct contact with the fuel.
Guess you didn't want to read
>nuke all the way
We just want the uranium and plutonium around for weapons.
There are safer nuke alternatives.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-advanced-reactor-systems-watch-2030#:~:text=The%20sodium%2Dcooled%20fast%20reactor,and%20safety%20of%20the%20system.
Here's another link for fun
https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
coal and nuclear, nothing else comes close
Nuclear is a lot better than coal. Much cleaner.
yeah but nimby exists, and coal still beats the pants off of hydro and solar and wind. Nyseg heavily relies on coal and it is clean if you filter it properly.
>Tom Clancy, Metal Gear plot happens
>insurrectionists take over several nuclear plants, the police don't have enough bullets for the bodies
>breach the reactor and C4 the thing unless suicidal mind controlled schwarzneggers pull the control rods out of the vessel with their bear hands and chornobyl the reactor
the debt gets called at some point
The most moronic take. It would be easier for insurrectionists to build a dirty bomb than to invade or sabotage a nuclear plant. Keep dreaming up your Hollywood script tho
that's a copyright infringin'
Aye, but it's too late to go nuclear now, shit's prohibitively expensive and takes ages to set up. Just speedrun the reneweables transition
If only there was a source of energy that didn't create CO2 and that didn't rely on random or semi-random factors such as weather or rainfall in the past week or season...
>Between hydro energy and solar energy, which is "less" of a meme?
Solar. Decentralised, leverages battery storage or other storage means, and can be integrated into networks. Very good from a national security perspective. Hydro can be pumped, which acts as a firming supply. Traditional hydro has very large ecological impacts, and from a security standpoint it is very vulnerable to disruptions.
>coal still beats the pants off of hydro and solar and win
>coal and nuclear, nothing else comes close
The rationale and logic for these statements? Otherwise it's just opinion.
Yes, and they're terrible for flight paths. Not to mention highly centralised.
"He who controls the flow of energy controls the people", to paraphrase and adapt the quote from Marx.
Easy to harden. A lot of the issues around solar can be addressed with regulation. There are significant issues with recyclability. Germanium in panels complicates recycling.
>Aren't they already required to filter that, at least in the US?
Filter particulates. Coal emits massive amounts of thorium and nanoparticle carbon. Coal stocks are also vulnerable to coal fires, not to mention CFP and NP make enormous targets that are hard to repair, very central to generation, and stick out like sore thumbs.
>national security
honestly I didn't even think about this, that makes sense, with Europe's recent energy crisis because of Russian gas shortage I think it opened a lot of politician's eyes on the issue. I guess for this issue solar truly is the best, anything else can just get bombed
>Europe's recent energy crisis because of Russian gas shortage
You mean the one which turned out to be a nothingburger?
sure bud
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_energy_crisis_(2021%E2%80%93present)#Russian-Ukraine_Conflict
Russia completly cucked Germany after they got sanctioned for invading Ukraine and now they are back to using coal but they pinky promise they'll be full renewable by 2035
Germany hasn't built one single pumped storage, is massively behind on power grid expansion, and regulatory inspection autism with undrstaffing in regions prevented fully constructed medium sized installations from going online for months and years.
Doing it like germany is quite stupid.
Japan is building a long-distance intercity maglev to cut down a 3h travel down to 55m.
When they're done building in late 2020 or early 2030, the city of Berlin will have planned to have built 800m S-Bahn railroad tracks.
*Planned* to have built.
Oh and they were an actual global leader in solar tech but essentially let their whole industry die even while they boomer "planned" going carbon neutral. They also lost the last wind turbine blade manufacturer. Also while this green change thing is being forced through. It shouldn't be possible but it is.
Notice how most of the cited sources are just predictions and not facts
note that the US directly cucked Germany by blowing up nordstream and Germans, being the biggest cucks on the planet watched it happen with a smile
According to the discord leaks which I would trust over any other hearsay it was the Ukrainians.
It was Ukrainians who took a scuba diving trip.
Wasn’t even that hard for them since the Baltic is only like 55 meters deep.
>honestly I didn't even think about this, that makes sense, with Europe's recent energy crisis because of Russian gas shortage I think it opened a lot of politician's eyes on the issue
Well it did ensure the US provided gas to Europe, thereby locking them into the US sphere of influence further. Some hands are made to be bitten, the US hand is not.
This has made the US financial and political capital. No wonder Europe bends the knee, especially in an era where interest rates are low so renewables are harder to deploy due to upfront costs.
>isn't that what the grid is based on now? plants will cycle on based on demand because we have no way of reliably storing power at scale
Not quite so simple. If infrastructure didn't exist, political lobbying were nonexistent, and regulation more conducive then you would see a mass exodus to renewables. Already been seen as they're cheaper, but infrastructure lock-in is the biggest factor which constrains change. Turns out markets aren't very good at forward planning because they're inherently responsive, requiring policy that reduces long-term uncertainties. Very hard in current political models that favour short-termism as pragmatic outcomes of short electoral cycles.
>Russia completly cucked Germany after they got sanctioned for invading Ukraine and now they are back to using coal but they pinky promise they'll be full renewable by 2035
Without the provision of Russian gas via pipeline there's a reason for Germany being so pro-support for a conflict that could have been de-escalated. The US monopolar system hasn't accommodated threats to dominance well. Doesn't help the US has little foresight now, as opposed to sixty years ago (which explains their current dominance).
Most hydro turbines/dams are quite small, and they're spread out all over the the place. There's >1500 in the US, it just wouldn't make sense logistically for an enemy to target any but the very largest.
>There's >1500 in the US, it just wouldn't make sense logistically for an enemy to target any but the very largest.
Sure it does. Flooding is a major natural disaster. Or perhaps not so natural in this case. Great for defense in that regard: "flooding the marshes".
>geothermal since it's infinite and works 24/7
Yes. Requires readily accessible sources and has significant technological complexity. Great if you're in the position of Iceland. Not so great if sitting in the middle of a craton.
>Yes. Requires readily accessible sources and has significant technological complexity. Great if you're in the position of Iceland. Not so great if sitting in the middle of a craton.
Can confirm, our power company tried it, drilled a hole ~4 miles deep. They failed to fracture the ground sufficiently for heat exchanger and the hole collapsed. There was no sufficient heat and they wasted ~80million bucks on it
>Can confirm, our power company tried it, drilled a hole ~4 miles deep. They failed to fracture the ground sufficiently for heat exchanger and the hole collapsed. There was no sufficient heat and they wasted ~80million bucks on it
Was this in Germany?
Finland, here's the article if someone's interested. You'll probably need a translator:
https://www.lansivayla.fi/paikalliset/4558850
>The rationale and logic for these statements? Otherwise it's just opinion.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b
Coal and nuclear produce more energy with less down time due to maintenance and refueling, Nuclear is particular is several orders of magnitude more reliable than any renewable because they only have to refuel a reactor every 1.5-2 years. Renewables need to mature another 300 hundred years before even coming close to nuclear.
>https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b
This refers to operational production and uptime. Solar and other renewables obviously cannot match this (no power generation at night for solar). That's not the issue being addressed.
The question is: "what is the future vision for energy production", which requires a long-term (foresighted) view that approaches issues using systemic thinking. It requires addressing;
>What are the plausible future scenarios for energy demand?
>Which factors might influence demand? (market, societal, technological)
>How can we account for these potential demand requirements? (Options, alternatives)
>Where are the barriers and limitations to implementation? (Where is there leverage)
>Why are these alternatives desirable? (cost, ecological impact, practicality, risk)
This informs an understanding of the existing system, potential futures, options and alternatives, and pathways for implementation with clear milestones and actions. This is a complex process and relies on forming a vision, articulating goals, and considering how to meet these goals with measurable outcomes.
Renewables have key advantages and also disadvantages across multiple scales. Some advantages are: decentralisation, robustness, redundancy, diffuse vulnerability and existential benefits (reduced reliance on extracted fuels, health benefits, existential considerations [climate impacts], integrated electrification etc). Contrasted with weaknesses: supply chain complexities, challenges with existing infrastructure compatibility, political stakeholders, up-front costs, social norms, recyclability etc.
It is impossible to eliminate carbon based fuels entirely - nor desirable (e.g., cooking stoves). There are many benefits vs fossil fuels, not just climate change mitigation. They're by no means perfect and they obfuscate structural considerations: consumption-driven models, human use of landscapes, societal models.
Complex.
coal is worse than natural gas. Nuclear and solar is the only way
Which right wing twitter personality told you to repeat this?
What is wrong with you homosexuals who can't read and understand a simple question?
neither are a meme.
solar is nuclear, it's literally energy from the sun. solar panels is just a numbers game. more solar panels more energy captured.
solar, hydro messes with the water supply and kills the fish (potential food source)
>hydro messes with the water supply
Doesn't it store water from winter/spring so you can use it in summer when it's much dryer?
>and kills the fish
Solved problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCE_lFUMXNg
the reseviors created by the dams end up filled with pollutants, heavy metals, ect and whenever you churn the water in those resevioirs by empting them, you create a giant underwater cloud of toxic debris that kills everything. This also makes dams not-carbon neutral (not that carbon neutral isnt a meme itself, but for arguementative purposes ibring it up) because all the dead matter that settles at the bottom of a resivoir also has to be disposed of eventually, making hydro 'not clean' in the eyes of modern carbon-conscious grifters, i mean enviromentalists.
Senpaitachi aren't carbon neutral from the start. Concrete is carbon intensive.
Jus' sayin'
https://archive.is/TAGO2
>solar is a problem (for the grid operator who makes less money)
I guess you don't care about the health of the grid then.
understanding how our modern electric grid works and the difficulties of "selling" back power is beyond the understanding of the average 90 IQ IQfy user. it's just not even worth broaching because too many people here read headlines and then think they're experts on the subject.
Depends. For decentralised local grids with the right technologies (smart metering etc) it is very advantageous. The problem is infrastructure and lock-in. All those transmission lines are very vulnerable to disaster events, expensive, create linear infrastructure intrusion (e.g., fire risk in fire-prone areas) and ensure the need for centralised generation.
The IEA produced a massive report on this. Efficiency is one area of improvement, as is recycling of "waste" heat. That requires market mechanisms and regulation to enforce, which is complicated by stakeholder interactions, normative practices, subversion (e.g., corruption), and international relations.
Very complex and doesn't address the root: consumption driven economic models.
>consumption driven economic models.
isn't that what the grid is based on now? plants will cycle on based on demand because we have no way of reliably storing power at scale
>All those transmission lines are very vulnerable to disaster events, expensive, create linear infrastructure intrusion (e.g., fire risk in fire-prone areas) and ensure the need for centralised generation
We just bury them underground. A tree's got to fall pretty hard to get six feet under the ground, through the couple protective sheathing and metal layers
It's extremely expensive to bury high voltage transmission lines because they need to cool them while also insulting them. You can do this over short distances at a cost, but not for the national girds it's just way too much to take care of.
>It's extremely expensive to bury high voltage transmission lines
Sure is, we can see the clear increase in our bills since we implemented it country-wide.
You can replace mid voltage without much issues, 14.4kV and 28.8kV can be buried and insulated with a protective coating that can be passively cooled. 100kV can be buried but needs active cooling with some sort of liquid cooling medium.
You can bury local distribution without issue.
Don't know what they're doing for 100kV, but this is what we saw everywhere there's trees
https://yle.fi/a/3-9542539
>According to the national power grid operator Finngrid, the use of underground cables is limited because they are prohibitively expensive due to the long transmission distances. The buried cables also restrict land use in the areas where they are installed.
>The Energy Authority's objective is to eventually put 47 percent of the medium-voltage network and 65 percent of the low-voltage network below ground by the year 2029.
If you have any information on new high and ultra high being buried I'd like to know how they did it over a long distance. In North America we only buried VH and UVH in cities for a few 10s of miles/km.
Looks like it's doing steady progress, you don't replace an entire country's worth of wire in a night afterall. The additional cost is already very visible to the consumer
Yeah but that is only low voltage and medium voltage. The context was high voltage lines. No one is burying lots of long distance high voltage.
I don't think trees generally fall on high-voltage lines though. They seem to withstand wind pretty well, and the area doesen't have tornadoes or earthquakes
>I don't think trees generally fall on high-voltage lines though.
Mostly because they cut massive right of ways for them. You could do the same for lower voltage transmission if you didn't care about cutting back around them. Although the context for Finland seems to be ice storms coating wires and trees.
Solar adoption definitely hurts the grid. For every solar panel you buy, that's less money you're paying toward maintaining the grid. If things really get dire for the electric companies, the government will probably start taxing people with solar panels to "pay their fair share."
Companies who own the grid aren't necessarily the ones generating power or the one you have your contract with, at least here in Europe
And it's fair that if you use less of their energy you pay less
That worked fine when no one made their own power during the day then stopped making power at night and demanded the same levelized price when peak demand hit.
dude watched Practical Engineering's video on solar power grids and now thinks he's the expert
Not my problem. That's the problem of the corpos that have a government-approved monopoly to deploy and maintain the grid.
it's a problem because the grid needs non-solar energy production, and that production needs to be able to spun up and shut down quickly, which coal and nuclear plants can struggle with later in their operating life.
They're trying to reframe the issue by saying only the rich use solar at home therefore solar should be shutdown for "equity" reasons. lmao
Lol, their own worst enemies.
You can't make this shit up.
Its the environmentalist left vs commies left
solar should be shut down for EOL cadmium pollution
this fricking state literally made it mandatory to install solar on your roof for every single new residental building put up.
the globalist gays wanted everyone to do solar so they could switch everyone onto a microgrid, because that kind of localized totalitarianism gets their dicks hard as rocks. the power companies said 'lol no'.
Everyone that gets solar and just dumps it into the grid is an idiot
It's called net metering
No one buys solar to specifically send it to the grid, it's just when there is over-production, that gets sent to the grid and you get a credit
Most systems are going to over produce in certain parts of the day and certain parts of the year if the system is designed to sustain your needs even with low sunlight (like in winter)
There is basically zero reason to not to net meter unless you're actually off-grid
>There is basically zero reason to not to net meter unless you're actually off-grid
also many states just won't let you off the grid. i think PGE in CA won't let you disconnect or some shit
this is gay and shit, mutts should enforce their freedom
>Everyone that gets solar and just dumps it into the grid is an idiot
Fun fact: in germany you get up to 3x the price as reward for dumping your solar power into the grid and then using the cheap coal energy for yourself. People actually make cash like this and you would be a moron if you didn't.
Weenergies (gas and electric provider) here in Wisconsin, USA charges residential PV owners a service fee for being connected to the grid. They are billed as a private power generator using Weenergies power lines.
Its a small fee, every month. Wtf
>Weenergies
lol
Formerly WEPCO. Why they changed names is a merger mystery. Pronounced Wee-energeez
"He said weener, heh heh heh"
Wisconsin
Electric
Power
COmpany
Europe is interconnected and we see that cheap noon time solar electric hammers down the cost of electricity in the Nordic countries. The power generator companies complain but there are indications of wide spread fraud.
this is not a production issue, moron. the problem is storage
>terrible efficiency (like 30%)
more like 20% or less
fricking THIS
you could also DIY solar water heater. evacuated tube panels work much better in cloudy days, though
>homie if you are going the solar heater route, you may use solar panels and a dc water heater
are you moronic? PV is 20% efficient, heating is >80%...
>PV is 20% efficient, heating is >80%...
I can buy a 400W panel for 50 Euro at the moment ...
you can diy solar heat energy roof installation with pvc pipes and black paint
It doesn't have to be one or the other, solar energy can take care of your hot water.
PV can run your AC in the summer.
Only works in summer. Waste of space when you can just get more PV.
>I can buy a 400W panel for 50 Euro at the moment ...
bs. show evidence or frick off
also, 400W is what, 2 m2? in those 2m2 you could have a single solar water heater and a lot more heat than with those PV panels.
also, the panels themselves might be cheap, but you still need cabling and maybe an inverter and battery system.
>bs. show evidence or frick off
Okay I lied, 58 Euro.
https://blijmetzonnepanelen.nl/product-categorie/zonnepanelen/
Prices are moronic because my country is going bankrupt and cutting subsidies. Massive bankruptcies, huge excess stock.
that's nice. are those used or new?
cheapest I could find in my country is ~40% more than that. not as expensive as I thought but still not as cheap as you said.
dude is cheaper per money, is a simpler system more durable with easier maintenance, unless you are really space starved you shouldn't care about the rest
and again, you can use that energy for more uses
"dude", you can do both things at once. but if you need a lot of thermal energy, you would be moronic not to use a solar water heater...
Solar IS a meme because if a significant amount of people put solar panels on their roofs, they produce energy when nobody is at home to use the energy WHILE AT THE SAME TIME needing a lot of energy from the grid when they produce nothing in the mornings and evenings.
Solar will be our disaster
They are using grid power they produced a portion of when they are away from home.
The sun is out in the morning and part of the evening to produce some PV power. Peak usage of electricity is mid-day. The same time of day that PV are at peak power production.
>The sun is out in the morning and part of the evening to produce some PV power.
Maybe if you are a neet.
When people usually wake up to get to work, use the stove, hairdryer, electric kettle etc solar produces jackshit in comparison (if at all)
Batteries (good old fashioned car batteries. 10 of them in series = 120V)
(me)
>electric kettle...
UK? 20 car batteries or introduce a transformer and carefully calculate how many watts you need in the morning and evening so as to minimize the number of batteries.
It will be a thoughtful, well planned, less convenient life. But we'll sleep better (more, maybe not better).
This car battery (lead-acid) shit I'm talking about isn't new or a joke
I used to read about it in Popular Mechanics magazine as a kid. In the '90s I worked on some home and commercial PV installs wiring banks of lead-acid batteries to inverters and transformers for constant power. I've been aware of this stuff and hands-on for 40 years. UPS isn't something new that arrived with home computers. Lithium tech batteries have their place in the discussion, bit lets not forget tried and true tech like PbAcid batteries.
>Peak usage of electricity is mid-day.
Grid peak is 6 to 9 PM or just as solar output drops to zero.
California
There are other places, states and even countries.
Who tf would average the entire state of California and pretend it's realistic to apply that information EVERYWHERE. San Diego all the way north to Oregon, the same?
Yeah, ok.
Not to even mention the coast to the mountains into the desert.
It's the same in Texas, Ontario, NY, (Brandenburg) Germany.
People come home, turn on lights, TVs, stoves, washing machines, microwaves, sometimes AC or electric heaters, and now more often EVs.
Why would you think the peak electrical use is in the middle of the day when your heating and lighting demand is at the lowest and the least number of people are cooking?
Offices, factories, commercial spaces, shops, stores, malls, businesses...
You know, all those environmentally controlled places people go when they aren't at home?
(me)
I found some graphs too.
Follow the link to the source data and you will find the daily peak in every location is between 1800 and 2200.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/US48/US48
That's fascinating. It corresponds with the exact times businesses close and people go to sleep. Huge, well lit, climate controlled commercial spaces with shops and restaurants to round out a busy day.
You don't seriously believe residential lighting, hot water for a shower and 20 minutes using a stove creates that peak?
Yor graph and the graphs I provided show power usage rising steadily (for the most part with seasonal variations) with a sharp drop as people finally go and stay home for sleep.
Solar is financially viable for homeowners under some circumstances.
t. homeowner who spent dozens of hours researching it
Yes FOR YOU because your government is a meme itself and literally drops the burden of responsibility to your energy supplier and tells them
>deal with it
If everybody adopted solar tomorrow, the whole grid would die.
Just add local buffers to the grid to store excess production and provide energy when demand peaks. Also focus on self-consumption more.
Getting lots of solar and not using it? Heat a tank full of water with it. With proper insulation it'll stay warm for days and you need warm water anyway. That's a battery right there.
And the same goes for heating or cooling your house. Just do that with excess PV production as much as possible.
Take it a step further and automate home appliances that don't necessarily need to run at a specific time to smartly turn on to use excess production. Laundry, dishwasher, dehumidifier, you name it.
>hydro messes with the water supply and kills the feesh
>i love heccing beavers
>they r naturz natrual engineers
It depends...
Talk about hydropower in Arabia Saudi and you'll appear on a LiveACK video
gun energy
muh deek is hydraulic
unironically
Hydro has already been built where-ever it’s feasible, it’s old tech, and while reliable the impact on the local environment can be immense.
Solar has issues, but it’s still relatively immature, it has plenty of room to grow, and you can stick solar panels in all sorts of places without needing to destroy whatever is already there. Its primary shortcoming is that it doesn’t generate at night, requiring either storage (flywheels and/or batteries) or traditional base load generation services (hydro, coal, CGT, e.t.c.) for overnight and very cloudy days.
>it doesn’t generate at night
Weren't some gringos trying to use mirrors in space to get sunlight?
soviets tried to 40 years ago. Not for solar panels but crops
Hydro, solar panels has short lifespans and is unreliable. Its waste ends up in landfills and the hazardous materials used to make them leak into the environment, poisoning the water, soil, and air. Solar panels also have a larger ecological footprint because of its inefficient use of land.
I had solar panels and they lasted me about 7 years before they started to degrade to 80%. By year 10 they were at 64%. I took them down and sold them on facebook and never looked back.
>solar panels has short lifespans and is unreliable
Wrong, even old damaged ones from the 1980s were still mostly working when people inspected them decades later.
> Its waste ends up in landfills
They are mostly glass, which can be recycled easily.
>the hazardous materials used to make them
Such as?
>Solar panels also have a larger ecological footprint because of its inefficient use of land.
You don't have to put them on empty fields.
Overall you're just repeating nonsense.
Thermal solar panels are clean and recyclable (glass, copper, other abundant metals) and are actually capable of storing energy for the night. There are already several plants in testing where they manage to produce power 24/7 by storing heat in salt tanks and using it during the night. PV solar is better from a price standpoint and flexibility (people can install it on their roof).
You frickwits always ignore the batteries and the mining it requires and the fact very little lithium ever gets recycled.
"Storing in muh panels" Say something when this is actually available as a consumer product.
Try reading the post before replying
Based moron, google what solar thermal power is, and how it stores energy.
How much electricity does this stored heat actually produce? Will it do more than keep my water lukewarm for my morning shower?
Propane user here.
It takes less time to google this question than making another reply and solving another captcha and waiting for an answer. But who am I kidding, you don't want an answer, you want to keep playing identity politics, and since the people supporting trannies and eating bugs also support green energy, then it means you should be as dishonest as possible regarding anything good they might argue for. Consider not breathing because I heard trannies do it constantly.
>How much electricity does this stored heat actually produce? Will it do more than keep my water lukewarm for my morning shower?
Not much. The largest solar thermal plant in the US made about 40% of it's 'solar' power by burning natural gas. That is before going bankrupt even while CA was paying them a premium for being solar power *actually gas*.
Pic semi related not the solar thermal plant but nearby solar PV plants mysteriously built around natural gas turbines and HRSGs.
>You frickwits always ignore the batteries and the mining it requires and the fact very little lithium ever gets recycled
Few reasons:
The same as plastics - it's cheaper to use new source material than recycle. Plastics have their own issues though, like the whole "circular" model being more of a hairball and not infinitely recycleable.
Lithium batteries develop fissures that penetrate through the substrate. Recycling these can improve the function of lithium batteries. Happy to find the paper when on lunch.
>How much electricity does this stored heat actually produce?
Do not respond to this idiocy. It is just distraction.
Anyway... a lot of the issues with energy relate to societal models and barriers to change - laws, norms, existing regulation, markets. You cannot just rip up a city and rebuild it in a smaller area (which would be more energy efficient and easier to service provision - but does increase vulnerability through concentration of population). Or force changes to transportation that has been institutionalised (cars and highways) despite how effective that might be. Or force changes to how households work and resource sharing (shared laundries - not everyone needs a washing machine per household) as that has normative and market barriers. Nor is it possible to easily change work arrangements and the requirements for "office space". New models of living would require massive changes that could easily reduce these energy and broader resource needs to a fraction of their current levels. It just sits at odds with the economic logic that dominates society.
This isn't the point of this discussion anyway, it's just a meandering thought. Just like the thought experiment where you could fit all of London's population in 150sqkm of area (12.2x12.2km - 1/10th of the current area) and still have plenty of open space. All that grey infrastructure (roads, carparks, worthless office space) gone.
Lead acid batteries were (and still are) the most used battery chemistry used for PV (and other small scale alt energy generation) storage. That's right, car batteries. They are serviceable, renewable, the chemical byproducts (lead sulfate) used can be seperated reused at scale (not at home).
Le bad points?
Lead
Sulfuric acid
Plastic cases
Heavy
Big
Le good?
We've been dealing successfully with all of the above for >100 years.
NUKE
Kino aesthetics.
I've always loved that look - thick green grass and deep blue skies, but a power plant or wind turbines in the image. I've just found it so pleasing.
hydro doesn't really work or is not even possible when your country is flat as frick and doesn't have enough rivers
solar is fairly ok imo, like sure you're limited by sun irradiance, but you can theoretically use solarPV-thermal with heat storage and batteries combo, and be virtually off gird (bar internet fiber). IF you have enough money.
nuclear (as in fission) needs frickhuge amount of water for cooling, can't really follow load, modern projects are way overbudget, you like still need to fuel. SMRs turned out to be a complete that do not save money (fricking nuscale went bankrupt) but they're interesting due to higher "steam" temperatures.
so like first you scream about "climate emergency" and need to "do something", when people buy solar panels your "solution" to alleged "problems with recycling" is to introduce "more regulation" (probably by restricting certain elements or compounds like a moron)
get chocked on government dick if you like it so much, fricking cuck
>so like first you scream about "climate emergency"
?
Wasting my time with babble isn't on the agenda. No apologies.
yet you "wasted" your time to reply you c**t
>yet you "wasted" your time to reply you c**t
Takes seconds. Replies to worthy material much longer. It is not important what you think.
Both are geographically limited. solar doesn't work as well in high latitudes. Hydro needs valleys that can be flooded.
And you forgot wind. That's less limited.
If it weren't for regulators rendering nuclear uneconomical nuclear would be the best option.
>nuclear (as in fission) needs frickhuge amount of water for cooling,
Build it near the ocean.
>can't really follow load
They can to some extent, but plants have to be designed for it otherwise it stresses them.
>modern projects are way overbudget
We've gone too far with safety. Developing countries can still build them reasonably fast.
Once a plant gets a permit to build it should be exempt from regulation changes that require significant redesigns. If the design was deemed "good enough" in 2005 then it should also be "good enough" in 2030. Perhaps a new problem gets discovered where we can "do better" in the future. But that doesn't mean all the in-progress builds need to be redesigned. If you follow that moronic strategy then things will go overbudget.
>you like still need to fuel.
Yeah, and hydro needs concrete and solar needs semiconductors and batteries. Nothing is perfect. If you build fast breeders then we have fuel for a thousand years at least.
But really, we need all of the above. Solar/Wind are great when the sun shines. Nuclear is great for baseload.
Real solar energy
based bird hater
So, are the birds Icarus or is it humans?
they didn't fly so good
That happened to some people at a curved hotel somewhere. Walk into the wrong path of light and get 3rd degree burns.
There's one in the UK that melted plastic parts on cars parked near it, if memory serves.
>There's one in the UK that melted plastic parts on cars parked near it, if memory serves.
Yes, both buildings were designed by the same architect, Rafael Viñoly.
Globohomosexual buttholes love him both because his designs are soulless glass&steel monstrosities and because they cause havoc in the surrounding areas. When asked about his crimes, Viñoly just blamed it all on "global warming:"
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/sep/06/walkie-talkie-architect-predicted-reflection-sun-rays
Both Biden and Trump have all but admitted that America did NordStream:
fricking kek, thanks anon, I did not know about this one. Global warming lol
>Viñoly just blamed it all on "global warming:"
top kek
*saves bird lives*
Much more scalable and modular as well.
PV gets cheaper, mechanical tracking mechanisms are fixed cost. PV wins in the end, if you really want a thermal battery put some resistance wire in concrete. Shitty round trip efficiency though.
kek
>and in mere seconds, your turkey comes out a delicious golden brown
yeah but wind turbines!
>burns gas anyway
Canada has such cheap electricity from hydropower and exports a lot of it. It's standard that apartments there just include electricity cost in the rent.
I'd say it's definitely more mature and reliable.
Lol Electricity is not included in rent most places anymore, hasn't been for years. Canada is a shit hole turning into pooville really fast
You can use solar to pump water back up into the lake.
That's a nice solar roof you've got there...
my country has used hydro for decades, it's not perfect but i wouldn't consider it a meme
suddenly love my tropical shithole
engineering issue
yea, nuclear engineering
Hydro: immense environmental impact BUT is renewable BUT with temperatures rising up everywhere some powerplants even had to shut off temporarily because their dams were running too low
Solar: Doesn't generate at night, less envrionmental impact but has terrible efficiency (like 30%), lasts less (15-30 years) and manufacturing panels has some environmental impact too.
Coal: Terrible impact on nature
Nuclear: Most efficient, less environmental impact (unless shit goes down then it's terrible), powerplants occupy a very small area.
>Coal: Terrible impact on nature
Citation please. Other than "muh greenhouse gasses", it can be filtered to be quite clean.
the radioactive waste and sulfur compounds they generate?
Aren't they already required to filter that, at least in the US?
Not for long anyway, the EPA is too woke I guess
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/27/project-2025-dismantle-us-climate-policy-next-republican-president
>still in denial about CO2
The issue is there is no way to prove this. This isn't like a randomized controlled trial where if you have a large enough sample size you basically prove something works with a low enough P value.
Even medical RCTs end up being found to have bias and issues later which invalidate them.
So now we're talking about climate science, which isn't even as close to as good as a large scale RCT. You're going to screw over everyone with higher energy and food prices for something you can't prove 100%?
Seriously?
Sure CO2 in a controlled environment traps heat predictably, but the thing is there's tons of other factors when you're talking about the entire planet. They don't *really* know how much of recent rises are out of line with historical norms going back thousands to millions of years.
There is no way literally starving people in third world countries and making the poor suffer more with higher prices is moral given you can't prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.
>They don't *really* know how much of recent rises are out of line with historical norms going back thousands to millions of years.
Yes. "They". Do.
CO2 & methane
Nothing is 100% certain, anon, but 99.999% is effectively "proven"
>but how do you pro-
Math. Models. The scientific method. Got a better idea?
Oh yeah, here's another point I like to bring up when dealing with intellectually dishonest people:
If the sudden climate change is actually natural, doesn't that mean we're even more fricked? Doesn't that mean we should do everything in our power to stop it?
morons said the same thing about the CFC ban and the ozone hole. The ban was very effective
Those didn't require impoverishing people. There's also the fact the IPCC originally couldn't find anything until they were threatened with losing their funding and being shut down.
>very effective
so what's going on here? we all were told that the CFC ban fixed everything
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-5P/Ozone_hole_goes_large_again
>muh lingering impact
Thanks for making air conditioning so much more expensive moron.
I like how it shrinks and gets bigger again all the time, kinda like it has fricking nothing to do with us, but of course you'll make up some horseshit.
China and India are literally increasing their use of these every year, yet it seems to not be doing shit, and if they don't care given they will always output more than us, why should we?!
>Thanks for making air conditioning so much more expensive moron.
i thought the "bad" refrigerants were phased out years ago. at least that's what my AC tech told me last year. my place apparently still has the "bad" kind but since i rent and my landlords are too cheap to upgrade, i have to continue getting it
moron
Mining the coal also has an impact, polluting ground water.
Try living in China or a nearby country. Or any other country that uses a lot of coal power plants. The air quality is absolutely horrible. Even if you don't care about CO2, coal creates absolutely terrible air quality.
have a nice day moronic Black person
Nuclear efficiency is around 33-37%, like fossil fuel plants. Not a big difference to solar.
>Nuclear efficiency is around 33-37%, like fossil fuel plants. Not a big difference to solar.
Depending on how you measure it nuclear is either way worse like 0.03% efficient, about as a efficient as a none super critical coal at 40%, or comically efficient like 27,000,000 times as efficient as coal/gas.
So rather than caring about efficiency care about total cost. Which puts nuclear about tied in 2nd place with coal behind large hydro.
>Nuclear: Most efficient, less environmental impact (unless shit goes down then it's terrible), powerplants occupy a very small area.
And then you have store all the nuclear waste somewhere and hope you don't spring a leak and the waste starts seeping into ground water and the environment.
>And then you have store all the nuclear waste somewhere and hope you don't spring a leak and the waste starts seeping into ground water and the environment
They key issues with nuclear are:
1. Supply chain vulnerability
2. Security concerns
3. Vulnerability to disaster events (centralisation, skill requirements)
4. High upfront costs
5. Waste management, and,
6. Infrastructural lock-in (grid systems)
Nuclear can be a great option. It has deployment widely and safety is generally excellent, as is leakage (they release far fewer contaminants than expected, with much smaller environmental impact). Other broader considerations can involve water availability and changes due to climate change, and security (operational, technological, geopolitical effects e.g., supply chains, warfare, societal changes, and exclusion of alternatives).
just repurpose the waste, duh.
>And then you have store all the nuclear waste somewhere and hope you don't spring a leak and the waste starts seeping into ground water and the environment.
>spring a leak
You know almost all high level nuclear waste is a solid, not a barrel of green glowing goo right?
>You know almost all high level nuclear waste is a solid, not a barrel of green glowing goo right?
?
How does that address anything?
Solids are a rule don't leak.
Pic related is one rather annoying to undo way to store waste nuclear fuel that still has 99% of it's potential energy left.
Do you think the glass is going to leak out of a container?
Dry casks are pretty secure. The NRC thinks the casks at Diablo Canyon, the worst case scenario for salt water atmosphere because it's a stone throw from the pacific ocean on the US west coast where the Jetstream prevails off shore 99% of the year, will make it 1800 years at present rates
>The assessment of the conditions on the Diablo Canyon canisters are described in the Electrical Power Research Institute report EPRI-3002002822 and the Sandia National Laboratories report SAND2014-16383. The canister surfaces appeared in good condition with no signs of degradation or corrosion. Researchers noted a mixture of dust and pollen, along with sodium chloride (NaCl) and some magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) on the surface of the canisters. Sodium chloride can cause corrosion in some metals, but it is unlikely given the environment the casks are in.. Using temperature and humidity data from the Vandenberg weather station, the time required for chloride induced stress corrosion cracking (CISCC) to corrode through the cask would be greater than 1,800 years.
I wouldn't worry about it.
I wonder how feasible it would be to build a reactor underground.
Just dump the waste in a tunnel next door.
If the reactor blows up its fine because it’s underground.
Maybe you could skip past safety inspections since the environmental risks are now null and void.
Why couldn’t it work?
Got rivers? Use hydro.
Got sunlight? Use solar.
Got both? Use both.
The whole debate over what power generation is best is the meme. You use what you can where you can.
we need to develop some kind of bacteria that eats plastic and farts methane that we can burn generate electricity from
Both are memes if they require you to be part of the system to use. Passive solar water heats don't need any complicated electronics/computers, it not any different that putting out a water bottle out in the sun to warm it up, but much more efficient and insulated so that warmth lasts you longer. Large hydro electric generators like that destroy local ecosystems and you have basically no control over them at all. So between solar and hydro, I'd say hydro is a bit more of a meme, unless you've got a stream in your backyard you can rig up yourself.
For the cost of evacuated tubes you can buy 10x the area in PV. Panels are ridiculously cheap, to the point you could use them as siding and fencing if you don't mind the look.
If you're counting shit like this then plants count as solar power
technically all solar power is nuclear power
homie if you are going the solar heater route, you may use solar panels and a dc water heater, you can still use the dc for something else. You dont need an inverter or anything fancy for most stuff. Almost all installations are just moronic and don't adapt at all to having a dc power source. I dunno why there isnt a bigger market for dc appliances
big solar installations should have rotary dc to ac converters, those add stability and inertia to the grid, and are not that inefficient.
>Both are memes if they require you to be part of the system to use
moron
Evacuated glass tubes are awesome I use them to passively heat my pool, the only issue I have is that I need more to maintain heat in the winter. I have solar panels to run the circulation pump.
hydro has powered las vegas, a literal city of lights, for almost a century. if that is what you moronic ass zoomers call a meme then go frick yourself shit for brains.
Hydro is a horrible idea
The 3 gorges dam is going to be the downfall of China come WWIII
It'll get bombed to rubble and release millions of gallons of water, flooding the eastern coast of China (the wealthy parts)
solar is based, since it was installed in my household few years I got 24/7 AC
I heard large Bitcoin mining operations like to use hydroelectric. My friend owns a massive company that mines BTC. He told me that hydroelectric energy is cheapest because it's hard to transport the energy profitably, but if you go to the source, it's very efficient.
Is this accurate? I tend to believe him, but also I tried to find info about this online and failed to.
Only in areas where the hydro has been orphaned due to demographics and industry becoming more efficient.
Once sufficient high voltage grid connections are made to a hydro dam the cost of transport becomes irrelevant.
Yes, distribution is usually half my power bill breakdown.
Yes that's correct but it would also be true for solar assuming you were somewhere with a lot of sun light.
Hydro. But solar isn't a meme either, with pumped storage/hydro it can do a lot even at grid scale.
Even without you could supply maybe 15% of power consumption AND do things like serve as residential backup power (not all the power anyone needs but enough power that modern life can continue somewhat) but you just can't meme it to 100% with no additional infra.
geothermal since it's infinite and works 24/7
https://www.dw.com/en/green-good-intentions-cause-chaos-in-two-german-towns/a-4473382
skill issue
wat hydro is waaaaaaaay too powerful to every be replaced by anything because wherever there's water it makes the most sense
solar gets better and better but the sun don't I guess that's the meme
for a lot of small cooling applications I'd argue that sitting still under hot panels would be rather inefficient thermal efficiency because the panels warm the roof further limiting potential cooling, however if the system had a downdraft or better yet utilized that heat for warmth it makes more sense, otherwise a detached system and getting the solar array off your house/RV makes better sense for cooling it, so that's a half assed meme if you ask me
Grid Storage is a meme. All the waterways are already spoken for and the more exotic proposed solutions are about as credible as fusion reactors.
SOLAR.
>FREAKIN
ROADWAYS
hydro energy is mainly large scale, but can work nicely if you have a small creek system running through your land
solar can be usable at any scale (at home or large scale) and in almost anywhere in the world, even in the poles.
The more meme energy imo is wind energy. kinda iffy.
it's nuclear fusion reactors bros it's coming at anytime now
ITER in 1 year* bro
*as long as there isn't anymore delays**
**and that's just systems tests, actual full fusion test in 11* years.
>full fusion test in 11* years
oh yeah, no rush, fricking pieces of shit
***
If 100% succesfull the real powerplant can be approved for construction. ITER is like a 1943-tier german nuclear power plant (when fully operational).
>casually generates huge frickloads of power
>makes pollution-worshiping ameritards seethe (despite also being used in their country)
>occasionally drowns thousands of chinks
hydro power is the hero we don't deserve
in some areas hydro in others solar
Hydro is top tier. There is no better or cheaper source of electricity.
Solar is great for transient production. Lots of third world farmers use it in rural areas to pump up ground water or run whatever machinery they need when working the fields during the day.
It causes problems such as the groundwater being totally used up, but that's a problem for the future.
both of them are memes, solar is less so if you want to be off grid.
>hydro
Problem 1: In regards to climate change, well done you just committed climate change. by transforming an area like that you just changed the climate of the area. It happened in my area. We used to have way more snow and now we don't.
Problem 2: morons start building houses where there was once a river flowing, so now you have to maintain it otherwise people will die in a flood.
>solar
Problem 1: many people buy them with the expectation getting money out of it. In this regard solar is like crypto, where you are supposed to use it as an uncensored non government controlled currency and people use it as an investment.
Providing solar back to the power grid is only wanted and viable while government is moronic and has banned useful means of generating power(see germany). Once germany stops being moronic then solar makes less sense.
Problem 2: They actually pollute. Because in many countries farmers have started installing solar panels instead getting money from the government for "being green", solar panels have toxic chemicals that leak if you buy cheap ones, and you've got motherfrickers installing a shit load of them in their grandparents' farm. The soil dies because it can't get enough sunlight, and the countryside fills up with these pieces of shit.
>In regards to climate change, well done you just committed climate change.
I don't think you know what climate means.
You lowered the water level of the river and created an artificial lake
Do you think you haven't also changed the humidity of the entire area that the river passes through?
Do you think you haven't changed the percentage of water in the soil?
Do you think you haven't change the precipitation at all?
Do you think you haven't affected already smaller rivers that broke off from the main one?
before building our river dam we had heavy snowfall every year and now we just don't.
>You lowered the water level of the river and created an artificial lake
Only for the duration of it being filled after that, the rate of flow returns to almost the same amount. Otherwise you would over flow the dam.
>Do you think you haven't also changed the humidity of the entire area that the river passes through?
Not by any meaningful amount, you need lakes on the scale of the great lakes before you start affecting the humidity to a measurable amoount.
>Do you think you haven't changed the percentage of water in the soil?
No, water in soil is unchanged. Because the rate and amount of water flowing is almost unchanged and the lake isn't going to be built in an area that has a lot of water seepage.
>Do you think you haven't change the precipitation at all?
No until you are on the scale of a massive lake, like the great lakes. Prove me wrong with data of rainfall before and after a dam was built you will find it effectively unchanged.
>Do you think you haven't affected already smaller rivers that broke off from the main one?
No.
>before building our river dam we had heavy snowfall every year and now we just don't.
Check your data going back as far as you can and what your post dam rates are, once you have enough time to cover actual cycles that change yearly amounts you will find no change.
The "well I think I remember it snowing more" is almost a perfect example of why humans are terrible at data collecting without records and are super pattern finders in random noise that doesn't exist.
>Only for the duration of it being filled after that, the rate of flow returns to almost the same amount. Otherwise you would over flow the dam.
you are wrong, otherwise hyrdo would simply not work as water needs to flow downwards from the dam.
In addition to that we control the amount of water that can fall at any point so that it doesn't overflow.
And frankly wrong on other takes.
100 units of water flow through a valley. We build a dam.
Once the dam is full due to the larger surface area of the lake you evaporate 5 units of water off but 95 units flow on average down the same river. Over a period of time the inflow of water is exactly equal to the outflow, otherwise the dam overflows.
>Do you think you haven't affected already smaller rivers that broke off from the main one?
Rivers don't break off. They only converge.
>I don't think you know what climate means.
Mesoscale impacts are different from global and regional impacts. Changing the vegetation in an area alters the mesoclimate (canopy effects on humidity, transpiration rates, ground surface temperatures, wind speed; reflectivity); increasing humidity can create water stress due to higher wet-bulb temperatures (which includes streamflow and standing water); which can result in significant local climate effects. There's a great example from China where irrigating valleys led to higher evaporation that trapped heat and moisture, meaning workers couldn't pick the crop of fruit. The fruit was planted due to greater market value and drive to irrigate, resulting in an unforeseen maladaptive outcome.
>Problem 1: In regards to climate change, well done you just committed climate change. by transforming an area like that you just changed the climate of the area. It happened in my area. We used to have way more snow and now we don't.
What? That isn't causally related, is it? If anything extracting the energy into a power grid that takes it away from the area after taking it out with a turbine should make the area a little colder than the equivalent of it dissipating in water turbulence, noise, abrasion, whatever else... but also for the most part you REALLY don't take out that much of the energy that a whole river will end up having overall as it goes down to sea level. You take, IDK, 60-80m height difference, and the energy is probably even often consumed somewhat nearby (sure a few hundred km in some instances but more often mostly within a bunch of few dozen to one hundred km actually?)
> many people buy them with the expectation getting money out of it.
It makes sense that you would in many places.
Solar panel isn't like crypto in that in most regions it ACTUALLY produces more power than it took to produce and transport on site within 2-3 years tops. In ideal locations less than that. There is a reality behind why this should be a net money production over 30-40y lifespan unless the power grid has too much power and no one can profitably use more and also no other technology that just scales up cheaper is actually deployed.
Sometimes the last happens due to some producers not paying for emitting trash into the environment. But that rationally should be punished to some degree. In the end it causes damage - health damage, building renovations, environmental damage, climate change and necessary adaptions to protect property... all of which it does far more than solar panels even including mining and panel recycling. Just admittedly there is a problem of deciding on a fair value.
FRICK ELECTRICITY
YES I WOULD STOP USING TECHNOLOGY AND ENJOY IT IF ELECTRICITY SUDDENLY STOPPED EXISTING EQUALLY
Geothermal is the ultimate answer. If tech to drill super deep for cheap is developed more than you could build it anywhere and it's basically unlimited.
https://www.gadrilling.com/plasmabit/
It’s not so much drilling as it is maintaining the stability of the hole you drilled.
Trying to keep kilometer deep holes from collapsing on themselves as heat is cycled through them is actually rather hard.
Hydro. It's obvious because it's the one that has been used since the beginning of electricity generation.
Neither is a meme
Hydro is very reliable and adjustable, the pinnacle of current renewables. The sun on the other hand doesen't rise above the horizon for months at a time. This is my backyard at 4pm
>jpg
unfortunately the site does not accept the all-superior .webp format 🙂
since I am a professional pro I corrected, retouched the picture for you. It's beautiful!
Thanks. Maybe some day we will have light yet again, but solar is pretty much out of the question unless we find some infinity battery
Why are chuds so obsessed with nuclear power plants, while hating solar, wind, etc? It's a weird obsession they all have.
Because energy is critical to standard of living and letting fricktards try and force a useless source of energy on everyone will lead to a decline in the standard of living.
If you must reduce CO2 from electrical generation then use hydro or nuclear.
It's not useless, so your argument is false. Nuclear has many downsides (that have nothing to do with safety btw).
Nuclear is the safest form of energy generation ever created. Nuclear waste is irrelevant
You're obviously a crank so you won't get a legit reply from me.
>I love to hear about the many downsides you think nuclear has
>Enormous amount of initial capital
>Extremely long design and build time
>Extremely high maintenance costs
>Extremely long and costly decommissioning
>Extremely large water requirements
>Complicated waste management
>Reliance on a very limited resource (uranium)
You're making a strawman argument by the way, you're implying that I suggested we should only use solar, which I didn't. An energy grid should be based on many different types of generation systems, dependent on which is the most appropriate geographically and in terms of infrastructure.
amount of initial capital
About 6 to 8 billion per GW that pays back in 20 years of a 60+ year operational span
long design and build time
Average time is 8 years.
high maintenance costs
2nd cheapest form of power that includes the maintenance.
long and costly decommissioning
Who cares how long it takes? Also unless you stopped needing electrical power why would you decommission a 3 or 4th gen plant after we figured out how to make quality large scale?
large water requirements
All thermal plants use water because it's cheaper to use water to build condensing steam turbines than to leave the last bit of potentially useful power unused. You can build a nuclear reactor that uses almost no water for cooling if you really wanted to.
waste management
Sure, but not expensive or impossible.
on a very limited resource (uranium)
Yeah like tens of thousands of years at current extraction tech and cost. But you can expand the supply by 95 times using breeding rectors like a the EBR II demonstrated. Get the other 98% of the energy in the fuel out.
>But you can expand the supply by 95 times using breeding rectors like a the EBR II demonstrated. Get the other 98% of the energy in the fuel out.
Also has the added benefit of making the spent fuel not-deadly in a very low timespan compared to the undecillion years the fuel from a normal reactor produces
I got chatGPT 4.0 to address your argument as I don't want to type on my phone
1. Nuclear power plants have substantial initial investment requirements, often around $6-8 billion per gigawatt, which can be prohibitive for developing countries and smaller energy companies.
2. The construction period for nuclear power plants, typically around eight years, is significantly longer than for renewable energy projects. This extended timeline delays both energy generation and financial returns.
3. Despite relatively low operational costs, nuclear energy requires specialized handling of radioactive materials and adherence to stringent safety regulations, adding complexity not found in other energy sources.
4. Decommissioning nuclear plants is inevitable due to aging infrastructure. This process is lengthy and costly, requiring significant resource allocation over an extended period.
5. Nuclear plants often have significant water usage needs, which can strain local resources, especially in areas with limited water availability.
6. Managing radioactive waste, though technically feasible, is costly due to the need for secure, long-term storage facilities to mitigate potential environmental risks.
7. Uranium supplies are limited, and while breeder reactors may extend fuel supply, they involve significant technical and proliferation challenges.
If you don't want to actually converse, just don't make a comment. Nobody wants to read the tripe a bot generates.
It's all correct though
It's not and I'm not going to fact-check a bot. You literally told us you copy-pasted it, so you literally can't know whether any of it holds true.
Where is it wrong?
I told you I'm not going to fact-check any of your autogenerated bullshit. Either make a comment of your own or just don't comment.
You aren't familiar with the downsides of nuclear then because all it did it summarise them
>so you literally can't know whether any of it holds true.
P.s.
I know because I'm familiar with the issues around nuclear and I wouldn't have copy/pasted it otherwise
You claim to be, but there's nothing to show for it, is there?
It could have summarized them, but it could also be not. Since you so openly admit you don't think we're worth a minute of your time to actually write an actual comment, I'm not going to give your copypaste any either.
Fair enough, I can understand your point of view and why you don't want to reply, but the summary is still correct.
P.s.
I'm not anti-nuclear, but the pro nuclear fanatics simply omit or lie about the problems with nuclear
https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_15080/uranium-2018-resources-production-and-demand?details=true
Also a goo read. Colleagues from here but working on efficiency. Captcha: MD PHD
My captcha for you after I ate an icecream: SN3ED
>It's all correct though
None of it is correct. The bot just said everything I said was correct but it didn't like it.
We don't care about small economies or small companies. So it doesn't matter. Just use it for Europe North America and China. That's like 80% of the worlds human CO2 if you cared about that.
So saying it's not good for small economies is stupid.
Who cares if it takes 8 years to build? I remember when people said you can't drill for more oil to lower the price it would take 5 years for it to come online. That was 20 years ago.
A nuclear reactor is no more complicated in operation than any other large thermal plant. The power engineers running the system will be experts, the safety culture of the 1980s is considered by todays industral safety standards to be criminally lacking.
Decommissioning is for closing a plant. Why would you close the nuclear plant because the power lines connected to it are old? When a reactor gets near to the end of it's life you take it apart and inspect it. In Ontario the largest reactor complex in the world is getting inspected upgraded and being put back into service for another 40 years because so far everything inside it is in pristine condition after 45 years of operation.
Nuclear power plants use a lot of water in a similar way that a dam uses a lot of water. Most of it being used is directly returned where it came from. The huge conical cooling towers evaporate less water than a similar sized farm. A single 4 section of almonds uses more water than a 5GW NPP.
If you are reprocessing waste you don't need to store very much for a long term. A 95% reduction in high level waste volume.
Everything in the universe is limited, so saying we will run out of uranium thousands of years from now if we don't use breeders and millions if we do if fricking moronic when you just fricking complained that it takes 8 years to build. Frick 8 years is too long but 1000 plus is too short.
Frick the developing world. Every time white people give them handouts it's to the detrement of the rest of humanity
Solar panels could be free on every building surface and it would still cost more than a conventional nuclear reactor, gas, coal or hydro plant. This is because you need firming (storage) and batteries are just too expensive for anything other than extremely limited carry over service while they wait for a backup diesel generator to run up.
I love to hear about the many downsides you think nuclear has.
Hydro already supports most of the PNW while solar still does frick all. Nuclear is where we need to be but morons can't get past using seventy year old designs.
> Nuclear is where we need to be but morons can't get past using seventy year old designs.
Even funnier we have designs that can extract over 20x the energy and that can run on literal nuclear waste ( breeder reactors ), that don't create toxic waste and actually exist today in several places. But politics prevents us from building more because of muh proliferation concerns.
>But politics prevents us from building more because of muh proliferation concerns.
Yes, yes that is a concern. For good reason.
I was going to say "Finland" but started and went with "Germany". Also hello, a familiar name: Professor Peter Lund *Aalto University*
Haha I have colleagues there: Sirkku Juhola. Picrel.
>Yeah like tens of thousands of years at current extraction tech and cost
~1000. Vulnerable to Supply chain disruptions and political considerations (dependence, war etc).
Laminar flow issues.
More complex than it looks. The reason was it was being abused (unsurprising) by using feedstock from forestry (Drax UK ex.). It prolonged infrastructure life (leading to risks of restarts with coal) and does not address particulate emissions. Burying wood products or substituting materials for wood though... useful.
Lots of these measures (e.g., biochar, bioenergy, ocean sequestration) receive lots of attention but have significant limitations. Hard when money is involved: reality gets obfuscated.
Solar because there are more land space where we can install panels than the very conditionally dependent Hydro. It's not like can have a dam in every body of water.
I know wind power is objectively worse than solar if you want homosexual energy, but I want more of it just because of the sheer amount of seethe it causes. Solargays need to make a panel that makes sheltered suburban people lose their minds.
You can make some yourself. Grab some used oil-barrels and cut them in half for some Savonius-type wind-turbines. They're self-starting and self-directing, meaning no circuitry needed. They also produce tremendous torque, so you can use the shaftpower directly for a wellpump for example
Also the activation energy needed is much lower than commercial high-in-the-sky types. Even at ~2m/s you can have power from a Savonius-type turbine so unless you live in the middle of the forest you should be able to gain relatively steady power from one
Cool info, but not good enough. I want more xbox hueg wind turbines. I live near one right next to a road and people still cry about it.
"Look dear, those hippies are lowering the neighborhood property value again by putting up more garbage."
Said Ron to Nancy as the contractors arrived at the White House to remove Jimmy's solar panels from the roof.
Property values are too high
trees use solar energy and co2 to grow, then we create biofuel out of it, natural solar energy
Unfortunately the EU labeled trees as fossil fuel and is now considering banning it
There is not enough suitable land in the world to use trees for our energy. It's completely unsustainable at scale.
Maybe at global scale, but locally where it grows well it works really well. Just plant a tree when you take one down and it'll be back there in a few decades.
Soil micronutrients are going off a cliff, you just need a little patience to see the impact.
It's like pumping ground water, went great for the last century, now we're hitting the wall almost everywhere with dense population. If it's not outright depletion then losing massive amounts of land through subsidence near the coastline.
https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/special_issue11_964.html
so instead of trees you gonna cover the land with ugly solar panels?
Except for niche hydro there are exactly two options, nuclear+hydrogen and solar+hydrogen. If the latter gets cheap enough you won't need nuclear, if not you don't need solar.
Solar cost per watt installed can go very very low. If you DIY at the moment, panels are cheaper than the inverter.
>everything is meme
kys imbecile.
hydro is amazingly good, The problem is that you can't have it everywhere.
What happens if you piss in the water going into the dam
Just use oil and gas, most efficient and least pollutive
thank you Exxon-Mobil for correcting the record on that one
Exxon-Mobil makes lots of money off of "green" energy. They get tons of subsidies for it too. These oil companies make a killing off of it.
No u.
well my grandparents had solar installed about 15 years ago, it is powerful enough that they have almost never needed to use grid power. it's never needed maintenance or presented any kind of issues
so i'll say solar
Solar nerds, why aren't white solar panels a thing? Most are blue or black, black ones get hotter because of absorbing sun's heat, causing it to heat the roof and then the house then people to use air conditioners and even more energy. If they were white they would reflect sun's heat
>If they were white they would reflect sun's heat
and seeing as how you want as much of the sun's energy as you can get, do see how that could be a problem?
Correctly installed rooftop panels have an airgap between the the panel and roof. There is no (or negligible) heating of the roof from the panels. In fact, the panels & airgap shade the formerly sun heated roofing material resulting in a cooler surface in direct contact with the building environment.
absolute bullshit
Kek
I installed many of them before retiring. The bigger problem with the air gap is bird and critter nests.
The best is a combination of both. The key is to combine both, by utilizing microplastics into a new type of 'solar panel'.
Both are genuine but were put out of proportion.
Hydro is essential for controlling water levels to prevent floods and droughts. Energy production is an added bonus. The catch is that they are being build with these purposes inverted and, as such, causing more harm than good.
Solar is also important, but not in large scale, due to the materials for the solar panels and their lifespan (recycling of solar panels).
The large scale solution would have been the nuclear options, at present fission and in the future fusion.
>all this talk about environmental waste in this thread
just makes me lmao. it's funny how rightoids only give a shit about the environmental impact of something when it's politically expedient for them
Well there's 'identity' politics that have some vague "left/right" connection (which is crude and ill-informed anyway - for both the social and economic dimensions) it isn't very comprehensive. You find the "right" you speak of adheres to very unusual ideas because it's a form of resistance. These terms have also been co-opted over time - visibly so by big business. Those on the "left" have also been co-opted by big business. They just adhere to a different set of beliefs - which also conveniently support the status quo... and sells lots of products.
If you look at some historical "conservative" examples: Theodore Roosevelt (King Shit Supreme) stands out as someone who was very much pro-environmental and anti-big business. Turns out we live in an era dominated by an economic logic because it suits those in power. It suits them very, very well - and those who live under them. Not so much now unfortunately, which is the undoing.
Solar works best on a small scale i.e. a single building and it's not a meme.
Anyone who's been in the industry for over 10 years will tell you that the pace of innovation is quite fast and that prices are less than half of what they used to be.
At this point it makes sense at the market price, without any subsidies.
Of course people with a knee jerk reaction to anything "green" continue to parrot memes and misconceptions about it.
Hydro is less of a meme.
It has one of the highest ROIs of any energy source.
It’s such easy gains that even beavers do it.
Solar has one of the lowest ROIs and creates more waste long term.
Hydro relies on water which will become an unreliable source.
Which is why you study the area to measure and predict precipitation. Basic stuff that you do before building a dam.
Hydro is basically the ideal power source but it's completely dependent on region and already established in basically all the locations where it's possible.
Solar energy for anything that's already on a grid is profoundly moronic and would be better served by nuclear. Solar only makes sense for off-grid purposes.
hydro
>find a suitable river
>block it
>piss off environmentalists that complain about muh fish
>piss off farmers and downstream nations that complain about muh water
>needs constant maintenance, if the dam collapses thousands of people die of flooding
>decent power I guess but not very scalable
solar
>make solar panel
>make battery for night
>make a long-ass cable
>go at the middle of nowhere
>point solar panel at the sky
>???
>profit
>>make a long-ass cable
>>go at the middle of nowhere
that's the big problem, there's a huge amount of energy loss when you build a powerplant in the middle of nowhere.
For solar you have loss when using the panel (they're at most 30% efficiency), then you convert the DC to AC (the best inverters are something 98% effiency) and then you lose even more in the transmission lines (up to 6% depending on system).
That's why nobody just slapped a gigantic photovoltaic powerplant in the middle of the Sahara yet, they need to be somewhat close to major population centers
>For solar you have loss when using the panel (they're at most 30% efficiency)
Solar energy is free of charge and would have been wasted anyway without solar panels harvesting 30% of it, so that's not really a loss
>then you convert the DC to AC (the best inverters are something 98% effiency) and then you lose even more in the transmission lines (up to 6% depending on system).
>what is HVDC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
I am not the one you're replying to. I agree the 30% thing is a red herring, but the fact is rooftop solar will already flood the grid during peak hours, so what's the point of building one in the Sahara etc at all?
The issue is it only provides it during peak hours during the day on sunny days. Batteries are expensive and it is very polluting to mine and dispose of them. This is why Solar is only useful as supplemental to reduce usage of fuels.
batteries are not the only way to store energy. the current problem is that there is no better way of doing it, at least (AFAIU) not without inundating massive areas with water or some shit like that
>Batteries are expensive
Batteries are cheaper than ever, and even cheaper chemistries like LFP and Sodium ion are gaining traction which will make batteries even cheaperer
>and it is very polluting to mine and dispose of them
The aforementioned chemistries require less mining, whereas battery recycling is a rapidly growing industry e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redwood_Materials
>jpg
why are you so fricking moronic
>>make battery for night
That's the hard part
solar my beloved
hydro, obviously.
Hydro is achievable with a broader range of materials, so I'm going to pick that one despite how limited it is by location
The only power meme is feasibly continuing to supply electricity to a growing population that likes electric toys.
>Gives you a blackout in the middle of winter
heh, nothing personal kid
>nuke all the way
We just want the uranium and plutonium around for weapons.
There are safer nuke alternatives.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-advanced-reactor-systems-watch-2030#:~:text=The%20sodium%2Dcooled%20fast%20reactor,and%20safety%20of%20the%20system.
Here's another link for fun
https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
solar
>using water and the sun
Fricking hate israelites. We cant even fricking innovate cause all the wealth is with the elite
>The issue is it only provides it during peak hours during the day on sunny days.
Only? No. False.
PVs production is proportional to the light they receive. Only "Peak" and "sunny" are not true. Peak output is on cloudless days in mid afternoon (for fixed mount panels) when the panel position is relatively perpendicular to the sun.
PVs produce electricity on cloudy days, they produce power from dawn until dusk if environmental shading permits.
No energy source is more perfect than Natural Gas
That's being diverted to plastics manufacturing. There just aren't enough bags caught in trees.
>sun is gone half the day
>the water is here during the night
idk what do you think
weener cheese
I heard that water can not really be radioactive so all the shilling about radioactive cooling water leaking into the oceans is just activism.
How true is any of that?
the environmental effects from nuclear plant discharge is generally from the temperature of the water (which is usually solved via cooling towers or cooling ponds), its not radioactive unless something seriously goes wrong because it is not in direct contact with the fuel.
Guess you didn't want to read