Energy

Let's talk alternate energy Sup Forums. What the best form—solar, wind, hydro, something else? Should humanity be trying to implement these expensive forms?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nYxlpeJEKmw
lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor
youtube.com/watch?v=XOhmJMTaKdQ
youtube.com/watch?v=AclVlrQErKA
youtube.com/watch?v=1RYKNA3nj6Q
twitter.com/AnonBabble

depends tbqh

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.

I'd consider anything non fossil fuel to be alternative

Nuclear>Hydroelectric>>>Geothermal>>>>>>>>>>Fossil fuels>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Everything else.

geography obviously

>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.

>What the best form
Nuclear
Nuclear power is the future.

> What the best form
LFTR.
/thread

If you mean (((green™))) then its hydro for its baseline power output. If you mean something that can help everyone, its nuclear

> Liquid nuclear.
> Solid nuclear and GE is the past.

>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)

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.

>suggest meme power source
>thread yourself
kill yourself

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

>999 Fusion (because it doesn't fucking work)
We're only 30 years away

>hydro
>expensive

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor

youtube.com/watch?v=nYxlpeJEKmw

>meme

>Says increasingly nervous man for the third time in his life

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

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.

it's the most prevalent energy source here... if we poor asses can pay that, go figure about others

>Hydroelectric is hardly an alternative energy source.

wut

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.

>Fusion doesn't work
lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor

> Suggests meme is not a power source.
> on pol
Who let the nigger speak?

Wind is a meme. Solar has a future but is expensive. Hydro fucks up rivers. Safe nuclear power is a viable alternative.

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.

Your land was not nearly as expensive as land is in California. You are talking millions of dollars for only a few acres.

> look we have a retarded picture, but we have no theory on how it should work
You have to go back. To drawing board.

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.

What about our Super wind mills?
4 or 6 large ones can produce the same power as a regular power plant.

Nuclear. Case closed.

wind dependent

>Is it cheaper?
>Is it more reliable?
If the answer to these questions is yes, that what's the problem.

>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.

Hive mind

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.

...

land here can be expensive if you have into account that many pieces of it had to be taken from commie drug lords

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.

...

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.

Is that when built over a volcano, or just digging really deep?

So digging deep. Right, as I said, doing it that way means it's no longer worth the bother with current tech.

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?

And how it's done.


>"Muh frac-ing"

>wind is worthless
I heard you were talking shit.

>V164-8.0 MW is worthless

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

Oh, and depth to power output per region.

>Solar has a future but is expensive

Solar has no future at all.

Its EROIE is a pitiful 6.

Meanwhile tokamak has a q>1. We are 30 years max away from fusion overtaking fission

Use thorium reactors, stops being bad after like 100 years, safer to use, much more abundant and easier to get.

Thorium reactors and plasma converters. Problem solved.

>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.

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.

.. 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).

>thorium reactor
show me one that works

>30 years meme
Oh boy

please stop embarrasing yourself

>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?

whats the problem, escobar?

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.

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.

>tree huger starts calling names
wew

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

>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.

>4 decades of heavy investment and it's still partly subsidized
worthless

>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).

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.

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

cuck

>cocaine nigger calling me a nigger
wew

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.

Solar

youtube.com/watch?v=XOhmJMTaKdQ
youtube.com/watch?v=AclVlrQErKA

But of course the dirty corporations are trying their best to stop it
youtube.com/watch?v=1RYKNA3nj6Q

>Oak Ridge
>1960's
>MSR
>did not use ANY thorium

I don't think that was a good example.

>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.

>one single wind mill supplies 7.500 homes
>worthless
Are you the type to piss your pants to keep warm?
>the cheapest current battery solution
FTFY

that better be oak ridge.

because they did not use thorium in that reactor.

GXY
X
Y

NUCLEAR A BEST
SOLAR A SHIT

>>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

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.

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.

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.

ya that "stock"

that isnt listed anywhere but the ASX which is VERY suspicious

Why bother with geothermal at all when you have factory production nuclear breeder reactors?

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

>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.

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"?

>assuming the turbine is even working
that is the most important part.

The windmills are placed at sea. They will take up no land, literally.