Why are midwits so obsessed with the idea of nuclear energy when renewables have easily eclipsed them in nearly every way possible over a decade ago?

Why are midwits so obsessed with the idea of nuclear energy when renewables have easily eclipsed them in nearly every way possible over a decade ago? Is it just the "i hecking LOVE science... stupid greenpeace hippies don't understand how safe nuclear is..." identity factor? Imagine spending over a decade to build a nuclear plant that costs 15x more than the equivalent amount of solar panels and battery capacity added together. There's a reason why neither China or the US does that at any real scale anymore.

Then when you point this out it's all "molten thorium small scale nuclear fusion reactors are just around the corner, just wait, they just need more funding," when you could just be developing solar and wind farms instead.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >There's a reason why neither China or the US does that at any real scale anymore.
    Does what? Build solar at anywhere near nuclear scale (or anything more than tourist attraction/subsidy hog scale)? They've never done that and they never will because that's impossible. PV's sole genuine economic worth is as a bargaining chip for large industrial electricity users in extremely kleptocratic, backwards shitholes without reliable electricity grids. Like in Texas or California.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >2022

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >>2022
        So? besides coal losing some to gas every single source is within 1.1 percentage point. That's astonishingly close and you'd think climate entropy, maintenance or accounting changes alone should create a larger difference.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >1.1 percentage point
          >not a big deal when talking about an electric grid with nearly 1.5 TW of generation capacity
          God this board is so fricking moronic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >not a big deal
            That is literally not what I said.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the solar revolution will happen very quickly. China, india, sea and the us and mexico will all go to solar practically overnight, just watch.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Where is oil in that pie

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Petroleum in bright red?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You're yankin my nuts that petroleum is less than 1%. Surely you don't actually believe that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Do you know what petroleum even is and what its markets are? The less useful coal and natural gas are right there on the graph too.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Do you know what petroleum even is and what its markets are? The less useful coal and natural gas are right there on the graph too.

            It's just the electricity production. If you looked at power used in all forms then petroleum would have a larger share.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are midwits so obsessed with the idea of nuclear energy when renewables have easily eclipsed them in nearly every way possible over a decade ago?
    Because its's looking like we're not going to be able to transition in time through renewables only, simply because we cannot extract the required natural resources in time, no matter how cheap it is to manufature and install solar paneling and wind turbines nowadays.
    Obviously, we SHOULD NOT stop the process, but we have to be realistic about what it is that we can produce with the technology we have and in what about of time.
    OR... drastically consume our energy consumption, go North-Korea-style. It's an option I'd be OK with. I need to leave this computer and do more walking anyways.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    oops no electricity today, nothing personnel

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They are literally spraying out the sun while encouraging solar panels.
      You can't make it up.
      Good times.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      We're devising mass energy storage technology, we'll figure it out. I'm especially hopeful about small gravity batteries.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Midwit opinion

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, it is quantifiably a midwit opinion. It takes a midwit to understand the principles involved while being ignorant of the practicality of the idea. The energy density of gravitational energy storage is low. To store around 30KWh, the average energy use of a house for one day and assuming the weight moves 100 m, we need a ~110 ton weight. Just making the hole is likely to cost more than batteries. From here( https://www.culligan.com/blog/how-much-does-well-drilling-cost) making a 20 cm hole for a well costs about $280/m, so this 100 m hole costs at least $28000. And this hole would need to be wider. In comparison a tesla power wall stores about 13.5 KWh and costs $11,500.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The hole is also a permanent investment that doesn't wear out in a decade, you complete dunce.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            motors cables and pullys all wear out, you're maintaining an elevator shaft that needs to take the wieght of a tank

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Dude, the general population is full of ignorant fools like the guy you are replying to, all of them sitting around on their fat stupid asses smirking as the bullshit pours out their mouths. They are complete morons who would happily cover the entire Earth's surface with gravity storage devices, like the wet dream of a 14 year old's science fair project They are totally oblivious to things like land, replacement, operation, and maintenance costs.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A guy I knew summed up the whole malarkey perfectly when he said "People dont understand numbers"

            He's right. Their eyes glaze over. Take this guy here,
            laying out the fundamental mathematical facts about gravity storage.
            Yes, he's right, its a fricking joke. But the twats who promote bullshit like gravity storage, such as done by cranes, holes or trains, know the people they are talking to can not into mathematics. Their eyes glaze over and they applaud because it sounds "so cool"

            So Mr Twat and his colleagues get some funding for their pet high school project and pay themselves a handsome salary when a simple and dispassionate mathematical analysis reveals its actually a pile of bullshit, a fairly tale solution suitable only to console children.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >gravity batteries
        we worked this out at school, in order to store enough energy to boil a cup of tea (assuming 100% efficiency) within a 10m drop, you would need a weight that was as heavy as a family car. and not a compact.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          (300g*4.184J/(gK)*90°C)/(10m*9.8m/s^2)=115kg, so you remember wrong. Why do /misc/tards always lie about everything?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Small to medium cars usually weigh between 1000 kg to 1700 kg

            Congrats, now you can boil a dozen cups of tea with a car.. Way to miss the point. Dumbass.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Now how much to boil it dry.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, its really that simple.and yet morons will point to memes like the ARES project in Nevada, or Gravitricity in Edinburgh, as if they are some magic solution. They are not. What they is the result of some idiot academic, conman ( or both ) convincing government and investors with glib buzz words and bullshit like "OMG 90+% efficiency!" where the truth is it doesn't matter how efficient a system is if its contribution is cringe-tier insignificant. That's ignoring initial cost, ongoing costs, and its footprint too. In the case of ARES its like building a railway shunting yard to store the electricity needed to power one domestic house for one day.

          Does this annoy me? Yes. because its a waste and indicative of just how fricking stupid people with power ( government ) and influence are in making rational decisions and allocating resources. Its annoying that it manages to convince idiots who obviously never understood basic math or physics, and who then continue to spout this nonsense.. Its also annoying that con men are walking away from these projects scott free with fat wallets, and if instead they happen to be purely airhead academics then they will jizz all over their CVs before moving onto another equally ridiculous waste of money. In either case you can be guaranteed these jackasses will not be around when their harebrained projects are finally given up as a momentum waste of time, labor, and materials.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They do it because muh green projects are popular among the masses, not because the have delusions about "bettering society" or whatever meme you ascribe to them.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's the most moronic thing I've seen yet. Lmao. Way to poorly reinvent the water tower with 100x more issues.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Many so called engineers and scientists these day are just educated morons. They dream up this bullshit not becasue they think it offers a viable and pragmatic alternative, but merely as a way to buff their CVs.
          >Project manager
          >Consulted with stakeholders
          >Achieved critical key performance indicators.
          They love talking that sort of HR horseshit .Neglecting of course to mention anything about it failing any practical purpose.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    nuclear produces far more energy , you can build a 1000gw nuclear reactor in a relatively small space , that will produce power 24/7/365 you cant do that with renewables. and of course you cant build WMDs with renewables

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can chuck a few solar panels on a roof and some batteries in the walls though. Any braindead bloke can do that, no need for an army of boffins to make sure there isn't a second Chernobyl. Plus you don't have to deal with any pollution, get the child Africans to dig up the metals, the Chinese to manufacture it and then when you're done with the panels you ship them off to Bangladesh or whatever shithole we're using as an electronics rubbish dump these days. Not a single chance of your kids growing a third eye/11th finger/strange hyper violent cancer or anything.

      Nuclear shit is scary.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Nokrab

        Mouf.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >we send them spent electronics
        >they send us 10,000,000 rapefugees
        unironically, a terrible deal for my kids

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >turn off all the nuclear plants and replace them with steam engines
    >look, steam engines produce more energy than nuclear powerplants!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nuclear power plants are steam engines.
      Also: What ?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You have 500 bycicles producing the same amount of energy as a car, which is a more efficient method of transportation?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Again: WHAT ?
          Also bicycles are more efficient than cars by several orders of magnitude.
          Also still: What ?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >bicycles are more efficient than cars by several orders of magnitude
            Yes, that's why we use sprockets and chains to send rockets to space, right?
            >Also still: What ?
            If you have one npp producing 60GWh and 6000 wind turbines providing the same amount, which is better?
            You can't just plant down 12k wind turbines and say "durr, look, it's producing 2x more power than the one nuclear plant, that means it's better!", meanwhile you're wasting 200x more resources to build and maintain that shit

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >capacity

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My biggest gripe with wind farms are the blades. In the UK we have ~11000 turbines. That is 33000 blades to be decomissioned at some point.

    Now what do we do with them? The blades are notably rather difficult to recycle due to the materials used. We can opt to use them in buildings (https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/newsroom/2024/from-blades-to-buildings) or childrens parks (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58542905). But there is only so many parks you can build.

    Most of the blades so far have been religated to landfill or being buried. The only way that wind farms can be better is to have blades which are easily recycleable.

    I think Nuclear waste is much easier to deal with than the abundence of blades we already have, and the issue is only going to get worse with time.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      wait until he hears what we do with nuclear waste!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nuclear waste is a bit of a meme, it can be re-used and re-purposed, there's even new techniques to make it less radioactive and decay faster.
        The more I learn about nuclear the more I realize most normies take on it comes from watching The Simpsons.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          sure sure
          I used to live near a nuclear plant, one particular village built for the workers had the highest incidence of child leukaemia in the country, was due to improper cleaning protocol and people generally being lazy after shift, it was nipped in the bud, supposedly, and all in all less than 300 children were affected - who cares right?
          there was also an accident disposing of waste and the sea was badly contaminated affecting fishing for a couple years
          thing is, in a perfect world of smart people, nuclear might make sense - again, who cares?
          when the power stations went on strike in the 70s and 80s the nuclear plant had to pick up the slack, but didn't have proper waste disposal for such heavy loads, so they just dug pits, filled them with salt water, and dumped the nuclear waste in there - it's now a sludge pit that is leaching into the ground and no one really knows what to do with it except make new pits and pump the waste into there
          the whole plant is falling to bits, there are rooms with nuclear waste where the cameras don't work so they can't even send in robots to do the proper dismantle and disposal routines
          you can't train everyone and most people don't give a frick anyway, majority of people in nuclear plants are stupid and low class don't give a frick they're just there for the money, getting drunk to and from work
          mistakes happen a lot and get covered up all the time

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            it's no meme at all. This is in Germany, a rich country and orderly country:

            >decades old nuclear plants and bad waste managed practices
            we live in the 21st century with 21st century safety practices morons. We also have better tech to deal with radio active waste.
            Your take on nuclear is from the 1950s.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >we live in the 21st century with 21st century safety practices morons
            Tell that to Germany, they still can't resolve the problem.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Understand that violations like that happen at every kind of power plant, except there's far more of them, the waste is far more hazardous, more people are affected, and they aren't under nearly as much scrutiny as a nuclear power plant.
            The stats don't lie, nuclear is one of the safest forms and cleanest forms of energy production, being bested only by solar and wind, both both of which use far more land and resources to match the same power output.
            Had we replaced as much of our power needs with nuclear as possible as soon as possible, millions of lives would have been saved, countless miles of land would still be safe and usable.
            But I guess it's fine if far more people die as long as it was caused by the normal operation of a fossil fuel plant.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            hey bub my whole hecking family died of pulmonary failure working in the local coal mine and we are damn proud of it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            thats every goddam industry, you can kill just as many people with a pesticide plant as with a nuclear reactor and nobody is going around squawking about those like they do with reactors. While don't chemical plants need containment structures?
            Bhopal killed far more people directly than chernobyl and that isn't even including its long term health effects, and both did not have a western style containment building.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            *Why don't chemical plants need containment structures

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            many industries are low risk relative to nuclear plants, and stupid frickers still frick them up and cause disasters, and you expect people to not frick up nuclear plants? the west is failing to maintain infrastructure, let alone build new infrastructure that is effective
            say what you want about solar, it is far more idiot proof than nuclear

            Renewables is the most amazing marketing psyop chuzpe that ever existed.

            What exaclty is "renewable"?

            It's the decentralized fragmented machines and utilities that permanently will require maintainance.
            Distributed all over the country.
            While having to deal with the resulting toxic waste of these materials.

            One single plant is at ine place. Logistically and economical and ecolagical not wastefull.

            Solar and wind, is a logistical nightmare.
            Engeneers will travel longer than actually maintain and repair these products.

            Frequent exchanges of highly modular crap.
            And solar panels are literally laced with arsenic and antimony. So you need extra cash to recycle those.
            It is a renewable source of income while generating so much overhead, to even maintain this shit, that it will become so expensive that we will end up und a hand to mouth Economy, just for believing in the esotheric meme of green energy.

            logistical nightmare is the way of the world, elegant, simple solutions do not gel well with the bureaucratic class

            [...]
            There's an enormous amount of uranium that is yet to be mined or recycled. Seawater extraction itself is expected to yield at least 4 million tons, which would be several thousand years of worth of supplies. Don't even get me started on thorium. There's 3 times as much thorium on earth as uranium.
            What this means is: You are a giant moronic homosexual who doesn't know what he's talking about.

            show me a working thorium reactor
            who is going to invest in that risk, and also the chance of it being on budget is incredibly slim
            furthermore, you think lobbyists for oil, nuclear, solar, wind, tidal etc would let it survive?

            >I used to live near a nuclear plant, one particular village built for the workers had the highest incidence of child leukaemia in the country, was due to improper cleaning protocol and people generally being lazy after shift, it was nipped in the bud, supposedly, and all in all less than 300 children were affected - who cares right?
            >there was also an accident disposing of waste and the sea was badly contaminated affecting fishing for a couple years
            >thing is, in a perfect world of smart people, nuclear might make sense - again, who cares?
            >when the power stations went on strike in the 70s and 80s the nuclear plant had to pick up the slack, but didn't have proper waste disposal for such heavy loads, so they just dug pits, filled them with salt water, and dumped the nuclear waste in there - it's now a sludge pit that is leaching into the ground and no one really knows what to do with it except make new pits and pump the waste into there
            why are engineers and civil servants so lazy and dumb?

            because they can get away with it, kick the can down the road, put it off till you can make it someone else's problem, retire - that's the vast majority of peoples careers, either scared to notify people of problems because they'll get blamed, or don't give a frick

            >Imagine spending over a decade to build a nuclear plant that costs 15x more than the equivalent amount of solar panels and battery capacity added together.
            This is because of excessive bureaucracy and regulation of Nuclear Plants.
            See: Sabine's video for a good primer.
            Japan is way more efficient at Nuclear, because they have less bureaucracy and regulation.
            >There's a reason why neither China or the US does that at any real scale anymore.
            Germany tried Solar, and then they realized it's shit so they were buying Russian Natural Gas.
            Then Ukraine happened and they switched to fricking coal.
            And now they regret closing their nuclear plants.
            Texas tried the wind meme and the grid almost collapsed when it got a little chilly.

            >This is because of excessive bureaucrasy
            you think that's just going to go away? be real
            >boohoo but if we didn't have this fricked up stupid monolithic system
            but we do

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There are tens of thousands of cancers, you could literally just go to a list "highest x cancer rate" and find one next to a coal plant or a wind turbine. It's meaning less shit, Prove that there was 100x greater than background and maybe you might have an argument. All you need is a geigar counter.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >source: trust me bro.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I used to live near a nuclear plant, one particular village built for the workers had the highest incidence of child leukaemia in the country, was due to improper cleaning protocol and people generally being lazy after shift, it was nipped in the bud, supposedly, and all in all less than 300 children were affected - who cares right?
            >there was also an accident disposing of waste and the sea was badly contaminated affecting fishing for a couple years
            >thing is, in a perfect world of smart people, nuclear might make sense - again, who cares?
            >when the power stations went on strike in the 70s and 80s the nuclear plant had to pick up the slack, but didn't have proper waste disposal for such heavy loads, so they just dug pits, filled them with salt water, and dumped the nuclear waste in there - it's now a sludge pit that is leaching into the ground and no one really knows what to do with it except make new pits and pump the waste into there
            why are engineers and civil servants so lazy and dumb?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nuclear waste is a bit of a meme, it can be re-used and re-purposed, there's even new techniques to make it less radioactive and decay faster.
        The more I learn about nuclear the more I realize most normies take on it comes from watching The Simpsons.

        it's no meme at all. This is in Germany, a rich country and orderly country:

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nuclear waste is objectively dealt with by taking the small amount that even is nuclear waste (a few barrels full) and dumping them in some lifeless lake in the tundra of Canada or Russia.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Renewables take massive amounts of subsidies and have an enormous footprint and the cost on Nuclear in America is so onerous because of over-regulation.

        >he doesn't know about breeder reactors

        https://i.imgur.com/FRb7Sy0.png

        We're devising mass energy storage technology, we'll figure it out. I'm especially hopeful about small gravity batteries.

        >small gravity batteries
        They have garbage specific energy, they're not going to be practical for any large scale storage.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          moron take

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The average cost and time to build nuclear reactor increased after the NRC replaced the old Atomic Energy Commission

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >THE BLADES
      crazy amount of boomer cope.
      Compare that to, idk, the number of ICEs complete with oil filling and everything around. Maybe even compare that to the amount of carbon released by burning fossil fuels. Carbon that we can not decide where it goes and remains, unlike tHe BlAdEs.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >why yes, redioactive shit that only decays in a billion years is the same as some plastic waste that is generated near the end of the lifespan of a windfarm
      holy cope

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        NTA, if people actually cared instead of bike shedding, they'd invest in isotope separation and recycling systems (there are a few valuable long-lived isotopes that aren't recycled out of nuclear waste following the old standard).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >what is a breeder?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Can't they be ground down to coarse or loose material, a power even perhaps, and the material be reused in construction, as a filler, or an insulating material?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >brit
      >wants to ban knives
      But seriously, renewables aren't as green as they are made out to be. Their land and resource usage is considerable.

      >THE BLADES
      crazy amount of boomer cope.
      Compare that to, idk, the number of ICEs complete with oil filling and everything around. Maybe even compare that to the amount of carbon released by burning fossil fuels. Carbon that we can not decide where it goes and remains, unlike tHe BlAdEs.

      The carbon released by fossil fuels is reabsorbed by plants and algae sooner or later. The rare earths and toxic pollutants required for renewables are a lot more difficult to deal with. Even if we only consider the carbon being buried in that landfill it is potentially a very harmful thing. That carbon is going to turn into micro plastics that permeates through the ecosystem for centuries or millennia. If it were released into the air as coal smoke it would rain down somewhere and be absorbed by plants.

      Renewables have great use cases. They allow remote energy production independent from an electric grid. They can also make use of urban rooftops* and be quite efficient in coastal regions. However they have serious drawbacks that make it difficult to impossible to have a national power grid rely on them. Renewables should be considered as supplementary power generation.

      *I would actually prefer small scale gardening or hydroponics to turn cities rooftops into food producers. It would increase urban bio diversity and decrease transportion.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Most of the blades so far have been religated to landfill or being buried
      What's wrong with that? Fiberglass is a pretty harmless material, there's plenty of landfill space, and 33000 blades is still tiny compared to the volume of waste the UK already sends to landfills every year.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >"renewable energy" is dependent on massive inputs of hydrocarbons (coal and oil for silicon, oil for turbine blades, coal for the steel and concrete for the tower and foundation)
        >"renewable energy" produces massive amounts of waste materials that don't get recycled
        >"we can de-carbonize the electric grid with green energy for cheap now"

        Okay so I personally have a few solutions to the issues that I'm saying but think about area used. The more people you have the more windmills you need. You will NEVER have enough with this population especially because we love to mushroom. Nigeria and south America could triple in a few decades.

        The whole eugenics thing was taken seriously by everyone until the israelites called dibs. Now it's a joke but it should be back to, so how do we do it.

        Obviously the smartest should be valued but also other things like not having kids should make you better bc you don't contribute to the problem as much. The old ways of learning to get along with each other should be studied and we realize.. it's hard. Thank God we have all this technology, most jobs are obsolete so just fewer people in general. Those who simply exist on the computer right now bc shit is so fricked are doing the best.

        >Nigeria and south America could triple in a few decades. energy is cheap now"
        Latin America and the Caribbean is already at a TFR of 1.958. There's actually rather few countries in the western hemisphere that have a TFR above 2.1 and they're rather small like Honduras.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why would anyone even want to de-carbonize the electric grid? CO2 is good for plants and good for nature in general. Its not a meaningful greenhouse gas, there is no downside whatsoever to adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >CO2 is good for plants
            Only if they have other resources to take advantage of it, plants still need water and other nutrients in order to grow. If they have a lot of one but not the other, the latter becomes a limiting factor. Did you forget about stoichiometry form your HS chem class?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're not wrong, but plants need less water in higher CO2 conditions, and they grow longer roots which go deeper into the soil, allowing them to access more nutrients.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >>"renewable energy" is dependent on massive inputs of hydrocarbons (coal and oil for silicon, oil for turbine blades, coal for the steel and concrete for the tower and foundation)
          So what's your alternative? Obviously burning them directly requires many times the amount of hydrocarbons to produce the same energy.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Burning hydrocarbons is based because it enriches the atmosphere with valuable CO2

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >SMR nuclear is exciting because it would allow for faster tech innovation as firms to compete with reactor designs
    >Nuclear scales a lot better than renewables.
    >Nuclear doesn't require batteries.
    >depending on the country can be the best path towards energy independance
    SMR nuclear is unironcally very interesting

    >muh solar will save us!
    and how much battery capacity are the building alongsie al ofl this new solar?
    Look at what's happening in Australia with their renewable energy rollout plan, they're literally talking about building more gas plants rather than continue to run their coal plants because solar and wind can't work without a ridicolous amount of battery storage.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >SMR nuclear is unironcally very interesting
      inefficiencies notwithstanding, modular reactors would do one thing very well; allow exporting of nuclear power to countries with no tradition of STEM or requisite labor pool. that is so long as its walkaway safe like LFTR. otherwise, SMRs are a subsidy to the renewables scam.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because moronic twitter grifters can no longer deny global warming so their new contrarian stance is to say that nuclear is better than renewables just to divide the fricking conversation even more

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Have you considered that, perhaps, you might be the midwit in this instance?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    just self-fulfilling prophecy.
    the belief came first, either organically or by force, which made renewables get more funding.
    if the belief earlier on was inverted, you'd be saying the same things about nuclear, perhaps.
    that's my cope anyway.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That chart. Additions of REs are way to slow. Why is there no policy/law regulating finances so shit gets scaled up quickly as it should. Roughly "for every mill you invest at least 10% need to be REs" while at the same time boosting the production industry? Genuinely wondering.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm sure things like that could be done in a way that doesn't include bureaucracy. Things like that seem needed if anybody is interested in efficacy. Investors keep spending their money on fossil fuels, cars, and whatnot with impunity and apartment owners are not even required to install solar panels on roofs.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Of course, it will never happen because we are a bunch of easily frightened apes ruled by the most boring inoffensive managers ever for whom introducing that motion would be political suicide.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Imagine spending over a decade to build a nuclear plant that costs 15x more than the equivalent amount of solar panels and battery capacity added together.
    The difference is that you can build a low carbon grid with nuclear baseload. You cannot build a wind/solar grid without a fossil fuel or nuclear baseload.
    And the exorbitant cost of nuclear is entirely artificial, due to excessive regulatory burdens.
    Nuclear is also safer than solar or wind power

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Nuclear results in the least deaths per unit of electricity produced
    >Nuclear results in the least land area used per unit of electricity produced

    Simple as. It's the best.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Solar and wind have no water use, for example

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Where does wind even come from? If we keep harvesting all the wind with wind farms won't it run out? Then what will all our sailors and birds do?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Wind is generated by the force of the Earth's rotation so if we have too many wind farms it will slow down the planet and make days and nights longer.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If we only turn the windmills on at night time can we just stretch the night and leave the day as it is?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Better yet, use nuclear energy to run the turbines in reverse to make the days go faster.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Wind is created by the sun heating the atmosphere unevenly

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Where does wind even come from
      Learn fluid dynamics

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Almost completely deregulate the nuclear industry and tell me about the high costs again.
    The high costs are just an artifact of the industry being treated with especially bad suspicion.
    Pic related is how a politician or normie scum regards nuclear.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >deregulate the nuclear industry
      we're good, thanks.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This is the 110 IQ upper bound frightened bugman I was talking about.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The public isn't particularly aware of how good renewables are. There are still issues howeverthoughbeit.
    My solution? Build a giant ring around the earth. The sun is always shining somewhere.

    >t. works on solar panels

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The main difference with regard to solar and nuclear is that solar is decentralized, while a nuclear plant is easily targeted by lobbying induced fees and regulations. If nuclear was built according to market demand we'd have electricity too cheap to meter. It's too late now, so we have panels that wear out and batteries that wear out taking up acres and acres of space. Whatever

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Long story short, because renewables are not dispatchable, they can only provide KW, not KWH. You’ve already noticed this can be overcome with batteries, but how many batteries and at what cost? You’ve stated 1/15 the price of a nuclear facility. Fine, let’s see if that’s true. A one GW may cost $9Billion and will likely last 50 or more years, during which it will produce more than 3.5 peta watts, or 3,500,000,000,000 KWH. How many batteries can we buy for $9Billion and how many times will we need to do that over 50 years? A NREL review suggests the 2022 price is probably around $300-400/KWH. Using $300, we come up with a battery system that will store 30 GWH. Matching that to the 1 GW nuke, we have a battery that will last for 30 hours. Optimistically, that battery will last ten years, so please renew your purchase appropriately.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There are countries in the world, important countries, full of non-subhumans, that don't have enough surface area for wind/solar.
    They can either arm up and take that surface area from their subhuman neighbors, or they can use nuclear. Your call.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >be French
    >my energy is already nuclear
    feels good. Imagine being inherently superior to the French (example: any other fricking country/race) yet still not handling all of your base load with cheap, clean, government nuclear power (example: any other fricking country). You must be so mad about this.
    We figured it out, and we're moronic. You didn't. Seethe.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Agi will be revolutionary in an unprecedented way. But that won't come until nuclear fusion, because ai is extremely energy hungry. So no world changing ai until world changing nuclear fusion. Amusingly though, they've set ai loose on the problem. So we might see agi in a decade or so. Until then it's an ai bubble

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Current AIs are not only extremely inefficient, they're not really a path towards AGI. We know that a human-level general intelligence only strictly requires as much power as a human brain, and greater efficiency than that might be possible.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i wonder where everyone is getting their propaganda from that they care so much about this topic

    energy grids, regulations, and logistics are extremely complex. there's probably like 4 people that browse this board that are even involved with any of this

    why do you stupid gays care so much?? your science teacher in middle school told you about nuclear power?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >everyone is dumb except me!!!
      >REEEEEEEEE!!!!!
      why does this topic trigger your emotions so badly?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >"T-t-t-the only reason why you care about the energy mix is because of propaganda!"
        I dunno anon, can you think of any other reason why would people want to talk about science and technology on the science board?

        [...]
        > land and resources to match the same power output
        That's the major bit irony when it comes to renewables, their manufacture and construction take huge amounts of materials that are made with hydrocarbons.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >gets told that nuclear power is topical for IQfy
          >bitches out and posts molymeme
          ironic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it is on topic, but just moronic for people to be speculating so heavily about. redditors love having these misinformed propaganda moronfests too

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >newbie wasn't here when IQfy was constantly talking about thorium reactors
            only redditor here is you, and you should stop projecting

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it is on topic, but just moronic for people to be speculating so heavily about
            As opposed to what?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >"T-t-t-the only reason why you care about the energy mix is because of propaganda!"
      I dunno anon, can you think of any other reason why would people want to talk about science and technology on the science board?

      Understand that violations like that happen at every kind of power plant, except there's far more of them, the waste is far more hazardous, more people are affected, and they aren't under nearly as much scrutiny as a nuclear power plant.
      The stats don't lie, nuclear is one of the safest forms and cleanest forms of energy production, being bested only by solar and wind, both both of which use far more land and resources to match the same power output.
      Had we replaced as much of our power needs with nuclear as possible as soon as possible, millions of lives would have been saved, countless miles of land would still be safe and usable.
      But I guess it's fine if far more people die as long as it was caused by the normal operation of a fossil fuel plant.

      > land and resources to match the same power output
      That's the major bit irony when it comes to renewables, their manufacture and construction take huge amounts of materials that are made with hydrocarbons.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >1 in 10 panels are actually recycled, according to estimates drawn from International Renewable Energy Agency data
    >80% of a typical photovoltaic panel is made of recyclable materials, disassembling them and recovering the glass, silver and silicon is extremely difficult
    >about $2 to $4 worth of materials are recovered from each panel
    >National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimated that it costs roughly $20 to $30 to recycle a panel versus $1 to $2 to send it to a landfill
    Solarbros, I don't feel so good.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >>1 in 10 panels are actually recycled, according to estimates drawn from International Renewable Energy Agency data
      Now repeat for other recyclable products. What percentage of soup cans and single use plastics make it to a recycling center and are actually recycled?

      https://www.greenmatters.com/p/what-percent-recycling-actually-gets-recycled

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >80% of a typical photovoltaic panel is made of recyclable materials, disassembling them and recovering the glass, silver and silicon is extremely difficult
      That would be a good job for AI: picking apart old panels. It is not unheard of for a new technology (e.g., oil refining) to be very wasteful (e.g., unwanted fractions ending up in rivers) until the necessary adjuct tech is developed (e.g., cracking towers).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >AI will fix everything

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        that's where you are wrong friend
        jobs like this where you dig through trash trying to find recyclable materials are going to be the only jobs left for humans after AI takes over everything else
        you are either born rich and benefit from AI labor or you dig through trash and sell recyclables for pennies to get your next meal

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >wind turbine not designed to be able to withstand wind

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >you could just be developing solar and wind farms instead.
    Working great for Texas, California and Europe innit fricking homosexual

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I say let's shoot all the nukes humanity has into each other and watch the fireworks. We are going nowhere anyway, stuck on this backwater planet fighting for resources like fricking animals. We could have one moment of wonder and eternal peace.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >stuck on this backwater planet
      The Earth is a life bearing oasis in a massive radiation blasted desert that has no air. We're not the backwater, we're the place where things are happening.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >needs bill nye, greta and wheelchair
    I don't have the PSD anymore, also what set Hawking apart from the others is that he had a real scientific career beyond his public advocacy, unlike Nye or Tyson.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >spending years spewing schizo theories about black holes that don't even exist isn't a real scientific career

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are midwits so obsessed with the idea of nuclear energy when spending on renewables easily eclipsed spending on nuclear over a decade ago?
    ftfy

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think most people here don't understand investor and business decisions. They want their money back as fast as possible and make as much money as possible fast. This is just impossible with nuclear because it takes decades to get permissions and build a plant. Solar can be build in a few months. It's also cheaper, does not need much maintenance and no fuel.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      See

      https://i.imgur.com/YnH8Pb9.png

      >There's a reason why neither China or the US does that at any real scale anymore.
      Does what? Build solar at anywhere near nuclear scale (or anything more than tourist attraction/subsidy hog scale)? They've never done that and they never will because that's impossible. PV's sole genuine economic worth is as a bargaining chip for large industrial electricity users in extremely kleptocratic, backwards shitholes without reliable electricity grids. Like in Texas or California.

      Why is solar only 2.8% of US electricity generation if it's so good?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Why don't changes happen instantly?
        >If you need a Rome why don't you just put one in like the sims?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        *3.9%
        A number that's growing at 30%/year

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Source?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >It's also cheaper
      You mean massively subsidized

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        those agricultural subsidies will end next week for sure this time

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >decades to get permissions
      Artificial bottleneck. The tech is miles safer than it used to be.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Okay so I personally have a few solutions to the issues that I'm saying but think about area used. The more people you have the more windmills you need. You will NEVER have enough with this population especially because we love to mushroom. Nigeria and south America could triple in a few decades.

    The whole eugenics thing was taken seriously by everyone until the israelites called dibs. Now it's a joke but it should be back to, so how do we do it.

    Obviously the smartest should be valued but also other things like not having kids should make you better bc you don't contribute to the problem as much. The old ways of learning to get along with each other should be studied and we realize.. it's hard. Thank God we have all this technology, most jobs are obsolete so just fewer people in general. Those who simply exist on the computer right now bc shit is so fricked are doing the best.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Small scale nuclear reactors are already here.
    They are solar panels.
    Solar cells use radiation (sunlight) from a giant nuclear reactor (the sun) to generate electricity, correct?
    Then congratulations nuclear sisters, you won.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    17% in battery storage. That's impressive. I have heard people make a criticism of renewable energy concerning the storage issue, but being about to store 17%, which is a considerable amount, seems to demolish that criticism.

    Is there a breakdown on how that electricity is stored? I know about flywheels and gravity storage ( pumping water up into dams and then letting it drain through turbines ) but not about other storage methods.
    >IB4 They just use lots of double AA's hurr!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's 17% "of the new generation capacity", not "17% of all power generation"
      The USA consumes some 4 million GWh of electricity per year. 9.4GW of storage isn't even a drop in the ocean of that.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Okay, I know I am dumb, but let me try to clarify this. The 17% represents the ability to store 17% of any new power generation. So if for example they produce 100 mw of new electricity generation ( from any sources ) they can then store of 17 mw of that. Correct?
        I am guessing this is primarily for use as a buffer between peak and off peak demand times. Particularly important if solar is becoming a much larger slice of the pie. Taking excess day production into storage and then releasing it at night.
        I would still be interested to know what form this storage takes. The only really pragmatic method that works on a large enough scale that I know of is pumping water up a hill and storing it behind a hydro dam, but obviously this is limited by the local geography.

        Okay since I have already outed myself as a moron, I have another question if you dont mind. When a power plant produces excess energy and there's no available, what do they do with the excess electricity? Just earth it into the ground?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I would still be interested to know what form this storage takes
          Various forms. Usually grid storage is done by private companies, sometimes testing new forms of energy storage. There's gravitational schemes like pumped hydro or the Advanced Rail Energy Storage (ARES), which I believe is in Nevada, ect. There's warehouses of batteries, usually cheaper batteries since it doesn't matter much how heavy or energy dense the batteries are. Others energy storage schemes include thermal energy, flywheels, compressed air, ect.

          >When a power plant produces excess energy and there's no available, what do they do with the excess electricity? Just earth it into the ground?
          Basically. If they can't sell the power locally then they'll try to export it. If they can't export it then the energy is wasted and they reduce the output of the plant to prevent more waste. Changing the output impacts the efficiency of the plant so they try to do it as little as possible. That's one of the issues with the duck curve generated by solar power. It's worth noting that you don't necessarily need grid storage if you have good enough power transmission. The sun is always shining somewhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why aren't they using excess power to split hydrogen off water into hydrogen, compressing it into liquid and then storing it large tanks, then generating electricity with fuel cells at peak times?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Some people are, or at least were. There have been test plants that used hydrogen for energy storage, but hydrogen has a lot of issues. Burning it means that the amount of energy you get back is limited by Carnot efficiency as well as other inefficiencies like energy wasted splitting the hydrogen and operating the pumps. Hydrogen is also difficult to store and transport safely which makes it unattractive to a lot of potential investors. There might still be some test plants operating, but last I checked the overall efficiency sat somewhere around 60% whereas other energy storage schemes like batteries, ARES, flywheels, and pumped hydro have efficiencies over 80% and often times over 90%. Maybe it will see use as jet or rocket fuel.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It is worth noting that even if nuclear stays expensive and solar is 3 cents per kilowatt hour, if you consider heat then it can still be cheaper for some stuff. 9 cents per kilowatt hour out of a 33% efficient nuclear power plant is still 3 cents per kilowatt hour thermal, without need for storage. If you just need to heat some industrial process like high temperature electrolysis then the nuclear reactor will still be cheaper

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Aside from lithium and gravity batteries there are also nickel hydrogen batteries, which last for decades and are already used in satellites.
      The main hurdle for them is large upfront cost but imo the cost isn’t really disqualifying as lithium ion used to be prohibitively expensive as well.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >nickel hydrogen batteries
        Interesting. Impressive characteristics, particularly their 20k+ charge cycles.
        In theory are these scalable to be useful as energy storage on a city-national basis? Which would be useful for areas where using hydro storage isn't feasible.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I like to have electricity in the evening too

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you mean like earth nuclear, agreed. But Sun is powerhouse in entire different dimension than everything else combined. We should slowly get going with that Dyson Sphere it ain't gonna build itself.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because solar can't act as a base load and battery capacity will never catch up at this rate.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      "At this rate" battery capacity is gonna be the future.

      Not that it should be; it would be preferable to burn at least 60% of the current confirmed natural gas and coal reserves and not give a frick about it until 2100. But we really want to print money for this shit so I doubt there's any way to avoid batteries anymore.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The problem with solar iis that even in the desert it only make power for 6 hours/day. It also takes up a ton of land. Nuclear augmented with solar is the best option. I do think home owners should all have solar though

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Things are fine as they are, we already have more than enough perfectly useful power generation tech, we don't need anything else. There is no decent reason to reinvent the wheel, the only reason people try to do it is to get money or because they're too low IQ to think up something useful to do

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Cynic mentality

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      thermal energy storage + reactors FTW

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    sometimes the sun doesn't shine

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, you got this the wrong way around: Nuclear is the based, ascended, superior source of energy. All the other shit is midwittery.
    >omg yas lets cover the sahara desert with solar panel to save le planet

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      While you are right there is another reason why most civilized countries dont like the idea of building nuclear. If they do then its harder to discourage other countries from doing it. Now imagine if every corrupt bumfrick shithole of a failed country around the globe built these things ( and the fricking Chinese would only be too happy to "help" them ). No safety regulations, no regular inspections, and no construction standards would be able to withstand the power of bribes, laziness and sheer incompetence. There would be a dozen Chernobyls every year. That's not even counting the added risk that comes from regular revolutions and coups. While that might be a good thing in the long run to keep the local populations down, the resulting world wide contamination of the atmosphere and oceans would be detrimental to everyone else. .

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That sounds like a made up argument. India, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Pakistan already have or had nuclear power. South Africa used to have nuclear weapons. If some other shithole country wants to run a reactor, they already can. The motivation is already there, regardless of whether the US or other prosperous states build their future on nuclear.

  43. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So the entire contry will collapse on a cloudy day? Fricking morons.

  44. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Renewables is the most amazing marketing psyop chuzpe that ever existed.

    What exaclty is "renewable"?

    It's the decentralized fragmented machines and utilities that permanently will require maintainance.
    Distributed all over the country.
    While having to deal with the resulting toxic waste of these materials.

    One single plant is at ine place. Logistically and economical and ecolagical not wastefull.

    Solar and wind, is a logistical nightmare.
    Engeneers will travel longer than actually maintain and repair these products.

    Frequent exchanges of highly modular crap.
    And solar panels are literally laced with arsenic and antimony. So you need extra cash to recycle those.
    It is a renewable source of income while generating so much overhead, to even maintain this shit, that it will become so expensive that we will end up und a hand to mouth Economy, just for believing in the esotheric meme of green energy.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >we will end up und a hand to mouth Economy
      That is exactly what we are looking at with this current trend. We will either have it dumb witted willingly through the renewables meme, or it will be forced upon us by economic pressures. Mankind stumbled upon the greatest ever windfall in history, fossil fuels, and rather than recognizing it as a method to accelerate technology at a geometric rate, basically squandered it on bullshit. Unnecessary consumer goods, wars, opulent lifestyles for the middle class, population growth in shithole countries, population growth among the morons in their own countries.
      Now the easy to access stuff is becoming more scarce the economics of retrieving the 2nd grade and more inaccessible fossil reserves becomes more expensive.

      Meanwhile dumbfricks like

      [...]

      who can not comprehend the difference between tens of millions of years of sunlight concentrated into energy dense fuels compared to the relative pittance that falls on the Earth each day are part of the problem. spouting nonsense while so ironically taking a condescending tone. Simple math is beyond the grasp of these type of naive and ignorant numbskulls. The only consolation is they are so naive and delusional they will be among the first ones to feel the full effects of a previously energy rich society declining into energy poverty, and will be the least able to cope with the reality.

  45. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >the source of energy will not be exhausted over human timescales
    So, just like uranium and thorium.

  46. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We’ve set off a handful of nukes underneath the Rocky Mountains, like 5-8k feet under the surface, then we drilled wells to extract and test the oil and gas that pooled in the blast crater way down there. People live directly above “ground zero”, pretty much always have, there is a house with well water like 100yds from one of the original bore holes / entrances where they dropped the nukes in
    .
    Couldn’t we just bury dozens of nuclear reactors down in holes that are 5-8k feet below the mountains and then build a long distance transmission system (like China did for their solar/wind/hydro) and power the whole US with safe nuclear that could also have a meltdown without affecting much if anything at all?

  47. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Gets called out for being a dumbfrick
    >Seethes because he cant refute any of it.
    Try taking a math class before you spout more of your drivel dumbfrick.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You are a moron.

      [...]
      Geothermal is is very heavily location dependent, though this might be changing given new drilling techniques, and the amount of material needed for both solar and storage means its EROI is dogshit.

      I don't care and solar isn't the only form of energy we get from the sun.

  48. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Geothermal is is very heavily location dependent, though this might be changing given new drilling techniques, and the amount of material needed for both solar and storage means its EROI is dogshit.

  49. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      buy an ad

      [...]
      There's an enormous amount of uranium that is yet to be mined or recycled. Seawater extraction itself is expected to yield at least 4 million tons, which would be several thousand years of worth of supplies. Don't even get me started on thorium. There's 3 times as much thorium on earth as uranium.
      What this means is: You are a giant moronic homosexual who doesn't know what he's talking about.

      > Seawater extraction itself is expected to yield at least 4 million tons
      Its so diffuse its not not profitable to do so.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wrong. Also, there's plenty to be mined and recycled. Also Thorium. Face it, supply is not an issue.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I didn't supply was an issue, I'm just saying that extracting it from sea water isn't viable.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The claim that was made is that nuclear is not renewable because it "not be exhausted over human timescales". Looking at the supply of nuclear material, that is simply not true.
            As for seawater extraction, it would be more costly, but certainly not unviable.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            scarcity rumors are always fake

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Its so diffuse its not not profitable to do so.
        No fricking shit, it's competing with regular uranium extraction.

  50. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    stfu with memes like solar energy, look at Germany for example, pic related
    >make a lot of energy from wind/solar, despite that has one of the highest prices for Electricity in Europe
    what's the fricking point then for solar/wind if the prices are so high for the average Joe ? the frogs pay like 30-50% less than germans

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the frogs pay like 30-50% less than germans
      It's not really the reason, the EU electricity """market""" is very fricked. Sometimes spot prices for northwestern europe are lower than france, but they're always about half of northern italy.

  51. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    There's an enormous amount of uranium that is yet to be mined or recycled. Seawater extraction itself is expected to yield at least 4 million tons, which would be several thousand years of worth of supplies. Don't even get me started on thorium. There's 3 times as much thorium on earth as uranium.
    What this means is: You are a giant moronic homosexual who doesn't know what he's talking about.

  52. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    UNSTOPPABLE

  53. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Renewable means that the source of energy

    That is what is sold to the plebs. Lol.
    Renewable and sustainable is not meant for the environment.

    It is meant for the powers that shouldn't be.
    They sell you the meme of "unlimited sun energy" while it is limited to the capacity of maintaining the technology required to harness the sun, same for wind.

    They play is to sell the plebs the most economical and time draining tech, to keep them busy and unable to ever compete with the so called "elites".
    Not only does "renewable energy" create a incredible burden of maintanance, but also it is a land aquisition scam.
    Because all vast amounts of lands, required to even distribute the technology, will then be owned by the investors of "green energy".
    While also fricking up the environment. Bulldozing through forrests, turning wetlands into dry pieces rubble and some grass, literally fricking up the habitat of birds, insects and all types of animals.
    You got played by Big oil and big chem, who can afford to buy and produces the biggest PR campaigns to sell you the idea, that carbon bad, and you are carbon and you are bad.
    Maurice strong is a disgusting yet impressive evil PR Jester installed by big Oil and big chem.

    They will end up owning everything.
    Literally. While they make you believe you are fighting big oil because "green is not Oil" lol.

    Here some documentary about how and why big oil conquered the world.

    And if you are interested to understand how the carbon & green energy meme got propagated by installed big oil puppet Maurice strong:

    He literally was paid by Petrol canada and Dome Petroleum and aquired Denver Oil.
    He is a meme lord of the biggest kind.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Saved.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous
          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous
  54. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Imagine spending over a decade to build a nuclear plant that costs 15x more than the equivalent amount of solar panels and battery capacity added together.
    This is because of excessive bureaucracy and regulation of Nuclear Plants.
    See: Sabine's video for a good primer.
    Japan is way more efficient at Nuclear, because they have less bureaucracy and regulation.
    >There's a reason why neither China or the US does that at any real scale anymore.
    Germany tried Solar, and then they realized it's shit so they were buying Russian Natural Gas.
    Then Ukraine happened and they switched to fricking coal.
    And now they regret closing their nuclear plants.
    Texas tried the wind meme and the grid almost collapsed when it got a little chilly.

  55. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]

    Out of arguments already?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Don't feed the troll

  56. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I know this is just a troll thread but for the sake of completeness, here is the answer to OP’s question:

    The issue with renewables is, at their current level of development, they cannot provide continuous energy independent of environmental conditions. It’s unfortunate, but renewable generation is maximized when demand is at a minimum, and vice versa. So if you don’t have the capacity to store all of that generated energy, then it doesn’t matter how much you generate; it’s gone by the time we need it. And it’s VERY difficult to store all of it.

    In contrast, nuclear can deliver large amounts of carbon-free energy on-demand, regardless of the time of day or the weather. It should therefore be viewed, at the very least, as an essential supplement to the grid during the transition to clean energy.

  57. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >it's another chud thread with people thinking nuclear/hydro base load + solar/wind intermittent is the solution

  58. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  59. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Imagine spending over a decade to build a nuclear plant that costs 15x more than the equivalent amount of solar panels and battery capacity added together.

    It would be worth it if humans weren't moronic aggressive apes, I agree with everything else you said. We can't have mass proliferation of nuclear energy because of limited human utility to operate, maintain and be trusted with them.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *