I just read up on nuclear power.Turns out it's just yet another way to heat water and turn it into hot steam.
>>108625741All technology comes down to either spinning a wheel with steam or spinning a wheel with explosions.
>>108625753Solar panels might be the only exception.
>>108625741Power that uses steam: nuclear, coal, combined cycle gas, geothermal, concentrated solarPower that doesn't use steam: hydro, wind, solar, single cycle gas, tidal power
>still stuck on steam tech lol Noobs
>>108625741Yup.One of the more efficient ways we have of producing energy. But water is starting to be replaced with CO2 as a medium which can increase the efficiency a bit.
Fact: the sun moves by boiling water to generate power
>>108625773Oh yeah and there's oil, which can be either or both like natural gas
>>108625773Hydro and tidal are just very cold steam.Wind is just very diffuse steam.Gas there's probably some steam in the combustion byproducts.Solar it depends but solid state solar I'll give you.
>>108625773Power that turns one form of energy into another using mechanical motion: all of them
>>108625753Dis guy don't know about the piezo electric effect... haha noob
>>108625741all power generation depends on turning something.
>>108625741Not all nuclear power. One company (Helion) generates the current directly >As the plasma expands, it pushes back on the magnetic field from the machine's magnets. By Faraday's Law, the change in field induces current, which is directly recaptured as electricity, allowing Helion's fusion generator to skip the steam cycle.
>>108625741
>>108625823The human body is majority water tho.
>>108625761solar farms typically use a central furnace to, guess what, heat water and turn it into hot steam.
>>108625786can they take some of the co2 from the emissions? or is that not pure enough
>>108625741Correct, however it's not about process, it's about energy density.
>>108625741Best way of doing it, but often given bad rep because of morons watching too many Three Mile Island, Cherobyl, Fukushima, SL-1 documentariesEither because,>Bad designs>Inexperienced or poorly trained crew>Companies cheaping out>Companies dodging safety protocols>Companies taking shortcutsBut when everything runs smoothly, it's way better than windmills or solar panels can do in the same space it occupies.
>>108625852Solar towers are obsolete
>>108625852Yeah but that's besides the point.
>>108625830Lel.
>>108625741Upvoted my good sir! And take my gold while you're at it. This was a wholesome good guy greg post for the win!Obligatory XKCD
>>108625873>Bad rep>Lists a bunch of times shit went wrong, like really wrong>Silver lining is world is big enough for this to go wrong a few more times without impacting too many peopleI agree with you on this, however you have no idea how retarded you sound. Please don't try to market this shit to anyone, we're sure to never get nuclear if you're in charge of marketing
>>108625953Then go back to the coal mines.
>>108625959Coal is abundant and has no other real use. Don't mind if I do, lass.
>>108625741obviouslydoes anyone really think there's a better way to generate energy than burning rocks or boiling water?until we can make suns there will never be anything better
>>108625953and what makes you qualified to determine that otherwise? a 5 minute ChatGPT session regarding nuclear reactors and suddenly you're an 'expert' on the matter?Congratulations, print it out on paper and mount it on your refrigerator door, don't forget to frame it and tell your future kids about it.
>>108625859There are regenerators to capture CO2 emissions and convert that into electricity, yes.
>>108625930What's so funny nigga
>>108625985Determine what otherwise?I agree with you that we need nuclear
>>108625998>NiggerI'm not black, bro
>>108626017Okay but you still haven't explained what's funny
>>108625970>and has no other real useCoal can be gassified and further turned into ammonia and methanol
solar is fucking based you can absorb energy for free from a literal star and no one can stop youthe government and capitalists hate it because they can't block the sun and make it pay for it
>>108626154*builds a dyson sphere and locks you outside*what now, chud?
>>108625741Heating water is just a really efficient way to turn an arbitrary power source (which usually can output heat) into other forms of energy such as mechanical and electrical.
>>108625932well kekked, my good gentlesir
>>108625741GabeN won.>>108626164Dyson Spheres would almost certainly be Steam Machines.Astronomers should look for Steam in their telescopes.
>>108625829False
Beyond insane to put Three Mile Island and Chernobyl in the same sentence
The greatest Western policy failure of the latter 20th century was the management of nuclear power fears. Look up the history of deaths from nuclear accidents in the West. It's like Russia has a strategy of "if we're unbelievably incompetent with our nuclear power programs, we can make uneducated Westerners think that's how it is everywhere"
>>108626671Russia is whiteWesterners aren't
>>108626049This is funny:>Not all nuclear power. One company (Helion) generates the current directly>As the plasma expands, it pushes back on the magnetic field from the machine's magnets. By Faraday's Law, the change in field induces current, which is directly recaptured as electricity, allowing Helion's fusion generator to skip the steam cycle.>>108626051Is it still called coal after it's been gassified? Didn't think so.
>>108625873>>108626671Nuclear is obsolete. No reason to use it when solar and wind are cheaper and work fine with none of the risks or downsides of nuclear.
>>108626726what changed to allow wind and solar to generate power 24/7 within the same land footprint as nuclear?
>>108626753Batteries got cheaper. Wind can work at night. Nuclear doesn't work 24/7, it regularly has weeks of downtime for refuelling. Land footprint is irrelevant, there's no shortage of land.
>>108625741Supercritical CO2 is coming.
>>108625830>fusionjust two more decades!
>>108626777>Land footprint is irrelevant, there's no shortage of land.Bizarrely stupid post!
>>108626777Batteries, that's exactly the problem. Wind and solar require buffering that nuclear doesn't. The 2 weeks of refuelling every 2 years is controlled downtime. Wind and solar are uncontrollably variable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute
>>108626777>it regularly has weeks of downtimeonce every couple of years and only one reactor at a time. meanwhile the iberian blackout occurred because an inverter shat the bed.
>>108626826Renewables are working fine. Nuclear is not needed at all.
>>108626845>capacityCapacity isn't production
>>108626845non-sequitur post
>>108626845>plannedHAHAHAHAHA
>>108626853>Renewables are unreliable>Actually they work fineDon't see how that's a non-sequitur. The image is tangential yes, just posted it to show that nuclear is dead in the west and isn't needed.
>>108626865Argument doesn't logically followEvidence of current state doesn't prove it's the optimal state
>>108626860Here's the actual additions in 2025. Meanwhile no nuclear power plants built in the US in 2025, and that's a good thing.
>>108626879If it's not optimal the invisible hand will fix it
>>108626880Oops forgot the image.
>>108626691>Russia is whiteThen why are they the only ones to fuck up an entire technology for half a century?>>108626726>>108622214
>>108626892Survivorship biasThose that start more projects will suffer more failures
>>108626903Their failures were self-inflicted.>we don't need containment boris, iz russian design!
ALL OF THIS TO BOIL WATERLITERALLY SPLITTING ATOMS TO BOIL WATER
>fossil fuels bad>renewables bad>nuclear power badMeanwhile in 2025:510GW solar added globally, China accounted for 66%160GW wind added globally, China accounted for 75%20GW hydropower added globally, China accounted for 96%120GW fossil fuels added globally, China accounted for 86%5GW nuclear added globally, China accounted for 60%
>>108626903I can guarantee with 100% certainty you have no knowledge of the history of nuclear power. You probably think "Mayak" is a fashion brand
>>108625741Yes, it is a heat engine. Water just happens to be a very good application for a heat engine. It also can act as a moderator for neutrons.
>>108626726Absolutely not, Nuclear energy is a necessity for industrialized society and beyond to endure. Solar energy and wind are terrible for stable, baseline load which are a requirement for heavy industry (which is need to manufacture wind generators and photoelectric cells)
>>108625879they're low cost and more efficient than photovoltaics
>>108626931this anon knows how to kinetic energytell us how
>>108627283Yet no one builds them anymore, why is that
>>108627302enshittification, same reason why everything else sucks. did you really need to ask?
>>108627365If the market wants it it would have fixed it
>>108625741>encounter alien>"You see human, we use highly advanced anti matter reactors to generate staggering amounts of heat to create steam to-" the human engineer got a hysterical meltdown.
>>108627381the market isn't a conscious thing, it doesn't "want" anythingyou're reifying a system of retarded business and finance corpos whose only collective "goal" is to abuse economic speculation to suck in more imaginary capital
>>108627283That's not entirely true.>they're low cost and more efficient than photovoltaicsThey are higher cost if not for the sole reason that it has moving parts for regular manned maintenance and needs someone to go deal with it in a tower (expensive to construct), then there's the fact that some of the mirrors are going to be oriented wrong to not get the all the light it can harness, also they need motors in every mirror mount to orientate it (or else it misses the tower).The efficiency is better doesn't mean anything in the face of how easy it is to just one and done PV, compared to thousands of little motors and bearings that occasionally need to be regressed by hand.Even the way it can use sand or salt to store energy is a meme considering how much easier it is to store energy in a chemical battery compared to pumping metric tonnes of much lower specific energy material.Meanwhile solar PV systems is just make it and get it to sit there for 25 years (12.5 years for the lfp batteries and improving), maybe send out a technician to a faulty battery (which can be placed in neighbourhoods near where they dwell and not hundreds of miles out where the land is cheap), and clean it by a over grown roombas (which is easier to do on a perfectly flat panel).
>>108628080lifetime of PV might also be longer than people estimatedscientists recently examined a used panel from 2000 and it still provided 87% of its originally rated power
>>108627283>they're low costSolar panels are even lower cost now.
>>108628100yeah lets just cover the world in panels
>>108628141There is plenty of space for them. Nuclear uses more space than solar panels anyway.
>>108625859>This goy actually thinks Co2 emissions are a problem
>>108628158>Comparing the size of a solar farm to a uranium mineBizarreYou think the materials for solar panels just spring out of thin air you motherfucker?
>>108628169The materials used for solar panels are also used for nuclear power plants.
>>108628158The "land footprint" argument is a new desperate shilling point they've trotted out recently as solar's total victory becomes clearer and clearer. It's hilarious that nuclear actually uses more land without even considering that you can install solar panels on existing buildings or that the land that solar panels occupy can be used for agriculture.
>>108628175OK now tell me the comparative lifetime rate of material consumption per unit of electricity. I don't think you'll like the answer
>>108628185Now tell me the materials required to replace ~500,000 square kilometres of solar panels every 25-30 years, not to mention the beyond obscene amount of battery storage that would be required. Complete ignorance of material complexity.
>>108628191>>108628205They can be recycled, and they're mostly made up of glass which isn't comparable to uranium and nuclear waste.
>>108628205a fuck ton of glass and aluminium, two of the best recyclable materials we havenow look at the fuck ton of steel and concrete nuclear power plants needs, both materials are among the largest CO2 producers in the world, which you need to replace every 50 years, plus a huge constant supply of fresh water
>>108628087>lifetime of PV might also be longer than people estimatedscientists recently examined a used panel from 2000 and it still provided 87% of its originally rated powerYup.Better yet, the lifespans estimates for newer panels should be greater than the older panels using inferior tech, you can see this in the degradation rates of newer panels being lower, the only thing to worry about is if the build quality hasn't been cut to reduce costs too much. Say for example the moisture seals aren't as good and/or the back mirror/electrical conduit lines have dramatically higher corrosion with less rare earth metals like silver being replaced for copper pastes. Insurance and manufacturer warranties are weary of this risk so only recommend the standard 25 years.
>>108628205Brother the material costs is less than the panel, even in the strongest state supported manufacturers in China only get a few percent worth of support to undercut the world.
>>108625992Yeah, and you can use your diesel generators to make new diesel from the CO2 and H2O from the exhaust, but the useful energy you produce will be netnegative.Your idea is the same and should be avoided at all costs.Carbon capture for anything involving hydrocarbons is a great evil and should be fought against no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, this should be obvious to anyone with even the most basic grasp of thermodynamics.If society wants carbon capture on large scale and what it to actually be feasible we need new, plannable, energy sources with a very high EROI that don't themselves release CO2 when producing energy.
>>108625741Electricity is just hot water.That is why you can get burned by it, if you touch exposed wires.
>>108628213>>108628158Holy shit. These anti nuclear arguments are so dumb somebody has to be paying for this.
>>108628213A nuclear reactor building is mostly made of concrete and steel and can be mostly recycled, far more easily than solar PV, and as a bonus there are way less heavy metals, especially if you compare [joules produced over expected lifetime/weight] See how easy they was?
We should be combining nuclear and solar efforts for their respective strengths. Imagine how far nuclear standardisation and production speed could have come along by now were it not for ridiculous Russian-based concerns. The volume of nuclear waste produced is miniscule for the output, all the nuclear waste ever produced until today would fit in a stadium-sized warehouse.
>>108628325How about we just don't make anymore nuclear waste or toxic uranium mines and use clean renewable energy instead?
>>108626154>no one can stop youthey have collected 100m and want to trial it this year.
>>108628341>stadium-sized warehouse.Way more than that. Look at all this nuclear poo. Would've been so much worse if there was more nuclear. Nuclear needs to be phased out completely so that there isn't more nuclear poo to deal with for generations.
>>108628346The industry producing glass, aluminum, and silicon requires guaranteed capacity every hour. Solar and wind cannot guarantee this output. Batteries cannot account for this gap. What power source will be used for this industry?
>>1086281You can get acres upon acres of land unfit for much agricultural purposes cheap enough to support solar power, the fact remains it takes less than a percent to satisfy the electrical demands of the USA. This doesn't even factor into account that some of that land has buildings that can just have solar panels installed, the fact that solar panel designs continue to drop in weight so it becomes easier to install them in new and reinforced warehouse roofs, the fact that multifunction cells now can use cheaper materials to not be restrained by Shockley–Queisser limit (and it hasn't even hit the market nor be included in the calculation for land usage), the fact that the cooling and shading effects can boost the productivity of grazing land for beef and sheep in desert prone land.Now with hydrogen production and storage getting even cheaper you can even save some of the cheap summer excess in higher latitude regions, or cloudy seasons and days. So say the 20-30% lower electrical production winter periods (in my Britbong 55 degree latitude) becomes just gets a waste of 60-70% (bare in mind this is improving) of the 70-80% of the energy not produced in winter.
>>108628378nuclear waste is a scam 99% can be processed and made less harmful instead they throw it into deep cavern where it will be exposed to ground water and slowly radiate the water supply. Its stupid fear mongering and lots of greedy retards making a quick buck on both sides.
>>108628380>Solar and wind cannot guarantee this output. Batteries cannot account for this gap.Says who?
>>1086283784,000,000m3 is a lot smaller than you think it isThe leaning tower of pisa is only ~18 metres wideYour picture is literally in SUPPORT of this statement, at most maybe 2 stadiums
>>108628408You would require backup batteries with weeks of storage
>>108626154>blocks the sun in your're path
>>108628325>A nuclear reactor building is mostly made of concrete and steel and can be mostly recycled, far more easily than solar PWhy do you lie?Have you seem to deconstructing projects in Germany? Nothing is easy about it and it's taking decades.And no, .concrete isn't great for recycling, you can basically only use it as rubble. Most CO2 emissions come from making the cement, which can't be recycled.
>>108628494to be fair, nothing in Germany is quick or easy
>>108628506anything nuclear power plants is incredibly slow and expensive all over Europeincluding France which heavily uses and subsidizes nuclear power
>>108625829retvrn to tradition
>>108628378I'm a pro solar guy, but you have to be fair to modern nuclear, the figures are from Uranium reactors that use only the u235 isotope, which is miniscule in comparison to the u238 (u238 takes up 99.7% of natural uranium). So that figure takes into account all of the depleted Uranium which isn't even that dangerous, plus we've got fast reactors now that can use up this depleted Uranium. The left over waste from these designs are useful for the medical industry, can't be procured into nuclear bombs by terrorists, and last hundreds of years worth of radiation not thousands (so definitely can be cheaply buried without security).Having said all that, nuclear designs like this would have been great decades ago, but fast breeder reactors were a technical and financial challenge and we overlooked thorium designs for the same reasons plus we had the cold war (thorium designs can't produce nuclear bombs). Solar is cheaper today, and the foreseeable future, the aerospace & nuclear industry will have fusion reactors ready for their cool niche space programs. So really the best use case for fission is: to clean up the u238 we have laying around so we don't have to spend anything to keep it safe like security or radiation blocking for thousands of years, or maritime nuclear submarines and maybe cargo ships (if we want to cut down on co2 being released into the atmosphere at the expense of subsidising it).Also the cool thing about nuclear fusion is that you can directly convert the plasma into electricity (bypassing the stage for turbines like steam ones and being cheaper/more efficient to do).Please don't talk about the hurdles to get to net gain reactors or an economic model, ITER are building a old design that can do net gain, newer designs like commonwealth fusion can show case net gain for cheaper & faster, if superconductor research alone progresses it would shrink reactor designs even further.
>>108628523All you're talking about is technology that doesn't really work or no ones want to pay to build and use in a large scale.We still accumulate nuclear waste and nuclear fusion is far from being practical and the most successful designs use stuff that's even nastier than uranium.
>>108628513slow and expensive because of the political opposition and lack of ongoing industry. As anything would be in that situation
>>108628570>political opposition to nuclear>in France
>>108626154>the government and capitalists hate it because they can't block the sun and make it pay for itAs someone who makes room for pretty liberal markets with the caveat of state intervention and appropriate taxation, I don't hate it, it's just that a lot of people America (and some around the world) has put all it's points into petro chemicals and refuses to give up the fact that it's dying (lower & lower energy return on investment) and had major flaws (long logistics supply chain issues that need to be constantly ran to be cheap, through places that just hate us for the fucked up shit we do to keep it running). But we revolutions are bloody things, so I bided my time mostly for the markets to catch up.
>>108628599Political opposition and lack of ongoing nuclear industry across the West has impacts on global supply chains and expertise, yes. Countries do not function in a vacuum.
Jesus christ. More solar retards who don't even have arrays. It's not scalable. It's barely scalable for a fucking modern home, let alone a city, mass industry, etc.It's happeningfag tier delusion to think that there's some grand conspiracy instead of the fact that it simply isn't worth the squeeze. If there's one thing you can count on people to give a fuck about it's their wallet, and solar doesn't affect it enough, that's it. Shocking I know.
>>108628638What is blud wafflin on about. Solar won, theres no conspiracy or debate about that at all>>108626936>>108626888>>108626888What the discussion is centered on is nuclear proponents desperately wanting us to cling on to toxic obsolete inferior technology that is nuclear.
>>108628654Won at what? Wasting money? Using up vast amounts of land for dismal output?
>>108628670>Wasting money?Nuclear definitely won big time there. Hundreds of billions wasted managing nuclear waste over the decades.>Using up vast amounts of landAlready established that nuclear won there too >>108628158Not only uses it up, but actually actively makes it uninhabitable, while solar can improve the land it's on.
>>108628698>while solar can improve the land it's onhow?
>>108628541Like I said at the start, I'm a pro solar guy. What I was doing there is saying the point you previously bought up about nuclear waste is vastly exaggerated.>All you're talking about is technology that doesn't really work or no ones want to pay to build and use in a large scale.Fast breeder reactors do work, even if they were not economical it is barely so considering it's strengths, they can eat most of the old waste from old u235 reactors. Here in the UK for example the government are funding these reactors to eat up our waste.I will reiterate and further explain on what I was talking about before, nuclear reactors aren't just nuclear reactors, they can produce isotopes that are useful for cancer treatments and scanners.>nuclear fusion is far from being practical and the most successful designs use stuff that's even nastier than uranium.On the timescales required of getting nuclear fission production ready for mass manufacture, it is highly likely we will have nuclear fusion designs ready for niche use cases like space missions. Solar doesn't make sense for Mars based, fusion reactors can also dramatically cut down on flight times to Mars and other space destinations and means astronauts aren't as exposed to space radiation because they get there so quickly, the weight reduction and subsequent weight reduction (food+water+less radiation shielding), is worth it.In aviation it's also worth cutting down on fuel weight. You have a scope of hundreds of tonnes of fuel, if you can get a reactor plus bolstered landing gears within that weight (smaller weight begets smaller thrust needed for lift) you can get airliners that fly faster and cheaper even if the energy itself isn't cheaper. If that reactor and the the magneto hydrodynamics is aerodynamic and efficient enough you can further reduce weight (higher lift to drag ratio) and therefore cost.
>>108625753There are other approaches, but inventors that look into them have a (((mysterious))) habit of being unalived at (((random))).
>>108628811Solar grazing and some agriculture.
>>108628698It doesn't make it uninhabitable. Are you living in a 1965 scifi horror flick? Even Chernobyl is habitable. How does solar improve land? By blocking out the sun? By percolating chemicals? And for what, so you can power a tiny home cabin. Get real fella!>nooo its world changing tech it's just a global conspiracy to keep it hidden!Yes yes much more likely
>>108628811Saves on water + livestock feed costs for farming if you space it correctly, so it's good for drought prone regions limited by water (tends to be where solar panels make the most economic sense even without this effect).
>>108628638imagine still spreading solar FUD in 2026 when its literally already deployed at scale. fucking retard.
>>108628849I was referring to the uranium mines required for nuclear.
>>108628929Although nuclear power itself and its waste byproducts also have the potential to render land uninhabitable.
>>108628638It takes less than 1% of land in the USA to produce it's electricity.
>>108628935No they don't, that's pure scaremongering.But then all the anti-nuclear arguments are based on lies and irrational fears.
>>108628929And so what?Mines only use land temporary, after extracting the ore they place the overburden and top soil back so you can farm or do whatever you want on that land.
>>108625953>IT WENT WRONG>REALLY WRONG>less deaths than coal>less environmental damage than coallolLMAOFaggot.
>>108629261Those mines need to be operational and occupy land for nuclear to work. Closing the mines would entail shutting down nuclear capacity. Anyway I'm doubtful remediating and reclaiming the land those mines are on is that simple, considering how extremely toxic they are.
>>108628494>Why do you lie?>Have you seem to deconstructing projects in Germany? Nothing is easy about it and it's taking decades.It's true in the same way most of solar PV is recyclable. The vast majority of the steel is reclyable without any issue. >And no, .concrete isn't great for recycling, you can basically only use it as rubble. Most CO2 emissions come from making the cement, which can't be recycled.Yes, rubble and fillers, that's how many things are "recycled".
>>108625812Solar cell no, it uses photoelectric effect
>>108629302You clearly have no idea how mining works.
>>108629386Do you imagine that nuclear will magically work with no uranium mines?
>>108625741too much pollutioj look at all the smoke
>>108625741You can also use supercritical CO2 or something. But it is similar. (Not quite ready yet).Heat is just the easiest type of energy to create because of thermodynamics. So it is going to keep being a thing. Even fusion reactors will likely use something similar.
>>108625830starship enterprice engine but what happens at warp
>halfway through the thread>no one posted it yetI know this board is dead like the rest of the site but come the fuck on now
Also obligatory
>>108625829clamp it to your nipples
>>108625788>the sun movesWhere does it move to?
>>108628353of course it's the jewsevery single time
>>108630091It's energy moves to all of the planets. Water is the key.
>>108628185>you can install solar panels on existing buildings or that the land that solar panels occupy can be used for agriculture.good luck with all the toxins leaching out of solar panels
>>108628221CO2 is plant food
>>108628494>germanistan as an argumentLMAOOOOOOOO
>>108628541>All you're talking about is technology that doesn't really work or no ones want to pay to build and use in a large scale.China is already trialing LFTR reactors, technology that was ready in the 1950's but got buried because it can't be used to produce nukes
>>108625753Photovoltaics can do visible light but also infrared (albeit it doesn't make economic sense with current technology). Linear motors can also turn motion from pushing a metal rod through an indicator. Plasma charge can be turned into electricity without any of those. Everything I mentioned (bar photovoltaics and possibly fusion) in the future has very few niche use cases, but it is the future so who knows what wild card can reawaken interest in translating power with them.
>>108628080On the flipside, what you say is not entirely true, because it ignores the gap at large scales and long timescales (80+ years). Both of these are critical contexts to civic infrastructure. It's true the upfront cost of solar is cheaper, but when you look at long term maintenance at utility-scale they fall behind massively. Inverters have to be replaced every 12 years, batteries have an even shorter lifespan. A solar field producing 400MW (matching solar tower output) needs a massive battery array and a shitload of inverters. The modularity looks cheap until you of course realize that replacing one panel doesn't fix the others. This of course is moot, because panels are scrapped and replaced before they hit the end of their life. The upfront "cheapness" only makes sense when optimizing for eternal economic inflation, and refurbishing a solar tower costs less than replacing an entire solar field, which again, happens long before they hit the end of their 35 year lifespan. And that's before we get to the part where modern PV farms have increasing mechanical complexity as they rely on robotic cleaning which introduced even more maintenance costs.PVs make sense for small scales and areas that can't support solar towers (which is most areas). From a thermodynamics perspective they just can't compete. For a system that works on hedging against future value and hates specialized local labor, PVs end up being attractive. Hence why the larger picture tends to be swept under the rug. Doesn't fit so nicely in the globalism trade scheme that very much wants you to ignore the gnashing teeth of entropy closing the gap.
>>108631030Where are you getting 80+ years for the tower from? Most sources I find suggest 50years at most with good anti corrosion practice?Grid Batteries don't last less than inverters because of improvements in LFP cells (lasts 12.5 years with calender aging). The LFP cells in the future generation will last +20years with PTFE coating in anode particles. Similar to the motors in the helio stat that last 20-30 years. And one bad cell isn't the cost killer for an array, they can be further divided into sub packs that can be disabling a particular section until a technician goes to replace that cell. That strongly probably won't even happen. Also you can unlock economies of scale that you just can't with solar thermal with good contracts or public awareness of prices, think home battery's and electric cars. Meanwhile you have to move sand or salts around with thermal solar.Cleaning solar PV is even easier than cleaning thermal solar mirrors because they don't move around, you need something simpler than a room a and tracks for it to go around.And the most regular maintenance for solar thermal is specialized mechanically orientated technicians checking it the turbine yearly for damage.If everyone just accepted the net gain of minimising specialized labour, we'd all have the same stuff if we choose political system adaptations to just divide it up fairly, that will allow us to just do other stuff or nothing at all.The difference in storage costs doesn't bridge the huge gap in price per watt of an entire utility solar array even when accounting for storage costs ($0.065 – $0.082 PV Vs $0.075 – $0.100 solar thermal). This doesn't even take into account that battery, PV, and inverter have a much greater road to improvement, longer lifespans (inverters that run even cooler with solid polymer caps and higher switching frequency so they run cooler), less material usage including rare ones (think lithium to Sodium ion transition).
>>108628378Note that only the high level waste lasts generations.The rest decays to safe levels in a matter of decades.So it's a 21m x 21m x 21m cube.That is really tiny.But nah let's just fuck up our climate instead I'm sure future generations would prefer that over a few shipping containers of spicy stuff....
Speaking of wheels small scale consumer flywheels when?
>>108631888What reinforced concrete and steel structure are you tearing down every 50 years in the desert? It doesn't sound like you're finding very good sources. "80+ years" isn't a specific timescale pegged to solar towers, it's me telling you that short-sightedness introduces unsoundness and is a half-truth.>The LFP cells will last +20years.And it's still a maintenance burden that scales with size. Solar towers get off-peak power production by virtue of their design.>And one bad cell isn't the cost killer for an arrayI explicitly called out the modularity fallacy, where failure is almost always rhetorically scoped to the same granularity of the modularity. One battery dead one day. one battery dead the next. a single battery has gone bad in both instances, but we're not looking at a single bad battery all the same.As for the rest of it, you can consider that the number of PV panels has an unfavorable ratio to the motorized mirrors driving a solar tower. Each individual panel may be less fussy than a mirror, but it's another manifestation of the same flawed logic in the modularity fallacy, disregarding the cascading sum.>If everyone just accepted the net gain of minimising specialized labourThe "net gain" is nothing but driving up a single unit on an incomplete spreadsheet in the most naïve fashion. The fungibility of labor actively detracts from the quality of society. You are trading off the most important thing, the core reason we build any of this, for a meaningless abstraction.Of course it's irrelevant to all of this, because even on a more honest spreadsheet, PV doesn't win in this domain. Only the naïve, narrow view which is constructed to hide the shortcomings is it the case that PV makes sense where a solar tower is viable. While it might be true in the sense that those with power over capital will it into existence, the proposition that solar towers are deprecated isn't based on any technical reality. Just a political one.
>>108625741Then riddle me this faglord, how do you convert heat energy into electrical energy in the most efficient way possible?
>>108625753Wait until OP finds out about the inclined plane
>>108628834>unalivedYou need to go back to the youtube comment section
>>108625741Alien "You see, unlike Earthling technology, our power generation is very efficient. We use this antimatter reactor to generate heat which we use to boil water, and the steam tur-"Engineer: [SCREAMING]
>>108625852Anon said solar panels not solar farms
>>108629929Rest of the galaxy knows Earth as the waterpunk planet
>>108625873>Companies cheaping out>Companies dodging safety protocols>Companies taking shortcutsDid we fix this behavior since last catastrophe or are we just gonna keep entrusting things to people who want to make the most money, damn the consequences?
We do have other methods that don't rely on spinning a wheel to generate electricity but they still need further research and require precise equipment.
>>108632735I never understood how that works, if light is a combination of a multitude of colors (wavelengths) then why do we need a unique wavelength for each material? Can't the electron just absorb the wavelength it needs from a normal light source?
>>108632778>>>/sci/
>>108625830>As the plasma expandsfusion doesnt create power only consumes it
>>108632802>fusion doesn't create powerYou need a college degree to post here.
>>108632802>fusion doesnt create powerGo outside. Stare at the sun for a while.Now you are blind, but at least you briefly saw a working fusion system that creates power!
>>108632778because a photon changes the power level of the electron depending on its frequency. if the frequency is high enough to make the electron's power level go over 9000, it will go super saiyan and be able to escape its orbital
>>108632914>>108632840if you need more power to start and sustain the reaction than it outputs it is not creating power
>>108632932I get that part, what I am asking is why do we need a certain special photon for that to happen when a normal light source should already include such a photon in its frequency range.
>>108632933inb4; >>108632840
>>108628213EROEI
>>108625741we need efficient rectennas for the UV and visible spectrums
>>108632954https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energy#Electron_binding_energyyou don't need a special photon. you just need the photon to have high enough energy for the target atom. a gamma ray would work on all atoms i believe
>>108628404>99% can be processedOk, how?
>>108625761>Literally able to absorb power from the sunThis shit is so surreal to me how people are so violently against this. We literally grow corn to turn into gas, wtf are we doing?
>>108625799>Hydro and tidal are just very cold steam.Or steam is just very warm hydro. Not so clever now, are ya.
>>108625753>>108625761piezo electric crystals don't need to spin desu
>>108628378yeet nuclear poops into space with a railgunout of sight out of mindwallah
>>108634856>how people are so violently against thisIt's a mystery.
>>108632418>One battery dead one day. one battery dead the next. a single battery has gone bad in both instancesthat's not the failure mode for the 20+ year figure, in reality they last much longer albeit with less capacity, that means you can use simple bms data collection and extrapolation to manage what you demand from that cluster (it's not that energy or cost intensive for something less than a raspberry pi), in this way your unit can choose and alert you remotely of what to expect and plan your maintenance around it, heck the power and cost requirements to track voltage data on an individual cell is nothing in the face of modern monitoring units. all this is included in the cost figures.>The "net gain" is nothing but driving up a single unit on an incomplete spreadsheet in the most naïve fashion. The fungibility of labor actively detracts from the quality of society. You are trading off the most important thing, the core reason we build any of this, for a meaningless abstraction.Labor only stays fungible it the person doing it doesn't pursue the mystery in life and instead opts for quick hits of dopamine, when we make a decision that frees up human time, we're more free to pursue the mystery of life. underneath all the anger and confusion in the world, there's a silent flow of people realizing that even with all the wealth inequality, it's alright.
>>108628654>toxicSolar proponents ignore how their panels don't work when the sun isn't shining and they generate numbers about cost/co2/pollution by not capturing storage in those numbers.Out here in the real world where you're replacing entire arrays of batteries in rotation every few years, GWh for GWh, your batteries are generating 2000 tons of unrecyclable toxic waste every 20 years for every quarter ton of waste the nuke plant is casking up. You're strip mining 60,000 tons of Earth for that initial GWh worth of storage, while a Uranium mine is moving all of 135 tons. And that's just the Lithium I don't even feel like getting into the copper/graphite/cobalt/etc that comes with the battery chemistries.
>>108634856Yeah crazy that people would be for or against a technology based on its practical effects rather than on reddit tier philosophical arguments>Literally able to absorb power from the sunYikes
