Renewable energy, is it just a meme or will is actually

Bumpin for (you)

>>8709579
It's already significant and is growing continuously.

Relying on it exclusively is a bit trickier, because supply and usage are never going to quite match up.

>>8709999
>because supply and usage are never going to quite match up.

More because peak usage and peak supply doesn't match up. With fossil energy during peak usage (for household example, 5-10pm primetime) you can just burn more coal/natural gas. The wind gonna blow the strongest not during peak usage, nor the sun gonna shine the brightest during peak usage.

Mathematically wind and solar do produce enough energy to power most industrialized nation, but energy storage is a big issue. You need to store those energy for peak usage hours, and the batteries technology is not really there yet to efficiently store billions of watts worth of energy

>>8709579
>renewable energy
>depends on a limited supply of fusion fuel stored inside the Sun

>>8709579
Renewable is only viable with nuclear.

>>8709999
>supply and usage are never going to quite match up.
>what is nuclear power
>what are flywheels

>>8709579
Only a small portion with our current technology.

>>8710970
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
i mean the technology to store energy has been there since the stone age by simply tranforming the energy into potential energy lifting a mass for example

the article is only about water but since we dont have the struggle with spacemanagement like phone batteries and such, there should be enough clever people to find something similar thats even better

>>8709579
Cost and peak usage are the biggest hurdles.

Better battery technology can help mitigate peak usage as well as providing obvious benefits for EVs.

But renewables alone won't solve our energy problems. That's where transmission loss needs to be targeted both by researching and using more efficient transmission mediums and by placing generation closer to the point of usage.

>>8709579
Suppose that depends on infinity. If there are finite limits then there never will be [true] renewable; because energy is being used and cannot be replenished (though "matter cannot be created or destroy," if true, indicates perpetual energy is true). If this limits were true, the U started with one "unit" of energy on it's way to zero (which is what it has to reach at some point in time).
Society does not work harmoniously with nature: or even other people. We force it to do what should not be done. And suffer consequences because not even ignorance is an excuse. Look at all the pollution: this is what it takes to produce all those renewable gadgets that will cost more in maintenance that they will ever feasibly be worth. Some first world countries have high renewables, but it is possible only because the true pollution is shifted to third-world countries. In the global economic war, there will always be countries willing to burn cheap coal. And if most countries stop using it, the price will plummet: additional incentive to third-world countries to burn it to bolster their economy (china is paying for its greed in a poison atmosphere that is getting worse every day because they do not change, cannot learn).

>>8711534
>5 posts in
>nuclear meme posting begins

Everytime.

>>8713903
>Suppose that depends on infinity. If there are finite limits then there never will be [true] renewable; because energy is being used and cannot be replenished (though "matter cannot be created or destroy," if true, indicates perpetual energy is true). If this limits were true, the U started with one "unit" of energy on it's way to zero (which is what it has to reach at some point in time).

Hippies might think renewable energy is awesome, but they'll be fucked once the sun burns out in another 5 billion years.

>>8709579
Not a meme, it's just too underdeveloped right now, but some day...