Wind doesn't work great in forests. Chopping them down to put windmills up seems special in the bad way. The blades are carbon fiber and maybe some aluminum pretty sure?Idk. Solar+Wind is actually eco-unfriendly imho. (Sorry to be a sceptic ) Even 25% still looks not that good compared to the consumption , and those windmill blades (engines , masts , etc. ) still need to be produced at some steel foundry I guess , unless uncle joe makes them in his tool's shed xD Solar panels too.) Besides they occupy a huge amount of space forcing animals to die off or relocate to god knows where and forests to be chopped, razed to the ground in order to put a windmills or solar panels there - they are not space efficient at all ! In my subjective opinion atomic power is the only way to go . It will sure require a lot of CO2 released into the atmosphere to be set up once it is set up it will be far more efficient and eco-friendly than any of those windmills or solar panel "farms" as far as the eye can see.
Whatever, as long as it is a stable sourceCoal is terrible at that flex load following role, which is something that does exist in traditional low renewables grids. Usually it's hydro or gas that does it.
And on the side of some towers as well.Wind doesn't work great in forests. Chopping them down to put windmills up seems special in the bad way. The blades are carbon fiber and maybe some aluminum pretty sure?
Solar farms out in the countryside are pretty dumb. They replace the solar catch of plants. Should probably move towards getting paneled surface on the top of almost everything we're already ruining, like the tops of buildings and corporate lawns around warehouses and stuff.
Australia is going at it at a scale that would work, but is having some issues.About energy storage issue a solution would be to store the excess produced at day as potential energy instead of chemical energy, for instance pumping water uphill and then releasing it at nigh to move a turbine, so pumped hydroelectric. I dont know why this solution is not more speaken of.
Both of these are necessary things. Utility scale PV solar farms on the one hand, and rooftop PV on the other. Each have the advantages that centralised and decentralised ownership respectively confer.Solar farms out in the countryside are pretty dumb. They replace the solar catch of plants. Should probably move towards getting paneled surface on the top of almost everything we're already ruining, like the tops of buildings and corporate lawns around warehouses and stuff.
Not a lot of demand for electricity in forests. Everywhere there's a lot demand, there's plenty of open space.Wind doesn't work great in forests. Chopping them down to put windmills up seems special in the bad way. The blades are carbon fiber and maybe some aluminum pretty sure?
Solar farms out in the countryside are pretty dumb. They replace the solar catch of plants. Should probably move towards getting paneled surface on the top of almost everything we're already ruining, like the tops of buildings and corporate lawns around warehouses and stuff.
Whatever, as long as it is a stable source
What does this mean?
Squirrels have to power their air fryers somehow!Not a lot of demand for electricity in forests. Everywhere there's a lot demand, there's plenty of open space.
There's always plenty of space somewhere else.Not a lot of demand for electricity in forests. Everywhere there's a lot demand, there's plenty of open space.
None of this is true, of course. Electrification and grid decarbonisation are just a matter of policy and capital, and are underway, they're certainly not some pipe dream. These are like talking points from 2005, you'd think people would get some new material.The issue with wind and solar and such is that they ultimately can newer ever reach the actual demand we have in order to become properly ecologically sustainable. Doing that would require not just replacing our current energy production but also switching many of the things (transportation, heating, industrial furnaces etc.) that we currently do not use electricity for to use electricity to use exclusively electric mechanisms. And we have to do so in a way that can keep up with rising demand that comes with rising populations essentially indefinitely.
And unless we want to pave over the entire planet with solar panels the only technology we have today that can actually do that is atomic energy.
Of course they are not. The only pipe dream is human survival if we don't.None of this is true, of course. Electrification and grid decarbonisation are just a matter of policy and capital, and are underway, they're certainly not some pipe dream. These are like talking points from 2005, you'd think people would get some new material.
Those questions of capital and of policy support are also two things among several that largely sink any possibility of nuclear power rapidly expanding. It's been steady at like 10% or so of global electricity generation for decades and there's only 3 countries where it is even currently the majority of electricity production (and two of those, France and Ukraine, weren't built for anything like market reasons).
This is just literally the opposite of things lol. Just a sci-fi feels post unencumbered by the actual state of play.But in order for us to achieve proper decarbonization atomic energy needs to be a large and indeed the dominant part of the package.
No it is not. It's a fact.This is just literally the opposite of things lol