Will solar energy save us?

Also, want to know how much solar Germany gets in winter? About 0. Yearly average, IIRC is like 8% or 10%. In winter, it's like 0.1% or something stupidly small. And have fun during those occasional week or two without any wind either, just when you need heating the most.

Yes coal (as well as oil) is dirty and polluting. That's what solar and wind is supposed to replace, you know.

The EROEI argument is about what's currently best at returning investments for real large actors. That means how much more can you get than you pay where the energy price is in the picture.

The fact that photovoltaics for end consumers already is more affordable long term than paying those market prices gives a slight hint of how skewed those bars really are. That is how much higher they are able to charge than what even solar is able to compete with. That's a measure of how broken the market is and nothing else.

>The EROEI argument is about what's currently best at returning investments for real large actors. That means how much more can you get than you pay where the energy price is in the picture.

No, it's not. Not at all. It's a thermodynamic argument that is completely independent of money, financing rates, and economics.

>The fact that photovoltaics for end consumers already is more affordable long term than paying those market prices

Also, largely if not entirely untrue. You're talking about power delivered averaged over the day. You're ignoring that these people still have grid connects for when the sun isn't shining. That is a very valueable service that cannot be replaced anywhere near at cost with solar and batteries.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. You literally don't even know what EROEI is, and I know that you have not read my first link that describes EROEI. Don't dismiss an argument when you don't even know what the argument is.

But there is on the other hand more wind during winter. Wind and solar together give 17% annually, compared to 0% 25 years ago and the technology development is still accelerating. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Germany_renewable_energy_production_by_source.svg

You just need a Dyson sphere OP, pretty damn simple if you ask me.

And the exponential growth is only made possible because the manufacture is being powered by fossil fuels and nuclear power. That curve is going to come to a crashing halt as soon as solar and wind penetrations start reaching levels where EROEI is relevant, i.e. levels where intermittancy of solar and wind start sucking.

I don't care if wind is more common in winter. Look at the historical data. There are still periods of a week at a time where there is no sun and no wind. The grid would collapse, and there would be no electricity for weeks at at time.

Rate of return is purely an economic thing. It means how much money can we expect to get back for each unit of money invested. And that is governed by thousands of practical, political and economical circumstances. Much more so than by technology or science.

Also who exactly is the "we" above?

Yes exactly. Now we're getting somewhere. They have grid connects. Maybe that's what skews those rate of return bars of yours (in the opposite direction)? If they're not allowed to connect they won't even count in the return equation, amirite?

>Rate of return is purely an economic thing. It means how much money can we expect to get back for each unit of money invested. And that is governed by thousands of practical, political and economical circumstances. Much more so than by technology or science.

That's not what EROEI is, dumbshit. This is the second time that I'm telling you this.

>Yes exactly. Now we're getting somewhere. They have grid connects. Maybe that's what skews those rate of return bars of yours (in the opposite direction)? If they're not allowed to connect they won't even count in the return equation, amirite?

What are you trying to say? That we should treat reliable power and unreliable power equally, and just take some naive daily average sum? No thanks. I'd rather use analysis that matches the real world which allows the lights to be on 24-7.

That's just another way to say that if fossil fuels and nuclear refuse to help out in production of solar hardware then solar won't take off. Is that really the signal you want to send? I really don't think that helps your cause.

No it wouldn't collapse. You can store bio fuel and water in reservoirs and in worst case coal, oil or nuclear for such situations.

>No it wouldn't collapse. You can store bio fuel
Lolno.

>and water in reservoirs
No. I just explained how you cannot do that. Here's the link again.
physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/

>and in worst case coal, oil or nuclear for such situations.
In order to solve for global warming, we need to reach about 0% fossil fuel usage. Not 50%. Not 20%. Not 10%. 0%. Solar and wind alone cannot meet that 0%.

The cost of nuclear is almost entirely the capital cost of the plant. So, if you want to have backup for that unreliable solar and wind, you have to pay the full price of the nuclear, which means you might as well run the nuclear all the time, and not bother with the wind and solar. It'll be cheaper too, building only nuclear instead of building the same amount of nuclear plus a bunch of worthless solar and wind.

>That's just another way to say that if fossil fuels and nuclear refuse to help out in production of solar hardware then solar won't take off. Is that really the signal you want to send? I really don't think that helps your cause.

And what do you mean, "won't help my case?". How is stating the facts, which are in my favor, not helping my case? It's the simple truth. Physics and mathematics does not lie. The energy costs of solar and wind, and especially any energy storage, is going to be so high that it's like moving piles of sand back and forth. You are spending a lot of effort, and moving those piles of sand back and forth looks pretty, but you're not accomplishing anything useful in the process. The energy costs are so high compared to the output energy that it's a waste of time. That's EROEI.

I'm saying you are giving lots of hints at what could be a hindrance for solar in those numbers and bars you refer to and that those hindrances have little or nothing to do with the technology or science that could make solar a viable alternative.

I said nothing that naive averages should be used. You have lots of ways to measure and predict both power demand and supply. If you are a "scientist" you should know this.

>I'm saying you are giving lots of hints at what could be a hindrance for solar in those numbers and bars you refer to and that those hindrances have little or nothing to do with the technology or science that could make solar a viable alternative.

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Please try again.

> I said nothing that naive averages should be used. You have lots of ways to measure and predict both power demand and supply. If you are a "scientist" you should know this.

Prediction of demand is irrelevant if you cannot ramp up production to meet the predicted demand, and that's precisely what solar and wind cannot do.

Did you mean weather prediction, and scaling up and down demand according to available supply?

Let me tell you how the real world works. In the real world, most electrical use is for industry, not residential. Residential is a mere 20%. For industry, those machines are running 24-7. Any disruptions in the power supply means that the capital usage rates go down, which means that costs go up. Forcing the machines to stop 20% of the time means that costs will go up by 25% in order to cover the capital costs.

And worse, many industrial processes with very high energy costs cannot be shut down when the sun isn't shining and when the wind isn't blowing. They need to be running 24-7. For example, aluminum refining. Any loss of power destroys the plant. Allowing the aluminum to harden at the wrong time destroys the equipment. And this is not an extreme outlier. Aluminum refining is a ridiculously large user of electricity.

Consider the internet. Internet server locations are also huge users of electricity. Absolutely huge. Many servers worldwide have their own dedicated power plants in the neighborhood of 250 MW. Do you want the internet to go down when the sun isn't shining.

TBC

That's an extremely long page. If it had any substance you should be able to explain convincingly in a few short lines or one simple picture. Otherwise will come off as attempts of confusion or just wasting peoples' time.

If you can't see what in your communication that gives a reader ideas of what might be giving solar those bad numbers maybe you should switch specialization. If the math and science you claim these numbers to be based on comes so easily to you maybe that is what you should be doing instead of shilling on the internet. But maybe there's a reason that is not the case.

Or how about glass manufacture? All flat and mostly flat glass is manufactured via the float glass method. My uncle (used to) work for Guardian, one of the largest and few remaining flat glass manufacturers in the United States. He was talking to me about his job over Thanksgiving one time. He said how at his job, they're going to shut down the plant in order for routine maintenance. He said that it will take 2 months to turn the furnace back on. That's because they need to turn it on slowly in order to prevent thermal stresses from destroying it. This is not unusual. Any sort of high temperature process is very much like this. Any sudden loss of power will destroy the equipment. And high temperature processes like this represent a very sizeable fraction of electricity demand.

There are very real limits to what demand-size management can do. Even if I grant 50%, which is obscenely too high, you're nowhere close to actually making a pure solar and wind solution work.

Imagine you built a 1 sq meter solar panel, and associated equipment. Suppose you measured how much simple energy inputs you needed in the manufacturing process (ignoring human labor for now). Suppose it comes out to 2.172e9 joules. Great.

Now, suppose you measured how much energy that solar panel and associated equipment would produce over its lifetime. Suppose it comes out to 3.36e10 joules.

That means it produces about 15.5 more energy as a ratio compared to its energy construction requirements.

Now, suppose you wanted to look at ensuring that the power doesn't go out when it's not sunny, such as by using energy storage. Great. How much batteries will that take, and how much energy will it take to make those batteries? Then suppose you ask: what is the ratio of the energy out compared to the energy costs?

For lead acid, it's around 2.56. For lithium ion, it's around 3.39.

docs.google.com/document/d/1_0aZwNFdJIZW8MG1P-D7NjaY3Hc6DkEe42lSFlcULHk/edit

Those numbers are so low that it's comparable to trying to power a society only using farm animals. In an agricultural society, almost everyone is doing manual labor, and that's a consequence of the low EROEI value. In order to power an industrial society, you need at least a 7 according to some estimates. For reference, coal and nuclear are at least 50.
bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

Oh, and this simple calculation ignores other problems, such as the fact that there's not enough lead in the world or lithium in the world to make enough batteries. Not even enough for 1% of the amount of material we'd need worldwide. Dittos for other known scalable battery chemistries.
physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/

That's why you would have fuel based plants to hop in or ramp up production in the rare cases neither of solar nor wind could fill up. Solar and wind are almost always complementary in the sense that it's at least windy or sunny at any given time and geographically it evens out too. Almost never cloudy and no wind over a large geography at the same time. Also you can in fact predict these things to give both industry and power providers time to react.

You want to tell me how the world works. That is not the same as how the world will work when circumstances slowly change. And it also doesn't mean that things Have to be done in that way just because they are being done like that at the moment. We are talking about the future here. And how supply and demand in electricity changes over time. Energy supply and demand is rather predictable, really. As you mention there are large economical incentives to Make it predictable so that will be done, no matter where the energy comes from.

Regarding pumped water storage, a basic takeaway from the paper is that for just the United States, you would need a pumped water storage system equal in land area to about 3 of the Great Lakes. Just for the United States. Good luck finding that much free land and free water, when scaled up to meet worldwide needs.

Pumped water storage is great for a period of a few hours, not periods of a few days that at minimum we need to cover wind and solar intermittancy. And pumped water storage is the only practical grid-scale energy storage solution. Everything else sucks even more.

elon musk says we need electric cars, which are more expensive, worse, and for faggots

Then he builds a methane rocket....
Why not make an electric rocket u fucking hypocrite musk shit

>Solar and wind are almost always complementary in the sense that it's at least windy or sunny at any given time and geographically it evens out too.

Simply false. Go look at the historical numbers.

>That's why you would have fuel based plants to hop in or ramp up production in the rare cases neither of solar nor wind could fill up.

I want to fix global warming. Do you? In that case, the only acceptable number for fossil fuel use is 0%. When worldwide energy consumption is predicted to go up by 10x in the coming years, getting the western world down to 10% of its historic levels is not good enough. We need to get the western nations down to 0%, and also get the developing world using energy with 0% fossil fuel usage. If these are not your targets, then you're not serious about solving for global warming.

>We are talking about the future here.
No. We're talking about now. WE NEED TO FIX GLOBAL WARMING NOW! That means massive rollout of technology that is ready to go now. None of this "under development" shit. We cannot afford to wait for 20 or 50 years, increasing CO2 as we go, increasing global temps, and increasing ocean acidification.

>WE NEED TO FIX GLOBAL WARMING NOW!
or what?
Would "fixing global warming" help whites? Why should we be paying trillions and ruining our economies?

This global warming shit is more white guilt insanity

Yes try that glass card if you will. I doubt it will work on this one. They sure been trying.

As mentioned 50% peak sunny days today, that is lower than 100% and even if it got above, it could easily be exported (well assuming it in practice was allowed onto the grid in the first place). You could predict and make optimizations and logistics for energy production planning. That would go a long way to avoid even having to store the energy (chemically or otherwise). There are also lots of new advancements in efficient long range energy transfer all the time. That will be more efficient than storage is (up to some range). And south-north balancing can be done. For example produce electricity in southern states to sell to northern. Or neighboring time zones as the gradient of solar radiation is rather high in morning and evening. There's so many aspects of work that can be made to make this work. There main obstacles are almost never technology or science but economy or politics.

Run the numbers. No one (except frauds or fools) actually claim that we can reach 0% fossil fuel usage right now. No one of any noteworthy reputation or expertise has a plan to reach 0% fossil fuel usage.

You're repeating memes, false memes.

Export it to another nearby country? There's this thing called "weather", which means if it's cloudy there, it's probably cloudy nearby. The weather of different European nations, or different United States states, are highly correlated.

Ultra high voltage long distance transmission lines? Want to take a guess as to the net EROEI for those, consider the energy costs for tnramission lines, transformers, and losses from transmission and AC/DC conversion? It's not pretty.

All of your aspects are just hot air.

Do you know what a Gish Gallop is? You should WIkipedia it. You're doing a Gish Gallop. It would take me many posts to refute each point, but you're able to throw out a bunch of bullshit in just a few sentences.

Again, it should be telling that even the most hardcore green advocates are not claiming that they can reach 0% CO2 usage with their pipedreams - well, frauds excluded. (Mark Jacobson is a fraud, and his quackery in peer reviewed papers is well documented.)

>There main obstacles are almost never technology or science but economy or politics.

This is dangerous fantasy. It's wishful thinking. This is spoken by someone who almost certainly is not an engineer, with little to no background in engineering and practical physics.

In problems like this, it's almost always engineering concerns that dominate. Only in rare cases is the problem political rather than engineering. One such rarity is nuclear, where all of the problems are political, not engineering. Further, most of those public concerns are also fictitious, propogated in large part by so-called green organizations like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc., organizations who get a rather large amount of funding from fossil fuel interests.

>you have to pay the full price of the nuclear, which means you might as well run the nuclear all the time, and not bother with the wind and solar.

Why not use all 3. Put them in locations most suited for their needs?

Why do faggots have to be 100% nuke/solar/fossil only?

You tell me the source and why I should trust it then.

>global warming
Yeah and Germany has gotten from 0% to 17% solar and wind alone in 25 years. And that is domestic in a country that has

1) lots of electricity-demanding industry
2) quite bad latitudes for solar radiation and
3) very high population density.

Really not any ideal circumstances for solar altogether and still such an amazing development.

Ok, well maybe I got my answer as for the financing then.

Because the costs of nuclear are almost entirely the capital cost of the plant. Fuel costs are small to negligable. In order to cover for the intermittancy, you need to build full capacity, and when you have full capacity, the only purpose for solar and wind is fuel cost savings, which as mentioned is almost zero.

In other words, a full solar and wind solution with backing nuclear will produce about as many nuclear plants as a no-solar no-wind 100% nuclear solution.

> You tell me the source and why I should trust it then.
For which claims? There are a lot of sources involved. I gave several already up-thread. And why should you trust them? Because they're reputable, and because you can check the math yourself, and you can check the claims against other reputable sources. And because they're not frauds like Mark Jacobson.

>Yeah and Germany has gotten from 0% to 17% solar and wind alone in 25 years. And that is domestic in a country that has

Non-sequitirs. If you paid attention to a damn thing I wrote, you would realize how this is not a counterargument to my position. Apparently basic logic and reasoning is not your strongsuit.

Further, while solar and wind rates have gone up in Germany, guess what hasn't gone down? Oh that's right, Germany CO2 emissions. Guess what has gone up? Simple airborne particulate pollution, which kills millions of people every year, including at least half a million in Europe every year.

Correction, IIRC, airborne particulate pollution kills closer to a quarter million people every year in Europe. It's still several million worldwide when you take into account worldwide coal usage, and including indoor heating and cooking fuels.

I'm not even the one claiming we Have to reach 0% Right Now. Actually it's you who claimed that.

Still there's so much money spent on developing long distance transfer of electricity. Are you saying that would not be done if there wasn't any money in it??

Once again you are strawmanning. I am not even the one claiming it would be either feasible nor necessary to reach those 0%. And especially not Right Now.

>Further, while solar and wind rates have gone up in Germany, guess what hasn't gone down? Oh that's right, Germany CO2 emissions. Guess what has gone up? Simple airborne particulate pollution, which kills millions of people every year, including at least half a million in Europe every year.

Not disagreeing, but do you have a handy source?

Take your autism medication.

>I'm not even the one claiming we Have to reach 0% Right Now. Actually it's you who claimed that.

Then you're not serious about solving for global warming, which means you're not sufficiently informed (or sufficiently moral) in order to take part in this conversation. I suggest you read up on the science of global warming and ocean acidification.

>Why should we be paying trillions and ruining our economies?
Actually, next-gen nuclear can be cheaper than coal, and we can have energy security, and we can save lives lost from coal airborne particulate pollution. Plus we don't need wars for foreign oil, and we can adopt a cheaper foreign policy. It's win win all around. That's what I suggest.

lmgtfy.com/?q=CO2 emissions germany history

I don't think the people pushing global warming ideology will ever be pro-nuclear, certainly not openly.

I know I can google stuff. I was asking you if you would recommend a particular source for the both of your claims.

I actually do have several university degrees in STEM fields, thank you. But I don't feel any need to boast about it by constantly putting silly labels of authority on myself, mr "Scientist".

Any realistic engineer would know that very many of decisions made in this world are not made as result of rational technological considerations but for economic or political reasons.

I'm not sure if I fall under "pushing global warming ideology", but I believe man-made climate change is a great disaster and nuclear energy would be amongst the most important tools for combatting it.
I know many people like me.

>I actually do have several university degrees in STEM fields
>several
lol

why

Ok so it is nuke then. Sorry, I don't have time for this any longer because I actually don't get paid for this. I do it mostly for the mental gymnastics. Thank you for an interesting conversation any way. Have a nice day.

unfccc.int/files/ghg_emissions_data/application/pdf/deu_ghg_profile.pdf

Roughly the same levels in Germany since 2011 for greenhouse gas emissions.

energytransition.de/2014/06/german-coal-conundrum/

So, at worst, coal is remaining even. They're phasing out some nuclear for "renewables".

What the graph doesn't show is installed capacity, and installed coal capacity is going up, and that is lignite, some of the dirtiest coal imaginable. That stuff is nasty, and the airborne pollution it releases, conventional airborne particulates, is really nasty.

Looking for other sources.

Thanks.

I suspect you're a person who is a combination of dishonest, and fooled by other dishonest people in the so-called Green movement. Do your homework. Do the math.

How can you call yourself an environmentalist if you are not for solving global warming as soon as possible? It's one of the most severe (potential) threats to current civilization that we have, and it should be at the top of the list of priorities for fixing, not punting it 10 or 20 years down the road to our kids.

theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/07/brown-coal-wins-a-reprieve-in-germanys-transition-to-a-green-future

> Yet Germany also has the most ambitious green energy strategy of all the industrialized nations — the Energiewende, or energy transformation. After the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Germany’s conservative chancellor, Angela Merkel, vowed to phase out all nuclear power plants by 2022, while simultaneously sticking to the pre-existing goal of reducing national CO2 emissions 4%0 below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80 to 90% by 2050.

> While Germany prides itself as a green champion, something paradoxical has happened in the last several years: CO2 emissions steadily fell from 1,051m metric tons in 1990 to 813mtons in 2011, the year of the Fukushima disaster. But in 2012 and 2013, CO2 emissions rose again to 841m tons. This can largely be attributed to an increase in the use of lignite for electricity production.

And to be clear, I don't doubt that Germany can continue this trend of increasing "Renewables" and a possible decrease in CO2 production. Realistically, most experts say they can go as far as 30% total generation from unreliables before severe problems start setting in. It's questionable how much further they can go.

What is very certain in my mind based on the facts is that they're not going to get better than 90% reductions, and 90% reductions are just not good enough to solve for global warming and ocean acidification. We need 100%.

Mostly to see your reaction ;)

What is stopping me from buying useless dessert land, leasing solar panels to mine bitcoins?

I'd say man made climate change is just the catastrophe we need to fix this world up

And specifically, they're at 15% from unreliables now, and there's already lots of rumors and stories and grumblings about the German power situation. There are plenty of stories about the increasingly unreliable nature of the German electric grid, and the difficulties faced by neighbors in order to compensate to keep the grid stable. There's been talk of relaxing electric grid frequency controls, and that's because a multitude of unreliable generators, even at 15%, wreak havoc on grid management and on industrial users. Large frequency disturbances can destroy industrial equipment attached to the grid, and at best force a shutoff to prevent damage. (Of course, shutting off equipment can also cause damage - see above for examples, such as furnaces in general, including aluminum refining, flat glass manufacture, etc.)
renewablesinternational.net/german-grid-fluctuations-increasing/150/537/32737/

Lol. Once again a strawman.

I'm not even an environmentalist. I am a person who loves new technology who happens to be born just in time to be amazed by the advances in solar power.

To continue, in general, grid management is somewhat of a black art. Formalized models for such a large and complex electrical circuit such as the grid are hard to come by. Resonance and frequency variations are particularly hard to model reliably, and they can have devastating effects on equipment connected to the grid. We might not know for sure the consequences short of doing it, e.g. getting unreliable penetration up to 30%, or 50%, or 80%, and if it fails for that reason (ignoring the plethora of other reasons), we'll have lost lots of valuable time not fixing the problem of global warming and ocean acidification.

Fucking liar / troll.

Also, if you're not an environmentalist, and if you don't care about global warming and ocean acidification, then I don't give a fuck about your opinions on the topic of energy policy.

>problem with storing solar energy

Seems pretty easy to me.

If I was an environmentalist I would have been triggered by your "we need to fix global warming Right Now!!" wouldn't I? So you should already know that I'm likely not an environmentalist. Leading me to think that this is just some stunt to get an excuse to be angry.

>If I was an environmentalist I would have been triggered by your "we need to fix global warming Right Now!!" wouldn't I?

What?

greentechmedia.com/articles/read/guest-post-germany-faces-a-growing-risk-of-disastrous-power-blackouts

No. There are solutions, but all of them will facilitate the rise of AI and humans aren't prepared for that. It's fully unnecessary to think about global warming from now on - there are more important things at play.

Solar/Wind lack sophistication but they should work fine in a small residence. We need all resources avaiable now to focus on surpassing AI.

judithcurry.com/2016/01/06/renewables-and-grid-reliability/

How to use solar properly:

1: stop using so much fucking energy you stupid shit
2: use only passive solar, not active solar
3: segregate power generation

Reasoning:

1: even without changing your quality of life, the average person can reduce energy consumption by as much as 75% through their habits. Even more can be reduced using alternative electric devices or devices that don't use electric, but perform the same tasks.

2: Active solar is solar panels. Passive solar is thermal. Thermal energy generation use less dwindling resources than PV and can be repaired easily. It can be anything from solar water heaters to electric power generation.

3: Segregating power generation makes for a more stable civilization and reduces the need for massive amounts of resources (like power lines for instance). The lack of a interconnected power grid provides complete security against many types of disasters from natural to man made.

Materials used to make PV panels are a finite resource that will not last for very long. Sunlight destroys their ability to generate energy over time. Passive solar energy generation does not get destroyed by sunlight over time.

>1: even without changing your quality of life, the average person can reduce energy consumption by as much as 75% through their habits. Even more can be reduced using alternative electric devices or devices that don't use electric, but perform the same tasks.

Only 20% of the grid is residential. Who the hell cares about residential?

IIRC, only 1/3 or 2/3 or something of national energy usage is electric. The rest is transport and industrial heat (mostly, IIRC).

This "75%" is a drop in the bucket, and your plans do not scale or apply to the bulk of this other energy consumption.

So-called green advocates are like this, talking about what they know, which is their own lives, with absolutely zero perspective on the big picture, because of their lack of proper engineering background, and because of their aversion to math.

>3: Segregating power generation makes for a more stable civilization and reduces the need for massive amounts of resources (like power lines for instance). The lack of a interconnected power grid provides complete security against many types of disasters from natural to man made.

At at this level of microgrids, it also makes it impossible to have cheap, reliable electricity like we have today.

That's the secret that many "advanced" so-called Green advocates won't tell you up front. They really are advocating for de-industrialization.

>the average person can reduce energy consumption

Eurocuck detected

Is is true. However, while true, it does nothing to obviate the need for a near 100% nuclear solution. See my posts elsethread, and especially this one:

thats a fucking anti-aircraft gun

>Even more can be reduced using alternative electric devices or devices that don't use electric, but perform the same tasks.
Slide rule instead of calculator and typewriter instead of printer?

And leaving clothes out to dry in the sun instead of using a heating clothes driver machine.

Oh, and what about thinking happy thoughts instead of actually heating your home / apartment? Or maybe just turning down the thermostat by 5, 10, or 20 F.

Electricity should cost in excess of $10usd per 1 kilowatt hour right now.

"Industry" isn't needed at all. It is just a money maker for Oil companies. The only thing that fuels industry is money and debt, nothing else.

Segregate food production, energy production, & governments, erase all companies, dismantle all power plants, turn off the internet, stop superfluous space missions, cap all wells, cull everyone with an IQ less than 130.

Humanity is never getting off this rock, except on O'Neill Cylinders. It is time you realize that. Pretending oil and nuclear will save humanity is just retarded.

American actually, but I'm not even sure what you mean.

Slide rules and tablets. No need for paper.

Just use the normal clothes dryer, but power it using the sun or from thermal energy stored by the sun. Even some prisons use this for everything from cooking to clothing.

is right. Diminishing energy comsumption is the best alternative. Who the hell needs industries? All humans have achieved with them is burying themselves to the ground and evolving AI to potentially galaxy threatening levels rather than improving themselves.

I know that for someone who gives so much value for the artificial and the ilogical its hard to understand this simple truth. Your family, humans in general and nature are the more important thing for you and your planet.

Anyways, most of the damage has already been done. Pointless to think about energy. We need to improve ourselves.

I want a nuclear solution with energy so cheap I can live off mining bitcoins

If by anti-aircraft you mean ducks, drones and skeet then yes.

>the pellets will loose too much velocity and power to do any damage to an small fixed wing aircraft

Yes, together with fusion.

Humanity's greatest goal must be to maximize the total amount of yummy pedophilia in the universe. All star systems reachable by mankind need to be colonized and filled with perverts who spray jizz on little girls' faces all day every day.

To this end, we need to combat climate change and develop solar and fusion until we are a Type 1 civilization, then go on to become type 2 and so on.

Maybe we can develop a "loli replicator" that bioprints little gils without the pregnancy stage, this would allow much faster population growth for maximal future pedophilia!

Ok guys, nothing else seems to work on this motherfucker so we have to play the pedophile card.

> yanks with responsibilities for thought control.

anyone interested in this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

The most ethical project in the world is to empower humanity to conquer the stars, multiply its population by quadrillions and thereby maximize the total number of dick-into-little-girl-orifice encounters.

This can only be done with solar energy. Even Elon Musk agrees.

Enjoy your permaban degenerate filth

Climate change and civilizational stagnation are the biggest threats to maximum future pedophilia.

If humanity doesn't make it off this rock in a sustainable fashion, to colonize all the galaxy superclusters that we can still reach, there will be a gigantic opportunity cost in little girls that could have been sprayed with pervert cum, but never were.

Philosopher Nick Bostrom calls this "astronomical waste", a failiing to use the "cosmic commons" for maximum little girl molestation.

begone, tripfag.

you're aware that at the very moment you post with a tripcode without having a proper reason for it, or even more a shitty tripcode like "Scientist" that does nothing but bolster your own ego, everybody stops listening instantly?

i can't even read what you wrote and take it seriously.

stop this shit right the fuck now.

> mfw calling yourself scientist
How pretentious and tryhard can a self-entitled retard be ? He looks like a typical highschooler.

you are assuming solar technology won't improve. I'm working on PhD in MechE for a solar energy converter, and I can tell you the technology is going to improve rapidly in the next 5 years, especially once certain information about STPV is released to the public.

Do not respond to the tripfagging shitposter. He's a known retard who's been derailing threads on Veeky Forums for years.

He also takes the contrarian stance in every thread he posts in regardless of what is said. I even agreed with him on something in another thread a few months ago and he found ways to disagree. He's the bugguy/plont of Veeky Forums.

Just filter triptrolls. See image for how to do it.

the filter only hides content, folding the post inward. i.e. i will still see the posts.

his sources are pure bullshittery, btw.

Humanity needs to overcome the Great Filter, the confluence of factors that prevents civilizations from conquering the universe, if we are ever going to breed and molest 10^20 naked little lolis and spray them with man cum.

Solar energy is an important technology in accomplishing this and maximizing the total amount of energy human civlization needs to realize the quntillions of potential adult-on-child sexual encounters.

If we forego developing the maximum sustainable energy usage, not just on earth but also everywhere else in the reachable universe, we are drastically falling short of the child sex potential embodied by the negentropy in this pedophilic universe.

Whats with the pedophilia spam /r/edditard ?

Really?
[spoiler]I don't live in US so I don't know[/spoiler]

You see what happened there? Everyone associated with the posts got removed too and probably had their IPs associated with it. This is shit throwing at it's worst. To make targets we can't beat in an argument look like pedos.

Please do not point out tripfags.