hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 63 of 78 FirstFirst ... 13536061626364656673 ... LastLast
Results 1,241 to 1,260 of 1544

Thread: God Hates THE WORLD (Natural Disaster Thread)

  1. #1241
    Lief Siddhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 15, 2011
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    6,695
    time to put some humour here cause we're getting a bit confrontational guys, as if our posting and virtue signaling isn't literally speeding up the climate change

    I was somewhere around Old Man Star, on the edge of Essence, when drugs began to take hold.

  2. #1242
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    18,422
    "You can only fret about climate change if you've fitted solar panels to your roof" is probably the best bit of bourgeois gatekeeping I've seen for a long time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  3. #1243
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,556
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Foiritain View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Foiritain View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    But one problem with nuclear is its to damn expensive. Any company that tries to build em without massive state subventions goes bankrupt.
    A fair enough, lets just stick to coal then.
    Why this obsession with refusing to build renewable for no reason at all?
    It can be done to scale in an economic fashion and much cheaper then nucear. Right now its not done since coal is cheaper.
    Renewables are great if your country has mountains and can do hydro. You cant run a country on wind or sun because as it turns out people want to watch TV at night when there's no wind.

    So the choices are; Hydro, Nuclear or Coal/Gas/shit that burns.

    My country has no mountains, so we mostly burn coal and gas and are going to continue burning more in the coming years. Sure we're building some token windmills in the sea but that's not actually going to power the country.
    this is a terrible argument considering Denmark lies a couple of hundred kilomters north east and are doing precisely this.
    They have almost exactly 3 x your population. You can't be this dumb.
    meh

  4. #1244

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Foiritain View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    But one problem with nuclear is its to damn expensive. Any company that tries to build em without massive state subventions goes bankrupt.
    A fair enough, lets just stick to coal then.
    Why this obsession with refusing to build renewable for no reason at all?
    It can be done to scale in an economic fashion and much cheaper then nucear. Right now its not done since coal is cheaper.
    Renewables don't scale too well and there's a scarcity factor for rare earths and other components (and all the mining and refining ecological damage that causes).

    Saying that with the drop in cost/kWh of renewables combined with increased battery tech I'm in two minds about whether new nuclear is indeed the way forward.

    As far as the UK goes if the government had gotten behind it properly in the early 2010s (as in a standardised, nationalised fleet of reactors) it could well have worked. Instead we've gone from 5 proposed new reactor sites to 2 (or maybe even 1).

    Everyone wants cheap, safe, reliable and clean.

    Nuclear is cleaner and safer than people think.

    Renewables aren't as reliable and clean as people think.
    This is your annual reminder that Lark knows what he's talking about more often than many of us would like to admit.

    That said if we'd done the "right thing" in the early 2010s and just assumed the entire liability for 10+ nuclear reactors I dread to think what would have happened to the national balance sheet when the private sector partners pulled out. It's not the state of the UK market that's causing them to collapse.

  5. #1245

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    See, and being able to admit that distinguishes me from you.

    That much is evident.
    Oh, don't worry, I'm entirely able to admit when I don't know what I'm talking about. You just don't see that very often because if I'm sitting there thinking "hrm I really don't think I know what I'm talking about here...", do you know what I do? Don't post.

    To wit

    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    - It's the most expensive way of generating electricity
    This is wrong. Nuclear is cheaper than coal, gas, biomass, most forms of wind [until very recently] and is cheaper than solar at almost all latitudes. Additionally what the typical LCOE measure does not account for is the land efficiency of nuclear power. You could fuel most nations on a dozen large reactor sites. Fuelling most nations on solar or wind would require the use of areas of significant areas of the land and sea.

    - It relys on a finite resource
    This is just patent fucking nonsense.

    - It produces very toxic waste of which we're still having no decent way to handle it
    Likewise, patent fucking nonsense. We have plenty of ways of handling it. What they are is expensive and unpalatable. Waste disposal is, technically, one of the least problematic areas. This is a political rather than economic or technical challenge - the very definition of NIMBY.

    - And most importantly: the current level of renewable energy technology does already allow us to replace all fossil fuel based energy production without any loss in availability, amount of energy available etc.
    No, it does not. Re-check your numbers.

  6. #1246
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    18,422
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Foiritain View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    But one problem with nuclear is its to damn expensive. Any company that tries to build em without massive state subventions goes bankrupt.
    A fair enough, lets just stick to coal then.
    Why this obsession with refusing to build renewable for no reason at all?
    It can be done to scale in an economic fashion and much cheaper then nucear. Right now its not done since coal is cheaper.
    Renewables don't scale too well and there's a scarcity factor for rare earths and other components (and all the mining and refining ecological damage that causes).

    Saying that with the drop in cost/kWh of renewables combined with increased battery tech I'm in two minds about whether new nuclear is indeed the way forward.

    As far as the UK goes if the government had gotten behind it properly in the early 2010s (as in a standardised, nationalised fleet of reactors) it could well have worked. Instead we've gone from 5 proposed new reactor sites to 2 (or maybe even 1).

    Everyone wants cheap, safe, reliable and clean.

    Nuclear is cleaner and safer than people think.

    Renewables aren't as reliable and clean as people think.
    This is your annual reminder that Lark knows what he's talking about more often than many of us would like to admit.

    That said if we'd done the "right thing" in the early 2010s and just assumed the entire liability for 10+ nuclear reactors I dread to think what would have happened to the national balance sheet when the private sector partners pulled out. It's not the state of the UK market that's causing them to collapse.
    Why not just stick the cost into a hundred year bond or some other fancy financial package a government can get away with?
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  7. #1247
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    3,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Not Larkonnis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Foiritain View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    But one problem with nuclear is its to damn expensive. Any company that tries to build em without massive state subventions goes bankrupt.
    A fair enough, lets just stick to coal then.
    Why this obsession with refusing to build renewable for no reason at all?
    It can be done to scale in an economic fashion and much cheaper then nucear. Right now its not done since coal is cheaper.
    Renewables don't scale too well and there's a scarcity factor for rare earths and other components (and all the mining and refining ecological damage that causes).

    Saying that with the drop in cost/kWh of renewables combined with increased battery tech I'm in two minds about whether new nuclear is indeed the way forward.

    As far as the UK goes if the government had gotten behind it properly in the early 2010s (as in a standardised, nationalised fleet of reactors) it could well have worked. Instead we've gone from 5 proposed new reactor sites to 2 (or maybe even 1).

    Everyone wants cheap, safe, reliable and clean.

    Nuclear is cleaner and safer than people think.

    Renewables aren't as reliable and clean as people think.
    This is your annual reminder that Lark knows what he's talking about more often than many of us would like to admit.

    That said if we'd done the "right thing" in the early 2010s and just assumed the entire liability for 10+ nuclear reactors I dread to think what would have happened to the national balance sheet when the private sector partners pulled out. It's not the state of the UK market that's causing them to collapse.
    Why not just stick the cost into a hundred year bond or some other fancy financial package a government can get away with?
    Because gulags.

  8. #1248

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Why not just stick the cost into a hundred year bond or some other fancy financial package a government can get away with?
    that's effectively what the high guaranteed strike price was, except borne directly by consumers rather than the treasury. Private sector would stump up the initial finance and we'd buy back the electricity at inflated prices for the next few decades. The UK reactor deals were as good as they could possibly be for the power and construction companies and they're still falling through. We have to face the reality that without rebuilding our postwar nationalised nuclear infrastructure (which is politically impossible) the state of global (read: german/japanese) politics makes it near impossible for us to build reactors without just letting the chinese do it all.

  9. #1249

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Lief Siddhe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    All the more reason to embrace nuclear, tbh. Power needs aren’t going to go down. We’ll have to turn off the taps for oil soon enough, and it’d be nice if we could have a whole array of nuclear plants ready to come online when the day arrives.
    OK, let's break it down what's IMHO wrong with nuclear power as a solution:
    - It's the most expensive way of generating electricity
    - It relys on a finite resource
    - It produces very toxic waste of which we're still having no decent way to handle it
    - And most importantly: the current level of renewable energy technology does already allow us to replace all fossil fuel based energy production without any loss in availability, amount of energy available etc.

    So why should we repeat all errors made with fossil fuel-based energy consumption, if there's a prefect replacement available RIGHT NOW?
    i gave you a +rep before but

    CITATIONS NEEDED

    because i think you're looking at this through glasses so rose tinted they are making you blind to reality there

    1) a form of energy is priced mostly through government subsidies or lack thereof and doesn't matter from an environmentalist perspective. if its cleaner but more expensive it really doesnt matter if your goal is cleaner energy or death
    2) sun and wind are also not infinite, neither is hydro or any other form of energy
    3) very little of it compared to how much energy you get out of it and you bury in an underground concrete bunker in a mountainside and jobs a gudun
    4) if renewables were as effective as you claim literally everyone would already be using them

    renewables are the future but i seriously doubt they are the only form of power that will allow us to continue this civilization
    See the link I provided in my answer to Razor.

    These days renewables are cheaper and as reliable as any other form of energy generation, but less dangerous. "Sun" is finite in the sense that it will supernova some day. Roger that. Guven that Earth has long ceased to exist then, that's infinite enough for me.*)

    As for 4) don't underestimate the power of lobby groups.

    *) See, Climate change is a global issue, but your "sun and wind is finite" aims at countries without sun/wind/water respectively. And that is certsainly true. But climate change can't be solved on a country-wide level. It must be tackled on a worldwide level. And that's where synergies come into play, trasnporting the energy from where it's (currently) produced to where it's needed. Just like it's already done with traditional energy generation.

  10. #1250
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,556
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lief Siddhe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    All the more reason to embrace nuclear, tbh. Power needs aren’t going to go down. We’ll have to turn off the taps for oil soon enough, and it’d be nice if we could have a whole array of nuclear plants ready to come online when the day arrives.
    OK, let's break it down what's IMHO wrong with nuclear power as a solution:
    - It's the most expensive way of generating electricity
    - It relys on a finite resource
    - It produces very toxic waste of which we're still having no decent way to handle it
    - And most importantly: the current level of renewable energy technology does already allow us to replace all fossil fuel based energy production without any loss in availability, amount of energy available etc.

    So why should we repeat all errors made with fossil fuel-based energy consumption, if there's a prefect replacement available RIGHT NOW?
    i gave you a +rep before but

    CITATIONS NEEDED

    because i think you're looking at this through glasses so rose tinted they are making you blind to reality there

    1) a form of energy is priced mostly through government subsidies or lack thereof and doesn't matter from an environmentalist perspective. if its cleaner but more expensive it really doesnt matter if your goal is cleaner energy or death
    2) sun and wind are also not infinite, neither is hydro or any other form of energy
    3) very little of it compared to how much energy you get out of it and you bury in an underground concrete bunker in a mountainside and jobs a gudun
    4) if renewables were as effective as you claim literally everyone would already be using them

    renewables are the future but i seriously doubt they are the only form of power that will allow us to continue this civilization
    See the link I provided in my answer to Razor.

    These days renewables are cheaper and as reliable as any other form of energy generation, but less dangerous. "Sun" is finite in the sense that it will supernova some day. Roger that. Guven that Earth has long ceased to exist then, that's infinite enough for me.*)

    As for 4) don't underestimate the power of lobby groups.

    *) See, Climate change is a global issue, but your "sun and wind is finite" aims at countries without sun/wind/water respectively. And that is certsainly true. But climate change can't be solved on a country-wide level. It must be tackled on a worldwide level. And that's where synergies come into play, trasnporting the energy from where it's (currently) produced to where it's needed. Just like it's already done with traditional energy generation.
    Actually, one of the negatives with renewable is the footprint to do them at scale, imo.

    Compare the footprint of, say, the Gode Wind farm with a 650Mw reactor. you are off on a space factor of several tens of magnitudes. While I think we are nowhere close to fully exploiting renewables, there are only a finite number of places wed can actually put large scale wind farms, and not start impacting, say, migratory birds in a way that is incredibly damaging to the ecosystem. Also, finite efficient space to put large scale solar. I think renewables are better art decentralizing the grid, actually, and that is energy generation at point of use. So solar and wind on every building/farm. It will offset the grid but not eliminate it, and we need a clean central source of energy generation. You cannot fully replace that with renewables in any significantly sized country, imo.
    meh

  11. #1251
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,087
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Foiritain View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Foiritain View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    But one problem with nuclear is its to damn expensive. Any company that tries to build em without massive state subventions goes bankrupt.
    A fair enough, lets just stick to coal then.
    Why this obsession with refusing to build renewable for no reason at all?
    It can be done to scale in an economic fashion and much cheaper then nucear. Right now its not done since coal is cheaper.
    Renewables are great if your country has mountains and can do hydro. You cant run a country on wind or sun because as it turns out people want to watch TV at night when there's no wind.

    So the choices are; Hydro, Nuclear or Coal/Gas/shit that burns.

    My country has no mountains, so we mostly burn coal and gas and are going to continue burning more in the coming years. Sure we're building some token windmills in the sea but that's not actually going to power the country.
    this is a terrible argument considering Denmark lies a couple of hundred kilomters north east and are doing precisely this.
    They have almost exactly 3 x your population. You can't be this dumb.
    that means three times the national budget to finance the shebang, while i will readily agree that they don't have quite as many optimal offshore wind-farm locations as we do, it's not a impossibility to pull off given enough resources invested in the project.

    there's a lot to critique about the renewable strategy pursued by Denmark, especially the current heavy focus on biomass and the complete neglect of solar as a district heating source, but it's not only working, it's working well and we're on shedule to having entirely displaced fossil fuels with renewable sources as part of the grid per 2025, rather than the planned 2030, yea we're burning a lot of biomass from farming and sustainable forestry to pull it off, but the long term goal sees biomass largely displaced in 2050.

    in the grand scale of things it doesn't matter jack shit, the point is that it can be done with sufficient will and public backing, and there is a whole lot of fuck-ups the rest of you can learn from to make the process faster than it was here, the bottleneck is, and remains outright production capacity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    See the link I provided in my answer to Razor.

    These days renewables are cheaper and as reliable as any other form of energy generation, but less dangerous. "Sun" is finite in the sense that it will supernova some day. Roger that. Guven that Earth has long ceased to exist then, that's infinite enough for me.*)

    As for 4) don't underestimate the power of lobby groups.

    *) See, Climate change is a global issue, but your "sun and wind is finite" aims at countries without sun/wind/water respectively. And that is certsainly true. But climate change can't be solved on a country-wide level. It must be tackled on a worldwide level. And that's where synergies come into play, trasnporting the energy from where it's (currently) produced to where it's needed. Just like it's already done with traditional energy generation.
    the problem right now is not viable sites or production cost Hel, it's scaling world production up enough to make a dent in the demand for energy.

    it's not going anywhere near quickly enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Actually, one of the negatives with renewable is the footprint to do them at scale, imo.

    Compare the footprint of, say, the Gode Wind farm with a 650Mw reactor. you are off on a space factor of several tens of magnitudes. While I think we are nowhere close to fully exploiting renewables, there are only a finite number of places wed can actually put large scale wind farms, and not start impacting, say, migratory birds in a way that is incredibly damaging to the ecosystem. Also, finite efficient space to put large scale solar. I think renewables are better art decentralizing the grid, actually, and that is energy generation at point of use. So solar and wind on every building/farm. It will offset the grid but not eliminate it, and we need a clean central source of energy generation. You cannot fully replace that with renewables in any significantly sized country, imo.
    wind's footprint is negligible in the grand scheme of things, windmills are a common sight usually on agricultural land here, the actual footprint of a 5mw mill is, at most 10x10 meters with fencing and all around the base.

    solar is another matter, but can easily be placed in areas where it doesn't affect agriculture and constructed in a way that has a minimal impact on local wildlife.
    Last edited by Liare; March 8 2019 at 07:02:03 PM.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  12. #1252
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,556
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Actually, one of the negatives with renewable is the footprint to do them at scale, imo.

    Compare the footprint of, say, the Gode Wind farm with a 650Mw reactor. you are off on a space factor of several tens of magnitudes. While I think we are nowhere close to fully exploiting renewables, there are only a finite number of places wed can actually put large scale wind farms, and not start impacting, say, migratory birds in a way that is incredibly damaging to the ecosystem. Also, finite efficient space to put large scale solar. I think renewables are better art decentralizing the grid, actually, and that is energy generation at point of use. So solar and wind on every building/farm. It will offset the grid but not eliminate it, and we need a clean central source of energy generation. You cannot fully replace that with renewables in any significantly sized country, imo.
    wind's footprint is negligible in the grand scheme of things, windmills are a common sight usually on agricultural land here, the actual footprint of a 5mw mill is, at most 10x10 meters with fencing and all around the base.

    solar is another matter, but can easily be placed in areas where it doesn't affect agriculture and constructed in a way that has a minimal impact on local wildlife.
    The reality is that 10x10 m is a massive underestimation on your part. Actual built at scale windfarms use much much much more space than that, and have some other issues as well. Gansu is probably the most famous example, more than 1000km away from the places that need the energy it produces, because that's where the usable wind + space is. Hell, we have massive wind farms in California too, but we can really only put them in a few places, and scientists have already started noting the damage to migratory bird populations.

    Simply thinking we can put a high density of windmills everywhere, or should, is faulty. they do have an ecological cost.
    meh

  13. #1253
    Venec's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Europe's Mexico - Poland
    Posts
    5,946
    For renewables you also need fuckload of battery storage power stations.

    Which are slowly becoming a thing apparently.

  14. #1254
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,087
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Actually, one of the negatives with renewable is the footprint to do them at scale, imo.

    Compare the footprint of, say, the Gode Wind farm with a 650Mw reactor. you are off on a space factor of several tens of magnitudes. While I think we are nowhere close to fully exploiting renewables, there are only a finite number of places wed can actually put large scale wind farms, and not start impacting, say, migratory birds in a way that is incredibly damaging to the ecosystem. Also, finite efficient space to put large scale solar. I think renewables are better art decentralizing the grid, actually, and that is energy generation at point of use. So solar and wind on every building/farm. It will offset the grid but not eliminate it, and we need a clean central source of energy generation. You cannot fully replace that with renewables in any significantly sized country, imo.
    wind's footprint is negligible in the grand scheme of things, windmills are a common sight usually on agricultural land here, the actual footprint of a 5mw mill is, at most 10x10 meters with fencing and all around the base.

    solar is another matter, but can easily be placed in areas where it doesn't affect agriculture and constructed in a way that has a minimal impact on local wildlife.
    The reality is that 10x10 m is a massive underestimation on your part. Actual built at scale windfarms use much much much more space than that, and have some other issues as well. Gansu is probably the most famous example, more than 1000km away from the places that need the energy it produces, because that's where the usable wind + space is. Hell, we have massive wind farms in California too, but we can really only put them in a few places, and scientists have already started noting the damage to migratory bird populations.

    Simply thinking we can put a high density of windmills everywhere, or should, is faulty. they do have an ecological cost.
    it's not.

    here's a Vestas mid-sized mill, the sort of thing usually installed in fields across the countryside on a fairly local basis and plugged into the grid, ownership is usually the local farmer, or a windmill local windmill association who funded the initial installation in exchange for cheap power.



    we're got these things placed decentrally all across the countryside in areas where it's economical, they co-exist with the usual farming acres just fine, these specific specimens are build on a old railroad, hence the gravel. but the ground acherage used is tiny, the wings don't precisely come off in the first place and they're usually placed well into the fields anyway to take advantage of ridges.

    heck, the footprint is not much larger than the buried irrigation systems that are thankfully becoming the norm.
    Last edited by Liare; March 8 2019 at 07:24:37 PM.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  15. #1255
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,556
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Actually, one of the negatives with renewable is the footprint to do them at scale, imo.

    Compare the footprint of, say, the Gode Wind farm with a 650Mw reactor. you are off on a space factor of several tens of magnitudes. While I think we are nowhere close to fully exploiting renewables, there are only a finite number of places wed can actually put large scale wind farms, and not start impacting, say, migratory birds in a way that is incredibly damaging to the ecosystem. Also, finite efficient space to put large scale solar. I think renewables are better art decentralizing the grid, actually, and that is energy generation at point of use. So solar and wind on every building/farm. It will offset the grid but not eliminate it, and we need a clean central source of energy generation. You cannot fully replace that with renewables in any significantly sized country, imo.
    wind's footprint is negligible in the grand scheme of things, windmills are a common sight usually on agricultural land here, the actual footprint of a 5mw mill is, at most 10x10 meters with fencing and all around the base.

    solar is another matter, but can easily be placed in areas where it doesn't affect agriculture and constructed in a way that has a minimal impact on local wildlife.
    The reality is that 10x10 m is a massive underestimation on your part. Actual built at scale windfarms use much much much more space than that, and have some other issues as well. Gansu is probably the most famous example, more than 1000km away from the places that need the energy it produces, because that's where the usable wind + space is. Hell, we have massive wind farms in California too, but we can really only put them in a few places, and scientists have already started noting the damage to migratory bird populations.

    Simply thinking we can put a high density of windmills everywhere, or should, is faulty. they do have an ecological cost.
    it's not.

    here's a Vestas mid-sized mill, the sort of thing usually installed in fields across the countryside on a fairly local basis and plugged into the grid, ownership is usually the local farmer, or a windmill local windmill association who funded the initial installation in exchange for cheap power.



    we're got these things placed decentrally all across the countryside in areas where it's economical, they co-exist with the usual farming acres just fine.
    Yeah, I'm a big proponent of endpoint power generation, but it's not a replacement for a 1000s of Mw plant. Apples and oranges.
    meh

  16. #1256
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,087
    no, that's what the oceanic wind farms are for, like Kriegers Flak Anholt and so forth.
    they also have the advantage of being far enough out that you're very unlikely to hit the point where there's no wind in the first place.

    worst case, we're importing hydro power from norway, who in turn import our excess wind power to pump water back up into their hydro reservoirs cheaply, beyond that plans are already in place to reduce power consumption nation wide via production shutdowns and so forth, in the supremely unlikely case it's not possible to import sufficient power.

    on a windy day like today, the whole country runs on those wind turbines, with something like 60% over production being offloaded abroad, the point is, and remains that it's possible to pull this stuff off given the will to do so.
    Last edited by Liare; March 8 2019 at 07:32:53 PM.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  17. #1257
    Lief Siddhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 15, 2011
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    6,695
    sun and wind are not infinite in the sense that there are often days and days without sun and wind. what do you want, factories to close down until it shines? rivers and lakes can dry out after a good earthquake or volcano eruption, not all countries have a sea to use seafarms, and covering large parts of territory with solar panels also fucks up the biosphere in the area because the sun is no longer being absorbed by the ground etc etc

    there IS a reason people have tried to tame animals and then moved on to other sources of power just so we dont depend on good weather and healthy animals to survive/progress, is all im saying.

    in the end scenario, renewables only might be what humans have to settle for to survive, but in that case we can forget leaving this planet ever, and using computers whenever you want and all the benefits of 21st century, it's basically going back somewhere into the first half of 20th century energy wise for the common man (if we even manage to survive until then)
    Last edited by Lief Siddhe; March 8 2019 at 09:44:55 PM.
    I was somewhere around Old Man Star, on the edge of Essence, when drugs began to take hold.

  18. #1258
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Lief Siddhe View Post
    sun and wind are not infinite in the sense that there are often days and days without sun and wind. what do you want, factories to close down until it shines? rivers and lakes can dry out after a good earthquake or volcano eruption, not all countries have a sea to use seafarms, and covering large parts of territory with solar panels also fucks up the biosphere in the area because the sun is no longer being absorbed by the ground etc etc

    there IS a reason people have tried to tame animals and then moved on to other sources of power just so we dont depend on good weather and healthy animals to survive/progress, is all im saying.

    in the end scenario, renewables only might be what humans have to settle for to survive, but in that case we can forget leaving this planet ever, and using computers whenever you want and all the benefits of 21st century, it's basically going back somewhere into the first half of 20th century energy wise for the common man (if we even manage to survive until then)
    i'd take that over regressing all the way back to the late bronze age to be honest. because, if we keep shitting CO2 into the atmosphere with wild abbandon, that's where we're going to end up.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  19. #1259
    Venec's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Europe's Mexico - Poland
    Posts
    5,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lief Siddhe View Post
    sun and wind are not infinite in the sense that there are often days and days without sun and wind. what do you want, factories to close down until it shines? rivers and lakes can dry out after a good earthquake or volcano eruption, not all countries have a sea to use seafarms, and covering large parts of territory with solar panels also fucks up the biosphere in the area because the sun is no longer being absorbed by the ground etc etc

    there IS a reason people have tried to tame animals and then moved on to other sources of power just so we dont depend on good weather and healthy animals to survive/progress, is all im saying.

    in the end scenario, renewables only might be what humans have to settle for to survive, but in that case we can forget leaving this planet ever, and using computers whenever you want and all the benefits of 21st century, it's basically going back somewhere into the first half of 20th century energy wise for the common man (if we even manage to survive until then)
    i'd take that over regressing all the way back to the late bronze age to be honest. because, if we keep shitting CO2 into the atmosphere with wild abbandon, that's where we're going to end up.
    Not even bronze age, all the meaningful, easily accessible (without modern technology) raw metal deposits are p. much gone. We're not going to have a second go at civilization if we mess up this one.
    Last edited by Venec; March 9 2019 at 06:08:34 AM.

  20. #1260
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    30,922
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lief Siddhe View Post
    sun and wind are not infinite in the sense that there are often days and days without sun and wind. what do you want, factories to close down until it shines? rivers and lakes can dry out after a good earthquake or volcano eruption, not all countries have a sea to use seafarms, and covering large parts of territory with solar panels also fucks up the biosphere in the area because the sun is no longer being absorbed by the ground etc etc

    there IS a reason people have tried to tame animals and then moved on to other sources of power just so we dont depend on good weather and healthy animals to survive/progress, is all im saying.

    in the end scenario, renewables only might be what humans have to settle for to survive, but in that case we can forget leaving this planet ever, and using computers whenever you want and all the benefits of 21st century, it's basically going back somewhere into the first half of 20th century energy wise for the common man (if we even manage to survive until then)
    i'd take that over regressing all the way back to the late bronze age to be honest. because, if we keep shitting CO2 into the atmosphere with wild abbandon, that's where we're going to end up.
    How?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •