Thoughts?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Thoughts?
>>51653071
why is offshore wind low tier?
>>51653071
What about the bird issue with wind?
Does putting lights on the turbines deter the birds or is this still an issue?
>>51653100
shitposting to get the thread going
thorium is reseved for a bright future in the stars tier
All of those except Nuclear are meme tier.
>>51653138
>for a bright future
And exactly this is the reason why it will never get (allowed) to become reality.
>renewable
>nulear
Are you guys retarded?
>>51653474
>geothermal
>renewable
Also debatable.
>>51653071
>onshore
>god tier
That's a funny joke.
>>51653665
Offshore is more optimal than onshore imo, nobody gets disturbed when they are in the water and the fish like them
>>51653071
>Nuclear
>Renewable
sure
>>51653182
>molten salt reactors
>meltdown risks
Literally ihavenoideawhatimtalkingabout the post.
Daily reminder that the only reason why uranium based reactors were originally developed is because the military used nuclear wastes to create nukes, even though Thorium based reactors were always seen as infinitely better.
Hydroelectric destroys local ecology. It's generally pretty terrible unless planned out an implemented correctly (which usually costs a fuck ton more cause of various nature studies that must be undergone).
If you dont give a fuck about the wildlife in the area though, it's a great source of energy for fairly low cost.
>>51653071
For fuck sake. This is terrible.
Where is fusion at.
>inb4 fusion is a meme
>inb4 fusion is not godtier
FUDGE YOU FAGGETS
Move wind down one. Move solar up to the top. You can't put a 10kw wind mill on your house, I can put 10kw solar panels on my house. Also its cheaper and doesn't make noise or break.
>>51655150
cont.
>>51655077
right fusion meme teer
Wave power is meme teer
>>51654998
I think the problems is that all the good places are taken. and putting hydro anywhere else is not cost effective/good.
>hydroelectric in top tier
>biomass in mid tier
confirmed for trash
Hydroelectric is NOT considered renewable
>>51653071
Isn't solar thermal better than photovoltaic? I mean photovoltaics generate DC, so I you need some circuitry to turn it into ac, which isn't something easily doable on a large scale, and supplying houses individually is retarded.
>>51653474
Yeah I think it should be green or something, although nothing is truly renewable because muh second law of thermodynamics.
Nuclear is not renewable, it requires uranium or plutonium to heat the boilers.
>>51655183
>Hydroelectric not considered renewable
I don't understand this line of thinking. If hydro is not renewable simply because of its impact on the environment, then would nuclear suddenly be nonrenewable if they had a few big accidents?
>>51655150
>doesn't break
As someone with solar panels on their house, you're full of shit
>>51653497
Well with that logic wind, tidal, solar, and hydroelectric are also not really renewable.
>>51653071
How the fuck is geothermal not at the top?
>>51655150
>I can put 10kw solar panels on my hous
And still be depending on other power sources during the night, unless we're making a tier list for power storage as well.
>>51653071
Pardon my ignorance, but what's the difference between offshore and onshore wind?
>>51655396
One is in the middle of the ocean the other isn't
>>51653823
>the fish love them
How do you know? Did you ask the fish?
>>51653071
tidal isn't shit tier- why did you put it at shit tier?
>>51655366
It's the cheapest but you can't just make one anywhere you want.
>>51655409
Oh, gee. That certainly helps. I never in a million years could have thought that was the difference.
>>51655457
Ask stupid questions get stupid answers. Come on friend, the answer is literally in the name.
>>51655439
True that, but I didn't know this list was evaluating worldwide. Otherwise I'd put it at the top.
>>51653071
> nuclear
> god tier
top kek, you know it's "renewable" but it fucks life around it right? you need to cool down it with river/sea water, so you give back hot water to the environment, killing everything near it.
God tier is solar, and solar only. That's because EVERY energy on earth comes from the sun, directly or indirectly.
> Winds only exists because of the heat of the sun
> Hydroelectric is only possible with liquid water, water is liquid on earth because of the sun
> Geothermal is only possible because of the sun as well
> Biomass is the memest of all, and obviously also comes indirectly from the sun
>>51655523
Not the same guy, but he probably meant the reason the distinction was made in the first place.
>>51655561
>geothermal is only possible because of the sun
Yes anon because the molten heating going on inside the earth's core comes from the sun.
>>51655647
If it weren't for the sun's gravity, space-shit would have never crashed together and formed the ancient molten earth
confirmed solar > gaymothermal
>>51655561
>This logic
>>51655561
Look, I'm all for solar, but what kind of logic is this? Why wouldn't we harvest the energy what is easily harvestable even though it came from the sun? Should we just sit without energy for decade or two while more effective and cheap solar panels are being developed?
>>51655321
Large hydropower projects do not count as renewable under RPS standards.
Destroying thousands of acres of natural habitats and permanently altering landscapes and ecosystems in order to generate "greener" power makes absolutely no sense.
Nuclear was never renewable to begin with as the fuel has a finite lifespan. That's not to say I don't support it.
I'm a big fan of biofuels/biogas myself though. It can be generated from multiple sources and varying feedstocks. Innovations in producing biofuels from celluosic feedstock is very promising as it would allow us to take undesirable plant matter (bark, roots, trees, etc) and convert them to fuels rather than using more important crops like corn and sugarcane.
>>51653120
There is no bird issue. One prototype model killed a bunch of birds because the idiot designers used a lattice framework for the tower instead of a pole. The turbine doubled as a roost.
>>51655785
this. Hydropower really fucks with the environment.
I think biofuel/gas is just another way to us over greenhouse gas wise.
Nuclear is the best stop gap we have to more viable long term solutions. [stop gap in this case meaning 200+ years]
>>51653071
I think Tidal actually has major potential. Onshore is shit and always has been.
Thermal solar is actually miles more efficient than photovoltaic, so idk what the fuck you're on about.
>>51653474
Once we get fusion rolling its fuels are tritium and deuterium. We can get both from water. Not quite renewable but effectively an endless supply.
>>51654998
If you only look at China's blunt-force methods, sure. Try looking at what Canadians did with Niagara Falls. Zilch flooding.
>>51655785
I worked with bio fuels at my last position. Without corn subsidies in the USA it was completely non profitable. Although the company was very interested in pursing bio fuels in developing countries like India.
>>51653071
>onshore wind
>God tier
Try mid tier
>>51653071
>Nuclear
>renewable
>>51653071
>Onshore wind
anon I have some bad news for you
>>51653071
>SOLAR ROADS not in meme tier
shit pic
>>51655875
I'm currently doing graduate research on using soft capacitors as generators for tidal power. It's really fascinating stuff.
Essentially, you have floating partitions with these soft capacitors in between. When a wave passes, the entire thing undulates, changing the size and shape of the capacitor. From basic physics we know Charge=Capacitance x Voltage. The charge is held constant, and the capacitance changes, resulting in a voltage.
With our current efficiency of only 15%, it would only take ten miles of coast to exceed the entire nuclear power capacity of the US.
Tidal is the future (I hope).
Offshore should be banned, it ruins the view
>>51655941
If we figure out an efficient way to turn stover (the non corn part of corn) into ethanol, biofuel will become significantly more viable.
>>51655934
did you miss the whole
>generally pretty terrible UNLESS planned out an implemented correctly
I am aware it can be done correctly, it just costs more and takes more planning time.
>>51655875
>I think biofuel/gas is just another way to us over greenhouse gas wise.
The thing about bio is that there is n net increase in the amount of co2 in the atmosphere over time because plants take co2 from the atmosphere -> they grow -> we burn them, releasing the co2 into the atmospher -> new plants grow -> ...
While if you get shit that was underground, and release it into the atmosphere, you increase the net amount of co2 in the atmosphere.
Ofc biomass still generates air pollution, because you have to burn shit, and you're always gonna get some nasty gases and shit, so putting a plant near population isn't a good idea.
>>51655561
>Implying heat isn't rejected for all power from fuels
>Implying it isn't regulated.
Hate to break it to you, but they don't allow you to destroy lakes for heat rejection
>>51655894
>that pic
Haven't laughed like this in months.
>>51655994
Yeah but tidal isn't exactly on demand right? You'll have a range of output so it can't be run at a constant baseload. And how expensive is ten miles of capacitors?
>>51653120
>muh birds
No one cares.
>>51655429
yes
>>51656219
i hope you're doing okay, anon. that's a long time.
Why do people think wind is bad? It's one of the cheapest sources and getting better everyday.
>>51655967
Yeah, plutonium halflife is like 20 000 years. Its literally free energy.
However the best solution I believe is solar. The problem mainly is ineficient panels and cost. I think cost is simply political problem. How much western countries spend on shit like wars, foreign aid etc, just use that money to jointly build millions of them somewhere in africa, like the whole fucking sahara or something. With panels at least 30% efficiency. For energy storage convert it to hydrogen or something.
>>51656452
Those figures are calculated using a plant's "rated output" as the metric for determining cost/MWh. Wind turbines only produce their maximum rated output a fraction of the time since it takes so much wind speed (that must remain fairly steady in the direction it blows from) to keep them spinning at their nominal RPM.
I've got a friend who's an EE for a large power company here in TX, every month they have production meetings and the only plants in their company that consistently perform at or above expected output are nuclear. Combined Natural Gas plants come in 2nd in reliability and uptime, then comes the newer coal plants (20 yrs or less), older coal plants (older than 20 yrs), and then at the very bottom are their wind farms that only produce between 15%-30% of their rated output every month. You just cannot depend on consistent, reliable production from wind turbines.
>>51656011
>>51655941
Which is why I was saying that cellulosic biofuels like corn stovers and lignified plant matter is going to be the future biofuel feedstock. Nobody wants to compete with corn subsidies and either way corn and other food crops are not a sustainable biofuel source.
The issue is that it takes a lot more energy to turn cellulosic starches into fuel. The current method of using acids or enzymes is cost prohibitive compared to corn or sugarcane. When better ways to break down cellulose for cheap become viable, biofuels can move to potentially larger scales.
>NOT having solar arrays in space
>not having them beam down the power
>muh random houses getting torched
>>51653071
What we need is got tier batteries, it takes at least a hour to charge a modern phone... It's time to find a new way.
We also need to stop thinking of "renewables" the same way we think of fossil fuel plants. Why not decentralize the power generation of wind and solar, just have a plant in every town and allow the town to become self sufficient, until we have a way to store the electricity that isn't used I don't see another way of doing this.
>>51658723
damn you are stupid
>>51654389
>depleted reactor grade nuclear material is used to create fresh weapons grade nuclear material
More information is needed to substantiate your claim
>>51653100
It's really fucking expensive
>>51658906
Maybe he is thinking of depleted uranium?
>>51653071
L F T R
F
T
R
/thread
>>51655941
Poo in powerplant?
>>51653071
>renewable
>nuclear
...
ok
Wind turbines like that are shit no matter what though, most of them never make back their cost due to constant expensive upkeep.
Lateral turbines are cost effective but you never see them because ironically, there's no money in turbines that don't need constant upkeep.
Seriously, wind turbines are absolute shit-tier
>>51653071
Tides have a fuckton of energy, but it would no doubt cause some fuckiness to the moon's orbit of we could actually harness it efficiently
Isn't this a sci thread anyway?
>>51653071
Onshore Wind, Bio-mass/gas, Solar-Thermal, and maybe Geothermal ONLY.
All the others destroy the planet during their life cycles - be it flooding ecosystems, irradiating the planet, mining rare earth metals, fossil fuels for production/transport, plastic, constant maintenance due to degradation etc.
Only wind, solar-thermal, bio and geo are actually clean and green.
(and perhaps bio-photovoltaics if they get good)
>>51659621
>Wind
>Clean and green
No wind turbine you can show me generates more power across its lifetime than it took to create it and its constant stream of replacement parts.
Seriously, look it up, only privately owned turbines are cost effective, the ones that the government and energy agencies fill the countryside with NEVER make up their own cost.
How fucking green is that you massive fucklog.
>>51653474
we have enough nuclear material for use in nuclear energy reactors to last us millions of years
so while technically not renewable, can still last us a very long time
>>51659652
>only massive wind turbines count as wind
>uses a donkey to run his mill.
Small scale wind is what I meant. Like a windmill.
>>51659621
>irradiating the planet
for nuclear this really is NOT a huge issue, nuclear is by far the cheapest safest and easiest way to solve the majority of our energy problems for the next several hundred years easily.
And in that time, we may even find some other way to deal with the spent fuel rods. But as it is, we can simply store them away so they slowly lose their radioactivity. Sure it's not the best solution, but it's not like we are confined with space there, all the radioactive material we dig up comes from somewhere, we have places to store it.
Only real thing keeping us back are clean energy activists who see all nuclear power plants as the next Fukushima daiichi. With modern reactor designs they are very safe and honestly a lot more reliable and profitable than other options you listed.
>>51659702
It's obvious within the context of this thread that the discussion is about generating electricity, not grinding wheat into flour.
>>51653071
>solar meme tier
>not god tier
literally what.
harnessing the sun, the greatest source of energy we've ever encountered, is a meme?
FUSION WHEN
>>51659732
it's currently meme tier because it's still not cost effective enough to be economically viable yet
>>51659732
If nuclear doesn't count as renewable because it will eventually run out then you can't count the sun as renewable either.
>>51659678
What do you do when you've drained the rod of all its energy?
>>51659769
Use it as a hat rack.
>>51653071
Very, very wrong.
>Onshore wind being anything but destruction tier, kills wildlife, spreads pesticides, loud, very low energy density - even compared to photovoltaic.
>Solar thermal being in meme tier when it's actually one of the most useful solar sources for a decent amount of the planet.
>Nuclear being in renewable at all, since it's not renewable we just have shitloads of fuel - but just like fossil fuels, once it's gone we can't just make more.
Aren't liquid thorium reactors actually really fucking dangerous and require uranium/plutonium anyway to start the reaction anyway?
>>51653823
Go away aquamarine, fucking faggot.
>>51659762
but isn't uranium supposed to run out within the next century?
sun will last billions. humans will be dead before. it serves our needs. we shall ascend
>>51659725
sure thing.
let me connect it back to my first post though:
>Most technology is not renewable!
That is to say, the conditions required to produce and use most technologies are limited, and therefore not renewable.
eg. The supply lines required to have the internet are so long that if one part of them is disrupted the whole internet will become useless.
eg.eg. harddrives - made from rare earth metals mined using diesel diggers, processed at high temperatures using coal furnaces, transported using oil trucks, plastic from oil - need replacing if you want to store those kickass websites; google burns through trucks full each day!
As a general guiding principle:
>If it can't be made from iron, plants and/or dirt/sand, it isn't renewable.
>>51658906
I think he was trying to say that it was easier to share a refining process for uranium between reactors and nuclear weapons
>>51659769
Throw it back in a centrifuge, spin it down, re-use 95% of the "waste" now that it's been re-refined into fissionable material again. Give the remaining 5% of actual waste to the military so they can shoot it at sand people.
>>51655251
>which isn't something easily doable on a large scale
Nah, it's easily doable on a large scale. See HVDC transmission lines.
Though most systems have many small inverters, because they are easily combined with MPPT and MPPT works better when all of the connected sells are illuminated similarly - aka when they are close together.
>>51659855
iron/copper :)
and maybe animal products, but that's disgusting, and cows causes more damage to to planet than cars - via deforestation for space and from farts etc.
Veganism is the only sustainable path, both environmentally and socially - good luck not having your civilization collapse without them pro-life values.
>>51655439
you technically could if you have a big enough drill
if we didn't give a shit about the environment, yellowstone would yeild nice amounts of geothermal energy
>>51659848
>Uranium
>Run out in the next century
Rightttt.. Just like the oil was drying up in the 80s.
>>51655570
>>51655396
Offshore wind turbines are usually larger - onshore ones usually max out at 2MW, whereas offshore go up to 8MW.
>>51653071
>live in a nuclear-free country
>electricity bills are fucking expensive because retarded hippies don't understand nuclear energy
>>51655561
>you know it's "renewable" but it fucks life around it right? you need to cool down it with river/sea water, so you give back hot water to the environment, killing everything near it.
u wot
>>51656488
>build a shitton of solar panels
>then hydrolize asstons of water
you must be insane
tfw 95% energy of your country comes from burning coal
pic semi related
>>51659929
Oil really is starting to run out, the middle-east is the last virgin on-land location for pumping oil.
Why do you think the west is so interested in Oil Shale and Fracking, because we already used all the easy-to-access to oil.
However, we're definately not running out of Uranium any time soon, the poster might have been confused by an actual fact though - with the currently open mines in Australia and Canada, we only have about 100 years of Uranium we can exploit.
However, there is a 'motherfucking shitload' of Uranium in Australia and Canada - neither of us are mining it though since there isn't a commercial market for it yet - but we have 10,000's of years worth even if we doubleearth's energy consumption every year and never increase efficiency at all...
>>51659567
>cause some fuckiness to the moon's orbit
do you realize how fucking big the moon is and how much fucking energy you would need to extract from its orbit to move it?
>>51659923
I'd really like for synthetic meat to become a thing
I'm no vegan, but I do think the way we farm meat is absolutely disgsuting
>>51660000
quads of truth
all continued arguments against nuclear are irrelivant
>>51653120
BANTI
A
N
T
I
>>51653071
>Nuclear
>good
stopped reading right there
>>51660093
>being this ignorant
>>51659929
>>51660000
yeah i just used the number from wikipedia's uranium supplies section and im just in this thread to shitpost
