One of the thoroughly ridiculed aspects of the Green New Deal is the notion of transitioning entirely to renewable energy by 2030. However, most people do not understand how ridiculously unrealistic it is. Renewable energy is far less viable than most understand.
thegoldwater.com
Other urls found in this thread:
latimes.com
phys.org
tepap.tamu.edu
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
There is no doubt there is room for renewal energy in a good energy mix, but its nuts to think "green" energy can do it all. Green energy, if nothing else, if FAR more expensive and much of it isn't practical for variable energy needs.
To add to that many green technologies have impact on the environment as well.
Solar panels can roast birds out of the air, and windmills also slice them up.
Additionally, companies use tax credits for green energy as pr move. Our electric company has a non-tracking solar panel that faces south.
The issue with that should be apparent.
1 word; NUCLEAR
Get to it you fucking pussies, we could've solved the energy crisis decades ago. New generation power plants are safer than ever.
This a completely serious comment.
With the re-usable rockets and the decreasing cost of launching things out of orbit, why not just send nuclear waste hurling at the sun.
Especially with Thorium wast byproducts are 10% of what irridium is, so the costs of sending it out of orbit would be justified by the savings.
Would rather recycle it into new fuel down here.
All rockets have a failure rate that is pretty much unacceptable with that type of payload. If we ever got a space elevator working I could see sending it to orbit and railgunning it into the sun or storing it on the dark side of the moon. The moon is geologically stable and is already sterile. Besides, that waste may be usable in the future like how we can use thermal de-polymerization to "mine" landfills.
Has anyone ever raised concerns over whether windmill could be disturbing wind patterns? I always hear people talk about geothermal too that scares the shit out of me. We don't want to use the heat energy from our own fucking planet.
The only part of the atmosphere that's effected by the Earths surface is the boundary layer and the surface of the Earth plays little role in shaping wind patterns above that. Besides, whatever boundary layer effects windmills do have is fucking minuscule compared to how massive skyscrapers and cities effect wind currents.
Its using geothermal energy to heat water and push steam through turbines dude chill out holy shit.
OP and first couple comments are typical of people who don't understand how far renewables have come. By covering less than 1% of the US land mass in solar panels alone, you'd have enough energy for the entire country. This is fact. Now there are other logistics (transmission, maintenance, weather, storage, etc.) but this shows that the solution that renewables give to the problem of power and reducing fossil fuel use is easier than most realize. Add water and wind and safe and clean thorium nuclear reactors and we'd get rid of most of our pollution and energy problems.
What, really unbelievably shitty ones? There's absolutely no reason they should be doing that. The degree to which they heat anything at all is the degree to which they are an unbelievably shitty solar generator.
The most solar panels can absorb is 30-40% solar rays. What do you think happens to the rest of the energy,
latimes.com
...
Green energy was found to be more cost effective
Nice try schlomo
Water reflects 90%, guess no birds fly over bodies of water huh?
No it hasn't.
It's never been to be cost effective along THE MAJORITY of the U.S.
Its useful in high wind areas or southern states where days are longer.
However its not reliably everywhere and you lose electricity over long distances do to resistance. So it doesn't fix the issue.
But you're a bunch of dumb lil libbies so you can't comprehend or grasp this.
There are PV panels, which convert sunlight directly into electricity; and there are solar thermal energy plants, which use giant fields full of mirrors to focus sunlight on a boiling vessel and use the heat to drive turbines.
The latter are the kind that kill birds with sunlight. Most solar plants are of the PV type, which are no more dangerous to birds than anything else reflective like a lake or a skyscraper.
Also, how many birds are killed every year by coal and natural gas emissions? I bet it’s more than the number of unlucky creatures that happen to wander into a few very tiny areas near thermal generators.
I think it is safe to say that solar energy is better for the environment in nearly every respect.
This article also neglects to mention that silicon isn’t the only material that can generate electricity from sunlight. Any semiconductor can, and when the Y2k nutjobs started scarfing up all the PV panels the industry began exploring tons of other ways to make panels that don’t destroy the environment and still generate enough power to be sustainable.
You can get almost 100W of power from a square meter of solar panel year round. That’s huge if you compare it to an average household energy budget. Couple this fact with the hugely expanding industry of local and single household PV systems, and the willingness of some local governments to subsidize installations, and you gotta be pretty damn dumb to still not see the benefit.
The real crime with solar energy is being committed by the power grid companies that “pay” their customers for energy put back into the grid. Generating energy is cheap and easy. Storing it is another issue entirely. If you have a panel on your roof or a solar farm on your property you have all the power you need at noon, and if you’re not using it all, it just turns into heat. It would take hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of batteries to hold onto that energy so you could run your microwave at 2AM.
So the power company graciously offers to “buy the energy you don’t use,” putting it back into the grid for other customers.
But they fucking mark up that energy! If you pay 12 cents a kWh for your electricity they might give you back 5-10 cents per kWh you upload to the grid. It’s not like gasoline or coal where some sources are higher quality. Once converted into electricity, a kWh is a kWh no matter where it came from. You just get screwed because the power company knows you don’t have anywhere else to put that energy.
If solar power isn’t sustainable, it’s being made that way by industrialists who realize the threat to their fortunes that exists in consumer owned power facilities. When battery technology catches up (and people like Elon Musk are putting a lot of effort into making that happen, and sharing their discoveries with the world for free), this monopoly will be in trouble; and some people are probably going to want to hear from the power moguls “why wasn’t this brought up decades ago?”
You are mistaken. There are households and factories that can run entirely in the black on natural energy sources, even as far north as Canada. Solar and wind energy is highly profitable in most of the US and Europe. I don’t know where you read about proof that it doesn’t work but that source was not accurate.
Solar power isn’t for everyone. If you live in Seattle you won’t stand to gain much from it, but if you live in Tucson it’s almost a no-brainer. Pick any city in the southwest US, zoom in on the satellite view on google, and look for blue rooftops.
Solar panels also create intensely toxic waste products in order to dope the protocol panelling, wind turbines catch fire frequently and cause vibrational disturbances, green energy is not particularly viable even for areas where they can be utilized
Again, OP and most people are behind the times when it comes to solar. It's gotten much better in the past few and couple years. About 70% absorption in newest designs.
phys.org
so they're getting better every year. A long time ago they were expensive and not very efficient, but in the last few years costs have gone down significantly and efficiency has grown. There's no longer any excuse NOT to use solar. China has overtaken the US as the largest producer and consumer of solar in the world. Just another technology and business sector that will be worth trillions they are going to beat us in, while Trump brags about saving 100 coal miner's jobs at a money-losing coal plant.
Tell that to the prospective plant's neighbors, Exelon wants Pennsylvania to subsidize the remaining Three Mile Island plant or it will close it in September. The problem is cheap natural gas. Well, I guess it's only a problem for Exelon.
I would have thought that the idea of PV plant waste poisoning children in some awful place like Pakistan or China would be right in line with most people’s concepts of utopia here.
But I think you’re talking about cadmium and tellurium and stuff like that. The quantity of waste produced may be poorly understood. Manufacturing plants don’t have to dump their waste into the ground. Properly maintained PV panels don’t generate any waste at all. It’s only when they’re vandalized or destroyed by natural disasters that they become sources of heavy metal pollution.
That a solar farm owner might choose to leave a bunch of shattered panels lying around after a tornado shouldn’t be an indictment against the technology itself. We eliminated lead and cadmium from cell phones and laptops, and we can eliminate hazardous waste from PV panels too. We can also educate and regulate the users so they don’t do shitty things like leave broken panels where they’ll get rained on and poison the groundwater.
We could do it. We could do anything. The problem is Solar only works in the day time. Windmills only work when the Wind is blowing and they kill a shit ton of birds. Hydroelectric requires big rivers and kills fish.
Geothermal has very little drawbacks other only being available in some areas.
Honestly I think thorium reactors are a way forward.
Hydrogen is a renewable fuel. Requires some titanium engine parts. Germans are working more cost effect titanium extraction and smelting techniques. Even with titanium's current prices HIC is affordable because all you need to do to get hydrogen is run electricity through water.
Diesel engines immune to EMP and would work after a nuclear strike. All of the renewable shit not so much. So strategically we need all of the technologies renewable or not.
The Green New Deal is complete fuckery.
No recently manufactured diesels exist that aren’t computer controlled. They’re identical to gasoline engines in that respect.
But.. it really isn’t that difficult to EMP-harden electronics. You put it in a metal box. Modern Warfare 2 is not the best scientific reference on the effects of a local nuclear strike on machinery.
Dont forget energy storage mediums like lithium batteries are absolutely devestating to the environment compared to previous technologies.
Older ICE vehicles are fine though as they have no sensitive electronics. Less maybe the radio. If you have a spare engine management system you kept wrapped in Lead you can swap that out and get a more modern vehicle up and running again. An EMP will pretty much wreck any sensitive electronics not shielded in an inch of steel.
The older computers with something like a MOS 6502 processor might still run after a strike. You can get printed circuit boards for home brew systems based on older micropocessors. Having an EMP for things like laptops, CB radios, and other communications equipment is important.
Graphene supercapacitors will be commercially available within the next few years.
Your mum will be commercially available within the next few years.
Accept that you have to store that energy. Do you understand how many batteries that would take?
Especially for the U.S?
Power in China is regulated and doled out, it doesn't matter to them if they don't have power all the time.
That's not true, the sun works all the time. We just need to put solar farms on satellites high enough that nights only last a few minutes, and at that altitude multiple satellites will have line of sight to any given power collector on the ground. Using solar power from orbit is definitely possible with currently available technology, it's just a huge initial investment.
Wew lad.
I was kinda surprised to learn this, but no, there’s no requirement for an inch of steel. It doesn’t take much. Just a path for the energy to dissipate through. You could EMP harden a Nintendo Switch if you wanted for only about a 10% increase in cost.
There are hundreds of companies in the US that will test electronics to withstand an EMP. It’s a standard part of “mil spec” testing. Super easy. It’s called a hemp test, which I thought was cute.
They would just hang very long extension cables down from the sattelites for anyone to plug stuff in to.
Do you understand how wire resistance works?
You would lose almost all the power from wire resistance, even if it was made with gold.
Why not lightning harvesters?
Shoot lasers into storm clouds to create conductive plasma channels, then have a massive capacitor to capture the bolt.
This. Unironically this.
Thorium has amazing potential and is incredibly safe on it's own. It does require a small amount of plutonium to actually generate power, but the fact that the two only work when together means in case of an emergency, all you have to do is drain one away from the other. People here the word nuclear and think of the problems caused by uranium and freak out, but thorium is the future.
We aren’t there yet when it comes to energy storage.
But the greater point is that we don’t need to do any of that because there’s nothing inherently wrong with solar and wind power.
Clearly people are aware of the fact that there are places where it doesn’t get windy or sunny, and those places aren’t going to get a lot of benefit from natural power sources.
But some people don’t seem to be able to connect the dots and realize that fewer power plants world wide means that the same atmosphere we all share gets less CO2 or radioactive waste pumped into it. And if you don’t have to transport as much electricity into places like Kansas and Arizona because there’s lots of wind and sunshine, then you reduce transmission loss and cut down on the number of power lines and plants needed in the places where there isn’t wind and sunshine.
So no, it’s obviously not a boondoggle. It’s very successful right now and will only get better, especially once we tackle the storage crisis. It won’t replace every single power plant on the planet, obviously, but no one ever intended for that to happen.
Of course. Gravity would pull the electrons down the cables towards us. We just need to figure out how to send them back up to complete the circuit.
It costs millions of dollars to send something into orbit, and if it fucks up it comes crashing back into the atmosphere. Every living thing on the planet, including me and you, contains a little bit of radioactivity as a result of radioactive spacecraft parts burning up in the sky. There are tons and tons of radioactive waste on the planet right now. We’ll never get it off the planet.
There are actual morons here who are believe that solar panels are a viable solution.
What is wrong with the panel facing south? Factored for magnetic declination that really isn't a bad solution if you are in the northern hemisphere, and tracking yields relatively minimal gains versus simply occasionally adjusting tilt to account for the seasons. Obviously higher for Winter and and lower for Summer with fall and spring somewhere in the middle. The loss between perfect tracking is something like 8% versus a fall setting at the solstices but even closer to the optimal in between.
there are actual morons who think solar panels are not a viable solution, when they already are.
We can beam down energy. Educate yourself.
Well one, its sitting next to a highway, in Michigan which means it surrounded by trees.
Two, sun rises east to west, tracking solar panels have been invented to make the most use of that.
Three, You have considerably lower yields when the FULL surface of the panel isn't actually in the sun.
I understand your baiting at this point, I give you 7/10 for the ruse
Michigan has so many houses for just 1,000$ each. Too bad the whole state is infested with milk duds.
Yes.
All the wind energy you can muster causes significant ecological harm downwind.
Same with hydroelectric.
Do libshits think energy comes from nowhere?
Solar is absolute garbage aside from a few Solar Panels on one's own house to cover some chunk of your electricity.
How much harm downwind do you think large skyscrapers and cities cause on a daily basis anyways? Do you really think a wind farm is going to somehow be worse?
This kid is 11 years old, or is an adult with the the education of one. What you posted makes no sense.
Also, solar is not garbage. Fossil fuels are garbage (literally, they pollute) Already mentioned, you could power the entire US on solar that covers less than 1% of the country.
Kind of but in different ways. Skyscrappers don't remove much wind energy, they redirect it.
By an incredibly significant margin. Wind farms REMOVE energy from wind. That's where the generated energy comes from.
great, and when it's dark out on the East coast and they need energy for more shit because IT'S DARK OUT, where will the get the energy? Travel 2500 miles? That's not possible. Moving electricity is incredibly inefficient.
You sure you're not just a fucking nigger? Because you aren't even smart enough to understand basic shit.
Correct, free energy, or more precisely thorium and perpetual motion machines are the future, at least, they could have/should have been :(
[spoiler] guess (((who))) doesn't want you to have free energy? {/spoiler]
FUCK
Oy vey goyim, it's all about the money, don't you know? green energy isn't financially viable goyim, build more oil plants, build more nuclear generators.
Where are we gonna store the waste? next to the goyim, of course.
THe absolute state
law of motion states that some energy is wasted redirection the wind. Wind farms have no greater effect on wind energy then large forests absorbing wind energy by ruffling tree branches. You're dreaming my guy
Oh well yeah if the panel is in shade in summer that is just horrible planning but facing south is not wrong, south means pretty good production during peak solar hours as south adjusted for declination puts you facing the azimuth as it peaks but if there is shading that is a wayyyyy bigger deal and if true they are just idiots and should have found a better location
Since when has retarded lefties hated jews?
Oh that horrible 1% loss over 1000km. Woe me
Interestingly the US has the most to gain from solar and wind, but I still think new gen nuclear is the way to go.
pic is from tepap.tamu.edu
Did someone tell you that transmission loss is 1%/1000km or did you just imagine it to be something like that?
It’s much greater than that, and in addition to wasting power it causes galvanic and thermal damage to the cables and switchgear, and repairs to live cables require incredibly skilled helicopter pilots and the biggest balls in the power line industry. It’s incredibly costly to consumers.
green energy can only be affordable if the technology behind it becomes affordable
were talking shit can last for decades, not one off or experimental shit that will fall apart quickly
Geothermal and nuclear are really the only viable options when it comes to "green" energy. At least for now, solar and wind have both made major strides in the last few years, but they can't compete with the energy output of nuclear, or the reliability of geothermal.
Wind and solar may be good in off-grid areas, or where other on-premise power generation is required, but other than those very rare cases, it's just waste of time and money.
Also, until fuel cell technology is drastically improved to the point where it's as easy as filling up the car with gas, don't expect it to go anywhere. Electric cars have potential, but face a similar problem with re-charge times. Also we'd need a more efficient method of energy storage, car batteries are hard to safely dispose of, and the price of materials would sky-rocket with an increase in demand.
You appear to be slightly confused their friend-o. It's not solar panels that roast birds, but a different method of solar energy collection called
"Concentrated Solar Power." You get a ton of mirrors and put them in the desert, then you focus them all at a vat of salt at the top of a giant tower and heat the hell out of it until the salt melts, then you use a glorified Stirling engine to generate electricity, The problem is that most birds are attracted to shiny things, and a giant molten chunk of salt on top of a tower looks interesting, so they fly towards it like "Oh this looks interesting I wonder what that is- OH GOD IT'S HOT, SHIT FUCK IT'S HOT, OH FUCK I'M ON FIRE, HOLY SHIT IT BURNS GOD IT BURNS, LET ME DIE GOD, MAKE IT STOP! JUST LET ME FUCKING DIE IT HURTS SO BAD!"
So yeah, that's bad, the good news is that this type of solar energy collection isn't very common anymore and regular photovoltaic cells are cheaper/more efficient than ever.
That person is bonkers.
All solar panels north of the equator face south. Facing them any other cardinal direction is a guaranteed waste of energy, unless there is a mountain blocking half of the sky. They are apparently not aware of this.
Is it just me or is the picture being retarded? Either way here's a different one that hopefully works.
and how!
That’s actually a government orbital laser designed to fry a population.
Nuke and hydro are just fine, in fact we should be building nuke plants all over the place (in safe areas not fucking earthquake/ tsunami zones). Solar and wind are coming along, problem is storage, and that no one wants to live near a giant ugly noisy strobe effect causing wind turbine.
I am against the government subsidizing shit like Solendra and Tesla so rich assholes can get a government handout to buy luxury cars from a con man.
Still if they can solve storage, Solar, wind, and even tide could contribute a lot.
Dude, thats 38000 sq miles. Thats the size of Indiana. The materials impact to produce this amount of panels would be huge, not to mention having to replace them every 10-15 years or so.
Patents are not working products.
lel, it's called nuclear. Get with it
Renewable energy IS Agriculture. We've all seen it. Monsanto wants to own the patents for it and will do whatever they must to achieve this end and reduce the global population while they're at it. It's pure fucking evil. The worst lack of government restraint on a
run-amok corporation I have ever witnessed in my life was under
the Obama Presidency. Crimes against humanity was his starting point, and Hussein has worked ceaselessly to both hide his crimes
and point the blame elsewhere.
Look at those who own stock in Monsanto and you will see the money behind this legal travesty. You will find the Cabal in every case and the political pawns in their grand chessboard.
Peak oil is a myth propagated by muzzies who can't grow crops in sand. They could restore their ecosystem but it's cheaper and easier for them to take advantage, rape and pillage elsewhere.
The muzzies have international banking at their disposal, thus the internet experiences the temporary inconvenience of censorship. Follow the money. In every case it rules out every other civil option.
Rape and pillage first, divide the spoils later. The strategy of Islam.
This happened because of the dependence on cheap petroleum. No doubt about it, if we want to save the whales we needed petroleum. Problem is for the MSM, it wasn't just dinosaurs that produced crude oil in the first place. Whales don't make crude oil, and the Saudis don't pump much of it these days either. Muzzies are failing because they are stupid and back democracy thinking
falsely that polygamy laws long established in the USA don't apply
to them. Bad move.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not apologizing for oil companies. They don't always get it right. I am asserting that the connection between Islam, International banking, election fraud and government lobbying must be dealt with in a sane, rational and legal manner. If not, the whole shit house goes up in flames.
The cheapest and most renewable energy resource we have is petroleum. I don't like it but I can no longer deny this fact. Life creates oil. The same biological process which presumably turned dinosaurs into crude oil is still happening today. 150 years or so of
drilling for oil does not stop the overall process of millions of years
of global biological production. The logic for this is simple.
Grass, trees, flowers, chirping birds, chattering squirrels, ground hogs, badgers, mountain lions, humans, bears, elk and antelope all live and die. They eat and defecate. All of this biological life accumulates over time as crude oil. Sir Isaac Newton has still
not been debunked. Gravity always pulls all mass downward toward the center. All life must succumb to this force of nature.
Life itself is made up of Fatty Acids. Oils, Acids and water with some salt and alkali metals mixed in.
Not much life happens in the deserts of Saudi Arabia. Their environment cannot produce crude oil, therefore they promote the
false idea that crude oil will eventually run out, just like their failed religious ideology has. Elsewhere, different truths are being discovered.
Those who do not see the value of life wish to hold life in contempt of some failed ideology. In truth, all life is valuable and produces life and value. Only those who wish to conquer and subdue are consumers. The rest of us produce all the value we can while we are still alive. That is the nature of life itself. Only the weakest form
of life needs rape and murder to propagate itself. The rest of us
contribute the best we can and trade fairly for the rest of our needs. Ideologies only perpetuate control of others in a way which
dominates and produces violence and usury.
In this way life itself is confined to only two values: Consumption and Regulation. There are many more variables to this equation which are not discussed in wider circles. The reason for that censorship ought to be self evident by now. Who are the major
stockholders of the MSM? Saudis? How curious that censorship
is so common a talking point these days.
A nation without a set of laws, a culture, borders and means to defend itself is nothing more than a portable toilet, ruled over by slaves who want to be a dictator but can only adjudicate 9 cubic meters of shitty smelling space. Ruled by assholes and governed
by pieces of toilet paper, what say does the porta-pottie have?
The reckoning of the corrupt is far overdue.
Even Our Julian gave the thumbs up.
It is time.
We can do this without guns or bombs.
We have this one chance.
I hope our progeny does not curse us for wasting
this one chance we have been granted.
Let us not see this opportunity go to waste.
I for one will not flush my freedom down the shit hole
and attempt to excuse myself later.
Bullshit, pony up the proof or you are completely full of it.
Is this a false flag attempt?
But idiots don’t think that far ahead. Up here in PNW they screech about solar even though this area has the least sun exposure in the country. They buy land thinking they can run everything off solar only to discover the battery technology to store the energy is the bottle neck. The solar panels have a short half life on energy capture. At 5 years out they can only capture about 40% what they did originally. The real solution is to have less people but good luck telling these retards that.
You realize that its not dark in the west when it's dark in the east right? You could bridge the difference with 3 hours more power from the west. Hell, the eastern part of the US gets a a good chunk of it's power from up in Canada. You didn't know that, did you? So yes, you CAN transmit over longer distances than you are aware of, and I wasn't saying you ONLY use solar, but you could use it for most of your power if you wanted to and supplement with others. MOST of the energy that is required by anyone is needed in the daytime, not the night time. It's why they charge higher rates electricity in the day vs the night, because we work in the day, run businesses, factories, etc. Everyone goes home at night, turns on a tv and sleeps, which is a fraction of what is used in the day.
you think the windmills actually block the wind, don't you? But somehow a building doesn't? You're a moron. Or 8 years old. GTFO the internet kid. The wind just blows over the blades, the same way it does over a plane wing. The wind is also "redirected" and in a tiny way over what happens when you put a skyscraper in front of it. You moron.
tldr. is a moron, don't waste your time on him like I just did.
wants proof that anyone can run entirely on renewables, because he doesn't believe it.
duckduckgo searched "business running entirely on renewables" and here's some snippets from the summary links.
I said in my first post in this thread that there's a lot of misunderstanding about renewable energy and people don't realize how far they've come. It's sad, because so many still have this outdated view about renewable energy, thinking it's hopeless to pursue it, when in fact it's being used to wild success all over the place. Trump is not your friend when it comes to his bullshit stance on fossil fuels and rolling back environmental protections. there is literally NO reason take away money from a growing, clean, amazing source of energy while investing in dirty, cancer causing and money losing ancient tech. like coal. Unless you're trying to win votes in some backward state that is still subsidizing money-losing coal plants to hold on to a few hundred jobs instead of modernizing and thinking about their kids.
Especially the energy density. The energy density of gasoline is like 10 times that of the best battery we have today. And we are only at about 30% efficiency for our combustion engines. Need to run those engines leaner but the ((EPA)) has regulations
again, common misconception. It was like that a few years ago. These days, there is solar energy that is cheaper than coal. (and of course cleaner) FAR more expensive? Maybe in the 80s and 90s. These days, no.
The problem with nuclear isn't the safety, experts in the field will vouch for the safety of modern nuclear power plants. The problem is rather that the Plutonium/Uranium mined for such reactors might be stolen, enriched and strapped to an ICBM by some sand-niggers
Reminder that this post and the top comments also appear on Reddit. Indicating this is most likely a shill post.
considering the top comments basically belittle green energy and promote the "inherent" need for more traditional fuels I think it's safe to agree.
Fuck 8ch.
Jim Watkins kills future generations of kids with his ignorant propaganda
"Green New Deal" is the same as everything else global elite bankers and their congresspets put forward. It's a fancy name on top of free shit for them and consequences for everyone else.
So here's a rundown of various energy sources and their niches…
Good for doing the nastiness of production in one area and enjoying the fruits of energy in some place far away. Don't lease this shit from Elon Musk if you're looking to trim your bills; the panels themselves aren't terribly expensive. Makes little sense for the production of central power plants.
Good for sunny hot deserts. This takes advantage of heat so obviously putting it in England won't get the optimal benefit. You don't need this powering your town unless you're in Cuntland.
Giant steel monuments to virtue signalling. Powers a village, for as much resources and manpower as building a town. The hilarious thing is that old fashioned steel windmills were providing power to farms cheaply for generations before the giant spinny dicks became a meme. Popular with little suburban communities that pay $10+ for a serving of avocado toast.
Works if you don't fuck it up. Then again, the modern world fucks up just about everything it touches. Great output and the tech keeps getting better and better. If your state has laws against hiring the most qualified applicant for a job then you probably don't need this there.
(Locked until the world makes sense again - prerequisite for interstellar space travel.)
Works like a charm in places where the airshit naturally blows away. If you live in the dusty hills and the local power is coal then get the fuck out of there. People love it because it's cheap, which is just one more reason to not let yourself fall into the cheaper side of life. Loved by far right and far left alike, just in different ways.
Cheap and manageable; remarkably popular as a sweet spot between the shittiest options and the out of reach options. If you're reading this then there's a pretty good chance your power source is natural gas. If you're dreaming of having 'nicer' sources of energy then contemplate your area's chances of fucking them all the way up.
Low-tech option for places that are too fucked up by coke to be trusted with nuclear technology. Makes money sense if the government fucks markets to make it cheap, much like solar panels.You can burn it close to where you draw it, instead of making extra investment to ship the fuel off someplace else. If this is your local power source then you probably live in a hellhole.
Giant engineering orgy. So it's kind of like wind turbines, except that you actually get electricity. Takes money and IQ to develop. The natural nemesis of solar power because it relies on water which implies the skies aren't always clear.
"Smoke 'em if you got 'em."
Long story short: manufacturing fuel is more expensive than hammering a giant straw into the ground and letting fuel pour out through it. This applies to cars but it also applies to rockets. If you were to make a giant green space station full of cow shit and trees and corn then biofuel would make great sense because the cow shit is closer to you than planet Earth's methane reserves. If petroleum were likely to actually 'run out' any time soon then medieval-style farmers could produce highly expensive liquid fuels to power the vehicles of noblemen.
dont you think this bullshit cost even more?
Not if they used thorium reactors. The ONLY reason they use uranium is because countries CAN make nukes from them as a side-benefit. If they went with thorium it would be both safer and you can't make nukes out of it. Now try to tell america to make a reactor that won't let them make another hundred nukes that will destroy the planet 5 times over.
"Are you crazy? We need more nukes!"
-America
Biodiesel can be made from algae, which requires sunlight and water. Extract the oils, centrifuge it with methanol, and you have gasoline.
Cheap, renewable (methanol can be converted from H and CO2), doesn’t waste food, and it creates glycerin, so your community can make soap or something.
none of that actually matters about wind turbines.
theyre so incredibly inefficient that the amount of power they produce in their lifetime doesnt even justify the amount of power used to fabricate/deliver/erect one of those monstrosities.
add in the constant repairs and maintenance, and they literally a net loss of power.
theyre only made affordable because of the incredibly "generous" government subsidies and overall each windmill you see is generally a net loss to the power grid.
It's even worse then that, because it's filled with the usual exaggerations and leaving out of inconvenient facts that the Climate Crises promoters are prone to.
For instance, that area is based on the nameplate capacity of the panels (what their maximum rate is, under ideal conditions) it doesn't account for cloudy days, or panels getting dirty or scratched up. It usually doesn't even include that the panel isn't working at night.
Most solar farms start out at a quarter of nameplate production average, and decrease to half THAT after 5 years, from wear and age.
Now add to that the fact they based how much energy is needed for the US on current electricity needs. But those figures DON'T include the extra electricity we would need if we convert all transportation to electric. That's all the cars, busses, trucks, trains, subways, shipping, construction equipment, AIRCRAFT (or the replacement trains to Hawaii the GND seems to think are possible) it also doesn't include converting most Heating from the Natural Gas we mostly use now to electric.
So add all that in, and how many States covered in Solar Panels do you think we're up to? And remember they will all need replacement in 5 to 10 years.
Have you ever heard how they paint the Golden Gate Bridge? They start at one end, and when they get to the other they go back and start again. Helter Skelter. With this many solar panels even that won't work, you'd need multiple 'waves' of replacements slowly working across the country. Politicians love to brag about all the Green Jobs they are creating. When half the US will need to be in the Solar Industry to keep the power on, you'll understand why that was never a good thing.
Holy fuck, this is your brain on Zig Forums
Kek
so? I don't see the problem. There's a lot of maintenance in the current infrastructure based on fossil fuels that contributes to a lot of waste, and even worse pollution. You think less than 1 percent of US land is a lot? It's not, when you spread that 1 percent across different areas of the country. Half the country is both uninhabited and has no development of any kind so there's plenty of "free" space for renewables. In addition, you could still add solar or wind to already existing inhabited or developed areas like on top of buildings/skyscrapers, farms.
This is not a problem, although you seem to make it sound like it should be.
It really comes down to efficiency.
"Eco-friendly" and "renewable" are just memes.
It's only technically renewable in how the solar or wind etc. operates, which is only looking at the smaller picture.
Eco-friendlier energy is related to efficiency, as in not causing more damage with extra steps that are not even worth it.
Petro is highly efficient in the fact that it is a raw resource or i.e. a real energy source like coal. Maybe Thorium can be great if it's efficient enough.
Solar might be good for small appliances.
Green energy is even more economical than people realize. One of the factors that helps keep some poor communities crime-ridden, unhealthy, and unproductive is that they’re in the air and water shadow of productivity-slaughtering fossil fuel plants.
Advances in battery technology are making temporal accessibility a less significant issue as well.
Some processes mainly take electricity as an input. For instance, imagine how profitable it would be to remove carbon from the atmosphere and turn it into materials such as nanotubes and fuels. Does that sound profitable? Now imagine how profitable it would be if electricity were provides free. Right now, no government wants to subsidize dirty power, but if we turn the whole grid over to clean sources this constant butt coal heel dragging will be alleviated.
Every new tech has issues but we're not slow the mass extinction and global deforestation without a massive change so, we need some people in the Chambers of power who at least are trying to do so
If you want the entire 12 cents then you need to find someone who will pay you, personally, 12c per kW then invent a way to transport that power from your panel to their devices.
Not as simple as you require.
So if we discount the nation's necessity to function for more than a hundred hours then the problem seems solved!
They didn't then, and they still aren't today.
I guess you don't understand that they were proving you can do it. They ran the entire country on renewables for 107 hours straight.
They did, multiple years. They get 99% of their energy from renewables. Look, this has been already mentioned a million times in this thread alone, but you idiots still have this outdated idea of what renewable energy is. It works, it's cheaper and more efficient than it ever was and you can run whole countries on it. Period.
Germany is scrapping all 85 coal plants and going to renewables. Would Trump do that? No, because he cares more about how he looks to coal-state voters than about the country, environment or even his own grandchildren, that's what kind of narcissistic asshole he is. Time to get educated on the latest that renewables offer, because it's clear from the repeated replies, there are a LOT of people who think the tech is still as it was in the 90s.
Yes and no… I have a remote property. We are talking 100k to get grid power to it. Instead I set up a solar system for a bit under 10k. Now this system will do everything I ever need with the exception of heat water on a cloudy day. Sometimes I get overzealous and draw it down and have to run a backup genny for an hour. If I want to heat water in winter with no sun it's genny or nothing. This takes about 20 gal of gas a year.
In 10 years I will need to dump another 5k in batteries. I also can't run a well pump and have to have rainwater collection. Other than the above solar alone is kinda sufficient for a small up front cost… But to really transition a TOWN to that? Never happen without going back to the dark ages. Hot water will be a LUXUARY. In winter. It will be worth the gasoli e it takes to generate the power to make it. Got a family of 6? Thi k $20 a day just for hot water or expect to stink… BAD. also kiss that electric range good bye. Get ready to chop some firewood to stay warm. Oh you don't have a private forest? I hope you live in a southern latitude because you will freeze to death.
Solar is good in some situations. Win dis good in some situations. Hydro is good in some situations. It's all about batteries. If batteries were $40 instead of 400 each it would be a different story entirely.
I think you would need a shipping container sized capacitor bank to power a small home over night. It's all about storage.