>>16778662
Low energy density nonsense made up by leftist twats insulated from their appalling voting choices by nepotism.
Perhaps dyson swarms if a kind in the far future once we return to fossil fuels and nuclear for many centuries could be an economical use of solar energy in bulk power.

>solarpunk
These pastoral arts always had me wondering where tf the solar panels and wind turbines are coming from in those deindustrialized worlds.

>>16778673
Everyone who lives on a homestead I know thinks industry is cool lol.

>>16778668
Nah solar PV works fine and is only getting better, it won't replace everything but its no joke either I think its gonna be popular for grids close to the equator.

>>16778673
They also depict rural lifestyles despite rural locations already being filled with greenery and not really needing floating windmills or many more solar panels than what they can fit on their houses already. Solar punk like this is already real if you want to move to a farm basically and solarpunk like this won't do anything to vast majority of world population that has to live in some kind of a city. Unless the plan is to kill almost everyone first of course it's just not feasible to house people in low density style like that and to maintain technology at the same time.

>>16778662
no because deser environmentalists wont allow 5% of our deserts to be covered in panels to power the country because some random tarantulas and cacti might have their lives improved with some permanent shade

>>16778662
no because 'scientists' have determined that the best way for 'science' to go is to have everyone live in densely populated cities where more interaction = more 'science'

>>16778688
and by 'scientists' i mean actually sociologists

>>16778668
We could produce 3x the net global energy use of today with 0,5% of the Earths sparesely populated areas. You're probably one of those faggots who judge ideas by who they're associated with.

water wheels & windmills
>based rural trve tradenergy feared by jews

wind power plants & solar panels
>low energy density asinine cucked hippie libtard agenda spread by jews

oil & nuclear
>ultra based Allah complying energy that puts f'oids in their place and communist killing gamma rays that conspired to make Gorbatjev lose face

>>16778676
> better, it won't replace everything but its no joke either
That’s what I said. No use for grids but useful in isolation.

>>16778662
>Can we finally solve the energy crysis and live in harmony with the planet?
No. There is no "energy crisis". It's a made up problem. There's also nothing more profoundly and revoltingly delusional than trying to portray the Technological System as this kawaii, nature loving green enterprise. Its very existence is a declaration of war against nature. Any variation on the idea of a technological system that "lives in harmony" with the planet is not only technically deluded, but logically and philosophically incoherent. The moment you are willing to live in harmony with the planet, advanced technology becomes unnecessary.

>>16778710
> judge ideas by who they're associated with.
I judge it by economics. Using intuition and reading a few papers I can present this argument:
Papers on comparing prices of grid solar and grid coal frequently and most egregiously present their figures without accounting for climate subsidies on solar and carbon taxes on coal, not even considering that chinese exported solar has been heavily subsidised to start with. Costs of the mandatory energy storage for solar are usually included, but given favourable conditions and not robust (winter PV output is easily a tenth of boilerplate capacity).
Intuition wise, if we take at face value the claims that wind or solar are genuinely, subsidies and taxes normalized, several times cheaper than coal: Why did these technologies take over the grid many decades ago, when they reached cost competitiveness? O&G, energy, and investment companies all have big finance departments, all of them would’ve seen this cheaper form of energy production and adopted it to undercut the completions energy prices.

We can conclude from these thoughts that solar, and renewables as a whole were not historically cheaper than coal, and given the heavy subsidies going on today; clearly are still not.

I.e you wouldn’t need to give me free money and tax my enemies if my product is clearly so much better.

>>16778673
Woodpunk hopecore.

>>16778710
>judge ideas by who they're associated with.
Unless you're an expert in the relevant fields, this is what you should always do. Reaching this correct conclusion requires a level of self-awareness and systems thinking that are unattainable for sub-130-IQ "rational skeptics" and other simpletons like you.

>>16778739
And externalities from fossil fuels - are they to be baked into the cost of the fuel or to be borne by taxing the populace?

>>16778662
No. We NEVER have enough energy. It doesn't matter how much energy we produce, we always use more. If we have energy to spare then we waste it on neon signs, fountains, rockets and LLM superclusters. We will continue to devour all the energy stored in fossil fuels until they run out and poison the air, then we'll go nuclear until that runs out and poisons the water, then we'll go nuclear war.

File: beaver gnawing on tree.webm (3.52 MB, 1280x720)

3.52 MB WEBM

>>16778673
beaverpunk woodplants

>>16778739
>Papers on comparing prices of grid solar and grid coal frequently and most egregiously present their figures without accounting
Fossil fuels get by far the largest subsidies out of any energy generation form and those are categorically not included in their prices.
>winter PV output is easily a tenth of boilerplate capacity
Capacity factor is included in the analysis always, winter doesn't come as a surprise to anyone.
>Why did these technologies take over the grid many decades ago
They did, renewables have surpassed coal installations for almost 2 decades now. If there was some kind of bob the builder magic man that could build things instantly and without any additional cost then the entire grid would have phased out coal a while ago, in the real world things take time to build so coal is being phased out over time.
>I.e you wouldn’t need to give me free money and tax my enemies if my product is clearly so much better.
Fossil fuels receive by far the largest subsidies out of any energy sector so that basically ends them as viable alternative in your eyes I suppose.

>>16778668
Economically fossil fuels stop making sense in just 20 years. It becomes more and more expensive to mine the same areas. Meanwhile solar just needs more land and can go literally anywhere (car roofs, baloneys, backyards, City Hall roofs, middle of the desert, etc. And on top of that solar is getting cheaper and more efficient. Soon electric cars will outcompete gas cars altogether. They are already almost the same range. In the next 5 years we'll start seeing electric cars with better mileage that gas cars. Eventually the oil and gas industries are going to need a bail out. (They basically get one every republican presidency anyway)

>>16778753
So dont think for yourself, just follow the marching orders.. What about people with self-respect, though?

>>16778662
The truth is we don't really need electricity to live everyday life. Overreliance on it is a modern mistake, like banning child labor, refined sugars and seed oils.
>Sent from within the comfy confines of my air conditioned room.

>>16778662
>Solar energy
That's called biofuel but the hippies don't like that.

>>16778719
Nah it's pretty good on power grids, where I live its already second fiddle to natural gas and rising. It's just logistically clusterfucked due to intermittency, in raw cost per kwh its second to none if you live in a desert.

>>16778698
This future seems so nice until you realize this city is in greenland and all those windmills are because they ran out of hydrocarbons

>>16778863
Fossil fuels aren't "subsidized" - more that we don't include the cost of part an infinitesimally small part of Florida going underwater into each gallon of gasoline yet. Wind and solar also have greatly inflated capacities because they are inherently intermittent, a wind and solar heavy grid has a lot more redundancy than a traditional one. Part of that redundancy is usually gas burning plants to maintain load when the weather doesn't cooperate, so it doesn't even fully kick fossil fuels.

Things will get better, but reality will stay gay and stupid for decades to come.

>>16779700
moreover, there are still a lot of places in places with poor climates for wind and solar better off focusing on nuclear power, and the world's largest source of energy (petroleum) isn't even used for generating electricity that much so all this alternative electricity stuff doesn't do SHIT to reduce consumption of the most popular fossil fuel.

>>16779700
>>16779703
I'm one of those people who knows climate change is going to screw things up, but I've also done the math and I know we are kind of stuck with fossil fuels.

It should be disturbing, but I can't help but think how interesting this situation will be to explain to kids when we are all old.

>>16779700
Fossil fuels are massively subsidies directly and indirectly. It's just unarguable.
>Wind and solar also have greatly inflated capacities because they are inherently intermittent
Night is not a surprise to people who build solar, completely non argument, it's baked into the price.
>so it doesn't even fully kick fossil fuels.
Yet another non argument. Reduction in fossil fuels is good, just because something doesn't completely eliminate it doesn't mean it's not better than just burning fossil fuels. It's sort of wild that fossil fuel shills use this "solar is bad because you still have to burn gas sometimes which is bad so we may as well not use solar and just burn gas all the time am I right fellow non sponsored by the gas utility posters". Batteries and things like pumped hydro and transmission infrastructure minimize and eliminate that factor too.

>>16779706
I'm not opposed to wind and solar you mong, I'm being honest about what we are going to be stuck with.

Are you Australian? Your country has the best resources for wind and solar in the world and even there your government is planning gas peaker plants.

>>16779708
Well you are being honest in exact same way a fossil fuel shill is honest. I don't know what that tells about you. If you were arguing in bad faith then know that your arguments came from a shill and are in fact retarded as demonstrated by my post. Consider your concession accepted on that matter.

>>16779708
Also no, batteries do not replace gas peaking.

Buying enough batteries for the night: viable!

Buying enough batteries for a cloudy week: joke!

You need the plant anyways just for that one week of the year. Realistically you end up with a triple system of solar PV, battery, and a gas peaker.

>>16779713
I literally wrote a model for this, this is just how shit works, no utility in the world is going to try rawdogging wind and solar without a peaker. Realistically, for a lot of them that peaker is going to be more of a load follower if those extra few hours of battery storage are too expensive.

>>16779717
Again I explained why that's a non argument. You are making a strawman about how electricity generation works. Solar with gas peaker is better than just gas. You can't argue that we should use gas by saying that solar is bad because sometimes you may need to use gas. You don't have an argument saying that but sometimes solar needs gas (which it doesn't always need and needs less and less with batteries, other forms of storage and improved transmission infrastructure)

>>16778662
You can't replace diesel fuel used in mining and transportation with solar panels

>>16779718
Solar with a peaker is better, I never said we should be using 100% gas. I support solar and wind entirely and I believe in their potential but their actual implementation requires attention to detail. For some climates I don't even think they are good idea, but for most of the world it seems like focusing them is the best use of money.

Since I know the type you are, a BASELOAD geothermal or NUCLEAR plant providing CLEAN FIRM POWER does not need gas peaking.

Are you gonna yell at me now?

yeah but it will be less green
Plants need co2 and sun. Solar needs sun and replaces co2

>>16779723
>I never said we should be using 100% gas.
Your arguments come directly from a gas utility flier again sorry if that's you being in your honest mode I simply do not believe you. Consider your concession accepted on this matter again if you were being honest but merely so retarded that you had to have both your argument demolished and this explanation repeated to you twice before you got it.

>>16779726
Your just using buzzwords to say new technology will fix things. I don't know why you sound so comfortable being condescending when you are clearly the one handwaving things way.

>>16779728
Which one of the words in my post do you believe is a buzzword, none of my posts include handwaving either.

>>16779729
BATTERIES AND TRANSMISSION

HNNNNNNNNNNNG

>>16779730
Batteries store energy, transmission moves energy from place to place. Both of these help transfer energy from production to consumption even when the local solar or wind is not producing as much as you may want. Neither requires any new magical tech either, they are both being built as we speak. Let's chalk that up to you being retarded again.

>>16779734
Except area-wide wind and solar droughts of several days happen.

Fundamentally all wind and solar is a function of penetration, as the market share of intermittent renewables approaches 100%, you require increasingly large amounts of batteries and transmission for a shrinking percentage.

Gas turbines sidestep this entirely, so in the real world there is always an optimum where however much we value not burning gas does not exceed the cost of removing the remaining gas, along with a small cost penalty for needing to pay for a fleet of peakers (not too bad honestly but measurable).

In some areas with poor climates for wind and solar, all combinations come out ahead of the cost of a nuclear fleet, so nuclear essentially caps the cost of decarbonizing because wind and solar can USUALLY do better, but if they can't nuclear will work anywhere.

>>16779738
>Except area-wide wind and solar droughts of several days happen.
Again this is the third time I'm repeating this, this is not an argument.
We should not use gas because solar may need gas sometimes and gas is bad so solar is bad so we need to use gas all the time.
Solar with gas sometimes is better than gas and solar with gas less times is better than solar with gas sometimes. This is not an argument.

>Fundamentally all wind and solar is a function of penetration, as the market share of intermittent renewables approaches 100%, you require increasingly large amounts of batteries and transmission for a shrinking percentage.
Not an argument either. Again demanding 100% or we may as well go back to gas because using 1% gas is so bad that using 100% gas is somehow better is peak retarded shill speak. You are making this strawman for the third time now.

>Gas turbines sidestep this entirely, so in the real world there is always an optimum where however much we value not burning gas does not exceed the cost of removing the remaining gas, along with a small cost penalty for needing to pay for a fleet of peakers (not too bad honestly but measurable).
4th time making this same strawman. Grid with less gas is better than grid with more gas. You can't use the idea that gas is bad to advocate for gas.

>In some areas with poor climates for wind and solar
Climate or night isn't a surprise to anyone building renewables, this is your 2nd time making this same retarded argument.

Please stop repeating stuff that you already conceded on.

>>16779740
IM NOT DEMANDING TO GO TO 100% GAS YOU FUCKING IDIOT

>>16779741
This is the third time I'm reminding you but that argument came directly from a gas utility flier again sorry if that's you being in your honest mode I simply do not believe you. Consider your concession accepted on this matter again if you were being honest but merely so retarded that you had to have both your argument demolished and this explanation repeated to you three times before you got it.

>>16779743
i don't even know what to tell you, steel companies say steel is stronger than aluminium, that doesn't mean its not fucking true

>>16779744
The difference is that your arguments are retarded and easily demolished as proven by my posts here. Again the fact that you are unironically making the argument that solar is bad because sometimes it needs gas and because of that we need to go back to gas is why you are retarded.

File: shit.jpg (47 KB, 1536x864)

47 KB JPG

>>16779745

>>16779746
For your benefit Ill explain it to you the 4th and final time. The only material difference between you and fossil fuel industry shill is that you claim not to be a shill. You post the same arguments and use the same tactics, it should be stressed that all shills also claim not to be shills, that's the primary difference between a shill and a more honest advertisement. Now one may believe you when you first said that you aren't one if not for the fact that you keep repeating the same strawmans and the same non arguments that got blown out earlier already. You loose the "i'm merely ignorant and was making a mistake" defense the moment when you repeat the same thing you just got blown out mere minutes ago as if nothing happened. That either leaves you as paid actor which is likely or simply a retard. If you are retarded here's a career tip, you could be being paid for posts that you are making by a gas utility, your posts already come straight out of their own material. If you are a shill then good job I guess.

>>16779752
>hey here is how this thing works i think its pretty coo-

>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA SHILL SHILL SHILL SHILL SHILL

maybe I just think how this shit works is cool?

>>16779752
>>16779760
seriously, you need mental help or something, this is wind and solar planning 101 and you are telling me I work for the Exxon KGB. Of course the gas companies use this for marketing, that doesn't mean its not fucking true.

Eve more honestly of the gas companies are still on "wind and solar don't work and climate change may not exist we don't know" because they know reducing the capacity factor of their plants by turning them into wind and solar balancers will hurt gas demand just fine even though phasing it out isn't on the table.

>>16779696
The bigger shock is that farmer is younger than 60

https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/2022-census-agriculture-impacts-next-generations-farmers

>>16779760
You are a shill because I had to repeat the thing you got instantly blown out for 4 times. This is now the 5th time I explained it to you. Again the cool thing you posted got blown out and I didn't call you a shill then, I just blew you out because you were wrong assuming you were ignorant. I call you a shill because you doubled down, which seems to be the factually correct decision.

>>16779766
I wanted to explain an engineering thing most everyone knows and you somehow made it tribal.

You are kind of a fucking idiot.

>>16778755
>>16778755
>>16778755
ANSWER ME

>>16779771
Taxing the fuels would incentivize alternatives, it would get the market to actually fix the problem.

>>16779770
Again the issue is that you got blown out and then you doubled down. This is a problem shared by shills and retards equally but I don't believe a retard needs to be told 6 times to understand something as basic as that.
Next time go "hey that's my mistake" or something, maybe start a new thread and abandon this one and leave it at that instead of doubling down if you don't want to be exposed like this.

>>16779771
I thought you merely making a point and didn't expect an answer. It's a matter of political preference if you want energy to be subsidized but for the matter of discussion obviously subsidies paid by the tax payer have to be included into the calculations for the true cost of any system

>>16779773
What is there to understand. I genuinely can't tell me what you want me to know besides "shills say the same things as you".

I literally fucking modeled its not that hard to figure out with a computer, I didn't know this was one of those issues with no right answer like some kind of a religion.

>>16779778
>I genuinely can't tell
I know
I can't fix your IQ remotely and I can't get you fired from being a shill so regardless which is the underlying cause there's nothing I can do about your situation. I can merely post a warning like this which I know annoys you if you are a retard and annoys your employers if you are a shill. The downside of a forum like this is someone who doubles down on being retarded like you is practically speaking invincible.

>>16779773
>for the matter of discussion obviously subsidies paid by the tax payer have to be included into the calculations for the true cost of any system
it's not completely clear what you're referring to here - energy sources with externalities, or what?

>>16778662
I'm an environmental engineer. it's not even just about green house gas, pollution, oxygen depletion, over heating, ozone depletion. humans just existing and their structures and land development destroys natural habitat because all of that shit has to replace something that was already living in the area.

besides that, yes it's possible but we currently don't have the technology to support billions of people indefinitely but we hope we will be able to soon because other wise civilization as we know it will be changed (not in a good way) or destroyed

>>16779778
shit man, go on and live your miserable life I am convinced there is something genuinly wrong with you.


For everyone else who doesn't want to scroll up here is the best explanation of how it works:

Wind and solar are intermittent, so we only get power when its windy and sunny. Usually, these periods of no power are less than 24 hours or localized so they can be carried by importing power from another location and batteries. However area-wide wind and solar droughts of several days can happen. It is not considered acceptable to be unable to meet demand for these periods. Usually, utilities rely on gas turbines for these periods.

Fundamentally all wind and solar is a function of penetration, as the market share of intermittent renewables approaches 100%, you require increasingly large amounts of batteries and transmission for a shrinking fraction of the time severely hurting the economics. A 60% wind and solar grid will have far more in common with a 30% wind and solar grid than a 90% wind and solar grid. (assuming the climate is good)

Gas turbines sidestep this entirely, so in the real world there is always an optimum where however much we value not burning gas does not exceed the cost of removing the remaining gas, along with a small cost penalty for needing to pay for a fleet of peakers (not too bad honestly but measurable).

In some areas with poor climates for wind and solar, all combinations come out ahead of the cost of a nuclear fleet, so nuclear essentially caps the cost of decarbonizing because wind and solar can USUALLY do better, but if they can't nuclear will work anywhere.

This can be found out with simple computer models and is generally how real-world utilities interesting in minimizing fossil fuel use are planning.

either way, who ever is around when civilization has to adapt to a planet that can no longer support billions of people, it's not like they are going to miss all the animals that died in the mass extinction. we right now don't miss the dinosaurs and no one gives a fuck about wooly mammoths. they won't give a fuck that elephants or fairy shrimp went extinct either.

>>16779785
Yeah, conservation. Not fucking power engineering. Don't tell me how my shit works and I won't tell you how your shit works.

>>16778677
Quite a few people live off the grid already, many not by choice but becasue of the sheer cost of running grid energy to their remote property.
Its manageable in the right circumstances. My friend lives on a farm block entirely powered by a 12 volt electrical system supplied by a combo of solar panels and a small hydro scheme ( literally gravity fed pipes from a spring in the hills). If he had no hills and no spring then it would be a lot harder. He also has his own source of firewood. Cooking and water heating is done on a fire stove. LPG in gas bottles provides a back up.
Even then it requires constant work, care, monitoring and maintenance. For the right sort of person in good health this is not a problem, in fact sometimes its a net positive of the lifestyle. Splitting and stacking your own wood on a beautiful summer's day? That's the life! But sometimes its a pain in the ass, The water has stopped running? Oh good, off you go in the middle of a windy cold rainy night to unblock the water filters at the spring in the hills. Got a bad case of the flu? Too bad. See you in four hours after you are done trudging through mud and your hands are frozen, scratched to shit, and covered in muck. This is something which is beyond the squeeze of the dreamers.

>>16779786
NTA but I am now also confused by what your point is.

>>16779786
You have repeated these arguments above and got blown out already.

>>16779796
>>16779798
I have no point, I am simply stating how things work because I think its neat. What makes you think I needed to have a point?

>>16779802
>What makes you think I needed to have a point?
Preceding umpteen posts of unreadable shitshow between you and some other anon and starting your post with continuation of that shitshow.

Also the technical part of the post being basically meaningless without context.

>>16779807
yeah idk that guy just made me mad

>>16779807
His point is that solar is bad because it uses gas which is bad so we should use gas which is good.

>>16779809
which just proves you are a retarded pig fucker

>>16779815
hey gotta fuck somethin

>>16778662
>Is a solarpunk future feasible?

""Yes"" quote unquote, but a lot of things would have to radically change about how we generate, store, distribute, and commodify energy.. And property for that matter. I also think reliable commercial/industrial access to space would also be somewhat necessary. Your question is basically, "would it be feasible if everything was completely different?" Which, yeah, hypothetically.

The problem with a lot of futurism ideas is they don't take into account the fact that so much of the technology we use, invent, innovate upon, etc.. Is driven by a poorly understood combination of consumer use and government spending. It's the idea that you could build a flawlessly effective & safe teleporter and people wouldn't use it due to nobody being able to prove that "it doesn't just kill you and make a perfect copy" (which is fair), while every even vaguely transportation-adjacent industry would be spending everything they had saying how awful it was.

Granted, you also the problem in this thread where people think, for whatever reason, that technology just isn't ever going to get any better.
Cars, phones, computers, all of these things used to be exorbitant technologies only used for military or industrial purposes until they weren't anymore. It took the phone 60 years to become a common household device. I'm not going to say there isn't a reality where some strange development happens and solar becomes way better than fossil fuels.

>>16779824
As I said in the early thread, the more fundamental issue with solarpunk than precise account of development strategies or technological progress prognosis, is that deindustrialization is essential to solarpunk, but all the renewable energy sourcing we know is built wholly, entirely on large-scale, industrial manufacture of the necessary highly complex equipment. Can't even get decent copper wire without industrial organization, much less a functional wind turbine or, god forbid, a solar panel.

>>16779829
>built wholly, entirely on large-scale, industrial manufacture of the necessary highly complex equipment
And I should have added that it doesn't seem to show even the slightest tendency towards moving away from the large-scale industrial context, rather the opposite. All the viability that solar generation has right now absolutely unquestionably requires existence of ginormous Chinese manufacturing complexes producing enormous amounts of equipment for solar generation and energy storage, making them cheap.

>>16779829
An industrialized society that is somewhat shitty to live in outcompetes one optimized for its inhabitants, unless humanity somehow unites as one and suppresses all competing ideologies I don't see it happening. I think realistically we are heading towards the Futurama future with almost surreal technologies held back by human nature and a bunch of weird social and environmental problems the elites choose not to solve.

>>16779855
if you think about it that's what this already is.

Imagine telling someone in the 50's all the kids are dying of a new drug called "fentanyl", there is a huge shit flinging contest is between transhumanist transexuals and non transhumanists, and we have talking computers but for some reason the atmosphere is heating up because of coal and oil burning and somehow everyone is depressed due to computer addiction.

It would be absurd to them

>>16779857
oh and all the gilded age economy problems their dad solved are back lol

>>16779192
But we've already established that my thinking is freer than yours, because I have self-awareness, systems thinking and the ability to derive useful heuristics for myself. Meanwhile you mistakenly believe reading the shit-tier, processed "educational" slop this system generates makes you an expert on every issue (zero self-awareness). You mistakenly believe the relevant issues are isolated scientific question (babby is still 6 years old and mentally lives in his imaginary toy lab). But really, the most ironic part of this is that when you try to "do your own research" about stuff way out of your depth, you only do so because some jewish talking heads told you that this is what smart and intellectual and free-thinking people do. So it never occurred to you to look for more productive and reliable ways to make decisions, like asking yourself "who is obsessed with making me believe X and why?"

>>16779752
Shut the fuck up.
Ideologic college fuck.

File: daniel-clarke-yb-30sec-sh(...).jpg (663 KB, 1920x1306)

663 KB JPG

>>16778662
It takes enormous amounts of energy, and it is rather disturbng to note that most Solarpunk depiction seems rather depopulated.

File: 978708.png (1.24 MB, 1108x732)

1.24 MB PNG

Tangentially related so i'll ask here:

Is it accurate to say that nuclear power is objectively leagues more efficient and cost effective than coal/gas/etc., but the people in charge won't be alive when it turns a profit (sometimes 20+ years), so they ignore it?

Can anyone identify what scientific principle led someone to build picrel? Or if picrel is even real? 'Tis unsauceable, and I forgot where I saw it.

>>16778764
This is ultimately inevitable. Any systems that practice longer term strategies with emphasis on sustainability and moderation of resource utilization rates will be outcompeted in the short-term by those systems that do not place such limitations on themselves. Then the former systems will be inevitably subsumed by the latter. The end result is greedy but ultimately self-destructive systems will always prevail and will continue consuming any and all available resources until they collapse due to running out of said resources. There is no solution to this problem.

>>16780694
The U.S had a chance post 91. Maybe the next world government will be strong enough to slow itself as well as impose that on others.
Assuming that the next world government would want to :(

>>16780651
>nuclear power is objectively leagues more efficient and cost effective than coal/gas/etc.
Not really, new nuclear plants are increasinly more expensive due to creeping regulations. Another problem is that uranium scarcity is already an issue.

>>16780651
>Can anyone identify what scientific principle led someone to build picrel?
Most likely it is an application of the Magnus effect, which is well known and has been used in wind power for a while now.
>Or if picrel is even real?
Probably real.
>'Tis unsauceable, and I forgot where I saw it.
How about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu1z7uL4tlE