Should we damn coal country for green energy?

Renewable is shit, doesn't account for fluctuation in demand. Also it is expensive for what it is.

Coal is best, nuclear is ok.

m8, you can see the fossilized trees the coal is made from in the fucking coal.

Coal is cheaper and it's a good thing to free trapped carbon back into environment.

Transmission loss makes this a moot point unless you can find someway to boost efficiency of electricity transfer

At this moment, secondary issues like taxes and energy and abortion are so minuscule in comparison to the fact that white people are rapidly becoming minorities in every country that we inhabit.

I wish we were in the situation where we could debate over minor issues like this, but the most important problem facing our country is reclaiming its ethinc-European identity which defined being an American until the ~1950's or so.

Our energy policy won't mean shit once we've become a minority in our own country. Look at Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), who under nigger rule has allowed its infrastructure to fall into such disarray that they have no sanitation system to clean their tap water.

America needs to become a white country again. I have a feeling once we're not paying billions in welfare to niggers and spics, we'll suddenly have a lot more resources to devote to innovating new, cutting edge forms of energy.

Renewable energy is fucking garbage. Coal is also garbage though.

Fuck all these people actually

yes, nuclear is BY FAR the best source of energy we have in basically every way at the moment. People are retarded and taught to fear the word "nuclear" though so yeah, that's a problem. Actually met someone once who thought nuclear power plants spread radiation into the atmosphere. Fusion is unlikely in our near future though.

Step up transformer? Reduce the current and you reduce losses.

Can we burn leftists for fuel? That should solve our energy problem.

(1)

EE checking in, green energy is full of shit because it's intermittent and the storage mechanisms are bullshit. It will not replace current base load power generation. It's fine for perhaps helping with peak shaving etc, but other than that it's irrelevant.

Future is more nuclear power, but I'm hopeful they can someday crack the fusion reactor.

That raises a great question – how much energy could you generate firing up 6,000,000 jews in those ultra-efficient German ovens from the 1940's (which were far more advanced than anything crematoria by modern standards)?

Apparently the infrastructure is still lying around in Poland. We should try it out!

I feel your pain.
I've had conversations where I had to explain that the scary smoke coming out of the cooling towers is actually just harmless water vapor.

It's a shit question, the human body is roughly 60% water, so it would be no different than just generating steam by heating water (which requires energy input).

More efficient to just hang them.

The guy I was talking to was largely evoking meltdowns. After explaining to him how much safer they have become and how it's only really old plants that ever have meltdowns after running fine for decades. He eventually conceded and you know what his rebuttal was?
FUCKING SOLAR FLARES, he thought shutting down the electric grid would result in a meltdown

No.

The jew will tell you to seek clean, "green" energy while flying his private jet between bilderberg meetings and his private mansions.

NUCLEAR ENERGY NOW

N U C L E A R
U
C
L
E
A
R

A liberal is someone who throws out a machine which was doing its job, because he expects to build a better machine sometime in the foreseeable future.

/gsg/ was curious about this because they wanted to see if it was possible to use pops (albanians in this case) as a fuel resource for basic factories (replacing coal). It turned out this wasn't really doable from a modding standpoint, but they did also decide to see if IRL humans would be a viable fuel source and concluded that they'd take more energy to burn than you'd get from their burning.

The only way humans are a viable fuel source is if they undergo conversion to fossil fuels, and that's really the earth putting a shitton of energy into them.

I don't know shit about nuclear plants and different types of reactors but, amusing the plant isn't damaged like fukushima was, isn't it perfectly stable after a shutdown?

The only part that gets radiation is the rod storage, and the reactor. The plants are decontaminated when they are shutdown.

Fossil fuels should be banned for mass use

but only after we have the other technology in place.

Here's a walk through of a decommissioned nuclear plant, this should give you a good idea of the setup.

Well you know what they say about coal burning.

Fusion is bullshit and a waste of time. It's LFTR all the way

This.

I agree with this guy. Coal is shit and terrible for the environment, but it's WAY better than shitty, unreliable, inefficient "green" energy. It's also a bad idea to cripple an entire industry for idealistic reasons.

Nuclear is really good, but people are justly afraid of the plants melting down. If fusion power can be figured out, and lots of people use solar on their houses as a backup or buffer, that would be perfect. But fusion is probably just another Jew meme

Fusion would be cheaper, and generate a lot more energy, not to mention very inexpensive fuel(hydrogen and helium)

Coal is being killed by NG from the fracking.
Its a shitty firty fuel source that releases more in radioactive byproducts than you get from burning it, 8 pounds to the ton, produces significant quantities of acidic compounds due to an incomplete combustion cycle for fear of melting the boiler steel, remember forges use coke/coal to melt steel, large quantities of fine particulates resulting in chronic respiratory illnesses.
All in all coal is fine if you like to live like Bejing, in which case, go live there.
Coal is not scalable, requiring a significant amount of uptime and base loading due tot hermal shock cycling if you attempt to reduce the cooling or fuel to moderate the firebox when the turbine spools up and down, requires an extensive and damaging industry with low accountability and higher mortality and damage than wind or photovoltaics, and in general is unsustainable due to the above and the simple fact most demand came for 60-80 year old plants well past their time and mostly operating on government subsidies to ensure the grid did not collapse while Siemans built more turbines for natural gas.

So please, do tell how an increased and markedly so usage of NG is not killing coal, yet the magically never working renewables are somehow working and killing coal?

When you show me either a wind turbine factory or a solar cell factory totally powered by the product they manufacture then I will become a believer.

Nuclear is the best possible option we currently have for energy. If someone would actually fucking build modern tech nuclear power plants and not half ass it, then staff them with someone other than lukewarm IQ retards, it would be amazing. Also, rebuild the fucking power grid while you're at it.

Instead, all we do is kvetch about potential meltdowns and how scary they are, you know, because kikes.

You have to first ask whether scientific research is directly or indirectly controlled by lobbies that have an interest in having fossil fuels be the dominant fuel source.

...

Nigger, pebble beds are only going to start melting down when the Plants decide to genocide all normies. They physi-fucking-ly cannot melt down in any fashion and at most you get to break out the steaks and bullet molds instead of the marshmallows and hot dogs.

I can find lots of factories powered by wind and solar, but oddly none of their own manufacturing.
Tool and die shops for parts, car facs, the same place for Ajax and Scrubbing Bubbles, plus most dish soaps in Germany…
Now I'm confused as those are more intensive facilities than the needed parts for renewables. Then again those are several hundred acre complexes, so it might have more to with the issue of building private land versus having it from grid power and sourcing.

Nuclear open fuel cycling is only good for 200ish years on Earth. Biggest issue though is that hydrogen impregnation in the zirconium matrix allows for neutron spallation and trapping of released isotopes causing poisoning of the fuel cells. That's something current gen 3.5s and earlier have to deal with and will not be getting around until you change the nature of the usage of LEU.

Thorium designs have the big issue of their salt bath eating the fuck out of the thermal cladding due to the nature of it being nonliquid in its viscous flow regime at edge boundaries, causing physical erosion even if the material is thermally compliant. And unlike BWR or PGRs you have to deal with primary loop contamination and persistence in all touched materials.

You didn't read again nigger, well enough so good for at least reading some until triggered. I hereby christen you anthro site in honor of your inabilities to understand basic terminology in a technical thread and showing it instead of hiding.

All leftists should be executed by public vivisection.

Peat is renewable, not lignite, anthracite, or bituminous coal.
While you're not wrong in technicality - coal is constantly being formed in swampy regions with large amounts of biomass being buried under reducing conditions - you're wrong about the time scale.
The coal varieties that industry uses, anthracite and high bituminous, took several hundreds of millions of years to form. Anthracite takes it a step further by being a metamorphic rock, requiring an orogen mountain building event to form. Coal formation occurs so slowly that it may as well not even be occurring on a human time scale.

So to break it down:
A peat bog can refill within centuries some formation rates are 1mm/year
Lignite could form tens of thousands of years after the burial of a peat bog
Bituminous coal takes millions of years to form from lithostatic pressure
Anthracite requires both lithostatic pressure and mountain building, a one time, million+ year long event

Only peat can feasibly be called renewable, even then the time scale is still a bit beyond human time.

Please go back to Auslnet cunt.

Look up abiogenics, you get more from the interplay of organic fluids in the mohovic area refilling or just flat providing stuff than you do from the proposed surface burials.

Anybody else miss Space Elevator threads? Its a shame he got chased off by a mod.

Perhaps instead of burning the coal processing the carbon it contains may prove more useful to future endeavours for such uses as carbon fibre and other such things? That way coal country keeps going and we get good new carbon nanomaterials.

You can't stay competitive in the world by shutting down your main power producers. Alternative energy is a jewish scam to weaken your nation's independence and add more lovely ((( laws ))) to sue and tax for more shekels.

America needs to implement the following program

1. Secure oil and coal reserves in Canada through annexation
2. Completely stop all importation of energy
3. Buy YUGE amounts of uranium from Australia
4. Build 50 nuclear power plants, 100+ hydroelectric plants, and 250+ geothermal plants in the next decade
5. Invest minimum 10% of the total national budget into nuclear research

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

GAS THE HIPPIES CREATE ENOUGH ENERGY TO DESTROY PLANETS

Any good layman books on this or do I have to read textbooks?

2 needs to be 5, you can't stop important then say you need importz. Besides, US had uranium reserves already, citodextrin method is that good.
Hydro is a no go, any good place has been tapped already or causes too many downstream issues to be safe ala Coulee now.
Geothermal is overhyped, same issues as solar, best big places are too remote for current line loss.
You need HVDC lines and a more connected grid for it to work, but as project aurora shows, you wnat a more disconnected grid to prevent cascade attacks, and then as the northeast blackout showed, standard failures.
5 is also way way way too much. Well unless you're cutting the budget down to like the size of Singapore.

Soooo many textbooks.
Upside, I'm an engineer now and soon to be licensed.
Downside, customs held up the 20 kf capacitors I needed and I'll be bound by ethics before I have a chance to be a proper mad engineer and burn anyone wearing a MAGA hat backwards like its the 90s. You will wear the hats and confront everyone in the way of your progress, you will not show it to those who come behind you cretins!

Fusion isn't really feasible atm.
There's an experimental reactor being built right now (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor if you wanna look it up) that should be completed by 2019, and from there it's gonna be at least a decade before we can apply the knowledge learned from it to something that generates a usable amount of power.

Government shouldn't be in the business of throwing industries under the bus or propping them up. If coal can't stand under its own weight, then so be it.

Okay consider this.

ITER has only $14 billion into it.

Imagine what the USA could do with even $100 billion invested in researching fusion. Fuck relying on (((International Projects))). We need to just insource everything.

sage for (1) slide thread

Coal will have it's day again. Green energy is a scam that requires more input then what you get out of it. Instead of getting into the science of it, does it require gov't subsidies? If yes, it's a waste of resources. The leftists who are against energy are doing it because they hate humanity.

Nice try lolbergturdian.

From what I hastily looked up, abiogenic petrochemicals appear to derive from methane hydrates and other geological sources for hydrocarbon. Mantle derived carbon sources are typically denoted by their helium content, while biogenic carbons usually contain biomarkers like altered chlorophyll.

Industrially they are of little value. Abiogenics require more energy than they produce. The advantage of natural petrochemicals and coals are their large return of energy. It takes much less energy to pump oil or dig coal out of the ground than it does to artificially make them.
While this may be useful to the plastics industry as a way to reduce plastic waste into a syncrude for the production of other plastics and petrochemicals, it is not really applicable to the energy industry.

What is needed is nukes. While people bristle at the thought of nuclear energy, it provides a great deal of clean energy for a minimal fuel input. For example, the 1st generation Vermont Yankee plant produced over half of Vermont's energy needs prior to its closing in 2014.
If nuke plants are well maintained and their spent fuel is either artificially transmuted into radioisotopes with sub-year half lives if possible or are used to fuel breeder reactors for thorium reactors, then energy concerns could be made null and void for the foreseeable future.
Obviously radioisotope contamination is a grave concern, but the major meltdowns Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima resulted from poor management, a failure of a redundant system, or a natural disaster. All of these plants were early generation nuke plants and were showing their age. Had they been managed better, their fuel properly stored and systems been retrofitted, they would either be retired now or soon to be retired. Fukushima notwithstanding, considering it was crippled by a natural disaster
Fission is also one of the few ways to produce He3 without going to space, so fusion research would benefit greatly from some of fission's byproducts while spacefaring becomes more viable.

We've passed net energy sustainment and now have tokamok reactors that are sustainable until the test magnets quench 30 minutes into the fusing. Engineering issues now stand in the way of moving said designs large scale, not scientific.

Stellerator X88 is a much better plan as well, since its intergal magnetic field is not oppsing itself during operation causing plasma edge bleeding nor additional strain on its mag emitters and thus early quenching.

Personally, I'm a sucker for polywell and LM''s attempt at truck mounted 100 MW reactors, if only because then it allows a big brother to HELLAIDES as a GBI for G2A complexes. And the Blitzer, oh so fucking hells yeah the blitzer. But I mostly just want to see nonscramjet powered hypersonics being used as artillery.

That's why coal is failing, its noncompetitive as a thing and is really only existing through binding contracts.
Personally, i think all utilities should be gov owned as private is too short term and penny wise pound foolish to invest in it, as perfectly and completely demonstrated even in the face of these onerous regulations.

Not much?
The issue is not throwing money, its time gated due to construction. This is nonparalleling research, iterative. Can't fix that with some magic wave of the Congress doesn't exist wand. They're also mostly international because they're CERN stuff and the US is hopping on for the goodies.
Our domestic programs are centered on weapons simulations far more than enything.
We've had a proper plasma injector for high beta since Shiva Star, same for toroidal confinement, but because it was an ASAT weapon, its been sitting pretty in the black cabinets.

You mean something requiring planetary internal conditions is somehow taking elss energy to form than a material that gains energy from radiant masses of an exisiting and unending supply of fusion?
Do you even know how much it takes for making a solid fuel system of storage in the form of hydrogen bonds and why we will be using diesels in space when we get serious about mining Io?

You sir are a good and wise man in this post.

...

Shit, forgot to mention, the fuel is a non issue when it comes to fusion. The main preventative factors are the energy required to actually start a fusion reaction, the heat generated being able to melt pretty much anything (bear in mind, this is the process that happens in the sun. ITER is going to use magnetic levitation for this reason), and the shielding required for the high energy neutrons being shat out of the reactor.

Bureaucracy is the enemy of efficiency. Yes, having our government rather than international committees do it would probably be better, but the nature of our government dampens the bang per buck.

Governments of free societies tend to be bureaucratic literally because an efficient government can accomplish much worse shit than a clusterfuck of paperwork can. But when these same governments get involved in science, they slow progress regardless of how much money gets funneled into it.

Notice how virtually all innovations are made by two groups: businessmen and authoritarian governments. A bureaucrat from a free country never discovered anything.

...

Yeah we need to get rid of the whole (((democracy))) gimmick and switch to a good old fashioned Military Republic. The only efficient government is one where incompetence is punished severely, by immediate removal of power or even death.

Majority of deposits of hyrocarbons are abiogenic, primarily for coal via tectonic uplifts, or as observed with oil from existing conditions under the salt domes.

You're combing different things here, the synfuel idea is good for dredging out and locking away carbon again. You can get it to run on a solar reflector in fucking Kent England, just think of the infernal hell temps we can get in Nevada and watch it suck all the CO2 from the area.
Basically, we have methods to make carbon neutral carbon plants at the expense of efficiency or by simply setting up atmosphere scrubbers. Also a great way of dealing with the solid pollutants which will be a bigger issue in solid coal, less so if liquified.

Nukes are good, but skip straight to pebble beds and plutonium plants. THoriums meme draw is that the Chinese are investing in it with the French as a competitor with the Hyperion designs. The idea being small scale cogeneration facilities for the primary nuke sites and large scale renewables. Mostly because China has many scattered island populations internally that make a national centralized grid a very bad plan, but have great desires for the 50-250 MW class plant designs.
Thorium fits in there nicely, while the issue with the BWRs and the lack of pebble beds comes more down to what the French are comfy with and the Chinese are perfectly happy with that.

You realize that most of the people advocating, like yourself, would be the first to go? I'm not ging to ask you to murder a bullet, but please consider that saving yourself from this justified fate means one more chance it can nail a kike form two thousand yards as it flees the nuclear inferno of Chicago.

I had this conversation during the environmental summit last year or earlier this year. Basically the third world is responsible for most of the pollution but because the people at this summit were socjus faggots who just wanted to tax richer countries, they said the third world should be exempt from their policy. In particular India, a huge polluter, said fuck you guys we're ramping up our coal mining and power to bring more electricity to more people, damned be the environmental damage.
You're stuck at a bit of a crossroads here. You can either fuck over developing nations (and everywhere else that relies on the technologies) by banning the cheaper and proven dirty fuels like coal and gas to make way for renewable tech OR you can continue our slow march towards lung cancer and acidified oceans by continuing their use. In the grand scheme of things, you're better off biting the bullet and saying fuck you to every poor nation (and basically everyone else) by outright forbidding the use of fossil fuels and forcing the use of cleaner fuels but at the end of the day neither option is a good choice. The damage caused by dropping the floor out from under an industry an area relies on takes a lot longer than 20 years to fix. It has been over 30 years since my country stopped producing aluminium products and all the islanders that came over to work in the factories are still alcoholic criminals sponging off the govt for gibs.

Personally I'd just wipe china clean of human life and call it a day. 1 billion people breathe out a lot of CO2 and there's lots of land for the forest to retake. Plus it'd free up all those jobs that are being shipped over there from the first world.

Not my fault you can't into economics. I'm with you on the nukes, though.

I literally just meant you waste more energy and materials making something 'green' just to get an unreliable source of energy with a short life. Solar and wind and shit.

Well again, crippling inefficiency is literally what bureaucracy is for.The efficiency of a country is inversely proportional to the amount of freedom the people have. It's all about what you value.

I would prefer a free society with an incompetent government over a dictatorship by Socrates himself. But the lack of dictatorships on the global stage is a bit disconcerting to me.

lack of competent* dictatorships

You believe AGW is real, don’t you?

Kill yourself.

No you don't.
Even Silicon Germanium makes mroe over its life than it takes to produce. ROI is quite short on both compared to plants due to capitol investment costs. PGS are expensive, Cells and turbines with their infrastructure not so much. YOu need coal plants, trains, oil jacks, pipelines, versus renewables which subsist on glass plants, polymarid synthetics or aluminium, magnesium oxide, etc..

Stop murdering bullets, we need those to shoot kikes, not pretend this is a game of Goldeneye.

If it was a shithole like you say the living costs would go down. Are you sure its not more of a personal thing for you?.

Hell even nuclear waste has its uses as well. Medical equipment use it, depleted Uranium is extremely strong as well and can be used as armor and such. And bunch of other shit that I can't name off the top of my head. But no, gotta use shit that spews chemicals into the land when manufactured instead of whats easily available and 1000 times more clean and efficient.

The competent dictators were all killed by kikes.

That is a jewish lie, learn actual non-kosher history.

Shultis and Faw
Fundamentals of Nuclear Science and Engineering
ISBN 1-4200-5135-0

It's technical, but good. It was the textbook for my introduction to NucE.

You do look up what the mining sites look like right? THe processing mills? Nukes aren't clean at all when you check the supply chain, their advantage is mostly in the adjusted costs being below hyrdocarbons, while their apparent costs are higher.
Hell right off the top of my head, enviromental impacts put the telluride dumping in China and usage of Lithium processing over there as still being better than the coal mines they use and the mass erosion and land damage in the US even if they reclaim.
You'll need to get a uni access for the data though, not sure of its Scihub place nor am I in a position to check.

Efficiency is much easier as well when you eliminate anyone not directly producing for the sake of production.
Viva de la Cybernetica revolucion.

A lot of people have suggested the use of thorium based reactors too. The only 2 downsides to it are the start up cost and renovating/building reactors equipped for fluid based reactors—like thorium.

The one thing I don't understand is why we don't use the already burning cesium and uranium in our current reactors to get the thorium started. Any nuclear physicists lurking Holla Forums tonight?

The only downside to nuclear is the possibility of a meltdown, which scares normies but has only honestly happened twice. Once was because of a direct hit from a tidal wave and the other one was being run by some dumb fucking commies and even they didn't fuck up most of the time. We could and should be 100% nuclear by now.

imo the plan is for a ~500 year push to just go crazy on whatever shit we have to push science to find replacements for going further: forced revolution towards finding/inventing new sources and/or achieve space-travel/singularity/whatever. a now-or-never go at the final industrial revolution

remember there's also ZERO POINT ENERGY. there's also probably all sorts of quantum energies and shit that we could be using too– at the very least we know for certain that FUEL EFFICIENCY can be improved tremendously– improving engines/distribution etc to make natural resources "go further" is the proposed attitude for the near future because we haven't yet found magic renewable energy

Thorium fuel plugs would essentially be unding a live thorium reactor and then shipping them in casks. Pretty easy to laod since the casks can be mated and sealed to the system uner the drain basin, the issue is the generation of them due to them not exactly being water soluable and the general debate of shipping hot versus cold. You could use a pyrotechnic kicker charge and essentially the plant initialization is rocket powered, but the issue there is dealing with the gas pressure in the primary loop. Bad things if you have the bubbles, problem is its now radioactive gas that you have to confine from a magma environment.

Basically, the issues facing thorium re engineering, like fusion. Its lots of test plants before finishing, even with the ability to sim and proto on comps we have now. The most common reason though is machine learning can't inference from current data and needs facilities with sensors to be fed, so until then we can't acheive much.
THe Stellerator got around this because it just needed Maxwell's to compute the play of the magnetic fields relative to the plasma toroid and spit that out.

There's been a number of military meltdowns thought, STL 1 being a big moment, the Karacha? facility in Russia, subs, etc…

Oh sure because a false vacuum collapse solves so much, I've always wanted to achieve maximum entropy in my life time. Wait no, no I haven't.

Holla Forums's Servers are running on Zero Point

Let me rephrase that post, there have only been two exceedingly dangerous meltdowns and they were due to an act of god and red vodkaniggers respectively. Modernized plants have so many measures against blowing up it's virtually impossible anyways.

ground state oscillation is so minuscule it's not even noticed under most circumstances.

as far as quantum shit goes. vid related at about 7:44. it's in the context of space travel but the same concept can be applied to energy production.

Chernobryll wasn't even that much because of the fact they chose to be Vodinner, as the issue of graphite moderation material. As is its sister reactors are still making power today being on thermal shutdown after ceasing the use as APGS in 2011? I know there was talk of turning them back on because Ukies cannot into running a country now and need warmth.

And no, not at all.
Modern plants are still susceptible to meltdowns very easily, even more so once you start reading NRC reports.
4th gen is the only one that can make that claim, as the only way for them to melt down requires the laws of physics to upend and the rate of atomic decay to be nonconstant in specific geometries.

Generation IV molten salt nuclear is probably better all around, as long as you have a secure supply. These are basically immune to meltdown, can burn nuclear waste from current plants and generate very little waste themselves.

"modern" nuclear plants were designed in the 50s. Don't confuse them with generation IV.

Gen 4 is pebble bed, Gen 5 is LFTR

Fracking shale for oil produces so much natural gas that coal is simply going to die. Sorry.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but coals cannot form without a biogenic source. There are no Precambrian coals as there are no komatiites today, we lack the direct mantle source for true komatiite. Without large biogenic carbon sources, coal beds do not form Komatiitie is the extrusive (lava) version of peridotite, fyi.
Unless calcium and magnesium could be effectively be scrubbed from carbonate rocks I really can't fathom how a combustible carbon rock could be formed without a biogenic source.

As I mentioned, black glassy anthracite coals are essentially coal marble - one metamorphic grade below graphite. They are preferred by the energy industry because they burn clean and hot due to their low moisture and sulfur content.

Could link me to some papers regarding this non-biogenic coal? I'm a geology undergrad specializing in metamorphism, so I would love to know.

How do you intend to scrub gaseous CO2?
I'm genuinely curious. IIRC the closest I've heard is a synthetic leaf that uses a rhodium solution to (very poorly) mimic photosynthesis.

HYDROELECTRIC
Y
D
R
O
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C

I was talking about gen III and IV, we don't actually build plants with "modern" technology because it's expensive. Like the user below you said, the "modern" plants are actually Cold War tech. Fear is the mind killer, or rather in this case the electricity killer.

We could just use ALL energy sources.

I'd be happy if either got major funding. Energy independence is the motive. It's just stupid to use an extremely dangerous idea from the 60s and retrofit it with a ton of safety measures and call it safe.

Hydroelectric actually isn't terrible in the proper conditions, I think Hoover powers most of Vegas and Laos is mainly hydro powered even if it is a 3rd world shithole. Problem with it is that you need a good strong current to get a comfortable amount of electricity and some regions have jack shit. It's also really expensive to set up unless the numbers have changed since I last looked into energy.

Ah see there is your part, the material from what I've been told comes from the subduction zones and has been there gathering and forming coal. geology is not something I've studied, all i know is sedimentary rocks from everything else. Oh and pumice does not float in alcohol.
Most of where I got it was discussing with a Ruskie doing his work, so no papers, just him telling me because I was bringing up the Topps process and that its odd how much material there is relative to what could be established as vanished aboveground stuff.

Basic ideas are several, you'd want to run your own searches on scihub, but there's that, water sprays to continously cycle and collect gases and filter, a thermal phase change for the listed decomposer that freed the molecules and force combined them back into diatomic molecules before filtering, lots of platinum group catalyst methods. Lots of stuff out there for the listed atmospheric and sea water, just apologies that I can't scihub to assist here. Have a dedicated uplink 30 miles out to do anything like that.

tapped out
apped out
pped out
ped out
ed out
d out
out
out
ut
t

Oh very agreed, they're actually granting three new licences as of last year if I remember right to get things going.

Renewable sources continue to be unreliable and expensive. Additionally they require tremendous amounts of energy and exotic materials to manufacture so are arguably just as bad for the environment.
The real breakthrough needed is better energy storage. If you could store the energy from a good thunderstorm you could power your city for months, but batteries just suck too much ass and we have nothing better.

that's not the only downside to nuclear, it's the best we have for base load on a grid (the minimum amount of power you will be using), but it's really bad when it comes to dealing with peak loads because you have to pull cooling rods out to increase production. coal and natural gas are good for handling peak loads because it's easier to burn more stuff. some places have the surplus power generated by a nuclear plant go towards pumping water up a mountain to a lake on the top and then when more power is needed, they open valves to the turbines at the bottom to handle the higher loads,
t. electrical engineer

Dam's cost a lot to build but in most cases they make tones of money. The small shitty little dam I live near makes a ton of money and is able to self fund a bunch of its projects.

The big problem comes from fish passage and having rivers that haven't already been dammed up.

reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/56xbh3/tesla_ceo_elon_musk_challenges_big_coal_to_go/d8oe6y0

>reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/56xbh3/tesla_ceo_elon_musk_challenges_big_coal_to_go/d8oe6y0

to end the use of highly polluting quickly dwindling unpopular resources I'd be willing throw a whole nation under the bus. People are highly adaptable its up to the individual to learn a new skill, if they refuse to adapt and change and fight it. How are they any better than ISIS they use violent terrorism fighting change, Big anything is about money and they use economic terrorism to keep their profits look a cigarettes vs ecigs they didn't care until suddenly the were losing millions over night.

fucking hell, you are stupid

peak demand (e.g. GW) is completely different than the whole energy demand (TWh)

Wind and solar are both fucking cancer and require almost all the built capacity to be double built in coal or gas or other convenient energy source because of the shifting supply (weather)

It's not about free land area. It's about the grid, it's about the price and certainty of supply. And furthermore, any metal foundry that uses electricity is mainly capable of handling scrap metal.

Nuclear is the answer, believe me. Believe me. We have the best nuclei.

We only have so much river.

I'll accept that as a legitimate weakness. In my mind that shouldn't be a problem outside of theory since we would still probably have other kinds of power even if we pivoted to nuclear. Despite the fault with peak loads, do you think it's overall superior to other forms of energy? I know some shit, but not nearly enough to argue with someone with formal research in the field.

I like hydroelectric and geothermal, but the availability problems seem "damning :^)" for national scale production.

I still wouldn't call that process "abiotic" or "abiogenic", that carbon had to get down there somehow. It typically rains out as marine snow from dead organisms from the photic zones of the oceans. If the hydrolyzing of black shales in subduction zones could produce coal it would revolutionize energy production. The main issue with that is the simple fact that black kerogen shales are made of clay minerals. Clay minerals and coal formation are typically mutually exclusive processes. While this model certainly could work for new oil resources, I'm still doubtful of coal formation.

Blueschist formation at the accretionary wedges or prisms that always accompany subduction zones could be what your Russian friend was talking about. During the subduction process, most overriding sediments and sedimentary rocks are scraped off of the subducting plate and piled up onto the overriding plate. If this is where your abiogenic coal were to form then I could find it somewhat feasible. Perhaps at near the center of these prisms, where pressures can exceed 1.4 gigaPascals and temperatures can reach around 450 C. Considering that anthracite is considered a "low-grade" metamorphic rock Otherwise referred to as greenschist facies than this could be possible.
The main issue now is a mechanism for separating the hydrocarbon rock from the surrounding lithic chaff. That and examples of blueschist grade coal that isn't graphite. Until then I can only see this as a potential oil source.

Interesting though

functionally, yes, it's the cleanest and safest form of energy we have right now where even the waste can be recycled and reused in reactors. the only other major downside is the high sunk cost. all of the safety concerns are usually pushed by the media

Fuck that psychopath. He doesn't think people are even real. To him, all those millions of people are just artifacts in a software simulation. He doesn't give a shit about them.

What's funny is leftists consider people not paying their 'fair share' a subsidy. Oil companies aren't giving enough to social justice causes and carbon offsets or whatever? Subsidies.

And at least for wind (which I know a bit more about) a ton of infrastructure is needed just to make that energy usable.

Is this really what he thinks? I already hated the bastard, now I feel disgusted by him.

I feel there are places in the US that can be 100% renewable energy, like Utah, Arizona, NM etc the desert states should have at least 50% renewable solar energy easy as hell, while other states like NC, West Virginia and what not are just not getting enough strong sunlight year round to get solar. Including all those states above that get pretty hard winters, solar is not a option for them and have much less space and clarity for solar.

Wind is shit and will always be shit tbh. Though a thing the cold states can do is maybe use Hydro and Nuclear. There have been some efforts to make coastal states more renewable by having these pods out on the ocean and collect the energy when the pod goes up and down the wave but the problem goes back to what solar's main problem is. Storage of the energy and since the pods in the water may get small energy but could add up a ton you're gonna need long wires running under the ground to where ever your storage facility is, also you have the problem that if you are to far out and run a long wire then you lose energy but if you stay near the beach you have a chance of hurricanes and flooding problems that will fuck your shit up, also depending how far those pods are it can ruin beach front area's.

I only see Solar viable in certain states while Nuclear is amazing, it shouldn't be right next to a city center just in case but I feel we can use nuclear more. Wind and other renewable energies are still in work in progress but wind is really a meme renewable.

There's more coal than Uranium.

I'm Not surprised that you would throw an entire nation under a bus.

Many here support re branded communism. UBI is rebranded Rations.

\—-
\
That's what I said.

They're now pushing for UBI hard.

reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/56lld2/human_park_a_mammals_guide_to_stressfree_living/d8kd1rr

See here how UBI is nothing more than communism.

Wind works best as a decentralized supplement to other energy production methods. It will never supplant the other methods, but a small turbine on the roof produces some intermittent energy that can be sent back into the grid.
It's still shit though, especially as on a large scale.

There should definitely be an attempt to preserve or smoothly replace any jobs lost by a large scale energy change. However, it could lead to a shitstorm like Thatcher vs. the Coal Union again which would really trigger liberals at the cost of a functioning country,

Yes, he's a "simulationist".

I recognize the town in that first image. In fact I live near it. I never thought I would see Shamokin on Holla Forums what a shithole.

youtube.com/watch?v=_ec-T7GI7Vo

arguments like this from either side are why gorillions of dollars are moved through congress to fund or give tax credits to what "feels" right

There is no location in the US or the world that has any sizable population or any industry that can be 100% renewable.

This is because the BIGGEST PROBLEM with renewable energy BESIDES THE FACT THAT IS COSTS TOO MUCH MONEY COMPARED TO LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE is being able to store the energy. It does not matter how much energy solar generates unless you have a place to store it. The grid also fluctuates, so unless you over generate power(makes solar even more inefficient) you need things like natural gas turbines on the grid spinning to take out the sag in changing load conditions.

There are plenty of power companies out there who would love to overpay a little for green energy because it helps PR but it is not even close to cost effective without tax credits and federal funding. The only cost effective source of green energy is land fill gas. People study this it's not an educated guess or what FEELS RIGHT there is math out there that shows that most green energy solutions are money sinks, if they weren't they would happen it's not a fucking conspiracy.

No need to link to reddit. Interesting in that original article that he talks about a human 'park' and not the wild. Basic income is still shit, but would be better then what we have now where every viable cunt can make a living popping out niglets. Of course, none of the leftists want to end other welfare programs, they just want this added on top.

On a random note
Kind of reminded me of where I grew up. You compete with people at your level, but you don't lord it over the weaklings. Introduce some niggers, and you get a hierarchy of violence.

thanks, more ammunition

Still has some useful byproducts, they use the runoff that used to become smog to make filters n shit now.
Coal will probably wind down into a "niche hobbyist market" full of tasty fukken ribs, and for the wealthier autists, powering old train engines.
I would say shut half the mines down and retrain them for quarry work, demolitions, or construction.
…..actually, Trump's a big construction guy
All those out-of-work miners can roam the country fixing the dem-cayed structures in major cities their populace is too retarded/lazy to fix.

well, he did mention efficiency. He's probably imagining some year 2500 Total Annihilation-style ones that can sap even bouncy moon energies.

So you're angry about the securing of low intensity energy flows into the far future, instead of being irate and furious about the establishment that they let whole regions die off economically, instead of employing those miners and others in the new sector? End the FED(s), pretty simple. Each state can invest in its local, diffuse power generation. Those who don't, because muh liberals/muh immigrated incompetent labor, well, too bad.

The millions employed in mining will inevitably have to switch their professions (e.g. someone designing, laying and contracting pipes in a mine can design, lay and contract pipes in a solar concentration installations or even on roofs. I really don't see why not, only wage suppression immigrations bullshit can interfere with that).

Look up en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested and how it relates to mining. At some point mining really gets pointless. All mining. Be it copper, coal or gold. That is why they want slave wages by immigration. Slaves have a huge EROEI…

Everything will be made in China of course because of cheap steel, labor and the fact that they have capacity while American industrial capacity is declining. Maybe the first ones will be made in the US, then in five years it's moved to China so that the firms can 'compete globally'.

It will be as successful a bubble as fracking.

>Meanwhile only a couple of weeks ago the entire fucking state of South Australia goes without power for a couple of days thanks to its over-reliance on renewables without any kind of real backups

But if we have found a semi-autonomous, highly efficient technique to separate those rocks, we certainly will have way more efficient processes elsewhere in the economy. And as long as the old oil fields generate revenue, those new resources won't be tapped.

The problem is that "solar" in the public discourse means "solar electric installations". Which is bullshit if done a high altitudes. But there are many more ways to harness. I once read about the Scandinavians building houses who have a double south facing side, where warm air rises up and pushes into the living room, while it sucks out the cold air from the north side. If the sun stands low on horizon, the input can be quite high, as high as 400W/m^2. I know that those big glasses aren't nigger compatible. Another way to make sure you keep being hooked up to central kikegrid forever.

Well, there you have it. If the state adopts decentralized generation, he can't provide central authority. It is incompatible.

Yes goy. Coal is bad, you should sell it to 3rd world states so they can prosper and buy my solar panels.

Often the enormous costs of the infrastructure are completely left out of projections. Wind is incredibly expensive.

The major problem is that all large scale renewable installations have to be based on cheap flat land to keep costs down. This means far from the place where the energy will be consumed. So now you have to create transmission lines to that new location, and each mile of power lines means more resistance and less power delivered. When it's coal, gas and nuclear that's no problem because you have Megawatts to burn. With renewables you're screwed.

Renewables are the worst form of energy.

All renewables are derivatives of nuclear energy. Solar: rays come from the sun. Wind: rays from the sun heat the air causing pressure changes which create wind . Wave: the wind blows the water. Hydro: the evaporates water and it precipitates over land. Tidal is the only partial exception because it uses the gravitation pull of the moon as well as the sun.

The best, most efficient solution is just to create your own miniature suns on earth with nuclear reactors. Ancient fucking Egyptians used windmills, we can do a little better than WE WUZ WINDMILLS N SHEIT

Solar has many more problems other than that, user. For one, many graphs you see about solar energy undercutting any other energy are based on tax cuts and government subsidies. Then there is the problem of solar panels requiring very high-tech engineering to work. You have prototype multilayer graphene panels with allegedly (claimed, but I haven't seen source) 60% efficiency or silicon panels with efficiency ranging from 15-30% and weathering over time. Sometimes up to 5% within a decade, it depends on design and engineering methods. I doubt these panels make the money back unless they are in some cherry picked locations like on top of a 100 meter tower with nothing obstructing the view of the sun for the next couple decades. I have yet to see a test of these panels in action, one next to the other. Of course, no one will do that because every normalfag thinks that green energy is oh-so-good. Last issue is perhaps the most important. Solar is not damage resistant. To break your entire grid all anyone needs is a hammer. Either that or time, because weather conditions will also break your panel. Especially hail or tornado/strong storm carrying small pebbles that will destroy your solar panel beyond recognition. Solar is just Africa friendly, provided you get rid of pests first.

Renewable energy cannot supply our needs and we have centuries worth of coal in our lands.

The liberal in question is retarded, regurgitating the propaganda and media they've been fed.

Anthropic climate change isn't transpiring at present to an appreciably hazardous degree, nor is it likely to anytime soon - and even if it were, there are other nations elsewhere which ARE going to employ these fuel sources, thus effectively hobbling us to no end if we were to limit our usage of fossil fuels.

THORIUM WHEN?

FULL NUCLEAR WHEN?

FUSION WHEN?

the biggest downside the nuclear energy is that it's not fucking real

LMAO

So no.

Pretty sure heating water to create steam in order to turn a turbine is real.

Yea. Splitting an atom for an incrediblly powerful chain reaction however is fairytales. "Nuclear" power plants are just dump loads for the surplus energy that is required for our electric grid.

( watch from 54:10 - 55:30 )

That's a purpose Nuclear plants offer to the grid, not their sole purpose, you fucking retard.

What the fuck are you even talking about?
Fuck off CTR, this thread is locked anyway.

I'm saying nuclear power is fake.

elaborate?