Is solar energy a meme?

>Questions kids think of on the spot and blurt out without giving them further thought: Example post

For fuck sake, learn to google first.
study.com/articles/Become_a_Solar_Energy_Engineer_Education_and_Career_Roadmap.html

>Is solar energy a meme?
Yes, poor production, poor efficiency, not actual solar energy, it only triggers a chem reaction a.k.a. a batery that works under the sun, it only works during the day, slow as fuck production.
>Is it worth research and development?
Hardly

>It only works during the day
Then why don't we just use solar energy and UPS supplies?

Having electricity shipped to you in a box is only a short-term solution. Anyway, they always try and deliver it when you're out.

No, I meant uninterrupted power supplies.
Or are you memeing me because I said UPS supplies?

Would it be helpful in removing a tattoo?

"Clean" energy is a meme made up by globalist political parties to convince small minded people that if they don't vote for them they are destroying the planet

I AM MEMEING YOU. YOU HAVE BEEN MEMEED.

ELECTRICITY DOESN'T EVEN COME IN CARDBOARD BOXES!

HA HA!

>The only problem is that I can't seem to find anything other than the inventor's generator.

The biggest problem seems that this stuff is outside the USA and youtube wants to recommend a bunch of unrelated stuff about free energy kook shit .

youtube.com/watch?v=gNbtxUq0fzI
youtube.com/watch?v=Sf8uqWvGP28
youtube.com/watch?v=1FA2H1HiL3o
youtube.com/watch?v=ax-ItbC_zkY
youtube.com/watch?v=prAm555TVgE
youtube.com/watch?v=EcvE5S7xTsM
youtube.com/watch?v=dPIWSVhVHL0
youtube.com/watch?v=IYoco8GjASI
youtube.com/watch?v=3J87lzqMEnI
youtube.com/watch?v=N2SfpGAS718
youtube.com/watch?v=Sf8uqWvGP28
youtube.com/watch?v=DK3RaaZNmiE
youtube.com/watch?v=gZZmVOZg3lI
youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0Vr_PC8zg
youtube.com/watch?v=QsZ1cKlPG80&list=PL5B665A919BD3AAC8

user, that's only PV.

I believe this is true to a certain extent. Environmentalists want industry, living standards, and the human population scaled back. Oligarchs don't want to be outgrown. Big government types want more excuses to poke into everyone's business.

The cost-inefficiency of solar power was a major selling point to all of them.

But boy are they in for a surprise! Solar's a highly improvable technology, and there's no plausible justification for forbidding people to put up panels of their own. There's going to be a huge expansion of industry and energy consumption as a result.

it is one billion times more viable than wind

it also has big potential for the future

holy fuck dude did you really think you could store electricity in a cardboard box? thats like high school stuff

>I believe this is true to a certain extent. Environmentalists want industry, living standards, and the human population scaled back. Oligarchs don't want to be outgrown. Big government types want more excuses to poke into everyone's business.

Global warming is just a conspiracy by Big Pump to get people to buy a lot of unnecessary flood control equipment.

I suppose it depends on how much plastic wrap and foil you have in the box.

1) World sea levels have been generally rising since the end of the last ice age (yes, I mean the same thing as what's called a "glacial period" in the technical literature, and fuck you if you think that means it's a necessary correction).
2) Temperatures go up and down on their own.
3) Improved drainage, anti-flood civic engineering, and depletion of groundwater has been moving water and sediment from above sea level into the oceans, raising them as surely as glacial melting does.
4) Land moves up and down relative to the sea level.
5) Government schemes to subsidize insurance have encouraged building in flood regions.
6) Development near coasts has also stripped forests and wetlands that previously absorbed the force of hurricanes and prevented them from blowing water up into coastal cities.

No matter whether you believe in alarmist models that predict strong positive feedbacks, or you believe in the observed effects that show as many negative feedbacks as positive ones and very limited warming potential from CO2, stopping greenhouse gas emissions wouldn't be a cure-all for preventing flooding.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU

Solar panels make your house look gay though.

>last ice age (yes, I mean the same thing as what's called a "glacial period" in the technical literature, and fuck you if you think that means it's a necessary correction).

Just say, "glacial period" then, holy fuck.

No. It's not an improvement. I still say "tidal wave", I don't use "kibibyte", I still call Pluto a planet. I'm not going to take the path of least resistance against aggressive minorities changing established words just to have an excuse to correct people and thereby pose as having superior knowledge.

I don't give the whole spiel every time I use "ice age" this way, just when I suspect I'm going to be jumped on by some human garbage if I don't.

>When you realize you left the tap running

Use whatever the fuck you want, just stop with why and the tl;dr.

Why are Veeky Forums threads full of such obviously LOW IQ posts.

>PV is bad, muh thermal

Except there are a fraction of thermal projects as compared to PV and they are all shit economically.

How the fuck did some retards in this thread post that PV isn't economical and the future is thermal?

IVANPAH PLANT U DUMB FUCKIGN LOW IQ SHIT MONKEY PIGGIES

Do you fuckheads just like roll a dice to decide that PV is awful and uneconomical? How the fuck are you arriving at these deductions?

What about the fuckheads talking about wind?

acting like a butthurt ashole becasue he doesnt know the very basic scientifc fact that its too expensive to coat the world in expensive battery operated multi layer electronic to control countless of very expensive panels with complex mechanisms that mimic plants in a very inneficient way

>mimic plants in a very inneficient way

you didn't even spell shit right with available spellcheckers

not to mention your fucking points are dogshit and wrong.

...

If down the line, we stopped using fossil fuels almost completely, how would we use Solar Power, also what renewable energies would we use?

good luck coating the world in expensive electronics you shitter

this is how you sound:

-HEERR DURRR LE DURR TO PUT OUT A FIRE LETS ADD GAS

No, it's because your post is obviously from such a low IQ mind that there is no point.

Your premise is that it is expensive. A lot of things are expensive like houses, roads, infrastructure, cars, phones, computers, etc.

So the argument "It is expensive" isn't exactly something I give a shit about. Plus your brain is probably so shit it is pointless trying to teach it.

It's the same reason I am not arguing with ants or cockroaches about why they should learn algebra.

The sun is a gigantic natural fusion power plant. Our fossil fuels are simply stored energy from it that have gathered over time. The only available choices for power are pretty much fission or fusion. Solar just uses the existing fusion power plant (the sun) directly.

>Your premise is that it is expensive
it is more expensive that is never going to give back the money

LE hurr le dur

add energy to build a microscopic microchip of mind boggling complexity, add another complex array of complexity mechanism that distillate power sun into mechnical currents

a billion megawatts of energy expended in a nanosecond of retarded funding for a plant that will yield out a couple of killowats before its broken up by weather and must be expended aagain of a billions of kws of energy building the repairs or replacing it all up again all togeteher

wsj.com/articles/ivanpah-solar-plant-may-be-forced-to-shut-down-1458170858

pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3038824
nrel.gov/docs/fy99osti/24619.pdf

Such fucking low IQ it is making me feel sick.

Just to imitate the extremely LOW IQ monkeys in this thread. Below would be one of their """"SCIENTIFIC""" posts.

>Thermal is better. PV is bad.

haha, doesnt even know the definition for iq

bro tippy tip of the dick of my superior intellect penetreiting youre inferior non knowledge; you need a test to determine iq

such for that only for such that i have already forever confirmed you lie at something that is objectively false, you said something objectively false

bronews tippy tip: there is objective truth in sciecne youre not a snowflake

How is Solar energy from an economical standpoint? Is it profittable in the long run and is it useful enough to replace fossil fuels?

you can just google these answers

What the fuck, I want the Veeky Forums experts answers though.

Right now, the efficiency is incredibly shit compared to other sources. It definitely can't replace our current sources of electricity.

That being said, as a way to supplement it, it's amazing. Large solar plants are working quite well, especially in places like Australia where we have lots of sun but not many people. On the other end of the scale, smaller electronics being powered by solar is convenient as fuck, although they don't work very fast.

Right now, the commercially available cells are around 25% efficiency, but are bad for the environment to make. So if you don't maintain and keep them working a long time, they kinda defeat their own purpose. Perovskite cells have apparently got the potential to reach 66% efficiency and are much easier to make.

Tl;dr: Efficiency is too shit right now to bother making them anything more than supplemental. But they're showing potential to become the best thing to happen to us.

Solar energy is doing good. The best aspects it has is the potential to require far less infrastructure than other power sources. So basically as it improves it becomes easier to live in more remote areas with better quality of life and cheaper.

It's profitable in the long run and will soon be better than fossil fuels overall in every way.

Really the future of energy generation is between solar (fusion), wind, fusion, and fission (nuclear)

>hardly
Fkn kek. It's already gone from ~3% efficiency to 25%+ efficiency, and will most likely reach at least 66%. If there's even the slimmest chance it could reach 66%, its definitely worth it.

>batteries that work under the sun
That's a pretty crude way of looking at it, but meh. Good enough to use to explain to normies.

>
>nuclear
Is nuclear energy safe?

And this is what a pro-PVers is like, Veeky Forums. Not worth talking or trying to educate. Just hide the post.

Not current nuclear power but near future it will be safe and much more effective.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

Unsubsidized solar power is already economically competitive in with power from the existing electrical grid in particularly sunny areas, and can actually save enough money to pay itself off in terms of lifetime cost per kilowatt-hour.

However, this is only true in particularly sunny areas; although the cost efficiency of photovoltaic panels continues to increase rapidly as research progresses, it's still not as cost-efficient as it would need to be to beat existing power sources in cost per watt nearly everywhere. (It's actually fairly close though!)

However, it could never fully *replace* fossil fuels - for one thing, chemical fuels are a truly fantastic means of energy storage, and electrical power storage such as batteries may never replace them entirely in vehicle applications (especially aerospace, where both high power-to-weight and high energy-to-weight are critical).

Likewise, until we develop a highly-scalable, high-capacity, and cheap method of utility-scale power storage with a rapid turnaround time (besides pumped hydro, I mean), solar power will never be able to power the grid entirely - in order to compensate for sudden spikes in power demand, or sudden drops in power supply, the ability to rapidly ramp up temporary power supply will be necessary to avoid blackouts, and currently natural gas peaking plants are the best solution & will remain so until sufficiently good batteries are invented. (Nuclear peaking plants are not, last I checked, feasible; nuclear reactors, like coal plants, are really best left on under constant load and take time to warm up and shut down.)

(Base load power is another area where large-scale storage would be required to run the grid off of solar - storing excess power during sunny days in order to meet the constant component of power demands on cloudy days, or at night. Right now this is also met mainly by fossil generation, although nuclear could theoretically supplant it.)

In fact, until those roadblocks are solved, even if solar panels became more efficient than coal *everywhere*, we still couldn't replace the grid with them. The electrical grid requires a very delicate balance of supply and demand to avoid wasting energy or causing blackouts; solar power's output varies wildly, uncontrollably, and not fully predictably with both day/night cycle, season, and weather. This means that, without storage to balance out the peaks and the troughs, solar can only supply a small fraction of grid power because a lot of steadier, more controllable capacity is needed to ensure an overall stable power supply.

Pumped hydro works pretty well for storage, but not everywhere has a big fuck-off dam and turnaround time is a bit high.

The client got 97% of what was owed to them. They actually had it in writing on a contract. They just paid the contract holder some money instead to make up for the lose. The loss was probably due to the fact there was a fire when something was misaligned and they lost power production while repairing. So, there's no shutting down going on for that plant.

No, it won't. There will always be failures. That is historical fact, not just from the ones that have already failed, but because humans are the ones designing, building, and maintaining the plants.

MSRs are safer and more stable since they don't reach high enough temperatures for meltdown (since the fuel is in a molten state) and the primary system is at a low operating pressure even at high temperature, due to the high boiling point (∼ 1400 °C at atmospheric pressure) and therefore do not require expensive containment or highly pressurized hot water. The MSR is not subject to safety concerns from chemical or mechanical violent reactions or explosions. The basic features of MSRs give the solutions for many problems for others solid fueled light water reactors, and eliminate the reasons for serious last accidents like TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima and more of basis and severe accidents will be decreased and limited.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850713000101

>Unsubsidized solar power is already economically competitive in with power from the existing electrical grid in particularly sunny areas, and can actually save enough money to pay itself off in terms of lifetime cost per kilowatt-hour.

I wish that was true where I lived for homeowners. There's no subsidies and the cost of a battery array and solar PV system means it will never ever pay back how much it cost to buy it, install it myself, then replace batteries years later. In fact, it would more than triple my current electric bill from the grid.

Even going batteryless and only using solar to run things during the day doesn't cost less than what grid power costs here. In fact, it'd take about 15 years without replacing anything nor it losing efficiency for it to break even.

You aren't listening. They fail, no matter what it is, it fails, simply because HUMANS are involved. You have to be deluded to think otherwise.

>Nuclear peaking plants are not, last I checked, feasible; nuclear reactors, like coal plants, are really best left on under constant load and take time to warm up and shut down.

Well the nuclear could be just wasting thermal energy all along, so you could rapidly adapt to power needs as things change.
France manages with what, 80% nuclear power?

There is a difference between a "failure" at a nuclear reaction vs a fusion reactor and the subsequent meltdown.

Not to mention you can change how energy is used to match up to the new technologies.

You can look at it from both perspectives. AKA usage can adapt to match production.

>that normally includes a subsidy from the government.
So do nuclear and coal, dummy.

pretty much everything is subsidized
walmarts are fucking subsidized

The solar subsidy is actually very good and should be increased due to the way it accelerates the industry.

You do know that MSRs still have a danger of a criticality accident, right?

Yeah, like I said, that statement's only true in a few places. Give it ten years, maybe.

>every solar thread
>aspie sperges go on and on about other types of energy and don't discuss solar

MFW

youtube.com/watch?v=eM7o2H2lyRc

There's a difference between peaking and base-load power. You only need the peaking power intermittently.

Most of the capacity you need is in the base-load power; nuclear's really good for that.

Oh, OK, yes, I see your point.

Yes, nuclear reactors will occasionally fail, duh. The question is, how frequently, and how expensive it is when they do.

For instance, note how rarely skyscrapers spontaneously collapse, or how rarely planes suffer spontaneous engine explosion.

And then there's the question of how bad it is when it does fail - if the engine fails, will the plane crash and explode, or will it be able to come down relatively safely? If the reactor fails, is it going to be a Fukushima (really bad), or a Three Mile Island (essentially a non-issue)?

The big selling point of modern reactor designs is not that they can't fail, but that they fail less badly.

Congrats. Most pro-nuclear people go apeshit at that point and say that all new nuclear tech has some magic wizardry that keeps them from failing simply because "modern" designs are superior to "ancient" designs. Just like how Roman concrete isn't as good as modern concrete I guess.

>aspie sperges go on and on about other types of energy and don't discuss solar

Veeky Forums is filled with an incredible amount of Nuclear Shills.

These fucking idiots just don't understand that the time it takes to certify, build, and operate just a single Nuclear Plant can take +10 years and tens of billions of dollars. And it produces electricity that is more expensive than Coal, Solar PV, Wind, Hydro, and Natural Gas. Nuclear is unironically the most expensive and inefficient way to make electricity there is. Oh, and it can be weaponized and used to proliferate nuclear weapons.

Renewables are the future. And nobody likes shitty Nuclear Power.

source?
pretty sure that nuclear is by far the most efficient form of energy production, its only drawback is that it sounds scary and can't get public support.

yeah its called risk and reward, obviously the risk will never be zero, it just has to be justifiable.

>pretty sure that nuclear is by far the most efficient form of energy production

Just using Uranium in PWR is garbage. If you were to leverage a cycle with Breeder Reactors, then you could improve the Energy ROI. But Breeders are even more expensive than PWRs which are already the most expensive form of electricity on the market. Why the fuck would you want to do that?

Remember this is just EROI, when you factor in $/Watt Nuclear comes out at the very bottom. And since 2010 when this chart was made, Natural Gas and Renewables have greatly improved with newer technologies (higher efficiency PV and Hydro Fracking) while Nuclear remains stagnant.

Unless ITER succeeds then Nuclear should remain in decline, and Renewables should take over. People have been shilling and dumping billions into nuclear R&D since the 50s, convinced it was the next big thing. It never was or will be the future, they are the Airships of the energy industry.

Should I get my Bachelor's in Electrical Engineering in order to go into the field of Solar Energy and then get my Master's in Nuclear Engineering in order to go into Nuclear Energy? Is it useful to work on both Solar and Nuclear?

>People have been shilling and dumping billions into nuclear R&D since the 50s, convinced it was the next big thing.

Considering that the NRC hasn't approved a new reactor design since 1978 (not coincidentally, a year before Three Mile Island spooked them), and that the youngest reactor in civilian operation in the US began construction in 1973, that's rather misleading.

People may well have been "shilling and dumping billions into nuclear R&D since the 50s", but since regulation utterly stalled the actual implementation of that technology in the mid-70s and those reactors are only getting more expensive to keep running as they age, that doesn't tell you much.

It's like if the government had forbidden us from building any new computers since the 70s, and even though people poured billions of dollars into trying to develop new ones the government simply refused to let us build them. Looking at how there had been absolutely no improvement in computers since the 70s (since they were the same ones, no new ones had been built), and how they remained the province of universities and businesses only, how expensive they were, how inefficient they were, how often the discrete chips burned out ... you might well conclude that the whole technology was a dead end.

Oh, and also let's posit that for those that were built, the government required micrometer tolerances, the ability to withstand a rocket launch, and platinum contacts for every component, so they were insanely expensive to build and so charged an arm and a leg for computing time to try and amortize the cost.

This guy is peddling misinformation. Nuclear is the most expensive capital-wise but the least expensive among reliable, non-fossil fuel sources for actually producing a kilowatt-hour of energy, which is the only way of comparing apples to apples. Whenever someone is talking about price per watt instead of price per watt-hour they are probably being deliberately deceptive.

Hydro cannot be implemented everywhere so it's not even up for consideration, while solar and wind end up being more expensive because you need *a lot* of machines to reliably produce the same amount of energy as one nuclear plant.

user, I understand your desire to do many things with with your life, but employers don't care about you.
You probably could do both, but when you get that MS in nuclear, nuclear will pay you more than solar.
The only reason I can see getting both would be to conduct research.

>should I work on nuclear and solar

da fuck

The first question is could you. Also anything to do with these is done by large teams or specialists. AKA chemists, materials science, EE, Civil Engineers, ME all doing different things.

Look up job listings for what type of job you would want to eventually do. See the skills and requirements they have.

Both Solar and Nuclear are huge fields with a wide array of related jobs.

To add another factor, as many of today's existing reactors were in mid-construction starting around the mid-late 70s, the government tightened regulations several times, forcing sudden and unexpected redesigns and resulting in massive and extremely expensive delays. The resulting enormous cost overruns led to the huge costs of many of these plants, which in turn have to sell their electricity at high cost to attempt to recoup their losses.

This regulatory turbulence added a lot of additional expense, on top of the already very substantial increase in expense necessary to meet the now incredibly stringent safety standards.

>posts irrelevant opinion polls and EROI instead of LCOE

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

If you want to live in denial that is fine.

Nuclear is expensive, project costs are in the tens of billions. Lead-in times can take +10 years, and payoff time takes decades. AND Liability Insurance adds to the cost even more. Plus it is publicly and politically unpopular.

Solar and Wind are easily distributed, have wide support, very short lead-in times (projects take months, not decades), lower costs, and complement each other exceptionally well (Wind Power is most productive at night, and Solar during the day). Both are sustained through a limitless resource and do not require any precious materials or elements like Uranium. Have zero proliferation threat.

Storage will be a long-term problem, but Solar+Wind can realistically convert 20-30% of the grid with current technology (And they will at current rates, pic related) before problems kick in. A good mix of Natural Gas and Renewables are going to be the future of American energy needs. Nuclear is finished with little new projects, and current projects being cancelled and postponed.

For example, the oldest US reactor, Oyster Creek, was constructed in just 4 years - construction began on 1965; it became operational on 1969. This was roughly typical for its time.

By contrast, Watts Bar, which began construction in 1973, took so long to construct that it wasn't switched on in 1976. Watts Bar Unit 2 was only switched on last year. The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1977 for both reactors, and overran its cost by a factor of 16, ultimately costing $13 billion.

This is unusually bad, but also fairly typical for reactors of its era - by 1980, the typical construction time for a reactor was 12 years, and total costs for a 1 GW reactor (including material costs, inflation and delays) multiplied by ~18x from 1970 to 1980.

You may note that becoming dramatically more expensive and difficult to construct for exactly the same capability is not the usual thing that happens in the course of technological development. This should perhaps give you some clues that perhaps the reason nuclear power sucks isn't because it had its chance and just couldn't compete.

>Nuclear is expensive, project costs are in the tens of billions. Lead-in times can take +10 years, and payoff time takes decades. AND Liability Insurance adds to the cost even more.
This is all taken into account in the LCOE. You are ignoring the facts. Once the plant is built they are cheap to maintain and fuel. And they produce constant power unlike solar and wind. The only way to get around that is to have a massive amount of batteries which is multiple times more expensive than a nuclear plant. If we are going to stop using fossil fuels then we will have to use nuclear. You are simply in denial.

>Plus it is publicly and politically unpopular.
Irrelevant.

>A good mix of Natural Gas and Renewables are going to be the future of American energy needs.
And what about the costs of AGW from natural gas? Carbon capture makes natural gas more expensive than nuclear.

>Not accounting for subsidies
>Not including payoff time
>Not including initial investment needed
>Not including time until electricity production

The base notion was that Nuclear was some sort of Magical EROI, Super-Efficient solution. It is not. It is below average on efficiency.

EROI's a bullshit metric that needs to die. If you can make your PV panels, wind turbines, and hydro plants entirely with energy from these sources, then your EROI becomes effectively infinite. There's no relevant fixed cycle in which to calculate energy investment and return. Rather, you have to look at metrics like energy doubling time: how long does it take you for an initial investment in energy to be paid back twofold, when converted to an actual form convenient for reinvesting with similar efficiency? And how much labor does it take? What risks does it entail?

We know from nature that solar can have an EXTREMELY fast energy doubling period with no input of labor. A tiny dandelion seed can grow into a flower in eight weeks and produce dozens of seeds, then carry on flowering for years, giving a doubling period of perhaps a week. A handful of assorted seeds could cover a barren continent in greens within a few years and make it thick with timber and peat in a few decades. We only need to reach toward this demonstrated efficiency with systems optimized to serve us convenient energy.

In every relevant situation, EROI is really "energy return on oil burned": how much of an energy multiplier are you getting on the gasoline and diesel fuel you burn running your mining tools, well drills, pumps, trucks, etc. ? In other words, how much are you getting for your effort, compared to just burning the oil directly?

The fundamental assumption is that oil, a valuable, limited, and easily-sold commodity, is your only convenient fuel for tools and vehicles.

Project costs for a nuclear reactor are in the tens of billions.

But they weren't always. As you can see by this chart of the EEDB cost*, costs dramatically inflated over the course of the 70s and late 60s, much faster than inflation. In 1972, the EEDB was $1.3 billion in inflation-adjusted 2016 dollars; in 1980 it was $7.16 billion in 2016 dollars.

To obtain the true cost, you need to multiply by the inflation and interest factors (chart upcoming) - the multiplier was about 1 in 1967 (with average construction time of 5.5 years), but by 1980 had jumped to more than 3x (with average construction time, according to the chart, of 12 years.)
>*(labor plus material costs for an instantaneously built reactor; to calculate the true cost, you need to correct for interest on construction debts, inflation, and delays over the course of the real construction period)

>Not accounting for subsidies
The LCOE is about cost, not price. Subsidies are not free money, they come out of the consumer's pocket one way or another.

>Not including payoff time
>Not including time until electricity production
Why do these matter in the long run?

>Not including initial investment needed
Of course it includes the initial investment as part of the cost. You just proved you have no idea what you're talking about.

>The base notion was that Nuclear was some sort of Magical EROI, Super-Efficient solution.
You mean the base strawman. Are you really so desperate to shit on nuclear that you're willing to argue based on public opinion and "notions" rather than reality?

>It is below average on efficiency.
Efficiency in this context is the cost per watt-hour. It is the most efficient source that can be implemented anywhere and produces reliable power that people need without the costs of carbon pollution.

Here's the chart of inflation x interest factors. Numbers in parentheses are the estimated years to complete the project, if initiated at that date.

>Once the plant is built

Even if US went full-steam ahead today it would be +50 years before Nuclear could be a majority power supply in the US. Even if you consider the non-Alarmist Global Warming predictions, that is wayyyyy too late. Renewables are offering a better solution MUCH sooner.

Globally it is utterly unfeasible. Proliferation risks are too great. India took a Canadian Heavy-Water reactor, reverse-engineered it, and used it to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Any country can do the same. Safe Nuclear will never exist.

Battery expenses are set to fall dramatically as new Battery factories and electric cars begin to proliferate.

>Even if US went full-steam ahead today it would be +50 years before Nuclear could be a majority power supply in the US.
And? If we are only looking at the short term then we should burn all the coal we can find until we run out and screw over our children. Screw renewables! What is your point? You are refusing to look at the big picture and energy generation is always about the big picture.

>Even if you consider the non-Alarmist Global Warming predictions
Oh boy, here we go...

>Globally it is utterly unfeasible. Proliferation risks are too great. India took a Canadian Heavy-Water reactor, reverse-engineered it, and used it to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Any country can do the same. Safe Nuclear will never exist.
If this argument made any sense then Iran would be a nuclear threat and North Korea would not. In the 21st century, we we have no way of stopping countries from making nuclear weapons if they want to and do not care about international sanctions. International sanctions are the only thing that stop nuclear weapons, not refusing to build nuclear plants in our own countries.

>Battery expenses are set to fall dramatically as new Battery factories and electric cars begin to proliferate.
More production of batteries is not going to make them significantly cheaper, only new technology will. The same applies to nuclear power.

>What is your point?
That we can't afford to wait that long. We need a much shorter term clean-energy solution. Only renewables can fulfill that role. Renewables are being rolled out at record rates as we speak and continue to increase their energy penetration.

>More production of batteries is not going to make them significantly cheaper

This is just straight up bullshit. Mass production will bring down battery prices dramatically simply as a result of lower production costs and R&D investment into better battery technologies and production techniques to give Battery Companies a competitive advantage over one another. This is Capitalism 101.

>In the 21st century, we we have no way of stopping countries from making nuclear weapons if they want to and do not care about international sanctions

Iran was stopped due to severe limitations on technology transfer, and lack of reference designs to reverse engineer. They only had a few Uranium Mines and Enrichment facilities. Sanctions forced them to stop development on their Heavy-Water Reactor types which they would have had easy access to if Nuclear Energy had been proliferated. The new Russian reactor only recently came up, and already poses a long-term proliferation risk.

North Korea is different, they had everything leaked to them by China who had already gotten the tech from Russia.

>That we can't afford to wait that long.
Where did I say we should wait for nuclear to be the majority power supply? You're arguing against a strawman again.

>>>More production of batteries is not going to make them significantly cheaper
>This is just straight up bullshit. Mass production will bring down battery prices dramatically simply as a result of lower production costs and R&D investment into better battery technologies and production techniques to give Battery Companies a competitive advantage over one another.
And now you are selectively quoting me, cutting off the quote midsentence in order to avoid that I already made the point you're making. You're despicable.

>Iran was stopped due to severe limitations on technology transfer, and lack of reference designs to reverse engineer.
That's bullshit. For one, the same would apply even more to North Korea. And two, limitations on technology did not cause them to DISMANTLE the technology they already had. You are brazenly making shit up.

it is only solar that requires a fucking guarrentee that energy companies buy their useless grid ruining power

And in every place with increasing "renewable" power, they either have no fucking industries or they are paying 30+ cents a kwh.

Iran is a low IQ arab country
North Korea is still korean

This proliferation shit has always been bullshit. It was cowardly disgusting politicians, paid by commies or fossil fuel industries to ruin nuclear power.

Your argument doesn't make any sense because noone here is arguing about building nuke power plants in the third world, we should be building them HERE

Photovoltaic cells have become very efficient lately (40%), and its efficiency is raising, so no, solar energy is worth the investment in some places and applications, and very worth the research

You guys are all brainlets the sun is the only source of power in the universe therefore everything is powered by "solar energy" so obviously it is worth research and development you dumbshits

>Iran is a low IQ arab country
No it isn't. Iran is Persian. They have a long, proud intellectual tradition.