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.
>>16174183>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.
>>16174183>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.
oops no electricity today, nothing personnel
>>16174183nuclear 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
>>16174183>turn off all the nuclear plants and replace them with steam engines>look, steam engines produce more energy than nuclear powerplants!
>capacity
>>16174183My 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.
>>16175183They are literally spraying out the sun while encouraging solar panels.You can't make it up.Good times.
>>16174183>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 independanceSMR 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.
>>16175320wait until he hears what we do with nuclear waste!
>>16175209Nuclear power plants are steam engines.Also: What ?
>>16175347Nuclear 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.
>>16175320>THE BLADEScrazy 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.
>>16175362sure sureI 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 therethe 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 routinesyou can't train everyone and most people don't give a fuck anyway, majority of people in nuclear plants are stupid and low class don't give a fuck they're just there for the money, getting drunk to and from workmistakes happen a lot and get covered up all the time
>>16175157>2022
>>16174183because retarded 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 fucking conversation even more
>>16175320>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 windfarmholy cope
>>16174183Have you considered that, perhaps, you might be the midwit in this instance?
>>16175426>>2022So? 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.
>>16174183just 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.
>>16175892>1.1 percentage point>not a big deal when talking about an electric grid with nearly 1.5 TW of generation capacityGod this board is so fucking retarded
>>16175937>not a big dealThat is literally not what I said.
>>16175183We're devising mass energy storage technology, we'll figure it out. I'm especially hopeful about small gravity batteries.
>>16175320Can'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?
>>16175347>>16175362it's no meme at all. This is in Germany, a rich country and orderly country:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOWQgLeRM-M
>>16175376>>16176134>decades old nuclear plants and bad waste managed practiceswe live in the 21st century with 21st century safety practices retards. We also have better tech to deal with radio active waste.Your take on nuclear is from the 1950s.
>>16174183Not this shit again
>>16175361You have 500 bycicles producing the same amount of energy as a car, which is a more efficient method of transportation?
>>16175434NTA, 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).
>>16176309Again: WHAT ?Also bicycles are more efficient than cars by several orders of magnitude.Also still: What ?
>>16174183That 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.
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.
>>16174183>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
>>16174183>Nuclear results in the least deaths per unit of electricity produced>Nuclear results in the least land area used per unit of electricity producedSimple as. It's the best.
>>16176128Midwit opinion
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?
>>16176856Wind 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.
>>16176856Wind is created by the sun heating the atmosphere unevenly
>>16176330>bicycles are more efficient than cars by several orders of magnitudeYes, 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
>>16176856>Where does wind even come fromLearn fluid dynamics
>>16176285>we live in the 21st century with 21st century safety practices retardsTell that to Germany, they still can't resolve the problem.
>>16174183Almost 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.
>>16175347Nuclear 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.
>>16175434>what is a breeder?
>>16177292>deregulate the nuclear industrywe're good, thanks.
>>16176708
>>16177369This is the 110 IQ upper bound frightened bugman I was talking about.
>>16176698Solar and wind have no water use, for example
>>16174183The 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
>>16176378 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.
>>16174183Renewables take massive amounts of subsidies and have an enormous footprint and the cost on Nuclear in America is so onerous because of over-regulation.>>16175347>he doesn't know about breeder reactors>>16176128>small gravity batteriesThey have garbage specific energy, they're not going to be practical for any large scale storage.
>>16178075Retard take
>>16178109The average cost and time to build nuclear reactor increased after the NRC replaced the old Atomic Energy Commission
>>16174183The 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
>>16177072If we only turn the windmills on at night time can we just stretch the night and leave the day as it is?
>>16177372No, 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.
>>16178621The hole is also a permanent investment that doesn't wear out in a decade, you complete dunce.
>>16174183Long 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.
>>16175376Understand 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.
>>16174183There 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.
>be French>my energy is already nuclearfeels good. Imagine being inherently superior to the French (example: any other fucking country/race) yet still not handling all of your base load with cheap, clean, government nuclear power (example: any other fucking country). You must be so mad about this.We figured it out, and we're retarded. You didn't. Seethe.
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
i wonder where everyone is getting their propaganda from that they care so much about this topicenergy grids, regulations, and logistics are extremely complex. there's probably like 4 people that browse this board that are even involved with any of thiswhy do you stupid fags care so much?? your science teacher in middle school told you about nuclear power?
>>16177612lol
>>16179111>everyone is dumb except me!!!>REEEEEEEEE!!!!!why does this topic trigger your emotions so badly?
>>16179111>"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?>>16178727> land and resources to match the same power outputThat's the major bit irony when it comes to renewables, their manufacture and construction take huge amounts of materials that are made with hydrocarbons.
>>16175320>brit>wants to ban knivesBut seriously, renewables aren't as green as they are made out to be. Their land and resource usage is considerable.>>16175366The 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.
>>16178289Better yet, use nuclear energy to run the turbines in reverse to make the days go faster.
>>16179329>>16179423
>>16179618>gets told that nuclear power is topical for /sci/>bitches out and posts molymemeironic
>>16179625it is on topic, but just retarded for people to be speculating so heavily about. redditors love having these misinformed propaganda retardfests too
>>16179627>newfag wasn't here when /sci/ was constantly talking about thorium reactorsonly redditor here is you, and you should stop projecting
>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 landfillSolarbros, I don't feel so good.
>>16179775>>1 in 10 panels are actually recycled, according to estimates drawn from International Renewable Energy Agency dataNow 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
>>16179775>80% of a typical photovoltaic panel is made of recyclable materials, disassembling them and recovering the glass, silver and silicon is extremely difficultThat 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).
>>16178727hey bub my whole hecking family died of pulmonary failure working in the local coal mine and we are damn proud of it
>>16180531>AI will fix everything
>>16174183>you could just be developing solar and wind farms instead.Working great for Texas, California and Europe innit fucking faggot
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 fucking animals. We could have one moment of wonder and eternal peace.
>>16180169>wind turbine not designed to be able to withstand wind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8_Mktrcm7o
>>16180989>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.
>>16183037>needs bill nye, greta and wheelchairI 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.
>>16178670motors cables and pullys all wear out, you're maintaining an elevator shaft that needs to take the wieght of a tank
>spending years spewing schizo theories about black holes that don't even exist isn't a real scientific career
>>16174183>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
>>16174183I 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.
>>16185918See >>16175157Why is solar only 2.8% of US electricity generation if it's so good?
>>16186143>Why don't changes happen instantly?>If you need a Rome why don't you just put one in like the sims?
>>16185918>It's also cheaperYou mean massively subsidized
>>16186143*3.9%A number that's growing at 30%/year
>>16185918>decades to get permissionsArtificial bottleneck. The tech is miles safer than it used to be.
>>16175320>Most of the blades so far have been religated to landfill or being buriedWhat'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.
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 Jews 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 fucked are doing the best.
>>16186751>"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">>16186776>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.
>>16187394Why 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.
>>16187396>CO2 is good for plantsOnly 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?
>>16174183Small 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.
>>1617418317% 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!
>>16187400You'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.
>>16186555Source?
>>16187461That'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.
>>16187461Aside 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.
>>16174183I like to have electricity in the evening too
>>16187474Okay, 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 retard, 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?
>>16187477>nickel hydrogen batteriesInteresting. 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.
>>16187516>I would still be interested to know what form this storage takesVarious 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.
>>16187766Why 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?
>>16175334>SMR nuclear is unironcally very interestinginefficiencies 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.
>>16187795Some 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.
>>16187394>>"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.
>>16175157Where is oil in that pie
>>16174183If 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.
>>16188254Petroleum in bright red?
>>16188357You're yankin my nuts that petroleum is less than 1%. Surely you don't actually believe that.
>>16174183Because solar can't act as a base load and battery capacity will never catch up at this rate.
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
>>16188504Do 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.
>>16188513"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 fuck 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.
>>16188504>>16188542It's just the electricity production. If you looked at power used in all forms then petroleum would have a larger share.
>>16178621Dude, 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.
>>16174183sometimes the sun doesn't shine
>>16175376thats 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.
>>16189113*Why don't chemical plants need containment structures
>>16187861It 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
>>16188539Things 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
>>16188539thermal energy storage + reactors FTW
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, >>16178621laying out the fundamental mathematical facts about gravity storage.Yes, he's right, its a fucking 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.
>>16176128>gravity batterieswe 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.
>>16189800(300g*4.184J/(gK)*90°C)/(10m*9.8m/s^2)=115kg, so you remember wrong. Why do /pol/tards always lie about everything?
>>16189800Yeah, 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 fucking 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.
>>16189972>Small to medium cars usually weigh between 1000 kg to 1700 kgCongrats, now you can boil a dozen cups of tea with a car.. Way to miss the point. Dumbass.
>>16189171Cynic mentality
>>16174183No, 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
>>16190089While 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 bumfuck shithole of a failed country around the globe built these things ( and the fucking 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. .
>>16190041They 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.
>>16174183So the entire contry will collapse on a cloudy day? Fucking retards.
>>16175376There 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.
>>16175426 the solar revolution will happen very quickly. China, india, sea and the us and mexico will all go to solar practically overnight, just watch.
>>16180531that's where you are wrong friendjobs 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 elseyou are either born rich and benefit from AI labor or you dig through trash and sell recyclables for pennies to get your next meal
>>16186542those agricultural subsidies will end next week for sure this time
>>16176128That's the most retarded thing I've seen yet. Lmao. Way to poorly reinvent the water tower with 100x more issues.
>>16189972Now how much to boil it dry.
>>16190837Many 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.
>>16175376>source: trust me bro.
>>16175207You 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.
>>16190913Mouf.
>>16190913>second Chernobylthis meme needs to die
>>16174183Renewables 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.
>>16191017>the source of energy will not be exhausted over human timescalesSo, just like uranium and thorium.
>>16191015>we will end up und a hand to mouth EconomyThat 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 retards 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 dumbfucks like>>16191017 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.
>>16174183We’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?
>>16191286>Gets called out for being a dumbfuck>Seethes because he cant refute any of it. Try taking a math class before you spout more of your drivel dumbfuck.
>>16191017Geothermal 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.
>>16191562You are a moron.>>16191693I don't care and solar isn't the only form of energy we get from the sun.
>>16174183stfu 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 Europewhat's the fucking point then for solar/wind if the prices are so high for the average Joe ? the frogs pay like 30-50% less than germans
>>16190913>we send them spent electronics>they send us 10,000,000 rapefugeesunironically, a terrible deal for my kids
>>16191286There'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 retarded faggot who doesn't know what he's talking about.
>>16190162That 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.
>>16192056buy an ad>>16192334> Seawater extraction itself is expected to yield at least 4 million tonsIts so diffuse its not not profitable to do so.
>>16192107>the frogs pay like 30-50% less than germansIt's not really the reason, the EU electricity """market""" is very fucked. Sometimes spot prices for northwestern europe are lower than france, but they're always about half of northern italy.
UNSTOPPABLE
>>16175376>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 therewhy are engineers and civil servants so lazy and dumb?
>>16192436Wrong. Also, there's plenty to be mined and recycled. Also Thorium. Face it, supply is not an issue.
>>16192475I didn't supply was an issue, I'm just saying that extracting it from sea water isn't viable.
>>16192482The 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.
>>16192486scarcity rumors are always fake
>>16192436>Its so diffuse its not not profitable to do so.No fucking shit, it's competing with regular uranium extraction.
>>16191017>Renewable means that the source of energyThat 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 fucking up the environment. Bulldozing through forrests, turning wetlands into dry pieces rubble and some grass, literally fucking 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6r8nkxCKO4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cChEfw1nRXgAnd if you are interested to understand how the carbon & green energy meme got propagated by installed big oil puppet Maurice strong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dKnIFeiO1YHe literally was paid by Petrol canada and Dome Petroleum and aquired Denver Oil. He is a meme lord of the biggest kind.
>>16193689
>>16193929Saved.
>>16174183>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 fucking 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.
>>16179627>it is on topic, but just retarded for people to be speculating so heavily aboutAs opposed to what?
>>16193950
>>16194078
>>16179098Current 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.
>>16194078>>16194538Out of arguments already?
>>16194327
>>16194683Don't feed the troll
>>16188204Burning hydrocarbons is based because it enriches the atmosphere with valuable CO2
>>16174183I 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.
>>16189113many industries are low risk relative to nuclear plants, and stupid fuckers still fuck them up and cause disasters, and you expect people to not fuck up nuclear plants? the west is failing to maintain infrastructure, let alone build new infrastructure that is effectivesay what you want about solar, it is far more idiot proof than nuclear>>16191015logistical nightmare is the way of the world, elegant, simple solutions do not gel well with the bureaucratic class >>16192334show me a working thorium reactorwho is going to invest in that risk, and also the chance of it being on budget is incredibly slimfurthermore, you think lobbyists for oil, nuclear, solar, wind, tidal etc would let it survive? >>16192468because 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 fuck >>16194206>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 fucked up stupid monolithic systembut we do
>it's another chud thread with people thinking nuclear/hydro base load + solar/wind intermittent is the solution
>>16174183>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 retarded 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.
