What's the most redpilled form of energy production?

SOLAR
FREAKING
ROOFTOPS

if you don't want: fracking oil natural gas coal and war, you're a liberal.

>every single home
Elon musk himself said that the solar tiles are only able to produce ~1/3 of the energy requirements of an avarage home + an electric car, so even actual rooftop solar panels are most likely not enough to power an average home. Also, some people live in high-rise buildings.
>this will limit companies from getting too powerful and making too much waste
The actual fix to that problem is recycling, and not going back to the middle ages. It would also raise prices, so you'd end up with even more economic inequality (something you probably care about).
>or having political influence
That can be fixed by laws and not by limiting companies. What you'd actually end up with this way is political power concentrated in the hands of the even fewer companies that can grow despite the energy constraints (facebook, for example, has many carbon-neutral datacenters, while being one of the largest companies).

Except it's an economically viable technology that has been in use for decades now, unlike the "solar freaking roadways".

I think the most red-pilled would be nuclear, since many blue-pilled normies are afraid of it, since radiation is black magic to them, while nuclear is one of the technologies that work with existing infrastructure (no need for ridiculous amounts of energy storage), and a chernobyl every few decades is still better than global warming.
>b-b-but muh nuclear waste
You only have to store it for ~1000 years to get rid of most of the radiation, and it's not like yucca mountain is going anywhere in the next couple million years.

>redpilled

What does this mean? It means 2009 wants its memes back. Redpilled implies knowledgeable, as in you've peeked behind the curtain to see what really goes on. As in you are enlightened or "woke" as the pot faggots say. Thus, you are asking what form of energy production is the most enlightened. Yet, non-sentient things can't be enlightened. They aren't even self aware. It isn't a political term or a term used to denote your fanbase or opinions. Do you know what this is? This is me redpilling you on the term redpill. Do you feel enlightened now?

The only thing I can draw from this is that you are asking for the energy production form that is the most well studied. The one we know the most about and are totally enlightened about its workings. Ironically, that is wind power, simply because humans have been using wind power for moving ships around since before 5,000BC. We don't harness it in any other manner than having it push objects around to make mechanical or electrical energy. It doesn't mean I give a shit about wind power. It doesn't mean I'm pushing an agenda for wind power over any other form of energy production. It just means humanity knows all there is to know about using wind as a form of energy production, far better than all other forms of energy production, even hydro.

So when are chemists going to make photosynthesis more efficient?

Rounding up all the degenerates, LGBT, SJWs, feminists, shitskins and muslims and forcing them to cycle like hamsters to power a generator which converts their kinetic energy to electrical energy.

...

He listed degenerates too.

Is fapping to "hand expression" videos on youtube considered "degenerate".

>"hand expression" videos on youtube

>tfw never be an offshore wind turbine maintenance worker

Those things are fucking massive. I bet you could actually live inside one for a long time before someone found you. Might be a bit noisy though.

>forcing them to cycle like hamsters
>to power a generator
"Black Mirror" series, Season One,
Episode Two "15 Million Merits"

Fusion... why capture the sun's energy when you can create your own sun.

>when you can create your own sun.
Since when?

It has forever been 30 years into the future.

Plus, with modern breeder technology, nuclear waste can be brought down to a practically insignificant amount

Honestly it has to be nuclear, but trying to convince the public that it is safe while also competing with oil and natural gas seems almost unachievable.

>you are asking for the energy production form that is the most well studied
You're dumb. Being redpilled means knowing something most people don't. So the most redpilled form of energy production would be something most people don't appreciate or have misconceptions about. Like if you somehow knew that the global warming was a hoax, the most redpilled form of energy production would be oil (of course it's not a hoax, but that's beside the point).
Also, the fact that we've used wind power for the longest time doesn't mean that we know the most about that one. Not to mention that the form of power generation we've used for the longest time is probably fire.

em drive energy

>Being redpilled means knowing something most people don't.

No. It means being an obnoxious faggot who thinks they understand more than a trained professional after watching a 15 minute YouTube video.

Go back to /pol/ with your stupid bullshit.

>le 30 years meme
Please cite a scientific paper from the past that says we would definitely have achieved fusion power within the following three decades. Oh wait, you can't, because the thirty years meme is probably quote mined from a couple overly enthusiastic scientists. Meanwhile, in real life, scientists have actually made a lot of progress over the last thirty years.

Definitely not wind energy.

DEFINITELY not wind energy on the fucking water.

How about finding a catalytic way to regenerate fuel from CO2 using solar or electric energy. Chemical energy is easy to handle/store and the existing infrastructure must not be replaced by new collectors/wires/other shit.
Make a cycle of energy like nature does it with the whole plants (CO2 to O2) and animals (O2 to CO2).

The red pill meme originates from the matrix movies you dumb fuck, where it meant exactly the thing I just described. And wind power may very well be the form of power generation we understand the most, mr. trained professional, but not because we've used for the longest time. All that knowledge we've accumulated about wind over millenia before the 1900s could be researched in a couple years with modern methods, because using something for thousands of years is not the same as actually understanding it.

Also, I never said I was "redpilled" in any way, so no, I don't have to go "back" to /pol/. Learn some reading comprehension.

We can build a plant right now though. It wouldn't be a very good plant and it would break down often and take ridiculous effort to maintain, but most of the basics are through now. That's why ITER is being built and that's pretty much already outdated already now. Plus in a year or two we'll know if optimized Stellerators are viable as well.
Yeah it'll still take a few more decades, but this time we really have all the unknowns nailed down in experiments. Tokamaks and stellerators won't magically do worse again. The problem with the Fusion meme was that previous researchers never really knew what the fuck they were actually talking about and just filled in the unknown science with "eh, I bet plasma physics is gonna be easy"

>The red pill meme originates from the matrix movies you dumb fuck, where it meant exactly the thing I just described

Not him but most people know where the meme comes from, the problem lies within the assumption that there is a "truth" worth keeping secret.

As far as energy is concerned there isn't, all the cards have been laid out on the table for everyone to see. All that's left is fighting over which energy to invest in.

you mean microbiologists

The most efficient, fossil fuels until they are gone. Even governments figured that out.

OTEC for planets with water.
Zero Point for space.

my biggest concern is disposal of nuclear waste and nuclear material. I'd be fine with it if they turned it into glass, but stuffing it into rusty metal barrels and burring it out of sight seems ..... just stupid.

Nuclear

Scientists who claim we are X years away are the same kinds of scientists who forecasted catastrophic global warming effects by 2016

No different than landfills. Believe me if there was an effective way to recycle nuclear waste it would have been implemented long ago

Which ones were those?

Not an argument.

im doing a wind energy course in my uni

i keep thinking about this pic

how fucking depressing, you spend most of your life reading and studying and solving problems in order to get the credentials to work on an actual turbine probably because your soul belongs to wind turbines

then you die on top of one.

all those manhours
all that money
as trump would say, sad!

Does your course perform cost-benefit analysis on windmills? If so you'd know as much as anyone else here that they're full retard

dirty fucking coal

Look up how France does it.

James Hansen is the first one that comes to mind

they just dump it into the ocean off africa

norway generates nearly all its electricity from hydropower.

why can't we all just make lots of mountains?

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://fissilematerials.org/library/rr04.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwibiOqn_uzRAhWGvrwKHUmQChEQFggmMAE&usg=AFQjCNE4exCjHapfnc3KLJc8RlLagyEz1Q&sig2=rWfRzJn56ErSzh5CeQKJqw

someone needs to engineer an escape plan in case of fires. Like a parachute only deployable from

I'm aware that there are a plethora of added security to prevent contamination from nuclear waste sites but it's still conceptually similar to a landfill. The energy efficiency and lack of a fossil feul atmospheric byproduct makes fission the gold standard of efficient energy production. The major concern is the initial investment cost and how political/economic factors may stop projects mid-construction. SMRs can combat this a good bit.

>drive
>energy
get the fuck out of here moron

I don't pay attention to nuclear tech, are thorium reactors still shit?

Solar for sure.

it's a meme

like everything that isn't fossil

Harvesting human body radiation

Thanks Morpheus

Nuclear+Solar
Geothermal and Hydro where available.

The way burying radioactive barrels works is simple. They have buried it far beneath an ancient sandflat and in millions of years from now that sand will collapse onto it and contain the radiation to a fixed area.

By the time it's actually hazardous, our people will have destroyed this Earth and be inhabiting another planet.

And then what?
You don't get usable energy directly.
Have to convert it to heat first so you lose efficiency.

>Takes too long to build.
>Burns only a small amount of fuel
>Rest is buried as a problem for future generations.
>Still a steam generating machine at heart.
>Needs extensive security and maintenance
>Needs trained individual.

I could go on but its really not that repelled.
It better than almost anything we have sure except Hydro.
God I love Hydroelectric power!

Since red-pilled means gimicky pseudoscience perpetuated by fake news the answer is the Rodin Coil.

>just filled in the unknown science with "eh, I bet plasma physics is gonna be easy"
That does not sound scientific.

The question is: would it work, as in produce net energy?

solar master race.

windfags are so delusional.

Nuclear fission is by far the best centralized energy production method. Hydro is better, but can only be applied in select locations.

Solar is best for decentralized electricity, getting better every year as solar cell and battery tech improves.

>also force businesses
>force
>businesses
Commies get out REEEEEE

>racemixing future
>the nigger gets jewed out of his dead brother's cash and then cucked
Truly a brave new world.

Memes aside I thought it was such a dumb concept. They are incredibly inefficient as power producers. Why even use them? Using a them as a fucking low grade heat source, extracted from air, would probably be more efficient. I mean what kind of a shitty dystopian future has anti fat biking living facilities. Are they imprisoned there? Literally nobody is productive except few people. Hell, fatties are the most productive people I could see. The concept just triggers my autism.

>That does not sound scientific.
They made some very wrong assumptions about plasma originally and thought it would just work.
This of course failed completely.
Then Russians found the Tokamak and people were already hyped again like "now it's really only like 2 decades".
But as it turned out plasma was still being a bitch even in Tokamaks.
So now we've studied Tokamaks for decades and most importantly we have new superconducting coils that can generate stronger magnetic fields.
So ITER is being built right now and with its size and magnetic field strength, it will put out more power than it takes.
But Tokamaks still have some issues with occasional surges that could damage the reactor.
Then there's the issue that Tokamaks need to shut down every couple of hours for about half an hour, which is not ideal at all for a power plant.
Lastly, the most annoying thing is the radiation degrading the reactor wall and contaminating the plasma or degrading the coils. This is especially annoying since these reactors are almost impossible to open and maintain.

This is why ITER is still a plant-scale experiment.

The stellerator they built in Germany now does theoretically not have any of these problems, except the last one. So they're still experimenting with different materials to sort that out.
But the stellerator of course has the major problem that basically every single fucking part of it needs to be accurate to the millimeter everywhere which is just a nightmare to build.

>The question is: would it work, as in produce net energy?
Net energy is easy. Just build it larger or make the magnets insanely strong.
The problem is keeping the whole set-up in operation 24/7 for years and years.
That's where most of the engineering hurdles still lie.

Hey guys, I found the entirety of Reddit as one comment.

I still thin harnessing the earths capacitance is the way to go. Someone said something about this affecting the ionosphere and magnetosphere, but both these are a product of our molten core, and the charge is just plasmids trapped in the ionosphere emmited by the sun, so no effecting the magnetosphere or the ionosphere. All that's needed is a network of resonators to act as a supply for primary winding(note that you will need a charge to start this process that or well designed superconductors, something that will oscillate on the same frequency as the source you wish to draw from) and a stepdown circuit coupled with a relitivly wound second winding to bring this charge down to a useful measure, or alternitavly adapt technology to take a much greater current.( with enough reaserch and experimentation into this one could create a small aerial wound from a superconductive material coupled with a well designed transformer to take the place of batteies)

>Harnessing energy through means of induction.
What is this the 19th century or something. You want to work in parallel with existing circuits not outside, and this is why most green energy sources are doomed from the beginning, because we are using artificial methods of induction on earths capacitance and as for fossil fuels this uses methods of 'natural induction' artificially boosted, through processes that would otherwise naturally radiate and disserpate the energy.

Harnessing the energy from the rotation of the Earth.

but that would slow the earth down

Realising that it will be a mixture. Long distance supranational power grids.

Why aren't we using geothermal energy centrals? There are hard enough metals to withstand the temperature of the magma, if they can withstand the temperatures in the nuclear plant where the uranium sticks meet.

Even slowing it down by just one second off the day would yield a huge, huge amount of energy.

How is that gonna work?

Imma conservative alt-rightist so I want the most dirty, harmful, and least efficient form of energy! Fuck the Earth!

>Imma american so I want the most dirty, harmful, and least efficient form of energy! Fuck the Earth!
Fixed.

Interesting challenge. You'd need something independent of the Earth's rotation to start, something on the pole that is hovering perhaps, or maybe a gyroscope of some kind. but let's start with something hovering, because it's cooler, perhaps a superconductor magnet.

Then you'd tie a rope from the hovering object to a stationary point on the earth. As it spun there would have to be some sort of generator in the hovering object that would convert that pull into energy without spinning the hovering object along with it

Not a bad idea, but won't the constant gravity pull fuck with the mechanical gains? I mean the spin isn't fast enough to produce any meaningful mechanical gain, I think it would be better to somehow get the device to move counter the earth's direction through space, but that seems impossible.

The gravity shouldn't affect it as long as its hovering due to a superconductor magnet, or more realistically, it is inside of a gyroscope.

Dyson spheres

Here is what the final product might look like

the power of memes

>How about finding a catalytic way to regenerate fuel from CO2 using solar energy
I think the most elegant way to do it would be implement (something) into GMO crops instead of RUBISCO

Energy from the heat of the Earth's mantle.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Continental_Deep_Drilling_Programme

This reached the depth of 9,101 metres and had to stop due to it reaching temperatures of 250C. The issue of time and safety wouldn't be ambitious due to the 2008 ERD well BD-04A being able to drill 12,290 metres in just 36 days with no incidents (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Shaheen_Oil_Field#History)

Only a fraction of the depth is needed to reach temperature usable for energy production, also we would only need to drill one hole and just expand the room at the other end.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland_Deep_Drilling_Project

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole
>The deepest, SG-3, reached 12,262 metres (40,230 ft) in 1989 and still is the deepest artificial point on Earth
>because of higher-than-expected temperatures at this depth and location, 180 °C (356 °F) instead of expected 100 °C (212 °F), drilling deeper was deemed infeasible and the drilling was stopped in 1992.[5] With the projected further increase in temperature with increasing depth, drilling to 15,000 m (49,000 ft) would have meant working at a temperature of 300 °C (570 °F), where the drill bit would no longer work.

Why don't we do this anymore?

I don't wanna bring /pol/ into this but I'm seriously gonna say Schlomo. Geothermal energy can be used for both electrical and heating purposes, it can be accessed anywhere on the globe and we definitely have the technology to build it right now.

But that would put the fossil fuel magnate Schlomo out of business of course.

What can I do with this info?

What if we control volcanoes? Get energy and prevent dangerous eruptions.

>can be accessed those few places around the globe where sufficient heat circulates close enough to the surface to make exploitation economically feasible and is replenished fast enough to avoid the localized cooling issues that creep in when you draw off heat for power.

Photophosphorylation
Anything else is a fucking joke.

Of course! How simple.