Is solar power the future?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/r/thorium/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Its the future of the Liberal

Nuclear Energy is the future of the Conservative

This.

Why don't use both?

Nuke should be used for baseload, and renewables in combination with storage for part load.

Solar is more expensive than the energy they provide atm.

Nuclear has the potential to go full holocaust. Albiet the chances are almost 0 nowadays.

Basically liberals scream BUT IT STILL COULD HAPPEN and insist on putting solar panels on everything including rainly as fuck areas like vancouver or London.

Nuclear energy and Solar power is the future of the Liberals, Coal is the future of the Conservative

Coal is definitely not the future. But it is the present. There is no point in not using a resource you have available

Thorium is the future of the Übermensch.

Obama want close all the coal mines

It's a part of it for sure.

But it would be stupid to tie our future to one energy source.

And so obama, and clinton, are retards

I think we should use more water power, at least in places that allow it.

Problem arethe whiny liberals that don't want to drown the poor squirrels.

>thorium
>not helium-3

>Nuclear winter away from total collapse.

Call me when the wind ever stops blowing.

>Solar is more expensive than the energy they provide atm.
Pretty much. Takes fucking ages before those things even made back the energy that went into producing them

The energy source that ends up being the most cost effective will be the source of the future. When governments try to subsidize certain energy sources it fucks up the whole system.

It stopped blowing

its entirely useless without proper energy storage technology.

>hey the sun is coming out, bet we get at least 1 hour of 20% base supply from this
>ah no, there are clouds, better power up all those coal power plants
>oh wait we cant just pull the plug on them anyways, all that solar energy was useless and we had to sell it to our neighbors
>oh shit they didnt need it so we had to PAY them for powering down their gas-plants and take our surplus.

fucking moronic.

it always starts and stops, thats the way wind works.

As a Trumpian I like to think solar and other renewables really are future.
Just because liberals get a hard on for renewables doesnt mean you have to automatically have to hate them.
Stopped clocks and all that.

What is helium-3

>Thorium
>Not Cuckholdry

Energy engineer here. Solar power is ok, but in places like Germany, where there's 5 minutes of sunshine every year, it's not as efficient. Something like Desertec would be a great project if we didn't have to build solar power plants on snackbar ground.
The problem with renewables is their unsteady output and while you can compensate it with power storage systems, it would be extremely expensive to go 100% solar and wind, especially if you're restricted in the usage of water basins.
My hope for the far future lies in fusion energy, which is sadly still not taken seriously enough, because greencucks think sustaining a nation of 80 million dying grandpas and grandmas is the only energy problem in the world and wind energy will do fine. But if we want to have enough energy for 20 billion pajeets and dindus in 200 years, we better start researching.

At home solar is the only energy you will be able to produce after the happening. Lead-acid storage is a completely viable and easy to assemble solution.

Solar is about as redpilled as energy production can get.

Most plebs dont know that the new Windpower engines require neodym fkin magnets which leave a shitton of radioactive waste
> muh greenpower

where are the hills

>Lead-acid storage is a completely viable and easy to assemble solution.

no its not, it wont last you 2 days of rain and the batteries arent made for constant full charge/discharge cycles.

Lel. Havent you heard that europe is building the biggest reactor for research right now

>ah no, there are clouds, better power up all those coal power plants

coal is are no peak power plants, if you need plants that can respond in less than a hour its gas plants you need to build. The alternative would be pumped-storage power plant, but they are limited by geography.

>solar power

Yes, goyim, do it for the """""environment"""""

Not in Ireland, that's for sure

nuclear is orphaned. It is still more conservative than liberal

FUSION

No, Nuclear and Thorium is.

>kill 80% of Chinese, Indians, South Americans, and Africans
>solved pollution without messing with the energy structure

I don't understand.

Solar Power = More Self-Sufficiency = Less for the Jew to sell you.

Why would the Jews want people to move away from the massive energy companies they control?

i know, i was being sarcastic

>less than a hour

which isnt enough either.

I have been working on some solar-farms and its literally:

>cloud
>power output -80%

it does more damage to net stability than the produced energy is worth!

Oh yeah can't wait for my conservative personal nuclear reactor.

>>>reddit.com/r/thorium/

>the earth is being bombarded with absurd amounts of free (from our perspective) energy
>oh, but we shouldn't use it because that would make us hippies
If there's a line that separates conservitards from intelligent, free-market conservatives then it's hard to imagine a better candidate. Dyson sphere when.

>2 days of rain
How about not living in a shithole? Or better yet, if you do live in a shithole, use more batteries in your storage array.

>arent made for constant full charge/discharge cycles
Yes but the ease of finding lead-acid batteries due to every car on the planet using them and every walmart/autoshop carrying them makes it a perfectly viable solution.

It may not be ideal, but it will get the job done.

critics often tell us how bad mobile phones and laptops are for the environment. Guess what, solar cells are the same thing - chemical electroncis. Add batteries on top and you're installilng a bunch of chemical hazardous waste to your house.

Only Northern Germany, Denmark and Netherlands have constant wind and are densely populated so losses on transfer are not that huge
Zagreb is not exactly windy

> Something like Desertec would be a great project if we didn't have to build solar power plants on snackbar ground.
Transferring low voltage power via cables under the Mediterranean and then over the Alps to Stuttgart medical equipment factory?
Guess you could built massive transformers under the sea and on the Alps...

>My hope for the far future lies in fusion energy, which is sadly still not taken seriously enough, because greencucks think sustaining a nation of 80 million dying grandpas and grandmas is the only energy problem in the world and wind energy will do fine
>which is sadly still not taken seriously enough,
Because it's fairy tale. Bottomless pit.
Better to go Nuclear or Hydro if available. Or even Gas.

Well, fusion would be the future of every ideology.

>2 days of rain
>living in a shithole

hmm

>US flag

oh, lol

I know about ITER and Wendelstein 7-x, but the research funds are still ridiculously low compared to what we spend on other technologies.
And besides, our """""green""""" party has already stated that they're against fusion energy, because they said it's too expensive and success is not guaranteed.

Solar, wind and water turbines will be used more and more. Right now it's hard because the interest of the jews in fossile fuels, it's too much money involved.

Because solar power cannot satisfy power needs of a town, go figure an entire country.

Solar panels are expensive and are not efficient.

Faggots who tell you they are either liberal or happy merchants who want to sell you their "ecological" shit

They are not draining OUR electrical power.
That would only make crude oil cheaper.

But it hits our fucking atmosphere and bounces away
We get dick here.

>because they said it's too expensive and success is not guaranteed.
They are right.
Build Nuclear, Gas, Wind.

We need a killer app for solar.

Wasn't Cold Fusion recently discovered abd replicated? A small cup of water can power a home for 15 years.

>solar

We know the atmosphere makes the idea impractical so why shouldn't we just remove it?
Moon-like earth could very well easily be powered by solar.
I'm not sure how we could go around removing all that atmospheric mass but I'm sure some /sci/ fag can elaborate.

The question isn't "is solar unconditionally viable with the current technology" the question is "is solar energy the future." And you'd have to be stupid to think otherwise. Hell, even biofuel is yesterday's solar energy. With minuscule exceptions, the sun is where Earth gets its energy from, we're just a little behind evolution on the specifics.

I agree that this setup is great for a potential happening. But it's not a good idea to incentivize millions of plebs to install technology they will never get the benefit from.

Why not energy from water like in Quebec?

Not everyone has big rivers.

energy companies often have to drain excess electricity and pay for the amount.

This can only continue as long as the majority is not renewable and it's possible to cut off fat from the fat cats.

SHUT
IT
DOWN

This nigga gets it. Once we figure out reactors that don't produce so much nuclear waste we'll be fucking set

Yes, its an example of a disruptive exponential technology like Silicon chips which is why theyre improving at such alarming rate. In 10 to 15 years time, it would be considerably cheaper to a buy solar panels and a lithium air batteries package than be connected to the grid. But today without the subsidies and the buy back schemes, it wouldnt be competitive with cheap coal and gas since without cheap lithium batteries, it would still be an intermittent source of power. But Its coming. Solar is already very cheap in near equatorial countries with cheap labour like Mexico, India and Dubai.
See the graph. The main costs of grid electicty goes towards maintaining the expensive transmission lines, paying land rent to host these transmission lines. Those costs are rising.

Solar has very useful applications for off-grid power.

Thorium fission and eventually fusion is the real future though.

When you make reclaimed land, you don't also make mountains.

fossil is easy energy. can't really convince people to rave for 0.3 when 20 is available.

we need to collect the energy on the moon and then beam it down in a concentrated channel

This. Luckily though the liberal fag voice isn't being heard because we're still building more Nuclear facilities

>"Nuclear power plays a major role. The USA has 99 nuclear power reactors in 30 states, operated by 30 different power companies, and in 2015 they produced 798 TWh. Since 2001 these plants have achieved an average capacity factor of over 90%, generating up to 807 billion kWh per year and accounting for 20% of total electricity generated. Capacity factor has risen from 50% in the early 1970s, to 70% in 1991, and it passed 90% in 2002, remaining at around this level since. In 2015 it was a record 91.9%. The industry invests about $7.5 billion per year in maintenance and upgrades of the plants."

> making this plot
> tfw not using a log scale for the y-axis

Also I should point out. We get about 39% of our total energy production from coal plants still, which is the largest factor

Also batteries technologies are improving. Elon Musks Gigafactory will produce more batteries than the whole worlds total output in 2014, which will drive down costs. Theres currently billions in investments in the battery industry, and the level of investment keeps increasing. I wouldnt be suprised if we have a superior battery tech to lithium in the next 5 years which will make triple of the energy density of batteries, making them competitive with petroleum.