>Fuck the planet cuz wind turbines are ugly A new thread about

>>136178370
Nuclear, both fission and fusion is the future. Wind and Solar cannot meet the demands, and are overall more expensive. The only thing that remotely comes close to nuclear is hydro, and that is not available everywhere.

>>136178324
You're still retarded. Batteries are expensive as fuck and unreliable.

>>136178370
third for solar is doable if you're not retarded about it

>>136178611
Solar could, eventually, but the amount of money and time required to develop the keystone technologies is a long way off.
Nuclear is the most reliable backbone we have for energy production if we were to totally phase out coal and natural gas.

I'd love it if we could have super efficient solar with minimal environmental impact, but thats still a pipe dream being sold by tech firms who want to defraud ill informed people with good intentions.

>>136178686
>Batteries are expensive as fuck and unreliable.
Is there a pragmatic point to this statement or are you just being a dick on 4chan?

What do you suggest as a reasonable replacement?

And when you use terms like "expensive as fuck" to describe an item which is mass produced and costs less than $1 a piece in the modern world you look like a complete dumbass.

>>136178918
Solar power is just nuclear power harnested using a solar panel. Might as well just go full nuclear. It is more reliable, and cheaper. You cannot say that solar energy is eco-friendly when the panels themselves are super nasty for the environment.

>>136179097
Smoke.

>>136178611
Exactly. Even the good old coal fired plants are future, because they generate electricity when needed.
>>136178862
Solar isn't "spinning reserve" that's necessary for a working grid.
>>136178927
I'm trying to say that batteries are literally too expensive to store energy. There is no good way to store energy. The battery in your phone is not enough to store gigawatthours of energy that is needed on the grid. I honestly wish we could do store energy well enough to enable solar/wind energy, but that's not possible.

>>136179302
The fuck are you talking about nigger, nuclear power plants don't produce smoke in the traditional sense.

>>136178686
Basically what he said.
>>136178927
Also you can recycle those batteries. Boom you've created more jobs as those batteries will have to be replaced and someone will have to make them.

>>136179097
The thing is that we have the sun as a constant, its giving us energy, so we'd just be minimizing losses there rather than producing anything on our own. It seems foolish to waste a virtually free resource.

Silicon PV panels are super nasty to manufacture, just like everything else in the semiconductor industry. There are however different types of panels that can product current from different wavelengths. Perovskites are a great example of simple to produce and efficient panels with a greatly reduced impact. Half of the issue is that this is still such a new field there are dozens of potential branches, and none of them get real government funding. We haven't had a solar project like we had a nuclear project back in the day, but thats exactly what practical solar power would need.

>>136178927
>>136179317
And I'm open to discussion, I literally work with the grid in here and wish for a better future.

>>136179444
Chimneys.

>>136179554
Thats water vapor, pal. Its steam.
Nuclear plants are just giant steam turbines.

>>136178370
Hi OP and thank you for your post. That is a very interesting picture. May I ask you for a quick clarification, what is it you think the clouds around the cooling towers (two large roughly cylindrical structures on the right in your picture) is made of? Thanks in advance and welcome to /pol/

>>136179479
Solar panels are really expensive if you didn't know. Furthermore they are very bad for the environment, so if it is about cost of being eco-friendly, you already defeated the point. As for free energy, nuclear energy is dirt cheap, and reliable. It doesn't require much to produce a ton of energy.

>>136179554
Steam towers you ignorant fuck.

>>136179317
>implying there are more than several people here who understand baseline need, the demand curve, spinning reserve, energy density, and how the grid works

Expect a lot of people suggesting we replace all generation with solar panels and store the energy in batteries.

>>136179317
with "being retarded about it" i mean spamming solar pannels and hope for the best
If you think about it thermal solar plants in the right locations aren't even a bad idea. Thermal storage allows for short term buffering so you can even deal with peak demand
The downside is it won't work properly in most of Europe, but in places like commiefornia i think it's vastly superior to any other renewable

>>136179554
this >>136179635

Nuclear power plants are not coal plants, the chimneys are just cooling towers

File: Bald_Eagle_Portrait.jpg (3MB, 2251x2814px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2251x2814px

>wanting to kill these beauties

>>136178927
it really is expensive and you have to contaminate more in order to make them than ust keeping with regular energy

>>136178370
Thorium plants are where it's at.

>>136179979
/thread

>>136179800
I wasn't in the previous thread, but this topic is very interesting. Do you mind giving me a tl;dr for those terms? I promise I'll do more in-depth reading at another time.

>>136179800
>>136179317
this. "recicle the trash we should produce!!!1!!!one" retards don't actually get anything about ecology or economy, neighther engeniering.

>>136179728
I know an awful lot about PVs actually, I'm well aware of how they're made start to finish. As I said, there are different ways of taking photons and shooting an electron off of something. I mentioned Perovskites for a reason.
Its entirely possible for us to exploit novel structures to harvest solar power. There just has to be a directed investment into one area. We have well developed and ironed out nuclear energy because a government program brought the best minds in the world together, gave them all possible resources, and had them all collectively work towards that one goal. Solar needs the same.

Literally just water vapor coming out of the nuclear plant

>>136179635
>>136179777
>>136179854
Every nuclear power plants has a chimney, because they burn atom in it.

>>136180056
Dude, there's no tl;dr. I'm a third year university student for a degree about power generation, distribution and storage, and my understanding is still far from in-depth.

Use google.

>>136179317
>>136178611

>implying geotermic energy is not the future.

>>136180276
Well fuck, thanks anyways.

>>136180241
"burn atom"
wtf is wrong with germany now?

>>136180241
Abandon thread guys, the secret is out, OP is on to us, lets slide this to the bottom before it red pills everyone.

>>136179777
Checked

>>136178370
Notice how there's actually hardly any pollution coming out of the boiler stacks since modern regulations mandate it. All you see in the image is water vapour out of cooling towers. Clouds of water going vertical, signalling to total uselessness of that stupid fucking fan.

>>136180462
?? are you on crack?

File: daily-demand-copyright-2011-national-grid-plc-all-rights-reserved.jpg (57KB, 631x400px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 631x400px

>>136180056
The point is electricity demand follows a certain demand by the hour, which is impossible to meet with solar pannels and wind turbines because 1. those two are unpredictable and 2. electricity is very hard to store
>b-b-but batteries!
Good luck storing a few GWh or even GW-days with batteries. protip: you can't

>>136178686
Kinetic storage. Velkess a silicon valley startup was developing a cheap one for ~$5k each, which would have been ideal, but they got bankrupt and run out of funding at an early stage. Their 15kwh storage with solar-shingles on my roof would be great to charge an electric car over night. The only problems: solar is too expensive (35k), and non-ugly decent electric cars are too expensive (testa model s). Within 10-20 years we may have enough proce drop. We also need velkess to get going again.

>>136180241
Holy shit, this nigger things the rods are all placed at the center of the combustion compartment and burned into a huge bonfire, while Charley, the fatso is in the employee's room running on his bike to generate electricity

>>136179317
>I'm trying to say that batteries are literally too expensive to store energy. There is no good way to store energy. The battery in your phone is not enough to store gigawatthours of energy that is needed on the grid. I honestly wish we could do store energy well enough to enable solar/wind energy, but that's not possible.
Interesting, I'll take the claim on face value and I wasn't aware of that.

Still it seems better to have batteries than not.

>>136180640
No I just can't understand sarcasm, its a huge problem.

>>136180567
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftwerk_Weisweiler

Scroll down for emissions.

>>136180803
kek i was recently reading some underage retarded forums and though you were serious.

>>136180680
Good point, as long as the universe never invents friction this is going to be a huge technological breakthrough

>>136180757
He doesn't need to store gigawatts, only enough to power 1 lamp for less than 12 hours. Convert that lamp to LEDs and your battery solution is even better.

>>136180693
One word: Chimneys.

>>136179097
yeah but this is because solar has been hindered in progress for so many years due to the gas/oil corporations buying out everything they can for as long as they could

if solar advancements received more attention, I think the outcome would become something pretty amazing.

Just look at computers, smart phones & TV's for example and try and imagine someone from the 70's if you could go back in time grasp a modern gaming machine or full HD TV.

The tech is pretty amazing when you think of it from that perspective & I think another 20 years from now, Solar technology would be pretty crazy if there were enough smart innovative people working toward making it more efficient and cheaper etc.

>>136181056
hahahaha lmao

>>136180998
no sir, I'm just a sarcastic asshole who happens to be an engineer with 30 years in the power industry.

>>136179728
how are they bad for the environment?

If I have a solar panel setup on the roof of my house, how is it damaging the environment? It'll be staying on the roof forever accumulating free energy from the sun

File: oct-9-model-d-announcement-tesla-model-d-price-photos.jpg (194KB, 600x409px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 600x409px

>>136180659
>protip: you can't

>>136180241
Thanks Mohammed the Kraut for that amazing piece of knowledge.

>>136181124
It doesn't matter, this is just one problem of solar panels. Another would be to have something consistent. The thing doesn't generate anything at night, when covered in snow, or cloudy/rainy weather. Let's bee honest, who the fuck is gonna shovel a field of snow to uncovered all the solar panels during winter?

>>136181124
Those evil corporations want to make profit. Technology doesn't just make impossible possible.
>>136181290
It takes a fuckton of rare earth metals to make a solar panel. It's not exactly environmentally friendly.

>>136179854
>>136180693
>>136181104
>>136179097
>>136178611

dude.. why are you shilling on /pol/ for nuclear power plants.. no one gives a fuck. whos paying you? lmfao did they pay you to advertise online so you spend your time shitposting about nuclear energy on 4chan?

like whats ur fuckin angle dude.. Jesus Christ.. calm the fuck down.. a coal plant is fine

>>136181104
It would require literally everyone have battery banks in their homes though to make a difference in the way the system works fundamentally, otherwise the price reduction would be negligible and there would seemingly be little value.

I'm sure you know the average home uses a little more than a few LEDs worth of energy during the day. Not to mention businesses.

File: 1493611402724.jpg (27KB, 354x353px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 354x353px

>>136178611
>overall more expensive
Where's your source nigger

>>136180959
You think just because you post a German wikipedia page that nobody can figure out your bullshit? You literally linked us to a coal power plant. We're talking about nuclear power plants. Fuck off, troll.

>>136181332
You're welcome, Pablo-Shanniqua.
If you need to know more, don't hesitate to ask me.

>using your attack on the low-hanging fruit of arguments against something as a method for dismissing all other arguments contrary to your own
>straw man

is thorium a meme or is it actually viable as a power source?

>>136180442
thats no german.

>>136179510
Answer what I posted. >>136179462

>>136181124

>if we had thrown more money into solar I'm sure a magical holy-grail technology would show up

All this progress, and still the vast majority of solar power is created by fucking mirrors focusing sunlight onto a pillar of water and a steam turbine.

>>136181104
>you only need to store enough energy to power an LED for 12 hours
What did the retarded leaf mean by this? The world wonders

>>136181442
Nuclear power plants generate electricity when needed. Unlike the shitstains called solar/wind power.
>>136181636
>having absolutely no arguments

>>136181290
The construction of current solar panels are not encironment friendly, it is not the production of energy that is bad, its the production of solar panels.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/
>Although solar energy is a clean alternative to fossil fuels, making the panels themselves can have a negative environmental impact.

Wind turbines require another powerplant for them to even work. http://www.aweo.org/windconsumption.html

You will never be able to have just wind turbine power. They will need a non-varying source of power that you can only get with natural gas, coal, or nuclear.

>>136180659
Could you not have multiple smaller batteries instead?

I know in Adelaide, South Australia that Elon Musk had suggested a battery deal with the state government & they actually in the end went ahead with his idea.

They're building a 100MW battery which will be the worlds biggest lithium ion battery & if it's not done within the first 100 days or something its free

I don't see how you couldn't achieve a setup of batteries similar to this to make better use of solar energy, or at least to use it as a primary source of power until depleted and then having to rely on a more "environmentally unfriendly" alternative

i think solars a good idea, I'd like to see it become more innovative and useful.

Say for example you can get some sort of coating on the roof of your home that just looks like a shiny coat of paint on your roof tiles but in reality it actually absorbs lots of power from the sun and lets you re-use it in your home. I can see it getting useful to the point where it wouldn't be ugly big fans or giant batteries being required.

>>136181290
Look up the process of solar panel manufacturing. It absolutely does shit up the environment.

>>136181252
so you are like 55? Anyways, wht do you think the solution is?

>>136180959
Lots of plantfood in the form of CO2, everything else is accepted and normal, that's why they build big chimney stacks, so people don't have to smell the exhaust. The main thing the hardware of the plant does is completely burn the coal and capture almost all particulate waste, otherwise Han's undies would be black from soot. That's actual pollution, real pollution, not your green fantasy shit.

>>136181722
>>136181775

chill out guys, smoke some pot, relax, everything's fine

>>136181672
Nah man its actually the real deal. Liquid thorium reactors are the way to go. The problem is that the average IQ is 100 and half the people are dumber than that so in democratic societies you can't do it.

>>136181791
100mw battery will be expensive as fuck mate, if only for being built in Australia and being subject to 20000 government taxes

>>136181672
Thorium is theoretically the future of nuclear energy production. It's super cheap, super safe, super reliable. But there's not a lot of investment in nuclear thanks to public phobia of the word "nuclear".

>>136181722
>baseless assumption to distract from the point about the straw man
>another straw man
i'm noticing a trend here.

>>136181525
>OP picture is Weisweiler, the coal plant
>being an American

>>136181680
probably true. When will all whites leave invaded countrys and join somewhere to de a reconquista? It is time already.

>>136181990
>super, super, super
look up the history of the prototypes, faggot

>>136181459
Actually, you dont have the whole conversation. In the previous thread, someone proposed to make street lamps solar powered, but the guy said that solar power is useless at night because there is no way to store it.

see the following post
>136176327

>>136181709
Yeah? I wouldn't call making more batteries something that's a good thing.
>>136182003
>still no arguments
I want to hear your opinion on improving the grid in Europe. Come on.

>>136181791
>Say for example you can get some sort of coating on the roof of your home that just looks like a shiny coat of paint on your roof tiles but in reality it actually absorbs lots of power from the sun and lets you re-use it in your home. I can see it getting useful to the point where it wouldn't be ugly big fans or giant batteries being required.
What the fuck? We're not writing a sci-fi novel here.

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 3.48.26 PM.png (1020KB, 1580x770px) Image search: [Google]

1020KB, 1580x770px

can someone post a stat of # of deaths in the US from nuclear power?

File: 10299969_750167421731601_6663004898004604255_n.jpg (317KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 960x960px

>>136182144
Yes the context there helps a lot.

>>136181932
when can we do the aristocratic eugenic aryan nation we all want??

>>136181791
You need to understand what a battery fundamentally is. Its a container for electrons. If you look at a chart of comparable energy densities you'll see that the best batteries we can make are pretty horrible when it comes to something natural like sugar. Batteries simply aren't a good method of storing energy, for density, for how they're made, for the amount of loss incurred as they discharge over time.
The most efficient solar thermal stations are heating a vat of salt to deliver power after sun down, because storing heat in a massive salt vat is more efficient than storing electricity in a battery.

>>136181369
lol you make a good point, but i think that your points are just things that would further strengthen solars advancements over time

People would take a look at complaints similar to yours and work on ways to achieve them. For example maybe they might be able to add some sort of heating component on the panels for areas it snows, similar to the demystify feature with car windows.

There are small batteries you can get attached to your house now have a 13.5KW storage capacity & you can get multiple of these attached, so it's definitely doable to cover night time power requirements & these batteries are pretty new on the market still I'd say.. so they'll only get better and more efficient over time.

This is all just my opinion though, I'm not an engineer or someone that has an interest in this field or anything lol

>>136181851
Thats like a 500 word essay homework assignment. I'm up for a couple sentences.

What would God do if he wanted to heat the universe?

You always lose when transferring heat so always go for highly concentrated sources.

Solar power is nuclear power, just don't let the russians build your solar panels.

>muh renewable solar and wind
>require mining specific, finite materials out of the ground to work
Solar and wind are literally as renewable as coal

>>136182172
i don't have an opinion on improving the grid in europe.

>>136182012
I'm not talking about OP's pic, I'm talking about your retardation over here
>>136181113
>>136180241
>>136179554
>>136179302

>>136182172
Why not if they can be recycled after they've been expended?

>>136181852
>cody's lab tier scientist speaking
>listening, gently chuckling
>having a good time with a GOOD beer.

>>136178686
I heard of a group experimenting with chemical storage instead of battery. The science is solid from what I've read and seen myself.

Sauce- abc.net.au/news/2017-05-11/hydrogen-breakthrough-could-fuel-renewable-energy-export-boom/8518916?pfmredir=sm

>>136182465
a battery is chemical storage.

>>136182434
They're expensive as fuck. Do you want to triple your electricity bill?

>>136180241
Choked on my own spit kek

>>136182389
nice. Wht about geotermical energy?? Is it a biable way to use it?

>>136182191
LMAO, yeah it was a far fetched example of how big of a leap tech can go

Kinda like star trek shit back when star trek was a new show :^)

"wow look at that fucking iphone thing in his hands, thats fucking futuristic!"

>>136182422
4+1 Chimneys.

>>136181791
>just get a big battery/loads of small batteries
>They're building a 100MW...
MW!=MWh. Power output is of no concern, the amount of stored energy is
Either way getting someting in the orders of magnitude of GWh is needed to make a significant difference, but i don't see any of those being built any time soon
The only solution i see that's doable to store mechanical energy is by using reservoirs (potential energy): efficiencies are alright and relatively cheap to build, but geographically very restricted.

>>136182465
>chemical storage instead of battery
What the fuck? A battery IS chemical stor-
>>136182574
Beat me to it.

Fuck, half the posts in this thread wouldn't need to be posted or replied to if everybody read a couple wikipedia pages.

>>136178370
The cloud in that picture is literally steam from cooling towers. It's water vapor.

I have no idea what this thread is about, since no arguments were made.

File: perovskite panel.jpg (473KB, 2313x3465px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 2313x3465px

>>136182191
Hes not even far off on that point. Perovskites could in fact be used to coat everything in a thin veneer that produces power. They can even be used in tandem with other types of panels that generate power from different wavelengths so they're sort of a force multiplier for power production.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/semiconductors/materials/atomic-movies-offer-insights-into-more-efficient-perovskites

>>136181791
>coating on the roof of your home that just looks like a shiny coat of paint on your roof tiles but in reality it actually absorbs lots of power from the sun

It just shows your total lack of understanding of science.
A good solar panel is the opposite of "shiny" because you want to absorb the light, not reflect it.
In the end the amount of power you can get is entirely limited by the area, angle and weather, not the technology used.
As I said, the VAST majority of solar power is through mirrors focusing light on water, which boils to turn turbines. Panels are a meme.

>we can just make, like.... Very VERY big batteries!
Do you even know the concept of energy density?
Good batteries are about 40 times less energy dense than gasoline. It means thay to store the energy from burning a kg of gasoline you need 40kg of battery, which is expensive, degrades over time, has charge/discharge losses, is hard to recycle, and creates a lot of pollution durong manufacturing.

Seriously man, if you don't know shit about a topic - just refrain from posting and read instead.

>>136180328
It's really expensive to dig really deep holes, you know. Countries like Iceland can do it because the distiance between the surface and magma is shorter than elsewhere.

>>136182350
cool, I did not know that and hadn't even ever heard of that salt idea

>>136182709
So much this. Norway is pumping water to reservoirs to store energy, but that's not possible for most countries.

>>136181481
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/

https://cna.ca/news/nuclear-cheaper-than-solar-now-and-in-the-future/

You can also look at wikipedia, hydroelectricity is the only source that is cheaper than nuclear, although cannot be used everywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

>>136178370
I bet you think harmful chemicals are released from the cooling stacks of Nuclear reactors.

>>136182788
yeah, but most countries have volcanoes nearby. I think it is 100000 more biable then solar and wind memes. The most obvious "ecofriendly" thing will be burning trees directly at home in winter. AKA what has been done always

>>136182882
yeah i was going to write "Norway has won the lottery AGAIN" but i left it out

>>136182882
>thinking about The Netherlands
>hmmm

>>136182389
>What would God do if he wanted to heat the universe?
If experience tells me anything, split something smaller than an atom. I don't think we really need to heat the universe to toast bread, maybe we should split something bigger than an atom.

>>136182730
i think he was just unclearly summarizing the article, which discusses a method of processing ammonia to derive hydrogen, and posits that this process could make hydrogen exports viable, since shipping liquid hydrogen is too expensive for the amount that can be shipped (and the article states that ammonia has more densely packed hydrogen than liquid hydrogen).

so, in this case, "chemical storage", at least in the sense i guess he meant it, means literally storing chemicals for shipment. :D

>>136183062
Chimneys.

>>136181124
You just automatically assume technology will make gigantic leaps as long as we try. The thing about solar power is precisely that that isn't true - solar power is more reliant on the intensity/angle or the sunlight and/or the weather than it is on human technology. That's what cripples solar power. And if I may be so bold, I would say that is always going to hold true.

>there are people who spent their whole lives worrying about becoming Fallout 4
faggots should pray

>>136182584
Man seriously are you okay?
You're completely misconstruing what I said. This source of energy (solar) will be used for streetlights.

>>136182664
I've worked nuke, gas, coal and even trash as power sources. I'm looking forward to retiring to geothermal so I can become an expert in filtering mud and abrasion resistant materials.

Short answer, no. Source and sink are pretty close together compared to other technologies.

>>136183094
To be honest, I'm fucking pissed off at Norwegian engineers. They've limited their output to hike up prices in Sweden, Finland and Denmark before. I can understand why they're doing that, but I'm not happy.

>>136182737
Ad hominem and straw men II: Electric Bogaloo

>>136183262
>we figured out how to split the atom and kill humans on unprecedented levels less than 100 years ago
>doing this at the wrong place could wipe out humanity and all life on earth
>lol why would you be worried about a nuclear holocaust
balled my melons

File: 4655367406_85ca82ca26_o.jpg (87KB, 736x491px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 736x491px

>>136178370
What's with the cooling towers? not use to seeing coal plants with them.

>>136178370
>Fuck the planet cuz wind turbines are ugly
Yes because it is a totally cut and dry choice. Either wind turbines or the sky will fall, that sounds about right.

>>136178370
You realize that's all steam right?

>>136182385
Adding heating elements for areas with snow will just reduce the efficieny of the whole system.

The only thing solar is good for is powering small appliances like calculators, solar gaden lamps, and things as such. For anything related to the grid, you need something stable. You cannot have a power plant which is controlled by nature, it's just unpredictable. Especially when you consider as I said, for winter months. Don't forget that during winter, the snow is not the only issue. Days are shorter too. Ultimately, the things that make solar unusable on a large scale are things out of human control. As long as we don't have a machien that controls the weather, we can't do much about solar's unreliability.

>>136183561
>not seeing the smoke
Just how retaded are you? Don't you realize splitting atoms generates smoke?

>>136182197
You understand that if some dumbass does something wrong in a nuclear facility, it's possible that Chernobyl 2.0 can happen, right?

Oh no, a wind farm is killing dumb birds!
I'd rather have geese get rekt by these death blades than for millions of us to get rekt by those literal fucking stars inside a building.

>>136183283
sounds reasonable. How does termal energy deal with corrosion less, though?
We might be doing it wrong. Almost every power source but coal, sun, wind and waves is ok. (Hydro, nuclear, wood, etc)

>>136183561
>>136183681
That's the secret of a german coal reactor.

>>136183681
Fucking laughed too hard at this.

>>136182385
>add some sort of heating component on the panels for areas it snows
With what power?

>batteries
Again, with what power?

Solar is just too unreliable. People use the most power during winter months, when the days are shorter, skies are cloudier, and snow is another bag of shit. In the end, you have to rely on another source of power. I would even say that this "backup power" would end up doing more than solar power.

>>136183858
>Chernobyl 2.0
So basically only the people who fuck up will die?

You realize this is an inane argument that actually goes against the point you're trying to make.

>>136183933
Like I said, I've never worked geo but I think that the issue would be erosion not corrosion. As to coal, never turn your back on a plentiful complex hydrocarbon. One day it might be cheaper to turn it into syngas than to do something else.

>>136182197
You'll see a core meltdown in the US in your lifetime.
Screencap this.

>>136183260
The issue of limited deployability of solar PVs and solar thermal is due to the wavelengths that these generate power from.
Multijunction tandem panels target a wider range of wavelengths to increase efficiency. If one of the junctions was high enough efficiency on its own the others wouldn't be needed. Thats exactly what perovskite structures are doing.

If there is sunlight, anywhere, in any amount, you have the potential to produce current in a meaningful capacity. Potential solar solutions could be placed on any man made structure.

File: IMG_5721.png (14KB, 420x273px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 420x273px

>>136181791
We already have coatings that can provide solar energy that mimic chlorophyll. They aren't very good though as their synthesis is horribly inefficient and the capacity for them to generate energy is also rather poor. Work is continuing on them but for the medium term they aren't going to do much.

>>136184372
>you have the potential to produce current in a meaningful capacity
Yeah but what is the point if you're doing more damage to the environment than simply mining coal or using oil sands which seems to be a net benefit.

File: 1466740879356.jpg (60KB, 1200x1081px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1200x1081px

>>136178370
Everybody seems to forget that a shitload of products could not be made without oil. Most plastics, solvents/cleaning chemicals could not be produced without oil. Oil is also necessary to maintain the energy grid. There's 7 gallons of oil in every tire for fucks sake. Unless society drastically changes the way it consumes and uses these products, or unless some brilliant motherfucker figures out a way to use fungus or some shit as a substitute, this whole topic is pointless.

>>136183858
https://asiancorrespondent.com/2011/05/green-deaths-the-forgotten-dangers-of-solar-panels/#7r2Vt77DDg3yHYmO.97
>Because of our propensity to put panels on roofs, solar is in fact, far more dangerous than many forms of power generation, three times more dangerous than wind power and more than 10 times more dangerous than nuclear power, by comparison to the amount of power produced

>>136184367
Still overall better for the environment and human life than relying on coal or solar.

>>136184372
The real problem is that the sun is putting out 95% of its energy in the visible spectrum (no idea why). We need to work on getting the sun off its lazy ass and put out some real heat.

>>136182574
>>136182730
I know it is, I'm just trying to make it easier for people to delineate the two. Efficiencies are pretty rough right now but a hydrogen economy with ammonia intermediates is a possible solution to oil products in transportation.

>>136182736
Nuclear water vapor.

>>136184733
This is wrong.

>>136184892
In New Jersey its illegal to pump your own gas because the government know people are too retarded to consistently do that without burning down gas stations from time to time. You want tanks of liquified hydrogen on every street corner with retards entrusted to pump it into portable tanks?

>>136184733
Damn, I thought the sun was white, but turns out he's just a nigger

>>136183858
Stars are fusion, not fission. Please learn to speak correctly or don't fucking speak at all.

>>136182736
>>136185155
No it's coal smoke from the chimneys.

>>136184733
>We need to work on
Yeah. You should become an engineer and show how it's done.

>>136184604
Again, not all solar solutions are silicon PVs.

>>136184733
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v503/n7477/full/nature12622.html

>>136185187
Fine its 50% but that isn't the joke.

You could install a trillion turbines and you wouldn't make a fraction of the power of that single plant.

>>136185359
You know thats actually pretty ironic.

>>136178370
Would take a thousand of those turbines to generate as much as that nuclear plant.

>Oh no steam!!!

>>136185362
>Again, not all solar solutions are silicon PVs.
This doesn't change my central point.

Why would you bother if it's never going to touch nuclear in terms of capacity or utility.

>>136185188
It's in reference to an article I posted earlier. The hydrogen would be the end product and fuel source while ammonia is the transport intermediary. The setup to crack an ammonia molecule is relatively small so you could fit it inside a service station or even your car so hydrogen isn't around for very long.

>>136185432
A trillion turbines would generate a fuckload of energy. Too bad you can't control all that shit.
>>136185485
I know. That's why I'm an engineer.

A dynamo for fapping.

>>136185584
Me too brother. Its a small world isn't it.

>>136185539
>Why would you bother if it's never going to touch nuclear in terms of capacity or utility.
Because letting a free resource go to waste is silly. Once we're over this hurdle we will have solved the power issue once and forever. We can have decentralized power production anywhere in the world, anywhere in space, any scale.

There are dozens of reasons why widespread decentralized power production would be a tremendous benefit for a country.

>>136180241
They burn mass actually. E=mc^2

>>136185584
>>136185707
if you don't have a Master's degree you're a non-engineer

>>136185368
Visible spectrum energy DOES heat the earth.
What's the joke?

>>136185707
Yeah I know. The poor sun just won't listen.
>>136185910
I do, faggot.

>>136183500
literally untrue

>>136185559
I agree that it would be great to use hydrogen as the end fuel for things like cars but somewhere you need to make the hydrogen and powering that is the chore. I'm thinking that has to be nuclear.

>>136179317

>That's not possible

There is no problem to turn any kind of energy in potential. Pump water up and let it run down when you need it. I believe efficiency could suck, though.

>>136185910
You aren't even from a real country and you want to make rules about global certifications? ...oh wait

>>136186165
I know. Norway does that. For most countries/people, it's pretty much impossible. At least for Finns it is, I know.

>>136185961
About modifying the sun....

Why do people say energy type X sucks? Different areas have different resources and they all work on the same grid. The free market dictates the solution, not theory. HVDC transmission will bring more grids together so e.g. a wind farm can pump water 1000 miles away for storage. It's pretty amazing when you think about it.

>>136185855
Is power production an issue? We have more than enough oil, coal and uranium to power our civilization for much longer than our lifetimes, not even accounting for innovation which is rapidly increasing.

I agree the concept of solar power is useful for certain situations but they are exceptions and not rules.

The argument to a more modular grid is something I agree with in theory but as a pragmatic matter, the current energy grid manages well enough and the more rational answer seems to be to bolster the infrastructure.

>>136186035
Startups are tying to use solar generated electrolysis to generate hydrogen, then feed it through the Haber process to generate ammonia for storage and transport.

>>136185869
Actually, they are scattering / spreading mass.
{E(v)={\frac {m\ c^{2}}{\sqrt {1-(v/c)^{2}}}}}

>>136186333

No, it's just a question of efficiency. There is no technical problems to build two giant reservoirs one 100 m above other and fill it with water. Exception of Mongolia, may be. Its just too expensive even to consider, but who knows in couple of decades ahead.

>>136186688
>Why do people say energy type X sucks?
Maybe because energy type X actually sucks?
>The free market dictates the solution
No. Electrical grid is a natural monopoly.
>HVDC transmission will bring more grids together so e.g. a wind farm can pump water 1000 miles away for storage. It's pretty amazing when you think about it.
Yeah and no. HVDC is great, but it won't make anything work better. You need to generate all the electricity that is consumed right now.

>>136186688
>The free market dictates the solution, not theory.
I love being lectured on the free market by an American while being forced to buy oil in USD, truly it beggars belief.

If the government is subsidizing an industry which would otherwise be economically or even legally unfeasible your argument is inane, this is not the free market.

File: eyJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL2Rpc2NvcmQuc3RvcmFnZS5nb29nbGVhcGlzLmNvbS9hdHRhY2htZW50cy8yNjE4NTMzMDI3Mzg2NDkwOTEvMjk5NTcwMTc2MTM3ODg3NzU0L2Jpbl9iYW5lci5QTkcifQ.png (159KB, 467x467px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 467x467px

Three K's a day keeps the niggers away.

If you're 100% European descent aka white and you hate filthy niggers, dirty spics, ugly kikes, arabs, furfags, gayfags, commiefags and all other scum on the earth (including weeaboo degeneracy!) as much as we do, you should join the Moon Central Discord Server. Introduce yourself in #introductions to get unkiked!

https://discordapp.com/ - invite/ - q9YcCDP (Remove the - )

1, 2, 3, 4 We declare a race war!
Join us and hang a nigger today!

Sieg Heil!

>>136182465
I read it quickly, and what they're basically doing is converting electric power to hydrogen to turn that hydrogen back into mechanical power again
One of my professors at uni had a similar idea but with earth gas instead, which can be very easliy be stored on the current gas distribution network
Then another prof in another lecture completely destroyed this idea because the efficiency of turning electricity into earth gas (or H2) into electricity is horrible and extremely expensive, when you can use the directly produced electricity instead, and use other means of buffering the demand in vastly cheaper ways.

>>136187139
you're the nigger here.

>>136186837
I googled the haber process because I never heard of it. Sounds pretty cool. On the other hand I've seen venture capitalists pour mountains of cash into the most absurd things you can imagine. Point of fact, I've made diesel out of sawdust in a low pressure high temp catalytic process. Burned millions proving it works in a an uneconomical way. So caveat emptor. I hope it all pans out.

>>136186810
The sun is a far less finite resource than coal, oil, or natural gas. Solar power lets every locality be entirely energy independent. There is no logistical train of pumping, refining, and shipping it around the world. Once a place has panels they're making their own power completely unchained from any foreign power.
Nuclear power is tremendous. The energy output potential will never be matched, but it does have the downside of producing waste we can't yet fully recycle. It poses a security threat, and we'll eventually run out of places to store it. Thats not a great long term solution. Solar however would be.

>>136187156
I worked on a bench scale version for my masters thesis and your right, the efficiencies are pretty terrible but there are ways to improve the results. I used lanthanide based activators and it did improve the turnover but still nowhere near enough to make it industrially viable.

I have a wind turbine up on a hill and solar panels on my roof. I'm completely energy efficient and with my current deal with the electric company am set to pay them off and make profit from both in about 6 years. They're fine for home use but with current technology I don't think "wind farms" are really practical or consistent enough for industrial or commercial use yet.

>>136187488
I agreed with your post until
>It poses a security threat, and we'll eventually run out of places to store it
Just fucking dump it in the ground. That's what we do, how fucking difficult is it?

File: 10481717_826754007334889_4094073555783309567_n.jpg (246KB, 835x518px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 835x518px

>>136187488
You're leaving the plane of objective pragmatic solutions, I just can't go on this journey with you.

>>136187363
See
>>136187156
>>136187662

Also that diesel thing sounds pretty cool, have you got any sources?

>>136187027
>No, it's just a question of efficiency
i've heard of efficiencies in the 70%-range, maybe even higher. It's not that bad at all in my opinion

>There is no technical problems to build two giant reservoirs one 100 m above other and fill it with water.
you know it's quite the advantage of the two reservoirs are next to each other, which is sort of not possible in a lot of places let alone on a massive scale

>Its just too expensive even to consider, but who knows in couple of decades ahead.
We have a 1GW-5GWh reservoir in wallonia since the 70's, it's really not that hard to build desu
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterkrachtcentrale_van_Coo-Trois-Ponts

>>136187488
Thorium nuclear waste is much safer than you think. Look it up.

File: 600px-Flag_of_the_Karelo-Finnish_SSR.svg.png (5KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 600x300px

Hey, stupid Finn, do you realise that those are steam stacks pictured?

>>136188021
No. I'm a retard. How about you?

>>136187838
Sadly we are on the edges of personally identifying information disclosure. It was a really cool project though.

>>136187029
>HVDC is great, but it won't make anything work better
Yes it will, and I gave an example of why. Pumped hydro is basically the only grid scale battery. HVDC is hooking the three big American AC grids together. Wind farms in Texas will be able to store energy in California pumped storage reservoirs.

It's not a total monopoly. Most states let you sell energy to the grid (although this is a dumb way to make money). New Mexico I believe has an enormous limit.
Businesses in CA can buy from alternate providers using PG&E's grid.
https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/customer-service/other-services/alternative-energy-providers/direct-access/direct-access.page

The electricity situation is probable quite different due to this being California, and the US being much bigger.

>>136188257
Unfortunate but understandable

>>136187786
We're putting it in a mountain, but that still makes it a huge potential target for an attack. The mere existence of these waste storage facilities is a huge potential danger if any natural disaster were to damage the facility.
We have to think ahead.

>>136187824
I admit that I am a hopeless optimist. I don't see this as anything other than practical however. Of all the things our corrupt government wastes money on, the billions of dollars pissed away in the welfare system, we could be investing instead in our own future just like we did with our nuclear projects in the past.
Theres no reason for us not to pursue this.

>>136187929
I've done a lot of research on LFTRs, and while they have outstanding potential, its yet another technology which would require a substantial investment in to bring to mass production levels. We can't get the government to give any funding to nuclear right now, no matter how efficient the cycle is. Solar at least can be memed into acceptance with the hippy left.

>>136188431
We have multiple HVDC links to Sweden. It works for energy transmission, but it doesn't really "improve" the grid in any way. Actually, in the case of emergency, it makes the situation even worse than AC transmission. And yes, the grid is actually a natural monopoly if we're talking about northern Europe. I know about the situation in US and desu it's not much better.

>>136188819
I agree with your post in a way. We dump the nuclear waste underground and it's not easy for anyone to dig it up, nor will a natural disaster do shit about it. An attacker will literally be shot before they get anywhere near the facilities.

>>136189235
I don't know why you'd try and steal depleted uranium unless you want to get cancer or something.

>>136189421
I don't know either. Some leftists think it might be a good idea though.

>>136179728

They used to be, not anymore, they are less than $1 a watt now and can last 25 years. Just bought a 100 watt panel for a project.

A few years, it will be 20 cents a watt.

>>136188713
The company sponsoring the work is publicly traded and makes periodic disclosures. If you really care I'm sure you can find it.

>>136178370

I think wind turbines are fine to look at. I wouldnt mind them all around my property.

>>136180241
Oppenheimer over here

>>136186837
Anyone doing high temperature electrolysis? That could be 100% efficient in theory (using nuclear or CSP for the heat) but requires unobtainium electrodes. Electrolysis seems like really the only viable grid scale chemical storage since you end up with a burnanle liquid or gas.

File: 450px-Wind_Turbine_^17_-_geograph.org.uk_-_535670.jpg (28KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 450x600px

>>136189635
slagschaduw (Dutch, don't know the translation), or the periodical shades of the blades are apparently highly annoying

>>136189635
I want to receive shit called "electricity" from the outlet though. That's why I'm not too fond of cancer called "Wind".

>>136189783
What is unobtanium trading for these days? I heard that the market was about to turn.

>>136178370
They're cancer where they are actually put. The damn things are loud, kill birds, and ruin my state's fields. I still don't get why we just can't spam solar instead.

>>136190018
Solar kills too

>>136180659

There are several ways to store energy overnight. Molten salt for instance works great for solar thermal plants.

Then there is hydrogen from water electrolysis.

But the real game changer is synthesizing methanol. The process turns CO2 and water into a liquid fuel that can run cars and be an energy reserve for nighttime. Much easier to work with than hydrogen gas for cars.

And the methanol can be exported for local energy production to regions without good solar radiation.

>>136181056

Those flywheels run in a vacuum with magnetic bearings. The friction is extremely low. The problem is finding materials to make the flywheel out of.

Even very strong materials we have now break apart from spinning them as fast as they would like to spin them for good energy density.

>>136178611
Nuclear engineer here

Thats false, they can meet the demands but we would need much more government support and a lot of tax payer dollars which might be worth it long term.

>>136179800
You were too right. I'm regretting making this thread.

>>136190160
i've made a post about thermal plants and i agree, if the weather allows it >>136179807
So no solar thermal/pannel plant bullshit in Northern Europe or something. I've had a discussion about this on /diy/ and those retards were actually defending that shit

>Then there is hydrogen from water electrolysis etc...
Highly questionable efficiencies/investment costs, see >>136187156
>>136187662

>>136181775

>solar panels are not environment friendly

>technology never improves beyond our current state, so solar energy will never be the answer.

>>136179479
Solar is a great idea to use in conjunction with nuclear energy, as it can help offset the load strain on a power plant during peak hours, but to rely on solar entirely, which is exceptionally dependent on seasonal and meteorological variables, would be foolish.

>>136190692
The problems are pretty fundemental in their design. Just because you try really hard at something doesn't mean it will ever work.

>>136178370
Nuclear & Coal > Wind, Solar & Hydro faggotry.

>>136190425
Hi anon, and thank you for your post. I had assumed that they spun their flywheels in a chamber full of saturated steam with sand as a bearing lubricant. I feel much better about the basic concept having read your post. In my work I often look for opportunities to transfer energy to different forms relying on the inherent efficiencies of each transformation to add value.

>>136188912
>Actually, in the case of emergency, it makes the situation even worse than AC transmission.
A good point to consider, but HVDC can also be redundant with AC. Here we have this one redundant with the rest of the west coast grid.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie

You'll have to define "improve". It doesn't store power, but it does multiply the size of the marketplace (3x in the US), evening out supply and demand, and make renewables seem more like baseload. It's more of a statistical benefit than an engineering one.

File: IMG_1365.jpg (21KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 250x250px

>>136181113
Two words: cooling towers
Are you genuinely fucking retarded?

>>136189907
Oh jeez, that really would be. It'd be like a plane blocking the sun every few seconds.

>>136191308
My point is that non-synchronous transmission is not stable by definition. If the load drops for any reason, the frequency of the grid will also fall down and there's no supply and demand at all.

>>136178370
I think we as developed nations should build up a big sector of low emmision or non dangerous energy, but as a reasonable paste. Nuclear fission is to be abolished in the long run, as the toxic and radioactive remains are a non calculatable risk factor for all generations.
But now the alternatives are yet to come, so it should remain the backbone until then.

Electric Cars? Forget about it, there is no way you will achieve this with current battery technology. Emissions being produced during the disposal of said Batteries just tops engine emissions of oil fueled ones.

>>136190018
"MUH BYRDS!"

You can never provide proof of birds being killed by windmills because it just about never happens. If you did you would have their corpses as evidence.

>>136190160
If we had the choice I wonder if synthesizing Methane would be better than a liquid fuel (I don't know chemistry so I might be saying something stupid). There is already an extensive methane "grid" and methane can power a gas turbine, which I don't know if methanol can. Guess methanol is cheaper to ship via ocean though.

>>136192470
>If you did you would have their corpses as evidence.
This is why I don't believe in the holohoax.

File: 1486609912029.png (423KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 800x600px

Hydroelectric and Nuclear are the superior forms of energy generation. Wind and Solar are a meme.

>>136181713
tfw I unironically also made a solar powered steam engine as I realized solar panels are retarded.

ded

File: IMG_0842.jpg (23KB, 625x625px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 625x625px

>>136178370
Holy shit bruh that is STEAM coming out of those nuclear stacks. It's not pollution in the slightest, it's not even radioactive steam as I've heard some people say. Goddamned tards, nuclear power is the way to go