/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13561329

2MiB, 1440x926, 1614243274083.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

/sng/ - Solar Nuclear General #2

Anonymous Wed 25 Aug 21:51:03 2021 No.13561329 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13561353 >>13561366 >>13561791 >>13569846

/sfg/ - Space flight general presents /sng/
A general to discuss about
-solar vs nuclear for earth
-solar vs nuclear for inner and outer planets
-is fusion still a meme
and everything else!
Previous thread >>13547262

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Aug 2021 21:54:50 No.13561343 Report

Quoted By:

It was never solar vs nuclear.
Just nuclear against oil.

Stop making this general

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO fortnite dance.gif, 736KiB, 220x391

Anonymous Wed 25 Aug 2021 21:54:51 No.13561344 Report

Quoted By: >>13565156

Come back to /sfg/ we miss you guys.
>>13558302

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Aug 2021 22:00:01 No.13561353 Report

Quoted By: >>13575857

>>13561329
Solar can be used for earth and be stored as either heat in a CSP plant or used to digest sewage to make biomethane in the natural gas system
Solar CSP would be great for Mercury, the moon and space stations in the outer solar system because of its availability
Nuclear would be great for ships because they aren't reliant on sunlight or oxygen for power and propulsion
Q=1 fusion is a meme for the foreseeable fusion, its best used for space propulsion. Then maybe it'll improve from there

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Aug 2021 22:07:50 No.13561366 Report

Quoted By:

>>13561329
imagine the derailment

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Aug 2021 22:35:07 No.13561450 Report

Quoted By: >>13561679 >>13562569 >>13563508 >>13568210

Aren’t we like a decade or two away from the very first commercial fusion reactors?

I thought there’s a race going on now to get to a demonstrator reactor that exceeds the break even point?

Not seeing the point of solar once that’s achieved except for places like the Middle East/Australia…

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Aug 2021 23:33:45 No.13561590 Report

Quoted By: >>13561679 >>13562553

>https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FP_20200113_renewables_land_use_local_opposition_gross.pdf
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0yWihp9RGg

Counties in the USA are now banning renewables due to public dissent about intense land acquisition, habitat destruction, the decline in property value, and noise and shadow flickers from turbines

Oh wow. That didn't took long

>Public opinion of offshore wind depends on the specifics of the project. The ill-fated Cape Wind project, which intended to place 130 wind turbines in the shallow waters of Nantucket Sound, provides a stark example of a project gone wrong. Opposition to the project was fierce, from wealthy homeowners concerned about the project spoiling their views and from other citizens concerned about its high cost, hazards to navigation, and threats to the marine environment. The developer finally pulled the plug on the project in 2017, after 16 years of legal battles.73 A new project, Vineyard Wind, is now proposed for an area nearby, 15 miles off Martha’s Vineyard. Vineyard Wind is also facing challenges, as the U.S. government decided in August 2019 to extend the environmental review process,74 which will delay the project schedule.75 Meanwhile, the project faces continued opposition due to concerns about potential impacts to commercial fisheries,76 and of underwater cables on the endangered North Atlantic right whale

I expect the Oil Industry to be having a giddy laugh right

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Aug 2021 23:36:34 No.13561595 Report

Quoted By:

>"starship will never go orbital" <you are here

feels good bros, going to be a beautiful day

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 00:11:48 No.13561679 Report

Quoted By: >>13561810 >>13562097

>>13561450
Just what problem do you think is solved by having reactors that are less energy dense and much more complex than fission reactors?

If you think opposition to wind power is bad, just wait until the public hears about tritium leaks which will be a much greater problem with fusion. The "it is not anything like fission" marketing it has been running on will quickly die out and the same typical nuclear safety arguments will be used to shut down plants.
>>13561590
This isn't new, onshore wind has always has always been plagued by not in my backyard, but restrictions are not the same as a ban. WSJ conflated it with offshore wind and solar for clickbait revenue. While some claims have been made regarding solar taking up land that could be used for farming and other shit, it doesn't have serious opposition and doesn't have the same setback requirements as wind. Safety, noise, and shadow flicker issues don't apply, the only thing you can really say is that you don't like the look of it which most people will be unsympathetic to.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 00:50:54 No.13561791 Report

Quoted By: >>13562072

>>13561329
Consider
>Integral fast reactors and solar CSP plants using sCO2 turbines and cooled with atmospheric vortex engines

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 00:54:58 No.13561810 Report

Quoted By:

>>13561679
>The "it is not anything like fission" marketing it has been running on will quickly die out and the same typical nuclear safety arguments will be used to shut down plants.
It's impossible to appease irrational opposition. No matter how clean or safe the tech is, it will never be clean or safe enough. The goalposts will be shifted eternally. Fusion is cool, but it's not going to solve shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 01:45:45 No.13562007 Report

Quoted By: >>13562072 >>13563274

Anyone here have solar at home? Thinking of getting a 200W panel and if it works out maybe I'll add more.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 01:49:39 No.13562027 Report

Quoted By: >>13562029 >>13562984

Are you guys braindead? Why not use waves and wind?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 01:50:56 No.13562029 Report

Quoted By: >>13562048

>>13562027
Waves are unreliable and we already use wind dummy, it isn't enough

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 01:51:22 No.13562031 Report

Quoted By: >>13562054 >>13562057 >>13562072 >>13563506

So the nuclear chads got btfo last thread, what are the benefits to nuclear over solar that justify the costs involved?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 01:54:21 No.13562048 Report

Quoted By: >>13562084

>>13562029
has anyone tried to use hurricanes or harness lightning?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 01:56:19 No.13562054 Report

Quoted By:

>>13562031
It is energy dense and isn't reliant on insolation location
PV is inefficient to store with thermal batteries, which is the best way we have
CSP is restricted to high insolation areas that may not be populated or have grid connection

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 01:56:36 No.13562057 Report

Quoted By: >>13562069

>>13562031
Being the only one that could actually replace fossil

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:00:09 No.13562069 Report

Quoted By: >>13562113 >>13569083

>>13562057
Solar thermal and PV can be used to power biomass recycling plants that convert waste to biocrude, biogas, and fertilizer. It's useful to create a stable hydrocarbon cycle
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5117695

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:00:59 No.13562072 Report

Quoted By: >>13562090 >>13562162 >>13562204 >>13567877

>>13562007
https://globalsolaratlas.info/map

You may find this site handy. It apparently gives the optimum tilt angle for your location and calculates how much light your panel will get. I think you just have to multiply the irradiance figure by your panel efficiency and the result should be pretty close to what your system will do.
>>13562031
Pretty much nothing, other than using it for a secret nuclear program and radioisotopes for medical uses.
>>13561791
The issue is with either nuclear or CSP, the turbines, generator, and heatsink alone will likely soon cost more than the whole of PV solar.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:02:34 No.13562084 Report

Quoted By: >>13562096

>>13562048
>harness lightning
Unironically why can't we do this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:03:47 No.13562090 Report

Quoted By: >>13562141

>>13562072
Those things are more reliable, condensed and grid scalable
PV is only good on rooftops

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:04:55 No.13562096 Report

Quoted By: >>13562098 >>13562467

>>13562084
No storage could survive such a surge of energy

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:05:34 No.13562097 Report

Quoted By:

>>13561679
Although solar energy does not produce noise
and is only visible over short distances, solar
development faces many of the same challenges
as wind. California’s San Bernardino County, the
largest county in the United States by area, recently
prohibited utility-oriented renewable energy
11
projects, defined as those where more than 50%
of the electricity generated will be used outside the
local area, in more than a dozen unincorporated
areas and in rural living zones. Sparsely populated
and sunny areas in San Bernardino County could
be ideal for solar development. However, local
residents argue that such projects disturb pristine
desert, scenic views, and wildlife habitat. The
prohibition eliminates more than one million acres
of private land from development.57 Nonetheless,
the State of California requires utilities to get 60% of
their electricity from renewable sources by 2030.58
This sort of opposition is not unique to California.
A 500 MW solar farm in Virginia that would be the
largest solar facility east of the Rocky Mountains has
attracted fierce opposition from locals concerned
about the development reducing property values
and ruining the rural character of the area.

I expect the opposition to grow in the next few years as anything non oil

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:05:40 No.13562098 Report

Quoted By:

>>13562096
Just dilute it a lot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:08:23 No.13562113 Report

Quoted By:

>>13562069
Anything intermittent would not threaten the fossil fuels

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:12:29 No.13562141 Report

Quoted By: >>13562175

>>13562090
I'm getting real sick of your shit, CSP shill. A PV system is way more reliable and it has no moving parts. They're much easier, faster and cheaper to install, thus they actually scale better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:18:00 No.13562162 Report

Quoted By: >>13562318 >>13562343

>>13562072
I got
Specific photovoltaic power output PVOUT specific : 1600 kWh/kWp
Direct normal irradiation DNI 1440 kWh/m2
Is this good enough?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:19:01 No.13562165 Report

Quoted By: >>13562200 >>13562208

Can anyone do the math for "how much area of solar panels to power the whole world" once and for all?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:20:53 No.13562175 Report

Quoted By: >>13562208

>>13562141
>Storage
>Reliant on semiconductors
>20% average efficiency
solve these, then you might be right

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:23:54 No.13562189 Report

Quoted By: >>13562202

Why don’t we just do geothermal on a massive scale - drill down to the upper mantle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:26:00 No.13562200 Report

Quoted By: >>13562203

>>13562165
Does it even matter if theres no way to efficiently store power?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:27:00 No.13562202 Report

Quoted By:

>>13562189
Earthquakes

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:27:39 No.13562203 Report

Quoted By: >>13562217

>>13562200
https://www.cctenergystorage.com/worlds-first-thermal-battery-launched-in-sa/

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:27:40 No.13562204 Report

Quoted By:

>>13562072
What about proposed alternative markets for nuclear by products, like deep space batteries and such

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO AreaRequired1000.jpg, 377KiB, 1000x706

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:29:07 No.13562208 Report

Quoted By: >>13562234

>>13562175
I'm already right. You haven't addressed the greatest issue with CSP which is that it doesn't work well with diffused light, such as on cloudy days, so it greatly increases the storage requirements in a 100% renewable system.
>semiconductors
Yeah, it's just doped silicon. There is never going to be a real shortage.

They're also not as efficient as you believe:
>net annual solar-to- electricity efficiencies are 7-20% for pilot power tower systems, and 12-25% for demonstration-scale Stirling dish systems
>>13562165
It has already been done.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:31:34 No.13562217 Report

Quoted By: >>13562240

>>13562203
>12 times the energy density of lead acid battery
You mean 1.2 MJ/kg

Natural gas is at 50 mj

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1608323710089.jpg, 322KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:35:58 No.13562233 Report

Quoted By: >>13566398

Reminder

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:36:00 No.13562234 Report

Quoted By: >>13562291

>>13562208
>it doesn't work well with diffused light, such as on cloudy days
Neither does PV, it also loses efficiency greatly when hot, which most consistently sunny areas tend to be, the poles during the summer are the only areas that doesn't fall into this trap
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1419416

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:38:10 No.13562240 Report

Quoted By: >>13562248

>>13562217
>Solar thermal system powering a sewage biodigester and plugging this into the natural gas system
Both problems solved

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:40:22 No.13562248 Report

Quoted By: >>13562262

>>13562240
Thats not energy storage

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:44:47 No.13562262 Report

Quoted By: >>13562274

>>13562248
Yes it is, solar heat spurs waste being digested into biogas, which is natural gas, which you use to burn in a natural gas plant for energy
This turns waste into useful energy from already available mass

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:47:52 No.13562274 Report

Quoted By:

>>13562262
Its just solar with extra steps

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO do-solar-panels-work-in-cloudy-day.png, 26KiB, 734x399

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:50:53 No.13562291 Report

Quoted By:

>>13562234
>Neither does PV
No, PV can use nearly all the light reaching a panel on a cloudy day, CSP cannot as it requires direct light to concentrate it. This greatly limits the amount of locations where it could make any sense to use it.
>it also loses efficiency greatly when hot
The temperature coefficient of PV isn't bad at all, you may lose about 0.25% for each degree over 25c.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 02:55:42 No.13562318 Report

Quoted By: >>13562343 >>13562357

>>13562162
I don't know what your goal is, but it's plenty of light for a solar power system.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO xnj-140e.jpg, 130KiB, 1465x799

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 03:01:21 No.13562337 Report

Quoted By: >>13562352

GE's XNJ-140E nuclear afterburning turbojet. 121MW of power at 27.5 ton dry weight. The 1960's were a wild time.

http://www.holosgen.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/XNJ140E-Direct-Air-Cycle-GE-1962.pdf

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 03:03:09 No.13562343 Report

Quoted By: >>13562357

>>13562162
>>13562318
So with 20% efficient panels, you would get about 320 kWh per square meter per year. I guess, I don't design solar power systems.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 03:04:56 No.13562352 Report

Quoted By: >>13562371

>>13562337
Cancelled because it was too OP
Can fly for weks at low altitude, making it undetectable by radar

Russia announced they have one now though

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 03:06:33 No.13562357 Report

Quoted By: >>13562367 >>13562377

>>13562343
>>13562318
Electricity is really cheap where I live (4cents /kWh)
Would it still make economic sense to put up panels? I'm going to put the 200W one anyways just to learn how it works

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 03:08:29 No.13562367 Report

Quoted By:

>>13562357
Yes, just to save more money, if you get a combined PV/heat system, it cools the panels while providing free hot water

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO DhmXYpJX4AAqKzP.jpg, 66KiB, 819x559

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 03:09:03 No.13562371 Report

Quoted By: >>13562613

>>13562352
This was a different project from SLAM. This was for a crewed nuclear powered aircraft, not a missile.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 03:10:02 No.13562377 Report

Quoted By:

>>13562357
>4cents /kWh
>Would it still make economic sense to put up panels?
Probably not, the payback period would be terribly long, but there are calculators for this if you want to double check. It could be a fun project if you make a solar/battery backup for use in camping or if the power goes out or something.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 03:36:06 No.13562467 Report

Quoted By:

>>13562096
Why not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 04:02:33 No.13562553 Report

Quoted By:

>>13561590
I support this.
Preserve the natural beauty.
Tourism and good mental state are real factors that generate money.

Nothing more dangerous than hype

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 04:08:27 No.13562569 Report

Quoted By:

>>13561450
>decade or two away from the very first commercial fusion reactors
Haven't we been for about 70 years now?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 04:21:19 No.13562613 Report

Quoted By: >>13562711

>>13562371
What's the difference
Its still a super engine that can fly for weeks or months below radar and below clouds

Only difference i see is that you need more radiation shielding for crewed. Or is there more

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO CL-1201.png, 145KiB, 568x319

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 05:01:22 No.13562711 Report

Quoted By: >>13562846

>>13562613
Two completely different reactor and engine designs. One is a cruise missile, the other would have been the propulsion for a strategic bomber. During the Cold War, there were some crazy designs for long endurance nuclear powered bombers and flying aircraft carriers. The aircraft reactor development stopped with maturation of ballistic missiles and perfection of in-flight refueling.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 05:53:31 No.13562846 Report

Quoted By: >>13562902 >>13562908

>>13562711
Can we replace a320/737 with a fission plane?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 06:18:48 No.13562902 Report

Quoted By: >>13572206

>>13562846
In essence, there is nothing that a fossil engine can do that a fission reactor cannot do better

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 06:20:44 No.13562908 Report

Quoted By: >>13562961

>>13562846
Theoretically? Yes. Economically? No.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO download.png, 4KiB, 287x176

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 06:37:03 No.13562937 Report

Quoted By: >>13562942

Times a changing

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 06:38:32 No.13562942 Report

Quoted By: >>13562946

>>13562937
https://news.gallup.com/poll/190064/first-time-majority-oppose-nuclear-energy.aspx

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 06:40:58 No.13562946 Report

Quoted By: >>13562969

>>13562942
That's 3 years older than my post

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 06:46:20 No.13562961 Report

Quoted By:

>>13562908
Nonsense kerosene is absurdly more expensive than gasoline yet airliners can still make a profit.

High investment is all there is to it.
We getting smrs soon though.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO dpotssyj2e6mm7fhgjjg2w.png, 24KiB, 546x354

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 06:48:35 No.13562969 Report

Quoted By: >>13562979

>>13562946
Your online poll was sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute. According to the Gallup poll, 61% support would still be normal historically and not indictive of a culture shift, which is obvious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 06:52:07 No.13562979 Report

Quoted By:

>>13562969
And all 3 says the same thing - 2016 had a lot of opposition
But that's about it

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 06:53:34 No.13562984 Report

Quoted By: >>13563377

>>13562027
BASE.
LINE.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 08:14:21 No.13563204 Report

Quoted By: >>13563277 >>13563298 >>13563337

why is it that even china, who don't care about people's opinions, aren't investing much in nuclear?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 08:45:13 No.13563274 Report

Quoted By:

>>13562007
I have a set (and this is on 62N). I have been monitoring the output for few years now and I have concluded it was worth the cost. For me it doesn't lower the energy bill by that much directly and instead the prime way to use it is to use the energy it makes during the day myself to do things like run my laundry or dishwasher and using the house heatpump to cool during the summer and heat the home during the winter. The house itself even acts as a mini battery allowing me to skip cooling or heating during the night (which makes sleeping bit more comfortable as well). Before I got the panels I didn't do these things as much but now it's simply dumb not to and it's quite nice quality of life increase to my living. It's not viable for me to buy extra capacity however and try to sell the energy to the power company though, the rates for that are pretty low over here at least.
Basically a system that matches or goes bit under your daily energy use is very cost effective even this far north, especially if you shift some of the consumption for those peak hours. Check your local buyback rates for energy (if they even do it at all), if they are good aim for system that matches your average energy use, if they aint good undershot a bit and it should be good size for you. Don't buy into salesman bullshit and get too big system for your needs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 08:45:40 No.13563277 Report

Quoted By: >>13563283 >>13563298 >>13563337

Found a newer poll.
>>13563204
They realized it's too expensive to justify building plants. China is diving hard into renewables which undercuts nuclear plants and lowers their capacity factor to the point where they can't pay back their capital cost. They've tried dozens of western reactor designs, made their own and they haven't found anything worthwhile. They pretty much stopped proposing new plants and now they're missing their targets for nuclear capacity by quite a bit.

The recent leak at Taishan plant probably sparked a new wave of concern over safety and how much a disaster would anger their citizens and harm their image in a world where most countries are phasing nuclear out. China actually does have a lot of NIMBYers who pressure the local regulators and stop the development of inland plants. Few of their government officials are willing to put their neck on the line when nuclear isn't needed.

Here is a good article on the situation which is actually really fair despite the pro-nuclear source.
https://www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opinionnuclear-in-china-why-the-slowdown-5896525/

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Capture.jpg, 98KiB, 1823x930

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 08:46:41 No.13563283 Report

Quoted By:

>>13563277
Forgot my image.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 08:51:00 No.13563298 Report

Quoted By: >>13563337

>>13563277
>>13563204
Chinese nuclear isn't and wasn't really economically competitive anyways but they build it for strategic reasons (both for actual nukes but also just to stay ahead in nuclear and associated technologies as a hedge), if they are falling behind on their targets, it's 100% because the actual targets changed behind the scenes since they could just build more if they still thought those targets to made sense.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO https-%2F%2Fspecials-images.forb (...).jpg, 118KiB, 1200x939

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 09:00:36 No.13563337 Report

Quoted By: >>13563353 >>13563367

>>13563204
>>13563277
>>13563298
Where'd you heard that?
They have 17 in construction right now

And they wanted 100 more by 2035. I am serious

They would singlehandedly skyrocket global nuclear plants from 400 to 600 in 15 years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 09:07:40 No.13563353 Report

Quoted By: >>13563373

>>13563337
Read the article that was linked. Most of those proposed plants won't get built and the reactors under construction are all at existing nuclear plants with the exception of Taipingling which isn't inland.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 09:13:29 No.13563367 Report

Quoted By: >>13563388 >>13575883

>>13563337
How does that conflict with what I said. If the only thing they cared for was economics they would have kept building coal and later solar but that's not the prime concern. For instance these nuclear mandates came when Beijing and other major cities were drowning in coal smog so the reaction was to fund a nuclear program which produces energy at a higher cost but without smog and allows China to make nuclear weapons more readily. Then when solar became so cheap and they have enough reactors to build nuclear bombs they have started transitioning away from the previous nuclear program as it's no longer needed as much and are more or less on maintenance mode just to keep up the technological development.
China is literally the one place in the world where if the leadership wanted nuclear, nuclear would get build regardless of the cost but even they are stepping away from it as you can clearly see. It simply doesn't make economic sense (and never really did) but now even the secondary benefits aren't as important.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 09:15:37 No.13563373 Report

Quoted By: >>13563449

>>13563353
We'll see
15 years for 100 reactors is nothing

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 09:17:32 No.13563377 Report

Quoted By:

>>13562984
Know any other nonsense words?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 09:20:53 No.13563388 Report

Quoted By: >>13563396

>>13563367
You can't use nuclear plants to make weapons
What the fuck

They have their own nuclear program

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 09:22:45 No.13563396 Report

Quoted By: >>13563469

>>13563388
It's all very much connected, you need mines and refineries if you have nuclear power, the infrastructure and technologies are all shared

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 09:34:14 No.13563449 Report

Quoted By: >>13563462

>>13563373
China will add at least 90 GW of solar and wind this year alone. This is compared to their entire nuclear capacity which is 52 GW and the 12 GW of nuclear under construction right now but each reactor will take 5-10 years to build. I did however miss a couple of new plants they're constructing but they're not inland. Their 2025 target is only 70 GW.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 09:37:40 No.13563462 Report

Quoted By: >>13563496

>>13563449
And?
Why do you sound so insecure

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 09:39:39 No.13563469 Report

Quoted By: >>13563516

>>13563396
Not true. Satellites and listening devices would reveal anyone testing nukes

It's not something you can hide with plants. Unless you're a terrorist

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 09:42:32 No.13563485 Report

Quoted By:

Imagine defaming a country for actually doing effort to kill fossil fuel

Never change

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 09:43:55 No.13563496 Report

Quoted By:

>>13563462
You're projecting about insecurity because you're upset that you're wrong and you have no other argument.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO c829f7ea8eb977d110fe1fe07ccf9446 (...).jpg, 380KiB, 1020x988

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 09:45:29 No.13563506 Report

Quoted By: >>13563644

>>13562031
There is no marginal value of transient energy about 5-10% of the grid power. It's not only the fact that you either have it or you don't, it is in fact much worse. Intermittent energy into the grid can destabilize the frequency, which means that your wind turbine running can actually be draining power out of the grid. This is why there is sometimes a negative price of electricity in places with lots of renewables, they need to get the power out at certain locations ASAP or you get problems. If frequency instabilities get bad enough, you get a blackout.
Renewables are also both heavily subsidised and do not pay for the fact that their product has no assured delivery, by government edict they can get the same price that hydro or nuclear get per kWh, while in reality the value or "mayby I provide what you want to buy" is far less than "I can provide what you want to buy".
Fossil peaker plants only exist because of the weird fetisch for solar and wind that is currently gripping western "elites", due to it being economical to cover up the obvious weaknesses of such a regime with conventional CO2 emitting power.
This is in excess of all the land usage arguments against solar and wind. Why consume enormous land areas for power generation when you can build a couple of industrial facilities that take up less than a thousand of the space needed for renewables?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1615053704809.gif, 2MiB, 270x368

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 09:46:06 No.13563508 Report

Quoted By:

>>13561450
>Not seeing the point of solar once that’s achieved
To lock in fossil fuels as solar and wind can't sustain baseline. It's all shilling by big oil, since worse renewable options would allow their natural gas, goal and oil to remain in use to sustain the grid during lower production periods.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 09:47:44 No.13563516 Report

Quoted By:

>>13563469
What are you talking about? They aren't "testing" nukes, they are building them and the capacity to build more if they need to. It's not a secret and they aren't even trying to hide it, it's a stated goal of their program.

Are you autistic, yes or no answer please.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 10:27:37 No.13563644 Report

Quoted By: >>13564767 >>13565207

>>13563506
Ancillary services including frequency control are such a small amount of the cost of energy.
>your wind turbine running can actually be draining power out of the grid
It's not draining anything, it's oversupply that causes a surplus which has no use so it's sent to other countries. That happens with and without negative prices. Utilities would put renewables higher in the merit order regardless because they want cheap energy at low prices.

Liberalization of power markets is a great thing and you're basically a commie if you disagree. No new nuclear power plants have been built in a liberalized market regardless of the amount of renewables because they also get fucked by natural gas which can do baseload far cheaper. Nuclear can only exist where it's propped up by the government with high strike prices which make the investment worthwhile.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 13:00:44 No.13564074 Report

Quoted By:

lol nuclearnigs on suicide watch

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Wind-Wasted-V10.png, 300KiB, 588x454

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 15:38:26 No.13564767 Report

Quoted By: >>13567499

>>13563644
No one could sell surplus energy they never planned for
It just gets wasted

This is most common on rooftop solar.
Just a few months ago, Australia had to shut down multiple household panels and cost people thousands of dollars each because it's so unstable it nearly caused a statewide blackout

Those affected received nothing to recoup their loses
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-17/solar-panels-switched-off-in-sa-to-stabilise-grid/13256572

This happened last years as well and would happen more often

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 2021.png, 63KiB, 804x380

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 17:41:46 No.13565110 Report

Quoted By: >>13565157 >>13567234

This is a dumb conversation that only exist in 4chan and youtube comment section, by people that are not actually going to be making the decision.

At this point the only thing that is driving the nuclear hype here is:

>Renewable = Gay Californians
>Nuclear = is brave and contrarian

Same with the Hydrogen hype.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 17:55:29 No.13565156 Report

Quoted By:

>>13561344
No, we don't. Fuck off.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 17:55:29 No.13565157 Report

Quoted By:

>>13565110
The main driving force is to become carbon neutral.
It's either nuclear or continue to be a slave to the oil tycoons

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 18:12:20 No.13565207 Report

Quoted By: >>13567499

>>13563644
Charge a carbon tax
You make fossils more expensive
Help nuclear
And help more people and environment with the added tax

Already available on Scandavanian countries

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 22:28:20 No.13565995 Report

Quoted By: >>13566137 >>13566690 >>13566995 >>13567216 >>13567513 >>13572572

>With 280,000 homes in South Australia equipped with rooftop solar, or 35% of the state’s housing stock, it essentially creates a huge power plant that authorities have little to no control over. In some situations, South Australia’s energy needs have been 100% met by solar power alone, with gas, wind and other generation resources then exporting their energy to interstate markets. Things can quickly become dangerous in situations where there is nowhere to export the excess energy, however. In a recent incident, interstate links were down for routine maintenance on a day of particularly high solar delivery. The electricity regulator made the decision to shut down 12,000 home solar systems via a newly-granted power in order to keep grid demand above 400 MW, a level high enough that major gas plants could stay online.

>This was achieved through relatively crude means, but if left unchecked, voltages would have risen high enough that home solar inverters would suddenly flick off en masse, leading to a sudden drop in supply and widespread blackouts. The same can happen in the case of short-term voltage dips. If a major generator goes offline and the grid voltage drops below set levels, thousands of home inverters can trip off suddenly in response, exacerbating the problem and causing blackouts.

And they also found out that 1.5% of fires in Australia was caused by Solar PVs. They had 43,707 residential fires

It was reported that in order to fix this, Australia would have to build more gridlines and connect all cities, destroying farms and livelihood along the way. Expected total cost ranges from 200B to 1Trillion

Australia right now is actually considering lifting the ban on nuclear energy
>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9715061/Push-remove-ban-nuclear-energy-Australia.html

All in 5-8 years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Aug 2021 23:18:47 No.13566137 Report

Quoted By: >>13566679 >>13567691

>>13565995
Why not just come up with a way to cover the solar when generation is too high? Like scales of one way glass or something built into the panels that can flip to reduce the amount of light getting to the panel.
>ban on nuclear energy
Lmao. Abo-tier.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 00:49:01 No.13566398 Report

Quoted By:

>>13562233
Literally me

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 01:02:50 No.13566455 Report

Quoted By:

is there such thing as a KSP for nuclear reactors?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 02:15:35 No.13566679 Report

Quoted By:

>>13566137
Can't
The people own it

Frankly, what they did is litterally illegal.
It's like raising your own garden only for the feds to destroy your tomato so there would be a market for local goods.

It was only tolerated because its better to overbill a 11000 people than to pause the state economy for an entire day

No compensation was just as asshole as it gets.

Renewables would always be just a slave for fossil fuels and can kill it if it gets in the way.

I expect it to happen again and even more often as more people fall for the hype

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 02:20:16 No.13566690 Report

Quoted By:

>>13565995
Heh.
20 years of banning Nuclear power.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 03:58:08 No.13566995 Report

Quoted By: >>13567195

>>13565995
why would they ban nuclear energy in the first place?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 05:19:57 No.13567195 Report

Quoted By: >>13569739

>>13566995
Oil combany lobbying, probably.
Nuclear allows for most of the grid to be powered without dependence on fossil fuels, while renewables need them as backup whenever it's night or the wind don't blow. Meanwhile all the retarded city-hippies think they're being green and wonderful by driving for technology that locks in oil- and gas dependence into the system. Oil companies love it, which is why they're now actively shilling for renewable technologies like wind and solar that allow them to maximize their own profits.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images (3).jpg, 36KiB, 526x583

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 05:32:42 No.13567216 Report

Quoted By: >>13567513

>>13565995
The biggest implication we can find here is the fact that they prevented an incident but didn't fix the problem

The only way to fix this is to either make powerful energy storage (lol) or outright impose heavy restrictions on renewables.
Banning of home solar does not sound unlikely

1 major blackout
Just 1 incident brought by too much extra energy and all the hype on renewables would collapse

That's not an "if" but "when"

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 20210803_192158.png, 322KiB, 609x735

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 05:45:24 No.13567234 Report

Quoted By: >>13567392

>>13565110
I think you're underestimating the power of social media

Nuclear Perception have already reversed. Anti-nuclear countries like Sweden cancelled their phase-out plans and actually started building 2 new reactors.

The jews have no control over dem spicy memes. Thankyou Kurzg

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Nukular.jpg, 80KiB, 1230x830

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 06:46:16 No.13567392 Report

Quoted By:

>>13567234
>Nucular became more accepted because I was born
You're welcome.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 07:42:00 No.13567499 Report

Quoted By: >>13567521 >>13567558

>>13564767
Surplus electricity gets sold all the time. You're literally complaining that renewables produced so much energy there was a surplus and this counters your previous claim because it shows you can turn off solar and wind plants as you can other types and this isn't the real cause of negative pricing. There are other plants that can refuse to turn off and actually cause negative pricing, like nuclear because shutting down their plants is expensive and they can be obligated to sell district heating so instead they would rather sell energy at loss or even pay someone to take it. Often there are future contracts at play which complicate the situation. Another example why nuclear or any baseload production doesn't fit in an increasingly dynamic grid.
> cost people thousands of dollars each
No it cost them mere dollars each. Curtailment is a feature in any power system, not everyone gets to sell everything they make, that's retarded. Priority is given to rooftop solar but if supply exceeds demand they have to turn some of that off too.
>Chinese wind curtailment
That is outdated, curtailment rates have dropped, and they're still installing a fuckload of wind power.
>As a consequence, curtailment rates in the inner provinces have fallen to between 10% and 23%, and for the whole of China to 7%.
https://www.rechargenews.com/wind/-china-wind-capacity-to-double-by-2028-as-curtailment-drops-/2-1-659479

The solution for this "problem"? Install batteries. The Hornsdale Power Reserve was only 90 million and it paid for itself in just 2.5 years. It requires very little storage just to manage frequency, but you're going to see much more of it because how profitable it can be to take nearly free energy and resell it later.
>>13565207
A carbon tax would just mean that more solar and wind would be installed. Very little energy storage is needed until solar/wind accounts for at least half of all production.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 07:51:59 No.13567513 Report

Quoted By: >>13567558

>>13565995
>>13567216
Rooftop solar is not the same thing as solar as a whole. These are people who are also the customers of the power company, if you turn their panels off because you have too much supply, they're still paying for electricity. They deserve top position in the merit order and they should be compensated they're temporarily shut down. This is the fault of the utilities who had to fight for the right to turn off rooftop solar, solar capacity rose so fast they were unprepared and haven't yet installed enough batteries for ancillary services. They were caught off guard when the interconnects went down and limited their options.
>Australia right now is actually considering lifting the ban on nuclear energy
How would nuclear help in this situation? The plant would have to shut down as well otherwise there is even more of a surplus. Running a nuclear plant at a 50% capacity would result in extremely high energy prices, even more than the already high cost of nuclear. They would take ten years to build so they would be even more at a disadvantage when they finally turn on.
>It was reported that in order to fix this, Australia would have to build more gridlines and connect all cities, destroying farms and livelihood along the way.
This is just pure bullshit. Solar is good everywhere in Australia and they're extremely isolated so they can't sell much outside of it. Interconnects in this case can only solve temporary issues, like when a power plant suddenly has to shut off and there isn't enough power on standby to fill in. With the amount of solar Australia is installing they will soon always have a surplus of energy on clear sunny days, but normally it's the utility scale plants that scale back so you never hear about it. Moving forward they will either need to compensate for rooftop solar owners or add storage so they never get shut off.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 07:56:09 No.13567521 Report

Quoted By: >>13567599

>>13567499
>an entire Australian state almost has a complete break down of the grid due to solar's inability to control its output
>actually here's why that's a good thing
>actually just install batteries
>actually batteries are irrelevant
>actually those were nuclear issues all along

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO gene-endrody-gene.gif, 250KiB, 220x220

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 08:15:42 No.13567558 Report

Quoted By: >>13567602

>>13567499
>>13567513
>entirety of Australia can't solve it
>no you don't understand

For a double text wall, all I read are
>it's normal
>solar and wind can do this
>they just made an oopsie
Wow! Batteries! How come they never thought of that. Get your Nobel right here

And you even managed insert Nuclear Bad when Australia has none

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 08:34:30 No.13567599 Report

Quoted By: >>13567613 >>13567631

>>13567521
Every grid on the planet requires ancillary services, you complete moron. This is either done through fossil fuel peaker plants usually oil or natural gas, or through batteries which is now the cheapest option. If proper ancillary services are not in place, you risk having blackouts. I live in an area is almost all coal powered and I get at least two or three blackouts a year because a powerplant goes down or something else in the grid fucks up from the incompetence of my provider. Blackouts are not a problem inherent in renewables, that's just a fact. The most stable grid you could possibly using only a single source of energy is a solar at about 300% overcapacity with 12 hour energy storage. Whereas a nuclear plant or natural gas plant could have some issue and need to shut down, the sun isn't going to turn off tomorrow and the millions of separate cells and simplicity of solar have great redundancy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 08:35:39 No.13567602 Report

Quoted By: >>13567620 >>13567715

>>13567558
>And you even managed insert Nuclear Bad when Australia has none
That is the purpose of the thread and the context that sparked this argument was negative energy prices and plants that refuse to shut off to curtail supply, leading to grid issues. In this case it was 400 MW of fossil fuel capacity that didn't want to make way for rooftop solar. In other grids it's often nuclear, not renewables. The fact remains that nuclear would only exacerbate this problem so suggesting it as an alternative is retarded.

>Analysis of the 97 hours of negative electricity prices between December 2012 and December 2013 shows that in these hours, the percentage of electricity generation that came from renewables was never more than 65 per cent, even during periods of strong winds or increased solar energy production. At these times, as you could expect from an economic standpoint, the electricity production from gas and coal power plants was reduced to practically zero. Nuclear power plants, however, only reduced their output by 35 per cent during periods with negative prices and lignite plants reduced their output by 50 to 60 per cent. Furthermore, heat-controlled CHP plants also continued producing electricity. As a result, 20 to 25 GW conventional power plants were always connected to the grid. The reasons for this are the economic aspects of the cost of starting up and shutting down these power plants, the current regulations for provision of system services, and the EPEX bidding design.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 08:37:40 No.13567613 Report

Quoted By: >>13567651

>>13567599
>batteries
>cheap
Lmao

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 08:42:44 No.13567620 Report

Quoted By: >>13567651

>>13567602
Blah blah blah
Bitch, who cares

It's Nuclear or Fossil.
Your renewables won't be competing with either

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 08:47:29 No.13567631 Report

Quoted By: >>13567651

>>13567599
>hurricane season
>only a few sunny days out of a month
>whoops, we only have enough power to keep critical services online
also
>Whereas a nuclear plant could have some issue and need to shut down
this is just handwavium "nuclear can't work because... it just can't, okay?"

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Serading, West Nusa Tenggara, In (...).jpg, 70KiB, 1211x1007

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 08:56:05 No.13567651 Report

Quoted By: >>13567706 >>13567755

>>13567613
Batteries are by far cheaper than natural gas for ancillary services and peakers plants, which should be obvious as it makes no sense to construct a giant plant only to run it 5% of the time. Natural gas plants are only economical at a higher capacity factor, like 25%+.

https://www.energy-storage.news/battery-storage-30-cheaper-than-new-gas-peaker-plants-australian-study-finds/
>>13567620
>Your renewables won't be competing with either
You have no real argument and you're delusional. More renewables are being added into the grid than fossil fuels. Nuclear isn't a competitor anywhere on Earth.

>Renewable energy sources made up almost 91% of the new electricity generating capacity in the US in the first six months of the year.
https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/08/26/renewables-made-up-nearly-91-of-new-us-capacity-in-first-half-of-2021/
>>13567631
Enough with this hurricane season bullshit. It was never right in the first place, analyzing the solar irradiance of Indonesia which was somehow being held up in the last thread of a place solar could never work because of "muh monsoon season", shows that the monthly energy output is very constant through all months. This goes for like 95%+ of the places people actually live.
>this is just handwavium "nuclear can't work because... it just can't, okay?"
I never said it can't work, I said it was ironically inherently more unreliable than a properly designed solar/battery system. It can't however work economically which is the biggest factor and your fear mongering about blackouts is worthless. Shitposting about solar and wind isn't going to bring back nuclear, retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 09:14:45 No.13567691 Report

Quoted By:

>>13566137
The actual solution isn't retarded like that. First of all there isn't actually anything wrong with shutting down power plants, it's a meme argument. Solar plant that shuts down doesn't consume fuel or accrue extra costs, something like that is in fact built into the price of the thing and it's still very much cheapest way of making power. More important than that excess energy is a good thing, the actual problem isn't the energy but the fact that the market has yet not adapted to the lighting speed adoption of solar. Here are 3 actual ways you could handle that "excess" power while making a profit
1) you could simple adapt the way you use your power
People used to run washing machines during night power when electricity used to be cheapest, these days electricity is actually cheapest during the prime solar hours, things like smart thermostats, factory production schedule changes and smart electric cars can all shift when they consume peak power and taking advantage of the cheap excess power works both for the solar power produces and the consumer as a win-win.
2) batteries/storage
As said by someone else on the thread, battery storage facilities are an extremely profitable business, simply build a storage facility, purchase the cheap energy during the day and sell it later. Again this and solar are both profitable on their own and combine for a win-win.
3) new energy sinks
Free energy isn't bad, there are plenty of applications that just aren't viable today but which would be viable if energy prices were lower (even on a daily cycle), these things include such ventures as carbon capture -> fuel production, hydrogen production hell even crypto mining.

All 3 of these things are happening in real life btw because they are all profitable for the people doing them.

The take away is that your goal should always be to maximize energy production and minimize the cost (which is what solar and wind do), the markets will always adapt to use the provided energy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 09:20:14 No.13567706 Report

Quoted By: >>13567777

>>13567651
Hurricane season was just an example of something that could cause many cloudy days.
>I never said it can't work
>a nuclear plant could have some issue and need to shut down
Literally exactly what you said. You just throw your hands up and say that there'd inevitably be some issue (that you can't specify) that would somehow force a nuclear plant to shut down at random.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 09:24:30 No.13567715 Report

Quoted By: >>13567755

>>13567602
This is basically right

Renewable energy would never sell energy on a negative price. They can and will sell at bottom out prices but they will never pay someone else to take their energy because they can always simply shut the plant down and start it back up in like 2 minutes when the oversupply has resolved itself. Unless they are of course forced to do so by regulators, which isn't really their fault. There's simply no profit in it for them
Negative energy is always the fault of "baseload" plants because shutting down a nuclear plant simply isn't something that you can do on a whim, not to mention that lot of these plants sell not only electricity but also heat. The end result is that for a fossil fuel plant that has heating commitments the only option is to keep the fires burning and pay someone to take the electricity off them while they keep supplying the heating or even in the worst case simply keep the reactor going because they know that the price should rise within the hour and they would lose more on the lost sales during the start up if they turned the plant off than they lose from the negative pricing during the slump. It's basic economics.

Not to even mention that low energy price is in fact not a bad thing and having to shut down powerplants because there's simply too much supply is a good thing for the customers and basic law of the capitalistic jungle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 09:48:44 No.13567755 Report

Quoted By: >>13567777

>>13567651
>250MW, four-hour (1,000MWh) battery system in New South Wales would be a cheaper option for meeting peak demand than a 250MW new-build OCGT

>4 hour battery
>cheaper
LMAO

Australia is getting fucked precisely because of such a widely held delusion

Stop giving articles and ask yourself WHY Australia would rather open for Nuclear than stick with their current plans

>>13567715
Samefag

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 10:02:53 No.13567777 Report

Quoted By: >>13567843

>>13567706
>Literally exactly what you said.
I didn't say that at all. I implied that a solar plant is less likely to breakdown so they're ironically more reliable, not that nuclear cannot work because it will breakdown.
>some issue (that you can't specify) that would somehow force a nuclear plant to shut down at random
That happens all the time, nuclear plants are incredibly complex and things often break, especially in the older plants they had to extend past the designed service life. Does this mean that you cannot have a grid that uses mostly nuclear? No, but it means it requires another power source on standby ready to maintain frequency and that it's not as simple as to just blame blackouts on any single source. If you weren't so ideological, you would realize that batteries would help nuclear if it ever gets off the ground again.

Just last month alone unplanned nuclear shutdowns happened in Spain, China and Iran.
>>13567755
It is cheaper as shown by the study and many others. Storing energy for short periods of time isn't expensive and battery prices are falling at a rate similar to solar, they're now under $100 kWh for LFP.
>Stop giving articles and ask yourself WHY Australia would rather open for Nuclear than stick with their current plans
They haven't done anything, a coal-supporter politician opened the debate again to try to detract from renewables, for which they argue there is no need because they could have clean nuclear energy within two decades. Of course they know nuclear isn't a real threat to fossil fuels since once again not a single nuclear plant has been built in a liberalized energy market and few places could afford to subsidize a new plant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 10:54:25 No.13567843 Report

Quoted By: >>13567859

>>13567777
Listen to yourself speaking
You're comparing the price of energy storage vs producer and thinks it's a bargain

Is a pot as expensive as the flower?

Storage should be dirt cheap to be profitable

>They haven't done anything,
BINGO
YOU WINZ ZE INTRANETZ
HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD, BUCKAROO!

They were just too stoopidz and too lazy to google a solution for 5 mins like you did

What a heartfelt revelation

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 11:00:54 No.13567859 Report

Quoted By: >>13567876

>>13567843
>You're comparing the price of energy storage vs producer and thinks it's a bargain
It's cheaper to make solar and store it than to make nuclear, that's just a fact.

>Storage should be dirt cheap to be profitable
It is already profitable, there are many commercial electricity storing ventures that operate profitably.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 11:07:45 No.13567876 Report

Quoted By: >>13567884

>>13567859
Suit yourself. Interminent power NEVER takes over

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 11:07:49 No.13567877 Report

Quoted By:

>>13562072
2126 kWh/m^2 per year. Not bad

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 11:10:53 No.13567884 Report

Quoted By: >>13567921

>>13567876
Reality unfortunately disagrees with that.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO pepe-laugh.gif, 170KiB, 360x346

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 11:24:32 No.13567921 Report

Quoted By: >>13567954

>>13567884
You mean like getting decapitated by fossil plants because you overstepped their boundary?

Hon hon hon
Johnny johnny
What way to go
Call me' self merry as i choke on his cock

You disgust, sir. I'm going home

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 11:42:00 No.13567954 Report

Quoted By:

>>13567921
People will keep building solar no matter how much you whine about it, it's like you are being cucked by reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 12:06:11 No.13568021 Report

Quoted By: >>13568061

is geothermal energy a meme?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 12:26:23 No.13568061 Report

Quoted By: >>13568094 >>13568104

>>13568021
Conventional geothermal is way too location limited and because the geography of every site is very unique it doesn't come down in price much as more plants get built. Now there is something called a Enhanced Geothermal System which wouldn't need to use a typical hydrothermal resources like hot spring as they drill down very deep, but it's similar to fracking so it may face some opposition and it has the same pitfall as all thermal systems, converting it to electricity isn't cheap. I can't see it beating solar or wind at this point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 12:45:10 No.13568094 Report

Quoted By:

>>13568061
Also I'm skeptical of all EGS startups being created by former oil and gas employees and then backed by oil and gas companies. They haven't put serious money into it, it just seems like a ploy to get their investors to think they can transition into a new field after most oil demand dies when in reality they're fucked. Then there is the issue that baseload power is no longer preferable so they would have to load follow but that has been beaten to death in this thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 12:50:03 No.13568104 Report

Quoted By: >>13568110 >>13568145

>>13568061
>converting it to electricity
As I understand at the moment the most effective way to convert heat to electricity on a large scale is using steam generators like in nuclear reactor?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 12:52:06 No.13568110 Report

Quoted By:

>>13568104
Yes and those are expensive

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Capture.jpg, 77KiB, 1181x555

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 13:13:39 No.13568145 Report

Quoted By:

>>13568104
This table from the Department of Energy may help. You're looking at about $660 per kW just to buy a 15MWe steam turbine and generator and install it, which can be compared to something like solar where the entire plant is often less than $1000 per kW and there is much less maintenance. The cost of converting thermal energy to electricity will remain nontrivial and it forms the floor of the capital cost of the power plants that employ it.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO noshield.png, 117KiB, 414x416

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 13:44:09 No.13568210 Report

Quoted By: >>13572704

>>13561450
The best way to get tritium for fusion reactors to actually make them economically viable is via fission reactors, which can also be constructed much faster and are more tested and understood. Fusion simps do not understand the power of the hot rock, and they probably never will, until the Fission chads teach them once and for all.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 016.png, 165KiB, 680x547

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 14:53:08 No.13568375 Report

Quoted By: >>13568390 >>13568986 >>13569284 >>13573073 >>13574403

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IZQWLv4HMc

Nuclearfags will defend this 20+ billion dollar monstrosity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 14:58:39 No.13568390 Report

Quoted By:

>>13568375
Fug, I forgot that was in pounds. The estimated cost at this point is 31.5 billion USD.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 15:03:53 No.13568400 Report

Quoted By:

Just pay $10,000 per kW for a nuclear reactor, bro.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 17:31:20 No.13568860 Report

Quoted By:

Use solar energy to recycle organic waste into artificial fossil fuels which the remains fuel agricultural plant growth to be consumed, thus completing the carbon/energy cycle
Solves all of solar’s problems and is extremely economical
Nukes can be used for spaceships and places with little use for solar

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 17:58:03 No.13568986 Report

Quoted By: >>13569563

>>13568375
>7% of the country's entire electricity of UK
>$31B
Wtf
Thats an absolute bargain!

UK has over 2000 plants and that single Nuclear reactor just displaced 140 plants. Each one costs 500M-$1B

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 18:25:52 No.13569083 Report

Quoted By:

>>13562069
ok this is epic. How viable is solar for industrial heating applications in general?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images (4).jpg, 6KiB, 256x178

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 19:32:46 No.13569284 Report

Quoted By: >>13569563

>>13568375
>just1 out of 8 planned
They are already 21% nuclear
Assuming all 8 are of comparable power, then holy fucking shit

Airstrip one would be 80% nuclear by 2035
Just a few dozen nuclear taking down thousands of coal plants

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO annoyed.png, 267KiB, 420x420

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 20:53:15 No.13569563 Report

Quoted By: >>13569702 >>13569707

>>13568986
>>13569284
Is this bait? 31 billion is just the plant cost, on top of this consumers will pay an estimated 50 billion at the strike price of £92.50/MWh in 2012 prices, so at least $127/MWh without accounting for inflation.
>UK has over 2000 plants and that single Nuclear reactor just displaced 140 plants
>Just a few dozen nuclear taking down thousands of coal plants
The UK has only 3 active coal power plants and 32 natural gas plants. This won't even replace their 7 nuclear plants set to retire between 2022-2035 with a capacity of 9 GW, they would need to build three of them.
>just1 out of 8 planned
They're not building eight of these. No more reactors are firmly planned in the UK.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 21:32:37 No.13569702 Report

Quoted By: >>13569772

>>13569563
First off, that's cheaper than the alternatives
>"The government has looked at a number of different alternative options for Hinkley Point, at whether or not it could be replaced with gas generation or renewables generation - whether wind or solar. Their value for money analysis work identifies that Hinkley Point is competitive with the range of possible outcomes."

>Hinkley Point C will provide 7% of the UK's need for electricity from when it starts producing electricity at the end of 2025, he said. The government also has 34 Contracts-for-Difference (CFDs) as part of its renewable energy program which will provide another 7% of UK electricity.

>"Those 34 CfDs on average will cost consumers £120-£130/MWh. By contrast, Hinkley will cost consumers £92.50/MWh. So, against that alternative - a mix of offshore and onshore wind - Hinkley Point is cost competitive," he said.

Secondly, they are building more
>Despite this, EDF Energy is still planning to build four new reactors at two sites, with public consultation completed and initial groundwork beginning on the first two reactors, sited at Hinkley Point in Somerset.[10][11] Horizon Nuclear Power have plans for 4 to 6 new reactors at their sites, Wylfa and Oldbury. Three reactors were also proposed at the Moorside Nuclear Project.[12] An agreement has also been made which allows for Chinese-designed reactors to be built on the site of the Bradwell B nuclear power station.``

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 21:33:45 No.13569707 Report

Quoted By: >>13569772

>>13569563
And they also have plans for 16 Mini-nuclear reactors
>A consortium led by Rolls-Royce has announced plans to build up to 16 mini-nuclear plants in the UK.

>It says the project will create 6,000 new jobs in the Midlands and the North of England over the next five years.

>The prime minister is understood to be poised to announce at least £200m for the project as part of a long-delayed green plan for economic recovery.

>Rolls-Royce argues that as well as producing low-carbon electricity, the concept may become an export industry.

>The company's UK "small modular reactor" (SMR) group includes the National Nuclear Laboratory and the building company Laing O'Rourke.

>Last year, it received £18m to begin the design effort for the SMR concept.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 21:41:56 No.13569739 Report

Quoted By:

>>13567195
Lets be real.
Renewables don't recieve backups. They are the support

If the standard plants announced they are producing too much, they cannot do anything but get shut down until the boss says so.

It can't provide baseload and therefore they recieve no real authority on the grid

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 21:47:43 No.13569772 Report

Quoted By: >>13569787 >>13569856

>>13569702
>First off, that's cheaper than the alternatives
No it's not, it's at least twice the cost of average UK wholesale prices. Offshore wind is already selling at a strike price of £44. A fair comparison would use the estimated 2026 price of as that's the claimed completion date of Hinkley Point C.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-and-solar-are-30-50-cheaper-than-thought-admits-uk-government
>Secondly, they are building more
They're not building more, they're planning more and most planned reactors don't get built. After the disaster of Hinkley Point, the UK is unlikely to build any more nuclear reactors. This is exacerbated by the fact China General Nuclear Power Group which is backing all these projects was caught spying and stealing nuclear secrets from the US which raises security concerns. Also EPR reactors are trash and have already caused leaks.
>>13569707
> poised to announce at least £200m for the project
>£200m
LMAO. If you actually think these SMRs will get built, go buy RYCEY stock near an all time low as Rolls-Royce will be lucky not to become bankrupt.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 21:50:52 No.13569787 Report

Quoted By: >>13569816

>>13569772
>China General Nuclear Power Group which is backing all these projects
Like 100% backing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 21:58:06 No.13569816 Report

Quoted By: >>13569832 >>13569856 >>13569867 >>13569906

>>13569787
They're paying 6 billion pounds for Hinkley. EDF doesn't have the pockets to fund their own reactors. Both the proposed Bradwell B and Sizewell C plants are also CGN backed.

CGN didn't just get caught spying, they got caught spying for military use. I highly doubt they could get another reactor out of the planning stages.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:02:17 No.13569832 Report

Quoted By: >>13569906

>>13569816
They're also now on the entity list which bars U.S. companies from selling products to them. General Electric is supplying the turbine and other equipment to Hinkley so I don't know how that works or if it would only apply to new plants going foward.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:04:58 No.13569846 Report

Quoted By:

>>13561329
That train radiator design is ineffective at best. I don't see any sort of design of a ram-air system to cool the fluid while the train is in motion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:07:26 No.13569856 Report

Quoted By: >>13569926

>>13569772
Already stated:
>If the government had concluded it was a solution that involved the use of intermittent [energy sources] - whether that's wind or solar generation - as an alternative, then we would have needed to make sure there was either storage or backup generation in place. The grid would need to have been larger and the net result of those would be an additional cost of roundabout £10-15/MWh that would be required on top of the strike price that the consumers will pay for the generation. All in all, that's why we believe Hinkley, at £92.50, is a good first-of-a-kind deal for the UK."

Secondly, there is no announcement for cancellation. The fuck you smoking?

>at least
I have idea why you act like something they already planned last year was cancelled out of nowhere.
And sure, I'll take their word

>>13569816
Source? Can't find it

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:09:40 No.13569867 Report

Quoted By: >>13569926

>>13569816
I thought UK is becoming more kinda friendly towards China and less friendly towards US?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:20:40 No.13569906 Report

Quoted By: >>13569926

>>13569816
>>13569832
Is this what you are talking about?
>https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/11/nuclear-espionage-charge-for-china-firm-with-one-third-stake-in-hinkley-point
He was charged for spying onthe USA, not UK

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:24:04 No.13569915 Report

Quoted By: >>13569935

>EDF has denied allegations that the role of China General Nuclear (CGN) is increasing at the Hinkley Point C nuclear project in Somerset.

>It dismissed the claims made in the Sunday Telegraph story, which alleges the Chinese state energy company is “more closely involved” in the project than what was previously disclosed.

>In 2016, it was confirmed CGN would be a financial partner with a 33.5% stake in Hinkley Point C, alongside France’s EDF.

>The Sunday Telegraph alleges it found “conflicting statements from the Chinese and French” over the number of Chinese workers on the site.

>However, EDF has dismissed the claims as “untrue”, insisting the majority of the workforce and supply chain at Hinkley Point C is British.

>The company said in a statement: “Hinkley Point C is a European designed nuclear reactor – being built with experience and innovation from similar reactors around the world, including the reactors built by EDF, Framatome and CGN at Taishan. This co-operation has always been made public.

>“The majority of the workforce and supply chain at Hinkley Point C is British. British engineers benefit from more than 60 years of experience in building and operating nuclear plants and the UK supply chain is driving innovation and improvements in the plant’s construction.

>“There are around 30 CGN workers employed in the UK project team out of a total of around 6,000 people.”

>EDF added “at no stage did anyone on the project suggest lifting a structure over workers, nor has there been any disagreement over the approach to be taken to the dome lift”.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:25:52 No.13569926 Report

Quoted By: >>13569953 >>13569965 >>13569975

>>13569856
You're quoting old marketing material from one of their employees, this wasn't accurate. The estimated cost to consumers is already more than eight times the 2013 estimate. They're forced to pay extremely high prices for 35 years, this was necessary in order to get the money to build the plant otherwise it would never be economical.
>Secondly, there is no announcement for cancellation. The fuck you smoking?
Three of the six proposed nuclear plants in the UK were already canceled. Moorside, Oldbury, and Wylfa Newydd. Hinkley will only be completed because of sunken cost fallacy and corporate shilling, otherwise it makes no sense. This leaves Moorside clean energy hub as the only non-CNG backed project and it has had almost zero planning done on it.
>And sure, I'll take their word
If you're stupidly taking their word it's still at least twice the cost of the average wholesale prices once adjusted for inflation.
>>13569867
They're not going to fuck with the US over nuclear power that isn't needed or even wanted by most of the population. CNG is Chinese state-owned but that doesn't mean they have much sway there, in fact they're struggling to get plants built within China.
>>13569906
The entire company was charged. Now Americans cannot invest in projects relating to them and US companies like GE cannot work with CNG. Various British MPs raised security concerns related to their involvement in domestic projects. If you think this isn't an issue, I don't know what to tell you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:28:56 No.13569935 Report

Quoted By: >>13569982

>>13569915
>The company with vested interest in the success of the project backpedals about CGN involvement
Cool.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:32:48 No.13569952 Report

Quoted By: >>13569995

https://www.rwradvisory.com/u-s-espionage-charge-against-china-general-nuclear-power-corporation-complicates-further-uk%DB%AAs-hinkley-point-nuclear-project/

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:33:06 No.13569953 Report

Quoted By: >>13570012

>>13569926
>in fact they're struggling to get plants built within China.
>state-owned
>struggling within China.
Why is that

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:36:24 No.13569965 Report

Quoted By: >>13570012 >>13571971

>>13569926
You seem to have a very good grasp of the subject. Are you some energy sector worker or something like that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:39:21 No.13569975 Report

Quoted By: >>13570012

>>13569926
Give a source on each of your claims
A quick google says that Moorside clean Energy hub, Sizewell C, and Bradwell are proposed to be readyby 2030

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:40:24 No.13569982 Report

Quoted By:

>>13569935
Well, not like there are any evidences

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:43:30 No.13569990 Report

Quoted By:

Wtf I was pronuclear, but upon reading these two threads, I became aware of complete miserable
situation in nuclear sector. That's just unfathomably embarrassing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:44:32 No.13569995 Report

Quoted By: >>13570012

>>13569952
>2016
Really?
Hinckly is going to open in 2025

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:45:36 No.13569997 Report

Quoted By: >>13571971

Why China is trying to build nuclear outside itself?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:49:28 No.13570012 Report

Quoted By: >>13570033 >>13570041

>In 2020, the French financial markets authority, Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), levied a €5M fine on EDF for misleading investors about the cost of the Hinkley Point C in 2014. EDF had claimed in an October 2014 press release that the UK government agreement was unchanged from 2013 when there had been significant changes to the financing plan, which may have artificially raised EDF's share price. AMF also levied a €50,000 fine on EDF’s then CEO
Just trust EDF, bro.
>>13569953
China doesn't want nuclear due to its high cost and they already have more than enough reactors for making weapons-grade nuclear material so adding shitty commercial reactors into the fold does little for them.
>>13569965
Nah, I'm just a retard who invests in energy so I try to keep up-to-date.
>>13569975
Moorside clean energy hub is the only non-CGN backed project and again, almost nothing has been done on it. Bradwell is only in the stage 1 consultation and Sizewell C just did their application. This doesn't mean they're close to getting built even if approved, in order to do that they need to work out a strike price with the government and it's no longer 2013, much cheaper renewables are already here.
>>13569995
Hinkley was already under construction before the news of spying broke, that is very different than a new plant. I don't know why you would want the Chinese controlling your project but the mental gymnastics of nuclearfags never ceases to amaze me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:54:29 No.13570033 Report

Quoted By: >>13570060

>>13570012
>invests in energy
You mean stocks of energy companies on stock exchange?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images (5).jpg, 21KiB, 678x452

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 22:57:39 No.13570041 Report

Quoted By:

>>13570012
God, everything on your posts are just assumptions
>Company did somebad therefore everything bad
Give me a company with a pristine record. USA perhaps?
Innocent untl guilty

Hinkley point c started construction in 2018
>china
>no interest in nuclear
Really?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 23:04:05 No.13570060 Report

Quoted By: >>13570069

>>13570033
Yes, not just individual companies but ETFs in various energy sectors like storage. My autism is mere economic autism, which makes me good at discerning trends and what will be profitable but it's good for little else.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images (6).jpg, 27KiB, 500x515

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 23:06:46 No.13570065 Report

Quoted By:

>China aims to maximize self-reliance on nuclear reactor technology manufacturing and design, although international cooperation and technology transfer are also encouraged. Advanced pressurized water reactors such as the Hualong One are the mainstream technology in the near future, and the Hualong One is also planned to be exported.[10][11] By mid-century fast neutron reactors are seen as the main technology, with a planned 1400 GW capacity by 2100

>China
>no interest in Nuclear
Dumbest thing I've read today

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 23:08:19 No.13570069 Report

Quoted By: >>13570091

>>13570060
And were you successful in earning money from it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 27 Aug 2021 23:17:40 No.13570091 Report

Quoted By:

>>13570069
Energy is just a small part of my portfolio but I made a few hundred thousand off the 10k I started with. It helped that I was very early into EVs and I sold everything before the Corona Crash before buying back near the bottom.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 13:08:29 No.13571968 Report

Quoted By: >>13572444

so solar is winner and nuclear is loser

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 13:10:33 No.13571971 Report

Quoted By:

>>13569997
Same reason they built everything else, they first built the machinery and built stuff for themselves and now they are exporting all sorts of infrastructure package deals all across the world to keep said machinery running. Same reason why they chain build ports or bridges or railways in other countries basically.
You only need to look into the numbers of how much nuclear vs solar they install domestically to know what they will be doing in 5 or 10 years outside their country, building prefabbed solar facilities everywhere.

>>13569965
Nuclear can mostly be destroyed by high school math, it's simply not economic way to generate power. Besides you don't need to be very knowledgeable to beat someone in an argument who thinks ten times ten equals over 100 million.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 14:44:41 No.13572206 Report

Quoted By: >>13572248 >>13572448

>>13562902
Provide a powerplant with power output on the order of megawatts with a mass on the order of a ton for applications such as vehicles.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 2880px-ITER_Tokamak_and_Plant_Sy (...).jpg, 1MiB, 2880x1409

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 15:01:47 No.13572248 Report

Quoted By:

>>13572206
Source:
Dude, lmao, trust the claims from my fusion startup with MS paint tier designs and reactors that have never been attempted at scale and ignore that all the viable reactors like ITER have a horrid specific power that is an order of magnitude worse than fission.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 16:38:24 No.13572444 Report

Quoted By:

>>13571968
>a sissy slave to the oily jews
>winning

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 16:39:36 No.13572448 Report

Quoted By:

>>13572206
What?
Aircraft carriers and subs are nuclear powered

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO https-%2F%2Fd1e00ek4ebabms.cloud (...).jpg, 35KiB, 500x281

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 17:13:38 No.13572519 Report

Quoted By: >>13572649

>The problem — even as he made the announcement and sent bureaucrats scrambling to create the programmes to make it happen — was Japan’s growing list of solar company failures.

>And while shifts in government policy have played a part in these, some analysts see a more worrying dynamic: the possibility that the economics of solar power in Japan reveal a serious threat to its sustainability plans.

>Between the start of 2018 and the end of 2020, 256 solar companies were forced to declare bankruptcy, according to business information firm Teikoku Databank. Their failure, surviving competitors say, reflects a far more challenging operating environment than many had ever predicted.

256 solar companies in Japan closed down within 5 years
In response, nuclear plants are now being reopened and 2 plants contiued construction

>japan, land of the rising sun and victim of Fukushima
>hates solar

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 17:33:23 No.13572572 Report

Quoted By:

>>13565995
Happening in Germany as well.
Their maxed out grids are so problematic, they are paying foreign power plants to close just so they could export they extra energy without suffering a massive black out

>https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.greentechmedia.com/amp/article/germanys-stressed-grid-is-causing-trouble-across-europe

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 17:53:10 No.13572649 Report

Quoted By: >>13572680

>>13572519
That article doesn't match your bullshit assumptions. What they're saying is that a solar feed-in tariff sparked hundred of startups, a lot of whom then went out of business as the government pulled it back since it wasn't necessary anymore. This makes complete sense as there is almost no barrier to entry in the solar industry beyond that it favors very large companies with greater economies of scale. Japan is in the top three of global installed solar capacity and they added 8 GW last year alone, which is a 17% increase from 2019 despite Covid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 18:03:54 No.13572680 Report

Quoted By: >>13572691

>>13572649
80% of prefectures hates it as it directly caused over 30 landslide incidents
Wild animals lost their habitat, forcing them to destroy farms for food

The feed in tariff was given in generously as an attenpt to replace nuclear, which evidently failed

Also installed capacity isn't generated electricity

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 18:08:23 No.13572691 Report

Quoted By: >>13572705

>>13572680
>80% of prefectures hates it as it directly caused over 30 landslide incidents
>Wild animals lost their habitat, forcing them to destroy farms for food
>The feed in tariff was given in generously as an attenpt to replace nuclear, which evidently failed
Source:
Lmao, I literally made this all up
>Also installed capacity isn't generated electricity
No shit, retard, but the fact they're installing more capacity means that there is a use for them since you don't build power plants only to keep them inoperable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 18:14:25 No.13572704 Report

Quoted By:

>>13568210
>hurr durr im a dumbass but ima comment anyways
Fusion designs use tritium breeding from lithium

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 18:15:00 No.13572705 Report

Quoted By: >>13572734

>>13572691
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20210702/p2a/00m/0bu/002000c

29 landslides
23 famage to landscapes
28 environmental damage

Not including loses in agriculture due to increase in pest and land degradation. In just 5 years

Nuclear is being reopened despite the biggest possible setback. The reason is clear enough

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 18:25:56 No.13572734 Report

Quoted By: >>13572772

>>13572705
That isn't a public opinion poll, you complete idiot, and it's not clear who exactly they asked or how it would compare to other energy sources like nuclear which nearly everyone would admit there are issues with. There being no solid evidence that solar causes landslides or causes other serious forms of environmental damage.

Prove that it directly caused over 30 landslides as you asserted.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO bea51d1fb5e1792c83904960ebed0049.png, 20KiB, 600x800

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 18:32:55 No.13572764 Report

Quoted By: >>13572778

Imagine being so fucking retarded you think this means that Japan is going all in on nuclear.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 18:35:05 No.13572772 Report

Quoted By: >>13572804

>>13572734
>the profusion of solar panels makes the gentle slopes of the mountains look like they've been coated in black "sumi" ink.

They cut the trees to make space for solar
Landslides and a spill of sand happens appropriately, treatening both people and livelihoods. Not even a decade has passed

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 18:36:21 No.13572778 Report

Quoted By: >>13572804

>>13572764
>2015
News of reopenning of nuclear plants happened just this year

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 18:45:05 No.13572804 Report

Quoted By: >>13572872

>>13572772
>There is direct evidence of solar producing over 30 landslides because a random Japanese person said that solar makes the mountains look like they have been coated in ink

You're actually fucking retarded. I'm not saying this to be mean, I'm saying this because you need to stop posting and go back to trying to fit the square block into the round hole on the toy your parents gave you.
>>13572778
>2015
Clearly you didn't read that graph correctly as it extends past 2019 and a decade has passed without most of the reactors turning back on. The courts have already blocked some of the older reactors from coming back online and few were approved in 2021 despite your claim.

https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/03/japan-court-blocks-reopening-of-remodeled-aging-nuclear-power-plant/

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 5757680998_725af42b4c_o-624x416.jpg, 90KiB, 624x416

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 19:04:53 No.13572872 Report

Quoted By: >>13572916

>>13572804
This already onlined on June
>https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Technology/wireStory/aging-japanese-nuclear-reactor-restarted-decade-78443667

10 of 33 are set to online soon if they haven't already

This happened just this mont
>https://m.energytrend.com/news/20210810-22918.html
>According to the coverage of the Mainichi Shimbun, the source of landslides can be traced to multiple land reformation and development activities, including solar power installations, deforestation, residential housing projects, and industrial waste disposals;

Response from the government forcing solar farms to have more safety. Surely, that's enough?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 19:18:14 No.13572916 Report

Quoted By: >>13572934

>>13572872
>>According to the coverage of the Mainichi Shimbu
According to a shitty newspaper that already did a biased "poll" which included exactly zero scientists and has no mention of who exactly they asked.
>10 of 33 are set to online soon if they haven't already
Your source doesn't confirm this. Even if it's true, 10/33 plants reopening with only one new plant being constructed in the whole of Japan is not the picture you're trying to paint.

Once again, post a source for your claim that solar plants directly caused over 30 landslides, as you stated. You own source proved this incorrect.
>Shizuoka’s Vice Governor Takashi Namba commented that the mound that had aggravated the incident at Izuyama District had weighed more than 50K tons.
>Namba had said that solar energy and residential development are not the cause of the incident, as indicated by the available geological data

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 19:25:12 No.13572934 Report

Quoted By: >>13572963

>>13572916
That's a report on the government actions, sir. Mainichi is just a reporter among dozens.
And the government just ruled out new safety meadures on Solar farms after a landslide that it caused

Also, pre 2011, Japan is 30% nuclear
Opening 10 of 33 is 8-10% of theirentire electric output

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 19:34:36 No.13572963 Report

Quoted By: >>13572976

>>13572934
>That's a report on the government actions, sir. Mainichi is just a reporter among dozens.
Why would you lie? The original article stated "A Mainichi Shimbun survey found that of all 47 prefectures in Japan, 80% have problems with solar power energy in one way or another." At no point did you post any evidence that solar causes landslides.
>Opening 10 of 33 is 8-10% of theirentire electric output
So? Their gaining less than 1/3rd of their original nuclear capacity, yet you maintain that they ditched solar for nuclear.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Nuclear Power Yes Please (1000x1 (...).png, 157KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 19:39:27 No.13572976 Report

Quoted By: >>13573006

>>13572963
Are goverment response not enough evidence on the danger of solar?

Are reopning of nuclear plants not enough evidence that it cannot be replaced by solar?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 19:48:33 No.13573006 Report

Quoted By: >>13573053

>>13572976
>Are goverment response not enough evidence on the danger of solar?
That isn't a government response, at best it's the opinion of a single government employee in some of the prefectures who simply stated there are problems with solar, which is obvious as there are problems with any energy source. If the government actually thought it was dangerous, it would be banned or heavily regulated like nuclear is.
>Are reopning of nuclear plants not enough evidence that it cannot be replaced by solar?
No, the fact that they're not reopening most of the plants proves that they can be replaced by renewables and that is what is actually happening.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images (7).jpg, 53KiB, 545x563

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 19:59:08 No.13573053 Report

Quoted By: >>13573114

>>13573006
False
>Koizumi Shinjiro, the Minister of the Environment, also pointed out that the government has started drafting new regulations surrounding the site of solar power plants by designating areas of higher disaster risks in advance, where solar development would be prohibited.

Japan has over 2000 solar farms generatig 7.6% of their electricity
Just those 10 coming back would generate the same amount.
A set back thatmade international news and 10 years of public outcry

And yet they are still coming back and 2 more being built.

20 more to go

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 20:04:18 No.13573073 Report

Quoted By: >>13573114 >>13573163

>>13568375
This "overpaid monstrosity" costs less than renewables
nuke will run at constant rate 24/7
wind runs on average at 25% of installed capacity, so realistically you need to build 4MW to match 1MW nuke in the real world

wind costs you $2mil/MW, storing that output for A SINGLE day will cost you $3mil. extra (batteries are ~$150/kWh)
Hinkley point is $35 billion, makes 3200MW which puts it at around ~$11mil/MW installed, exactly the same as wind
the difference is you won't have to restart burning coal/gas when the wind's been calm over the weekend
you can verify these numbers yourself

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 20:15:03 No.13573114 Report

Quoted By: >>13573150

>>13573073
>This "overpaid monstrosity" costs less than renewables
This is pure bullshit. It's will be more expensive than any source of renewables in the UK, that is a well-demonstrated fact.
>wind runs on average at 25%
Offshore wind which is the major renewable source in the UK has a capacity factor of up to 60% depending on the project.
>nuke will run at constant rate 24/7
The average capacity factor of a nuclear plant is below 90%. No nuclear plant runs 100% of the time.
>you can verify these numbers yourself
I did and they're all made up and have no relation to reality.
>>13573053
>False
That doesn't prove any of your claims, only that they don't want to build solar in areas that will flood. That isn't heavily regulated.
>20 more to go
Twenty more reactors until they get back their original nuclear capacity, yet they're only building a single new plant.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO nuclear-power-tsunami_721_420_80 (...).jpg, 52KiB, 721x420

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 20:22:43 No.13573150 Report

Quoted By: >>13573163 >>13574227

>>13573114
The world wide Jews failed.
Nuclear is coming back.

Is it not worth celebrating?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 20:24:56 No.13573163 Report

Quoted By: >>13573184 >>13573805

>>13573073
>wind costs you $2mil/MW, storing that output for A SINGLE day will cost you $3mil. extra
>Hinkley point is $35 billion, makes 3200MW which puts it at around ~$11mil/MW installed
>exactly the same as wind
2+3 = 5
11 > 5

Shockingly hard math here.
>>13573150
What shithole country are you from?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 20:30:04 No.13573184 Report

Quoted By: >>13573302 >>13573420

>>13573163
Is Hinckley Point a good point of comparison? I had thought it was endlessly delayed because of politics. SMRs in contrast are expected to be somewhere around $3m-$5m/MW of capacity due to economies of scale.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 20:54:27 No.13573302 Report

Quoted By: >>13573400

>>13573184
Hinkley Point C is already under construction, it's the only nuclear plant being built in the UK. We can also look at the Flamanville 3 reactor in France as it also the only reactor there under construction and it has all the same problems. It's more than five times overbudget.
>SMRs in contrast are expected to be somewhere around $3m-$5m/MW of capacity due to economies of scale.
Expected by whom, their marketing team? $3000-$5000 per kW is still three times the cost of some renewables and over four times the cost of combustion turbine natural gas. SMRs have diseconomies of scale due to their small size, economies of scale from being made in a factory can only be realized if they make at least dozens of them which isn't close to being on the table and the first ones have to be cheap enough to compete against the other options which will never be the case.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 21:10:34 No.13573400 Report

Quoted By: >>13573420

>>13573302
I dare you to source that

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 21:14:36 No.13573420 Report

Quoted By: >>13573983

>>13573184
The other issue with SMRs is that a lot of power plant equipment is already modular yet still very expensive. You can order steam turbines, generators, condensers, etc. from GE and they'll ship it to you and then assemble it within months. They'll also do all the maintenance on it if you want. If you can make a cheap reactor core, it doesn't mean you'll make a cheap nuclear plant.
>>13573400
Source what specifically? Everything I said about Flamanville you can find on Wikipedia and countless other sites.
>As of 2020 the project is more than five times over budget and years behind schedule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 22:40:37 No.13573805 Report

Quoted By: >>13573962

>>13573163
He was accounting for the 25% uptime of wind, retard.
2x4 = 8
8+3 = 11

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 22:45:11 No.13573852 Report

Quoted By:

>nuclear deboonked for being uneconomical
>solar deboonked for destroying its environment
What now? Has this general finished its purpose?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:01:54 No.13573962 Report

Quoted By: >>13573974

>>13573805
Offshore wind doesn't have a 25% capacity factor, retard, the average is about 50%.
>He
>Literally pretending to be someone else so you can defend your inability to do basic first grade math.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:04:20 No.13573974 Report

Quoted By: >>13574034

>>13573962
Schizo moment.
Retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:05:37 No.13573983 Report

Quoted By: >>13574034

>>13573420
Yes. All of them especially the price.
And where'd you got that news about SMRs.

There are dozens of companies racing for it and you're like the boomers who saud that the net won't take over

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:13:36 No.13574034 Report

Quoted By: >>13574059 >>13574121

>>13573974
>Calls someone a schizo
>He believes that nuclear plants operate 100% of the time at 100% of the nameplate capacity.
>Still can't do basic math so he pretends to be someone else.
Kek. Okay, how about you update your math to account for the 50% capacity factor of wind and the 85% estimated capacity factor of Hinkley, oh wait you refuse to do that because you know wind would prove to be cheaper, and this is using your retarded numbers.
>>13573983
>And where'd you got that news about SMRs.
Jesus Christ, what shithole country are you from already or are you just having a stroke? Your English is only getting worse so I'm concerned for your health.
>There are dozens of companies
There are dozens of companies that do nearly everything. Most of the major nuclear companies aren't interested in SMRs.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images (8).jpg, 61KiB, 640x281

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:17:53 No.13574052 Report

Quoted By: >>13574099

>https://electrek.co/2021/05/25/ohio-bill-would-let-locals-ban-wind-and-solar-but-not-fossil-fuels/amp/

Ohio now granting power to the locals to ban wind and solar installations.

>The latest version of Senate Bill 52 would prevent wind or solar companies from applying to build projects unless townships first set up an ‘energy development district.’ As few as 50 people in the smallest townships could force a referendum on the districts, and local boards would be able to veto projects even after they are approved by the Ohio Power Siting Board.

>Fossil fuel, nuclear, and other energy projects would not be affected by the legislation

This directly affects current renewable companies and sends a message that Ohio is not a stable place

Indiana also approves a statewide ban for Renewables
>https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/indiana-house-approves-statewide-standards-for-solar-wind-power-sites/article_26323598-dc90-5b43-b1c5-19bfaf0105df.amp.html
8 years of Renewable's legacy

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:19:06 No.13574059 Report

Quoted By: >>13574099

>>13574034
That's just a typo.
Anyway, got the source on those prices?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:26:47 No.13574099 Report

Quoted By: >>13574127 >>13574132

>>13574059
What prices? You were the one who claimed that SMRs were $3-5 million per MW, I asked you for a source other than the companies themselves and you never acknowledged it. There are no commercial SMRs being sold.
>>13574052
Do you even read the articles you post? The last article wasn't about a statewide ban, they removed the county wide bans on renewable projects.
>It sets minimum requirements for commercial renewable power installations that, if enacted into law, would supersede any local regulations that are more stringent, as well as open for development the 32 Indiana counties that have enacted bans on renewable power projects.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:30:33 No.13574121 Report

Quoted By: >>13574205 >>13574213

>>13574034
>He believes that nuclear plants operate 100% of the time at 100% of the nameplate capacity.
Yes, he does.
>Okay, how about you update your math to account for the 50% capacity factor of wind and the 85% estimated capacity factor of Hinkley
Where the fuck did you get the 50% capacity factor of wind? Everything I've seen has put the upper limit at 40%, with it ranging down to 20%.
Hinkley
>$35 billion / 3200MW
>$10.94 million per MW
>x1.11 to account for capacity factor = $12.14 million per MW
Wind
>$2 million per MW
>x2.5 to account for capacity factor = $5 million per MW
>+$3 million for storage = $8 million per MW
There's your math showing that wind would be cheaper than Hinkley. Now stop being a schizo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:31:56 No.13574127 Report

Quoted By:

>>13574099
Shit. I meant
*statewide regulation
34 counties wanted to ban it outright. State decided on regulation. For now at least

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:33:10 No.13574132 Report

Quoted By: >>13574205

>>13574099
I'm a different guy
Give me the price of those gas and renewables

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:49:39 No.13574205 Report

Quoted By: >>13574218

>>13574121
>Where the fuck did you get the 50% capacity factor of wind?
The latest rolling 12 month capacity factor is 46.9%. Newer plants especially those using larger turbines have a higher capacity factor so 50% for new construction is fair but estimating 2030 figure would be a better comparison as that's about the real completion date of Hinkley.
https://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors
>>13574132
You're not a different guy, I can tell because you write like you're having a stroke, which fine but it gives you away.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:52:21 No.13574213 Report

Quoted By:

>>13574121
And one of those plants reached 65% over three months at one point.

https://www.power-eng.com/renewables/world-s-first-floating-wind-farm-achieves-65-percent-capacity-factor/

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:53:14 No.13574218 Report

Quoted By: >>13574239

>>13574205
New guy, same guy
Whatever

Give me the numbers on the prices. Jesus Christ

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:55:05 No.13574227 Report

Quoted By:

>>13573150
How do jews/globohomo/masons/etc and nuclear reactors interfere with each other?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:58:01 No.13574239 Report

Quoted By: >>13574255

>>13574218
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019

This is two years old but it shows unsubsidized new solar and wind installations are the same cost as the marginal operating cost of nuclear and coal. Yes, it's cheaper to build a new renewable plant than to keep a nuclear plant online, that's how garbage they are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 00:04:25 No.13574255 Report

Quoted By: >>13574262 >>13574272

>>13574239
That's fucking stupid
Your source is LCOE that does not take into account capacity factor?

Fucking nigger

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 00:06:56 No.13574262 Report

Quoted By:

>>13574255
It takes it into account. It's the actual real world price for the actual energy produced.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 00:10:23 No.13574272 Report

Quoted By: >>13574281

>>13574255
You don't know when to stop embarrassing yourself. Power is not the same thing as energy. The other guy wanted to include the capacity factor of wind in the calculations in order to make it more fair for nuclear as he was looking at the capital cost per MW of nameplate capacity, not the LCOE per MWh which includes capital cost and O&M. LCOE is the real cost of the energy generated by the plant, it doesn't include capacity factor because that makes no sense and that's not how the energy market works.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 00:12:51 No.13574281 Report

Quoted By:

>>13574272
>it doesn't include capacity factor
I mean it doesn't adjust for capacity factor beyond it being included in the price.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 00:38:47 No.13574403 Report

Quoted By: >>13574441

>>13568375
You can't do math, anon. And thats okay.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 00:45:40 No.13574441 Report

Quoted By:

>>13574403
Are you denying the fact that it is estimated to cost between £22-23 billion?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1630134736489.png, 477KiB, 657x527

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 05:48:58 No.13575366 Report

Quoted By:

Well I guess I'm not staying up for the launch.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 09:02:04 No.13575857 Report

Quoted By:

>>13561353
Concentrators are useless inside an atmosphere but I agree they're great in space

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 09:14:29 No.13575883 Report

Quoted By:

>>13563367
China doesn't have the ability to innovate in order to bring costs down on nuclear plants, if that is possible, China is not the one to accomplish that.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images (9).jpg, 37KiB, 600x400

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 10:32:06 No.13575993 Report

Quoted By: >>13575999

Environmentalists are now changing opinion towards renewables and now standing for nuclear
>https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/09/09/as-renewables-falter-environmentalists-stand-up-for-nuclear/amp/

“Most mining areas (82%) target materials needed for renewable energy production,” note the authors in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Communications. And, they add, “these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.”

The study comes at a moment when the expansion of solar and wind energy is increasing local opposition, raising electricity prices, and contributing to electricity shortages.

California forced the state’s governor to acknowledge the dangers posed by attempting to rely on unreliable sources of renewable energy.

“We cannot sacrifice reliability,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said on August 17. “We have to sober up to the reality that… we’re going to have to do more, and be much more mindful, in terms of our capacity to provide backup and insurance.”

Californians are giving up

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 10:35:32 No.13575999 Report

Quoted By:

>>13575993
> raising electricity prices
?????

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images (10).jpg, 41KiB, 618x318

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 10:39:32 No.13576006 Report

Quoted By:

After 5 bills urging Illinois to go green, they officially ended all incentives towards renewables. Thus putting solar companies at risk of bankcruptcy
>https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2020/12/illinois-power-agency-closes-state-renewable-energy-incentives/

>The Illinois Power Agency (IPA) announced on Dec. 15 the close of all state renewable energy incentives, effectively ending Illinois’ renewable energy program. The end of incentives will force thousands of layoffs at renewable energy businesses across the state as Illinois’ solar market dries up. The announcement also means that Illinois will fall far short of its policy requirement of 25% renewable energy by 2025 unless new legislation passes, industry leaders comprising the Path to 100 coalition said.

>The program for residential solar in northern Illinois closed on December 15. The IPA announced the close of the solar program in central and southern Illinois on Dec. 4. Incentives for utility scale wind and solar, community solar and commercial-scale solar were already exhausted before then.

>The renewable energy program, which launched in late 2017, provided financial incentives to the owners of solar and wind energy systems and was the main driver behind the rapid growth in renewable energy jobs and installations in Illinois in recent years.

>“Illinois had become a hub for clean energy businesses, but now all of that is at risk,” said state Sen. Bill Cunningham

Illinois remain 58% Nuclear

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images (11).jpg, 12KiB, 258x387

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 10:45:44 No.13576019 Report

Quoted By: >>13576024

I just finished watching this

With over 11Million views on YouTube, not including Netflix and Amazon,
This film held great influence on exposing the true face of Green Energy

I saw some wrongs but eh, it got people asking questions about their sacred cow so i guess i cannot really hate it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 10:47:22 No.13576024 Report

Quoted By:

>>13576019
>some wrongs
>some
anon...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 14:58:17 No.13576562 Report

Quoted By:

All we need is 1 Mega Reactor per evenly spaced 400 mile radius with power ratings of 5000MW. These will charge big batteries that we can dig into the ground like silos for energy that is not used i.e. would go to waste. We need technologies that are more efficient at capturing thermal energy, then fission reactors will allow humanity to reach godmode with all the electricity we need.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 6521321651651.png, 202KiB, 678x408

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 16:12:42 No.13576740 Report

Quoted By: >>13576753 >>13576821

End of discussion
>pic related

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 16:20:35 No.13576753 Report

Quoted By: >>13576807

>>13576740
>Not covering windmills in PV
>Not covering the land under the windmills in PV

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 16:39:26 No.13576807 Report

Quoted By: >>13576821

>>13576753
60,000 acres of PVs sounds like a great idea for "clean" and "efficient" energy. Solar has some applications, but those are mainly in outer space. Our ability to produce enormous amounts of power in just a fraction of the land is the future. 60,000 acres can be so much better utilized than a solar farm. Get real.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 16:45:05 No.13576821 Report

Quoted By: >>13577286 >>13577436

>>13576740
>The Westinghouse SMR design is a scaled down version of the AP1000 reactor, designed to generate 225 MWe.
>After losing a second time in December 2013 for funding through the U.S. Department of Energy's SMR commercialization program, and citing "no customers" for SMR technology
>Westinghouse announced in January 2014 that it is backing off from further development of the company's SMR. Westinghouse staff devoted to SMR development was "reprioritized" to the company's AP1000
LMAO, get rekt.
>>13576807
When was the last time you bought anything that was measured in W/m2? Handwaving about specific power on Earth is meaningless and the majority of land and sea has no good use.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 18:41:49 No.13577286 Report

Quoted By:

>>13576821
Sounds like the problem is with Westinghouse. Both NuScale and TerraPower have found for their prototype reactors.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images (12).jpg, 57KiB, 518x592

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 19:22:09 No.13577436 Report

Quoted By: >>13577481

>>13576821
*no good use to humans

There is no space on Earth that does not serve a vital role
Deserts are thriving with life of both flora and fauna. Small as they are, they are older than the USA most of the time and Solar farms that disturbed their land caused actual dust storms because no roots to hold the soil. Imagine a Dustbowl II caused by pv panels

The sea is even more vital. If you block the sun, it would generate "deadzones" that are poor in oxygen and results into fishkill, lost of coral reefs, and ultimately lead to higher waves

Nature always find an equilibrium. Those who disturbs nature, would have to pay a lot

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 19:37:56 No.13577481 Report

Quoted By: >>13577522 >>13577640

>>13577436
You don't "block out the sun" by building few sea based power plants, nor do you cause "dust storms" by utilizing a marginal area from a desert.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images (13).jpg, 26KiB, 610x407

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 19:47:51 No.13577522 Report

Quoted By: >>13578166

>>13577481
>n-no big deal
Yeah, right
Know what animal thrives on those area?
Jellyfishes, algea, anoxic bacterias
A single Algal bloom can disrupt water supplies for millions of people.

Dust storms would cause sand to spill to agricultural lands, making harvest worse. Also pic related

Even if it did not caused it, it is guaranteed to make it worse.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 20:18:33 No.13577640 Report

Quoted By: >>13578166

>>13577481
what about preserving what little nature we have and use the abundance of power from nuclear plants to regrow nature preserves or build parks? Solar panels in massive arrays huh? How long are those gonna last before the weather completely destroys them? What do you do with broken solar panels?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images (14).jpg, 66KiB, 669x326

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 21:45:17 No.13577976 Report

Quoted By: >>13578011 >>13578020 >>13578072

Russia halves support for Wind farms
>https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1699372/russia-slash-support-increase-fines-new-wind-farms

They are also considering banning foreign renewables
>https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/10/16/russia-considers-banning-foreign-companies-from-renewable-energy-projects-a67755

Pretty funny to see that renewables in Russia are virtually nonexistent but are top 3 in the exporters of Solar modules.

On another note:
Wincosin lifts the ban on new Nuckear plants
>https://www.google.com/amp/s/dailyenergyinsider.com/policy/286-wisconsin-lifts-33-year-ban-new-nuclear-power-plants/

>Assembly Bill 384 repealed the original moratorium that banned the technology. Nuclear energy engineering students at the University of Wisconsin initially proposed the bill, which was supported by numerous political representatives and signed by Gov. Scott Walker.

>“The legislation’s strong bipartisan support owes heavily to the broad, diverse coalition of supporters who mobilized in favor of the moratorium repeal,” NEI Senior VP of Governmental Affairs Alex Flint said. “It brought together Wisconsin’s skilled building and construction trades, the business and manufacturing community, and longtime environmental activists, who recognize the important role played by the existing nuclear capacity in serving the state’s economic, electricity reliability, and clean air priorities. They were united in urging that nuclear energy should be an available option in meeting future energy demand growth.”

>The state has relied on a single nuclear energy facility, the twin-reactor Point Beach Nuclear Plant, for more than 30 years. The plant produces approximately 15 percent of the total electricity for the state, while 75 percent of total statewide energy is sourced from fossil fuels

Note: they banned renewables in 2015 to support local coal economy

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 21:58:34 No.13578011 Report

Quoted By: >>13578043

>>13577976
>Pretty funny to see that renewables in Russia are virtually nonexistent but are top 3 in the exporters of Solar modules.
Will you ever stop lying? Almost none of the articles you post support what you claim.

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/solar-pv-module-shipments-by-country-of-origin-2012-2019k

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 21:59:36 No.13578020 Report

Quoted By: >>13578043 >>13578080

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 22:04:57 No.13578043 Report

Quoted By: >>13578072

>>13578011
>>13578020
Huh
>https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/326128-russia-solar-energy/amp

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 22:13:13 No.13578072 Report

Quoted By: >>13578119

>>13577976
>Note: they banned renewables in 2015 to support local coal economy
Yet another lie. Renewables aren't banned in Wisconsin, plenty of new plants went up since 2015.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Wisconsin
>>13578043
They didn't claim to be in the top three of module exports, they claimed in 2017 to be among top 3 global leaders in production because of their high panel efficiency. Russian media is full of misleading nationalistic bullshit but I digress.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO im-359118.jpg, 27KiB, 540x360

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 22:14:27 No.13578080 Report

Quoted By: >>13578093

>>13578020
70-80% of Solar panels are from China
USA bans Chinese renewables made by slaves. Which is a pretty broad stroke if i say so myself
>https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-to-deter-forced-labor-with-ban-on-chinas-solar-panel-material-11624501427

ASHINGTON—The Biden administration broadened its campaign against the use of forced labor in China’s Xinjiang region on Thursday by imposing penalties on some companies that produce raw materials used to make solar panels.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection said it is immediately barring imports of metallurgical-grade silicon mined by Hoshine Silicon Industry (Shanshan) Co., as well as products made from it, unless the company can prove the material isn’t produced with forced labor.

The Commerce Department is adding Hoshine and four others involved in silicon production to its entity list, which requires U.S. companies to get a license to sell them products or technology; such licenses are rarely granted. The Labor Department is also adding polysilicon made in China to its list of products made by forced labor.

RIP I guess

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 22:17:00 No.13578093 Report

Quoted By: >>13578119

>>13578080
The ban is on "metallurgical-grade silicon mined by Hoshine Silicon Industry", it's not a ban on renewables as a whole from China.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO XL_Editors-news-feed_New_410_282 (...).png, 121KiB, 410x282

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 22:21:21 No.13578119 Report

Quoted By: >>13579380

>>13578072
Oh shit! My mistake.
That was actually Wyoming

>https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.greentechmedia.com/amp/article/wyoming-bill-creates-reverse-rps
I got confused because of W

>>13578093
Isn't that basically the same thing? USA uses its own Solar companies but does not mine the resources

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 22:31:12 No.13578154 Report

Quoted By: >>13578454

>nooo we need to save the environment don't you know how bad suburban sprawl and parking lots are how can you support paving over that much land for humans use!?!?!?
>uh akshually it's okay when we pave over thousands of acres of land for things that could be done on far less because... because it just is, okay?
Well, which is it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 22:33:27 No.13578166 Report

Quoted By: >>13578230 >>13578240

>>13577522
It's not a "no big deal", it simply doesn't happen, it's a fantasy you have created that solar panels cause dust storms or that you can somehow block out the sun with them.

>>13577640
Making power more expensive won't preserve nature, it simply lowers the quality of life. If you want to use less energy then do so but don't force others into that.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Sodium-Cooled_Fast_Reactor_Schem (...).png, 193KiB, 1200x860

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 22:45:36 No.13578221 Report

Quoted By: >>13578370

Wyoming to build one of the first advanced molten salt nuclear reactors and intends to transition from coal to nuclear
>https://www.wyomingnews.com/rawlinstimes/news/updated-pilot-nuclear-plant-to-replace-retiring-coal-plant/article_a8918f89-1988-5ee4-8377-81901d102c3b.html

>CHEYENNE – TerraPower and PacifiCorp announced efforts to advance a Natrium reactor demonstration project at a retiring coal plant in Wyoming. The companies are evaluating several potential locations in the state.

>“I am thrilled to see Wyoming selected for this demonstration pilot project, as our great state is the perfect place for this type of innovative utility facility and our coal-experienced workforce is looking forward to the jobs this project will provide,” Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon said. “I have always supported an all-of-the-above energy portfolio for our electric utilities.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 22:46:52 No.13578230 Report

Quoted By: >>13578266

>>13578166
what is more profitable for everyone, consistent thousands of megawatts from nuclear if we build a dozen more major plants which will last for decades, or hundreds of fields of exposed solar panels that only produce energy for fractions of the year and also die in 5 years? Building small locations where we can create an abundance of energy is advantageous in every conceivable metric compared to wasting time with an thousands of acres of solar panels. Who is going to fix them?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 22:48:47 No.13578240 Report

Quoted By: >>13578266

>>13578166
Not gonna happen is not a good argument, bitch

Up above you saw how Solar farms caused landslides

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 22:56:43 No.13578266 Report

Quoted By: >>13578382

>>13578230
>what is more profitable for everyone
If only there was some kind of measurement device, some kind of unified system of exchange that would allow the mob as a whole to dictate trough their supply and demand what kind of things they value and by how much which would thus take into account such things as land value. We may never know the answers...

>consistent thousands of megawatts from nuclear if we build a dozen more major plants which will last for decades, or hundreds of fields of exposed solar panels that only produce energy for fractions of the year and also die in 5 years?
The solar since it's way cheaper. Saying things isn't an argument.
For instance
>what is more profitable for everyone, consistent thousand ton fork made from steel which will last for decades, or hundreds of human sized utensils that are only used for fractions of the year and also get replaced in 5 years?
The solar panels despite all their "downsides" produce power at a cheaper price than nuclear, thus all their "downsides" are outweighted by the downsides of nuclear. It doesn't matter how much you meme, that's just how it is.

>in every conceivable metric
except dollars I suppose

>Who is going to fix them?
Repair men probably, the price to fix them is part of the price of the energy, which is still cheaper by a factor compared to nuclear.

>>13578240
It's basically the ultimate argument. Something that only exists in your fantasy doesn't effect real life. Building a solar plant on the desert doesn't cause sand storms. If anything the panels lower wind speeds and reduce sand storms

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 23:14:56 No.13578370 Report

Quoted By:

>>13578221
That's a liquid metal reactor, not molten salt. They're using nitrate solar salts as thermal energy storage to sell during peak hours.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 23:17:15 No.13578382 Report

Quoted By: >>13578411

>>13578266
Shilling for solar is simply retarded and you must be a paid shill if you consistently do so against basic logic. Nuclear power is sustainable, creates thousands of jobs that also inspire a generation to study the next generation of power (fusion). Solar power is a cheap chinese scam that is not even reliable on a 24 hour basis, let alone to sustain the next generation which will revolve around energy efficiency and greeness. What is more green than this current generation of nuclear tech? What is more sustainable with longer lasting and consistent output than a reactor core? There is nothing. The limit is government regulation in favor of fossil fuel, coincidentally china owns a huge portion of this as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 23:22:43 No.13578411 Report

Quoted By: >>13578464

>>13578382
>Nuclear power is sustainable
So is solar + it's way cheaper

>creates thousands of jobs
Solar actually has higher jobs / watt ratio since more of the money involved is in actual work and less in the insane capital costs which really just employ few bankers.

>Solar power is a cheap chinese scam that is not even reliable on a 24 hour basis
I don't see why that's an issue, for the price of nuclear you can get batteries, and much more solar generation.

> let alone to sustain the next generation which will revolve around energy efficiency and greeness
As in solar

>What is more green than this current generation of nuclear tech?
Solar

> What is more sustainable with longer lasting and consistent output than a reactor core?
Solar

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 23:24:28 No.13578418 Report

Quoted By:

It's great that renewables are now being banned.

We don't want the same treehugging Hippies that caused more damage than good.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 23:32:31 No.13578454 Report

Quoted By:

>>13578154
The thing is that solar eventually is more cost effective. Capitalism, ho!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 23:34:57 No.13578464 Report

Quoted By: >>13578492

>>13578411
The only way I see solar becoming sustainable is if it is included in building materials and roofing more often. It is like a 10% boost to energy output this way over the next decade and will require complete restructuring of the current infrastructure plus constant maintenance and attendance, so total restart from the ground up. Or just build nodes of energy output that are running thousands of times more powerfully per m^2 that connect with existing infrastructure and immediately and consistently produce clean energy. Energy that is supplied in so much abundance we won't know what to do with it really. Plants that survive for decades because they can be designed and shielded underground are so much better than solar. Upgrading transmission lines and local infrastructure is a better use of money than wasting it on massive solar farms which do not even consistently supply power matching a daily cycle, let alone a fluctuating consumer power demand.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 23:41:05 No.13578492 Report

Quoted By: >>13578506

>>13578464
>The only way I see solar becoming sustainable
Well that's your problem, it already in fact is sustainable.

>so total restart from the ground up
You again post something like this, again it's simply cheaper, if it actually took "total restart" (which it doesn't) and it came at a cheaper cost, what's the problem? Why are you afraid of new and cheap things?

>Or just build nodes of energy output that are running thousands of times more powerfully per m^2
Ye dude just make roads out of diamond, it's stronger per m^2, the cost doesn't matter just think of the hecking m^2 XDD

>so much abundance we won't know what to do with it really.
The price will be insane, with nuclear you will be able to afford less energy than you currently use, with solar you get more energy per dollar spent.

>underground
Jesus you are delusional, nuclear plants are already an order of magnitude more expensive than solar and you want to build them underground? You do realize that will again increase their costs by ten fold, making them even less competitive right?

>Upgrading transmission lines and local infrastructure is a better use of money than wasting it
Why do you use language like this?
This "upgraded local infrastructure" costs more than the "waste" and provides less energy at a higher cost. It's by definition not a better use.
It's like saying
>why waste money on food when you can simply buy locally produced and upgraded shit that costs 10 times what the real food costs

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 23:45:17 No.13578506 Report

Quoted By: >>13578509

>>13578492
You are so low effort it is laughable. Nuclear is only limited by government regulation. Cheaper energy from nuclear would completely rejuvenate our manufacturing industry. Solar cannot produce the massive amounts of power that fission can.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 23:46:39 No.13578509 Report

Quoted By: >>13578532

>>13578506
>Nuclear is only limited by government regulation
And of course the insane price

> Cheaper energy from nuclear would completely rejuvenate our manufacturing industry.
Nuclear doesn't provide cheap energy, the cost is basically an order of magnitude higher than solar, wind or even gas.

>Solar cannot produce the massive amounts of power that fission can.
Of course it can

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 23:47:12 No.13578511 Report

Quoted By: >>13578544

Price price price
Cost cost cost

This is why renewables legacy did not last a decade
You put a price on nature and lives that would be lost

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images (2).png, 24KiB, 525x584

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 23:48:39 No.13578519 Report

Quoted By: >>13578544

Price price price
Cost cost cost

This is why Renewables legacy did not even lasted a decade
You placed a price on nature and lives that would be lost

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 23:51:13 No.13578532 Report

Quoted By: >>13578544 >>13578586

>>13578509
Be real. It's fear mongering over "OMG nuclear explosion!!!!!" Uranium is the most cost effective substance for energy on the planet right now. Look up how many calories are in a single gram. Solar is cheap and cannot survive because it takes so much space to build, is not able to survive weather conditions for a long time, and cannot be used in every part of the country.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 23:54:18 No.13578544 Report

Quoted By: >>13578562

>>13578511
>>13578519
I also love expensive energy, man nothing really goes together better than starvation, communism and expensive power.

I hope you understand than with the money saved by using efficient power generation you can do much more to "save the nature" than what couple of acres of desert "destruction" costs "nature". And lives lost of course is another thing, expensive energy is one of those things that ensures lives will be lost and the ones that won't be will be miserable.

>>13578532
>Uranium is the most cost effective substance for energy on the planet right now.
It's actually one of the least effective ones.

>Look up how many calories are in a single gram.
Completely meaningless, it's like saying diamonds are the best road building material, simply look at the strength!!
What matters is the price, sunlight is free.

>because it takes so much space to build
Space is factored into the cost and of course it "survives" since there's more and more solar being built every year.

The space argument is completely meaningless, there's more than enough totally useless wasted space on the planet to build as much solar as one wants.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 23:57:37 No.13578562 Report

Quoted By: >>13578581

>>13578544
A trillion bucks would go a long way for nuclear industry my friend. Look at how much we print anyway, might as well throw a couple trill at the best way to produce energy ever discovered, nuclear. Cost should not be a factor when we waste billions farming onions milk for solar beta cucks like you.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images (15).jpg, 21KiB, 687x446

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 23:59:59 No.13578573 Report

Quoted By: >>13578581

Let him have it.
Renewables are going to dissapear in 3-5 years

Hard to convince someone that they are being fooled

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 00:01:37 No.13578579 Report

Quoted By:

Easier to fool someone than to convince that they are being fooled

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 00:02:21 No.13578581 Report

Quoted By: >>13578609

>>13578562
>A trillion bucks would go a long way for nuclear industry my friend
LMAO

>might as well throw a couple trill at the best way to produce energy ever discovered, nuclear.
That would be solar and it doesn't take a trillion to do that

>Cost should not be a factor when we waste billions farming onions milk for solar beta cucks like you.
You commies are always hilarious

>>13578573
I'm sure it's going to happen any day now lmao, just remember when you are dying to plug yourself off the solar powered life support. This really is my best argument, no matter what you do or say, people will still keep building more solar year after year, decade after decade, more and more because it's just that great. You can't argue against reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 00:04:07 No.13578586 Report

Quoted By: >>13578609

>>13578532
>cannot be used in every part of the country.
As if nuclear isn't constrained to having a nearby water source to get rid of excess heat. Unless you plan on powering less than a car or making a water source.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 00:11:48 No.13578609 Report

Quoted By: >>13578615

>>13578581
Nuclear power is the capitalist solution friend. SMRs are so effective, government regulations will fall against them and you will see. It takes way more skill than the meaningless beanerwork you want to exist, like mindlessly walking amongst rows of panels to maintain them. As opposed to inspiring people to engineer nuclear plants which are the future.

>>13578586
Water transportation should be subsidized by the government.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 00:14:22 No.13578615 Report

Quoted By:

>>13578609
>Nuclear power is the capitalist solution friend.
I'm sure expensive power only requiring a small loan of a trillion dollars is capitalistic in nature, the absolute state of nuclear fags holy moly.

>government regulations will fall against them and you will see.
They are expensive, they need regulations to survive, not the other way around.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images (16).jpg, 26KiB, 620x395

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 00:20:09 No.13578639 Report

Quoted By: >>13578646 >>13578648

>nuclear
>commie
What is this commie bullshit
We litterally built the first nuke AND reactor

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 00:23:22 No.13578646 Report

Quoted By:

>>13578639
>We
Correct comrade!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 00:23:42 No.13578648 Report

Quoted By:

>>13578639
When you are talking about spending trillions of dollars to build underground nuclear power to starve out majority of people and make the rest energy serfs that's basically text book communism.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 03:49:09 No.13579380 Report

Quoted By: >>13580494

>>13578119
>That was actually Wyoming
No it wasn't, that never passed. They installed 6 solar and wind plants since 2017 and more are coming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Wyoming
https://www.thesheridanpress.com/news/regional-news/six-new-wind-farms-planned-for-wyoming/article_f247160e-d05c-11eb-a59f-37b3b8179372.html

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 10:37:19 No.13580494 Report

Quoted By: >>13582102

>>13579380
But it seems some bans or restrictions concerning solar are real? Why is that? Some people seem to be starting to dislike fast solarification?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 19:05:29 No.13582102 Report

Quoted By: >>13582126 >>13582250

>>13580494
You never posted any bans despite the hours you put into shitposting about old articles which appeal to your confirmation bias. The closest thing you got is a few counties in California that restrict utility scale solar unless 50% of the power goes to a local community.
> Why is that?
Almost everything is restricted in some way and bad actors are common in any industry. If you think renewables are more restricted than nuclear you need to go see a shrink.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images (4).jpg, 72KiB, 700x394

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 19:06:15 No.13582105 Report

Quoted By: >>13582182

Largest solar farm cancelled by local opposition
>https://apnews.com/article/technology-government-and-politics-environment-and-nature-las-vegas-nevada-9bf3640dfefbc6f7f45a97c6810f5ff7

>California-based Arevia Power told the television station that its solar panels would be set far enough back on Mormon Mesa to not be visible from the valley. But a group of residents organized as “Save Our Mesa” argued such a large installation would be an eyesore and could curtail the area’s popular recreational activities — biking, ATVs and skydiving — and deter tourists from visiting sculptor Michael Heizer’s land installation, “Double Negative.”

Sedgwick Kansas bans renewables
>https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article234217332.html

>There won’t be any wind farms generating electricity in Sedgwick County.

>The County Commission on Wednesday voted unanimously to ban large-scale development of wind power countywide and to establish strict rules for commercial solar power installations.

>Planner Dave Yearout told the commission that large windmills can affect airport operations for a five-mile radius.

And lastly,
San Bernadino, California (of all places) bans renewables
>https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-san-bernardino-solar-renewable-energy-20190228-story.html?_amp=true

>California’s largest county has banned the construction of large solar and wind farms on more than 1 million acres of private land, bending to the will of residents who say they don’t want renewable energy projects industrializing their rural desert communities northeast of Los Angeles.

>Thursday’s 4-1 vote by San Bernardino County’s Board of Supervisors highlighted a challenge California could face as it seeks to eliminate the burning of planet-warming fossil fuels.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 19:10:14 No.13582126 Report

Quoted By:

>>13582102
Most of these are 2019 to just a few months

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 19:22:16 No.13582182 Report

Quoted By:

>>13582105
>Largest solar farm cancelled by local opposition
Not a ban
>Sedgwick Kansas bans renewables
Not a ban, it would restrict large-scale development of wind farms around airports in a tiny county that is mostly just the city of Wichita. There is no mention on if it was actually approved and it wouldn't apply to small private windfarms under 45 feet and household solar.
>San Bernadino, California (of all places) bans renewables
That isn't a ban, it's the same restriction that was already mentioned that prioritize production for locals. This doesn't affect BLM managed land in the county which there is a ton of.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 19:42:28 No.13582250 Report

Quoted By: >>13582305

>>13582102
I'm other anon and just wondering why solar is being restricted somewhere though in slightly way, I kinda don't understand this. Or it's just oil-lobby?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 19:56:04 No.13582305 Report

Quoted By: >>13582340

>>13582250
The oil lobby is a part of it, but not in my backyard and zoning restrictions are applicable to any industry. There are homeowners who have been forced to tear down their house because it was a foot too close to the street or because the visual appearance didn't fit the character of the neighborhood, does that mean there is serious opposition to house building? No it just means it's regulated and narrowed down to specific locations.

We're not even close to tapping all the locations for renewables that would go up without any issue. This is very different from nuclear which has serious restrictions regardless of location.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 20:04:06 No.13582340 Report

Quoted By: >>13582405 >>13582473

>>13582305
Thanks for explanation, by the way do you understand why some people don't like solar in general?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 20:17:30 No.13582380 Report

Quoted By:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/powerx-announces-its-business-to-innovate-power-storage-and-transmission-with-power-transfer-vessels-and-in-house-battery-manufacturing-301357867.html

>The very first model of the Power ARK series, "Power ARK 100" is a 100TEU trimaran specially designed for transferring renewable energy in Japan's coastal waters. Upon its completion in 2025, Power ARK 100 will carry 100 grid batteries, hence 200MWh of power (equivalent to the total electricity consumption by 22,000 Japanese households in a day (*2)). The vessel can travel up to 300km when running only on electricity and will be able to unlock long-distance, intercontinental clean power transmission when it is powered by both electricity and sustainable biodiesel fuels.

>(*2) Daily power consumption per household in Japan = 10kWh

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 20:24:02 No.13582405 Report

Quoted By:

>>13582340
There are a lot of people who are just ignorant on the subject, there are people who are contrarians which is fine provided it's in good faith, and are people that have made whatever source of energy their hill to die on and try to guard it as they would they would their property. The last group is the strangest and the closest to having a mental illness, they actually think coming here and straight up lying about solar creating dust storms or whatever bullshit will change anything. This could be contributed to autism and they commonly use the lot of the same narrow technical arguments found in other public debates like EVs versus ICE vehicles, where they maintain that ICE must be superior because of the higher specific energy of gasoline or diesel over batteries.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Planet-of-the-Humans-hero.jpg, 76KiB, 962x468

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 20:43:59 No.13582473 Report

Quoted By: >>13582543

>>13582340
Watch this.
This is zoomers version of Super Size Me and Inconvenient Truth

>https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 20:58:41 No.13582543 Report

Quoted By: >>13582767

>>13582473
Just about as accurate as Bowling for Columbine, it must be that Canada has less violent crime than the US because of gun control...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 21:44:27 No.13582729 Report

Quoted By: >>13582745 >>13582775 >>13582830 >>13582968 >>13583094 >>13583135

According to reddit 100% renewable power grid is possible today and cheaper but it's just evil fossil fuels and their subsidies stopping it.

I've been doing some hypoptheticals and I think it is possible and probably the easiest problem but it's gonna be difficult and cost a huuuge amount of money.

I've managed to find live data for electricity demand, basically for our state of about 2 million people the absolute minimum at night is 1GW and during day peak is about 4GW.

Daytime that's easy, solar panels. Using practical examples not reddit theoretical figures, the most recent solar farm here was built for 50 million for 20MW. Ok so we need 200 of these facilities that's 10 billion, not bad I know there might be economies of scale but also not included in here is the land acquisition cost ( would need about 5x5 square kilometers of land, could probably clear some forrest area which the greenies would love ) and construction of high voltage transmission infrastructure for your new giant power station.

We got the intermittent problem now if it's a cloudy day, ok maybe we'll build another backup PV farm at 50% for 5 billion, and that can charge a battery on sunny days, the hornsdale power reserve was the most recent at about 150MW for little over 1 hour for 90 million. We'll have that provide 1.5GW for 12 hours on a cloudy day, so we want 120 of them from Tesla for around 10 billion.

Now the night time problem, we could possibly have another PV/ battery farm purely to run at night for 12 hours. But could throw some wind in which will help during bad solar days as well. Currently our 16 wind farms here are producing 150MW at night with current demand of 1600MW, so we need around another 150 wind farms at 100 million each for 15 billion.

Now on real sunny and windy days this thing is gonna be pumping way more electricity than needed so no point wasting it lets add another 1.5GW 12 hour battery for 10 billion.

All up 50 billion for 2 million people not bad

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 21:49:36 No.13582745 Report

Quoted By:

>>13582729
There's probably more efficient way of mixing wind solar and batteries but gives an idea of the scale we're looking at, not included is other problems like the land required ( are you going to have to buy peoples farms off them, re divert major roads, clear protected habitats etc ) and wondering if anyone in the know can shed light on the transmission industry, like what kind of overhaul is going to be needed to transmit these new power stations into the grid and control them, reddit thinks it's just like plugging a phone charger into the network but I think it's a lot more complicated than that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 21:54:21 No.13582767 Report

Quoted By: >>13582827

>>13582543
Just watch it.
Primary focus is the actual myth that it could kill fossil fuels and that it is good for the environment

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 21:55:40 No.13582775 Report

Quoted By: >>13582819

>>13582729
Australia already did the calculation and set it at 200B to 1 Trillion just to fix their gridlines that got fucked by home solar

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:09:53 No.13582819 Report

Quoted By:

I stuffed up the wind farms before, 150 100mil facilities would be huge ( like 10GW at full capacity ) so could probably halve that. Trying to work out what would be suitable size wind farm to the grid demand but run into the biggest renewable problem, it either produces way too much electricity or not enough, so you need to predict for some scale factor, or maybe the answer is to put more money into battery storage.

>>13582775
Yeah I think rooftop solar is the biggest meme and any rebates should be canned immediately. In a renewable energy grid transmission and control is going to be difficult and will need to be centralised, not having a million little backyard power stations doing whatever they want.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:11:39 No.13582827 Report

Quoted By: >>13582858 >>13582865

>>13582767
I already skimmed it and found myth after myth.
>Solar and wind is as bad as coal because of the energy input
Actual studies show an energy payback period of a few years at most, even for old systems.
>Muh Earth day
Literally no one thinks this is going to stop climate change, it's just bullshit for raising awareness
>Muh biomass
Same thing, virtually no one thinks you can power the world off biomass plants. I've never seen a single person ever suggest this.
>Muh rare earth metals
Despite the name, rare earth metals are not actually rare and they're are not widely used in solar energy and battery storage technologies
>Muh evil billionaires who own a glass factory used in production of solar panels
Guilt by association fallacy. Most billionaires own pieces of thousands of companies.
>Muh infinite overpopulation
Yet the fertility rate in nearly all developed countries is below replacement.
>Muh Germany produces only 1% of energy using renewables
They included wasted energy from fossil fuel production. The real figures are much higher than this.
>Muh coal powered EVs
They still produce less emissions even if 100% coal powered, but it's a fallacy regardless because the grid isn't a constant nor is it universal.
>A CSP plant uses a turbine thus it's oil and gas and not renewables
That's so fucking retarded I don't know where to start.

And on it goes. There is no actual science in this movie, all they did was ask dozens of employees in the power industry what they thought of the various technologies and then combined the most damaging takes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:11:51 No.13582830 Report

Quoted By:

>>13582729
Lmao
Renewables ARE funded by fossil tycoons
This is among the biggest topic in Planet of Humans

They all control and support it because interminent energy just can never handle baseload. They just laugh as the donkey chases the carrot stick

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:18:04 No.13582858 Report

Quoted By: >>13582916

>>13582827
>skimmed
You missed quite a lot of parts
Silicon is made from quartz and coal
Concentrated Solar runs on Natural gas
Every company that said they run 100% renewables are lying
And billionares own it all and are destroying the Amazon for solar

The focus is on the possibility of Renewables even getting close to handling baseload. Employees themselves say no

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:19:10 No.13582862 Report

Quoted By: >>13583001

Why is this a general? Nuclear is superior to everything. Anyone saying otherwise is just coping and should be ignored

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:20:16 No.13582865 Report

Quoted By: >>13582868

>>13582827
>And on it goes. There is no actual science in this movie, all they did was ask dozens of employees in the power industry what they thought of the various technologies and then combined the most damaging takes.
Pretty much this, it's twitter level gotchas with no real important discussion
>Holy shit the solar hippies used a diesel generator!
Could easily be a battery backup today, but I'm not a zero fossil fuel autist so I don't care
>Holy shit it's connected to the grid! That's coal!
Yes, let's make the grid not coal.
>Holy shit solar panels sucked ten years ago!
Yes.
>But is it possible for machines made by industrial civilization, to save us from industrial civilization.... *dramatic slow zoom as the question hangs*
Yes.

You'll have to give me a good reason to watch any more of this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:21:17 No.13582868 Report

Quoted By: >>13582878

>>13582865
That's a samefag

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1599774532083.jpg, 185KiB, 1125x2097

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:23:57 No.13582878 Report

Quoted By: >>13582885

>>13582868
>I have absolutely no more arguments

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:26:12 No.13582885 Report

Quoted By: >>13582950

>>13582878
It is not
I just asked why samefag?

In other note: broke my heart when the old man said the mountains are going to be destroyed for wind turbines that lasts for just 20 years

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:33:08 No.13582916 Report

Quoted By: >>13582982 >>13583023

>>13582858
>Silicon is made from quartz and coal
That's like saying steel is made from coal, coal just happens to be a cheap source of carbon, it's not actually necessary smelt silicon and there are other ways to make it. Regardless the energy payback remains a few years at most so they're wrong to equate renewables with coal power.
>Concentrated Solar runs on Natural gas
No it doesn't, that specific plant also burns natural gas to meet peak demand. CSP is a bad technology outside of space applications but it doesn't require natural gas to run, that's just a fact.
>Every company that said they run 100% renewables are lying
What they're saying is that they produce more electricity using renewables than the power they consume that comes from other source. Expecting all these major companies to go off grid is completely retarded. Obviously the Tesla Gigafactory is hooked up to the grid.
>The focus is on the possibility of Renewables even getting close to handling baseload
Google "baseload power fallacy", a term coined to deal with this stupid argument.
>Employees themselves say no
They're not scientists, they only have their own narrow opinions on the subject, and like with any hit piece like this, they probably interviewed plenty of other people who didn't say anything damaging yet it wasn't included.

Make a real argument.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:39:43 No.13582950 Report

Quoted By: >>13582985

>>13582885
>It is not
>I just asked why samefag?
I can't understand you, sorry. You've replied to at least two different people though. If you want to have a discussion, make actual points and stop being a faggot.

>In other note: broke my heart when the old man said the mountains are going to be destroyed for wind turbines that lasts for just 20 years
Equipment just doesn't last that long, I don't know what to tell you. You can rebuild them in the same spot though. The US has already removed 1,219,962 km^2 of forest. That's probably more than the area of the entire country you live in, ESL-kun. Most probably, many times more. You need space to build things, this is unavoidable. You need space for agriculture, housing, energy production, transportation, absolutely every aspect of human life. Regardless, I live in the Green Mountains, those moutains were entirely deforested around a hundred years ago. Those trees that were cut down were probably around 60 years old at most. People get super asspained about forests but they're one of the easiest environments to manage. Wood is an excellent resource, and excellent building material, and is trivially renewable. Even if those turbines are only there for just 20 years, and they're then removed, you won't even be able to tell they were there in 40.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:44:10 No.13582968 Report

Quoted By:

>>13582729
>According to reddit 100% renewable power grid is possible today and cheaper but it's just evil fossil fuels and their subsidies stopping it.
Nothing is "stopping it" it's being built literally right now. Renewables are being installed at an ever increasing rate with the only real limitation being the sheer inertia of building terawatts of power production.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:46:35 No.13582982 Report

Quoted By: >>13583023

>>13582916
You skipped the billionaire part

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:47:37 No.13582985 Report

Quoted By: >>13582990

>>13582950
Coal plants last for 40 years. Some even longer

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:48:54 No.13582990 Report

Quoted By: >>13582991

>>13582985
Coal plants are not wind turbines. I can't tell if we disagree or you're just struggling to read.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:49:52 No.13582991 Report

Quoted By: >>13583015 >>13583023 >>13583031

>>13582990
No. point is
It's double the investment

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:52:17 No.13583001 Report

Quoted By: >>13583017 >>13583023

>>13582862
Nuclear does seem like the most effective option, replace existing fossil fuel plants with several large capacity nuclear plants in a central location that can be predictable and controlled. Reddit has the argument ( that is parrotted like gospel ) that nuclear plants take 10 years and 10 billion to build, what's the counter to this because they are right, most nuclear plants have not been built efficiently, but children hospitals have budget blowouts as well so I guess we should stop building them too?

Surely there is huge improvement available in the field of plant building, just looking up there was a test power plant (60MW similar size to solar farms) that was built in 1954 ( less than 10 years after the 1st nuclear bomb ) that ran for 25 years.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO file.png, 637KiB, 2879x2478

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:55:58 No.13583015 Report

Quoted By: >>13583030 >>13583161

>>13582991
Even if we imagine the costs are the same, and they're not, even if I have something that costs 1,000,000 USD every 20 years, and something that costs 1,000,000 USD every 40 years, if the thing I build every 40 years is responsible, indirectly or not, for billions of dollars in damage I don't really give a fuck now do I?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:56:11 No.13583017 Report

Quoted By:

>>13583001
Baseload.
It can tank a tsunami, let alone sissy weathers. For 60 years

All designed to handle even bomber planes

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 22:58:11 No.13583023 Report

Quoted By: >>13583094

>>13582916
carbon and heat, it's not necessary to use coal to smelt silicon*
>>13582982
>You skipped the billionaire part
I already covered that, billionaires own parts of everything. However, most renewable companies are publicly traded and thus are largely owned by institution managing retirement funds or retail traders/investors.
>>13582991
>It's double the investment
That's not how anything works, there are other factors to cost besides longevity.
>>13583001
>A completely unnecessary nuclear plant which has a cost of multiple times higher than renewables per MWh is equal to a children's hospital.
Funny because a child could poke holes in this stupid argument.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:00:00 No.13583030 Report

Quoted By: >>13583044 >>13583053

>>13583015
You speak as if it is negligable to ignore sacrificing land, tourism, and poltical issue of locals who are opposed to major land development

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:00:07 No.13583031 Report

Quoted By: >>13583052

>>13582991
Here's a hard math problem for you
Which is cheaper, a thing that costs 1000 dollars and has to be replaced every year or a thing that runs for 10 years but costs 100k dollars? Think carefully now...

Longevity of a power source is only relevant if longevity is something that actually matters like say you are building a survival bunker and the equipment has to work 100 years from now. If you can simply replace something and still have much lower costs then that is better than something that costs a lot even if it lasts longer. This isn't even taking into account the fact that short term replacing is actually desirable as it allows you to bring in new tech and adapt to new market conditions so corporations are actually willing to pay a premium for that let alone choosing it when it's the cheaper option by a wide margin.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:02:09 No.13583044 Report

Quoted By: >>13583054

>>13583030
The price already includes that. Not like nuclear plants are popular tourist attractions or something people want around them anyways.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:03:56 No.13583052 Report

Quoted By: >>13583061

>>13583031
It's a powerplant.
It should be durable or grids would suffer.
This is why renewables can never be baseload.

Interminency and lack of durability

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:04:28 No.13583053 Report

Quoted By: >>13583064

>>13583030
First of all, I am one of those locals so suck my cock, second of all, we need power, retard. We have to produce electricity.
>sacrificing land
A trivial amount
>tourism
It won't affect tourism
>poltical issue of locals
The locals want FUCKING ELECTRICITY

Now, I think wind is a pretty shitty renewable, I'm hard on the solar where it makes sense + nuclear train, but you have to bulldoze shit for those too. You haven't made even a single coherent argument so far.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:04:57 No.13583054 Report

Quoted By: >>13583061

>>13583044
At less land.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:06:24 No.13583061 Report

Quoted By: >>13583073

>>13583052
>It should be durable or grids would suffer.
No, it should be cheap, price already includes durability. Grid doesn't "suffer" from having to replace a power plant every two decades and any "suffering" that occurs is already included in the price. The fact that it's cheaper proves it's better for the grid, if it wasn't it wouldn't be cheaper.

>>13583054
Land is already included in the price. It's literally not an argument.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:07:23 No.13583064 Report

Quoted By: >>13583071 >>13583074

>>13583053
Up above says that locals hate them for ruining their land and tourism money and got some projects canned.

Nimbys are a real factor to consider

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:08:56 No.13583071 Report

Quoted By:

>>13583064
Those same people oppose nuclear plants around them too, the difference is that the solar plant just gets build somewhere else while the nuclear plant never gets built.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:09:04 No.13583073 Report

Quoted By: >>13583083

>>13583061
>choosing cheapness over quality
Yeah
Made in China

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:09:09 No.13583074 Report

Quoted By:

>>13583064
>Up above says that locals hate them for ruining their land and tourism money and got some projects canned.
Again, first of all, I am one of these locals. I live there. The "locals" are not only the hippies running around in the woods and bitching about people providing essential utilities.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:11:32 No.13583083 Report

Quoted By:

>>13583073
Cheap is by definition quality. It doesn't matter where or how electricity is made, the electrons are all the same and I prefer them cheap over expensive. You are free to pay more for power if you want.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:15:07 No.13583094 Report

Quoted By: >>13583114 >>13583161 >>13583205

>>13583023
>>A completely unnecessary nuclear plant which has a cost of multiple times higher than renewables per MWh is equal to a children's hospital.
>Funny because a child could poke holes in this stupid argument.

It is, but it also provides reliable and predictable power, which is what we're trying to acheive.

Well throw some numbers and real world examples at me instead of smug arguments, i at least had a go at this >>13582729

Off live data currently one of our biggest windfarms is producing 40MW ( 25% nameplate capacity ) and cost 750 million to build, it's still dark outside but people are starting to wake up for work so demand has risen to about 1.5GW what's your solution? Maybe we could have another 40 of those windfarms for 30 billion? The 1.5GW tesla battery for 10 billion? But it has been discharging for most of the night so might only have a few hours left and will probably need all day to charge, which by the way is forecast to be cloudy all day so the solar farms might only be running at 15% capacity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:21:30 No.13583114 Report

Quoted By:

>>13583094
One area I haven't looked at is hydrogen production which could help with the intermittent problem, but many people don't seem too keen on it or think batteries are better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:30:29 No.13583135 Report

Quoted By:

>>13582729
Great. Just $8.25 trillion for the US and $197.5 trillion for the world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:39:53 No.13583161 Report

Quoted By: >>13583202

>>13583094
There are plenty of real world numbers posted
>>13583015
This is the latest, feel free to object

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:55:40 No.13583202 Report

Quoted By: >>13583205

>>13583161
>This is the latest, feel free to object
Ok so solar and wind are cheap, How does your graph solve my current problem though?

> it's still dark outside but people are starting to wake up for work so demand has risen to about 1.5GW

We've got a $750 million dollar wind farm thats producing 40MW of electricity, btw there is another $500 million dollar windfarm that was built last year, guess how much that's producing right now according to live data ( 0MW )

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Aug 2021 23:57:00 No.13583205 Report

Quoted By: >>13583278

>>13583094
>>13583202
>Well throw some numbers and real world examples at me instead of smug arguments
> 25% nameplate capacity
>40 MW 750 million
That's outdated or cherry picked, the cost of new onshore wind in the US in 2020 on average was about $1500/kW, which would be only 60 million for 40 MW. The annual capacity factor for onshore wind in the US from 2013 through 2016 ranged from 32.2% to 34.7%. New plants can get much higher, up to about 60% in good locations.

Using capital cost instead of LCOE is misleading but whatever, and realistically we should be using 2031 estimated prices to account for the lead time on a nuclear plant and adding a 23% learning rate on wind from the chart someone posted, and probably much greater than that for batteries which are already at $300 kWh installed as per Elon Musk. There is no need to add a reverse learning rate to nuclear to know it would be much more expensive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 00:21:28 No.13583278 Report

Quoted By: >>13584430

>>13583205
>That's outdated or cherry picked, the cost of new onshore wind in the US in 2020 on average was about $1500/kW, which would be only 60 million for 40 MW. The annual capacity factor for onshore wind in the US from 2013 through 2016 ranged from 32.2% to 34.7%. New plants can get much higher, up to about 60% in good locations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warradarge_Wind_Farm

This was built last year for 500 mill AUD so about 350 USD for 183MW capacity, it's currently producing 0 MW at the moment, it was built by Vestas, civil works can be a bit on the expensive side here but unavoidable unfortunately.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO lr.jpg, 317KiB, 2092x1570

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 00:28:21 No.13583292 Report

Quoted By: >>13583300 >>13583309

At the same rate of cost decline, both solar and wind in the US will be under $10 per MWh in 2029, which would be 12 times cheaper than the current cost of new nuclear and about three times cheaper than just the marginal operating cost of existing nuclear.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 00:31:08 No.13583300 Report

Quoted By:

>>13583292
Actually wind would be slightly more expensive, I used the wrong rate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 00:34:10 No.13583309 Report

Quoted By: >>13583365

>>13583292
Welcome to the real world, where graphs doesn't matter if weather is not predicted.

Also, add batteries to the cost.
This is why people are shitting on greens after just 8 years. You sell snake oil and calls it panacea

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 00:38:17 No.13583326 Report

Quoted By:

I remember when Wyoming got a massive earning from Wind Energy and they invested more. By next year, it did not even break 1GW

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 00:51:35 No.13583365 Report

Quoted By: >>13583390

>>13583309
>Welcome to the real world,
This is the real world, solar, wind, and batteries have been following a version of Wright's Law since commercial inception and there is no sign that prices are going to stop declining anytime soon. Wright's Law states states that for every cumulative doubling of units produced, the costs will fall by a constant percentage so it doesn't imply prices will hit zero.
>This is why people are shitting on greens after just 8 years.
Take your medication.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 00:59:40 No.13583390 Report

Quoted By: >>13583413

>>13583365
Manufacturing is a moot point against weather dependence

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 01:07:05 No.13583413 Report

Quoted By: >>13583440

>>13583390
Your belief about how weather in the future will render solar and wind inoperable has no basis in reality and you need to take your medication.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 01:17:20 No.13583440 Report

Quoted By: >>13583510

>>13583413
Solana costed $1.5B and promised 900,000 Mwh yet produced just 600000Mwh the year it came. 2015 it produced just 700000 Mwh. By 2017 it's at 723966 Mwh

In fact, it NEVER broke 900000 Mwh
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solana_Generating_Station

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 01:38:51 No.13583510 Report

Quoted By:

>>13583440
>A company overestimated energy production from its solar thermal plant for marketing purposes but it didn't affect the price per kWh sold to the power company and production has been increasing which refutes my weather apocalypse retardation
So what? I don't know how many times I have to explain why I don't like CSP and why it will remain less than a few percent worldwide installed solar capacity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 05:05:06 No.13584046 Report

Quoted By:

New Thread
>>13582907

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 07:34:53 No.13584430 Report

Quoted By:

>>13583278
So instead of 40 MW for 750 it was actually 350 for 90, so we got 5x error in basic multiplication right there. The basic arithmetic destroys the nuclear tard.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches