If gas and oil are the most efficient and least polluting, then why govs and companies are pushing solar and wind energy?
If gas and oil are the most efficient and least polluting, then why govs and companies are pushing solar and wind energy?
If gas and oil are the most efficient and least polluting, then why govs and companies are pushing solar and wind energy?
Because gas and oil are inefficient and pollute more than renewables.
From most to least efficient:
Gas
Oil
Nuclear
Wind
Solar
From most to least polluting:
Nuclear
Oil
Gas
Solar
Wind
Ftfy anons
I'm not interested in making my energy needs dependent on whether or not the day is sunny or windy
In no world is combustion of any kind ever efficient in any way. Wind just goes straight to the turbine step, and so allows for fewer energy losses along the way, while photoelectrics have higher efficiencies because of the photoelectric effect. Nuclear basically doesn't pollute at all, it just costs a lot to make sure it doesn't (and that's why it's not efficent) and there's no logic behind you putting wind and solar as most polluting.
Intermittent production has nothing to do with either efficieny nor pollution.
> In no world is combustion of any kind ever efficient in any way
moron alert.
>most polluting
>nuclear
moronic greengay detected
>Nuclear basically doesn't pollute at all
>moronic greengay detected
>Nuclear chads throwing their wastes in Africa
Sure anon radioactive wastes just disappeared magically
>Sure anon radioactive wastes just disappeared magically
They don't need to when it takes up as much room as, what, a baseball per person per year? We can literally just store it in facilities next to the generators themselves (which is what is done right now) until we can find a suitable dunp location for cheap enough a hundred years from now (Like the moon, or venus, or something.)
This. I would also like to mention that after a hundred or so years, the stuff with short halflives will be mostly gone, so the radioactive waste will not be much of a problem for those we leave behind in the long run.
Industry gatekeepers? The only ones keeping nuclear from being built where I live are politicians and activists, while the industry are waiting for the green light.
These politicians complain about safety, the power production being too centralized (legitimate problem, but what about researching smaller reactors?), and a lack of expertise (20yo excuse, so what about aquiring some? Its right across the fricking border).
I swear to the álmattki áss that some of these poltiticians just want to see the world burn.
Coal and oil industry has a huge interest in keeping their methods alive. The whole crux comes from the fact that politicians bribed by coal and oil industries. Who also produce misinfo on nuclear energy.
Now that you mention it, it sounds kinda familiar. But I aint american, so thats probably why I didnt think of that.
Indeed, it disappears magically. Just bury it in stable rock and forget about it.
Nuclear is only expensive due to lack of international cooperation and ridiculous "safety requirements". The only economic barrier is a high initial cost. Easier to convince someone to build one wind turbine at a time, rather than paying upfront for a nuclear power plant worth 1000 of those wind turbines.
And even if it gets a bit more expensive than wind, one should concider the value of the nature that the wind turbines and gravel roads will frick up, and also the value of a stable output.
>From most to least polluting:
>Nuclear
*moronicNESS INCREASED TO 100*.
Congrats, you can now make your moron skill legendary.
>radioactive wastes just disappeared magically
You think you're being smart but you're actually insanely dumb.
Read a book, you Black person.
>radioactive wastes just disappeared magically
yes radioactive matter evaporates. that's the radiation.
moron
moron
>from most to least polluting
coal
oil
gas
solarpanels
wind
nuclear
Dont take my word for this. The last two is probably somewhat equal, and I have no idea where to place mirrors or hydro. How each are implemented (and where) also affects total pollution/production ratio.
When it comes to "environmental friendliness", its not a question of pollution anymore, its a question of space and how the frick we are gonna cut power consumption. F.ex. the morons in my country wanna cover our national heritage with massive gravel roads and 300m wind turbines, and have also reached moronic conclusions about building requirements for both new and existing houses. Literally climate first nature last (until you try to regulate "societally important functions", whatever that means).
its all a scam to put money into corpos pockets
what a bunch of gooves.
fricking pellets from wood have 0 CO2 footprint if you replant the wood.
you can make holzgas if you heat said wood but dont provide oxygen to burn it, and you can run ICE's on it.
again: 0 carbon footprint if you replant the wood.
but i think hemp actually produces cellulose, thus captures co2 the fastest.
theres obviously nuclear for the wider grid
andone thing no fricking body ever mentions for obvious reasons (being basically free energy):
geothermal coupled to sterling engine technology with a heatpump in between to explode efficiency.
yes, you will affect the temperature of earths core,but a geological scales.
and thanks to heatpumps you can create these facilities even in places where there is no geological activity
BUT
then youre idependent from the grid after aonetimeinvestment save for a couple weeks in the year when the avg temperature of the system will equate the average temp of the athmosphere. and even that can be either mitigated or remedied.
but,no
its better to fly fricking vegetables by plane from new zeeland into europe bc theres too much nitrogen in the atmosphere and thus we gotta kill local production. (irony overload)
(cont.)
btw, if any of you anons have the power to develop "2nd gen geothermals" (for lack of a better term),go ahead. theres tons of cash in there,and maybe it would make envirotards back off a little
Because it makes a LOT of money for their friends who own the manufactures of solar and wind energy shit, simple.
Company are there for money only, nothing else. Govs are corrupted by billionaires. So why would you expect them to care about pollution and stuff?
Gas means choosing to be a b***h of russia or usa
picrel if humanity went all in on nuclear energy
Nature itself buries nuclear material deep underground, co2 levels can be fixed easy. Industry gatekeepers are the issue.
What about places full of earthquakes?
It can be buried so deep underground that earthquakes are not an issue. Even container damages/deterioration wouldn't be a problem.
At the same time you always have the option to simply not bury it in earthquake active areas.
Too bad global cooperation is another set of problems hindering nuclear power dominance.
Thank you
Earthquakes are mostly a problem because of tsunamis. Earthquake resistant construction is nothing new. The problem with Fukushima was that it was build on the coast. Nuclear power plants should be built in locations that protect them from natural disasters.
If just solving a problem solves a problem then why govs and companies have 10 committees, 6 auditories, 2000 meetings and 5000 marketing campaigns?
>If gas and oil are the most efficient and least polluting
Who told you that? Obviously they aren't.
Also efficiency isn't the whole story. Even if your fossil fuel power plant was 100% efficient, you'd still be using a non-renewable resource and releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Let me break it down for you.
>coal
Coal is a very dirty source of energy, especially low grade coal like lignite. It's not very energy dense and releases a lot of toxic and greenhouse gases.
>gas
Natural gas is comparatively clean. Gas power plants can reach very high efficiencies with heat reuse. But it's a fossil fuel, and releases CO2 of course.
>oil
Oil power plants are very uncommon, and have been displaced by coal and gas in recent years. Oil sees more use as an industrial product and as fuel for transportation. The problem with this is that combustion engines in vehicles cannot be made as efficient as power plants, due to the size and weight limit. This also results in the release of a lot of toxic and greenhouse gases.
>wind
>solar
Ignoring the ecological footprint of manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines, these are green sources of energy. The only drawback is that they don't work when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. That's why research into energy storage is so important (hydrogen being one of them).
>nuclear
I don't know why people hate nuclear energy so much. It releases basically no greenhouse gases and is therefore "green". If Chernobyl and Fukushima hadn't happened then we'd all be using nuclear energy. Determining efficiency of a nuclear power plant is not straightforward though, because how would you calculate how much of the fuel is used and combine that number with how much of the fuel's produced heat is used?
In my opinion, until someone figures out a good way to store large amounts of energy from solar and wind, nuclear is the best bet.
>gas
>Natural gas is comparatively clean. Gas power plants can reach very high efficiencies with heat reuse. But it's a fossil fuel, and releases CO2 of course.
Huh, so natural gas is the clear solution if CO2 isn’t actually an issue?
Interesting.
>Huh, so natural gas is the clear solution if CO2 isn’t actually an issue?
Yeah but gas isn't cheap and won't last forever. Also geopolitically it's not exactly a good choice right now. Even if you're moronic and think that CO2 isn't a problem for the climate, if CO2 concentrations increase to rise at the current rate, in 100 years we'll experience a noticeable cognitive decline in humans.
>in 100 years we'll experience a noticeable cognitive decline in humans.
>in 100 years
>he doesn't know
Sorry I forgot you're a childless incel and won't have any offspring to care about
I was referencing how human cognition is already in sharp decline, genius. Thanks for providing a demonstration.
Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel to burn.
Unfortunately, a gas tend to leak fairly easily from pipes (and is hard to detect and estimate), and methane is a powerful greenhouse gas.
>That's why research into energy storage is so important (hydrogen being one of them).
Hydrogen lost thoughbeit (and hydrogen cars are even more dangerous than EVs)
Pumped storage is great, I agree. But if your country happens to not have elevation (e.g. Netherlands), then it's not possible.
I kneel to whoever convinced Amerifats that fossil fuels are the most eco-friendly energy source. Most impressive psyop of the century.
neuro is just not the same anymore
Lucrative government contracts.
retvrn to tradition (watermills)
There's no water anymore
Wind is easy to promise and gets a lot of government subsidies in many countries, so a lot of companies get paid for planning to build windfarms even if they never do.
Solar has factories shitting out panels at a constant rate so it's just a matter of marketing and selling them all to anyone who'll take em. The truth about how polluting making them is or how effectively you can actually get energy out of them doesn't matter, only sales matter.
Gas is in a bad spot in most of the world since Russia is a big player in the industry and they're currently an enemy of the west. Should've thought about that ahead of time but nations like Germany are full of former Stasi assets still executing their programming even with their master long dead.
Oil already runs the world and literally everyone is trying to move away from it because it's not only unpopular among current voters but also being reliant on the traditional oil suppliers is seen as a bad move, especially now after the shitshow of what happened with gas.
Nuclear takes ages to build and is a bureaucratic nightmare, in addition the aforementioned Stasi agents worked their magic back in the day and built a global green movement that would make the west less open to nuclear and more accepting of oil and gas conveniently supplied by the Soviet Union.
>If gas and oil are the most efficient and least polluting
They're not. Don't use Neuro for your moron takes.