Let's talk alternate energy /pol/. What the best form—solar, wind, hydro, something else? Should humanity be trying to implement these expensive forms?
depends tbqh
>>75801966
On what?
Hydroelectric is hardly an alternative energy source. Unless you are talking about wave energy which is fucking terrible.
Anyway the least bad alt energy is solar due to it's generally somewhat predictable production patterns that can be used for ultra low power requirements in remote locations cheaper than grid power.
Problem with hydro is that you can't just slap it anywhere. We're already making use of most of the viable locations to generate power.
>>75802161
I'd consider anything non fossil fuel to be alternative
>>75801866
Nuclear>Hydroelectric>>>Geothermal>>>>>>>>>>Fossil fuels>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Everything else.
>>75802082
geography obviously
>>75802161
>Anyway the least bad alt energy is solar due to it's generally somewhat predictable production patterns that can be used for ultra low power requirements in remote locations cheaper than grid power.
Solar for things like powering a road sign or something like that in a remote location is fine. Anything more heavy duty and it sucks.
>>75801866
>What the best form
Nuclear
Nuclear power is the future.
>>75801866
> What the best form
LFTR.
/thread
>>75801866
If you mean (((green™))) then its hydro for its baseline power output. If you mean something that can help everyone, its nuclear
>>75802740
> Liquid nuclear.
> Solid nuclear and GE is the past.
>>75802359
>I'd consider anything non fossil fuel to be alternative
Then the answer is
1 Nuclear fission in breeder reactors (LFTR, FBR)
2 Nuclear fission in burner reactors (Fast Neutron Liquid Metal)
3 Nuclear fission in once through reactors (Light/Heavy Water reactors)
4 Hydroelectric dams
5 Hydroelectric run of river
6 Solar thermal
7 Solar PV
8 Offshore wind
9 Land wind
10 Biomass thermal
11 Wave capture
999 Fusion (because it doesn't fucking work)
>>75802461
Hydroelectric electric requires a large valley in which to build a dam and a vast area of land that you don't mind being permanently flooded (disregarding tidal which is absolutely worthless, by the way), and geothermal requires you to be in an area with geothermal activity - which is to say relatively few places.
Their actual power output for their setup costs is pretty decent, but the location requirements mean that they can't be build in most areas... or even most countries.
>>75802763
>suggest meme power source
>thread yourself
kill yourself
>>75802461
Actually, high temp geothermal outperforms hydroelectric by a wide margin.
This chart is from a Federal Government report on Geothermal Energy resources in Canada.
>you were born just in time to witness the energy hypercrisis and collapse of industrial civilization back into feudalism
fucking nuclear cuz
>>75802889
>999 Fusion (because it doesn't fucking work)
We're only 30 years away
>>75801866
>hydro
>expensive
>>75801866
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYxlpeJEKmw
>>75802942
>meme
>>75803069
>Says increasingly nervous man for the third time in his life
>>75803073
Here in sunny California, the government will eminent domain your ass, but pay you fair market value. This translates to millions of dollars per parcel, and the cost to build the dam, after doing dozens of costly environmental impact surveys and other test, largely involving soil composition and terrain analysis.
It is very expensive to create a new reservoir.
>nuclear
Most realistic choice for the time being
>solar
Has potential but needs more development
>wind
worthless
>tidal
worthless
>biomass
worthless
>hydro
Useful wherever geography supports it
>geothermal
Useful wherever geography supports it
>>75802938
>>75802950
I know both of these things, but once built hydro is a very good power source.
Geothermal is very location specific. For it to be successful you need to build it in a volcanically active area (or dig so far down into the earth that it's just not worth the bother any more).
After both these issues are taken into account, they are good at what they do.
>>75803255
it's the most prevalent energy source here... if we poor asses can pay that, go figure about others
>>75802161
>Hydroelectric is hardly an alternative energy source.
wut
>>75802938
We have a few huge hydro electric areas left but they are only a drop in the bucket in terms of total electrical use.
The Congo river has the potential for something like 65GW, Northern Quebec about 40GW.
If Canada and the US wanted they could divert water from the Pacific North West down to the US south and pocket about 28GW after the cost of a few pumping stations to get the water in the right valley. (as well as ending all possible future water use for the southern USA)
Russia has something like 180GW all over but it's in fuck off Siberia and useless to everyone.
India and China actually have a few 100s but they are well away from population centers and are some of the last places on earth no one has bothered trying to live.
>>75802889
>Fusion doesn't work
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor
>>75802942
> Suggests meme is not a power source.
> on pol
Who let the nigger speak?
>>75801866
Wind is a meme. Solar has a future but is expensive. Hydro fucks up rivers. Safe nuclear power is a viable alternative.
>>75801866
the best is nuclear. under proper supervision, it's the cleanest and most efficient form of energy yet.
then it's geothermal, fossil fuels, and everything else is inefficient and too costly.
>>75803432
Your land was not nearly as expensive as land is in California. You are talking millions of dollars for only a few acres.
>>75803514
> look we have a retarded picture, but we have no theory on how it should work
You have to go back. To drawing board.
>>75802950
Says nothing about cost only capacity factor.
That's a strength of hydro electric; shutting down when their is cheaper power to buy from the grid.
The dam shuts down and they buy extra power from a thermal plant saving their fuel (water) for when the cost of electricity is high. Then turning around and selling the dam's generated power for more than it cost to buy the thermal power lowering the cost of power even more.
You can run a hydro dam to make all the power demand for a grid buy having extra generating and water storage but in an integrated grid that's just wasteful.
>>75802889
What about our Super wind mills?
4 or 6 large ones can produce the same power as a regular power plant.
>>75801866
Nuclear. Case closed.
>>75803752
wind dependent
>>75801866
>Is it cheaper?
>Is it more reliable?
If the answer to these questions is yes, that what's the problem.
>>75803255
>It is very expensive to create a new reservoir.
Sure but it's cheap as fuck when you balance it against the amount of power the dam will make in it's lifetime.
Fucking Nuclear.
>>75803800
Hive mind
>>75803752
They're remote from where the power will be needed and don't produce it in a constant supply.
Also normal ones are prone to self destruction, never mind when you take the idea right to the limits of engineering.
>>75803296
>>75803742
>>75803672
land here can be expensive if you have into account that many pieces of it had to be taken from commie drug lords
>>75802942
LFTRs aren't meme-tier you mong. They have been built and they work. There's good reasons that there's been no real effort in building them thus far;
a) The entire nuclear infrastructure of every nuclear-capable country in the world is based around light water reactors.
b) There's very little economy to be built around them, because the waste products they produce (polonium, bismuth, lead) are worthless. The only useful thing they produce is electricity.
c) They're virtually useless for Pu-239 production, and Pu-239 production is why the world's current nuclear infrastructure is built around light water reactors.
>>75803742
>>75803296
>>75803850
Nuclear is the same way, and is generally has less of an impact on the environment than hydro, yet anti-nuclear faggots living in thatched huts lie about the dangers.
>>75803979
Is that when built over a volcano, or just digging really deep?
>>75804031
So digging deep. Right, as I said, doing it that way means it's no longer worth the bother with current tech.
>>75801866
what happens with nuclear waste if we used nuclear power? do we accumulates untill we don't have any other place to put toxic shit?
>>75803296
>>75803742
And how it's done.
>"Muh frac-ing"
>>75803263
>wind is worthless
I heard you were talking shit.
>V164-8.0 MW is worthless
>>75803263
100% correct
t. Nuclear shill
>god tier
Gen IV load following nuclear fission
>great tier
geothermal
dammed hydro
Gen II/III conventional nuclear
>good teir
run-of-river hydo
.
.
.
>garbage tier
solar concentrator
>shit tier
wind
>"I literally have no idea what I'm talking about, but I read huffington" tier
solar photo voltaic
wind is actually better than solar, its more predictable and changes more slowly, solar PV panels are retardedly expensive, and extremely rapid transients caused by clouds passing overhead are a nightmare to deal with on the power distribution side
>>75803742
>>75803296
Oh, and depth to power output per region.
>>75803621
>Solar has a future but is expensive
Solar has no future at all.
Its EROIE is a pitiful 6.
>>75802889
>>75803733
Meanwhile tokamak has a q>1. We are 30 years max away from fusion overtaking fission
>>75804158
Use thorium reactors, stops being bad after like 100 years, safer to use, much more abundant and easier to get.
>>75801866
Thorium reactors and plasma converters. Problem solved.
>>75804282
>We are 30 years max away from fusion overtaking fission
They've said that for like 30 years now. I'll believe it when it happens.
>>75803979
Hydroelectric (large) in cost runs about 2 cents and unlike geothermal doesn't produce radioactive water contaminated with enough NORMs (naturally occurring radioactive material) to get any nuclear power plant in the world shut down.
Also every possible argument against the drilling and operational aspect of fracking and SAGD oil production can more or less be made for geothermal.
>>75804152
.. I don't see why that's a hindrance.
You do know we drill up too 6km down for gas / oil wells right? (yes, I know most don't go below 3km, I work there).
>>75804284
>>75804335
>thorium reactor
show me one that works
>>75804387
>30 years meme
Oh boy
>>75804158
please stop embarrasing yourself
>>75803837
>>75803973
>literally what are 'batteries'.
For real? You're trying to tell me, a Dane, that wind power is 'inefficient'.
What the fuck ind of childish meme-thread am I in?
>>75804540
whats the problem, escobar?
>>75804504
Pretty sure there's been a bunch of working prototypes.
Just google it mate, I'm too lazy and phonebound. Insert a shrugging anime girl picture.
>>75804152
It depends on the area. If you're in an active area you you may not need to dig any deeper than a few hundred metres.
>>75804640
>tree huger starts calling names
wew
>>75804387
It needs more funding, we spend so much money on welfare and sheit meanwhile the French tokamak reactor won't start D T fusion until 2027
>>75804504
>show me one that works
Works or worked? Because the Oak Ridge National Lab ran just fine.
But fair enough China will be critical by 2020 with their test LFTR. Just think you can buy a quality Chinese nuclear reactor because US politicians blew their money on solar and wind subsidies.
>>75804182
>4 decades of heavy investment and it's still partly subsidized
worthless
>>75804469
>nuclear power plant in the world shut down.
and those standards are complete lawyer inspired bullshit.
The risk should be measured by Threshold Limit Value (TLV) and not Linear No-Threshold Model (LNT).
>>75804475
It's different.
You have to get the water down there, have it boil and then get it back up to your generator without losing too much energy. The deeper you have to go obviously the less efficient the process it going to be.
If you happen to live near an active volcano, then you really don't have to go very far down at all - for example in Iceland where geothermal is very successful.
>>75803058
its why im investing in Lithium stocks right now
made bout $8000 so far
whilst /biz/ is currently jacking off to the most recent cryptocurrency- Shitcoin or whatever
>>75804504
cuck
>>75804719
>cocaine nigger calling me a nigger
wew
>>75804546
The cheapest battery solution runs at a total cost over it's life span excluding install but including purchase price of about $1.20 per kilowatt hour. With coal costing about 4 cents and natural gas between 2 and 15 cents depending on the cost of fuel.
Wind power is expensive, unpredictable and the whole Danish power grid depends on access to the German/France grid and the cheap power in Norway and Sweden.
>>75801866
Solar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOhmJMTaKdQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AclVlrQErKA
But of course the dirty corporations are trying their best to stop it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RYKNA3nj6Q
>>75804778
>Oak Ridge
>1960's
>MSR
>did not use ANY thorium
I don't think that was a good example.
>>75804793
>The risk should be measured by Threshold Limit Value (TLV) and not Linear No-Threshold Model (LNT).
I agree 100%.
However it's fun to remind the alt energy crowd of the radioactive risk from geothermal.
>>75804780
>one single wind mill supplies 7.500 homes
>worthless
Are you the type to piss your pants to keep warm?
>>75805074
>the cheapest current battery solution
FTFY
>>75804950
that better be oak ridge.
because they did not use thorium in that reactor.
>>75804927
GXY
X
Y
>>75801866
NUCLEAR A BEST
SOLAR A SHIT
>>75805193
>>the cheapest current battery solution
>FTFY
Let me put it another way. In 157 years of battery development from the start of the first lead acid battery, the most cost effective battery tech we have is the lead acid battery which is more or less functionally identical to the 157 year old design.
The advanced in battery tech have been in getting density higher, not costs lower.
And no lithium batteries are not going to lower the cost, and no the "Power Wall" isn't a viable solution in terms of cost.
geothermal and hydro where geographically viable
nuclear anywhere else.
only shills think otherwise
>>75805193
19 : 1 return on energy invested.
not exactly grid useful.
maybe better for off-grid homes.
Also, if you have 750 homes on 2 acre parcels of land, then you require a 100 parcels of land for wind turbines.
Pretty much a colossal waste real-estate.
>>75805193
nice strawman
Enjoy paying the highest electricity costs in the world though, we'll be developing something that's actually economically viable in the meantime. I mean, we could also plant tidal power generators across the entire coast and supply households with power with them - at ludicrous prices even with subsidies - but it'd be just as retarded of an investment as wind power.
>>75805074
On a good day the wind park can support Denmark's energy needs completely
100%
We just need a proper smart grid so all of Europe can use energy together, when it rains here it's sunny in Spain, when the weather is calm in Italy, the wind blows in Denmark.
>>75805321
ya that "stock"
that isnt listed anywhere but the ASX which is VERY suspicious
>>75805520
Why bother with geothermal at all when you have factory production nuclear breeder reactors?
>>75805181
right.
I love how the so-called "green" crowd flat-out lies about everything nuclear.
they saw a nuclear bomb video one time and thought
>yup thats whats nuclear power does
>no need to read science
>>75805193
>One wind mill supplies 7500 homes
>In peak wind conditions
>Assuming steady wind velocity
>Assuming peak turbine efficiency
>Assuming no wind up or wind down
>Assuming no losses during carriage
>At a cost that could never pay off the investment without subsidy
t. Mech Engineer.
>>75805509
The airplane was invented in 1890. 70 years later we landed on the moon.
Now we'll soon land on Mars. Are you trying to make a point, or are you just going to continue yelling "muh batteries don't work yet"?
>>75805828
>assuming the turbine is even working
that is the most important part.
>>75805547
The windmills are placed at sea. They will take up no land, literally.
>>75801866
Nuclear is effectively #1 in every category that matters.
>original research
>dont ask for sources
>too many to list
if you doubt it look it up and then call me out.
>>75805992
>placed at sea
>for nearly triple the value
thats nice for a micronation surrounded by water
but what about the central united states.
>>75805560
>On a good day the wind park can support Denmark's energy needs completely
And on a bad week you buy 95% of your power from everywhere else and burn bio fuels for heat and electric power.
>We just need a proper smart grid so all of Europe can use energy together, when it rains here it's sunny in Spain, when the weather is calm in Italy, the wind blows in Denmark.
You also need to massively overbuild your capacity then.
That's not having 200% extra generation around that's more like 900%.
And all that generation capacity costs more than thermal plants so it's not just slightly more expensive it's 18 times.
Why not just build breeder nuclear reactors?
Here's a better question what will you do for liquid fuels? With a high temperature heat source (like a salt cooled reactor) you can break hydrogen free from water, then using extracted carbon dioxide combine them to make a 1:1 fuel replacement for oil based fuels that are carbon neutral. The US navy has working prototypes they are planing to build into ship based refineries to limit the need for oilers.
With that tech we can run our nuclear plants in the day making electricity and then switch over to making fuel at night.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8zOHZINyG8
>>75806095
Plenty of open land for landbased windmills
>>75801866
Nuclear
inb4 people cite fabricated / intentional meltdowns
>>75805193
>>one single wind mill supplies 7.500 homes
You havin' a laugh??
Wind power is a meme. It will always have to subsidised either via carbon taxes or direct grants. Horrible.
>>75801866
nuclear is fine and there are many nuclear power plants in murica
solar would be a good option if they could reduce light lost on the surface but at last check the germans could only make a thin layer that sort of did the job but had to be made in zero g . thats not a ready for prime time solution. no mass production
gydro electic if fine but its costly to make the power plants and concrete drying is hap hazard when your talking large scale. the hoover dam is a fluke
wind is only usable in some areas typically higher altitudes
>>75806246
>Plenty of open land
no. thats fucking wrong.
land is expensive because literally everything OTHER than building windmills gets more of a return on value for the use of that land.
Its like their is infinite amount of land to do whatever with. I know Denmark doesn't have any agriculture to speak of, so they don't comprehend this concept.
Its like you believe that resources should be despoiled for terrible energy producing money pits.
How do you even calculate the EROEI on green energy? It's probably below 1.0 if you take everything into consideration.
Take a windmill for example
>raw materials dug up using oil powered machines
>raw materials transported using oil powered
machines
>processed in an industrial facility powered by fossil fuels, "green" energy not powerful enough for industry with the exception of nuclear
>oil based lubricants used in the industrial plant
>completed metal is transported by oil to another facility where it's made into windmill parts
>transported by an oil powered ship to final destination
>workers use gasoline powered vehicles to travel the rural areas where the windmill exists
>spare parts are shipped in with oil based planes, trains, ships, ect...
>every human involved in the entire process was fueled by food grown and transported by with oil products
The best thing would be to de-globalize and localize the economy to reduce the amount of energy wasted on transport
>>75805902
>Now we'll soon land on Mars. Are you trying to make a point, or are you just going to continue yelling "muh batteries don't work yet"?
Let me make a statement:
With a magic battery; That is one that is low cost, scalable, safe, long lived, low maintenance, build from plentiful materials, able to charge and discharge efficiently, and durable. It would be even more effective coupled to a light water nuclear reactor or a coal fired power plant than wind or solar.
Yet we have nothing yet that's even remotely possible to be a good magic battery. So yeah I'm saying they don't work yet. Just like I say fusion doesn't work and we can't build an energy policy around tech we don't have and doesn't work.
>>75806473
Best solar can put up is around 6:1 EROEI at the cost of about $125/MWh.
It is hand down the most useless power source.
>>75804824
>the entire Rocky Mountain & Coastal Mountain chains are dotted with Volcanos and active hot springs
>USA has been generating electricity from them for years, retarded Canadian government has been blowing money on windmills.
Western Canada COULD be powered solely by Geothermal, but instead were blowing cash on a fad.
>>75806758
good point buddy
>>75806492
>land is expensive because literally everything OTHER than building windmills gets more of a return on value for the use of that land.
Even building wind turbines on the worst land possible - bog lands - is a bad idea.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/489033d.html
>>75806225
I am not against nuclear, 80% of my stock portofolio is in uranium mining
And there is plenty of talk about using excess energy to produce hydrogen for use in fuel cells, just no action.
Especially at these fuel prices.
Coal has become cheap as well, you know
But if you look at all renewables, wind has a high eroei. It might be monetary expensive, but the true factor should be carbon footprint and pollution.
Solar is shitty when you look at it from that angle
>>75805592
GALXF if North America
Some other ticker in EU.
All the same stocks.
>>75806473
You could have any efficiency of solar you wanted for any price and it would still fail because the peak grid demand in North America happens after the sun starts setting and production falls off to almost nothing.
The storage tech isn't up to the job.
I can give you free electricity while the sun was up and all you needed to do was store it and it would still be cheaper for you to get grid power from a gas fired plant during peak grid demand than it would be to try and build a battery system.
>>75806875
>But if you look at all renewables, wind has a high eroei. It might be monetary expensive, but the true factor should be carbon footprint and pollution.
>carbon footprint
>carbon
enjoy the meme
>>75806225
> you can break hydrogen free from water, then using extracted carbon dioxide combine them to make a 1:1 fuel replacement for oil
I thought of this before Electrolysis of water for hydrogen is literally 1:1 on EROI. It only makes sense on Mars when you got no other choice.
I would be extremely grateful and intrigued if you can find a way to change that ratio.
>>75806492
Hahahahaha
A windmill basically takes up no land
If you tour the Danish countryside you will see endless fields dotted with windmills, your argument makes no sense
>>75806863
you can still grow cranberries in bogs.
mmmmm good
>>75806758
>Western Canada COULD be powered solely by Geothermal, but instead were blowing cash on a fad.
Most of the power in Western Canada is hydroelectric, followed by natural gas and coal.
With natural gas running at $2.4/GJ it's just about impossible to not make cheap electricity.
>>75801866
>Let's talk alternate energy /pol/.
It will never happen until something replaces the petrodollar. Until we get rid of the kikes and sandniggers, we're stuck.
>>75801866
Nuclear and only nuclear. Hydro is an excellent energy source but Marxists ("Greens") shut down all new construction some decades ago, just like they did with nuclear. I forget the name of the official, but someone in Obama's administration is on record saying the United States will never build another dam again. Fortunately, we're seeing a comeback with the popularity of nuclear energy.
>>75807244
>A windmill basically takes up no land
Yeah but it requires government subsidies and levies on other forms of energy propduction. Denmark is known for the most expensive electricity in the EU
>>75806875
>but the true factor should be carbon footprint and pollution.
The true factors should be health and cost.
>>75806832
Thanks neighbourino
>>75806875
>80% of my stock portofolio is in uranium mining
(:
>>75801866
Hydro. The lowest operating cost aside from solar. Solar has its advantages because of longevity and reliability but since the sun is fickle and battery technology sucks, it can only be used as a supplement. Like during summer at peak day when its hot as fuck and everyone turns on the AC, that extra megawatt or two helps. Hydro on the other hand is a constant 24/7, 365 source of unlimited energy. A lot of potential power exists in water. The problem is energy, especially in the united states is a profit business and they want EVERYONE buying from them. If you want cheap clean power, you need to embrace the micro grid. Macro grids are wasteful, inefficient, unreliable and controlled by a select group of greedy people. How about instead of a statewide power company some joe schmoe with grant money and some minor investors makes a micro hydro dam and supplies 500 homes instead of entire states? The biggest issue is regulation and corporate interest. Every single facet of business is controller now. Big wigs love it. They have the resources to navigate that bs, hell they lobby for it. It the best form of protectionism. Guaranteed monopoly because no one can get big enough to oppose you. As long as it remains that way, we will be stuck with dirty power thats expensive, unreliable and to the benefit of the few. Making power is easy. The only hard part is transporting it, processing it etc for long distances and huge power needs like industrial areas. So don't transport it thousands of miles. Hydro is also hella cheap compared to just about any other power producer. The bulk of the cost is up front.
>>75807244
>endless fields dotted with windmills
and thats a fucking waste of land you utter idiot!
growing food there is a more a valued use to society then shit windmills.
building housing there is a better use to society then shit windmills.
when it comes to energy production you DONT maximize land usage for the smallest payoff available.
If like buying a lot for $100 and then using it to make $1.
> your argument makes no sense
to you it doesnt because you're economically illiterate.
You have know clue about opportunity cost or rivalry in usage of land. Nor do you understand supply and demand. Probably, becuz your on welfare so things like value have no meaning to you as well.
You country is fucking DUMB for destroying your land with wind windmills.
>>75807357
I second this.
All of these "green" alternatives have various serious problems.
Nuclear is the most controllable, if designed well.
It was literally one stupid mistake that created the problem in Japan, for example. Their backup generators were all on the ground, where they weren't supposed to be, with no protection from the inevitable tsunami. But for that one mistake, the generators could have shut down the plant and there would have been zero issue, even after an earthquake and tsunami.
Nuclear is safe if done right.
>>75807326
Yes, however with NG in a slump like Oil, we're bound to see that cost climb in the future.
I would love to see it all powered by Hydroelectric & Geothermal.
That way we can just focus NG for industries & export.
>>75802161
you are a brainwashed retard
>american education
>>75807559
>hydro is best
OK.
The homes that need power are in the red circle.
Where is the hydro going to go?
>>75804927
lithium wont be worth shit in a few years
>>75807438
Green energy is not about cheapness, it's about being cheap enough and replacing fossil fuels
We are doing quite well when you look at it like that.
We also have an insane gdp pr capita compared to 95% of the world, we can afford the green revolution, we also never have brownouts and very very rarely blackouts.
Our energy situation is fine and fucking dandy
>>75803255
>california
In real parts of the world, where shit gets done and its run by people who know what they are doing, its pretty cheap. Plus a hydro system doesn't have to be something massive. Its a constant amount of power. They can be sub megawatt. They excel at running costs and output.
Muh thorium enema
>>75807806
From ocean to you, it will travel by the magic of science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs
>>75807866
>>75807866
>Our energy situation is fine and fucking dandy
at the expense of pretty rendering you country-side useless.
Not considering costs is why your country decided to pay for a pile of magic beans at an extremely high cost.
>>75807543
Gambling I know, most of my holding is pre cheap oil (muh buy and hold)
>>75807607
Endles AGRICULTURAL fields you mong
We are a net food exporter, we aren't ruining anything
>>75807195
>I thought of this before Electrolysis of water for hydrogen is literally 1:1 on EROI. It only makes sense on Mars when you got no other choice.
>I would be extremely grateful and intrigued if you can find a way to change that ratio.
It's not 1:1 it's a lot worse.
But the point isn't the EROI it's the form of energy. We can't run a passenger jet on a battery for very long (if at all). We also have like 60 trillion in ICEs and infrastructure world wide so getting to keep using the same fuel has a bit of economic advantage.
Anyway electrolysis uses a lot of electrical power but as you heat water it uses less. With just sub super critical water (that is as hot as it can get before it turns to steam no matter the pressure) the energy savings is substantial. The overall is not near 1:1 but it's closer and if a nuclear reactor can make anything cheaply and in large amounts it's thermal energy.
Simply put it's cheaper energy wise to heat the water and use electrolysis than it is to convert thermal energy into electricity and not heat the water and use electrolysis. Now with a normal light water reactor you can't go past the super critical temperature of water, but with a salt cooled reactor you can actually hit more than 5 times that amount before the salt boils. (although that's past the point of having any strength in your steel so they only go to about 800C rather than 1500C)
The carbon comes from the water and is exchanged from carbon in the air. As you pull the carbon out of the water it absorbs more from the air. As you burn the fuel you get carbon back in the air.
~
Maybe you need to look at the total EROI using thorium as the energy source. In that case the EROI for liquid fuels from a LFTR Refinery is likely 1000:1 or more given just how much energy you get our of a LFTR.
>>75804927
Where do I go to invest in lithium?
>>75807357
its becuz hydro destroys wetlands, created saline discharge and effects water tables.
>>75807866
Don't you have Green Taxes on everything?
Like 150% markup on automobiles?
>>75807718
>That way we can just focus NG for industries & export.
It's better to use NG for heating than trying to heat via electrical power. You would need to double your electrical transmission if you stopped burning NG for heat.
>>75808224
Look no grains at all
gee, i wonder why?
>>75808314
Stock market
Go to /biz/ to learn more.
Stay away from coinfags
>>75807866
>We also have an insane gdp pr capita compared to 95% of the world, we can afford the green revolution, we also never have brownouts and very very rarely blackouts.
Only because you can "cheat" and get power from the North and South.
Cut your power lines leading outside your nation and tell me how well it works.
You're almost as dishonest as the Germans buying 'green' nuclear generated electricity from the French while claiming to be anti nuclear and pro green garbage tech.
>>75808145
Please explain how windmills ruin agriculture?
We have fields with corn to within like 25 feet of the windmills' bases
It is not like you have a half mile barren wasteland for every windmill
>>75808456
NG for building heat is fine, it's how I heat mine.
I just mean electricity generation.
>>75808564
Nice one leafium bro
>>75808224
>Gambling I know, most of my holding is pre cheap oil (muh buy and hold)
Hey, it's probably better to invest in something you really know something about, while not diversifying, than putting all your money into the hands of some bankster (and ultimately some intransparent fond or what not) that just will see that he'll get most out of it (i.e. you) anyways.
>>75808550
Denmark exports dough
>>75805193
>one single wind mill supplies 7.500 homes
Yeah, uh, I'm gonna need a source on that
>>75808312
>The overall is not near 1:1 but it's closer and if a nuclear reactor can make anything cheaply and in large amounts it's thermal energy.
I see.
If the hydrolysis process occurs simultaneous with nuclear power production, then the energy returned in total balanced against the total investment is more similar to just nuclear power EROI.
As for LFTR, I can seem to locate one that functions. do you a have a link?
>>75803979
>wind
kek
>>75808965
and buys grains from elsewhere.
I guess having massive deposits oil allow your nation to be idiotic when it comes to economic realities.
>>75803752
I love wind power!
It kills all the large predator birds that keep eating my chickens!
>>75808705
Natural gas has a place in taking care of the swing load. I wouldn't expect you could scale geothermal up at the same rate as natural gas, and while it's possible with hydro electric that would potentially lead to some very rapid changed in river levels if the dams were doing tight load following.
IIRC the provincial hydroelectric generator in BC build a number of gas plants near the Vancouver area. They did that to take advantage of the lower construction costs and smaller fights than building new dams but also so they can load follow on the largest demand center.
If you kept gas at 5-10% of the total capacity you would have a well balanced system. That said with a high temperature nuclear reactor like a LFTR design you can actually build turbines that just heat air and make power like that normally. Then when demand peaks you can turn on natural gas and feed into the turbine and boost the output.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zD0m_ci-oo
Good vid that talks about what I like to call "Afterburner Nuclear Reactors" as well as the problems with solar PV.
>>75808550
Because our 20 million, MILLION, pigs eat it
>>75808638
On the good days we actually also export energy to Norway
It's basically the most efficient use of our natural renewables, they have hydro, we have flat windy land.
I would like nuclear, but Denmark is basically Netherlands-tier when it comes to sea clearance.
>>75801866
Thorium/nuclear reactors for large scale and your cute little solar panels for small things. Stop freaking out over minor earthquakes and using those as an excuse to ban stuff like fracking or anything that doesn't fit into the happy magic solar land that the liberals want.
I live in Oklahoma, one of the best places for windmills and they suck dick. They kill tons of birds, people that live near them hate them, and it messes with the mating habits of several bird species down here. The sooner we finally let inefficient forms of energy die the sooner we can devote our research towards things that actually work, maybe even hydrogen fuel cells.
I just want energy independence and as it stands the Middle East sell oil for much cheaper than we could produce it. Places like Saudi Arabia pay their people off to produce more, we will never beat them even if our economy is better.
Solar is the future. Wind is fine too. Fossil fuels are meh. Nuclear is shit.
>>75809196
You act like I care about birds.
>>75807806
They're already gone, Yellowstone blew :^)
Renewables are already here
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36420750
>Investments in renewables during the year were more than double the amount spent on new coal and gas-fired power plants, the Renewables Global Status Report found.
>About 147 gigawatts (GW) of capacity was added in 2015, roughly equivalent to Africa's generating capacity from all sources.
>green power is now the leading source of electricity, providing 44% of total EU capacity in 2015.
>>75808644
>We have fields with corn to within like 25 feet of the windmills' bases
yea no inefficiency there. you can just break up lots of land indefinitely with no loss of value or added costs.
And I didnt even mention.
>transmission loss over distance
>variability of wind
so where is the power going to be stored at?
Not too mention wind is huge waste of money to generate a tiny amount of electricity.
>>75809213
thats funny america exports pigs and grain and we dont have a problem.
guess its because we didnt fill our country side with fraudulent inventions.
>>75809067
>As for LFTR, I can seem to locate one that functions. do you a have a link?
Currently their are no LFTR running. The last one was in Oak Ridge National Labs back in the 70s.
China is working on their own design and is set to be critical in 2020.
>If the hydrolysis process occurs simultaneous with nuclear power production, then the energy returned in total balanced against the total investment is more similar to just nuclear power EROI.
I'm not sure I follow what you said.
However, with breeder reactors you get almost 100 times more energy from the fuel. So 99.7% fuel use in a breeder VS 0.03% in a light water reactor. The actual fuel energy costs are low for all nuclear reactors but given that thorium is a waste by product of almost all mining and it has a potential 99% burn up rate it bumps up the EROI. Couple that with cheaper construction due to the lower pressure of the reactor and the energy cost drops again.
For example no need for the steel lid on the reactor building. Saving on the 30 foot wide 2 foot tick plate helps drive down the energy cost of construction. (as well as having pipes running at 300kPa rather than 25,000kPa)
>>75809372
All that shows is that governments spent an incredible amount of resources on useless products.
Who was in my thread earlier about the energy crisis happening in america? I was the OP.
>>75807806
>be aussie
>see topeka in Kansas
>think it's topkek
>think it's a meme map
>>75809655
>no one discussing HTGR
the fuck is wrong with you people?
>>75809213
>On the good days we actually also export energy to Norway
Because you had to overbuild your electrical grid to such a degree to make up for all the average days.
I'm simply saying your system would be even less viable if you had a larger electrical demand, or no grid to off load or buy from. It's not a model that most of the world could follow even if they lost their minds and wanted to.
>>75808145
>at the expense of pretty rendering you country-side useless.
Wind turbines don't magically make land usesless, you farm around the things.
Daily reminder that wind/solar will never be the primary energy source of the world.
>>75809436
Not hard to drive a tractor in a neat circle around it, maybe you have to turn around some extra times when making the lines through the fields, but Danish agriculture is much much different from the US, most fields aren't longer or wider than a few miles. Tops.
The smart grid helps with the transmission loss, and we can stop importing juice from other countries when we produce enough ourselves, and export juice when we really make a lot extra
Pretty neat in my book
>>75809372
>>green power is now the leading source of electricity, providing 44% of total EU capacity in 2015.
How do they define green power?
>>75809655
>Oak Ridge National Labs back in the 70s.
But it didnt use Thorium in that Molten Salt Reactor. Am i missing something?
>cost of construction.
thats more of an LCOE issue though.
> almost all mining and it has a potential 99% burn up rate it bumps up the EROI.
I understand, but the largest driving factor for fisson related EROI is the processing of the fuel. Most other factors are negligible next to the 22,000 kWh/lbs for uranium.
SO what are the processing costs of Thorium?
>>75809979
Daily reminder that solar is the future and you cannot stop it.
>>75802889
>t. Uranium merchant
>>75809832
Gas cooled reactors are not what I think are the best solution.
>>75809925
>>75808638
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand
On a pan European scale it's very doable, because nations here can export and import power from neighbours. Even the UK is linked to the continent and there are plans to link us to Iceland so they can sell us geothermal power. A good mix of renewables backed up with nuclear power is the way to go.
Nuclear
>>75809951
>Wind turbines don't magically make land usesless, you farm around the things.
reducing the effieciency of the land.
and all your quacking would have some merit if the EROI was an complete waster of energy.
Your literally saying
>hey guise
>its a small price to pay to get virtually nothing in return
>>75808550
Because they farm livestock mostly. Where do you think pigs, cheese and milk is coming from?
>>75809566
You have 1000 times the area and a qquarter of the population density
Of course you have room for a lot of fields
You regulations about fertilizers and GMO crops are also very different from here, our farmers use something like the lowest amounts of fertilizer and pesticides in the whole EU, which already has strict rules compared to the US
>>75810135
>11,000 MW
>for the world
8-9 nuclear reactor equivalent
for the world
that is 2 power plants
thanks for proving my point
>>75801866
Portugal was totally powered by solar and wind for a period, I think peoples bills were so low that they were actually giving money to use electricity.
Fuck nuclear power and fracking btw
>>75810123
>But it didnt use Thorium in that Molten Salt Reactor. Am i missing something?
No it did.
>SO what are the processing costs of Thorium?
Extraction and ore purification. For example it's found with rare earth metals and separated as a byproduct or waste metal.
That byproduct is ready to be ground into a powder and mixed in with the molten salt.
Thorium more or less has no isotopes and the thorium we want is the one that's 99.997% of all thorium anyway.
So processing costs are grinding and transport.
>>75809566
What the fuck are you even on about? Wind turbines don't stop you farming at all, except their tiny footprint.
>>75809988
> most fields aren't longer or wider than a few miles.
and thats why we're a superpower and your country is a cover for fairy tale books
>The smart grid helps with the transmission loss, and we can stop importing juice from other countries when we produce enough ourselves, and export juice when we really make a lot extra
well what happens to your "dumb-grid" when the all the countries surrounding you make more electricity, for cheaper, and are net sellers of electricity.
>hey wanna buy electricity?
>no. we sell electricity.
>why don't you want to buy electricity then?
>>75810186
Sure and when the wind doesn't blow at production speeds over most of Europe for a week and it's overcast?
Do you just do without electrical power for a bit?
>>75810276
Are you retarded? They build the turbines at the corners of the fields or next to the access roads.
t. North Dakotan
>>75810276
Windmills have the best, the very best, eroi of all renewables
Don't compare with coal or gas dude
>>75810135
wow. chart only shows what a fucking failure solar is to produce meaningful quantities of electricity and an cost effective level.
>>75810524
>implying everyone wants to look at a bunch of sky penises
GTFO with that gay shit.
>>75810206
Nuclear is on its way out chap.
Hydro and Nuclear. The rest is absolutely dogshit, especially solar. The amount of material you need to build one, the fact that it requires regular maintenance, the fact that it needs so much fucking space... It's just a business now and everyone try to beat the Chinese now that they realized people will buy anything.
Wind is okay
>>75810656
Doesn't hold a candle to Nuclear Power.
in either EROI or LCOE
a carbon-free energy source.
and you forgot hydro apparently as well.
>>75810616
building an outhouse in that plot would have more payoff than a fucking windmill.
>>75803979
>2007
>>75810015
Biomass, Geothermal, Hydro, Solar, Wind, Tidal (which is still developmental)
>>75810666
Like most nuclear energy proponents, your information is a few years out of date.
>>75810728
>France should know. Pretty much the King of nuclear power infrastructure.
How does it feel selling power to germany when the sun doesn't shine, france-kun?
>>75810557
>well what happens to your "dumb-grid" when the all the countries surrounding you make more electricity, for cheaper, and are net sellers of electricity.
You turn some of the turbines off? Wind turbines can do that you know. It's very unlikely the whole continent will have a surplus all at once.
>>75810873
Solar can be free and it would still cost too much due to the battery requirement for peak demand and overnight base load.
>>75810712
>facts are based on popularity
your an incredible faggot
>>75810712
That's because crazed leftists shut down new reactor construction in most Western countries in the 70s, most notably in the US. China is building a ton of nuclear reactors and the idea is becoming more acceptable in the West again.
Clearly human power is the future.
>>75810712
No, its not. 2012 is when Kewaunee Nuclear Power plant shut down due to ageing equipment and expired licence. Solar and wind are a huge joke, fossil fuels wont last forever. Nuclear is having a new beginning starting this year. States like Wisconsin have lifted the ban on building new plants. We have a new age upon us.
>>75810958
>You turn some of the turbines off? Wind turbines can do that you know
oh so now you windmills just convert into useless towers of metal.
how wise of you.
great fucking land-use.
>>75810606
>Sure and when the wind doesn't blow at production speeds over most of Europe
Doesn't happen, it's windy somewhere on the continent. Same with clouds, the whole continent doesn't get the same weather you know, right?
>>75810924
>>France should know. Pretty much the King of nuclear power infrastructure.
hahahahaha. Those old ass reactors are going bomb any second now.
>>75810135
what happens at night
what happens at high latitudes
>>75801866
solar is shit except in sunny places, wind is gay and shit except in windy places, hydro is for those blessed with mighty rivers
Those who're realistically working for the future (white men mostly ) are beginning to harness the direct power of stars.
>>75810803
I like this guy
>>75810276
>reducing the effieciency of the land.
By an incredibly tiny amount?
>>75811017
>energy storage is too expensive
Its like all their information comes from a 90's textbook.
>>75811164
we're finally building new ones now that those green terrorists stopped complaining and parachuting into nuclear facilities.
>>75810873
as usual for a solar enthusiast,
you are a complete fucking liar.
The average doesn't include the subsidies which are the main reason why installations have increased.
I bet you believe the sun rises because roosters crow as well.
Have fun losing on a investment bubble built on fraudulent technology.
>look solar is so great
>people hand out free money for solar
>solar gets built
>super effiecient guise
>>75810803
Nearly 20% of the electricity used in North Dakota is from wind you fucking mog.
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=ND#tabs-4
We have tons of empty land that is used by crops or grazing land for cattle. Wind is the best.
>>75810678
Not an argument.
They're way less disruptive to land use than fucking solar panels are anyway.
>>75801866
Molten salt, thorium, and fusion are the only correct answers
>gubmint rapes you with fees if you try solar
fuck this island
>>75811160
>Doesn't happen, it's windy somewhere on the continent. Same with clouds, the whole continent doesn't get the same weather you know, right?
Actually given how tiny Western-ish Europe is it does happen to a degree.
But lets be clear are you suggesting that you have the full electrical demand load for all of Europe replicated all over Europe so that for example Scotland can power all of peak grid demand Europe on it's wind turbines while everything else is running at almost energy loss rates?
Or that Spain has enough solar to carry all the load demand when it's cloudy but only lightly windy in Germany?
I'd love to actually have the data so I could chart all the wind speeds and solar radiance for Europe and tell you just how much your plan might cost.
>>75810873
also $3.00 a watt?
LOL
Your a fucking moron and this graph is shit.
>>75811378
Again, bad information. Subsidies are exactly why oil has been historically more successful. Of course oil has been so popular - the government has dumped billions into oil energy!
>>75810135
This.
A decentralized network of solar panels across the globe could cover constantly most of our energy needs at a reasonable price.
>>75811127
Yeah, in the unlikely event the entire continent manages a surplus you temporarily turn some off.
Just like how they run down power plants when demand is low. Turning them into "useless concrete buildings" in your own opinion I assume?
>>75811265
to produce an incredibly tiny amount of power.
still waiting for the benefit to your cost.
>>75811342
Good to hear. Lemme guess; those green terrorists could finally be dealt with (for good), now that strikter anti-terror-bantz is in place? How long is your state of emergency going to last anyways?
N U C L E A R
U
C
L
E
A
R
>>75811268
wow solar sucks balls on LCOE
>>75803069
It was 30 years away in the god damn 80s
>>75811268
40 cents per watt hour.
VS 8 cents per KILOWATT HOUR.
Or $400/kwh vs $0.08/kwh.
>>75811123
I grew up near that plant. It was heart breaking to see it shut down. A ton of people lost high paying jobs at the plant. (Btw solar doesn't produce high paying jobs so BTFO)
Wisconsin is really optimal for nuclear. Extremely low earthquake risk and lots of water.
>>75801866
Thermal power chips. But they'll never get off the ground because you need to teach investors quantum physics to explain it.
And Al Gore invested in a bunch of bullshit technologies that his cronies gave huge and specific legislative boosts to, making it impossible for actually useful alternatives to compete.
>>75801866
Nuclear energy will solve all our problems.
>>75811642
the government doesn't give one dollar to oil for anything.
again your a liar.
>thinks tax exceptions are transfers.
way to confirm your lack of fiscal education.
>>75811707
Our country would've been full of reactors hadn't it been for the hippies who scared everyone into thinking nuclear power was dangerous
>>75811595
>But lets be clear are you suggesting that you have the full electrical demand load for all of Europe replicated all over Europe so that for example Scotland can power all of peak grid demand Europe on it's wind turbines while everything else is running at almost energy loss rates?
No you don't need all of that at that scale because I'm not advocating for an entirely renewable grid if you actually read my posts. Nuclear has a big part to play too as a baseline generating capacity.
>>75811037
>your
>>75811268
A battery has never been hooked up to a grid successfully, face it, solar and wind fall flat on their faces.
>Not to mention all of the crude that goes into the polymer coating on the panels.
> not to mention solar doesnt work in snowy places or dusty places
>not to mention solar panels require upkeep
>not to mention the massive amount of area need to supply enough power for everyone
>"muf solar roadways" its a fucking hoax, they took the money and ran
this goes here too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzzz5DdzyWY
BFTO solar fag
>>75811795
>wow solar sucks balls on LCOE
And that doesn't even start to factor that solar cuts out just when people want to use the most power.
>>75811932
Maybe. But what's worse? Stinking hippies, or a population that is so easily manipulated - by fucking hippies, nonetheless.
>>75811940
If you are going to build nuclear then why not build the best nuclear we have and then be able to hit 100% nuclear electric (less hydroelectric doing double duty for flood and irrigation control) ?
Why waste the money on solar and wind if you are building nuclear?
>>75811642
heres a real chart for the liars and the haters
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf
>>75811707
>there are hippies who will defend OP's pic over nuclear
Apparently wi-fi is now free in drum circles.
>>75801866
>What the best form—solar, wind, hydro, something else?
Let them all compete with each other. There's no reason to pick a winner now. Let capitalism do its job.
> Should humanity be trying to implement these expensive forms?
Capitalism has the answers. When a company like WalMart decides to embrace renewable energy for its new stores, they are casting a vote for "yes" to your question -- and they are casting that vote in their own best financial interests.
Let the corporations decide what's "expensive" and what's a good value. Listen to them, and they will tell you.
You seem to have a natural distrust of capitalism to deliver the right answers on renewable energy. Why is that?
We've already made astounding progress in the development of renewable energy technologies. The thanks to that goes primarily to the companies that risked their capital to make it happen. Given this amazing success of capitalism so far, why do you not trust capitalism to continue to guide us in the right future direction?
>>75811268
Solar is shit though, at least PVs.
Solar concentrators in desert areas work quite well and are more efficient since you use mirrors and not oil covered photovoltaic cells
>>75811982
and you cant do math
>>75801866
STEORN ORBO ALL THE WAY!
>>75812254
>The thanks to that goes primarily to the companies that risked their capital to make it happen.
Every single company in the alternative energy industry is a welfare queen. The tech is shit and not worth a dime. It exists soley because idiot politicians pay money for magic beans.
Thats literally the opposite of capitalism.
>>75801866
Nuclear. Solar only makes sense on houses. Hydro is god tier, but only works in certain places. Same with geothermal.
In a perfect world we'd all somehow live near massive sources of moving water so everything could be hydro powered. It produces insane amounts of energy very cleanly. But we don't live in that world.
Nuclear is the next best thing and the only downside (the waste) is easily managed provided politicians are supportive.
>>75812201
Because wind is cheaper than nuclear now?
>>75812416
kek, that nigga ran off with everyones money
>>75812201
Because no one is building nuclear. Even France has halted production. Even in France, 57% of the population are opposed to nuclear energy.
>>75812231
Are you implying I'm lying? You do realize our charts measure different things, right? I'm pointing out that oil and nuclear have received 10 times more subsides than solar ever has.
