>>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

>>16780694
The only way to avoid it requires measures most people alive today would find repugnant and unacceptable.
Heavy regulation by a powerful Authoritarian world government.enforcing sustainable economic and environmental practices on a global scale.
Basically Simcity on a planetary scale, but in the hands of benevolent and highly competent dictators who care about the long term future.
Even then its doubtful, as it would require incorruptibility, efficiency, and the maintenance of those principles for centuries. Yeah good luck with that. Imagine telling people in every corner of the world how many children they can have, setting consumption rates, rationing energy, and informing them that their standard of living isn't going to be the same as it was. No hip replacement for you dear. No Joe, you have to make do with that truck for the next twenty years. No Stacy, no overseas trip for you. Oh, and all you guys have to make your clothes last longer, fix rather than repair your appliances, and get used to a much blander diet. Lol, imagine telling people that, and much more, what a pipe dream. They would tear you to pieces.

>>16779857
what about nontransexual transhumanists

>>16778673
Solar cells are normally made from silicon, one of the most abundant elements in the crust. A panel can last 50+ years so I can't see you need enormous infrastructure to do it. Amorphous solar cells are easier to make and do not need the extreme purity normal in single crystal solar cell. You can even make simple 8and so far not very efficient) solar cells at home:
https://simplifier.neocities.org/optsolar

>>16782801
Stupid cunt

>>16782824
>I hate having my weak arguments demolished with facts.
Got it.

File: IMG_2538.jpg (410 KB, 750x1239)

410 KB JPG

>>16778863
>Fossil fuels get by far the largest subsidies out of any energy generation form and those are categorically not included in their prices.

>>16778863
>kind of bob the builder magic
That’s called “your production costs are fractions of your competitors. Free market forces build things very quickly. SpaceX has expanded rapidly and it’s one company. There are thousands of energy companies; if renewables were so cheap, they’d’ve expanded far quicker than they have - and without the heavy government intervention we’ve seen.

>>16778755
>>16779771
Externalities don’t exist. People with poor reasoning skills and have been lied to by statists don’t realize market forces still account for something often lumped in this category.

>>16779786
If we deregulated the grid, market forces would solve this. With larger solar penetration, energy price at midday would drop, making further solar unprofitable, while incentivising storage projects that otherwise require govt contracts to make money.

>>16779786
>how real-world utilities interesting in minimizing fossil fuel use are planning.
Not interested in minimizing costs, but minimizing carbon. So how can we assume it’s costs driving the change not ideology? Politicians hold lots of control of energy grids and their rhetoric seems to show ideology driving the change.

>>16779790
>civilization has to adapt to a planet that can no longer support billions
Civilization is cyclical. Genetics drives technology, technology drives genetics. Lots of food and healthcare means lots of retards, means civilization forgets how to do food and healthcare; dead retards.

>>16783291
If you want to reduce carbon you simply have to give the customer an incentive (saves them money) that's literally all it takes.

>>16779855
>human nature
Depends on genetics. Conventional dysngenic feedback loops change genetics. Modern genetic engineering could eventually be used to assert more useful control than previous attempts at eugenics.

>>16780651
No. Regulations are the only thing that makes nuclear economically unattractive. A steam train with some uranium lumped in its firebox would make a cheap nuclear reactor, but that’s prohibited by law.

Build your own Solarpunk future:
https://hackaday.com/2025/09/11/multi-use-roof-eliminates-roof/

>>16778662
geotermal energy for one, unless we fuck it up big time

>>16783629
Another alternative:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion
It can, as a bonus, provide huge amounts of desalinated water.

File: Ancient-Roman.jpg (267 KB, 1300x700)

267 KB JPG

>>16783293
>Civilization is cyclical.
The expression is "Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times." Still, great empires never really return, no matter how much later leaders want to claim the mantle.
>Genetics drives technology, technology drives genetics. Lots of food and healthcare means lots of retards, means civilization forgets how to do food and healthcare; dead retards.
That is not cyclical, that is a single round and then exits.

>>16778662
No, not at this rate.
What will happen is the contradictory way capitalism deals with nature (as capital, as objects to be used for profit and revenue) while also attempting to conserve it resulting in the eventual destabilization of global climate cycles. We all know what happens after: protests, refugees, war, civil war, and whatnot. And climatic problems don’t go away in a year, feedback loops present in biogeothermal mechanisms would be altered in this scenario and start to feed the instability, leading to decades, if not centuries at the minimum before things stabilize. We’re staring apocalypse in the face.

Once this apocalypse is over, what humans remain will have an aversion to the capitalist view of nature as well as destroying nature. Then the solarpunk future will begin.

File: YokohamaKaidashiKikou_Und(...).jpg (159 KB, 768x1100)

159 KB JPG

>>16784465
1: Capitalism is about private ownership of the means for production, not a means for the left to tar peope they do not like.

2: Climate science has mispreducted ice free north pole many times, and now they changed the definition of it. They failed to see any changes during the pandemic. At this rate it is time to demand better science.

3: Refugees are already a crisis and Europe is seeing a sharp turn to the right, or "rightwing extremism" as the press and the leftwing intellectuals call it. Economic migration has long been an issue, and Merkels mass immigration acceptance grinds gears already. Balkans is brewing up again and the EU is busy looking the other way, their core skill. Ukraine is the cause for wringing hands, not doing anything.

4: Despots look for weakness, cowardice and avoidance, and find it in spades in EU. WWIII is predicted around 2029, and that will be destructive. Few things will wreck your day like a 3 MT nuke.

5: Solarpunk might emerge after WWIII, perhaps a bit like the post-apocalyptic YKK.

>>16778662
Technologically it should have already happened. Culturally it is impossible so long as even one human draws breath. Human societies will ALWAYS be dystopian because humans are demons.

>>16784551
>Technologically it should have already happened.
Much should have happened, unfortunately we hit stagnation, big time. And people who try to do something about it are ridiculed and rejected.

File: Niggers_Free_Condoms.jpg (66 KB, 575x1024)

66 KB JPG

>>16778662

This would be average America, IF you removed the niggers... niggers ruin everything

>>16778698
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0qTGlGg965s

>>16778662
Not with dense cities. Suburban neighborhoods can easily meet their energy needs with rooftop solar panels.

You can keep your cellphone charged daily with a 15 Watt solar panel that charges a power bank.

>>16784522
>failed to see any changes
anon here is smoking some real good copium, I need the brand.

Also somebody needs to use their noggin and realize that private ownership of the means of production and accumulation of profit necessarily cause the commodification of nature, which is antithetical to any real conservation: see carbon taxes, carbon credits (and buying/selling them), “sustainable” development that’s simply skirting the rules in order to get the label and greenwashed veneer, and whatnot.

It might help to frame this discussion. Solarpunk is firstly a fictional literary subgenre. created as a reaction to cyperbunk and derivative themes which can be intrinsically cynical and fueled by conflict both in-universe and externally abused for narrative structure. The hope and catharsis we get in solarpunk contrasts and builds off of the learned trauma by defying the expectations built up in the weary reader. The robots aren't going to betray you, no we aren't running out of food, we don't have to exploit an oppressed underclass, no the problems we face aren't intractable and unsolvable and we can tackle them together.

This tech based neo-pastoralism is an attempt to wake up from a dream of hopelessness. Taking these concepts directly into the real world is both unintended and dangerous. Blatant appeals to optimism can just be a tool to dis-invite scrutiny. You can see some of this in action in the real world with greenwashing or concepts like "Abundance Agenda" which is being used as a tool to support deregulation, regardless if environmental impact.

Solarpunkish things have been happening for some time. You can see this in places like Nigeria where unstable power grids unable to keep up with demand. One of the most afflicted countries, Nigeria's off grid energy production is larger than installed grid capacity. Most of this comes from small scale diesel and petrol generators, but increasing cheap solar and battery imports have been changing the way homes and businesses are powered. Abstractly this plays into solarpunks themes of independence and self reliance, but the cost of that is that electricity remains functionally inaccessible for the majority of the population and will likely remain that way for a decade.

Energy aside, solarpunk's other themes are looking less likely. Consumerism, centralization of power, tech interdependence, and critically, climate change have all been getting worse and we cant overlook and affordable gadgets will fix this.

>>16784899
>anon here is smoking some real good copium, I need the brand.
I prefer tea, either Darjeeling or similar Nepalese tea. Anyway:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/covid2.html

>Also somebody needs to use their noggin and realize that private ownership of the means of production and accumulation of profit necessarily cause the commodification of nature, which is antithetical to any real conservation:
No argument, just rhetoric, got it.

>>16778662
We already were doing this before the agricultural revolution

File: elon-musk-cyberpunk-2077.png (481 KB, 1344x896)

481 KB PNG

>>16778698
Why are those humans farming? They are most likely going to be completely replaced by robots.

https://youtu.be/sfYNyZha0vw

File: 1618885842502.gif (985 KB, 500x374)

985 KB GIF

>>16785011
>Why are those humans farming?
It is more like walking around and pushing buttons.
>They are most likely going to be completely replaced by robots.
That is indeed what the video shows. The rest is tranquility and life in Arcadia.

File: Pepe_Mechanicus.png (312 KB, 800x800)

312 KB PNG

>>16785011
>They are most likely going to be completely replaced by robots.

Just about every sci-fi universe ignores the idea that labor is done by robots and not humans. Also AI is often seriously downplayed (or even banned) in most sci-fi universes.

>>16784267
>Still, great empires never really return
This doesn't disprove my point that civilization is cyclical. A complex civilization will arise some time later, once natural eugenic pressures have honed a population's genetics sufficiently.

>That is not cyclical, that is a single round and then exits.
Why do you see it that way?
Start in a complex civilization, technologies allow people with genetics for 'bad' (from the perspective that you like warmth, shelter, food; civilization, rather than being lashed to the raft of the Méduse) traits to survive and proliferate, while those with genetics for ‘good’ traits (intelligence, moral character, health) are selected against. The mix of good and bad traits in the civilization’s population trends heavily to bad.

In essence the result is less individuals with enough intelligence and discipline to maintain and expand the technologies of the civilization that permit those dysgenic selection pressures to exist. The system has hysteresis, so even if your population’s mix of genetics declines below the threshold allowing technology to be sustain let alone innovated, the existing technology sustains those dysgenic pressures.

This process continues, first innovation declines, then technology stagnates, finally cannibalization kicks in; you end up like parts of Africa ripping up railroads to make spears and pots. Of course a modern billions strong population can only be sustained by complex civilization’s agricultural technology. There isn’t a “Idiocracy” where a huge population of morons incapable of farming is sustained. How the population declines, I’m not sure; but a dysgenic population has poor health as well as intellect, perhaps plagues will kill people before the food chains collapse. ...
1/2

>>16784267
>>16785074

2/2
... Often in this time, other populations surrounding the one strongly exposed to high complexity civilization invade, prematurely disintegrating the original civilization; Rome vs barbarians, Sasanians vs Muhammad. The invading population genetic mix is less dysgenic than the original, the invasion doesn’t necessarily bring ethnic replacement.
This is the awful era of famine, plague, and war I think we should and can avoid by using eugenics.

Post complex civilization, dysgenic selection pressures have weakened sufficiently that the natural harshness of the environment can start selecting against individuals with bad genetics, allowing people with good genetics to be favoured. After a long time (do we consider Rome to 1800s west Europe as complex enough civilizations to create dysgenic pressures?), the small surviving population of low intelligence moral character, health etc has been honed into one smart enough to rapidly innovate new technologies (or revive lost ones) which allow them to expand their civilization, and eventually invoke sufficiently strong dysgenic pressures that cycle begins again.
I think your feeling of civilization being a single shot is because you view each civilization analogously as an individual. I view civilization cyclically because I view complex civilization as the individual, and each example of one as you might view a cell in your body. Notice the positive aspect of history: despite each cycle of civilization, and all the technologies lost with those falls, technology as a whole has ratcheted upwards and improved. That said, the collapses of civilizations are horrific times to be avoided, using eugenics, which itself I think depends on a collection of technologies that can be obtained, and may have already been.

what was this thread about again?

>>16778662
The ballon thing is useless for 99% of the homes cause you need a really strong wind for that.

Where as if you just spend like a $100 on a solar panel, you can use it immediately almost everyday. Just hook it to a power bank like anker and use anker as power UPS for powering your daily utilities.

File: Turbine.jpg (400 KB, 2880x1676)

400 KB JPG

>>16785101
Wind speed increases rapidly with height and becomes less turbulent. Rather, the real problem is that the gas will have to be helium or hydrogen, and bother are problems. Helium is about to run out and is already fairly expensive. Hydrogen is flammable, requires a lot of energy to generate by electrolysis, and diffuses quickly out of most flexible materials. My guess is that most wind power will be generated from offshore floating wind turbines that are 100 km out at sea, and outside the visible range for most people.

>>16785074
>This doesn't disprove my point that civilization is cyclical. A complex civilization will arise some time later, once natural eugenic pressures have honed a population's genetics sufficiently.
If you mean it will return elsewhere, then sure, but that is not what I meant. Greece had less than 100 years of intense peak performance but never returned. Rome was a kingdom, then a republic, and finally an empire but never returned. Sure, Mussolini tried to claim the mantle but we see how that worked out. And today Italy is plunging ever deeper into corruption and chaos, and would not be able to keep any empire together for more than a few hours. The UK gave us important legal traditions (Habeas Corpus and more) and the Industrial Revolution, but is not a happy place these days. In fact, it is hard to see where we see any civilisation growing.

>This process continues, first innovation declines, then technology stagnates,
I guess we are here.
>finally cannibalization kicks in; you end up like parts of Africa ripping up railroads to make spears and pots.
That reminds me of Bradford.
>Of course a modern billions strong population can only be sustained by complex civilization’s agricultural technology.
Also logistics. Rome relied on a vast network of roads and sea routes to feed the city and for communications to keep control and to send soldiers to quell uprisings. That quickly eroded when Rome fell.
>There isn’t a “Idiocracy” where a huge population of morons incapable of farming is sustained.
Not sure what you mean here.
>How the population declines, I’m not sure; but a dysgenic population has poor health as well as intellect, perhaps plagues will kill people before the food chains collapse. ...
Cities have been described as IQ shredders, there might be something there.
https://archive.is/iJXBy
https://archive.is/FGFpl

>>16784970
Damn, it’s easy to respond to arguments by quoting their first sentence and saying there’s nothing to respond to if you’re lazy. Regardless, I guess I win this one since you threw in the towel.

>>16785109
Yeah, the wind turbine really needs to be tall as fuck and ideally really in the large open lot for optimal conditions. If you put it on top of your roof, it aint gonna do anything. Especially not for suburban homes. You need a special tall pole to even get semi useful wind. Like 50-100 ft tall poles with large clear open area for wind to flow. This is one of the reason why home wind turbines havent taken off. $100 300w solar panel completely crushes any $10000+ wind turbines at home.

>>16785075
>... Often in this time, other populations surrounding the one strongly exposed to high complexity civilization invade, prematurely disintegrating the original civilization; Rome vs barbarians, Sasanians vs Muhammad.
How does this fit with what is happening in Europe in general and the UK in particular? Elon is stirring up things and politicians moan:
>Elon Musk call for Brits to ‘fight back or die’ denounced by minister
https://archive.is/dBxul
>Addressing the march via video on Saturday, Musk urged attendees to “fight back or you die”. Peter Kyle, business secretary, on Sunday denounced the comments as “slightly incomprehensible and totally inappropriate”.
He would say that, wouldn't he.
>The minister’s comments reflected views held by other Labour MPs that many of the people attending the Union Jack-bedecked rally were not racists, but were expressing widely held concerns about the state of the country.
A change in trends?
>Kyle said the government was concerned about divisions emerging in British society and other countries, some of it dating back to the economic stress caused by the 2008 financial crisis.
No, the UK government was never ever concerned about the people.

>The invading population genetic mix is less dysgenic than the original,
Migrants into Europe come from countries with major consanguinity issues and diabetes is an easy measure of this.
>the invasion doesn’t necessarily bring ethnic replacement.
Sure? The people who built Stonehenge disappeared and were replaced by people whose remains are marked by violence. Europeans decimated and displaced the natives in America. Arabs displaced the people who lived along Mahgreb. Bantu migrations displaced others in huge ares of Africa.

>>16785075
>>16785138

>I think your feeling of civilization being a single shot is because you view each civilization analogously as an individual.
Not quite how I see it, rather I look at specific regions. It doesn't help Indians today that had an early civiliation to see civilisations grow in Europe. The West seems to be facing an end. It took about 1000 years of medieval poverty before Europe saw REnaissance.

>what was this thread about again?
Solarpunk. In my case if it is realistic, now that the sun is setting over Europe. A neo-medieval era seems more likely than a golden age of solarpunk.

>>16785131
Hilarious. I provided sources, you felt the job was done with "Also somebody needs to use their noggin" without any arguments and then you call me lazy. Of course I will dismiss you as a left wing crank.

File: novelance-fff.jpg (1.01 MB, 3200x2000)

1.01 MB JPG

>>16785011
>Why are those humans farming? They are most likely going to be completely replaced by robots.
Or augmented humans.

>>16785142
Let’s look at your comment on >>16784522
>sources, where?
1. You provided a definition of capitalism, which I worked with.
2. You made a statement about climate sciences, 0 sources.
3. You made a bunch of statements about political refugees; climate refugees escaping hostile natural environments are entirely different as they don’t necessarily have to be from developing countries or countries that are torn by war. The turn to the right does not matter to climate change unless the right fosters conservation and real sustainable development.
4. WWIII predictions, what? Also EU slander.

Lmao, where’s your sources? I see none, except for a bunch of political bs and some unbacked statements about climate science. We’re discussing climate here, not the EU or politics.

>>16785030
Not many stories are set in rural scenarios.
And all of them have autonomous machines.
The truth is that a humanoid robot offers almost no benefit over non-humanoid ones.
Out of mind I can only think it's being interesting for people that want to pretend they care for the human shape or for intimate, mostly sexual purposes.

>>16778673
see that city in the distance?

File: daniel-clarke-yb-60sec-sh(...).jpg (778 KB, 1920x1272)

778 KB JPG

>>16785875
Sure. Still lots of greenery, and still suspiciously lacking in humans and traffic.

>>16785130
>Also logistics.
I agree, people when hearing this dysgenics theory will object on the basis they cannot see how technology as simple as seen in Rome or earlier could lead to dysgenic breeding. As you say, supply lines can provide food to an area that's currently experiencing famine. Aqueducts do the same. Today, I think it's birth care, birth mortality is so low compared to any other time.

>>16785130
>but never returned
I think a part of this could be that when a complex civilization is noticed to be in decline, the most intelligent people boiloff from the native population, they leave to other places. I think in the case of Rome, they moved to Constantinople, hence it's for the time comparatively advanced infrastructure.

A rather sad thought is that the descendants of all the great men of history never reached modern times because they were selected so totally against by the then present dysgenic pressures. This possibility could mean "real Romans" all died out long ago, and the "real Victorians" are or will be gone, and in that sense you'd be right in feeling the civilization is lost to history.
A motivation to implement eugenics.

>Cities have been described as IQ shredders, there might be something there.
Like flypaper, the most intelligent people go to them for success, but have significantly lower fertility than if they did not, I expect.
And of course the relaxed Darwinian selection pressures promote the most dysgenic individuals.

>>16785138
>Sure? [lists of people wiped out]
It just meant that wasn't the guaranteed outcome. That your list of ethnic displacements seems to be situations where a genetically and technologically superior race/ethnicity displaces a civilization that I wouldn't call particularly complex. As understand it, Bantus displaced the Khoisan hunter-gatherers; from the little I know, Europeans in north america displaced significantly less advanced farmers and hunter-gatherers; and from the even less I know, a quick search suggests the Mahgreb were hunter-gatherers too. And sounds like nobody knows who got rid of the Stonehenge builders so I can't say.
In the case of Europeans in south america, again from the little I understand, the prior civilizations there were quite complex but doing quite badly, so perhaps can be categorized into this "Complex civilization in dysgenic decline prematurely collapsed by invaders" class. A thing of note in the americas is a lot of natives were bumped off by foreign diseases, enabling a lot of the ethnic replacement. Of course assuming the modern population of south america is replaced and europeanized as we assume.

>>16785140
>It doesn't help Indians today that had an early civilization to see civilisations grow in Europe.
But does that preclude their long-to-be descendants benefiting from those lost Indian civilizations?
By that I mean, first suppose that in 40,000AD we have a galaxy spanning everlasting eugenics-sustained complex civilization, of which descendants of today's Indians constituents. Then, assume my observation that despite of the collapses and losses of technology due to civilization cycles, the following civilizations are given a leg up and become evermore technologically advanced; a technological ratchet, is correct.
Suppose we were to remove the contributions made to the technological ratchet by those Indian civilizations, by somehow preventing the existence of those ancient lost Indian civilizations, so the dawning of this supposed future immortal civilization happens in 42,000AD. 2,000 extra years of people, some of which including Indian descendants, enduring whatever comes before that.
And of course we’re omitting that today’s Indians benefit from today’s fruits of European civilization which were given that however-small leg up by ancient Indian civilizations.

>>16785356
>2. You made a statement about climate sciences, 0 sources.
The sources were provided in >>16784970, specifically
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/covid2.html

>Lmao, where’s your sources? I see none, except for a bunch of political bs and some unbacked statements about climate science. We’re discussing climate here, not the EU or politics.
The problem with the warmeristas is that you just overlook what you don't agree with. Usually it morphs into sealioning.

File: launch loop01.png (830 KB, 1920x1344)

830 KB PNG

>>16785140
>A neo-medieval era seems more likely than a golden age of solarpunk.
My thoughts too. I cope by just adding ~2000 years to whatever technology predictions are slated to happen beyond 100 years from now.

>Solarpunk
I don't see groundbased solar being used for a better-than-hydrocarbon grid. But I do see spaceborne solar doing it.

The same guy who did work on the "launch loop" space launch mechanism has some ideas on thin solid state satellites for computing power, and potentially power generation, for close term future.
It'll probably be explained somewhere on Keith Lofstrom's site http://server-sky.com/

>>16778662
>and live in harmony with the planet?
yes, it's called "not inventing large, complex, inorganic systems to sustain an infinitely growing population"

btw that carved out landscape in your photo would be terribly non-biodiverse

>>16779177
>Meanwhile solar just needs more land
And there's the problem.

>>16778698
That looks horrific.

>>16778863
>And therefore they ALWAYS got these subsidies!
You're an imbecile.

File: Solar canopy.jpg (116 KB, 800x534)

116 KB JPG

>>16786262
Land is incredibly cheap and plentiful. Not to mention as solar becomes more efficient, you need less and less land. AND not to mention you can literally run solar on top of every roof in a city so it's not restricted to fields in the middle of nowhere or underwater, both of which are far more constly.

>>16786280
>I've never heard of maximum insolation.

Solar is garbage.
Believing in a solar future is a dependable metric for predicting stupidity.
And getting defensive about it is a dependable metric for predicting mental instability.

>>16786280
>actually, we should chop down old-growth forests to make way for my solarpunk homo-communist utopia
I don't really care if you desire this, but there is no scenario where you are on the side of Gaia.

File: Solar roof.jpg (370 KB, 1200x900)

370 KB JPG

>>16786287
Why are you quoting something I didn't remotely say? Is this how buck broken oil fags argue? You know oil and gas cuts down old growth forests all the time right?
>>16786281
And? Batteries + efficiency oh wow what a hard problem to solve!

>>16786291
>Why are you quoting something I didn't remotely say?
I said that it's THE problem.
>Is this how buck broken oil fags argue? You know oil and gas cuts down old growth forests all the time right?
Energy consumption is a zero sum game, a diversionary tactic to distract from the real problem.

File: Solar farm 2.jpg (121 KB, 750x422)

121 KB JPG

>>16786296
>I said that it's THE problem.
But it's not a problem at all. You're just imagining a problem and then acting like it's real. Oil and gas cut down far more forests.
>Energy consumption is a zero sum game, a diversionary tactic to distract from the real problem.
Energy generation is not a zero sum game. Not unless you're a free-use slave for big oil. Not the you need to believe me. Oil and gas companies are going to need bail outs from the solar and wind industries in the coming decades. You don't need to find new sources for the sun and wind

>>16786262
Amusingly, French wine makers complain about too much heat for their grapes, yet in their stubbornness they fail to think of agrivoltaics. Instead, production is moving to England, much to the outrage of the French.
Korea is also doing somrething: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh5H2B-1MzU

>>16786301
>But it's not a problem at all.
Only because you don't actually care about sustaining ecosystems to begin with.
>You're just imagining a problem and then acting like it's real.
It pertains to OP's question. I'm not derailing anything.
>Oil and gas cut down far more forests.
>whataboutism
>Energy generation is not a zero sum game.
The end goal is to make life hostile for everything else in order to prop up humanity's power. There is no winning when it comes to industrialism.
>Not unless you're a free-use slave for big oil. Not the you need to believe me. Oil and gas companies are going to need bail outs from the solar and wind industries in the coming decades. You don't need to find new sources for the sun and wind
You just want to listen to yourself ramble rather than actually express any salient concerns I may have.

Btw, I expect the death count for that solar field to be placed somewhere in the thousands easily.

File: Solar farm - floating.jpg (135 KB, 750x422)

135 KB JPG

>>16786314
>Only because you don't actually care about sustaining ecosystems to begin with.
Are you going to acknowledge that oil and gas cut down more forests? I'm not reading the rest of your rambling post till you do. I'm not playing conservative merry go round where you ignore every topic that you're wrong about and just jump to a new thing.
>inb4 You're not reading the rest of my post? (Doesn't acknowledge why) well then there's no reason to even continue! I just wanted an honest debate but I guess accept your concession!

>>16786328
Oil and gas doesn't cut down more forests. Meanwhile entire hillsides are stripped bare for PVs but you will choose to ignore that.

File: 1727055058624322.jpg (879 KB, 2560x1440)

879 KB JPG

>>16785922
maybe they mostly live or travel underground, pic related

>>16780487
A critical population reduction is the solution to most of humanities problems.
We can provide great universal quality of life, just not to over 8B people.

>>16781980
>Basically Simcity on a planetary scale, but in the hands of benevolent and highly competent dictators who care about the long term future.
Just say impossible, it's pedantic.

File: Tailored.png (170 KB, 288x489)

170 KB PNG

>>16786968
Rather disturbingly, intelligence agencies issues warnings that someone may do that very thing.

>>16786968
>We can provide great universal quality of life, just not to over 8B people.
>We
I like how every mouth-breathing mongoloid who makes this point always uses the word "we" thinking he's part of some elite club rather than one of countless useless eaters who are already on the extermination list along with every single member of their family.

>>16787092
NTA but everyone who pays more taxes than they get in return is fully entitled to use "we."

>>16787410
>NTA but everyone who pays more taxes than they get in return is fully entitled to use "we."
If you're "entitled" to anything, why aren't you getting your taxes' worth in return, cattle? You're at the very bottom of the food chain, below the chronically unemployed niggers you're a slave-by-proxy for. Get that through your thick skull already.

>>16787477
>If you're "entitled" to anything, why aren't you getting your taxes' worth in return, cattle?
Massive corruption, as is in most of the decaying Europe.
>You're at the very bottom of the food chain,
Hardly. I have savings and skills that can get me out of here, and I already moved out of the city to avoid troubles that the press ever so helpfully never writes about. Around here, many leave for Thailand.

>>16787484
The sheer degree of your cope is astounding, but I'm just gonna remind you again you're not a part of any elite "we" that your handlers are planning to keep around when they start killing the other 8 billion cattle. You're gonna die along with the rest of them.

File: 1733527437685987.jpg (49 KB, 720x707)

49 KB JPG

>>16786328
>Are you going to accept an industry that has been around four times longer and supplied millions of times more power has had a bigger impact than this new, tiny, irrelevant, useless one?
Wow, what a fair comparison!
What an honest and reasonable person!

>>16786291
>Batteries! Batteries are free! And they totally aren't ecologically DEVASTATING to make!
Honestly, what you typed "batteries," was that some kind of a win in your feeble little mind?

>>16778662
It’s useless to talk about energy crisis when the seething reddit rejects will come in swarms. Harmony is a foreign concept to this board, have you not seen the eugenics threads? They’d sooner re-enact the rape of nanking than bother to even imagine any optimism for the future.

I hate the left so much it's unreal.

The issue is who pays for the grid itself, who supports critical demand, and who limits net load.

Solar is ideal if you don't care if the hospital lights stay on all year, think paying ten times more for steel equates to actually helping make said steel, and think you can kill 4/10 people on earth by cutting off their access to resources. If you want to maintain switzerland with solar, at the expense of the entire continent of africa.
And if you thin you can somehow keep those Africans in Africa, if there's no food, resources, infrastructure, or water there.

>>16788342
>I hate the left
>how dare they even imagine a better future where such problems are solved
>no, the problems can’t be solved and the issues will persist forever

Great, everybody get back to your daily 9-5+commute, business as usual. Anon, you too, bills need to be paid after all

File: 3-Learning-curves-for-ele(...).png (110 KB, 2879x2478)

110 KB PNG

>>16778673
>>16778662
>>16778668
It's over, chuds lost.
Sadly, NVCLEAR energy is not the future.

>>16787490
I am not sure where the boundaries for the elite go in your mind but I am confident I am far from the bottom of the food chain.

File: MV5BYjc5M2UxYjItZDhhMi00N(...).jpg (166 KB, 1920x796)

166 KB JPG

>>16778698
this depiction is unscientific and misleading since brown people and especially females are on average very bad at technology and advanced high output agriculture.

>>16788444
Supporting psychosis is not healthy. There is a difference between wanting a better future and living in constant delusion that you're not sacrificing anyone to obtain it. As they are quite literally doing so in the present.

>>16788447
Nuclear is hamstrung by regulations, and Hinkley Point C is an example of how far off the rails the wreck can go. Also the proponents fail to mention that we have known reserves fo ronly 200 years, and already now there is a scarcity driving prices up.
I am also surprised that the trend for offshore wind is not steeper downwards. At this rate it would need to exceed 1000,000 GW before it overtakes onshore wind, which is running out of land in Europe.

>>16788495
>people make art depicting a better future and try to think about how the world’s problems might get solved
>”nooo it’s psychosis! you should not think about this and instead submit to our current way of doing things! No change at all!”

Despite what this thread has you believe, solarpunks are probably the least active punk group. There’s barely any calls to activism or political action or whatnot as they’re primarily focused on art and writing stories. I have no clue why you and others immediately go “oh no it’s the leftists!” when half of these people can’t be bothered to vote. Of course, for the braindead idiots in here everything is political I guess.

>>16788552
you're the one claiming that its leftism that's coming up with these ideas and not solarpunks althougheverbeit
the original post sounds like anon was generally talking about leftist thought patterns while you switch between claiming that its solarpunks when you want to deflect any social responsibility for past occurences and leftism when you want to take credibility for the genuine idealism of others.

>>16788556
I, uh, didn’t? I’m not even the original anon, wtf? Did the schizo get to your head?

>>16788563
are you trying to claim that the last two posts >>16788444>>16788552 aren't yours? you can literally see the claim "how dare (the left) imagine a better future" and then quickly switch to "solarpunks are probably the least active punk group, they aren't even left"

>>16788567
Yeah, so? I do not at all use “they” for the left: that includes a whole bunch of people of many different views. This is a solarpunk thread and “they” refers to solarpunks. The solarpunks aren’t active at all politically, and can be best described as “redditors imagining shit”. Let them, they aren’t getting out of their basements. Why are you so worked up over it?

>>16788575
>Yeah, so? I do not at all use “they” for the lef
>>I hate the left
>>how dare they even imagine a better future where such problems are solved
you should read your greentexts before posting next time
>“redditors imagining shit”. Let them
its clear in the original post that anon wasn't talking about solarpunk aesthetes but people who completely ignore reality (there is a difference)
considering that this is /sci/ after all, i don't understand why you're so suprised that someone would post an analysis of the actual logistics required

>>16788583
Kek the anon in >>16788342 makes the equivalence that left=solarpunk, when the solarpunk movement cannot agree on anything except for vague art. Jumping from hating the left to hating solarpunk is a great leap.

>>16788586
anyone with common sense would see the posts above it and be able to make the basic connection that perhaps the thread was also talking about the energy crisis in general along with (current day politics) regarding which source(s) to use

>>16788590
And anyone with common sense would’ve ignored me, who was replying to a post that did not reply to anyone at all in this thread in >>16788342
. For /sci/, you sure did get baited, kek.

>>16788592
>i have made an obvious fallacy and will now claim that i was only pretending to be retarded
ok i believe you

>>16788594
>coping after falling for obvious retarded bait
More please

File: badger_hollow_solar_park_(...).jpg (1.74 MB, 2560x1707)

1.74 MB JPG

>>16786867
>Oil and gas doesn't cut down more forests.
Yes it does.
https://www.lgcypower.com/solar-energy-vs-fossil-fuels/
https://monalee.co/blog/solar-energy-vs-fossil-fuels-a-comparison-of-environmental-impacts/
Anything else? Or are you just going to keep pretending to care about the environment but only if is a point against solar?

>>16778698
Now post the water sources once the REE mining industry scales up

File: 1731052004705878.jpg (36 KB, 600x375)

36 KB JPG

>>16778668
>hurr durr leftists

he was asking about technology, not your midwit take on the current political climate

File: 6f8743615622ffab3c81617dd(...).jpg (1.29 MB, 2000x909)

1.29 MB JPG

>>16788552
>https://www.lgcypower.com/solar-energy-vs-fossil-fuels/
The strange thing about Solarpunk is that people get very polarized, claiming that this is left wing stuff or right wing stuff, while DIY and pragmatism is pushed out of the limelight. And yes, I too see mostly art and stories along with hoped for a better tomorrow. Some of the stories, like YKK, seem to be set in a post apocalyptic era where the human population isreally tiny. In reality a Solarpunk realiy would take absolutely enormous amounts of energy and automation.

>>16789269
I agree. The Chobani ad (which was the genesis for many of solarpunk’s current aesthetics) features automatons in a woman’s daily life as well as small-scale community gatherings, implying that it’s either just technologically advanced rural life (probably the ad’s intention) or humanity has had its population reduced somehow but are also able to retain their knowledge and tech. Solarpunk art tends to go in the latter direction.

About their politics, I’ve seen differing opinions on anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, eco-fascism, eco-socialism and everything in between; there’s both left and right folks who are solarpunk. DIY and pragmatic ideas are used to repurpose and build community for a “soft revolution” of sorts, where communities are made more self-reliant on themselves and on the surrounding land (think community gardens/farms, creating a community solar grid to store and derive at least a part of power off-grid) slowly from the ground up instead of your average political revolution that almost always goes haywire. This bottom-up approach and community building aspects are core to solarpunk, and by using this along with stories and art they hope to change views in their communities, which in turn can be the catalysts for bigger changes.

>>16789269
Energy is free from the sun. So solar/wind is a result of sun's eternal radiance giving life to all on Earth. The big problem imo is how weak our material science is right now and how weak our supply chain is. Solve the two, bringing light weight solar panels that last long and are cheap and we never have to worry about politicalization of it.

>>16789556
Over half the cost of coal power (usually the cheapest source of electricity around the world) is already over 50% capital costs in most cases, this means that in order to achieve a lower cost of electricity than coal, the capital cost of any renewable (or nuclear by approximation) has to be less than twice that of a steam engine already benefiting massively from economies of scale for the cost of electricity to be outright cheaper than it is today (and that's assuming the coal alternative has 0 maintenance costs).

Unfortunately, I think it is somewhat inevitable that the cost of energy has gotten as low as it will get for quite some time. Jevon's noticed this as far back as the 1860's in his book "The Coal Question"

>>16789629
As far as I can remember, the only times coal electricity has had its brains truely beaten out on pure economics has been cheap and abundant gas used in combined cycles, or cheap hydro.

Nuclear, wind, solar are only attractive if someone is worried about energy security or the environment, they don't win on cost.

(Seriously though, the chapter in that book on the alternatives to coal is funny and a little depressing. They have been considering wind + pumped hydro and hydrogen energy storage for literally 160 years by now)

>>16789629
Unaccounted cost of coal is pollution side effects to the health of residents.

>>16778662
I say put all our efforts into clean nuclear, why not?

>>16789639
well yes, but traditionally that hasn't been included into the cost of that hasn't fully caught up with us yet. When you account for that, the apparently inferior renewable and nuclear option seems like the only sane thing to do.

Basically, I am saying we are screwed :)

File: Best_Research-Cell_Effici(...).png (944 KB, 2560x1256)

944 KB PNG

>>16789629
Best solar cell efficiency is approaching 50 percent but are today very expensive. And solar power is very dependent on weather and only work during daytime. We clearly need something more.

>>16790167
Just let the engineers mash their brains and they’ll figure out processes to make them cheaply. Even 25% efficiency is as great as a car engine, 50% would be a dream.

The other part of solar power is good batteries; communal power storage can only go so far. This is also a hot research topic.

>>16790167
>>16790410
solar efficiency only really reduces land use, with solar power the sunlight (fuel) is essentially free, 100% of the cost is in the panel so it doesn't matter very much if sunlight is being wasted compared to say, an internal combustion engine where the fuel costs $2.75 a gallon

>>16790410
>good batteries
There seems to be a lot of financial engineering going on and not in a good way: when the sun shines, the price of electricity plummets and in places you have to pay to dispose of the produced electricity. Power is routed around to extract more money from consumers. Multi GHh storage might even things out and let people recoup their solar power investment. To see how it varies across parts of Europe, this one is handy:
https://www.svk.se/om-kraftsystemet/kontrollrummet/

>>16790430
>pay to dispose of the excess electricity
well damn, I can only business as usual so much regarding economics and finance, this is crap business

>>16791630
There has been at least one instance with a negative price for a barrel of oil. Yes, the whole thing is crazy and there have been multiple cases of investigations in the Nordic countries for rigged electricity market.

>>16789640
See >>16780989
Also:
>Uranium shortfall threatens nuclear energy renaissance, industry warned
https://archive.is/3IHpe
>But output from today’s mines is expected to halve between 2030 and 2040 as existing deposits are exhausted, leaving a “significant gap” that threatens the nuclear power revival.

>>16792147
Negative oil prices can happen because commodities have real costs when they are just sitting there due to storage costs. It can be a financially beneficial to you to offload oil at negative price and then charge a fee to house the oil in your facilities while you await their tanker to come and pick it up for instance or similarly sell at a loss to avoid a bigger loss on oil that you already agreed to purchase and now have to store.
There's no such thing with solar power, you can sell it for near zero but there's no incentive to pay someone else to take your electricity outside of some weird contractual obligations or direct subsidies, you can simply just shut down your plant at essentially no cost. It's the fossil fuel plants and nuclear plants that are mostly causing negative prices for the same reason, it takes money to start and stop the generators so sometimes it makes sense to sell your power at a loss (or even pay someone else to take it) if that means you can keep going at full speed to then cash in during the next 15 minutes when you expect the price to go back up.

>>16792360
>outside of some weird contractual obligations or direct subsidies,
Seems to be a lot of that going on in Northern Europe.
>you can simply just shut down your plant at essentially no cost
That has been used to market manipulation. A UK fossil power station was not supposed to produce anything that day, consequently the price took to the skies, and then, contrary to original promise, they started up the power station and made a mint. Danish energy traders have been investigated for strange rerouting of electricity to drive up price in one region and then sell that power to other regions. They made millions.

File: ComfySolarpunk.jpg (1.96 MB, 2136x3216)

1.96 MB JPG

>>16778662
>and live in harmony with the planet
Why yes, while wearing all natural cotton and micro fiber free clothing.

>>16778662
Technically possible
Politically impossible


>>16795185
Sir we have hemp for fabric, fuck cotton, it's a shit fabric.

Why are there so many braindead redditors here?
Civilization will collapse in 20 years max.

>>16778662
With a global population of 500 million or less, sure.

>>16787410
that's the exact opposite of reality you retarded honkey. other guy is right
the highest ranking members of society pay the lowest taxes

if you're paying taxes, it means you're working for an income, which means you're a slave

the elite club is people who don't have to work, and thus who pay 0 income tax, because wealth is not taxed.

If you can't quit your job and just sit around for 10 years doing nothing, you're cattle

File: Enjoying-the-Sun-5-m.jpg (311 KB, 960x640)

311 KB JPG

>>16795484
The very idea of wearing hemp clothing makes me itchy, sounds way too coarse. Shetland sheep are famous for super coarse wool (yes, I know Wackypaedia bleets otherwisely), and from experience I can tell you that you do not want any of that touching your skin. Sandpaper is more comfortable.
Cotton is OK to wear but takes enormous amounts of water to grow.
Bamboo fibers are used in socks, comfortable but wears out just by looking sternly at it.
Linen feels cold and wrinkles easily.

>>16796437
So, wool in winter and linens in summer. Guess the medieval europeans had it all figured out.

>>16795743
Redditors are busy jerking off to OP's picrel and more like it in "r/solarpunk" instead of actually discussing anything to make things happen. Collapse is inevitable with the world turning into a shitshow today, news headlines are turning more ridiculous than some romcom anime episode titles as people abandon the Kardashians to try and keep up with their own fucking government. Redditors think that solarpunk will happen after whatever collapse that will occur has already happened. Don't ask me why.

>>16778662
Can you live a life that requires vastly lower levels of energy?
For me that’s a no

>>16785134
>Yeah, the wind turbine really needs to be tall as fuck
Those in >>16785109 are aboit 400 m tall.
>and ideally really in the large open lot for optimal conditions.
Yes, tens of km offshore.
>If you put it on top of your roof, it aint gonna do anything.
A large one would couple vibrations to your house and be rather uncomfy.
>Especially not for suburban homes. You need a special tall pole to even get semi useful wind. Like 50-100 ft tall poles with large clear open area for wind to flow.
Land base turbines are now about 200 m tall, measure to the nacelle, and the blades extend 120 - 170 m from the hub. These are seriously big to be cost effective. A 10 kW turbine has very limited utility.
>This is one of the reason why home wind turbines havent taken off. $100 300w solar panel completely crushes any $10000+ wind turbines at home.
Another major problem are the rotating shadows cast by the blades. You really don't want those to pass over your neighbours.

214 hilariously dumb posts.
There is only ONE tech holding us back and that is hypercapacitors (and associated power semiconductors). That is, supercapacitors that store the same energy per kg as hydrogen (around 34 kwh/kg).
Once that's done and mass produced, solar will simply take over everything and we'll electrify anything that doesn't need actual fire to work. Any fantasy would become true. Distributed generation and storage of energy, basically too cheap to meter.

>>16787611
Localized impact
Same as le water hungary data centers, except most of the localized impacts is some godforsaken desert in Chile and Australia

>>16798169
Wait till said hypercapacitors need materials from the depths of the world, cannot be scaled by machinery during mining, and is present only in the third world countries. More child labour. More "freedom" and comfortable living for those in the wealthy nations, built upon the backs of those in the poor nations.

>i.e, business as usual in the cyberpunk dystopia

>>16785011
people need something to do

>>16796437
hemp as an additive is not really noticeable. I have jeans that are 80% cotton 20% hemp. They're as soft as anything else and probably stronger

File: daniel-clarke-yb-30sec-sh(...).jpg (747 KB, 1920x1318)

747 KB JPG

>>16798745
That might be an important topic in the near future if LLM will be even half as powerful as some claim. We might end up with minimal work and more spare time than we have had for millennia.
So what will people do? Vegetate in front of the TV? Or become poets and gentleman scientists? We might not need a Solarpunk future to start pondering this.

>>16799634
Robots suck at this kind of labor look at cooking robots as an example its more cost efficient to hire people for complex non uniform task. If you left it to a robot it would be incredibly expensive or the fruit would spoil before they are done.

>>16800079
Yes, that is the case today but like most tech, it will improve. In 10 years we might have household robots that take care of the cleaning, washing clothes, ironing shirts, folding them and tidying up. There is enormous value in automating this. I have a Roomba and it has saved me a lot of time.

File: Sunday-Walk-4-m.jpg (67 KB, 640x960)

67 KB JPG

>>16796437
Latex is better.

File: clouds.jpg (57 KB, 1280x720)

57 KB JPG

>nothing personnel

>>16778719
>No use for grids
No, the intermittency of solar is a non-issue now that the cost of utility-level storage plus PV has reached parity with traditional sources of power. See the Economist cover story a few months ago for an overview of this.

File: 1758542562481070.jpg (49 KB, 770x600)

49 KB JPG

>>16778698
>>16778662
How much electricity would it cost to do this shit?

I rather run my computer and get internet from Starlink than this bullshittery.

>>16778668
>Low energy density nonsense
imagine believing that energy independence is bad for you.
you do know you can use your electric car to power your house, right? well, some cars at least

>>16778719
solar is literally powering grids of whole countries right now... and better storage techs are coming.

>>16786287
>trees
there is enough desertic and hilly land in the world for solar

>>16787611
you have no clue how lithium is extracted. practically zero environmental when done through ponds. and now sodium batteries as coming.
this is /sci/, the supposed Science board. I'm sure you can DYOR

>>16779919
>I swear I'm smarter than you
lmao, look at this retarded faggot

>>16779177
Think of the fucking waste retard. We can't. Go nuclear or die retards

>>16804332
I guess desalination and piping would take a lot of power.

There is no "living in harmony" the sun will go red dwarf and kill the earth if the earth doesnt die first.

>>16804195
That won't stop wind turbines.

>>16804195
ever heard of batteries? also, solar PV produces even during cloudy days...

for a science board, this place is full of retards

>>16778668
Anyone talking about Dyson spheres or swarms is an idiot.

>>16778662
What if wind and solar were cheaper and better than oil and gas (as well as cleaner)? Well then that would mean that the oil and gas lobbyists who captured the US government for short-term gain also condemned the US to irrelevance in the longer-term. Playing catch-up with R&D and infrastructure is harder when your energy consts more; not to say unrecoverable.
>I'm sure that the good 'ol USofA would admit that it made a mistake, accept its irrelevance, and not do anything stupid.

>>16806867
Wind and solar are not better than Oil and Gas. Wind and solar will never be dispatchable and this can't be overcome. And if Wind and Solar were so much cheaper than why wouldn't Oil companies produce their own to capitalize on the market?

>>16778668
The sun provided us with all the non-nuclear energy mankind has ever harnessed, that has nothing do with retarded corporations trying to push everyone in to energy stored in low-density media. Actively cultivated biofuel is the future, it won't change the atmosphere if our hydrocarbon gas is made from oily bacteria that sucked all that carbon out of the atmosphere using energy from the sun a few months before we burn it again.

>>16806922
>he doesn't understand that it's already happened
Reliance on "dispatchable" energy just means that *your* energy grid and energy storage are trash. This doesn't mean that everyone's is. It *does* mean that your energy will continue to cost more than your competitors' energy for as long as you have trash infrastructure.

>>16806922
>Wind and solar will never be dispatchable
so you've never heard of V2V in EVs

File: daniel-clarke-yb-30sec-sh(...).jpg (744 KB, 1920x1318)

744 KB JPG

>>16778662
>and live in harmony with the planet?
That harmony part would require upgrading mumans. Well, what would humanity be like if nobody had an IQ below 110 at today's scale? Might also have to do something with the demand for instant gratification.

>>16778662
No. If there was a more impressive use for solar power than growing plants, natural selection would have found it by now. Solar panels and the like are rare trivialities that can't make a meaningful contribution to overall energy use.

>>16778736
Define advanced

>>16782801
wait wtf so you can make your own solar cells? cool, I always thought you needed advanced semiconductor kind of expensive machinery

>>16808265
>more impressive use for solar power than growing plants
There is, look into vitamin D from sunlight.

>>16808487
Is vitamin D really more impressive than photosynthesis?

>>16779719
>Mining
Soviets replaced diesel in mining. There are soviet made (wire) electric excavators. There are modern battery electric dumptrucks, wher +1ton of battery is nonissue.
>Transportation
Railways can be electricized
Shipping + Aircraft on point.

When fossil price will catch up to biodiesel. Biodiesel will rule.
>>16779738
There was a plan (pre-2022) to build a trans-continental green DC backbone.
Morocco–Spain–EU–USSR–China–SEA
It would have balanced downtimes.

>>16778662
isn't that just Germany pre-2015?