What you guys think of eco friendly energy? Is there a way to get abundant and freely energy?

these, majority nuclear and some solar for those that want it or very rural areas with a microgrid

The Sun will produce energy for billions of years to come. Solar is the energy source of the near future, till they declassify Zero Point.

nobody here knows what they are saying.
Solar is now mind-blowingly cheap and it will get even cheaper.
It will become profitable to waste some of it at peak and build excess capacity to get that cheap power at non-peak situations.

Nuclear is fucking expensive, nobody wants it except fanboy wankers.

Why wait?

energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc33SG/Disc33SG.html

>orbital ring
W O K E

Attached: 1558635173915.jpg (888x894, 261K)

No

solar and eolic can make you independent energetically speaking but is nothing like "muh free and clin inergey"

ITER online when?

Attached: 7a4f1c9017ec1b9c5dd2e65595cd1bff.jpg (300x300, 24K)

Damn straight. It fucking keeps me up at night trying to figure out why we don't have one. The cost is estimated at like 31 billion dollars in 1980. At current inflation, it would be 96 billion. It wouldn't even need to be .gov project. Amazon could fucking do it. They could Rod From God dragon dildos directly into my living room. But nooooo.

Nuclear has no sufficient plentiful source to even replace 10% of hydrocarbons, not to mention it's multiple times as expensive as nat gas, takes five times longer to build a reactor and no one will invest in lower return, longer waits, or deal with the nimby bullshit.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513003856

thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517302914

youtu.be/-sjwHKBxxA4

When will solar power its own production?

The answer is never.

>eco friendly
not possible. somewhere along the line, you are making a mess

>Nuclear is expensive, because of s o i boi wankers
fixed that for you. Pathetic smoothskins, afraid of a few millicuries.

Honestly, we should just make the mess where it doesn't matter and has the least impact on people. Like Africa, or the middle east.

Nuclear, but it's a good solution do the retarded left is against it

you will never get the energy it took to build the panels back out of them

Winner

>but niggers keep fucking it up.
only because they want to use high pressure systems that make materials for weapons, we could use safe LFTR reactors with no issues at all

>Is there a way to get abundant and freely energy?
Yes. Nuclear, which is the only green energy that exists and will ever exist.

Here the government are so FUCKING retarded, that they'd rather spend £100billion+ on a completely useless fucking train line called HS2 in order to go from london to birmingham ~15 minutes quicker.
Could literally build 10 moon colonies for that cost instead, but nope lobbying and brown envelope backhanders are more important apparently

Attached: Hs2.png (1200x2098, 468K)

>user discovers entropy

Thorium reactors have reusable fissile material so the source of fuel isn't a concern once the research is done. It's only expensive to build up costs and decommissioning (safety cucks worry too much). Easily can slash costs if the government streamlines the process of building power plants (like france)

>What you guys think of eco friendly energy?
You mean nuclear power? Yes, nuclear power is perfect and will propel is into the next millennias. Nuclear power is the most efficient, safe, clean and sustainable form of power generation.
Every single windmill and solar panel should be torn down because they are unneeded in the face of nuclear power. Death to coal and gas, nuclear power is infinitely safer and better than them.

more or less true, the regulation have made nuclear expensive. But its difficult to convince people to get extra radiation.

ask tesla oh wait well maybe we could read his notes

>What you guys think of eco friendly energy?
It's great. There are some renewable energies that are interesting but they're not that efficient, especially in certain environments (solar energy, hydro geothermic, etc) but I should remind you that renewable =/= eco-friendly. Nuclear is the most interesting eco-friendly energy of them all, and if we manage to harness fusion or even zero-point, the possibilities are limitless.
Other renewable energies, like eolic (windmills), biomass... aren't really eco-friendly at all.
>Abundant and free energy
Physics 101: there's no such a thing as "free" energy but zero-point and this is just mostly fiction.
Right now we can only talk about it in market terms: how efficient can it be? Can we really make these reach a balance point where the producers don't lose money?
Nuclear, once again, is the answer. If you want to be eco-friendly, there are certain ecosystems where some renewable sources can be kind of profitable: here eolic (which once again, isn't ecofriendly) and solar generate profit, and in Iceland geothermic is unsurprisingly relevant. Few other places can really say this though (would you put solar panels in Russia?)
TL:DR: Nuclear good, fuck the left for lobbying against it, they're the ones killing the planet.

>Nuclear power is the most efficient, safe, clean and sustainable form of power generation.

to add on to that nuclear has the least amount of (deaths/trillionkWhr). Even when you add the major disasters (only like three major ones compared to the thousands of accidents from any other energy sources)

forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#1319afe709b7

> Under the 25-year contract with developer 8minute Solar Energy, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power would pay less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour — a number city officials and independent experts say would be the lowest price ever paid for solar power in the United States, and cheaper than the cost of electricity from a typical natural gas-fired power plant. In addition to 400 megawatts of solar power, the Eland project would include at least 200 megawatts of lithium-ion batteries, capable of storing solar power during the day and injecting it into the grid for four hours each night.
> The combined price to L.A. ratepayers of the solar and storage would be 3.3 cents per kilowatt-hour — also a record low for this type of contract.
latimes.com/environment/story/2019-08-27/los-angeles-solar-energy-storage-cheap

Honestly, awareness about energy sources like nuclear should be mandatory. I have seen so much fear from the average dumbass. Its so bad, I don't wanna even correct them as it is waste of my breath when they just deny facts.

Wind energy on an industrial/large scale is a total scam and solar energy is unreliable in the long term.

Even if 90% of the world switched to green energy tomorrow, the remaining 10% will burn up all remaining supplies of fossil fuels because with less demand they would become dirt cheap.

tl;dr: zoomers are fucked.

It's trash. Will destroy the planet faster than nuclear ever could.

I wouldn't completely give up on solar. Once we get better batteries, we can commit a larger portion of our energy source to solar (but not a significant amount). Batteries suck today btw.

damn that's cheap, 15.5p per kWh here in londonistan.
Honestly a £10k solar setup (panels/inverter/charge controller/powerwall) would give most people here energy independence for at least ~15-20 years, with a surplus.
I'd get one myself but I don't own a house yet

orange man said coal is good

can't store surplus when the batteries suck :/

So the laws of thermodynamics don't hold and you're going to reuse the shittiest fissile material because you never took material science or fucking fluid dynamics right?

Why do you dumb shits who couldn't even get a mechanical engineering degree argue with people who went into the very fields you claim are real?

Where's your thorium reactor patent fuckface?

it's fucking dumb. nothing wrong with c02 emission. no proof oil or coal is running out

Checked. Those digits agree user. Hopefully energy storage becomes better in the future. Also improvements in nuclear fission (its safety) would be a godsend for future civilisation.

>I'm pro renewable and eco friendly energy, that's why I believe in nuclear.

This. Sadly I'm one of maybe 1.5 Germans seeing things that way. Plus I don't dare put pic related on my car because some self righteous eco warrior bitch would set it on fire if I did.

Attached: nuclear_power_yes_please.jpg (750x1000, 154K)

There is more than enough thorium because you can use 99.98% of thorium for energy production vs. just 0.4% of uranium.
Thorium is also 3 times more common in the earth's crust.
So there is 750 times more useful thorium than useful uranium.

powerwall today already has a huge 13.5kwh capacity, houses here barely use between 5 to 7 kw per day. Of course during daylight hours it would be mostly from the panels themselves, and the battery charging, so a -huge- extra amount to store overnight

Sounds like BS considering that I as a consumer paying 12c night 30+c day right now.

>Is there a way to get abundant and free energy?
Yeah, kill muslims and take it from them.

>So the laws of thermodynamics don't hold and you're going to reuse the shittiest fissile material because you never took material science or fucking fluid dynamics right?

read the first fking line on the link u inbread

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

>Where's your thorium reactor patent fuckface?

The prototype in India in 2020?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_Fast_Breeder_Reactor

utility prices are always lower than consumer prices.
energy production is maybe 20% of the end cost.

Funny how you forgot to mention nuclear waste. You know, the stuff that remains highly radioactive for thousands of years.

I'll take as much solar, wind and hydro power as we can create, then supplement as needed with existing power plants.

Sadly in Germany the big coal companies brainwashed "eco warriors" into becoming anti-nuclear.
They naively do the bidding of the biggest polluters.

>because with less demand they would become dirt cheap.
false. There are extraction costs.
if renewables become cheaper than extraction costs, then those fossil fuels will stay in the ground.

Oh right I remember 2020. What else happened that year? Oh that's right, the reactor never got built and the public started to realize they were getting scammed. Thank God that year is over.

I have a solar system by necessity as our corrupt power provider shits on our people daily.
Lemme tell you, once you go solar, you never need to go back. It works.
Even if (((they))) seize the battery supply we can still make (inefficient but cheap) batteries out of carbon and salt water enough to power small appliances for free.
It's more about empowering individuals than finding the most efficient source.
Most efficient is not necessarily the cheapest or best, especially when corruption is at play.

Attached: image002-778898.jpg (604x453, 42K)

Do you know how much waste is produced when making solar panels? Do you know how many solar panels the Chinese make every year? Do you believe they will be recycled properly?

True, you also pay far less when you're on the 3000V net.
This is how EV fast chargers can compete with charging at home.
Some supermarkets like Lidl even let you charge your EV for free because for them it costs hardly anything.

You also know there is not much waste.
>All of the used fuel ever produced by the commercial nuclear industry since the late 1950s would cover a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards. That might seem like a lot, but coal plants generate that same amount of waste every hour.

nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste

I would think we should be more concerned about our landfill than the minimal amount of waste produced from nuclear.

Any half life greater than 14 years isn't really worth concern. "Thousands of years" is not very radioactive.

Hydroelectric but lefties don't like building dams.

We now have power-generating plants that run off of natural gas and release zero emissions.

Nuclear is best.
The newest designs can actually use old waste as fuel. And overall they are cleaner than the shit chemicals needed for manufacturing solar panels. Wind and wave energy it's bad news.

The panels last 20 years or more. Centralized waste. China make a fuckton and they're low pollution, don't buy the gas-co memes.
I can make them in my workshop too, but not as good as the chinese.
And they're cheap here, around $40 per panel. 3 panels is enough to charge an e-bike. 1 Panel is enough to run lights.
You live in your dependency world. I can't.

Except manufacturing solar panels creates a ton of industrial waste. It's not a good idea.

Extraction costs are a lot lower than market values, and are rapidly getting lower with new extraction techniques.
Especially natural gas is extremely cheap to extract now compared to 20 years ago.

thats just one, if you want the first its from 1951. It's already feasible lol

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_I

Geothermal and tidal have potential, but yes thorium has massive amounts of potential.

it all depends. The fields in Kuwait are cheap to extract, but Arctic Russia is expensive, Norway is expensive, offshore too.
So the expensive gas & oil will NOT be extracted. We will use up those cheap locations, but that is a fraction of the total reserves.

The total amount of nuclear waste is very small.
Just dump it in an old salt mine and put some "The Gods' forbidden tunnels" hieroglyphs on top.

10.000 years from now the world will me littered with toxic waste from solar panels and wind turbines, nobody will care about some tiny amounts of radioactive waste.

People are already installing solar and its working (if you don't fall for the unscrupulous dealers who push over-priced victron on you)
so why look for complex alternatives? Just embrace solar and it will bring down the cost even more. DIY solar is very affordable for a small home or farm.
To me it makes the most sense of all power generation since you have 100% control over the installation and it's really not difficult more than connecting wires and mounting a few brackets.

Nah, the big coal companies are going the way of the Dodo as well. They are just a slightly later step in the (((deindustrialization plan))). There are already noises being made about turning coal plants of. Hell, there was a brand new 1.1GW coal plant (Datteln IV in NRW) slated to go into operation a few months from now. A court declared the building permit invalid a few days ago...

i'd say wait another 2-3 years for prices to drop even more, but otherwise yeah it's a very good idea

No such thing. The cleanest energy is hydro electric and it creates lakes to where people can build homes around and sportsman can fish, swim and scuba dive and bathe in but faggy hippies think fish are more important than electricity.

>Arctic Russia is expensive

Not once global warming kicks in.
And Norway will extract every last drop of oil: they don't give a shit, they already bought off their own eco guilt by building hydroelectric dams.

the Russians own that game.
they have experience and a superior technology.
they have commercial operation of utility sized reactors (not stupid tiny research reactors).

Attached: file.png (1432x302, 59K)

there are already net positive fusion reactors. the technology is becoming ever more compact cheap, private capital has started entering the race.

fusion is no longer 30 years from now, it's here now. 30 years from now it will represent a huge chunk of world's energy sources

> South Africa
> Solar

Maybe it's feasible for you, Boer. It certainly isn't here. And it's never reliable. I want a whole lot of power at my disposel whenever I fucking chose to need it. Solar can't give me that, period. It's only a valid energy source for kaffir tier energy use (i.e. charge a phone, maybe run a small TV), nothing worthy of a white man.

Also:

> mounting a few brackets.

We get a whole fucking lot of rain and snow up here in the northern latitudes. "a few brackets" are a surefire recipe for a leaky roof. And no, I don't have any room for ground level solar panels on my tiny 500 square meter piece of land.

Fusion is a bullshit, sorry.

Fusion reactors cost billions to build and can only operate for a few MINUTES before needing a complete overhaul costing more billions.
Shit will never become economically viable, just use solar/wind if you want "free" energy while ignoring all construction and maintenance costs.

Pumped hydro is a great backup storage tool but they don't like that either.

> Shit will never become economically viable

It may at some stage, but it will need one huge fucking breakthrough in containment technology. Until then (and I suspect it will be a long time until then), fission is the best thing we got and we'd be well advised to milk it for all it's worth.

They hate everything that works. Almost as if (((somebody))) holding their puppet strings steered them that way.

I don't think those Russian reactors could work on thorium.

Only a handful of countries are researching thorium reactors, mine being one and China being the biggest investor I believe.

Sux to be you, but I don't think you know how solar works - it's reliable and works in overcast weather BETTER than sunny weather (physics).
Also take the DC power pill. 40% more efficient than (((AC power))) for short distances.

>imagine thinking wind mills are the future

>Fusion reactors cost billions
this is no longer the case. hell people have started making DIY fusion reactors.

>operate for a few MINUTES before needing a complete overhaul
that is no longer the case either. Chinese and Japanese have broken records on sustained fusion reactions, with reactors operating normally. EU's ITER has operated for 6 minutes without any damage to the reactor casing. And that's just the tokamak design. Stellarators can run for several dozen minutes with no adverse effects to the reactor.

the structural issues have more or less been overcome. the current issue is efficiency, imputing less energy into containment fields (for tokamaks, stellarators, Z-pinch reactors, etc.) and outputting more energy via thermal transfer. Again, the net positive milestone has been reached, all it takes now is to increase efficiency, something private capital is great at.

recent findings have suggested AI and advances in material science could help with the input efficiency, whereas the researchers have only now started working on how to extract more energy from the reactor.

its either , industrial waste or radioactive waste that will be around for another million years. too long for civilization to sustain

afaik there is no real economic benefit of going after thorium. Uranium as fuel is already cheap.

You want to compete, and to do that you need to have lower costs. Right now the big cost of nuclear is just CAPEX. Fuel costs are next to nothing, so the fuel issue can be just ignored.

So what the nuclear industry really needs is to make building NPPs much much cheaper. But they know they can't do it.

If the world spend 5% of what they spend on researching fusion on researching thorium instead, then we would have fixed climate change already.

But this will never happen because it would destroy oil companies.
Fusion is a popular research area because it will never work so it's no threat to big oil.

Nuclear is eco-friendly. But an entire rehabilitation of humanity is required before free and unlimited energy would be anything but swift and deadly poison.

> Also take the DC power pill. 40% more efficient than (((AC power))) for short distances.

user, I'll have a pretty hard time running my 3 phase 5HP circular saw on DC power, believe me.

> it's reliable and works in overcast weather BETTER than sunny weather (physics).

And a lot BETTER close to the equator because the sun hits at a 90 degree angle or close (geometry). My point about northern latitude stands, no matter whether you speak truth about the cloud cover thing (I happen to think that's bullshit, as long as "physics" you don't care to elaborate on is your only proof).

>Is there a way to get abundant and freely energy?
No. It is a way to make gullible faggots feel good while taking their money.

Attached: 0EA092C0-CFAC-4481-BD04-BBAE9D0A06E6.jpg (4032x3024, 2.87M)

The reason to go after thorium is because uranium would run out very quickly if everyone started building uranium reactors.
Thorium would last 750 times loner.

Also, although uranium reactors are perfectly safe, thorium reactors would be so incredibly safe it would shut up any last naysayers.

You put nuclear waste in a low power reactor and generate more electricity, you filthy jew

>figure out efficient wireless energy transmission (scientists are working on this)
>build a spaceborne energy capturing satellite that captures energy from the sun and beams it back to earth
>enjoy virtually limitless free purely clean energy

Attached: Wallace-482x298.jpg (481x298, 17K)

>If the world spend 5% of what they spend on researching fusion on researching thorium instead, then we would have fixed climate change already.

Not much to research there anymore. It has been known to work fine since the US Air Force built the first Thorium reactor for their Project Pluto.

> But this will never happen because it would destroy oil companies.

I don't think it's the oil companies themselves that are the problem. It's their (((owners))) disliking the whole notion of "energy too cheap to meter". The goyim might get uppity if they didn't have to worry about the crushing weight of all sorts of bills keeping them running in place.