[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


Everywhere online seems to say that solar is the cheapest in terms of cost per kWh and the EROI is reaching decent levels. Is the only thing stopping it from being #1 really the storage problem? Or are there other hidden costs that academics don’t acknowledge?
>>
>>13740042
Dunno what that graph is, but brown coal is the cheapest source of electricity
>>
Not all kWH are equally valuable
>>
>>13740055
Because of demanding varying at different times of day/year or for another reason?
>>
>>13740051
Ya I got the graph off of Wikipedia, and it seems to me like if this were the case everyone would be making lots of money by just buying up plots of land and setting up giant solar farms and undercutting the energy market. But that doesn’t seem to be happening so there must be some other factor that I don’t fully understand.
>>
File: china-solar.png (168 KB, 620x851)
168 KB
168 KB PNG
>>13740042
>>
>>13740042
Upfront cost is probably the best. Gas plants are cheap as hell, even cheaper when they already exist. If you had to pay for the plant+30 years of gas upfront we'd probably see more renewables.
>>
File: USinstillations.png (104 KB, 1000x616)
104 KB
104 KB PNG
>>13740042
It's already #1 in terms of new installation, in order for it to be #1 overall is more difficult. The main thing is it has to be cheaper than existing coal and NG plants which is a way bigger issue.
There are also scaling issues, solar being cheap in the US is kind of survivor-ship bias, power companies are super conservative so it basically only gets built in markets where the power company KNOWS they're going to be making bank, breaking into the less optimal areas is more difficult, and will likely require major investments into transmission infrastructure, storage self balancing smartgrids etc.
>>
>>13740082
Fair enough, that’s something I hadn’t considered.
>>
>>13740081
So exactly like LITERALLY every industry we outsourced? Does Mr Shellenberger hate capitalism or something?
>>
>>13740077
Exactly. They could be including subsidies/penalties in the calculations which would be fucking retarded, but green nuts aren't above anything.
>>
>>13740111
Just saying, solar is cheap cause coal
>>
>>13740081
Well that's pretty cool, the West should be buying up their panels on Chink tax dime. It's about time we got something back from all our stolen investments.

Also lol at the hypocrisy of "genocidal slave labour" when the West imports millions of illegals and other pseudo slave labour every year.
>>
>>13740130
But those people are """"""illegal"""""" so whatever happens to them is fine ;)
>>
>>13740130
Only a retard believes China is making a loss on things they sell to the rest of the world
>>
>>13740042
Solar and wind are the cheapest thanks to massive subventions and chinks pushing mass production. That same mass production that is wrecking the climate.
It's the only way they can seriously compete.
>>
File: Cheap Energy my ass.png (1.59 MB, 1400x1803)
1.59 MB
1.59 MB PNG
>>
>>13740144
Gee i wonder why all those nuke plants were constructed in the 60s why don't you compare it to new plants like vogtle?
>>
File: rEnEwAbLeS aRE cHeApEr.png (1.38 MB, 1194x2728)
1.38 MB
1.38 MB PNG
>>13740154
>>
>>13740144
>>13740154
He also cherry picked all 2010 solar which according to op is about 100 times more expensive than today.
>>
>>13740160
Trying to compare private energy sector to socialized ones isn't the greatest of ideas.
>>
>>13740069
Yes, but also varying supply, location of both producer and consumer, and transmission capacity
>>
>>13740168
Where is your cheap energy
Come winter and you are fucked
>>
>>13740176
>Where is your cheap energy
seems to be in the power companies pockets where we've decided it belongs.

>Come winter and you are fucked
just build your capacity as required for winter months.
Judging by installations it's still much cheaper than nuclear.
>>
>>13740182
Lessons shall be learned the hard way thisyear ~
>>
File: dab.png (249 KB, 1000x993)
249 KB
249 KB PNG
>>13740154
Not the same anon but the most recent example I can find in France is pic related.

So a NPP from 2002 is as expensive as an American NPP from 1960.

Also OP is a fucking liar, here are the 2020 numbers from the CRE (Energy Regulation Commission) that puts nuclear energy at 48.32€ per MWh : https://investir.lesechos.fr/actions/actualites/la-cre-evalue-le-cout-du-mwh-d-electricite-nucleaire-pour-edf-a-48-36-euros-1926120.php
Which is actually decreasing, in 2010 the Senate estimated the cost at about 49.5 € /MWh
>La Cour des comptes a calculé que le coût de production au sens du coût courant économique de l'électricité nucléaire produite par le parc existant en France était en 2010 de 49,5 € / MWh.
https://www.senat.fr/rap/r11-667-1/r11-667-12.html

>those nuke plants were constructed in the 60s
You realize this is an argument in favor of nuclear power, right ? A NPP can run for more than half a century, providing 20 TWh /year of power.
You'll have to replace your solar panels 3 times before the NPP gets decommissioned, this is something the graph doesn't take into account.
>>
>>13740042
>Or are there other hidden costs that academics don’t acknowledge?

increasing cost of rare earths mining and refinement to scale with demand. role of federal subsidies underwriting price. not just storage, new grid infrastructure and impedence. cost of replacement, maintenance, and waste storage. understand something anon, renewables are nice where there is no grid but in no way can scale to meet global demand. all this without considering the main issue which is electricity generation represents but a small percentage of fossil fuel consumption. it would be nice to decarbonize electricity but to do will give unimagined power to those who legislate the demand side. renewables are an attack on nuclear by big oil. you've be conned.
>>
>>13740224
I just picked whatever's nice to look at
Here are others

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Nuclear_Power_Plant
2018
3 Billion (2 reactors) for 21 Terawatt hours a year (4 reactors, 6 billion total)
=3.33 Twh per Billion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kori_Nuclear_Power_Plant
2018
43 Twh a year (7 reactors)
Units 3-4 costed $5B ($17.5B total)
=2.5 Twh a year per billion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanul_Nuclear_Power_Plant
2012
$6 Billion (2 reactors) for 40 Twh a year (8 reactors)
=1.67 Twh per billion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmen_Nuclear_Power_Station
2018
7.3 Billion
Unknown (Nameplate capacity says it's around 19-16 Twh a year)
= 2.6 - 2.19 Twh per billion

Lifespan of 60-80 years, fully fortified against natural and manmade problems
>>
>>13740042
Battery and the fact that upfront cost to replace an existing and working system is high.
>>
>>13740243
instead of making useless back of the napkin estimates by taking numbers from Wikipedia, and ignoring LITERALLY every factor but capital cost why don't you just use an actual source for LCOE?

>https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation.php
>https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/
>>
>>13741205
The dream whithers with the winter snow
Sing your last as the house of glass cracks
>>
>>13741227
No seriously, if you can provide a better LCOE estimate than these actual sources you should probably be selling your estimate to investors.
Cryptic anime shitposting isn't very convincing.
>>
>>13741242
Chop firewood.
Your dream failed
>>
>>13741251
speaking of failed dreams can you point to the new nuclear installations on the chart?
>>13740089
>>
>>13741264
And it's still <1% USA generation
>>
>>13741270
>https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
damn wrong again, by a pretty huge margin, it's starting to look like exponential growth boiiis.
>>
>>13741277
Not past this winter, lol
>>
>>13740081
>>13740125
>They could be including subsidies/penalties in the calculations
>>13740172
>varying supply, location of both producer and consumer, and transmission capacity
>>13740239
>increasing cost of rare earths mining and refinement to scale with demand. role of federal subsidies underwriting price. not just storage, new grid infrastructure and impedence. cost of replacement, maintenance, and waste storage. understand something anon, renewables are nice where there is no grid but in no way can scale to meet global demand. all this without considering the main issue which is electricity generation represents but a small percentage of fossil fuel consumption. it would be nice to decarbonize electricity but to do will give unimagined power to those who legislate the demand side. renewables are an attack on nuclear by big oil. you've be conned.

Funny. None of the thousands of articles you get when you search any variation of "cheapest" "energy" "renewables" "prices" "solar" "coal" announcing that solar is the cheapest source of energy make any mention of any of these considerations. The only data is "solar cheaper" and the only conclusion is "replace everything with solar." Fuck search engines and fuck these dime a dozen propaganda outlets.
>>
>>13741270
more like 20%
>>
>>13741285
Is this some kind of new form of Q posting?
>>
File: your future1.png (554 KB, 587x1116)
554 KB
554 KB PNG
>>13741297
Come on, Germany~
Shut down your nuclear plants~

Make the world laugh~
>>
>>13741302
It's kind of weird how germany is supposedly in this 'energy crisis' yet is doing better economically than basically any of it's neighbors including your posterchild France.
>>
File: 1339569793005.png (12 KB, 467x483)
12 KB
12 KB PNG
>>13741334
If you're moving the goalpost, be sure to also take a moral grandstand and say "think about the children"
>>
>>13741339
Usually an 'energy crisis' is supposed to have some kind of negative effects. Is that somehow moving the goalposts? Is it really a crisis if nobody seems to have noticed it or even cares?
>>
File: your future2.png (297 KB, 428x687)
297 KB
297 KB PNG
>>13741349
Negative effects like reopening coal plants lol

This is your future
>>
>>13741360
They'll be alright, per capita emissions are still trending downwards and are still lower than most comparable countries.
>>
Remember, solarfags are likely in favor of banning meat.
>>
File: s1.png (47 KB, 800x348)
47 KB
47 KB PNG
Just a few more months.
Just a few more months till the nuclear phase out and Germany would deliver the grandest punchline for the world to see

Ooooooh~
It would be soooooo goooood
>>
>>13741397
>energy collapse
>still the strongest economy in europe as well as the manufacturing and heavy industry capital
damn some collapse
>>
>>13741423
My German friend likes to bitch about energy prices all the time, they're usually ~40% higher than France.
>>
>>13741655
Cool story bro.
My German family literally doesn't care, they even drive an EV, so the way you tell it you'd think they'd need to be millionaire's to pay the power bill.
>>
>>13740077
the locations on earth with solar incidence profile fit to make PV viable are few. futhermore, PV farms do have to compete with other land utilities, like agriculture for instance.
>>
>>13740042
for those interested in understanding the considerations underwriting calculations of energy efficiency and monetary imlications, i'd suggest reading the following:

A Presidential Energy Policy
Michael C Ruppert
https://b-ok.cc/book/1009541/4af44e

which is more or less included in his book and accompanying documentary:

Confronting Collapse: The Crisis of Energy and Money in a Post Peak Oil World

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dabRGmpSQQ
>>
>>13741750
i will add that challenge of peak oil has now been met and solved with rollout of thorium molten salt reactors (LFTR) in china. but as a resource ruppert's books provide clear counterarguments to use of renewables to power global civilization.
>>
>>13741423
What does that have to do with anything?

Manufacturing industry recieve extremely high discount in their energy bill. Sometimes completely free like the subway system and mail office
>>
File: Nn1.png (687 KB, 1137x408)
687 KB
687 KB PNG
News coming in HOT boys

10 EU countries are now advocatingin favor of Nuclear
Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Finland, France, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia have abandoned the taboo and now speaking out loud in favor of Nuclear
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/10-eu-countries-back-nuclear-power-in-eu-green-finance-taxonomy/

France is going to announce 6 SMRs this week
>https://news-primer.com/france-bets-on-more-nuclear-energy-in-the-face-of-the-european-energy-crisis/

Oh, and UK isgiving up on the green dream because it made their asses wide open for manipulation
>https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nuclear-gains-ground-europe-plan-163032305.html

Great news
All within 12 hours!
>>
>>13740042
This is where economics and solid logic separates. How much does solar cost at night? Nothing, because you can't buy it. How much does wind power cost when there's no wind? Nothing, because you can't buy it. So it makes no sense to claim that it's cheaper. It's a purely economic calculation separated from reality. If there was a good way to storage the energy, it could be very well be cheaper, there's not and there's no example of any battery being developed that has the potential to fill that role. I wouldn't mind if there was, I'm not emotionally invested in nuclear, but reality is reality. I do think solar and wind has the potential to deliver the energy to make carbon neutral fuel for ships, planes and cars/trucks. If done right, what should matter is the overall production of energy and not when it's being produced. There are hidden costs though, for example in Denmark 10% of all electricity bills goes toward green energy, which is another way of saying that taxpayers pay to have windmills installed and then the windmill companies keeps the profit from the windmills.
Finally you also have to consider that installed solar and wind does not equal output. 1 GW solar installed in Denmark will deliver about 10% of that, so 100 MW. Because the sun goes down and it does that early so far north.
>>13740077
Well obviously if it was the case this would happen without any pressure or political decisions having to be made and without any subsidies. Since that is not happening you know it's not the case.
>>
File: Midwit.jpg (82 KB, 886x499)
82 KB
82 KB JPG
>>13742482
Just to give an example of how economics separates from reality. Here is an article written by a danish professor of economy published yesterday.
https://www.berlingske.dk/kronikker/professor-i-oekonomi-eus-regeringsledere-har-et-faelles-ansvar-for-at
"It is directly wrong to claim that EU countries have become poorer as a result of the corona crisis. The only thing that is true is that the big aid packages have burdened the state budgets"

Oh ok, no problem then?

"Quite sensibly, it was highlighted in the hardest hit EU countries in particular: the EU has a common problem, the need to carry out a green transition, and we have (far too much) free labor. However, why not extend the EU budget for borrowed money, which can then be repaid at a later date? And if this money is borrowed by the EU community, the interest rate will be close to zero even with a long repayment period. That is roughly equivalent to 'free' money"

So the professors solution to become carbon free is to print tons of money with no interest and build solar and wind that will not solve the baseload problem. So print money with no real world value added and the problem is solved and we no longer need coal, gas or uranium. According to the professor.
>>
>>13741684
I literally quantified the amount and you act like I'm exaggerating. Energy is more expensive in Germany than in France and that's a fact, quit acting like a retard.
>>
>>13742858
And by any metric Germany has a stronger economy than France. So who cares?
>>
>>13743047
That's completely irrelevant, stop being a retard.
>>
>>13740042
Mostly just time, solar and wind have only been number 1 for few years, taking that graph there they passed gas in 2015 which is 6 years ago and there is a big inertia in building things in the real world. If you try to build too fast then the cost rise in proportion so you will have to wait as production ramps up. Solar, wind or at the very least solar + wind are already a largest source of new generation is lot of places USA included. There's just lot of generation capacity that has to be installed for them to be the largest source of power as well, which realistically will take decades.
Globally 2020 saw about 130 GW of solar,110 GW of wind and only 60 GW of fossil fuel based power plants come online or about 80% renewable power. 2019 was 70% renewable power. Compare the 130 GW of new solar last year to the total amount of installed solar which is "only" 770 GW or only 6 years of building at current pace (they have been building it for longer than that of course but funny coincidence that it matches the time it solar went cheaper than gas), the build up has only really picked up the pace in recent years as the cost has dropped so low only recently.
>>
>>13743047
>Economy and finance is the same
This board has gone to shit.
>>
File: Example.png (191 KB, 1341x667)
191 KB
191 KB PNG
>>13743143
>Globally 2020 saw about 130 GW of solar,110 GW of wind and only 60 GW of fossil fuel based power plants come online or about 80% renewable power.
What you write is nameplate capacity.The most effective solar farms operates at 30% efficiency. As an example is this solar farm placed in the Nevada desert that operates with 27% efficiency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Mountain_Solar_Facility

Or this solar farm in United Arab Emirates, that's the desert in middle east that operates with 24% efficiency of nameplate capacity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_bin_Rashid_Al_Maktoum_Solar_Park

Or this solar farm in California with 27% capacity compared to nameplate capacity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Sunlight_Solar_Farm

So Nevada, California and the Middle east solar farms operates with 25-29% efficiency compared to installed capacity. Solar farms in Germany is about 12%. But I'm going to be positive and assume most solar was installed where it is most effective so 25%

130 GW solar installed is in output 32,5 GW average over a year. Only when the sun is up mind you.
Ok so then we have wind. Wind operates at 20-35% So we say 25%. 110 GW windpower installed is then 27,5 GW in average over a year.
So solar is in reality 32,5 GW.
Wind is in reality 27,5 GW
So 60 GW installed in reality.

Fossil Fuel operates at 90% so 60 GW is 54 GW installed.

That's just the reality and has nothing to do with what I think about it. As an example you can look at my picture. It shows danish electricity production and consumption.

1)
How much windmills are producing. 1511 MW right now, out of a nameplate capacity of 6100 MW. 24% efficiency.
2)
How much solar is producing right now. 0 MW, the sun is down. I don't know the nameplate capacity.
3) How much Denmark is consuming right now. 4573 MW.
>>
>>13740042
lol there is no way that graph is true/the whole truth
>>
>>13743339
Believe it or not but capacity factor is included into the price of the power. Or do you think investors are somehow shocked and surprised when their solar plant doesn't work at night? It's still worth building and it's still being built at ever increasing speed because it's cheap and efficient.
>>
>>13743464
>Believe it or not but capacity factor is included into the price of the power.
I believe it. You are responding to the wrong post I think. You should be responding to this post>>13742482

Because the post you responded to doesn't deal with price. Coal and gas is cheap and efficient, solar and wind is not being installed because it is so cheap and efficient, but because people want to reduce carbon emissions. I mean you can talk all you want about price and efficiency. Show me a country that is even close to being reliant solely on wind and power or at the very least show me the pathway for a country to become reliant on solely solar and windpower. My guess is you can't even though I unironically would like to see it.
Whether or not some people can make money on installing wind and solar doesn't change that. It's about as arbitrary as the tulip prices in the Netherlands in the 17th century.
Can you or can you not power a country reliably with only solar and wind? No, you can't.
>>
>>13743488
You quoted capacity factors as if that's some form of an argument so I just pointed out they are still being built.

>Coal and gas is cheap and efficient,
More expensive than solar

>solar and wind is not being installed because it is so cheap and efficient, but because people want to reduce carbon emissions.
They are also the cheapest power available

You can't talk about price because you are wrong and probably retarded to boot.
>>
>>13740042
It's storage, you gotta double your generating capacity because it's not making power half of the time and then have half of your capacity in storage which is 500-3000$/MWh making solar/renewables some of the most expensive electricity. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36432
>>
>>13743513
>You quoted capacity factors as if that's some form of an argument
Well it kinda is. In actual output the difference is not 80-20 but 50/50. I think that is worth taking into consideration. That's with price on carbon emissions and subsidies for solar and wind.
>>13743513
>You can't talk about price because you are wrong and probably retarded to boot.
Can you or can you not power a country solely with wind and solar and if, how?
You call me retarded even though I'm keeping it very cordial, I don't mind, but I would like for you to answer my question and then call me a retard for not knowing how it's done.

A consumer probably won't feel so good paying very little for solar every day only to have their freezer and refrigerator go out every night along with all other electricity they use. As such, it is somewhat an irrelevant point that solar is so cheap.
>>
>>13743562
>Well it kinda is.
It really isn't people who build them know their capacity factors and they still choose to build them because believe it or not but capacity factor is included into the price of the power.

>I think that is worth taking into consideration.
It is, which is why they are being built faster than ever.

>Can you or can you not power a country solely with wind and solar and if, how?
You could, I don't understand why you are coming up with strawmen like this?

>You call me retarded even though I'm keeping it very cordial
It's just an observation, you were wrong about the price, that basically makes you retarded when the OP post includes the price.

>A consumer probably won't feel so good paying very little for solar every day only to have their freezer and refrigerator go out every night along with all other electricity they use
USA is mostly installing renewables, where exactly is this happening? Or is it perhaps a strawman?
>>
>>13743587
>You could, I don't understand why you are coming up with strawmen like this?
How?
What do you do when the wind doesn't blow and the sun is down? What battery will you use? Come with a real life example of a battery being in use and the price of that battery.
Right now you're just being hostile.
Right now you just make a claim without any evidence to back it up with.

>>13743587
>It really isn't people who build them know their capacity factors and they still choose to build them because believe it or not but capacity factor is included into the price of the power.
>>13743587
>USA is mostly installing renewables, where exactly is this happening? Or is it perhaps a strawman?
Well that's my point, the U.S could be installing mostly renewables and still get most of their electricity from fossil because of the difference in output from fossils vs renewables....

So how this conversation will continue will be you continue calling me retarded without ever pointing to a real life battery and the price of that battery.
>>
>>13743606
>How?
>What do you do when the wind doesn't blow and the sun is down? What battery will you use?
How about you ask your nearest power company, they are installing bunch of solar and wind almost certainly.

>Come with a real life example
Real world is currently mostly installing renewables, so I guess that's a checkmate? Can you come up with a real life place where "freezers go out every night", hard mode no third world countries.

>Right now you're just being hostile.
That's just the retardation speaking

>Right now you just make a claim without any evidence to back it up with.
Well all my claims are based on facts
>>13740042
>>13740089
Here's 2 sources, if you want to find out about the global stats I quoted it's a simple google search away as well. How about backing up your claims?

>Well that's my point, the U.S could be installing mostly renewables and still get most of their electricity from fossil
This isn't a real point, share of renewable electricity generation in the USA is growing, so again where are the outages?

>So how this conversation will continue will be you continue calling me retarded
Well stop pretending to be retarded if you don't want to be called retarded, it's quite simple isn't it?

>without ever pointing to a real life battery and the price of that battery.
Can you quote me the place where the outages are happening? Because I can quote you the place where renewables are being built more than ever, that would be the earth.

If you want to make an argument about batteries then make it instead of insisting on the strawman that solar can't be built because well... it just can't ok!!!
>>
>>13743622
>How about you ask your nearest power company, they are installing bunch of solar and wind almost certainly.
Denmark is planning to continue to use fossil and store the carbon in used oilfields, so they don't know either. But I'll make sure to email your answer to them since I'm sure they would love to know your secret as well.
>>13743622
>Can you come up with a real life place where "freezers go out every night", hard mode no third world countries.
No, because there is no real life example of a country doing it with solely wind and solar. Who's the retard now?

>>13743622
>This isn't a real point, share of renewable electricity generation in the USA is growing, so again where are the outages?

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Wow, it's growing from fucking nothing to fucking nothing. What a feat!
In 2020 the U.S got 2,2% of their electricity from solar and 8,4% from wind. Why would you have constant power outages from renewables you are barely using? You wouldn't, which means again you are the retard for thinking you would have outage from 10,6% of your electricity production.
>>13743622
>If you want to make an argument about batteries then make it instead of insisting on the strawman that solar can't be built because well... it just can't ok!!!
Never wrote solar can't be built. That's your strawman, not mine. Retard. A hysterical retard at that.
>>13742482
>I do think solar and wind has the potential to deliver the energy to make carbon neutral fuel for ships, planes and cars/trucks. If done right, what should matter is the overall production of energy and not when it's being produced.
>>
>>13743661
What secret, it's your question and strawman?

>No, because there is no real life example of a country doing it with solely wind and solar. Who's the retard now?
That's another strawman, solar has been most efficient power source for only 5 years, it's being built. Of course it doesn't yet exist in huge quantities, why would it.

>What a feat!
It's growing incredibly fast and faster each year as well, what more do you want?

>Why would you have constant power outages from renewables you are barely using?
You used it as an argument against building solar, where is it happening? Or are you acknowledging that it was merely a strawman.

>Never wrote solar can't be built.
How about backing up that "coal and gas are cheaper than solar then"
And you if you do acknowledge that solar is being built more than ever and it's cheapest power available then what is it that you are arguing?
>>
Land is a single resource that we don't have infinite of and nuclear BTFO's in every other field anyway
you're a jew if you are against nuclear
>>
>>13743339
Your capacity factors for fossil fuels are completely made up.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183680/us-average-capacity-factors-by-selected-energy-source-since-1998/
>>
>>13743752
There is enough worthless land on earth to power the human civilization like 100 times over with just solar. More if you use oceans or space. It's quite literally not even a factor you need to consider most of the time.
>>
>>13743757
that "worthless land" could be parks and forests but of course everything needs to be a wasteland full of broken panels, wind turbines and animal corpses including vulture ones, you know, the animal which normally would eat it up instead of dying itself
>>
>>13743770
You can't build parks and forests in deserts.
>>
File: energy-subsidies-chart.jpg (287 KB, 1992x1182)
287 KB
287 KB JPG
>>13740042
>Is the only thing stopping it from being #1 really the storage problem?

misinformation, oil+coal lobby and corrupt politicians are the main problems
>>
>>13743774
except you can, retarded jew
>>
>>13743776
>carbon capture meme
how about build nuclear plants and use saved land on forests to capture your spooky CO2 you faggot
>>
>>13743786
You need to fill the entire worlds surface area with trees (incidentally a human genocide on the side) to capture current emissions, you can do the same with just a fraction of the deserts on the planet with solar panels.
>>
>>13743791
trees are THE solar panels
they turn light into building material and food, with 0 carbon emissions and 0 waste of ANY kind
>incidentally human genocide
you're not human, jew >>13743401
>>
>>13743801
Trees are stupidly inefficient as per
>>13743791
Stop trying to genocide humans
>>
>>13743810
You're not human, stop genociding trees, wasting billions of tons every year for no reason at all
>>
>>13743756
It's made up in the sense that I don't know what they run them on, it's real in the sense that they can ramp up the production if they wish and it's needed. An example is the UK ramping up coal energy the last months because wind wasn't blowing. You can't ramp up production of wind and solar, either the sun shines or the wind blows or they don't.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191201/capacity-factor-of-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-us-since-1975/
>>
>>13743774
Deserts ARE a vital part of nature. Dipshit
Contrary to popular depiction, sand deserts are in the absolute minority and most deserts are full of life. Life that grows at 5% the rate of forest fags and therefore must be left as unharmed as possible

What's more is that Deserts provide vital nutrients for forests as constant sandstorm are also full of fertilizers.

They AREN'T wastelands.
>>
>>13743741
You do you, I don't care that much. I personally have no problem with hitting 500-700 ppm of co2 in the atmosphere. Just try not to blame governments or people in general when solar turns out not to reduce the emissions in any significant way. No one is stopping people building solar and many countries even subsidize it in various ways, if it's so great the problem should solve itself.
>>
>>13743898
Just try not to get so mad next time when someone calls you out on your bad arguments. You guys can reeeee into the void as much as you want, it won't stop people from building solar.
>>
>>13743887
you're arguing with a faggot who cut down the forest then wants to ruin the deserts, just a heads up that nothing you write matters
>>
File: oh yes!.png (239 KB, 809x516)
239 KB
239 KB PNG
OH GOD YES!
Japan announced support for Nuclear

Europe is now divided between Nuclear power
10 supports it (led by France and Poland)
4 against it (led by Germany)

Bombed twice and Tsunami'd
Yet did not dumb themselves down
>>
>>13743933
Modern nuclear reactors can withstand tornados.
Btw that cunami incident... People were taking shelter in nuclear facility, how come water is worse than radiation? Greentardbros????
The incident problem was water leaking into generator room, generator powering the cooling.
>>
File: eargasm almighty.gif (39 KB, 350x200)
39 KB
39 KB GIF
Winter is coming~
Natural Selection is right around the corner
>>
>>13743870
Once again your capacity factors are about double what they are in the real world. Hence your entire post is useless.
I provided actual capacity factors
>>
File: >b-buh poltards!!!!!.jpg (16 KB, 259x194)
16 KB
16 KB JPG
>>13744026
>double
your capacity factors are at least x100 that of real world when you shill solar and wind, jew
>>
I've never been a fan of wind power. Looks like shit, kills birds, can't be recycled, why even both.
>>
>>13741382
This. They also want to ban air travel and support redistributing wealth from the first world to the third world
>>
>>13740154
It's because the US has special laws of physics that make nuclear plants much more expensive.
>>
>>13744683
You just know a graph is relevant when it has to specify west Germany
>>
>>13744683
Nah it's definitely not just the US
>Construction on a new reactor, Flamanville 3, began on 4 December 2007.[4] The new unit is an Areva European Pressurized Reactor type and is planned to have a nameplate capacity of 1,650 MWe. EDF estimated the cost at €3.3 billion[4] and stated it would start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months.[5] The latest cost estimate (July 2020) is at €19.1 billion, with commissioning planned tentatively at the end of 2022.[6][2]
>>
File: Terraforming.jpg (1.85 MB, 1920x2241)
1.85 MB
1.85 MB JPG
>>13745028
>France builds first of a new type of nuclear plant
>It's over budget and late like all first of their kinds
>This must therefore be how all nuclear plants are
Anon, you realize France built 50-something plants, starting from effectively 0, in like 15 years right?
>>
faced with unfavourable data, the fissionfag always doubles down on his fanboyism
>>
>>13745188
*snort* *heh* you do *snort* realize *snort* only governments *snort* with aspirations to develop new nuclear weapons *snort* bother investing in new nuclear power plants, right? *snort*
>>
File: Screenshot1634102731.png (50 KB, 593x265)
50 KB
50 KB PNG
>>13743870
>the UK ramping up coal energy the last months
Not by much, see. The black band (coal) is tiny.
I still hold that wind and solar energy should be stored as heat and later used on demand. That pretty much solves your problem.
>>
>>13745539
Compared with 0% coal 2 months ago. Which they boasted about by the way
>>
File: uk LMAO.png (77 KB, 1261x258)
77 KB
77 KB PNG
>>13745539
>Not by much
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH
>>
>>13745539
Yes compared to 0% some months ago they were hitting 3% and right now are at 2%
Solar and wind provides less than 13% of the UK's electricity. They have no need to store the energy from solar or wind since it provides so little, they can use it every time they produce it.
Other than that your sci-fi idea of a battery not yet in existence to a price still unknown sounds great.
https://grid.iamkate.com/
Kate gets her data from
https://www.bmreports.com/bmrs/?q=generation/fueltype/current
She just makes it a bit easier to read. Your graph is shit.
>>
>>13740042
(((levelized)))
>>
File: One last stand.png (41 KB, 620x622)
41 KB
41 KB PNG
Imagine
Ooooooooh~
Imagine if this year ends with Germany announcing a cancellation of their nuclear phase-out

It would be the best Christmas present ever

But then again, I want to see them burn themselves so both option is a win-win to me.
>>
>>13740042
It doesn't seem to be a legit energy crisis but an monetary crisis instead. Is this THE crash of the fiat currency?
>>
>>13745805
This is my take as well. You literally can't go 100% intermittent power generation. The math doesn't work out for the price they want to pay. If they replaced all fossil fuel with wind/solar, if there is EVER a period of ~12 hours where they don't generate, they are royally fucked.
>>
>>13747453
It's actually not too hard as long as you have the infrastructure for long range transmission.
solar on the west coast can be powering the east coast 2 hours after the sun goes down, and vise versa with sunrise, wind gets sent to whoever needs it, and you have enough storage to fill in the gaps. It's especially easy somewhere huge like the US with utterly massive renewable resources. Not to mention the fact that existing nuclear provides 20% of our power, so you can just leave that operational which cuts down on storage requirements by a massive margin.
Cost wise it probably works out to be much cheaper than 100% nuclear because of just how expensive nuclear is once it's average capacity dips under 90%, and you would need similar transmission upgrades for 100% nuclear anyways because of site requirements.
>>
>>13747866
>as long as you have the infrastructure for long range transmission
You might as well assume we'll have room-temperature superconductors and fusion power in your living room. Long distance transmission is an entirely different can of worms with many political--and technical--problems.
>>
>>13747886
any obstacles are entirely political, china for example has incredible transmission infrastructure, and even Europe is significantly better. Of course convincing Americans to invest into their own country is virtually impossible so that is a problem, but as I said nuclear has many of the same problems.
>>
File: 1579946475814.png (300 KB, 560x663)
300 KB
300 KB PNG
>>13747866
It's been months without high winds throughout Europe, you know
And autumn and winter's grey skies last for 6 months

And we have yet to see how badly it would fuck up against actual problems like heatwaves and massive storms

Natural Selection~
>>
>>13747927
>It's been months without high winds throughout Europe
all of europe? please link me the average capacity of wind farms over the entirety of europe over this period.
>And autumn and winter's grey skies last for 6 months
winter averages about half the irradiance, very predictable and easy to plan for.
>actual problems like heatwaves
coincidentally heatwaves sounds like a best case scenario for solar and wind.
> massive storms
sounds windy
>>
>>13747927
>https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-france-nuclearpower-weather-idUKKBN1KP0EV
>PARIS (Reuters) - EDF EDF.PA has halted four nuclear reactors at three power plants in France because of the current heatwave affecting Europe, a spokesman for the utility said on Saturday.
ironic.
>>
File: 1492099067272.jpg (104 KB, 846x900)
104 KB
104 KB JPG
>>13747940
>>13747944
Wind turbines can't work on a storm, lol.

If Nuclear can't do it, then renewables are out of the question.

By the way, tht's just 3/50 plants that uses the river for cooling.
We already have technologies that does not use open water sources

Not paying 300% of electric bill over mild weather
>>
>>13747955
>If Nuclear can't do it, then renewables are out of the question.
source?
>Wind turbines can't work on a storm
I realize you're incredibly ignorant, but even in extreme storms the actual areas covered with top wind speeds are pretty small, wind farms are distributed the most likely scenario is the center of the storm is over a small % of farms, and the rest are experiencing perfect conditions.

>We already have technologies that does not use open water sources
ah yes more magic tech that's never been built for some reason.
>>
>>13747987
No more delusion
Only natural selection

PS
Closed Loop Cooling Water has been in existance for 40 years and make up half of Frech nukes, iirc. Fukushima is one
>>
>>13748003
>Fukushima
generally not a good idea to bring that one up when shilling nuclear
>>
The big take away from this thread is that for 150 million dollars you can get a 100MW solar plant, batteries included, but a city with a million inhabitants requires 1.5 GW.

Cheapest solar energy is $0.40/kWh, ~$1/kWh with batteries included, but nuclear costs $0.096/kWh.
Why are we not going full nuclear? Why is China the only country funneling money into thorium? There are 17 nuclear reactors under construction in China.
>>
Nuclear vs Renewables debate is simply a strong indicator of ignorance on the topic of energy.

I am certain that no sensible person in the nuclear industry is an enemy of renewable energy simply because to compare nuclear to solar/wind would be comparing apples to oranges.

Renewables are cheap and green but they are intermittent and require a huge infrastructure (batteries, long range powerlines etc.) and constant maintainence. Whereas Nuclear is expensive, slow to adjust to demand but ultimately more efficent on an area to power ratio and provides constant power not to mention easier to integrate to the grid and able to be built anywhere safe enough to build a house.

An ideal national grid would be a mix of solar/wind and nuclear with Nuclear providing a strong backbone and a backup plan for intermittent renewables and said renewables being used for cheap and fast energy. Unfortunately that will not happen as long as oil companies keep demonising nuclear energy. . Green energy is only a threat to them when integrated with nuclear, I wish Greenpiss would see that and fianlly help us overcome their monopoly.
>>
File: 8912notw1_japan1.jpg (90 KB, 750x866)
90 KB
90 KB JPG
>>13748011
Fukushima is ironically a success story of failing to safe. It suffered the fourth-largest earthquake ever recorded and a record-breaking tsunami. The backup generators got flooded, and there was corruption everywhere around that plant. And even with all that, there was no significant radiation leak and no deaths were directly attributable (there were initially reported 1 death...but it is lung cancer in a habitual smoker). The government's overreaction/evacuation killed far, far more people. Fukushima wasn't even the closest or hardest-hit nuclear power station. The others were just fine.
>>
>>13741731
Wouldn't certain agriculture forms benefit from some partial shadow and windbreak?
>>
>>13748164
No.
80% Nuclear + 15% Hydro + 5% diversity hires

Delusional fucks have ruined Europe and they still refuse to believe they are going to get so many people killed and driven to poverty.

No sense of dignity to be found among snake oil merchants.

Have them hanged for their crimes.
>>
>>13748463
Nuklear only works as long as noone has to pay for waste storage and possible land alienation.
>>
>>13748164
>Nuclear providing a strong backbone and a backup plan for intermittent renewables
You can't do that and that's why they're competing technologies.
Nuclear is baseload, and it takes a long time for a nuclear plant to reach full capacity (the same is true for coal). Gas (and diesel generators) can be spun up in a very short time, so they can respond to the need of the grid.
That's why renewables + gas has become such a common combo.
>>
>>13748177
> 1 trillion dollar cleanup
>success
Damn is this the level of cope nuke-cucks are on?
>>
>>13748152
>but nuclear costs $0.096/kWh.
because you pulled this number out of your ass
>There are 17 nuclear reactors under construction in China.
China also installed 3x more renewable capacity than their entire countries nuclear capacity last year alone.
>>
>>13748578
It's a clean up that you can do anytime
Not a utility bill that would straight up shut down your entire economy

Coal plants right now are shutting down because they cannot afford the cost of coal.

What a future
>>
>>13748649
>It's a clean up that you can do anytime
>it's just a trillion dollars bro
THE COPE
>>
>>13748656
>it's just people that would freeze this winter
THE AUDACITY
>>
>>13748649
>Not a utility bill that would straight up shut down your entire economy
Really depends on the wind and rain.
>>
>>13748682
Yes! Exactly!

You fuckers played the lottery and costed the entire economy!

Show some integrity for fucking once.
>>
>>13748584
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants

Everybody is installing renewables, you're completely missing the point, perhaps unsurprisingly.
>>
>>13743143
>There's just lot of generation capacity that has to be installed for them to be the largest source of power as well

all flowing from coal fueled slave labor production from china....
>>
>>13743587
>Can you or can you not power a country solely with wind and solar and if, how?
You could, I don't understand why you are coming up with strawmen like this?

because you're a retard that doesnt understand that of the edifice built by oil, electricity generation is but a small percentage. and that any benefits provided by solar would disappear without cheap credit and money printing for financing. AND that the entire manufacturing value chain is outsourced to chinese coal powered production and slave labor. you cant see the big picture, this is why you're ngmi.
>>
>>13747866
>solar on the west coast can be powering the east coast 2 hours after the sun goes down

you literally have no idea what you're talking about
>>
>>13748164
>Whereas Nuclear is expensive, slow to adjust to demand

not if excess capacity is used to make H/synfuel in cogeneration
>>
>>13749717
Flat earthers have arrived bois
>>
>>13748948
>In 2019 the US EIA revised the levelized cost of electricity from new advanced nuclear power plants going online in 2023 to be $0.0775/kWh before government subsidies, using a regulated industry 4.3% cost of capital (WACC - pre-tax 6.6%) over a 30-year cost recovery period.[115] Financial firm Lazard also updated its levelized cost of electricity report costing new nuclear at between $0.118/kWh and $0.192/kWh using a commercial 7.7% cost of capital (WACC - pre-tax 12% cost for the higher-risk 40% equity finance and 8% cost for the 60% loan finance) over a 40 year lifetime.[116]
>Lazard's report on the estimated levelized cost of energy by source (10th edition) estimated unsubsidized prices of $97–$136/MWh for nuclear, $50–$60/MWh for solar PV, $32–$62/MWh for onshore wind, and $82–$155/MWh for offshore wind.[122]

>However, the most important subsidies to the nuclear industry do not involve cash payments. Rather, they shift construction costs and operating risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers, burdening them with an array of risks including cost overruns, defaults to accidents, and nuclear waste management. This approach has remained remarkably consistent throughout the nuclear industry's history, and distorts market choices that would otherwise favor less risky energy investments.[123]

>In 2011, Benjamin K. Sovacool said that: "When the full nuclear fuel cycle is considered — not only reactors but also uranium mines and mills, enrichment facilities, spent fuel repositories, and decommissioning sites — nuclear power proves to be one of the costliest sources of energy".[124]
I see I see
>>
Nuclear shills come, get destroyed, hide in their cucksheds for a while and then come again. If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny.
Meanwhile a new solar plant is built and corporations are just buuuuiiillding more and more.
>>
>>13749867
JUST YOU WAIT RENEWABLE NAZI ANY DAY COMMUNISM WILL COME TO THE WEST AND WE'LL GET OUR NUCLEAR ANY DAY NOW!!!!!!
>>
File: Oh yes!.png (75 KB, 656x617)
75 KB
75 KB PNG
>>13749867
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You have 2 months left to make peace with your mistakes
>>
>>13749892
>Energy heavyweight BP owns 24% of Pure Planet and buys renewable energy on its behalf.

>Pure Planet has positioned itself in a competitive market place by selling renewable energy, and gas that is 100% carbon offset, while not making a profit on the energy its customers use.

>It is a purely digital operation, with customers able to manage their accounts via its website or app and raise questions through its web chat service WattBott.
God what a fucking meme, good riddance
>>
File: desperation.png (509 KB, 1079x514)
509 KB
509 KB PNG
Natural Selection does wonders, innit?
>>
File: CWVKGOEUEAA0LiVi.png (257 KB, 1944x1203)
257 KB
257 KB PNG
>>13740042
Your own graph correctly shows solar's LCOE exponentially dropping in price in just 10 years but I'm not sure if it is correct overall.
Nobody wants to invest in a technology that will be "half as expensive tomorrow" so to speak because waiting for cheaper costs would net you a larger ROI than investing "right now." People would make more money investing elsewhere and then later invest in solar at the right time.
We seem to be at a plateau in panel costs where waiting is no longer more beneficial so we hopefully will see more solar panel investments from now on.
>>
>>13750111
>>13740042
More specifically it seems you are focusing on usage costs to produce energy, not capital costs for new plants, which are higher than everything except offshore wind and solar thermal.
>>
File: pu.png (693 KB, 872x514)
693 KB
693 KB PNG
Here it comes boys!
The truth bombs hitting like a Freight Train
>>
File: mae.png (72 KB, 666x603)
72 KB
72 KB PNG
France and Russia are bashing the renewable sector real badly.
Oh boy!

This is going to cause a domino effect.
>>
File: 1454226905916.jpg (189 KB, 1462x1462)
189 KB
189 KB JPG
"Over the last decade, the capacity of renewables has increased in Europe. this might be a good thing," Putin said at the plenary session of the Russian Energy Week in Moscow. "But because of shortages in wind turbine production, the European market faced an energy deficit, which led energy prices to spike. And this triggered an increase in gas prices.”

"It's like people don't see the numbers and don't see the reality, or they are just covering their mistakes over the last decade," Putin said. "The European energy system is filled with vulnerabilities and this caused the crisis on the market.”

I am laughing so hard.
It's like Papa scolding you for hurting yourself with your own special brand of stupid

You were told
You were warned
You were hurt
And now, I can't wait to them try and double down for a much more epic disaster
>>
Germany have the highest energy bill
You ignored it

Germany's energy export went from 5% to 2%
Didn't care

Energy Crisis
We need more renewables fast!

Now Putin himself came in like a deadbeat father.
Go on, child.
History shall never forget your actions
>>
>>13740042
Lots of things effect price that different people either focus on or ignore.
Hydro is the cheapest by far and nuclear would be the second cheapest but isn't because lots of plants were built and then shut down for political reasons long before end of life effectively increasing cost per kw/h.
Solar isn't super cheap right now but is predicted to get much cheaper due to economies of scale if rolled out to grid levels.
Grid level storage is still a major issue with pumped hydro being great but requiring specific geography and all other options being pretty shit for now. I really like compressed-air energy storage using constant pressure bags on the ocean floor but it hasn't seen the funding needed to really feel it out.
>>
>>13740160
Aussie here to call out your bullshit.
>>
>>13742065
>What does that have to do with anything?
If a country like Germany can power it's heavy industry with solar and wind, then the de-industrialized Anglo countries have absolutely no excuse.
>>
>>13740081
>Slave labor... is le bad!
The absolute state of Western "journalism"
>>
>>13740042
The graphic forgets about the cost to build the infrastructure that will produce it; solar panels are fucking too much expensive, at least for now
>>
>>13750255
>nuclear near the top
>ignores construction costs
Just about the whole cost of nuclear is construction so I'm thinking it does include it.
>>
>>13750263
It does include construction cost of the infrastructure yes. It's based on actual real life prices.
>>
>>13750180
Read your own picture
>>
>>13741382
solarfg here i love meat.
i support it because even with water recycling you really can't put much conventional steam plants
>>
>>13751692
Sure you love meat. The thick hot juicy and throbbing ones that intoxcates your senses with the nectar of lust.
>>
>>13740042 Nuclear probably doesn't include costs for further R&D, keeping sites safe for really long durations, moving waste, accident management and long-term waste management so it should be above coal.

I think issues include durability, speed of deployment, missing labor force and rare metals mining. I guess it would drop further if we dropped that electric car hype competing for the scarce resources and instead built public infrastructure like we should.

Could somebody please link some good in-depth studies that compare economic costs of energy sources, are peer-reviewed and not funded by large energy companies?
>>
File: uk.png (34 KB, 599x284)
34 KB
34 KB PNG
>>13752078
How many much more should Europe suffer just for you all to admit that green dream is impossible
>>
>>13751078
damn it's crazy germany is only getting 4% of their power from renewables! Those power companies sure did know what they were talking about!
>>
File: desperation.png (41 KB, 580x586)
41 KB
41 KB PNG
Funny how smarter a man gets once reality arrived to tear their safe spaces apart

Should have built nukes 10 years ago~
>>
Nuclear needs a standard plant design that can be deployed in hundreds of locations, the cost would come down 90% if that were the case.
>>
>>13740224
>A NPP can run for more than half a century
>You'll have to replace your solar panels 3 times before the NPP gets decommissioned

Ayo, you're saying solar panels last (1/3)* 50 years?

You're pulling this stuff out of your ass
>>
>>13742508
You forgot the part of the outcome where you've spent a tiny fraction amortized over 50 years and you've built the cheap green energy infrastructure.

If you're going to shitpost, put some thought into it namefag
>>
>>13749892
Based. Gasfags, get the rope. Woodfags, search and destroy.

There can be no resistance to resistance.
>>
>>13752470
If we had started mitigating in 2000, the energy descent would have been just 2% a year, now its 12%.

But it would have been <1% if we had started in 1980
>>
>>13753418
>spent a tiny
>built the cheap
Hmm, nice try
>>
>>13753549
I honestly don't get it... are you retarded?
>>
>>13753344
Isn't it what SMR is?
>>
More to the point... think about it: We could have transitioned by now. We could've had global ecosystem reserves, green economies, all the wealth that the world simply put the torch to, transformed into plastic waste and pollution, poured into a concrete infrastructure that will stand crumbling for 1000s of years, our era's own Egyptian pyramids as a "message" to the future. They are going to look on us as idiot savages.

Right now the biodiversity summit is happening, and they commiserating about how none of the goals from the meeting 10 years ago have been accomplished. Personally, I've seen 40 years of a status quo, squatting on the planet, and taking a giant dump all over it.

Human cultures have proven themselves to be extremely irresponsible, so excuse the reticence in accepting this absurd idea that everything will go well, just by spreading nuclear material around the planet. Azerbijian and Armenia just concluded a shooting war in a region that contains a nuke plant on some of the world's most seismically active geology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArBWy1aFdsM

This is what happens when 2 'religions of peace' come together.

You guys can't even do the math on the economics right. All you guys do at this late hour in history is wave your hands around as if that is some kind of solution. You're screwed, its only a question how badly you're going to get screwed, and how much of that screwing you are going to help with.

Complaining about solar panels, Germany's marginal energy mix, pushing a stupid meme about nuclear power.. dumb.

What do you think the world's autocracies will do with cheap, clean, affordable nuclear power? Save the climate? Can we move past delusion? I don't think so. The world is absolutely in the grip of irrational, insane cultural belief systems like these, that teach little kids the world is an illusion and not worth caring about. You think lowering the cost of energy to next to nothing is going to help?
>>
How to use solar power: Do all your industrial work during the day and go to sleep at night.
>>
>>13752470
this happens like every 4 years, existing nuclear plants threaten to close unless they get their subsidies renewed.
Of course one wonders why they would need to close without those subsidies if nuclear is so great.
>>
>>13754670
This happens like every year, green energy farms threaten to shut down the economy over common weather fluctuations
Of course one wonders why we need to gamble lives and livelihoods if green energy is so great

Fucking retard
>>
>>13754725
>Of course one wonders why we need to gamble lives and livelihoods if green energy is so great

What a pathetic straw man.
>>
>>13754626
If you don't know how grids and baseload and transition is going to be engineered, just don't post.

The ignorance is just too much to take
>>
>>13741423
yeah while the lights are still on and there's still some coal in storage.
>>
>>13754670
Read the article,
It's a license to operate past 2040 for both plants when they are meant to close next year
>>
>>13755301
>I-IT WILL BE A CRISIS SOON ANY DAY NOW YOU'LL SEE YOU'LL ALL SEE
sure bud
>>
File: ukh.png (620 KB, 1300x573)
620 KB
620 KB PNG
UK was forced to include Nuclear in its Green Energy transition - pissing off the hippies.

In other news: looks like Estonia have shown interest in joining French and Pole's push for Nuclear Energy
>https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/estonia-may-join-europes-pro-nuclear-front/

That'll makes it 11 pro-nuclear in the push for EU's clean energy

Come on, you lackasses.
You're just 10 years late in planting the tree
>>
File: wwwwww.png (253 KB, 494x378)
253 KB
253 KB PNG
Such memories.
Such funny memories
>>
File: tD.jpg (25 KB, 401x486)
25 KB
25 KB JPG
Just a reminder that only 19% of global energy usage is to generate electricity. We are laughably fucked
>>
>>13754444
>You guys can't even do the math on the economics right.


discounts the force for good that high standards of living, health, and education are for a society that in time can lead to liberalization. you want stable liberal democracies? you want a reduction in radicalization? then you want. not just nuclear, but thorium molten salt LFTRs. all-in-one civlization engine - electricity, water desalination, synfuel, HC feedstock.

> global ecosystem reserves, green economies

then proceeds to complain about others math. just do ONE order of magnitude calculation - just ONE.
>>
>>13755616
i thought it was closer to 10%. por favor do you have a source on that?
>>
>>13756612
-oh and an industrial heat source
>>
File: rr.png (16 KB, 770x167)
16 KB
16 KB PNG
UK is now poised to announce their plans for 16 SMRs

>Tom Greatrex, the chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA), said: “Match-funding for Rolls-Royce would be a huge signal to private investors that the government wants SMRs alongside new large-scale stations to hit net zero. It would also show investors that the government believes in nuclear as a green technology.”

>Backing from the government will pave the way for the consortium’s multibillion-pound plan to build 16 SMRs around the country, the first of which could be plugged into the grid by 2031.

Lessons are being learned, folks.
Lessons are being learned.
Oh if only you listed to the physicits and engineers instead of the wokes
>>
>>13748011
you're a fucking retard anon
>>
>>13748164
>Nuclear vs Renewables debate is simply a strong indicator of ignorance on the topic of energy.
>Renewables are cheap and green
...
>>
Nuclear power is obviously still the answer.
>>
>>13748177
>>13748011
Fukushima was literally attacked by Israel, they generated a tsunami using a nuke drilled into the seabed and then blew up the reactor using the direct link the israeli company Magna BSP had set up.
The claim that all 13 of the emergency generators got knocked out by the flood water is also nonsensical, the switchgear they installed was set up to refuse. Not to mention that it should easily have been able to run cooling using redirected steam.
The Japs ran a very tight ship with multiple failsafes that served them well despite this foreign aggression.
Israel did 3/11
The early reports showed I think it was a magnitude 6.68 earthquake inland they then wodged up this figure to 9.1 in the following days, if you look at the extent of damage to property and landscape it fits this profile.
>>
>>13757998
*lower rating profile.
>>
>>13757998
[citation needed]
>>
>>13758111
1) Open a search engine,
2) Type in: fukushima magna bps
3) read
>>
>>13758123
A paper on ISS research is the cause of Fukushima? Go take your pills, schizo
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/iss_technical_publication_022216.pdf
>>
>>13740042
Solar power get huge subsidy
>>
>>13758147
OK you're obviously a shill, I'm not going to engage in this conversation any longer.
>>
>>13758179
Ditto. Have actual sources next time.
>>
>>13753415
20 years is the average lifespan of a solar panel, this is a fact.
>>
>>13758123
*Magna BSP

I'm not gonna engage with the shill but if you have any interest in the topic you should read up on it.
>>
>>13753418
Concrete numbers and prices or gtfo
>>
>>13758198
>>
>>13758229
>hot air rises up and looks like a mushroom due to convection
>must be a nuke
the absolute state of (((/sci/)))
>>
Imagine having nothing but geothermal.
>>
>An accusation against israel is made
>>
>>13758279
White man's equivalent of "we wuz kangz n shit but da whitey stol our pyramidz".
>>
>>13758279
JIDF and others pay people to sit on these boards and deflect criticism
>>
File: kekekekek.png (79 KB, 730x624)
79 KB
79 KB PNG
Hahahaha!

Here it is folks.
UK admitted the needfor Nuclear as the base load

Lessons were learned the hard way
>>
>>13758368
>under the plan households will be charged for the cost of a plant long before it generates electricity.
big surprise lol
>>
>>13758488
Better option than what they have now, apparently



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.