/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12200964]

Why does wind power make Reddit and midwits seethe so much?

[Anonymous No.12200969]

Wind mills cause cancer

[Anonymous No.12201453]

>>12200964
It doesn't, it makes right wing people seethe. /pol/ seethes about it.

[Anonymous No.12201612]

>>12200964
My only guess is that the idea of free energy goes against the grain of their consooming habits. Which is ironic since they're the ones obsessed with the consumerism conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.12201619]

>>12200964
It kills birds, and, because of their size, tends to kill larger birds of prey (more likely to be endangered) especially owls and eagles.

No one would give a shit if it just killed starlings and pigeons.

[Anonymous No.12201626]

>>12200964
>Environmentally friendly
>dot the entire country side with steel and concrete

[Anonymous No.12201643]

>>12201619
Apparently they produce infrared waves, and who knows what effect could be had on weather patterns.

[Anonymous No.12201646]

>>12200964
I actually like windmills, I think they look cool
the problem is that people, and politicians especially who support wind power don't also support nuclear. And people who don't support nuclear power make me seethe because usually I find retards in positions of power frustrating.

[Anonymous No.12201651]

they are ugly
you really want a view like that where you live??

[Anonymous No.12201659]

>>12201626
>ruins "natural" countryside consisting of cleared fields/croplands dotted with the occasional farmhouse

[Anonymous No.12201688]

My guess its because its not as much of a meme as solar energy or outright primitivism.

[Anonymous No.12201708]

how long does it take to recover the energy spent creating, transporting and placing a wind turbine?

[Anonymous No.12201712]

>>12201626
>caring about the ugly countryside where no one lives

[Anonymous No.12201720]

>>12201651
I like them
they're aesthetic monuments to human ingenuity and power
they're way better than just having to look at buildings and shit

[Anonymous No.12201745]

>>12200964
But isn't renewable energy a stereotypical Reddit thing?

[Anonymous No.12201757]

>>12201643
>infrared wave

OK, take a picture of them with an infrared camera then.

[Anonymous No.12201770]

>>12201757
*infrasound

[Anonymous No.12201923]

>>12201770
You were right the first time.

[Anonymous No.12201928]

>>12201745
Absolutely not

[Anonymous No.12202042]

>>12201659
>posts a strawman argument on 4chan

[Anonymous No.12202046]

>>12200964
windmills are the ultimate retard energy
you get to destroy ecosystems while spending decades recovering your carbon costs

[Anonymous No.12202126]

>>12201626
>he doesn't know about offshore wind power

[Anonymous No.12202130]

>>12201453
Plenty of left wing commentators think wind is bullshit as well, like Michael Moore and Ben Heard.

[Anonymous No.12202287]

>>12200964
Irregular and unpredictable energy input into a grid that was designed around throttleable power plants. Require natural gas peaking plants to be kept hot and spinning so they can be powered up when the wind dies down. Ugly, ruin views and have a lifespan with disposal issues down the road. Also wrongly believed to be a panacea by some people that are not honest with themselves.

[Anonymous No.12202305]

>>12201619
>It kills birds
painting one blade black reduces deaths by 70%

[Anonymous No.12202454]

>>12200964
something about turning birds gay

[Anonymous No.12202506]

>>12202305
While making the turbine 70% uglier and more distracting.

[Anonymous No.12202525]

>>12201708
>3.6MW
not long

[Anonymous No.12202533]

>>12200964
Wind and solar are meme power sources that require enormous government subsidization to remain competitive. Meanwhile we're letting the same green energy lobby tax and regulate nuclear power to death.

[Anonymous No.12202916]

their production process is completely unviable without subsidization with fossil fuels

[Anonymous No.12202986]

>>12200964
It's probably the least efficient and most inconvenient form of so-called 'renewables', the least realiable, the most expensive, and the gods-be-damned things are mechanical and require regular expensive maintenance to keep them productive. Between those and solar, solar is better. But I'll still hold out for practical fusion.

[Anonymous No.12203102]

>>12202506
stop looking and seething them then.
go kiss a chimney and fap

[Anonymous No.12203105]

>>12202916
The U.S. spends $26 billion annually subsidizing fossil fuels.

... on top of that, the trillions of dollars wasted and thousands of lives lost in Iraq Wars I & II.

[Anonymous No.12203108]

>>12200964
wind energy is a meme
and only midwits like it a practical solution.

[Anonymous No.12203116]

>>12203108
https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-130-vf.pdf

page 8

[Anonymous No.12203120]

>>12202533
Nuclear power is even heavier subsidized since the goverment pays for the waste containment.

[Anonymous No.12203124]

>>12202986
No, it depends on the region.

[Anonymous No.12203125]

>>12200964
My country, UK, just announced that they plan to have wind generated energy reach 100% of households by 2030. As an engineering student, I am excited.

[Anonymous No.12203166]

>>12203116
>maintenance, decommissioning and raw materials environmental score not included in the LCOE formula
anon, I...

[Anonymous No.12203188]

>>12203166
feel free to count them, fossils will not come out the winner

[Anonymous No.12203208]

>>12200964
nuclear>hydro (where viable)>wind>geothermal>coal>solar.

[Anonymous No.12203211]

>>12203188
I agree... but wind and solar neither.
Fusion and Hydroelectric are the only tech that will matter 50 years from now.

[Anonymous No.12203230]

>>12203211
>50 years
riiight, that tired old meme again

[Anonymous No.12203283]

>>12202305
post the study anon

[Anonymous No.12203383]

>>12201708
actually pretty quick, i read some studies where it was measured to be below 5 years or so, it is called eroi (environmental return on investment)
i obviously cant be bothered to look for it for some random dude on the internet

[Anonymous No.12203387]

>>12203208
would be based if solar was before wind
nuclear is the best, but there is just no point in developing it to be replaced by fusion in several decades, so bridging the gap with solar and wind makes sense and also helps to decentralize energy infrastructure which is good thing with any sources

[Anonymous No.12203388]

>>12203283
>spoonfeed me
ok little retard
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=painting+one+blade+black+reduces+deaths+by+70%25&t=lm&ia=web

[Anonymous No.12203566]

>>12201708
EROI for wind power is around 20. So I guess that net energy return comes in less than a year.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096014810900055X

[Anonymous No.12203586]

>>12200964
Because they're full of hot air.

[Anonymous No.12203604]

>>12201651
I don't know why people think they're ugly. They look aesthetic like >>12201646 said

[Anonymous No.12203606]

>>12201612
>free energy

It's not free. You need a lot of resources to build a windmill, it will need maintenance and after 20 years you'll need to tear it down.

Then when you have a windmill you need a gas peaker plant somewhere too for those days when it isn't windy enough.

And if it is free energy then there's even freer energy pouring out of holes that we drill in the seabed.

[Anonymous No.12203612]

>>12202130
What are their arguments?

[Anonymous No.12203616]

>>12203566
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment#EROEI_and_payback_periods_of_some_types_of_power_plants

Literally only worse source is coal. good job wind.

also

>Smil collected data on the EROI of wind turbines and found that the largest, in the windiest locations, approach 20. But most are less than 10.[12]

Wind power derives it's energy from virtue signaling to idiots, brainlets and other non-thinking NPCs who grows up on a diet of green propaganda

[Anonymous No.12203619]

>>12203616
>Literally only worse source is coal
Mistyped or filtered actually should be solar.

[Anonymous No.12203650]

>>12203616
Piss-poor trolling. At least do it correctly.
Your link even shows an EROI of 50 for the 2.3MW wind turbine, on par with hydro, better than fossil fuel plants and only half of the nuclear ones.

[Anonymous No.12203795]

>>12203604
It's only aesthetic to those retards that have a bias for them

[Anonymous No.12203800]

>>12203650
>Your link even shows an EROI of 50 for the 2.3MW wind turbine
Based on a retracted study where they transmute lack of CO2 emissions into a value 40 EROI to offset the pathethic 10 EROI it actually lands at.

[Anonymous No.12203845]

>>12203795
It's only unaesthetic to those retards that have a bias against them

[Anonymous No.12203880]

>>12201712
faggot

[Anonymous No.12203899]

fuck the birds

[Anonymous No.12203927]

I do not like them because they kill eagles but also when I drive from Sydney to Melbourne I count the ones that are out of service, they turn them away from the wind currents, around 50 percent are out of service :/

They cause this phenomenon known as upward lightning which is kinda cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Hb6BjbBONg

[Anonymous No.12203946]

>>12203612
Probably that onshore wind has an abysmal capacity factor so you need to build 3x the nameplate capacity you actually need, and yet you'll still get days where you don't make anything at all so you need at least an equivalent energy storage capacity as your generation capacity to smooth things out and *hopefully* not have to do too many rolling blackouts. This makes the costs for the energy entirely uncompetitive. Entirely. Then you have offshore wind, which has a capacity factor as high as 80% in some places, but you still need some extra generation and some battery, and building offshore wind costs 2-3x as much. Also nobody wants turbines in their waterfront property view.
Wind and solar can easily cover between 10 and 30 percent of generation though. You just need to keep your real baseload and reserve peaking capacity. Those pushing the renewable revolution are just not educated in the nuances of the technologies.

[Anonymous No.12204237]

>>12203606
Why does it need to be taken down after 20 yrs?

[Anonymous No.12204288]

>>12204237
Material fatigue

[Anonymous No.12204479]

>>12204288
What a fucking joke, today's reactors might be operating for at least 100 years

[Anonymous No.12204489]

>midwit
Is there a bigger indicator that you're dealing with a disingenuous shitposter than this?

[Anonymous No.12204531]

>>12200964
Like solar they are a useful technology for certain applications buy trying to make it a primary power source for cities is retarded.

Until we get fusion figured out 4th gen fission is the only sensible option for carbon-free energy.

[Anonymous No.12204532]

>>12204479
A wind turbine lifetime can be extended by some amount.

But, It requires inspections, repair and maintenance. And whereas a 1000 MW nuclear reactor is a single big structure that you can inspect, service and repair on its own, the equivalent kWh production from 1MW wind plants is not 1000 but 5000(20% capacity factor being around average)

So individually inspecting, repairing and maintaining 5000 windmills built with 20 year lifetimes intended and smaller safety margins vs 1 nuclear reactor with miles wide safety margins and 60 year intended lifetime. Despite all other complexities the reactor is a more likely target for maintenance, overhauling and extended service life.

[Anonymous No.12204537]

>>12204531
Those blades will never decompose. When all our nuclear waste have evaporated those windmill blades will still be polluting the environment.

[Anonymous No.12204548]

>>12200964
/pol/ here
They are too expensive and inneficient in long term. Maintenance is also expensive. When it comes to renewables, new fission type reactors should be build otherwise it is solar. It is easier to build, to maintain, to upgrade and to dismantle solar plants.

[Anonymous No.12204560]

>>12204531
Can't we just dump then into active volcano or maybe Marianna trench? So it can be covered and eventually absorbed into crust and eventually into the mantle by moving techtonic plates?

[Anonymous No.12204592]

>>12204548
What's the point of saying you are from /pol/?

[Anonymous No.12204600]

>>12204592
I wanted to assure posters here that /pol/ has not forgotten /lit/.
We haven't abandoned you, it may not always be obvious, but we follow and contribute to the discussions on this board regularly.

[Anonymous No.12204672]

>>12204560
Volcano is a retarded idea but we could dump them into a subduction zone. The problem is the sheer mass of blades we'll eventually be dumping. Like full cargo ships worth every day. It would be extremely expensive. So for now, while nobody is paying attention, they're just buried while proponents who profit on green hype pretend turbine EOLing isn't a big deal.

[Anonymous No.12204865]

>>12203800
Then you posted bogus references and your arguments are invalid.
Your FUD attempt is a complete failure.

[Anonymous No.12205133]

>>12200964
As a midwit I'm not specifically upset at wind energy but rather the lack of support and attention for nucular

[Anonymous No.12206010]

>>12204672
I know at least one company is looking into chipping them and using them as aggregate for concrete since they are just fiberglass anyways

[Anonymous No.12206015]

>>12203795
>>12203845
I don't think wind really works but I like how they look

[Anonymous No.12206052]

>>12206010
Moving big heavy shit is expensive. Cutting up huge shit is expensive. Making concrete from a nearby quarry is way cheaper than shipping blades to a chipper then shipping chips to a batching plant. Those chips would literally have to be cheaper than nearby rocks to be competitive. As a light weight aggregate, maybe it could be close to the cost of using virgin material, but light weight concretes occupy a very tiny percentage of the concrete market and we're looking at a legendary fuckton of turbine blades down the road.

>>12206015
They do look very graceful on the horizon.

[Anonymous No.12206252]

>>12203387
solar is absolute shit tier for national scale generation. to complicated and reliant on weather. a well placed windfall will generate power constantly, outputs ac and doesn't require significant maintenance.
solar panels lose 40% of their efficiency in the first decade. plus complicated sun tracking systems.
oh there's dust on the panels and it's cloudy. guess we'll have a brown out then.

[Anonymous No.12206364]

>>12206252
Well placed onshore wind has a better capacity factor than solar but it's still pretty bad, and sites you can put "well placed" turbines are uncommon. Offshore wind has an almost tolerable capacity factor, but they cost way too much, and coast where you can put turbines without people bitching is also rare.

[Anonymous No.12206873]

>>12206252
>>12206252
>to complicated and reliant on weather
it is actually simpler to build and design solar farms because no moving parts, large foundations etc and we can predict solar radiation better than wind speed (wind speed requires specific measurements in exact spots etc). And both of them are weather specific, blade pitch doesn't give you that much of a range.
>well placed windfall will generate power constantly, outputs ac and doesn't require significant maintenance
wind turbine outputs ac because of power electronics built-in (even asynchronous generators, PMGs require inverters), same as solar plants that have inverters for ac
and wind turbines do require regular maintenance, actually maintenance is how big dogs like Vestas make money
>solar panels lose 40% of their efficiency in the first decade plus complicated sun tracking systems.
no they dont, its 20% in 20 years, manufacture guarantee
and vast majority of big plants dont use tracking
>it's cloudy
the annual energy production is very predictable with solar and for momentary events we can downregulate with inverters, or have a grid/energy storage backup

i worked in the wind turbine industry for 5 years and love turbines with all my heart, but neither wind nor solar are feasible as sole energy sources, and as a supplementary source solar is just better

also, you don't consider the fact that for nationwide production you don't have to have big ass parks
if every household puts a couple of panels on the roof it is already a big chunk, good luck doing that with turbines (yes, small wind turbines are a thing and, no, putting them next to your house is a bad idea 90% of the time)

[Anonymous No.12206882]

>>12200964
reddit is right on this one.
its an unreliable modern art exhibit that's not worth the maintenance(which will require traditional energy sources anyway).

[Anonymous No.12206935]

>>12204592
He wants you to know he's retarded even before you read his post.

[Anonymous No.12206953]

>>12201659
>Ruins

[Anonymous No.12206957]

>>12206873
if you're talking local residential scale power generation, which I wasn't. then solar becomes bit more attractive. it's still mostly roof candy for lazy larping hippies. especially where i live, 99% of power is hydro or wind already.
the only place I've seen it make economical sence is in remote locations where the power companies want you to install your own power lines. then to sinking 10k into a decent setup makes sense. but otherwise i can't see it as any more than an auxiliary source.

[Anonymous No.12207276]

>>12200964
Lets see why wind power is not the answer to Climate change
>Has impact on local wildlife
>Needs lots of space per unit of energy produced. It would take 10% or more of the US surface to cover its current energy needs.
>Needs batteries to store energy in case of low wind speed (turbines are designed to operate near máx wind speed). Batteries require rare metals, so the impact of open sky minning increases greatly.
>Can't clear faults in short time lapses compromising the sinchronicity of the grid

[Anonymous No.12207286]

>>12203188
That picture is so bad in many ways.

[Anonymous No.12207304]

>>12207276
Are you kidding me? List all that and not the #1 reason? The amount of cement needed to anchor one in the ground is nuts and almost completely negates its use for removing carbon.

[Anonymous No.12207341]

>>12207304
I haven't seen the numbers so I can't state what I am not sure about, thanks por pointing it out. I'd say the concrete base (or concrete tower for some applications) has to be most of the carbon footprint.
Even then, I'd consider its impact on the grid more of a reason not to use wind as a greater percentage in a grid. The reason being that an unreliable grid can't clear faults, more faults means decrease in the transmission installations' useful life, that means greater increase in carbon footprint.

[Anonymous No.12207357]

>>12200964
What? I've never seen anyone get mad about wind power.

[Anonymous No.12207379]

>>12203188
>Lower demand will increase costs!
Uhh, anon.

>>12207357
Some people get really NIMBY about turbines going up on a ridge 20 miles away from them. It's pathetic.

[Anonymous No.12208197]

Destroys nature.
Some in some locations it should be okay, but it's not okay to destroy areas untouched by humans and rare and endangered nature types.

[Anonymous No.12208232]

>>12201453
Nah, wind is great. It's just that the 24/7 options are so much better since you don't have to worry about storage. Nuclear, geothermal, and hydro are all superior.

[Anonymous No.12208246]

>>12204537
If they don't decompose, how exactly are they polluting anything? They're just sitting inert like a common rock.

[Anonymous No.12208256]

>>12200964
It makes less sense than concentrated solar power.

[Anonymous No.12208309]

>be danish
>have some of the most beautiful wind turbine parks in the world
>germany pays us to put a brake on them
>just so they can burn coal for electricity instead
Fucking clown word.

[Anonymous No.12208351]

>>12208309
>wind turbines
>beautiful
Pick one faggot

[Anonymous No.12208381]

>>12208309
>Don't brake turbines.
>Coal turns off generators.
>Windspeed changes quickly in 20 minutes.
>Coal can't start fast enough to compensate for shortfall.
>60 million people suddenly lost power
But wind is so beautiful!

Your language sounds less retarded than you.

[Anonymous No.12208390]

>>12201643
>they produce infrared waves
Oh no, not infrared waves! Please, I don't want to be heated by 0.001 °C if I get within two meters! Oh, won't someone think of the infrared waves?
Retard.

[Anonymous No.12208413]

>>12208390
Would you say the same about the birds?

[Anonymous No.12209433]

>>12200964
Sea water holds so much energy we can use those as fans.

[Anonymous No.12209463]

>>12208381
This literally never happens. Have you heard about weather forecasts?

[Anonymous No.12210352]

>>12200964
two words, and its the same two words which btfo every renewable energy as a 1 and done solution

>baseload
>generation

Unless your renewables are going to be part of a comprehensive reconstruction of the entire electrical infrastructure or you invent some novel way to store the amount of energy necessary they are just normie bait that gets fed tax dollars to make retards feel better about their disgustingly consumptive lifestyles.

[Anonymous No.12210358]

>>12210352
>comprehensive reconstruction of the entire electrical infrastructure
sounds great, jobs and a new moonshot-like thrust for new technologies.

[Anonymous No.12210366]

>>12201619
It literally explodes the lungs of bats which are essential for the control of insects

[Anonymous No.12210386]

>>12207276
All that shit also applies to solar unfortunately

[Anonymous No.12210390]

>>12207304
Couldn't we just sequester carbon from the atmosphere to create a substitute for cement?

[Anonymous No.12210433]

>>12203604
we have to learn to love them, in the same way we have come to love things like the empire state and big ben

[Anonymous No.12211050]

>>12206957
i was talking about solar and wind as auxiliary sources for national scale generation

[Anonymous No.12211056]

>>12210352
here is one word for you

auxiliary

not one sane person is saying that we should shut down all conventional plants and replace them with renewables
but if we can shut down some of them and replace them with renewables, then we absolutely should

[Anonymous No.12211059]

>>12200964
It doesn't: I will use WIND POWER to make ROKO'S BASILISK and posthumously FUCK every person in the world with DEMONS until the END OF TIME.

[Anonymous No.12211239]

>>12210386
Yeah thats why solar is shit and should be use only for residential gridtie and rural off the grid installations.

[Anonymous No.12211245]

>>12209463
Yeah what the other anon missed is that before starting a wind turbine farm, there are studies done to determinate if the place has constant strong winds. So the probability of that happening is low. Still it can happen. Thats why wind is generally dispatched for peak short term demand and not for base, to ensure even if it happens, 60 million people aren't affected.

[Anonymous No.12211246]

>>12210358
pic related is bait right? Higher costs of electricity and an unreliable electrical grid are objectively not a better world.

[Anonymous No.12211249]

>>12211056
>not one sane person is saying that we should shut down all conventional plants and replace them with renewables
Thats part of the problem. Insane people are trying to push large scale renwables while simultaneously wanting to go off fossil fuels and nuclear.

[Anonymous No.12211263]

>>12211246
>Higher costs of electricity and an unreliable electrical grid
these are hopefully not true long term. And if we can’t get that fixed, we have nuclear to fall back on to carry the base load and give us a couple more decades/centuries to think of something.

[Anonymous No.12211295]

It seems like no one at all is worried about the effect that adding a bunch of resistance to wind currents may result in. I mean, aren't temperature gradients generating high and low pressure systems and then equalizing out a process that should be left alone? How do we know that we aren't inadvertently adding to adverse weather phenomenon by retarding the process by which a high/low pressure system would behave therefore allowing it to grow beyond it's otherwise normal bounds?
I feel the same way about tidal generators btw... It all seems kinda sketchy to just add resistance to natural phenomenon that life has already evolved around and expect nothing to change.

[Anonymous No.12211296]

>>12211263
>these are hopefully not true long term.
They are even more true long term.
More wind = higher costs.
More wind = less reliability of grid.

How do you think this would change? Make a wind mill that makes the wind blow on demand? Not going to happen.

>And if we can’t get that fixed, we have nuclear to fall back on
Nuclear have long construction times. When the grids start throwing regular brownouts we're going to scramble to pad it with more dirty peaker plants.

Nuclear faces extreme resistance because everyone operates based on a delusional fictional virtue signaling worldview.

[Anonymous No.12211339]

>>12211296
prices for solar has gone down at a ridiculous rate, just from some grants to boost production capabilities and methods.
According to some quick check, this is true for wind, too
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/mass-production-slashes-cost-of-offshore-wind-turbine-foundations

We are talking about transition periods of about 20-50 years, my dude.

[Anonymous No.12211347]

>>12211263
I'm with you, but unfortunately there has been a lot of money on scaring people away from nuclear.

[Anonymous No.12211352]

>>12211296
forgot the reliability.
Obviously this is one of the most pressing concerns currently.
It can be reduced somewhat by diversifying sources and maybe grid up globally, but we need some form of cheap storage. And a lot of manpower and money is going into that globally.

[Anonymous No.12211359]

>>12211347
what I don’t understand is that it’s mainly green parties that ride this horse where I live.

[Anonymous No.12211418]

>>12211359
>green party

[Anonymous No.12211516]

Suppose humanity goes full wind power: wouldn't the enormous amount of turbines slow down ground level atmosphere, thus lowering wind power efficiency?

[Anonymous No.12211684]

>>12211516
Compared to forests and mountains, turbines are nothing. In reality we'd be taking a very tiny bite out of the global wind flow.
They have a lot of disadvantages but that's not one of them.

[Anonymous No.12211723]

What is the real world capacity factor?

[Anonymous No.12211787]

>>12211359
>>12211418
But its both actually. It was quite easy for fossil fuels lobby to infiltrate the green movement in germany in order to lay down nuclear and build natural gas. Its their way of adapting and surviving. And of course the environmentalists are so easy to manipulate its laughable.

[Anonymous No.12211878]

>>12211787
>environmentalists are so easy to manipulate its laughable.
True, its unfortunate that environmentalism is practically some people's religion now

[Anonymous No.12211998]

>>12211723
It depends heavily on where you put it. In the best places on land, 44%. The best places offshore, 80%. However offshore wind is around 3x the cost of onshore. The average in practice is around 35% and the better places to put them have been prioritized. Average CF will go down as more wind is deployed.
Wind is currently better than solar in a practical way, but solar has fewer long term problems with scaling when it comes to deployment sites and eventual decommissioning, not that those problems with solar are insignificant but they're less. Neither are a realistic replacement for current baseload and peaking sources. Some brainlets think combining them will make things better but that isn't true either. Mixing a source with a sorta predictable CF of 20% with one that has a random as fuck CF of 45% doesn't give you 65%.

[Anonymous No.12212308]

>>12211418
disgusting

[Anonymous No.12212315]

>>12211878
“environmentalism”
we could get off fossil fuels entirely in a few years by at least partially pivoting to nuclear to buy us some time. Staying on fossils for the transition is not environmentally sane.

[Anonymous No.12212323]

>>12212315
Thinking a wind+solar transition is actually possible is completely fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.12212328]

>>12211998
pah, make the system chaotic enough and you get a nice, predictable macrosysten.

[Anonymous No.12212337]

>>12212323
i’m more thinking of fusion oranything we can come up with to help us out.
And if we got the storage, solar is totally fine. Big “if”, tho

[Anonymous No.12212523]

>>12212328
Uhhh, no. You get severe voltage and frequency variations which destroy many millions of dollars of industrial equipment, or you get blackouts.

>>12212337
It still requires an absurd amount of land with battery. And betting on fusion is a retarded idea. You do not make huge risky bets on the future before going whole hog into an energy source that relies on those bets coming true. Fusion is 30 years away and it will still be 30 years away in ten years.

[Anonymous No.12212543]

Nuclear is the obvious solution. Anyone who disagrees is a retarded cultist.

[Anonymous No.12212550]

>>12200964
Its the opposite retard. Wind and solar are the reddit of energy, 4chan always supported nuclear

[Anonymous No.12212976]

>>12211056
>not one sane person is saying that
every political platform is exactly that, congrats ony our lack of reading comp