http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand
Wind power WORKS faggots. Shut the fuck up and eat your humiliation like the good little bitches you are, /pol/
expensive on sea though
>>55554857
Of course it's works it's obvious as hell.
>>55554857
Nobody ever said wind power didn't work. However, the cost effectiveness per kWh, the damages to local quality of life and the stability of the resource are so bad you would have to be retarded to invest in this and not in research towards nuclear fusion.
I want dat meatball get
It works well when you are not the one paying for it
>>55556074
It's not the actual prize of wind power. It's just our goberment who put taxes on everything. More than 2/3 of that is tax
>>55556074
Holy shit. People here bitch about 8 cents per kwh.. canadian.
>>55556140
And they spend your tax dollars on wind subsidies, since wind turbines are unprofitable around the globe without government subsidies.
Denmarks literally cannot into critical thinking.
>>55554857
Who said it doesn't? But you need, you know, WIND. If there's no wind, it doesn't work, or it's not cost-effective enough. Also you have to admit that those turbines are a fucking eyesore.
>>55556287
Your wind farms aren't cost effective. They rely on massive government subsidies, funded with your taxes. And you still have higher energy prices than anywhere else.
>>55556074
>>55554882
Extremely expensive. In the UK they are now regretting offshore wind-farms. It costs over £0.5M every time they have to send the support ship out to oil the thing or scrape the bird shit off it.
Pic-related. Offshore wind is fucking expensive, you are much better off with nuclear, or in-fact...anything other than offshore wind pretty much. Oops!
Denmark is also flat as fuck and surrounded by sea.
>>55555555
>>55556074
> mfw Serbia generates energy by burning kebabs
>>55554857
Power exceeding demand is actually a very bad thing when it comes to national grids. If you have too much power in the system you can overload the infrastructure of a national grid. Good luck just turning off the wind though.
>>55554857
Texas does it better.
>>55554857
So when are you gonna invent your tulip powerplants and BTFO everyone else with flower power?
>>55556461
Or you can just simply turn off the generator by pressing a button.
>>55554857
I shit on wind, I shit on solar, hydro power is the only eco solution
>>55554857
>http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand
>unusual windy day
>3 AM
While i agree wind power has potential its to expensive to maintain to make it the one and only solution.
The real solution will be a combination of wind, solar, biomass, hydropower and geothermal energy
>>55556583
Agreed but unfortunately not everywhere has the geography.
>>55556525
No, no you cant with wind power. You actually have to use the induction generators in the turbines as motors instead to make them resist the wind turning the blades. So if there's too much wind and not enough demand you end up uaving to waste all your power just stopping the windmills from blowing up transformers.
Also that doesn't solve the reverse of the problem, a still day but high energy demand.
>>55556641
That is why wind is not the only solution, but a part of the solution.
I remeber readings this old report: http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf
Denmark manages to keep the electricity systems balanced due to having the benefit of its
particular neighbors and their electricity mix. Norway and Sweden provide Denmark, Germany
and Netherlands access to significant amounts of fast, short term balancing reserve, via
interconnectors. They effectively act as Denmark’s
“electricity storage batteries”. Norwegian
and Swedish hydropower can be rapidly turned up and
down, and Norway’s lakes effectively
“store” some portion of Danish wind power.
Over the last eight years West Denmark has exported
(couldn’t use), on average, 57% of the
wind power it generated and East Denmark an average
of 45%.The correlation between high
wind output and net outflows makes the case that there is a large component of wind energy in
the outflow indisputable.
>>55556733
The exported wind power, paid for by Danish househo
lders, brings material benefits in the form
of cheap electricity and delayed investment in new
generation equipment for consumers in
Sweden and Norway but nothing for Danish consumers.
Taxes and charges on electricity for
Danish household consumers make their electricity b
y far the most expensive in the European
Union (EU)
1
. The total probable value of exported subsidies be
tween 2001 and 2008 was DKK 6.8
billion (€916 million) during this period. A simila
r amount was probably exported prior to 2012
2
and larger quantities will be exported following th
e commissioning of 800 MW of new offshore
wind capacity in 2013.
The wind power that is exported from Denmark saves
neither fossil fuel consumption nor CO2
emissions in Denmark, where it is all paid for. By
necessity, wind power exported to Norway and
Sweden supplants largely carbon neutral electricity
in the Nordic countries. No coal is used nor
are there power-related CO2 emissions in Sweden and
Norway.
>>55554857
Why do you support the slaughter of millions of birds? Birds are people too and they have human rights.
>>55556641
I dunno man, one would think that you could simply unhook the generator and let the blades swing on their own for a day.
Maybe they can change the design.
>>55556784
Both cats and cars kill a multitude of birds compared to windmills.
>>55556641
This has to be bullshit. Remove magnetic field from one coil and the other has nothing resisting its motion. Surely you don't think they use permanent magnets in those generators. And even is they did, a simple clutch system like the one in your car would easily solve the problem.
>>55554857
Sure it works, but its not cost effective at all
>>55556514
kek
>>55556913
>>55556913
Yes, they do use permanent magnets for this because that's how 3-phase induction generators work. The rotor is a permanent magnet and induces a current in the stator around it. You can't make that an electromagnet because it has to be able to rotate freely. Similarly, because of how little an air gap there is in the machine and the general design of the coil windings, trying to build a generator that can have the magnet of the rotor easily removed and put back in is both an engineering nightmare and would reduce the generators service life.
>>55557563
This is why they tilt the blades in high winds though, to prevent overspeeding and to stop or almost stop rotation.
I have visited the company making the feedback system which measures windspeed and feeds back to the blade tilt/attitude system. Actually they use ultrasound to measure the wind speed, no moving parts... clever stuff.
>>55557563
And what stops them from using regular brushes or slip rings or whatever?
>>55554857
The article is stating that wind power fulfilled national demand on a particularly windy day. On a still day it's contribution would be negligible.
No one has ever claimed that wind power does not generate electricity, just that it does so intermittently and is not always cost effective.
>if we build these giant steel windmills everywhere we wont need coal!
What's ever so slightly more embarrassing is linking to The Guardian. Not clicking that shit Ahmed.
>tax the better sources of energy
>subsidize shit sources of energy
I-It works, s-see!
You may post in this thread if your state gets 25% of electricity from wind power.
Not so fast states that aren't Kansas, South Dakota, and Iowa!
PS, here are actual prices for land-based wind installations.
Any country that is not generating electricity mainly with nuclear is a noncountry tbf
![bird-clean-v-dirty-energy-cartoon[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/qXszC15.jpg "bird-clean-v-dirty-energy-cartoon[1].jpg")
>>55554857
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEersoJLtRw
>wind power will save the planet. now shut up and help bury these birds.
>>55557905
These are motors that need to produce AC power at very high efficiency for very long service lives, we're talking many millions of cycles without failure.
Brushes would reduce efficiency and wear out too fast for this type of operation.
>>55556514
We have biomass fuel plants already, denmark.
What do you think we do with the flowers after they're sold and wilted? We burn 'em.
Netherlands: top jew since 1582.
>>55558133
Countries generating the majority of their electricity by nuclear power
>France
>Slovakia
>Hungary
>Ukraine
Non-countries include
>USA
>China
>Russia
>Germany
>Japan
>>55558141
no ones cares about stupid birds. All anyone cares about is global warming, because it will have a direct economic cost on humans.
>>55554857
And yet most wind turbines never reach equity.
>>55554857
>theguardian
please go back there and stay there.
>>55558141
Household cats kill more birds than turbines
>>55557826
Yeah, the systems in place are quite clever and I'll admit I'm being overly negative mainly because greenies desperatley over-hype wind and solar power and I feel they need to be made aware of the flaws of those energy sources.
>>55558141
>a couple of shitty birds die because they are stupid
vs
>everything dies
Hard choice there bud
>>55558235
You never lived near awind turbine.
>>55558235
What about household turbines?
>wind power works on a particular Thursday
>at a time of day when commercial and industrial demands are reduced
That's good enough for me. Wind power for everyone!
Fucking disingenuous bullshit articles. Wind power is interesting enough in its own right. You don't need to write misleading bullshit about it.
>>55558160
And yet they use brushes in hydroelectric turbines which are subject to arguably the same conditions. I guess the key point here is high efficiency. Should tell you something when you have to max it out like this only to make it somewhat viable.
>>55558345
>>55558305
You never lived near a cat
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cats-kill-more-one-billion-birds-each-year
>>55558415
Of course you need to.
Nonbaseload power sources always need disingenuous reports to seem good, and never hold to scrutiny.
Even solar is shit. everything that can't run 100% of the time without spikes, one way or the other, is shit. Even if we had perfect capacitors it would be shit.
>>55556074
Loooool. 0,8 cents/kilowatt
![19117[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/X3wOYII.jpg "19117[2].jpg")
>>55558219
>>55558270
I guess we see what hypocrites liberals actually are in this thread.
>It's only bad if it's not a platform I already support
pic related is going to set us all free anyways
>>55558512
I own a cat tied to a winturbine, pic related.
>>55558655
Fusion is not ready.
Fission is the shortterm answer.
>>55558655
Hey Maple leaf, I didn't mean I hate birds and want them dead.
I want to go full nuclear (thorium, regular shitty fission, fusion when available) but at this time I take any source of fuel that doesn't involve burning shit we found in the ground.
Sacrificing a few species of birds is better than sacrificing a gorillion species of everything.
>>55554857
It's not reliable and cheap enough. It's a luxury for liberals, at the expense of the poor.
![the-iter-project-17-638[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Bd0zDMA.jpg "the-iter-project-17-638[1].jpg")
>>55558726
closer to ready than you think
>>55558655
What are you talking about? The only reason anyone gives a shit about global warming is because of the economic consequences. Nobody would be making such a huge effort to save a couple of dumb birds.
>>55558902
how is that close? It's not even built yet. then they want to run it for 10 years so they can learn about how to build that shit. Then they have to start building DEMO, which will take 10 years after that. Then run DEMO for probably 10 years while learning what the issues are with that are. Then, if nothing goes wrong, they can maybe build commercial plants.
![LFTR[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/EmWjl2o.jpg "LFTR[1].jpg")
>>55558768
LFTR really interests me, although, the established nuclear energy industry doesn't pay it much attention and thus little funding. Though modern uranium fission reactors are just as safe. The nuclear option has been the best one on the table in terms of cost/kwh as well as an impressive safety record regarding both plant site management and ecological impact.
It's when you get extreme cases like chernobyl or fukushima which used older, less safe designs people lose their minds because that radiation doesn't go away and it contaminates a large area around it. It's a constant reminder of our hubris; of how far we have come and how far we have left to go.
>>55558897
Says the guy from fake Hungary
>>55554857
Not if you are to power a huge industry and millions of peoples homes.
Nuclear is the future, now move along
>>55558141
I'm not saying I'm pro wind energy, but that's the dumbest arguement I have ever seen.
>>55554857
I bet a single nuclear plant could make all those wind turbines useless. Nuclear energy always trumps the "green" alternative, people seem to like having these shitty turbines all over the place.
>>55558542
>Even solar is shit
I'd say it's only good in places that are dry and have loads of sun, where I live they're planning on building a whole farm of these useless things.
>>55559573
>where I live they're planning on building a whole farm of these useless things.
They are terrible anywhere it rains a lot because you have to clean them every time or they lose a huge amount of generation.
>>55559530
Do you even know what a nuclear reactor does? What those big concrete funnel looking thing are? It's a giant steam engine. Instead of burning coal or oil to turn turbines for electricity generation, they burn nuclear material. It's 1800s technology and you think it's the future? Top fucking kek.
>>55559696
>they burn nuclear material
It's not quite that simple.
>>55558655
Goddamn, it's like they went out their way to make that thing look as ominous and foreboding as possible.
That fucker looks like it's gonna open a portal to hell or someshit.
>>55559573
See
>>55559696
A nuclear rector, fusion or fission, works exactly the same as a coal burning engine from the 1800s. The only difference is the fuel being burnt is nuclear and it's waste is now radioactive.
>>55559717
Of course it's a bit more complex, but it's the same thing, burn material to turn a turbine. Turbine turning generated electricity. This is literally the same thing we used to power trains 200 years ago, but now the waste is radioactive.
>>55556838
>simply unhook the generator and let the blades swing on their own for a day.
No you can't, it will simply tear itself apart due to the force the swinging blades generate.
You need a braking system, which is additional wear and tear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbCs7ZQDKoM
>>55558133
We made EU bully Sweden into closing one of their nuclear power plants.
I feel so terribly ashamed and sorry for Sweden ;_;
>hey guys, look at these cool turbines!
>totally clean! even though they kill edangered species and all birds that pass through it
>Haha, don't worry it's completely clean! All we need to do is mine for rare earth metal neodymium and begin their toxic production ))))))))
>also don't mind the noise, even though it will affect your psyche ))))))))))))))
>>55559820
It looks like something out of S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
Something you'd find in a run down laboratory, spawning mutated, glowing butterflies that shoot electricity.
>>55554857
It works, but it costs a shit load of money. Might as well have just built nuclear power plants.
>>55554857
When It's fucking windy yeah, coal and any other way you can boile water to spin things is 24/7 365 days a year on our flat arse planet.
>>55554857
>>55556140
I am disappointed. A retarded Netherlander and Dane are getting schooled by a frogposter.
Looks like it's about time to remake pic related and change Netherlands and Denmark to neutral, Singapore too.
>>55554964
Upboated. The article makes no mention of cost per kWh or the fact Denmark has the highest energy prices in the world.
>>55560235
Your map is already shit to begin with.
Hungary is like the country of the year when dealing with muslims, and you're not even giving them the recognition.
>>55560101
>be a bird
>millions of years of instinct and evolution tells you to avoid hitting cliffs, trees, other flyers
>2015, some dumbass Humans can't understand that it'll take time and experience for birds to develop an instinct for not flying around wind turbines
>doesn't understand tons of birds will have to fly through them, dying in order to realize collectively, not to do that anymore
>posts animal feels garbage as an argument on 4chan
Yah, no. Wind farms are usually far from population centers and barely make noise anyway, wtf you talking about? I'll give you increased rare earth metal harvesting but did you expect a resource on Earth to last forever? To be immune to Human need?
>>55559147
I think we'll find that once they actually show the foundation works (Significantly more power out than put in), it will focus a lot of minds.
Right now fusion is still a joke technology in most people's minds. Something for 2215, not 2015.
When people get serious about it, things will move a lot faster.
>>55560294
That does not make up for a 2013 GDP per capita of 13,480.91 USD, stagnation and very low scientific output.
>>55560426
Protecting your heritage, your nation, and your ancestry comes before all of that shit. It's what creates the foundation for the rest.
And they are doing it right.
>>55560407
your responded to the wrong post. No one mentioned fusion.
>Right now fusion is still a joke technology in most people's minds. Something for 2215, not 2015.
It's only in that state now because funding was cut so much.
Wind power works until the wind stops.
Then they switch to fucking coal and natural gas.
>>55560549
Guess that's why iter is being built in Europe and not America.
>>55560235
Fuck off Switzerland, nobody likes you Gebirgsdeutscher. You associate far too closely with Italians and Frenchmen.
>>55560548
>It's what creates the foundation for the rest.
if it is the foundation, why are they so terrible at the rest? your argument is wrong.
>>55560627
it's entertaining how the netherlander and the dane are so butthurt that they get demoted for their stupidity.
>>55556451
>> mfw Serbia generates energy by burning kebabs
kek
>>55560677
They are protecting what little they have.
We aren't. That's what will make the difference in 50 years when we become islamic states and they don't.
>>55558682
kek of the day
>>55558902
>close to fusion
>posts ITER
Get the fuck out of this thread mate, you're out of your depth, the ITER is a colossal money sink and will not work not for a long time.
Other reactors are making headway, plus one being built by the Max Plank Institute of Physics has been tested for safety and it's due to start running soon, that one will work before ITER.
>>55554857
Yeah Wind power works about 60% of the time over the year.
40% of the time, no wind, no work.
Guess you and your family can line up and fart on one for three months shithead lol.
>>55560815
Most power plants aren't running at max capacity all the time either, I guess that means they're a waste as well then right?
>>55554857
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html
>>55560742
we won't become islamic states, the stupid beta lefists will wake up before we get that far.
in 50 years switzerland will still be far ahead of hungary and you with your big mouth will conveniently avoid admitting how retarded you were all along.
>>55560815
>lol
Reddit geht raus. Wir brauchen keine "lol" hier. Das heist kek.
>>55560912
>beta lefists will wake up before we get that far.
See>>55560185
The government will sooner silence you and work against you to put you down, rather than let you be informed about the reality.
>>55560911
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html
oh shit.
Though at least it's just local. Not raising the the global avg temperature. Makes me want them to build more here desu.
>>55561034
Why dont you just build a volcano and have it generate steam for turbines, whats the problem, a volcano has a 100% up time for about min 1 billion years.
I'll sell you one for 8 trillion Euros, just get some shovers sail up here and dig it up your self no prob, I'll throw in some ice for free.
>>55561159
>Iceland thinks he is hot shit
Volcanoes are over rated. They tend to bury your society when they get in a bad mood.
>>55561159
A volcano? In a swamp like the Netherlands? Sounds like the set up to a Monty Python joke.
>>55560815
It's too bad we can't burn Leftist corpses for energy instead. At leas they'd contribute to society for a change then.
>>55560815
What sort of fucked up country doesn't have wind? I live in Perth and the wind blows here every single fucking day.
>>55560846
Coal plants run at under max capacity when 100% of the power isn't needed. Wind turbines run under max capacity because there isn't enough of a breeze to keep them running.
>>55556321
Biogas are pretty cheap. That's noice.
t. environmentalist
>>55560911
this is interesting
I looked at the study on nature. the scale is small and cause for this temperature increase is not fully understood. the conclusion is pretty much that further investigation is required.
>>55554857
>Unusually high winds
>Unusually high winds
>Unusually high winds
>Unusually high winds
>Unusually high winds
This is why. Face it, wind power is just too intermittent. Might it worthwhile in the future with increased yield.
>>55556593
>The real solution will be a combination of wind, solar, biomass, hydropower and geothermal energy
This
h
i
s
t. environmentalist
>>55554857
Wind power does work, but current regulations (written by leftists) state that you have to have any "variable" power source backed by a "consistent" power source. This means that for every 1 MW of wind/solar power that you have, you will need 1MW of gas, coal, steam, nuclear, etc, backing that wind/solar source.
This is why they are considered a "negative investment." Want to thank someone? Thank Obama.
>>55561613
Clearly, the solution is to worship Neptune.
>>55554857
Of course a tulip like you would have a hard on for wind power
>>55561702
We turned a swamp into the 4th strongest economy in Europe by the power of the wind, so yeah, we like our wind power.
Modern windpower is a financial mess though, and we have found more efficient ways of water drainage.
>>55561843
Run a cable from Jupiter to Netherlands, I hear its good wind power there.
>>55556593
>>55561627
you are forgetting about nuclear
in 50-100 years nuclear will likely cover >50% of global energy demands
>>55561843
>We turned a swamp into the 4th strongest economy in Europe
We turned a swamp into the capital of Europe.
And we still mined coal until the only thing left was a hole in the ground and a lot of people with black lung.
Wind power sucks. Hydroelectric is useful. Geothermic is too. Tidal as well. Solar is becoming a thing, but it still sucks balls.
>>55562088
>nuclear
Large-scale nuclear meltdowns at civilian nuclear power plants include:[9][34]
the Lucens reactor, Switzerland, in 1969.
the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania, United States, in 1979.
the Chernobyl disaster at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Ukraine, USSR, in 1986.
the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster following the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, March 2011.
Other core meltdowns have occurred at:[34]
NRX (military), Ontario, Canada, in 1952
BORAX-I (experimental), Idaho, U.S.A., in 1954
EBR-I, Idaho, U.S.A., in 1955
Windscale (military), Sellafield, England, in 1957 (see Windscale fire)
Sodium Reactor Experiment, (civilian), California, U.S.A., in 1959
Fermi 1 (civilian), Michigan, U.S.A., in 1966
Chapelcross nuclear power station (civilian), Scotland, in 1967
Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant (civilian), France, in 1969
A1 plant, (civilian) at Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia, in 1977
Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant (civilian), France, in 1980
Eight Soviet Navy nuclear submarines have had nuclear core meltdowns or radiation incidents: K-19 (1961), K-11(1965), K-27 (1968), K-140 (1968), K-429 (1970), K-222 (1980), K-314 (1985), and K-431 (1985).[9]
>>55562088
>nuclear
High-level waste[edit]
High-level waste (HLW) is produced by nuclear reactors. The exact definition of HLW differs internationally. After a nuclear fuel rod serves one fuel cycle and is removed from the core, it is considered HLW.[32] Fuel rods contain fission products and transuranic elements generated in the reactor core. Spent fuel is highly radioactive and often hot. HLW accounts for over 95 percent of the total radioactivity produced in the process of nuclear electricity generation. The amount of HLW worldwide is currently increasing by about 12,000 metric tons every year, which is the equivalent to about 100 double-decker buses or a two-story structure with a footprint the size of a basketball court.[citation needed] A 1000-MW nuclear power plant produces about 27 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel (unreprocessed) every year.[33] In 2010, there was very roughly estimated to be stored some 250,000 tons of nuclear HLW,[34] that does not include amounts that have escaped into the environment from accidents or tests. Japan estimated to hold 17,000 tons of HLW in storage in 2015.[35] HLW have been shipped to other countries to be stored or reprocessed, and in some cases, shipped back as active fuel.
>>55562251
>pic related
>>55562280
>what are molten salt reactors
>what are fusion reactors
>>55558652
5 rubles per KW makes it 7.6 cents.
>>55562349
How about deaths per plant? And also economical losses per accidents with plants?
>what are molten salt reactors
Little development compared to most Gen IV designs – much is unknown.
Need to operate an on-site chemical plant to manage core mixture and remove fission products.
Likely need for regulatory changes to deal with radically different design features.
Corrosion may occur over many decades of reactor operation and could be problematic.[57]
Alloys based on nickel and iron are prone to embrittlement under high neutron flux.[52](p83)
As a breeder reactor, a MSR might be able, with modifications, to produce weapons-grade nuclear material.[58]
>what are fusion reactors
Fusion power is the generation of energy by nuclear fusion. Fusion reactions are high energy reactions in which two lighter atomic nuclei fuse to form a heavier nucleus. When they combine, some of the mass is converted into energy in accordance with the formula E=mc^2.[1] This major area of plasma physics research is concerned with harnessing this reaction as a source of large scale sustainable energy.
In large scale commercial proposals, heat from the fusion reaction is used to operate a steam turbine that drives electrical generators, as in existing fossil fuel and nuclear fission power stations. Many different fusion concepts have come in and out of vogue over the years. The current leading designs are the tokamak and inertial confinement fusion (laser) approaches. As of November 2015, these technologies are not yet commercially viable. Currently, it takes more energy to initiate and contain a fusion reaction, than the energy it produces.
>>55554857
They're ugly and they kills shitloads of birds
>>55562280
>HLW have been shipped to other countries to be stored or reprocessed, and in some cases, shipped back as active fuel.
Most HLW is just stored in near reactor ponds. It is our legacy for Millenials, together with government and private debt and demographic crisis kekeke.
>>55562349
>what are molten salt reactors
>what are fusion reactors
Buzzwords.
>>55562926
>Most HLW is just stored in near reactor ponds. It is our legacy for Millenials, together with government and private debt and demographic crisis kekeke.
I wonder, if somebody somewhere would accidentaly open that grave...
>>55562757
>How about deaths per plant?
how is that relevant? all that matters is deaths per amount of electricity produced
>And also economical losses per accidents with plants?
in next gen plants meltdowns physically can not occur. they would already be out if not for idiotic leftists blocking the technologies and we would have clean and safe energy en masse already.
>problems listed with molten salt reactors
they're already being worked on but you can only do so much with a very small budget. and none of the drawbacks are significant compared to the tremendous benefits.
>Currently, it takes more energy to initiate and contain a fusion reaction, than the energy it produces.
again, that is because leftist idiots block development in nuclear.
>https://i.4cdn.org/pol/1447420627628.jpg
small teams with a very tight budget manage to build fusion reactors. imagine where we would be if same amount of money that goes into solar and wind would go into nuclear.
>>55562231
You are just a bunch of Dutch and Frenchmen in denial. We really need to end this "Belgium" farce.
>capital of Europe
Not really a Belgian accomplishment, it didnt have much at all to do with you.
>>55554857
Someone isn't paying attention to the republican debates.
Several candidates were touting the advantages of wind, which Republicans have pushed in their states.
We just don't like the government PAYING for it.
>>55555555
>>55563205
>in next gen plants meltdowns physically can not occur.
Put a manager with profit priority over other goals and i can guarantee you that eventually they will break the unbreakable. Did you ever hear about cutting costs? Oh and you already stepped on the road making dollar above all posting pic measuring everything in dollars ...
S U B S I D I E S
U
B
S
I
D
I
E
S
>>55563704
so your response is that you ignore and don't care about factual arguments?
typical wannabe "environmentalist" - has no clue what he's talking about, googles + cherrypicks without understanding what he actually copy pastes, does not actually care about minimizing the burden on the environment
>>55563846
We are not the same anon, Mountain Jew.
>>55564070
I am sorry, my mistake.
>>55562915
no they don't, they actually kill more bats than birds. Which can still be a problem depending on your bat populations.
>>55554857
Wind power creates droughts.
The solution is to build giant fans to blow the air again so the moisture would reach the area where the wind farms slows down the air.
>>55563827
Don't forget Swedish and Norwegian hydro energy imports to fill the intermittency gap.
Denmark is a case study in wind being a terrible fucking idea. Even with supplemental power that offsets intermittency problems they still end up with the worlds most expensive energy due to their retarded level of wind power investment.
You could've built a nuclear fleet that's percentually comparable or even exceeding the french, yet instead you built a wishful thinking energy source.
yeah, wind power works. When you strap a propel to a generator it has a habit of generating electricity. The problem is that it generates electricity so fukin little is ridiculous dude
>>55563846
>so your response is that you ignore and don't care about factual arguments?
It is actually your response to ignore arguments.
Management will be cutting costs until system break it is inevitable with capitalism. Accidents WILL happen regardless of your wants. Deal with it.
>>55556185
?
I pay 16 cents during the day
mother fucking liberals who think their green dogshit is free
>>55556708
Wind is not any part of anything
It's dogshit
Because you need a FULL REPLACEMENT for it, availible 24/7
When wind power is already far more expensive than any other power supply
>>55554857
The only mistake they're making is using old as dirt wind technology.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/411274/a-design-for-cheaper-wind-power/
>>55554857
>guardian
It sure does work in killing lots and lots of birds. Why do left wing extremists hate the birds?
>>55562757
the west has not had a single serious nuclear accident
Talking about "what if's" is nonsense.
>>55554857
OP only works when he is Blowing too.
>>55558264
You are doing good work. Keep the hype-lords down to Earth. God I hate the cult of positivity today. No one wants to examine the shitty things, they want sunshine and laughter all day long. Victory to the skeptics and critics!
>>55566838
It isn't just a cult of positivity it's thievery. Selling people on false hopes, and bunk science in a way is fraud.
Asking people to buy an OIL ETF IMO would net them probably 200% as much profit in 1/10th of the time.
Asking a bunch of emotional reactionaries to see things from an engineering perspective is kind of futile though.
>>55563704
>Did you ever hear about cutting costs?
Melt down can no more occur in a next gen fission plant than a car crash can occur in a car that cannot move.
Cost cutting had nothing to do with it.
>>55554857
Is /pol/ really against wind power?
I know we all have the same opinions here but it never came up. From what I've noticed is works where feasible, where the wind is constant and you have the real estate, like the deserts of Southern California. But then the green energy hacks get hold of it and want to put them up anywhere. Like offshore on the east coast of the US where multiple hurricanes hit annually.
That article is basically an ad tbqh.
Nuclear works better.
>>55567221
You realize those windmills are made from oil right?
You realize by the very nature of the universe you will use more oil than energy you will capture back from the wind?
So equating dissent with being against something comes off as just anti-science is all.
>>55567454
>You realize those windmills are made from oil right?
What windmills. We're talking about wind turbines anon. Wind turbines are mostly made of steel last i checked.
>You realize by the very nature of the universe you will use more oil than energy you will capture back from the wind?
How do you figure that?
>>5556223
lol, being the capital of a farce isn't an achievement.
Solar power is the next best thing to thorium and fusion reactors though. It's got potential, I agree.
>>55554857
>MINDLESS IDIOTS ON /pol/ DON'T
No shit, what part of NEET were you having trouble with?
>>55567597
>What windmills. We're talking about wind turbines anon. Wind turbines are mostly made of steel last i checked.
Right about the windmill portion. But does steel mine itself? Does it form itself? Does it transport itself? Do you realize the rules of the universe you live in?
Each one of those steps requires tons of humans, that all eat, drive, and shit. Stop being so fucking daft.
How do you figure that?
2nd law of thermodynamics; Energy/mass cannot be created only transferred, and no transfer is free there is a cost of both loss,(imagine pouring one bucket of water into multiple buckets there is loss from both spillage, and dissipation) and energy input.
Did you just think shit pops out of thin air for free?
Are you aware of companies are so controlling of their (energy costs) wages?
>>55554857
Wind farms are loud as fuck family plus they're fucking expensive
The real solution is water turbines or hydroenergy
>>55554857
Can't remember the eolic energy stats, but I can assure you that solar energy production methods suck. Its output and maintenance are not very effective.
>>55554857
So I hear you love killing millions of birds and disrupting the climate.
Because liberals just want mankind to die--if they didn't, they'd embrace nuclear power, which has the fewest deaths per watt of any power source in existence.
>>55567957
That's not how the second law of thermodynamics works.
>>55567957
>But does steel mine itself? Does it form itself? Does it transport itself?
No, that all requires energy and often oil to be burned.
>Did you just think shit pops out of thin air for free?
You sound terribly confused. Yes, the energy basically comes out of the air for free sans the cost of building and maintaining the wind turbine. Wind power ultimately originates from sunlight. I'm not sure what conservation of energy has to do with anything to do with this at all. There is no fundamental relationship between the energy required to build and maintain wind turbine and the amount of energy it can output in it's lifetime.
>Are you aware of companies are so controlling of their (energy costs) wages?
Of course I am. Why?
>>55556451
kekkled
>>55568144
Conservation of energy, sorry first law.
>>55568176
>>Did you just think shit pops out of thin air for free?
You sound terribly confused. Yes, the energy basically comes out of the air for free sans the cost of building and maintaining the wind turbine. Wind power ultimately originates from sunlight. I'm not sure what conservation of energy has to do with anything to do with this at all. There is no fundamental relationship between the energy required to build and maintain wind turbine and the amount of energy it can output in it's lifetime.
Becuase if your goal is to have more energy or to be less polluting then don't you want the cheapest, and easiest to get energy?
Do you not understand how this works?
Based on economics alone there really is no going around it. The only way to save more energy in most of the alternative scams is too outsource labor to places with borderline slavery to save all-round.
Nothing in life is free, or "easy"- this has been, and will always be the case.
>Of course I am. Why?
Replace wages with energy, and replace company with reality. And then reapproach the subject with a grain of logic to actually apply to it rather then some aesthetic of moral beauty or whatever you assume.
>>55554857
Great, since it works you can shut down those fossil fuel plants asap. Today. Now. Save the planet!
>>55568176
I'll put it in greentext so that you could understand that burger's point
>use oil to mine minerals and construct the windmills
>pay faggots for that
>windmills work for a while
>they break
>use more oil to build new ones/fix the old ones and pay faggots again
>for every kWh of "free energy out of thin air" you have to burn oil and pay faggots
>still have to use oil, in fact more than before you decided to build your windmills
>>55568357
>Because if your goal is to have more energy or to be less polluting then don't you want the cheapest, and easiest to get energy?
yes. Hence wind turbines.
>The only way to save more energy in most of the alternative scams is too outsource labor to places with borderline slavery to save all-round.
I'm fine with using "borderline-slavery" jobs. I'm not willing to pay more for raw materials to ensure they were mined by well paid people in first world countries, are you?
>Nothing in life is free, or "easy"- this has been, and will always be the case.
I agree. No one said otherwise.
>>55568485
Yes, but you are using much less oil than you would need to run a oil burning power plant. That's the whole point.
>>55568591
>yes. Hence wind turbines.
Ok, let's start over again. Do you realize oil is cheaper to burn, and less polluting than coverting it to something else correct? Do we have to explain energy transfer and needing slaves again?
>I'm fine with using "borderline-slavery" jobs. I'm not willing to pay more for raw materials to ensure they were mined by well paid people in first world countries, are you?
In all seriousness than why do you care about energy capture, just use slaves? They last longer than machines and can take care of themselves, they self-replicate- although they might be a major problem to maintain down the road.
Not sure if you are trolling.
>I agree. No one said otherwise.
You might not say it directly but you certainly infer it through your wishes.
>>55568826
>Do you realize oil is cheaper to burn, and less polluting than converting it to something else correct?
I understand it is cheaper to burn than to convert it to something else. Why is it more polluting to convert to something than to burn it? The only pollution we're concerned about here is greenhouse gases.
>Do we have to explain energy transfer and needing slaves again?
I don't see what either of those have to do with anything. I have no problem with low wage labour.
>In all seriousness than why do you care about energy capture, just use slaves?
Slaves aren't legal in the EU, and I don;t see how cheap labour alone replaces a power station. Really not sure what you're on about.
>You might not say it directly but you certainly infer it through your wishes.
I don't. Wind power obviously isn't free. It's simply relatively economical way of getting electricity without producing much greenhouse gases.
>>55554857
Nuclear energy is most efficient.
>>55554857
I don't remember anyone on /pol/ tag talking wind power
>>55554857
Based Trump disagrees, OP.
https://youtu.be/XzoqTiTimPA
>>55554857
Why do they scatter a bunch everywhere when they could just stack 3 sets of blades on one pole and save space?
>>55554857
>take up good land or pricey on water
>expensive repairs, even more pricey on water
>kills birds, including endangered birds
>could possibly also cause climate change if used on a large scale to supply a significant portion of power to the world
can someone explain me why wind power wouldn't be efficient? could it be that friction greatly reduces the harvest potential? but then again, there would still be a lot of energy to be made, especially at countries with a windy climate.
note that arguments like, it kills birds or it disturbs the environment won't be taken seriously.
>>55571616
Actually it using up land that could otherwise be undisturbed or used for farming is a valid argument. Also since wind is not constant, you have to supplement with other energy and at that point you may as well just drop the wind altogether.
Only very select areas might have a good enough cost/benefit ratio for wind farms.
I'd rather see more nuclear plants, if anything the govt currently denying new plants is forcing older nuke plants to stay in service longer than intended which is even more unsafe, and prevents more efficient plants from being used as well.
>>55564993
More like managers will actively fight the safety systems of their poorly designed reactor, at the direction of their communist government, until it explodes.
>>55554857
of course it "works" to some degree. Nobody says otherwise. It's just that in many cases there are much much better methods. Not to mention the visual pollution wind turbines create.
>>55554857
PLEBS
>>55572099
>visual pollution
>>55554857
So does coal.
I don't think anybody is denying it doesn't work.
>>55569393
>The only pollution we're concerned about here is greenhouse gases.
Slowing the rotation of Earth can be a different centuries problem.
What about breeder reactors? Reduces amount of radioactive waste by a shit ton and provides useful pharmaceutical radionuclides. That's all I remember about them. I worked at a traditional PWR plant during my internship and forgot about everything else
>>55572239
I can't tell you how many beautiful picturesque landscapes i have seen ruined by huge turbines
believe me they get in the way when i want to take a photo of a sunset or just the rolling green hills and the blue sky, only to be spoiled by some white turning pylon in the distance
city people don't think twice because they don't have natural beauty to admire.
>>55566341
That's because i am running a cable to your garage. Now calm down on the porn, the lag is fucking with my kdr.
>>55572239
that's what it's called
>Visual pollution is an aesthetic issue and refers to the impacts of pollution that impair one's ability to enjoy a vista or view. Visual pollution disturbs the visual areas of people by creating negative changes in the natural environment.
