Solar panels vs nuclear

Energy storage is a bigger problem than production. Efficiency and accessibility is also an issue. Power grids can only handle so much power at once and can’t output the necessary amount of power. Nuclear is fine but we just need to handle waste, but I don’t see what we can’t have both. On for commercial use an another for industrial use

You can factor in dust losses into the power simulations, for the most part a bit of rain a few times a year will keep it running fine. If you have cheap as fuck labour you could pay somebody to clean them. Main issue would be people stealing panels etc... as that is very easy to do.

I would imagine the nuclear panels might have a greater risk of going into meltdown and causing some degree of damage to the surrounding city.

Modular small nuclear reactors are going to become a thing. Economically, the majority cost of nuclear is the manufacturing price for the plant, but this type of smaller, mass-produced model is a major advantage in that respect. Logistically, nuclear is leagues above solar/wind for stable, reliable power on a grid-scale, and isn't dependent on location for output.

I’d say nuclear. Solar takes a lot of expensive (rare) materials to make. Then more of the same materials to make batteries to store said energy. Then there’s the eventual obsolescence of both of those technologies as newer/more efficient batteries and panels become available. Old ones go to the dump and are very bad for the environment because of all the shit in them. Repeat the process on a planet of increasing population and dwindling natural resources. Answer is obvious. Michael Moore backed a film called planet of the humans that touches on a lot of ‘green’ things and policies that are well intentioned but fail because these people can not comprehend what long term consequences are. I haven’t watched it because fuck that guy.

Nuclear fusion If you know you know

I work in a Power company.
Ideally you would want both industries to flourish.
Solar looks great on paper but have a notoriously variable power output, even one cloud can cause a drop that requires the diesel generators and batteries to kick in.
Nuclear would be super ideal as our main backup. But most governments are pussies. They don't even realize that the technology is way safer than the Chernobyl days.

Energy density is too low to be practical. A coal/gas power plant would take up several city blocks. An equivalent solar farm would take up the size of a whole city to produce the same amount of power as that coal/gas power plant.

Forgot link, but one company's design just got safety approval from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is a big deal.
sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/smaller-cheaper-reactor-aims-revive-nuclear-industry-design-problems-raise-safety

A small company in my area just received an approval on their design and go ahead for testing from the DOE, they plan on making reactors that can power 50k homes for decades for cheap

This is either the dumbest post Ive ever seen or a 4D inverted mega troll

This is all news to me, and actually gives me something to read up on, much appreciated lad. From a price perspective, I can definitely see how it would trump solar, but the implementation is definitely the biggest hurdle. Not to mention that electric grid mafia wouldn't allow this to take flight so easily without lobbying for so many restrictions that it'd be impossible.

I don't even think it's politicians lack of balls so much as it would be my previous point. Do you see major electric companies like PG&E allowing something to get in the way of them charging customers out the ass to tolerate their rolling blackouts?

Might be useful for setting up in the Sharah and diverting the power elsewhere on the continent. Probably massively decreases in efficiency over great distances though.

solars main problem is storing the energy. you can put tons of solar panels all over the place, but if theres nowhere to store the power, it just gets wasted.

Solar-generated hydrogen is the future. Bet on it.

quite possibly. solves the energy storage problem.

>more people are starting to prefer green energy compared to oil
no. Politicians in rich countries like to take tax payer money and put it into their own pockets by spending it on absolutely useless "green energy projects", and the people cheerfully accepts because of the green mania.
When times get worse, people will stop caring about green energy. Energy is already scarce. Nuclear has too much potential for devastation, and solar can only provide a minuscule amount of the energy we need. Oil is by far the best energy source we have, and will remain so for many hundred years.

>If Africa gets their shit together

Attached: 1568434767190.png (619x511, 255.86K)

And shat happens when some faggot steals a bunch and blows them up at the local school?

Nuclear wins if it can bring capital and regulatory costs down. Solar wins if it can achieve breakthroughs on storage and transmission, or a huge breakthrough on efficiency. Everything else is just noise.

> small nuclear reactors
economy of scale doesn't work for them.