Why are these sacred cows so revered? Especially when things like nuclear are seemingly blacklisted.
Because it's GREEN™! Nukular is bad coz Churnobyl.
Never mind the terrible energy density, rarity of materials or the environmental impact of mining them.
>>7716417
because they actually work.
>>https://www.academia.edu/8603622/Mobile_Open-Source_Solar-Powered_3-D_Printers_for_Distributed_Manufacturing_in_Off-Grid_Communities
>>http://www.sciencealert.com/rooftop-solar-is-now-cheaper-than-grid-electricity-in-these-6-us-cities
Because it's already cheaper than nuclear, despite nuclear being established. Graphene is the next generation solar component, and it can be manufactured out of methane, co2, glucose, and many other molecules.
Why don't you justify your centralized, expensive front for weapons manufacturing? Fusion is coming along now too, and graphene emits electrons when shot with photons, and this produces thrust. Graphene is light and strong enough to scale up to any size you want, and if you have a giant spacecraft you also have the area to install the solar systems to power it.
>>7716509
This.
People are scared of nuclear and don't want to listen to reason since they're still in the mind set of "the invisible judgement man will hurt me" even if they aren't religious.
Or they are greeners who demand that Gaia hurts from "unnatural" radiation and man is evil or some shit.
Fuck I am getting mad now.
>>7716636
>Fuck I am getting mad now
Of course you are - solar is now cheaper than nuclear, and it allows decentralized manufacturing. The elitist economy you either partially own or wish you owned is about to collapse. The global economy is dying, not because of rising production costs, but because of the desire for increased profit margins. Gas is now $2.07/gallon where I live. There is no scarcity - the elite just want to prevent you from competing with them, so they sell you the fish at inflated prices, never put the fishing pole on the consumer market, and make it illegal to fish without paying money to governments run by themselves or their sycophants.
I bet decommissioning nuke reactors will be big business soon. The people cleaning up the most recent in a long parade of nuclear messes have designed the robots and ice walls we'll need, and thankfully we have the bioprinting technology and graphene filters to repair the damage.
Humanity dodged the nuclear bullet, and we can now regulate it into deep space where it's useful.
>>7716636
Nah, you've just based your entire worldview on reactions to dumb people. Which makes you a dumb person as well, because your perceptions and beliefs are no more accurate nor deep. They're just a reaction.
Grow up and try to see the big picture. Wah wah, the greeners, wah. Environmentalism muh naturalist philosophy muh can't truly define natural in a meaningful sense, wah. Tell us when you're ready to stop presenting "thoughts" that are really just your own mindless shitting in your cradle.
>>7716417
When is the last time someone made a multi-megaton bomb from some solar panels or wind turbines?
How many people have died from nuclear power plants vs wind or solar plants?
Well drilling-fracking for uranium is now new tech entering the field too.
>>7716689
>solar is now cheaper than nuclear
Not to mention that it's only getting cheaper - massive amounts of research is going on in solar energy, continuing the downward trend of cost that we've seen ever since solar panels were invented
>>7716636
>you got me mad now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBJXfmapoyQ
>>7716417
Why not both?
Solar is only good for populated areas. There is nothing more stupid than a solar farm. Wind farms are cool, though, fuck the birds and the investors, it's their money anyway. As long as the government stops spending my money subsidising it,
>>7716713
More people have died working on wind turbines than nuclear power plants
>>7716417
Honestly, its the hippy/far-left/socialist fantasy of decentralised power.
They have a fantasy where the can destroy the 'evil energy corporations'
This here is the example of the mentality:
>>7716563
>>7716689
Also, in China where plants don't have to deal with a toxic regulatory regime, political interference that causes delays and cost blowouts, and dumb-ass frivolous hippie lawsuits they've building nuclear for US$1.5b to US$2b a GWe and it's only getting cheaper.
>>7716713
When was the last time a dedicated power reactor was used to make a bomb? Oh wait, never.
>>7716764
>Solar is only good for populated areas.
Absolute total horseshit. Solar panels now cost less than $0.40 per watt. Installing them in residential areas costs $3/watt.
Installing them in solar farms costs $0.15 / watt.
Solar needs low land value, near by access to the grid, and good amounts of sun. (south west us is best)
Solar is not a silver bullet and for power management reasons solar cannot practically exceed 30% of a grids power supply. Solar can be very cost competitive with traditional power when done right, it also outputs its maximum power near times when the grid load is highest.
>>7716831
>>power management reasons solar cannot practically exceed 30% of a grids power supply
why?
>>7716844
30% would be a very high figure.
Because it's intermittent.
>>7716802
I don't understand what you mean by fantasy. My roof is covered in solar panels and I use them to charge an electric car. PV is so cheap now it's within anybody's reach so long as they don't flip burgers for a living.
>>7716802
You won't directly respond to my post because you can't argue against it. All you're doing is calling my vision a fantasy, despite the fact that I posted indisputable sources for all my claims. You're evading the meat of the debate, because the facts don't agree with you.
>>7716894
You posted a news article that discussed solar being viable in cities with massively over inflated energy costs and subsidies that furthermore ignore the costs and problems of energy storage. You also posted an article discussing unproven technology.
The other post ignores the fact that nuclear power has the cost of decommissioning factored into it and that a fund has been set up to finance it without a drop of taxpayers money. The rest is a conspiracy level delusion.
To claim anything is indisputable is moronic.
>>7716916
To continue, I work in the energy industry. We've modeled various energy sources to check their viability and laugh every time you claim its currently cost competitive.
If it was cost competitive we'd be putting up wind turbines and solar farms everywhere so we wouldn't have to deal with annoying coal mining unions or the fluctuating costs of natural gas.
The big energy companies aren't part of a conspiracy to burn coal and gas, we're part of a conspiracy to make as much money as possible at as low as possible risk.
We don't care if it's green, just that it has the best profit margins.
So no, it's not commercially viable.
>>7716844
Because he never heard of batteries.
>>7716958
>Wow, now there's a crazy lie.
You can claim that all you want but it doesn't make it the case.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html
>You guys don't usually admit that.
I work in Australia where nuclear power is illegal, so I really don't have any financial interest in nuclear power.
Going to ignore what I said though? That's how you usually play it.
>>7716916
>You posted a news article
Here's the report;
>https://nccleantech.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/Going-Solar-in-America-Ranking-Solars-Value-to-Customers_FINAL.pdf
>being viable in cities with massively over inflated energy costs
The high costs come from the wires to run electricity to millions of people. Lower populations require less infrastructure. Decentralized solar doesn't require those wires.
>You also posted an article discussing unproven technology
I posted a paper. You've posted nothing but unsourced claims and arrogant insults.
>>7716989
>A report from a group with a financial interest in Solar.
Haha.
>The high costs come from the wires to run electricity to millions of people. Lower populations require less infrastructure. Decentralized solar doesn't require those wires.
They make up about 5-10% of the cost of your electricity. It's negligible.
>I posted a paper. You've posted nothing but unsourced claims and arrogant insults.
You posted a paper discussing unproven technology and insulted first when you made out nuclear advocates to be angry nutcases. It works both ways, buddy.
>>7716932
Solar is commercially viable in some areas.
It depends on your access to the grid, cost of land, cost of power, and the available solar energy for an area. In many situations you can get a return on investment in under eight years.
>>7717007
I return to my point: if it was commercially viable they would be built without subsidies. Energy companies will buy whatever energy source that is low risk. If wind and solar where the same cost as coal and gas kwhr for kwhr after considering storage problem, they be using it to avoid the market uncertainties associated with coal and gas.
>>7717023
This is not true. Energy companies penalize solar and wind where they can because they are intermittent sources of energy. This means they have to constantly dial up and down expensive natural gas plants constantly. Power companies like base load power and they like rapidly controllable power they don't like solar because it requires more management of other power sources.
>>7717045
I said, and I quote "If wind and solar where the same cost as coal and gas kwhr for kwhr after considering storage problem, they be using it ..."
>>7717055
Cont
Power companies do not consider it financially viable at the moment when you factor in storage.
>>7717023
>after considering storage problem
This is not how solar works. Solar helps reduce the demand from col and gas during the day only. Solar is not just on and off, it ramps up to its peak around noon before dropping back down. This also happens to be peak very closely with the peak energy demand times. A grid getting 10% of its energy from solar is very happy. Around 20% and it becomes very difficult to find enough power when there are regional storms dropping solar output Germany is around 20% solar right now. At around 30% your grid is running primarily on solar during the peak hours, this really is about the maximum you can practically get from solar and it even relies on fucking with the market and turning down base load power during peak usage times.
From time to time on bright days with low power usage (such as holidays) Germany's peak power is 50% solar.
There are no economical grid sized batteries that in the long run would be cheaper to use than just adding fossil fueled power plants.
>>7717092
That's what I said you moron:
Solar with batteries is not commercially viable over coal and gas.
>>7717112
But solar is commercially viable without batteries. It just cant comprise a very large portion of the supply.
>>7717007
I had a buddy of mine that had his returns met in under four, and then afterwards he started making money because his solar panels generated more electricity than his house consumed. the county paid him to siphon some of his electricity.
>>7716932
>>7717023
I don't know about all areas, but we are putting up wind turbines everywhere. They are completely viable without subsidy (which is just icing on the cake). The majority of added capacity in WECC (Western USA/Canada/Mexico) in the past 5 years has been wind... for most balancing authorities, it's getting to be around a quarter to a third of installed generation. It's so plentiful and cheap at certain times that it actually went to negative pricing on a few occasions before regulators put a stop to that.
>>7716934
Batteries are useless from a grid perspective. Useful for contingencies to feed a vulnerable building or area during an outage... though if you expect the outage might last more than a day, you're better off having diesel generators for backup.
If you're going to store energy, you use dams; if you have no dams, you have dispatchable thermal plants at baseload with room to compensate for a low wind contingency.
>>7717045
> penalize solar and wind
Not penalize, but the products don't sell for the same amount on the market, because they're not firm energy and can't be guaranteed in an emergency. However, some places (Bonneville transmission, for example) will guarantee their wind with firm generation... if the wind dies, they'll put some water through turbines to make up for it. So they can sell that on the market as though it was hydro, while saving up the water.
The intermittent nature of it is another matter, but you get so much leeway in how far off your interchange can be that it's not important. Most markets now sell energy in blocks of 15 minutes, so if you're off by 10 MWh for one period, you just sell 20 MWh less for the next 15 minutes (or several hours/days later) and balance it out.
>>7716764
The government spends considerably more on fossil fuel subsidies than renewable unless you live in Costa Rica.
>>7716509
Energy density is irrelevant because its limitless and clean.
I don't see the sun for months at a time during the winter.
Alaska needs fossil fuels or nuclear power plants.
>>7717263
Why not geothermal you fucking ignorant peasant?
>>7717264
because that only works in certain spots and the state is fucking huge.
the high voltage super cooled DC transmission lines needed to get geothermal power to everywhere in Alaska would be cost prohibitive.
>>7717297
>>Tell that to the environment you have to bulldoze to build it and to mine minerals for it.
and what minerals do solar cells need that can't be recycled?
>>7717301
Well gee, I guess we can tell china to close their rare earth mine. This guy here has enough scrap solar panels to recycle for materials.
>>7716417
Because a significant number of incidents related to nuclear power frightened a significant number of people.
I'm in favor of harnessing energy from nuclear power, but the shit that happened so far discourages me from openly advertising nuclear power plants. Because, the accidents were in fact REALLY stupid. They could have been prevented.
>>7716509
>the environmental impact of mining them
What is Uranium mining?
>>7716932
>I work in the energy industry
Then you should know how stupid the argument that solar is subsidized is. Literally every energy source is subsidized.
>>7717381
Something like Chernobyl was pretty much inevitable given the Soviet Union's demand for plutonium and lax safety measures. Same with Kyshtym.
Fukushima could have been present, sure, but it was very well contained given that the plant got high by an earthquake /and/ a tsunami.
>>7717541
Mostly done in Canada and similar developed nations with strong environmental regulations unlike China.
>>7716636
>People are scared of nuclear and don't want to listen to reason since they're still in the mind set of "the invisible judgement man will hurt me" even if they aren't religious.
I thought people were scared of nuclear because they don't want their kids to come out with 2 extra heads for testicles and arms for legs?
Never knew God had anything to do with nuclear energy.
>>7716417
>Nukular is bad coz Churnobyl.
On a similar note nuclear energy is great and all but the only thing I'm scared of is if the happening does happen and there is no one to manage these plants then the disasters they could cause would be astronomical.
I really hope we get fusion going, especially the kind Helion and lockheed are working on that doesnt require insane upfront costs. Solar power is neat, but the fact that it only creates energy for what, 5 to 12 hours per sunny day is a massive drawback you have to work around with batteries and shit. Fusion is essentially the end of power prduction for us for millenia to come.
>>7717055
Companies act in no way rational... It's very hard for solar energy not to be financially viable (no moving parts and you can expect them still producing electricity in 2080 or whatever) basically like russian mil tec
Besides that the real reason to go into solar and wind is forcing development (like nuclear energy in the 30s-60s). Look what germany did in a few years at almost no cost compared to nuclear energy. They dropped the price by orders of magnitude and fucked everyone, who said it's technically impossible, in the face. The energy market changed so fast, that they had to brake it. Major german energy companies are breaking up to repel old (expensive) power plants.
>>7717363
that's why thousands of scientists are working on rare-earth-less methods. Nobody would do that if there's no money in the system. Btw still not as bad as nuclear fuel mining.
>>7716417
revered? no, but the combination of wind and sun is all I need to keep my dacha off the grid.
>>7717647
don't base your opinions on one WKUK sketch
>>7716417
just shills trying to sell them
>>7717671
But I'm not? I don't even know which sketch you're talking about.
>>7717611
"To produce the 25 tonnes or so of uranium fuel needed to keep your average reactor going for a year entails the extraction of half a million tonnes of waste rock and over 100,000 tonnes of mill tailings. These are toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. The conversion plant will generate another 144 tonnes of solid waste and 1343 cubic metres of liquid waste.
Contamination of local water supplies around uranium mines and processing plants has been documented in Brazil, Colorado, Texas, Australia, Namibia and many other sites. To supply even a fraction of the power stations the industry expects to be online worldwide in 2020 would mean generating 50 million tonnes of toxic radioactive residues every single year.
...
Over half of the world's uranium is in Australia and Canada. In Australia the government is planning to make money from the nuclear renaissance being predicted; uranium mining is expanding everywhere. Australian Greens are fast losing the optimism they felt when the Labor party won the last election.
In the Northern Territory plans to expand a nuclear dump at Muckaty station are being pushed forward with no regard for the land's Aboriginal owners. The supposedly greener new Australian government Minister Martin Ferguson has failed to deliver an election promise to overturn the Howard government's Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act, which earmarks a series of sites for nuclear waste dumps.
In South Australia, in August the Australian government approved the expansion of a controversial uranium mine, Beverley ISL. This was dubbed a "blank cheque licence for pollution"."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/05/nuclear-greenpolitics
>>7716999
>A report from a group with a financial interest in Solar
Says the person who makes claims of working for an energy company. If people lie to make their industry look good, out of all the people in this thread you're the most suspect.
>They make up about 5-10% of the cost of your electricity. It's negligible
Kind of funny that this article comes from the country you claim to work in;
>http://m.baka.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/power-prices-challenging-electricity-infrastructure-costs-consumers-pay-for-20150603-ghfp2j.html
>You posted a paper discussing unproven technology
I posted a paper that demonstrated two working solar powered 3D printers. It is the proof of the technology. The entire point of a paper is to present the highest quality argument possible for a certain interpretation or application.
>and insulted first when you made out nuclear advocates to be angry nutcases
A nuke advocate admitted to being angry, and you guys defend a weapons front that literally blows up in your faces and fills my lungs and food with poison. At the same time, you mock safer alternatives. It's difficult to not see you as an angry nutcase.
You were never insulted - you're showing a dangerous lack of self awareness.
Because hundreds of thousands of liberals now make their money pushing them
These politicians make tons of money off them
>>7716887
And 100% nuclear electricity would be many times cheaper without requiring tens of billions in subsidies every year
>>7717719
>talk about muh toxic waste
>ignore that "green" energy creates far more
>>7717780
>green energy produces more than 50 million tonnes of toxic radioactive residues every single year
you're going to need a citation for that i'm afraid
>>7716417
Every day we aren't making use of renewable energy sources is wasted energy.
>>7717799
Rare metal mining isn't clean.
>>7717810
it's a lot fucking cleaner than nucular
>>7717811
It's way worse, dipshit
And you get a lot less out of it
>>7717816
citation, kid
>>7717363
You don't need rare Earth metals for solar panels. You need them for wind turbines.
>>7717818
Don't forget oil. Need oil for wind turbines.
Noisy wind turbines.
Sorry fellas, hate to break it to you. Fossil fuels will be used primarily through your lifetime. It makes governements too much money to quit it.
Case in point: coal has lived decades longer than it should, but the coal cartels keep it going when there have been cleaner, more effecient natual gas options for quite a while now.
>>7717774
>100% nuclear electricity would be many times cheaper
You don't get it. In the first place, solar and batteries are things that private individual electricity users can buy for themselves, as a form of investment of their earned income. Secondly, they are things that small firms and labs can easily experiment on, without special permission or oversight, so the technology is advancing rapidly, and production companies can invest in as freely as any other product, so the costs are coming down even faster than the technology is advancing, with economies of scale developing in proportion to the improving cost baseline.
Currently, without subsidies, solar is cost-effective mainly for sunny places that need air conditioning, and solar with batteries is useful as an alternative to generators in places too remote or minor to connect to the grid. But the costs are dropping fast, and cheap battery systems are starting to enter the market.
>without requiring tens of billions in subsidies every year
Do you honestly think that nuclear isn't subsidized? Because of the inextricable involvement of government, it's practically impossible to work out how much nuclear really costs. We have no cradle-to-grave example to draw on, since there is no case in which a satisfactory final decommissioning and permanent disposal of waste has been made. So far, it looks like we're creating an essentially permanent burden for our descendants.
Government is heavily involved in any nuclear power project, and pretty much always involved in the financing part of it, too. Without government funding and special guarantees, no nuclear power would ever get built.
If a utility decides to build a nuclear power plant today, it's going to be ten or fifteen years before it produces any power. Then it's going to have to operate for twenty to forty years of government-guaranteed profitability before it pays itself off.
are we any closer to fusion power than we were 50 years ago?
>>7717818
You don't need rare earth metals for wind turbines, either. They're just one option for the generators.
An induction generator connected to an active power grid doesn't need any permanent magnets in it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_generator
Permanent magnets are what you'd use rare earth elements for in a windmill.
>>7716932
Yes, it's a real big lie about the current viability of solar and wind power. Without government subsidies, 9 out of 10 installations would never have been built.
I've studied the wind map for my state (Ohio) and noticed that the best places to install wind turbines is offshore in the shallows of Lake Erie. Sounds good, right? Except that you'd be putting ugly wind turbines in the direct view of all the rich people who tend to own the shorelines. Hence: We don't have any offshore wind turbines along Ohio in Lake Erie. And we never will.
>>7717884
>In the first place, solar and batteries are things that private individual electricity users can buy for themselves, as a form of investment of their earned income.
And it doesn't make any economic sense for these people to buy their own solar or wind plants
Buying a gas generator would make more sense, still very few people do it.
To call it an "investment" is a joke as well.
Nuclear is far more hindered by government than it is subsidized.
Not allowed to even START construction of a plant while the NRC dithers on giving a permit for 10 years
Took 15 years to even approve the reactor design
etc
>>7717827
>Fossil fuels will be used primarily through your lifetime. It makes governements too much money to quit it.
Not exactly. Fossil fuels continue to be used since as a group they beat the socks off of all other energy sources, using the combination of three factors which you must take together:
1. Dirt cheap
2. Energy dense
3. Very practical
Petroleum is tops on that list for those factors, followed closely by natural gas, then a bit more distantly by coal. Further down the economic viability list comes hydro-sourcing (dams, tides, hydrothermal), then nuclear. Solar and wind are even further down the scale.
We use fossil fuels today because they make the most economic sense. We use petroleum for almost all transportation for the same reasoning: It's dirt cheap, energy dense, and is extremely practical to use in transport. (Don't you want to shovel coal into a firebox to get to work? Didn't think so.)
As petroleum depletes, the price will rise and the availability will fall. This will force our transportation systems to become more efficient. "Peak Oil" already happened. We're in a long plateau for oil production right now. Soon enough, well within our lifetimes, petroleum production must fall; by that point, price and availability (i.e. rationing by money, and rationing by supply) will ensure that people must choose other fuels. Natural gas must step in, but it can't be any cheaper than petroleum by that point. Nor will liquifying or gasifying coal. The end product will be more expensive transportation, and that must force people (primarily Americans) into more efficient modes of transportation. It will all be a day late and a dollar short; the social cost will be huge.
>>7716807
>dedicated
Well, that's the trick, isn't it?
For the first nuclear reactors were dual use: electric power and weapons grade plutonium. Since the military were involved every mishap was immediately and automatically made secret. Thus the Irish Sea is now as radioactive as the Kara Sea where the Russians now admit they dumped old reactors.
And we will not know the extent of the problems for many decades yet, if ever.
>>7717941
Any idea exactly how efficient geotherm is compared to other renewables? I know there's practically none of it in operation since drilling a 10-kilometer hole in the ground or putting a power plant in the bottom of the ocean are huge fucking endeavors, but I'm interested to know what kind of power output you can actually get from it.
>>7717822
You don't need petroleum. You could use perfectly green whale oil! :D
>>7717916
>it's a real big lie about the current viability of solar and wind power. Without government subsidies, 9 out of 10 installations would never have been built.
Without government subsidies, 10 out of 10 nuclear power plants would never have been built.
Hydroelectric is the best, until you run out of sites. Then oil is most convenient, until the supply is limited. Then natural gas, until the chemical industry adapts to take advantage of its abundance and makes it near-equivalent in value to oil. Then coal, until you get fussy about emissions.
Fifty years ago, the realistic clean, unlimited options were nuclear power and solar thermal. Both were expensive and neither has advanced much in cost-effectiveness since then. Wind, however, is rapidly approaching a hydroelectric-like value proposition, aside from its intermittency. This shouldn't be shocking, in both cases you're putting a turbine in a natural current of a fluid. Solar started out very expensive, but as a semiconductor technology, it has been improving along an exponential watts/$ curve as our material science improves.
Wind and solar are getting installed to a point of there being troublesome surpluses. This has finally created a strong incentive for the development and production of cheap grid storage batteries. You see this with the Tesla stationary battery line, but far cheaper technologies than these lithium-ion batteries will be coming hot on their heels, based on materials like organosulfur compounds and sodium chloride.
Improvements in batteries and intermittent power sources, particularly solar, are going to start feeding each other in the next couple of years. They're going to put the last nails in the coffin of the claimed value proposition of nuclear, and start pushing fossil fuels out of the market.
>>7717929
>it doesn't make any economic sense for these people to buy their own solar or wind plants
Except it does. People who put up solar panels on their rooftops see them paid off in savings in about 7 years. In terms of electrical joules per dollar, unsubsidized rooftop solar is competitive with coal-fired electricity. For enough to cover the air conditioning costs in sunny places, it absolutely makes sense right now to install solar panels, without subsidies.
That cost is dropping fast, and low-cost house batteries are coming. Soon, the dropping unsubsidized cost of rooftop solar panels will make the cost of their electricity enough lower than coal-electric to also pay for the needed batteries.
The average household consumes an average of about 1 kilowatt, so 15 square meters of solar panel, but the average house has over 100 square meters of rooftop area. By the end of the decade, we're going to start seeing new roofs or reshingling done with total solar coverage.
>Nuclear is far more hindered by government than it is subsidized.
Considering that no power company could afford to compensate for the damage of a major nuclear accident, this is a strange argument to make. For nuclear power plants to be built, society at large has to assume that risk. Whoever has the power to impose the acceptance of that risk, without fear of violent reprisal, has the power of government.
What you're doing here is whining that the government is stopping the electric utilities from simply being the government. Nuclear power is a thing of the government, and can be nothing else on a planet with open-air living and food production.
>>7717941
>(primarily Americans)
lol, except america is now self-sufficient on oil, so talk of peak oil is lunacy. Not to mention the shittons of oil off the coast noone drills for due to bans.
>>7718054
?
There were tons of planned nuclear reactors until the NRC was formed to kill them. The only reason noone builds without government subsidies is because no private company would spend money for a decade on the hope that MAYBE the NRC will give them approval.
Nuclear is the most desirable form of energy.
Hydroelectric wouldn't be profitable at all if it had to fight lawsuits & do environmental studies.
>>7718143
>>7717941
"Peak oil" hasn't happened and is never going to happen.
What's going to happen is a transition to synthetic oil, based on solar power and atmospheric/aquatic CO2 harvesting. By its nature, solar tends toward surpluses. As their cost comes down, everybody is going to want to own their own solar panels and never pay money for electricity.
This will mean a lot of essentially free electricity people will be looking to find some way to sell, or convert to something they can sell. This will lead to using it to extract carbon from the atmosphere or ocean, and transform it into storable, portable form: oil.
>>7718184
>what is insurance
And the risk is zero in the west or with modern reactor designs.
>>7718194
>>what is insurance
Something that can't handle large-scale disasters without government backing. Something that can never fully compensate for loss of life and cherished, mature property such as homes.
>the risk is zero in the west or with modern reactor designs.
Before Chernobyl, your kind was saying, "It can't happen." Before Fukushima, your kind was saying, "It can't happen in a first-world country." Now you're saying this. When it happens in the West, or with a modern reactor design, you'll be saying, "Sure, it happened in America, but it can't happen in France." or "Sure, it happened with an LMFBR, but it can't happen with a helium-cooled reactor."
The risk is never zero, can never be made zero.
The really ridiculous thing about your position is that you're pointing to the fruits of intense and progressively tightening regulatory scrutiny, in the low accident rate, and trying to imply this means the technology is *inherently* safe, so we should just ease off and allow a nuclear free-for-all.
>>7718222
And Fukushima was nothing
Easily handled by an insurance company
Chernobyl would never happen in the west
You act like coal/natural gas/etc don't kill people constantly through air pollution
What if they were held accountable for their shit?
>>7718229
>Fukushima was nothing
A region, including a city, had to be abandoned.
But I'm starting to see your standards, here.
>the risk is zero
>losing a city is nothing
That's some consistent logic. Wrong and stupid, but consistent.
>You act like coal/natural gas/etc don't kill people constantly through air pollution
Are you seriously trying to claim that fossil fuel power plants have unregulated emissions?
The government sets the balance between risk and reward. The life-sustaining benefits of cheap power outweigh some rate of distributed loss of fragile individuals such as asthmatics, as the benefits of affordable, rapid, convenient transportation by automobile outweighs a certain rate of distributed loss of life in car crashes. The benefits of expensive power do not outweigh any significant rate of loss of cities and regions.
You're willing to dismiss the loss of cities. Society in general doesn't agree with you.
>>7718259
>thinks government policies are intelligent strategic moves to better the country
Can't discuss anything with a lunatic
biomass niggas
>>7718259
Fukashima should never have been made into and exclusion zone. The radiation levels in most of it are barely above background.
>>7718371
This is how ridiculous the pro-nuclear faction gets. Just total denial of reality.
Solar and wind don't pose a threat to human health.
>>7716417
scientist are like indians, they shit in the green energy streets for fear that the grant denial witch in the nuclear reactor toilet will take away their poopmoney
Nuclear power would be great in a perfect world - but it isn't. We have to live in a world with accidents, human error, natural disasters, etc. Things like Chernobyl and Fukushima are very real threats and simply not worth it with green energy technologies getting more efficient.
Putting a "muh" or a "le" in front of a nuclear power plant disaster doesn't make it any less serious.
>>7718976
what's with poltards and their hatred for Indians? are you mad they took your jerbs?
>>7718976
>shit tier analogy
kill yourself you retard
>>7716417
mostly because it's:
A. Cheaper
B. Much safer
C. No need to go digging around NJ
D. No need to store tons of hazardous materials after use
Nuclear isn't bad but solar is just a ton safer and easier to deal with.
>>7716509
yeah
>>7716772
roof top solar was/is a bad idea haha
>>7717810
hmmm, damn didn't realise it was so difficult to separate.
>>7717916, >>7718054 : crying about subsidies is like crying about monopolies - pointless as they are the mainstays of our economy.
>>7718259
> it will happen
I don't really care I just want energy. Green energy doesn't work by itself without storage or dedicated back up generation - nuff said.
>>7719017
>thousands of people die a year from toxins resulting form mining & natural gas burning
>no biggie :)
>noone in the US has died from a civilian or military nuclear accident
>super fucking dangerous!
>>7719042
>subsidies are the mainstays of the economy
wat
Subsidies exist because there usually are strategic reasons for wanting some uneconomic thing done.
Theres no such reason for "green" energy.
>>7719082
>uneconomic
No there's no such thing as uneconomic, economy is imaginary - i'm sorry you've been brainwashed.
>Live in Australia
>Nuclear material buried all over the place
>Education system and economy capable of supporting Nuclear power
>Plenty of already uninhabitable nowhere to dump the waste
>Ever increasing cost of energy
>Green weenies refuse to even consider nuclear power and will effectively plug their ears and start babbling that they can't hear you when you explain that the coal power we're currently using is really much worse
>>7716509
>rarity of materials
yeah all that rare SiO2
>>7717264
> calls someone ignorant
> clearly doesn't know shit about the viability of his suggestion
This thread in a nutshell.
>>7719388
wow who still thinks coal > nuclear
I'd argue about renewable vs. coal or renewable vs. geothermal
but fusion is by far the most efficient and environment friendly practise, in the long term.
lets see the pro-anti people come up with a better solution. love is not gonna power our devices but I'm sure some greenies would stick their dicks in electric sockets if you'd make a avaaz petition about it.
>>7716417
The Jews can't tax wind or the sun yet, so they don't approve : ^ )
>>7719338
kk do that its your money if you want to buy em that's your deal D:
>uneconomic
Like coke is economical. Seriously believing economics is founded on sound principles... lol
Are you a rational human bean? are most people... ;0)
>>7717903
yes absolutely
>>7718179
>"Peak oil" hasn't happened and is never going to happen.
World petroleum production has already peaked. We're in a long plateau right now.
And transitioning to synthetic petroleum can't possibly match the cheapness of the natural version.
Remember, as the price rises, consumption is curtailed.
>>7716509
>environmental impact of mining them
>>7720031
>World petroleum production has already peaked.
No, demand has leveled off. Have you seen the price of fuel lately? Do you know how many people are being laid off right now from drill sites in West Texas and Oklahoma?
>And transitioning to synthetic petroleum can't possibly match the cheapness of the natural version.
Don't look now, but we've been doing that with Ethanol for nearly two decades now.....
>Remember, as the price rises, consumption is curtailed.
Which brings me back to my original point,a supply glut is keeping prices low, not this "peak oil" nonsense.
>>7720070
Incorrect you illiterate faggot, the saudis are artificially keeping prices low.
>>7720096
>Incorrect you illiterate faggot, the saudis are artificially keeping prices low.
That's just a more detailed version of what he said, my homo.
>>7720096
>the saudis are artificially keeping prices low
......in order to induce demand....but all it does is add to the glut of supply.
>>7720059
I never said uranium was better (although it is because the mining is more often done in countries with stronger environmental protection policies). Solar/wind evangelists seem to ignore the impact of production which is fallacious.
>>7720096
>the saudis are artificially keeping prices low.
There's no sense to that claim.
The Saudis, and other OPEC partners, have old-style oil wells, which are basically underground lakes of oil, that you just have to pump to the surface. In its natural state, it's basically been in storage, ready to be drawn out at will.
The new thing in oil is an established industry of extracting the less-accessible oil from oil shale and tar sands. Furthermore, there is increasing competence at converting low-value, abundant coal and natural gas to gasoline, and other high-value products previously made from oil. Corn ethanol, substituting for high-value octane, and advanced refineries, have also made poorer grade oil into substitutes for higher grades of oil.
All of this "new oil" is more rate-limited and costly to produce than the "old oil". So the new oil actually has a price set by supply and demand, and production cost, while the old oil's price is set almost entirely by the price-fixing collusion of the OPEC cartel.
There is no "artificially low" price for old oil. If there is a natural price, it's the very low one that would result from oil field owners freely bidding against each other.
OPEC has lowered oil prices to claim market share. New oil was able to undercut their prices, and was quickly coming to dominate the market. OPEC was selling less and less oil. They lost control of the oil prices, and the new low price is the best deal they're ever going to get for their stores of oil. So if they want to use it to make money, they have to keep the price lower than what's profitable for new oil until they run out.
Meanwhile, technological advancement and accumulated experience is going to keep making new oil cheaper.
>>7720119
>the mining is more often done in countries with stronger environmental protection policies
A reminder that companies usually employ labor at the least landed cost.....
>>7720125
>they have to keep the price lower than what's profitable for new oil until they run out.
Eventually the Saudi's are going to do one of two things:
1. Raise prices, which will have a detrimental effect on their own supply.
2. Keep prices lower, which will have an adverse material impact on their income statements.
I imagine the Saudi's are thinking they should start planting corn. Unfortunately the Ethanol train departed long ago. And I don't know much about agriculture...but I'm sure it's pretty expensive to grow crops in arid climates.....
>>7720125
>Meanwhile, technological advancement and accumulated experience is going to keep making new oil cheaper.
The supply side curve is going to continue making the price of oil cheaper.
Technological developments will contribute some to the decline in oil prices, but as you correctly pointed out, it's more so due to extracting oil from shale, tar sands, and to a lesser degree, pumping high pressure water through existing pumps (IE fracking: to extract additional oil and gas from the ground).
It is interesting to note that the price elasticity of oil is being affected not because of supply---but the human factors surrounding supply. Mainly due to the producers becoming more and more desperate to increase demand once again....
>>7716417
>Especially when things like nuclear are seemingly blacklisted.
Nuclear reactors have a bad rap thanks to hippies and dumbfucks who don't fully understand how nuclear reactors work (or how they are properly built, depending on the topic).
Modern reactors (Generation 3) are two orders of magnitude safer than Generation 1 and Generation 2 reactors. And Generation 4 reactors (Molten Salt Reactors, Sodium Cooled Reactors) are even more safer, and especially more efficient.
But people do not want more reactors built...because their afraid of "muh genes" being messed up if their was catastrophic failure.....
>>7720182
>Technological developments will contribute some to the decline in oil prices, but as you correctly pointed out, it's more so due to extracting oil from shale, tar sands, and to a lesser degree, pumping high pressure water through existing pumps (IE fracking: to extract additional oil and gas from the ground).
These extraction methods *are* technological developments.
>>7720212
It doesn't matter whether nuclear reactors have a good rap or bad rap
The government doesn't have to allow baseless lawsuits against them, nor does it have to sit on permits for a decade.
I believe donald trump will do stuff about this because he knows the issues of environmental studies personally.
>>7716417
>Why are these sacred cows so revered? Especially when things like nuclear are seemingly blacklisted.
Because it's easy for a power company to buy a worthless patch of dirt on the outskirts of town and throw some wind turbines or solar panels on it, while nuclear is a massive, capital intensive project that takes years to come to fruition.
>>7716417
Because all you have to do, in order to generate power, is turn a wheel. Can be a big wheel slow and steady, or a small wheel really fast, but that's about all there is to it, really.
And can you think of a more ludicrous Rube Goldberg'esque method of turning a wheel than super heating water with radioactivity? I mean, even if your goal was to simply make steam (which in this case, it basically is), there's gotta be a billion better (not to mention cheaper) ways.
Plus you can build about a thousand conventional power plants for what it costs to "pop the hood" on a nuclear one. There's really no justification for it, save maybe in a few out of the way locations - which generally aren't good for nuke plants either, as you still need a boatload of water.
>>7720423
I was really talking about hydrogen fuel cell powered cars, etc.
I should have made myself more clear in that post.
>>7720721
>patch of dirt on the outskirts of town
You don't appreciate the massive amount of research and engineering that goes into finding a good site for a wind farm....
>>7720096
FALSE
The Saudis simply stopped jewing us so hard. They are not subsidizing the global oil system by selling it under cost.
fusion = category 1 kardeshev civilization
dyson sphere = category 2 kardeshev civilization
>>7716417
The real problem with nuclear (both fusion and fission) is that they fuck up the earth's energy budget. That's literally all there is to it, but it's a good enough reason to keep renewables
>>7720946
beaming power directly from galactic core: category 3 kardeshev civilization
>>7720949
>they fuck up the earth's energy budget
Albedo changes from human land use change the Earth's energy budget much more than switching all of our power over to nuclear would.
>>7720949
>The real problem with nuclear (both fusion and fission) is that they fuck up the earth's energy budget.
I bet you love being able to type all those impressive-sounding terms.
Why do people assume that renewables, or solar as per this thread, is to be used to provide a base load and replace conventional energy production completely?
Do they enjoy thinking stupid thoughts on purpose or do they need something to be angry at to justify their narrow views?
Renewables are intermittent. They're used to offset some of the peak and shoulder energy demands.
If you're using them for yourself, then it's to lower your energy consumption by having a source that makes energy for you. Batteries are for stand alone systems far away from the grid.
Oh and all energy production is subsidised.
>>7720721
Except by nameplate capacity wind and solar have only very recently had better capital costs than nuclear and by actual yearly output (i.e if you consider capacity factor) nuclear still has a lower capital despite NRC red tape and hippie lawsuits.
>>7720949
Haha
What the fuck are you going on about?
>>7720949
rofl this should be a meme, to bad even retarded people would view this as
"wow he uses words I am unfamiliar with and is talking about budgeting something to do with nukes.. he must be smart"
