Countries without large hydro energy components and without mountains to create hydro pump storage cannot as of now switch to solar and wind. Cannot as in “it is physically impossible”.
So why are people pushing Germany to phase out coal and nuclear at the same time, while nobody complains about natural gas?
Other urls found in this thread:
physicsworld.com
canadahydro.ca
bccrwe.com
bloomberg.com
theguardian.com
sciencedaily.com
smithsonianmag.com
nytimes.com
nbcnews.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Because people are retarded
Because people are retarded
Its a meme. Retards think that if we build enough windmills and roof every building with solar panels, we will solve the energy crisis.
Voters are mentally retarded
I feel sorry for that girl with the globe on her head.
This meme will end when fusion becomes viable.
These.
Add onto that modern good boy points and gutmensch will scream from the rooftops for a like on social media.
>Lets solve the climate issue by making energy that requires generations of storage of highly toxic radioactive materials, and powerplants that render massive areas radioactive wastelands if they fail.
Nuclear energy is garbage boomer tier energy.
That being said, if humans were actually smart we would have built our cities inside mountains. Conserves energy from insolation, and there are plenty of ways to secure air flow without reliance on technology.
Take the dwarfpill
this.
also they want to destroy the economy or energy sector of European countries because they want to weaken us
>So why are people pushing Germany to phase out coal and nuclear at the same time
It's typical green party thinking, they just have utopian slogans.
Hydro is shit and a meme. Do I need to copy paste the whole energy breakdown for solar/wind/hydro?
>we would have built our cities inside mountains
The resource costs are far too great, it's also completely non viable in regions without mountains.
She wants to save the world.
>storage is in its infancy?
>physicsworld.com
Almost 10 fucking years ago.
Stop blowing the gas company you fucking faggot.
Doesn't Germany have a ton of rivers?
The best solution is harvesting methane from poo. It’s currently just wasted and it’s already collected by the municipalities.
they look at the percentage distribution of power sources and say "we can just make it all wind/sun"
that's as far as they think it
And?
Even if it is as good as claimed doesn't mean it is economically viable.
Navigable not hydro capacity
>shills
nuclear works and is better than anything we got
also city mountains are extremely based and redpilled and they do not cost that much resources. Think of the space you'll he saving by living in/on a mountain
Fair enough.
Its to create dependancy on foreign oil.
The shale oil/gas boom in the US was destroying the value of middle eastern oil reserves so Sandniggers and kikes funded a whole bunch of anti-fracking organizations and documentaries to sabotage fracking to make the us Dependant on Mid east oil imports again.
The people destroying nuclear power on germany want the german economy dependant on oil and natural gas from sandnigger arabs which will give them greater power and influence over your government to import more waves of sand nigger arabs to rape your women and children to death
TLDR. Hitler was right and the jews need to all be gassed.
>The best solution is harvesting methane from poo.
We don't all have an India or California to get that much shit from
>they do not cost that much resources.
Do you know how hard it is to excavate a mountain?
Do you know how much mining and how many toxic substances have to be used for to make the turbines and panels for "clean" energy?
>Do you know how much mining
A neglible small fraction of what would be needed to house any significant population.
I mean is there even a single mountain in your country?
>A neglible small fraction of what would be needed to house any significant population.
Do you know the components of those things?
I suppose it's not an issue when rare earth metals are just imported from China where they ignore environmental issues anyways.
>is there a mountain
You don't need mountains for nuclear power. And if it weren't for the fear mongering shit there could have been a lot more research into treatment of nuclear waste by now. But at least it can be turned into glass and ceramics.
>You don't need mountains for nuclear power
Yeah, but you need mountains if you want to live in them.
>Do I need to copy paste the whole energy breakdown for solar/wind/hydro?
Yes, please.
Subterranean cities don't always require mountains.
They do it for likes on social media and because they're retarded and can't into energy.
>"Energy just comes out of the socket!!"
canadahydro.ca
3. Providing 63% of our electricity, hydropower is a cornerstone of Canada’s economy.
>Doesn't Germany have a ton of rivers?
Yes and no. It is not like Austria or Switzerland or Sweden or Norway here. This is why our hydro capacity is maxed at 2-3% overall.
What is population size to land mass?
Not everybody has the water and height differences of Norway
>they look at the percentage distribution of power sources and say "we can just make it all wind/sun"
>that's as far as they think it
But what about the sequence. Right now nuclear power is supposed to shut down in 3yrs, while coal will only be phased out in the next 30yrs. The other way around makes 100% more sense from a climate and environmental perspective.
>Subterranean cities
Do you plan on Nationwide suicide?
>implying it's not already happening with a different sort of flooding
>Do you know how much mining and how many toxic substances have to be used for to make the turbines and panels for "clean" energy?
Not that much, dude. The drive shafts in a wind turbine are stainless steel, the rudders are mostly carbon composites and the overall structure is made of steel and concrete.
Not sure where these toxic substances come in and why you think the turbines require massive amounts of "clean" energy to build. They do not.
As to solar panels, under new tech you can print them with organic material with a printing system on any surface, mostly glass or metal or anything really, even bricks.
>want clean energy
>also wants to ban nuclear energy
things like that make me wholeheartedly regret universal voting franchise
bccrwe.com
>LINDSEY HILSUM: It doesn't look very green. Rare earth processing in China is a messy, dangerous, polluting business. It uses toxic chemicals, acids, sulfates, ammonia. The workers have little or no protection.
>But, without rare earth, Copenhagen means nothing. You buy a Prius hybrid car and think you're saving the planet. But each motor contains a kilo of neodymium and each battery more than 10 kilos of lanthanum, rare earth elements from China.
>Green campaigners love wind turbines, but the permanent magnets used to manufacture a 3-megawatt turbine contain some two tons of rare earth. The head of China's Rare Earth Research Institute shows me one of those permanent magnets.
There are good reasons to phase out nuclear energy. For instance, if you have overcapacity and other cheap energy sources.
The point is that if you phase out coal AFTER nuclear, you are essentially giving a big fucking middle finger to the climate and the local population.
>Not that much, dude.
see
I do not think that mining pollutioon in China or Chile will come all around the world to hit us in Germany. This local pollution stays local and if those countries wanted to use other methods for rare Earth processing, they would be possible as in Canada.
>omg global climate
>omg global warming
>omg we need world wide solutions now!
>but Chinese not caring about pollution won't effect us
(you)
Seems likely. There’s an unbelievable amount of shilling about energy and you have to know a lot on the subject to see it.
Start with solar.
Solar is a fucking shit meme.
Mining the minerals (cadmium and tellurium) needed ends up strip mining and creating a similar amount of environmental destruction as the oil sands
Processing and Manufacturing the panels creates tons of toxic chemicals
Then you have maintenance required costs which requires potentially more of the above
And you have to replace them every now and then (10-15 yrs) because believe it or not, having panels in areas with wind/particles in the atmosphere etc. damages them
Which means go through the first two again
Its expensive as fuck
Nevermind
>it takes up a ton of space - more than coal/oil/natural gas/hydroelectric/nuclear
>its not efficient enough to meet current needs
>batteries aren't sufficiently enough advanced
>solar mirrors require heat engines/generators in order to convert thermodynamic energy to mechanical to electrical
>all of which cost significant amounts of money, have varying efficiency, require cooling, and maintenance frequently
God forbid they use Gallium Arsenide which is used for high efficiency cells. The name alone should tell you what is wrong with it.
On top of that, you need the infrastructure to redirect all of the energy they are producing into city centers, rural areas, etc. You would also need to produce a large amount of lithium to contain the energy that they would not be able to produce during dusk. Lithium is a toxic product, and its production creates toxic by-products. In the end of solar power you basically have to dustbowl huge swaths of land to cover the area to produce enough energy for the growing population.
Also, examples of great solar usage? All lies. Germany is one that always pops up. But only 7% of their electricity is produced by solar. The vast majority is brown coal at 25%, hard coal at 18%, and nuke at 15%.
Wind runs into similar issues.
>but Chinese not caring about pollution won't effect us
Yeah. Why should I care how the Chinese mine rare minerals? I would care if all those chemicals they used would somehow fly around the world and rain down everywhere, but they don't. They stay local, they contaminate locally. And China is actually cracking down on the worst mining pollution and has adopted more modern tech for it.
So yes, omg global climate, omg global warming, omg city pollutions, we gotta tackle this shit, not the local contamination in some remote Tibetian mine.
because rich people hate poor people able to cheaply live nice lives
this isn't about what makes sense, it's about what will make you feel good
Since I forgot to put an example with this one here's the efficiency of Solar:.
Burning trash via an incinerator. You get a ton of energy out of burning refuse. 280k tons (308k US tons) nets you around 170k mwh on a 5 acre plot. If you got more trash you can easily make more than that.
To put this in comparison - the Sarnia photovoltaic power plant in Ontario - produces 200k mwh. This is on a 1.1k acre plot.
Hence, you could build 220 incinerators producing electricity in the same place as a single solar plant with an output comparable to Sarnia.
>much incineration exhaust fumes
You use lime scrubbers among other things. Bagging etc. There are a lot of things used to control emissions. Unless you are really a part of the industry you don't learn about it. Like lets take a look at sulfur emissions for example:
You split it into two forms
>Regenerative
>Non Regenerative
For Regenerative, you have Wellman-Lord, DESONOX as wet processes and activated carbon as a dry process.
For non regenerative, you have more options with sorbent ejection as dry, sprayer-dryer absorption as semi-dry, and lime/sodium hydroxide/ammonia/hydrogen peroxide/sea water all as wet options.
NOx has things like SCR, EGR etc.
CO2 has extraction processes, carbon recapture, chemical stripping/solvent absorption, etc.
This is all ignoring basic tenants like bag filters, electrostatic filtration etc.
Most modern plants use multiple if not all of the above. Especially incinerators as the environmental regulations on them are stricter than those on oil/natural gas plants/refineries.
Imagine the cognitive dissonance that goes into a post like this.
bloomberg.com
theguardian.com
sciencedaily.com
smithsonianmag.com
nytimes.com
Pencil lead and dvd burner heads
You're right about it not being economically viable though, it doesn't make some asshole infinitely rich as fast.
If you want an idea how efficient modern waste to energy plants are, Mitsubishi Plant A posted their emissions and contrasted them with the Euro 2000 Regulations:
Emission = Euro 2000 Reg = Plant A Emission
>Dioxins = 0.1 ng-TEQ/Nm3 = 0.00011 ng-TEQ/Nm3
>Dust = 10 mg/Nm3 = 3 mg/Nm3
>HCl = 10 mg/Nm3 = 2 mg/Nm3
>SOx = 50 mg/Nm3 = 4 mg/Nm3
>NOx = 200 mg/Nm3 = 110 mg/Nm3
That plant A runs 3 units, that take 300 tons/day. General rule of thumb 500 kWh per ton. So its a lot of energy produced.
WtE also have to test toxicity of fly ash/bottom ash produced. If there are hazardous levels of lead, cadmium, copper or zinc, you have to follow different hazardous waste disposal regulations in order to prevent leaching into underground aquifers.
The biggest issue with WtE tends to be odor pollution. Some plants deal with this via negative pressure zones, but not all plants are equipped to do so.
Sometimes other processes are used to create syngas as well.
Its quite an in depth procedure, but like I said before, no one really gets educated on it unless you want to work in the field.
Lets talk a bit about wind:
>requires a fuckton of space
>mechanically quite useless - doesn't provide a ton of energy
>alter the qualities of wind currents - winds that pass through a turbine are slower and drier that winds that don't
>the change in quality of winds affects agriculture etc.
>winds can stay still for periods of a time
>can't really store the energy well
If you want an example of how retardedly useless wind is, look at some shit from the 2016 election.
nbcnews.com
>Sanders wants to shut down a nuclear power plant that provides 25 per cent of New York City's power in favor of renewables.
In order to replace that one plant with wind turbines you would need to build 140% more turbines than New York has built in the last 20 years. If you wanted to replace nuclear in New York entirely, it shoots up to 550% more turbines than New York has built in the last 20 years. The sheer footprint of that is completely ridiculous, never mind the wasted resources, maintenance costs, lower efficiency etc.
This is also ignoring that you probably have no idea how oil or natural gas plants work.
If you want greener than fossil fuels go nuclear.
If you want greener than nuke go thorium.
Not 500%. 550% more than the past 20 years. There are currently 542. To meet the demand they would need to build another 2981. Bringing the new total up to 3523 turbines. There is already roughly 58,000 acres taken up by the current 542. The construction would take up another 321,000 more acres giving you a grand total of 378,000 acres wasted by this shit.
Keep in mind those are approximate numbers as many wind farms don't list their acreage in publicly available format.
By comparison nuclear, including decommissioned plants has taken up 2921 acres exactly. Hell, had Shoreham gone as intended it would have prevented 3 million tons of CO2 emissions per year. And it's half the size of two of the plants included in that nuclear acreage.
>much land usage to get uranium
Crow Butte is a good example. It's only 3,300 acres on the lease and in situ leach takes up only 1,100 of the lease. Uranium isn't like the fucking Alberta tar sands. It's quite small scale.
And this is all conveniently ignoring thorium.
South of yoorop, there is a desert of the size of the USA which could help us to reduce carbon emissions. Our researchers are actively searching for ways to reduce the costs of solar energy. Pic related is a solar power plant which could produce electricity at night too. Without the heavy taxes on electricity, it would be cheap enough already.
The problem is that the sahara dies not belong to us and is mostly in countries too unsafe for investors.
Now you talking about air pollution, completely different thing than rare Earth mining pollution.
Also, in general this stuff you cite from 2014 was a matter for the US and the Pacific Region, not Europe, so why should I care?
>why not to listen to environmentalists"
They have no knowledge of the processes in which resources for "clean" energy are accrued let alone the processes which are utilized to meet their final production stage.
They have no knowledge of the demonstrably significant environmental impacts of "clean" energy projects due not only to production but also maintenance and operation.
They have no knowledge as to the scale of which the "clean" energy processes must operate at in order to meet similar energy demands of "dirty" fossil fuels/nuke/etc.
They have no knowledge as to environmental regulations as to which plants must pass in order to operate.
They have no knowledge as to emissions standards as to which plants must meet in order to operate.
They have no knowledge as to how say "high" emissions are the mark of poor maintenance/operation but immediately assume it is industry standard.
They have no knowledge as to American/Canadian/European energy consumption rates and their breakdown as to what industries contribute to these standards.
They have no knowledge as to various anti-pollution mechanisms ranging from operational procedures to control devices utilized to lower emissions.
They have no knowledge as to how the industries work in particular - that is how oil and gas processing/catalytic cracking provides various needs, the analysis of combustion of fuel, or even how Nuclear facilities provide medical isotopes.
They have no knowledge of how significant government funding is allocated towards "clean" energy and its nature of propping up a largely floundering industry.
They have no regard for how their implementation of their ideals will decimate lower social/economic class individuals - and if implemented cross borders, will slow the industrial progression of nations outside of their homeland.
They innately oppose outputs seen as "dirty" without any comparison to their "clean" output in regards to efficiency.
>pollution can't come from one source to affect the other
>air pollution doesn't come from mining or refining resources
You are retarded.
>it's from 2014
Perhaps you'd like to show when the issue was fixed rather than last reported on.
And Hydro?
>Fucks up aquatic ecosystems
>reservoirs are stagnant compared to rivers and have larger sediment deposits
This means you get excess algae/weeds and have to either harvest or introduce new aquatic species to control it otherwise native species are displaced
>reservoirs evaporate faster
>downstream evaporate faster
Which means plant and animal life get harmed so you have to have operators monitoring send adjusting frequently to prevent it
>reservoirs water is low in dissolved oxygen and temp which Fucks up animal life
Now you need an aerating turbine to fix this issue
>emits around 0.5 pounds of carbon dioxide per kwh due to decomposition of vegetation and soil
Natural gas in a decent plant emits 0.6, so it's really not that much greener. A shitty plant will run 2.0 but you get more closer to 0.6/0.8 for natural gas.
>Fucks up fish migration
>takes up significant portion of land
>terraforms the land around it which Fucks up animal/plant biomes
>may require flooding which destroys habitats/agricultural land
>may require displacement of local population
>fuck ups result in huge floods that kills fuck tons of people
>is very location oriented in efficiency - can range from 0.25 acres per mwh to 2000 acres per mwh
Basically it's sold as being green, but really isn't and divests future generations from the beauty of the natural environment while Fucking every animal around it. Plus sometimes you have to deal with delta p, and that fucking sucks dick.
>Living in a mountain
Are you people actually this fucking retarded? You'd rather excavate an entire fucking mountain, then somehow secure an air, water and food source, and then somehow maintain this mountain. You all realize that a mountain city would easily be destroyed by any invading conquering army, right?
>Providing 63% of our electricity, hydropower is a cornerstone of Canada’s economy.
Because of fucking government/private corporation cronyism. The hydro companies crack huge deals with the federal government, grift the citizens billions, block the expansion or building of alternates like Nuclear, and conveniently covers up the incidents like Muskrat Falls which lead to poisoning citizens with methylmercury.
Hydro is great. Germany spents trillions just to get to a fraction of that shit. verficktes Blatt
It's all about the vote
shovel the people and "people" displaced by the large solar/wind farms into big cities and stack them vertically so they take up less room on the ground
then pump them full of hormone-laden water and food and suddenly they're pacified, obedient, brainless leftists
>larger cities tend to have a higher leftist population
suddenly a highly conservative area is full of trannies and faggots and niggers and is voting blue
Things are much simpler here, thanks to our weather making both sun- and wind power quite weak.
I'm doing my dissertation on the subject. The answer to your question can be found in , and . Our planet will essentially die because of retards and democracy.
FOr commercial use for sure, but they are not available for hydro energy production simultaneously, nor wouldn't suit for it either.
> so much money wasted in
> and only 35% covered so far
Why thou, they won't be able to cover the use of the public without a proper battery tech, which is borderline impossible to create.
That Australian battery storage isn't worth of jackshit in the end.
because Germany wants to build its own battery factory.
> Climate Church acolytes only now understand how much damage the required mining is going to cause
truly a shoe size IQ ideology
> “it is physically impossible”.
Cmon Leo that never stopped your ancestors
>Hydro is great.
did you forgot the 2 gazillion dead in banqiao dam failure, hans?
en.wikipedia.org
Because the jews want you to be slaves to Russia... again
>No coal
>No gas
>No atom
What alternative fuel could germans be possibly burning in their future power plants, hmmm.
> put cheap Chinese solar panels with efficiency rate of 20% on disposal on a huge area
> efficiency diminishes in time down to 5%
> need to cut down more forests or implement highly polluting under water mining to mine those rare elements
> to produce the same efficiency solar panels
> that last another 10 years, max
> and provide the actual benefit only during day time
solar power is a joke, lmao
Don't know, but loads of problems could be solved with it
> The problem is that the sahara does not belong to us and is mostly in countries too unsafe for investors.
ffs, the whole thing could be done in Florida, Southern Spain, Crete, Sicily or Mexico if needed. Not accessing Sahara is a poor excuse and mainly related to keep the immigrants at bay, so they won't rush in Europe
>Nuclear energy is garbage boomer tier energy.
Know why it's boomer tier? Because people freaked out, and instead of learning from the accidents and mistakes, they put the kibosh on newer, improved units. It'd be like using cars still from the 1950s for fuel efficiency.
Sucks to be faculty in a Poli Sci. department and pretend that democracy is based.
Mandatory psychological tests for voting rights when.
Imagine having such tremendous potential being able to split the atom with decades of knowledge and experience available and simultaneously having to suffer through an energy "crisis" involving people cobbling together shit panels on their roof to power a single community lightbulb for warmth like we're playing Fallout or some shit. I'm so tired of these artificially created problems produced by retarded faggot politicians.
The urban rednecks (aka liberals) unwilling to educate themselves are the reason for this.
This. Not to mention the toxic heavy metals contained in the panels, which are washed off by rain over time polluting the soil.
> toxic heavy metals contained in the panels, which are washed off by rain over time
the worse part is that they have to be washed in a periodic cycle, besides the raining, so the soil intoxicating is essentially guaranteed.
See this is sensible since solar thermal is
a) about as efficient as pv
b) thermal storage can be built into the system really cheaply, and usually is
c) its just mirrors, a steam egine and some hot nitrate salt, very little hazardous materials are involved
How exactly is the solar thermal harvested in these solar farms?
I can't imagine any way to store and utilise it later of without water vapour.
Fucking based, strike the earth bros
Take the dorfpill today