>it has become clear that photovoltaic energy at least will not help in any way to replace the fossil fuel
>photovoltaic technology would not be a wise choice for helping to deliver affordable, environmentally favourable and reliable electricity regions of low, or even moderate insolation
http://notrickszone.com/2016/04/30/devastating-conclusion-new-study-deems-solar-pv-systems-in-europe-a-non-sustainable-energy-sink/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301379
>>41836
>photovoltaic
U MEAN SOLAR?
>>41836
I have no clue why Germany dumps so much money in solar. It's not the place I associate with clear skies and direct sunlight. They would need country-sized solar farms in North Africa as an endgame to justify the kind of money they seem to be spending.
Why isn't France doing more with nuclear?
I did read that Portugal is receiving LNG from Texas now.
>>41841
Naa, solar normally refers to solar thermal which uses the sun to heat water which is then fed into the houses hot water system. Photo voltaic on the other hand is in reference to how the electricity is produced, by photo voltaic crystals.
I think, I haven't worked in the industry in a few years so I could be out of date.
>>41842
Season production for houses in future this will got a lot of sense especily when there will be clouds control system
>>41836
The main problem is that right now we are using hard to produce, shit efficiency (<30%), shot lifespan photovoltaic cells.
They should invest more money on research in order to improve the efficiencies of the current technologies and also on alternative solutions like concentration solar or organic solar cell.
http://energyinformative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/efficiency_chart.jpg
>>41836
sounds like Heartland Institute BS
>>41836
>New study
https://youtu.be/01V8MJbrQmc
>>41849
>Clouds control system
I think we should invest in that 'Jack' fellow, he says he has magic beans that makes a giant beanstalk we can just put the solar panels on.
At least I would trust him more than someone telling me that they're going to have a clouds control system which can keep only the parts of Germany with solar panels sunny enough to sustain themselves.
>>41836
Why are there so many nuke shills on 4chan lately? Nuclear power is terrible from any perspective.
>>ayyyyy
>>41900
It's pretty expensive but besides that Nuclear's perfect. New reactors are pretty much meltdown-proof and the waste can be dumped in the middle of Australia or something.
What's wrong with nuclear?
>>41900
Besides waste (which is very easy to store and isn't green goo from the Simpsons) and safety concerns (ie following operating procedure and not building in areas prone to fucking earthquakes/tsunamis), how else is it terrible?
>>41903
>New reactors are pretty much meltdown-proof
Thanks Westinghouse Electric Company representative. I'm glad we can put the dangers of nuclear power behind us, now that these reactors are "meltdown-proof".
>>41903
all the old reactors are pretty shoddy, and the general public thinks the technology hasn't advanced in 40 years.
>>41904
I heard that 90% of what we call nuclear waste. is just all the rad suits, gloves and any safety equipment that might have been exposed. all that shit has to be stored for eternity, because
>>41903
People are morons and have been taken in by years of hippy propaganda so they hear nuclear and they think of fission bombs.
People are morons.
>>41910
I see the CIDF is here.
Coal sucks fuck off shill
>>41934
Two of those were nothing and the other down to Soviet crapnology.
I simply can't take someone seriously if they are anti-nuclear, the greenest energy production method we have and the only one that can kick the oil addiction as well as covering our future energy needs until fusion becomes viable.
>>41836
Anyone who thought solar would be viable outside of the Mediterranean was a shill looking for government grants or a dumb shit.
>>41900
This is bait.
>>41934
The first was die to the facility being hit with an earthquake and tsunami at once, it performed exceptionally well to hold up under those circumstances as well as it did.
Russian incompetence and half-assing.
American incompetence and half-assing but ultimately a scare and nothing more.
>>41842
France is dump their money into a solar roadways scam. Why? I don't know, I'm guessing they get more sun than clouds by a large margin or they are stupid.
>>41848
Ah. Thanks for the explanation m8y
>>41941
I'll add to that that those memories are highly selective, because nobody gives a shit when a thousand Chinese miners die.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/whats-the-deadliest-power-source
>>41973
You're right, nobody does care. They have over a billion, life is cheap there as everyone who watches the videos knows.
yeet
>>42039
How about we look at the actual numbers faggot?
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/whats-the-deadliest-power-source
>>41900
Because there are different types of nuclear. Heard of thorium?
>>41894
I'm a big time investor in new energy and wealth generation systems. I've been on the ground floor or gene splicing The Golden Goose into a viable reproducible egg laying system, in the affordable housing sector I've invested billions in shoes that accommodate whole families. I can tell you without a doubt that Jacks beans are a fabrication. Oh on a side note I've started a space elevator company called Klatsnaeb Industries it's a goer!
>>41849
>cloud control systems
are you fucking dumb?
"lets get rid of all this focking clouds, which block my sunbath, by shooting chemicals in the atmosphere. we haven't fucked mother earth enough"
>>42039
>Fire is bad for cooking because forest fires
This is your retarded logic.
>>41900
Baitu desu.
Why are there actual solar shills on 4chan?
>>41903
Nuclear power produces nuclear waste, which is impossible to dispose of. This shit needs to be stored somewhere essentially forever, and no one except some paid off politicians or some cuck mayor in Sweden want to be left holding the bag.
Only China is looking into building Nuclear plants because of their commie funny money and because they're building a giant facility inside of a mountain in a desert in the middle of nowhere to store the toxic waste in.
>>42208
You're right, except here's the thing: it produces a *tangible* waste product ie literally radioactive spent metals and used protective gear, whereas coal and what not produces all those nasty CO2 and shit gases that we can't see so no one really cares, which is why Australia is breaking heat records every fucking year now.
At least with nuclear, people are forced to deal with the problems are sude effects because a pile of (mildly btw, Alpha-level shit iirc) radioactive shit is something you can't ignore, but with coal because the gases and pollutants quickly disappear into the atmosphere, it becomes a huge "silent but deadly" issue that people are *still* arguing about today.
>>42208
And?
In debates between renewables and nuke, I noticed two very different stories. When I looked into it, it seems you have people just wanting to make money and then you have the scientific community. Check out Generation IV reactors.
>>42208
If you use one of the modern designs, the waste material can be reprocessed ad nauseum until the point where the residue is negligible. At that point, you're way below the "square feet made uninhabitable for countless generations" of any other source except wind or solar.
Hell, look at the mess that has been fracking. I'd much rather live near Yucca mountain than near Flint.
>>42217
How much energy and resources from fossil fuels will be required to actually build a nuclear reactor?
>>42230
I dunno. How much energy and resources from fossil fuels will be required to actually build a coal plant?
>>42230
That's like saying "well, since i need to burn energy going to the supermarket to get food, I'd be better off just sitting here and slowly starving"
You guys do know that we figured out a way to build reactors that run off of nuclear waste, and drastically reduce its radioactive half-life, right? Their called fast neutron reactors, and they can simultaneously clean up all the nuclear waste on Earth, and take care of our power needs for the next century. It was thought that they would replace conventional reactors by the mid '70s, but a sudden decrease in nuclear fuel prices led to a drop in interest for plants that recycle waste, and then Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island resulted in the defunding of basically all nuclear power programs, so these things were never really built in the numbers they should have been. Pretty cool tbh.
>>41903
>It's pretty expensive but besides that Nuclear's perfect
Antimatter is pretty expensive but besides that it's perfect
>What's wrong with nuclear?
At current consumption levels, we will run out of usable Uranium in less than 100 years. It's replacing fossil fuels for another much older and harder to replace fossil. Also
>It's pretty expensive
>>41904
>how else is it terrible?
It's privatized and not nationalized. When Fukushima hit, the owners literally went "fuck this shit" and wanted to abandon it to its fate.
Not to mention the long history media censorship and disinformation about nuclear power covering up fuck ups and downplaying the dangers of it.
>>41931
>If you don't agree with me then you're stupid. BAKA BAWKA!
Nice argument.
>>41842
it isnt just solar
when i was in Germany they had wind turbines as far as the eye could see as soon as you left a big city, Siemens is pumping them out constantly
>>41851
30% efficiency is pretty damn good, isn't it?
>>42245
>At current consumption levels, we will run out of usable Uranium in less than 100 years.
And when is fossil fuels meant to run out? It's buying time for better nuclear shit to be developed (>>42238 and Thorium) while being clean.
>It's pretty expensive
Because modern nuclear technology doesn't exist because of all the fear mongering and shit going on by hippies and other biased interests
>Not to mention the long history media censorship and disinformation about nuclear power covering up fuck ups and downplaying the dangers of it.
Can't speak for a country with a running nuclear power station, but all the media I've ever seen from the US, UK and Aussieland (where I'm at) has been overwhelming negative of nuclear AND misinforming people about it.
Current renewables aren't quite at the level of 100% replacing fossil fuel sources, but developing nuclear at least gives another option OR the time to develop them into something fair more efficient and better to produce ecologically (two big issues no one mentions about them) and for battery storage tech to advance a bit more.
>>42259
The main issue with that number (not anon you're replying to btw) is that the sun available 100% of the time AND the area/size of panel required for it to be a decent power source, as well as the fact that placing of panels is 100% key, and most non-industry panels are fixed when in reality you want them to be move with the angle of the sun for the best result.
Tl;dr that 30% has about 2 or 3 other coefficients that we can't improve hence efficiency is the most important and improvable factor.
>>41842
Germanys future main energy ressource will be wind turbines anyway
>>42263
Which is retarded because they are an absolutely terrible way to power a nation.
>>42208
>This shit needs to be stored somewhere essentially forever
Why don't we just shoot it into space?
>>42297
Tidal harnesses and Geothermal work, and Hydroelectric works, right?
Tidal Harnesses get their energy by deorbiting the moon. I find that amusing.
>>42475
We don't want nuclear waste in orbit, and even sending it no further than low orbit is fucking expensive (something like 10000$ per kg. 1000kg in a ton, and a few thousand tons of waste to deal with.)
>>42509
They work but are highly dependent on geography. I wish every city could have their own Hoover dam, but it just isn't possible.
>>42475
https://launiusr.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/challenger-disaster-myths-explosion_31734_600x450.jpg?w=640
>>42208
The U.S. has had a giant facility inside a mountain in a desert in the middle of nowhere for years now, but we don't use it because we don't need it (and because misguided environmentalists have been trying to defund it). Nuclear plants usually just store their waste on site. It doesn't hurt anybody and we're never going to run out of places to put it, so what exactly is the problem? Nuclear energy may not be renewable or zero-emission, but it is 100% sustainable. We could use it exclusively from now until the Earth is no longer habitable due to the Sun's aging process, and we would never run out of raw materials or safe waste storage.
>>42579
>It doesn't hurt anybody
oh, well in that case we can just store it all under your bed (｀ー´)ヘヘーン
>>41842
It's just a prank bro
>>41841
There's also CPS which is different because computers rotate the panels around all day
>>42245
If you are going to argue that the sky is green and the oceans red then yes, you are stupid.
>>42579
You're a fucking idiot or a shill.
It's a well-documented fact that all of the US nuclear stations leak radioactivity, and are, BY LAW, allowed a certain amount of radioactive hydrogen leak into the local water supply.
The cancer trail around these nuclear sites is an easy to follow map.
unless you're an idiot or a shill
>>41836
They already did a test with a whole town in Italy and it worked.
Of course, then in typical fashion, it was deemed not feasible.
Fucking evil politicians.
>>41836
>http://notrickszone.com/2016/04/30/devastating-conclusion-new-study-deems-solar-pv-systems-in-europe-a-non-sustainable-energy-sink/
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301379
I'm kinda skeptical of that paper. It strongly contradicts several other, well-established papers, and I can find no real discussion of the paper or information about the authors online. The only mentions I can find of it are a handful of strongly opinionated blog posts. Also, the net result they come up with is smaller than several of the estimates they make while calculating it.
I'm not saying it's definitely wrong, but I wouldn't abandon ship just yet.
>>42579
> Nuclear plants usually just store their waste on site. It doesn't hurt anybody
Actually, long-term on-site storage is probably one of the sketchier things the nuclear industry does, and it has been a factor in several incidents.
>>44243
>It's a well-documented fact that all of the US nuclear stations leak radioactivity, and are, BY LAW, allowed a certain amount of radioactive hydrogen leak into the local water supply.
The dose makes the poison.
>The cancer trail around these nuclear sites is an easy to follow map.
You're going to actually have to demonstrate that.
>>41849
>Season production for houses in future this will got a lot of sense especily when there will be clouds control system
Let's assume the following counter factuals for sake of amusement:
- global warming is CO2 based
- CO2 increases are primarily anthropogenic
- anthropogenic CO2 is primarily from electric power production
- installation of PV solar offsets in demand reduce production at those plants
- you're not batshit crazy
How exactly would decreasing solar albedo provided by clouds help stop global warming?
>>44243
Coal plants leak more radiation. The amount you get living near an NPP is background level
>>41842
>Why isn't France doing more with nuclear?
Because nuclear is bad mate. Remember Chenrobil? Fukushima? NAGASAKI?
BTW aren't Germans actually closing some of their nuke generators? I think I heard something like that at some point.
But seriously, nuclear energy (especially _modern_ systems like, say, those based on liquid fluoride thorium or whatever TED bullshit you want to eat up) is the only viable option. Clean, safe and cost effective. But libshits and green shmucks think they'd be better off in twig huts with solar panels or silly fans feeding their smartphones.
Germany has to close all nuclear power plants by 2020, so off course they will be spending mad money on the alternatives.
Nuclear is not really that bad. Coal is way worse. Coal mines are very bad for the envirement, not to mention burning the coal is not that great.
Thorium is the future humanity should look forward to.
>>44320
>global warming is CO2 based
it's the other way round
temperature changes occur first and lead to CO2 emission from natural sources (e.g., more ocean outgassing upon warming, more CO2 retention as the ocean cools), indicating that warmer temperatures are driving up CO2 concentrations significantly more than human activity or fossil fuels
>>44549
>warmer temperatures are driving up CO2 concentrations significantly more than human activity or fossil fuels
That's wrong, and I'm aware of no reputable climatologist defending that position.
Also, that strongly contradicts the observed change in isotope balance in atmospheric carbon.
>>44555
it seems that you totally ignore the subject, so have a textbook:
http://www.atmosfera.unam.mx/jzavala/OceanoAtmosfera/Physics%20of%20the%20Atmosphere%20and%20Climate%20-%20Murry%20Salby.pdf
>>44514
>Nuclear is not really that bad.
Please dont believe the brainwashed shills. The fissure material has to be mined as well, which is even worse than coal mining.
>>44549
>greenhouse gases don't cause the greenhouse effect
Jesus Christ
Go back to school
>>44557
Do you have any specific reasons why I'm wrong, or are you just going to call me ignorant and point at a 700 page book?
>>44558
According to some sources it is marginally more harmful than coal mining. Others say it's marginally less. What both agree on is that the smaller scale (in comparison to coal) present/needed is a good thing.
>>44561
pages 20-27
then chapters 8.7 and 17.3
It takes less than an hour.
You may also need to understand what happens when you press Ctrl+F on your keyboard.
>>41836
Well yeah if you let grass grow all over it and place it in a cloudy region, then yeah it's not going to put out. Even the best green energy sources in the best conditions pale in comparison to modern nuclear energy, but nuclear requires vigilance and can produce unnecessary waste.
Just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire situation.
>>41903
Nothing is meltdown proof, are you nuts? People were saying Fukushima was meltdown proof until a catastrophic event proved otherwise.
>>44549
>it's the other way round
Yes. Each of the statements is incomplete, backwards, or wrong. That's what is meant by "counterfactual."
>>44729
The Integral Fast Reactor is meltdown proof. They TRIED to melt it down in front of a room filled with reporters and it turned itself off. Congress pulled the plug because of hippy dipshits undermining their only chance at coal/oil independence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor#Safety
Understand that behind every anti-nuclear movement is a pro-oil checkbook. You've been played.
Daiichi Reactor B had a magnitude 8 earthquake hit it, a tsunami hit it, and it only melted down because the back up generators were in the basement.
>>44733
I haven't been played because of course oil companies would oppose that, you moron lol. You aren't some kind of genius for figuring that out, but it does make you sound like a conspiracy nutter.
Again, meltdown proof doesn't exist because you can't test for 'act of god' conditions. Something can always go wrong. If it happens to be a coal or oil plant, boom there goes the surrounding neighborhood. But if that same thing happens to a nuclear plant, then boom you have a hole in the earth and rad contamination to worry about.
>>44383
If you really look at the cost benefit of various types of energy available now with regard to loss of human life and livelihood in production + plausable externalities vs. potential output it's clear that nuclear is not bad.
Energy is a bloody business. You can throw innuendo around and make it seem as if nuclear is a meme, conflate nuclear power with bombs, and ignore the fact that is the most lucrative and fastest expanding (regardless of what Europe does).
It's as if you think silicon mines it's self?
>>44765
>hole in the earth
>nuclear meltdown = nuclear explosion
wew lad
>>42245
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301379
>Antimatter is pretty expensive but besides that it's perfect
Ok, that's just a stupid fucking thing to say. Please try to keep your sophomoric argument somewhat valid.
>At current consumption levels, we will run out of usable Uranium in less than 100 years. It's replacing fossil fuels for another much older and harder to replace fossil.
Bruh, we had this shit in the 60s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
>It's privatized and not nationalized. When Fukushima hit, the owners literally went "fuck this shit" and wanted to abandon it to its fate.
Not to mention the long history media censorship and disinformation about nuclear power covering up fuck ups and downplaying the dangers of it.
Yeah, because national governments have such a long history of not fucking things up and then covering up how badly fucked up things got on their watch. I'm sure the national government has never had a, "fuck this shit" moment ever in the history of national governments.
>>44774
>Energy is a bloody business.
Sure, but it's a strategical one (or better, a "strategical resource") and thus heavily on the political side of things.
On a global scale nuke blows every other option out the water so bad it hurts, yet we're going to end up with half the area of Germany covered up in solar panels and they'll still be importing energy from neighbouring countries.
And don't get me started on Poland.
>>41836
My entire house runs off a 5kw system, and there's still room on the roof to go larger if need be. I don't understand all the hate for solar...
Australia is a horrible sunburnt country though. I'd trade anything for a christmas in winter time
>>45327
Where are you at?
>>44555
> reputable climatologist
oxymoron
>>42530
it is here.
Who pays for the incalculable nuclear waste storage?
>>44774
Technically silicon does, ever been to a beach?
>>41934
God damn your a brainwashed douchebag. Its like you didn't bother to read, or more likely don't understand the posts before yours.
Fuk Cherb and 3mile are all ancient tech. Are cars the same from the 50s as they are today? Computers? So why the fuck would nuclear reactors, the most advanced tech we humans have be the fucking same? Use what little thoughtpower you have
>>41836
and I called it
have fun replacing your panels in 10 years when all of the tax credits are gone and the tech is rare shit because nobody does it anymore
>>45683
>your
Any pretense at intelligence you had went out the window with "your," moron.
>>45683
You are dealing with a solar, what an odd career choice that must have been.
I hope he is well compensated for his "work".
>>45726
Not even the anon that you replied to, but I'd like to tell you you're a faggot.
>>45726
sorry I'm this guy
I meant to say that I lost the argument so I picked at your grammar, I'm really embarrassed about it now. Sorry for being such a faggot guys :/
>>42645
great, I was bitten by a radioactive bed bug and now my penis is able to impale people and impregnate them through their clothes + flesh
>>45327
its the fact that you still need the coal / gas plants to keep up with demand when its a cloudy day or at night.
All solar does is reduce the amount of coal we use, while at the same time increasing the cost per kWH (seeing you now need to run a coal and solar plant)
Wow this is the 3rd thread I've visited on my first day checking out 4chan and I see a pattern here, a bunch of uninformed people trying to be right and calling others a faggot when they disagree. The other pattern is flat out racism! Is this normal for 4chan?
>>42261
This is the 1st piece of intelligent thought I've seen today, this is my 1st time on 4chan and was about to leave forever til I read your post
>>42259
I just read that a crew managed 36% and Solar is in it's infancy that % is just gonna go up and it's getting cheaper to produce monthly
>>45847
>nigger neveh herd a dem batt'ry thangs
>>45847
>All solar does is reduce the amount of coal we use
Last I checked, the amount of coal we use is a major fucking catastrophe.
>>45847
>All solar does is reduce the amount of coal we use
No, it doesn't.
The energy used to produce solar panels is intense. The initial step in producing the silicon at the heart of most panels is to melt silica rock at 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit using electricity, commonly from coal-fired power plants.
daily reminder that Nuclear has killed less than "safe" but dirty energy.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/whats-the-deadliest-power-source
>>45400
In USA all spent fuel 'waste' is currently stored on site, paid by the plant itself.
>>41836
Neither is gas.
>>45856
>>45883
Coal power plants can't respond reasonably to day/night demand swings because they run efficently as such a narrow range of temperatures it's not worth burning less coal, because then that just fucks up a bunch of other systems. Better to just burn the optimal amount of coal and sell the power cheaper and eat it during hte day when all the yuppies have their worthless panels going.
>>41842
The test International thermonuclear energy reactor is being built in France. if it all goes well should be a viable source for energy for the few who survive the coming holy war.
>>45939
>The initial step in producing the silicon at the heart of most panels is to melt silica rock at 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit using electricity, commonly from coal-fired power plants.
There isn't any intrinsic reason that electricity HAS to come from fossil fuels, they just make up most of our current generation.
Also, most panels will produce more electricity in a couple of years than it took to produce them.
>>46024
>Better to just burn the optimal amount of coal and sell the power cheaper and eat it during hte day when all the yuppies have their worthless panels going.
That doesn't sound like it's the panels that are being worthless.
In any case, there are plenty of ways to deal with that problem. They cost more than current coal plant designs, but then almost everything does.
Ignoring the nuclear discussion, solar energy is constantly misused.
Just like cereal is supposed to be PART of a nutritious breakfast, solar energy is a PART of a clean energy solution.
Why the fuck can't people seem to get that?
>>41836
nah
>>44384
What would go wrong with that actually?
>>44383
you are an extremely gullible person and deserve to be shot.
nuclear energy is no more dangerous than a campfire. tend it right keep an eye on it and dispose of waste properly. its not hard for smart people
>>44765
deserve to be shot. stop watching tv and actually read something
>>45852
fuck of you dirty kike nigger. you don't know shit slope spic. Go back to your own Queer spear chucker site.
>>46003
stop playing video games and get a job
>>46394
>its not hard for smart people
Reading isn't either.
>>44733
>With the election of President Bill Clinton in 1992, and the appointment of Hazel O'Leary as the Secretary of Energy, there was pressure from the top to cancel the IFR.[34] Sen. John Kerry (D, MA) and O'Leary led the opposition to the reactor, arguing that it would be a threat to non-proliferation efforts, and that it was a continuation of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project that had been canceled by Congress.[35]
kek that worked out well. I wonder who exactly was lining Kerry's pockets at the time. flip flop flip flop flip flop
I wonder who funded this study? ;)
Strange. I live in Europe and the house 2 doors down from me gets 100% of their household energy from solar. They even sell some back to the electricity company. Go figure. lol
>>46398
pull your head out of your ass and get a clue
>>41934
"What advances have their truly been over 40 years? "
Molten Salt Thorium Reactors that burn old waste and have much higher efficiency, they also fuse together as they breach containment and cool preventing a meltdown...
But don't let me stop this board of opinionated dumbasses from convincing you with conjecture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knofNX7HCbg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgTgV3Kq49U
>>46548
Europe is a pretty big place, they will be paying them off for years until after they need replacing and that only applies during you know, sunlight.
Why the 4chan news forum of all places to shill for solar? Your post is flat out lies that anyone with common sense can see.
