/sci/ - Science and Mathematics

1. No. Climate change might, though.

2. The materials needed to make solar cells are called "rare earth metals" for a reason. Solar cells are really fucking expensive, and even if you had unlimited money there simply isn't enough of the stuff to build enough solar cells to satisfy civilization's energy needs.

3. Global warming doesn't need to be addressed, because it doesn't exist (see answer to 1 above). There are no real theoretical problems with nuclear fusion, but there are serious economic barriers to adopting the technology. Namely, all of the oil and gas companies want everybody to be fully dependent on them, so they will invest billions into political bribery and marketing in order to ensure that nuclear fusion never happens until long after we've plunged into a new dark age. More to the point, nuclear fission is already available now, is cheaper and more environmentaly friendly than fossil fuels, and is more than capable of satisfying our energy needs.

4. Hydro requires that you dam up water sources, effectively creating a lake. There are quite a few places where you can do that, but keep in mind that doing that reduces the amount of land available for people to live and grow food in. You can't just build ten thousand hydro plants to power everybody, there wouldn't be enough land left over for everything else.

If we really cared about climate change, we'd convert all of our fossil fuel power plants to fission, and all of our gas-powered automobiles to batteries or fuel cells charged from the grid. Yet, we instead have countries closing down their nuclear power plants left and right, and regulators are banning Tesla vehicles from sale. Climate change won't be stopped, but not for a lack of alternate energy sources.

Good luck with your term paper.

>>3772

>4. Hydro requires that you dam up water sources, effectively creating a lake. There are quite a few places where you can do that, but keep in mind that doing that reduces the amount of land available for people to live and grow food in. You can't just build ten thousand hydro plants to power everybody, there wouldn't be enough land left over for everything else.

Actually that's how North Korea fucked themselves in the ass.

Solar is expensive as fuck right now. But when we learn how exactly photosynthesis works, we might be able to do something similar. All non-organic material you need seems to be magnesium and iron-sulfur clusters. But the problem is how to construct it in a way that doesn't just pump protons across cell membrane for ATP-synthase to do its job.

>>3777

Ill chime in that I have solar panels on my roof in southern California where energy is expensive. The investment actually pays for itself, especially since when I got it there was a tax rebate.

>>3772

Ignore this one. Rare earth's (lanthanide series elements+2 unrelated metals) are neither inherently scarce nor even necessary for photovoltaics. Take a look at silicon based solar. Hell, I leased some 50 Acres of land for a 30-year solar project a few years back, Southern US, solar has a bright future.

1. No. Warming has several positive effects. The effects of climate change are much more complex than just increasing global temperatures.

2. Solar is one of the few non-nuclear renewable sources that's actually improving. The shit you learned about in your 1990-something public school science textbook is laughably outdated. Many things we were optimistic about didn't materialize, and many things we wrote off have advanced hand over fist.

3. We'll have our answer soon, there's an unholy amount of money in fusion research.

4. Hydro is efficient, but Canada is a very shitty example. Canada is a low-population country with an unparalleled amount of usable hydro sites. Hydroelectric is excellent where it's useful, but not a lot of places are ideal for it,

>>3836

The reason the investment pays for itself is because of tax rebates, direct subsidies, and state government mandates that utilities in your state get an arbitrary percentage of their electricity from solar and wind. And if a few endangered desert tortoises and cacti go extinct and a few raptors get cut up the thinking from the greener-than-thou crowd is "so be it."

When the only way for an industry to succeed is through government price fixing it's not a good sign of profitability. Nuclear would have about totally replaced coal by now if the NRC would just let new plants and new designs get built.

>>3844

But I had the solar panels installed on my roof, and the panels cover most of the cost of electricity for my house (sometimes I even go over and sell power back to the grid). This isn't a government solar farm in the desert so a lot of what you said doesn't apply.

>>3845

The company that made the panels was able to sell them at a reduced price because of government subsidies and loans to factories to cover construction, distribution, etc. Remember Solyndra? That wasn't an isolated case, it just became newsworthy because it was a high-profile failure. By subsidizing the cost of manufacture the government allows them to sell their product at prices below what would normally be profitable and sometimes below the cost of production. This drives down the price but does nothing about the costs and when the subsidies are cut off as happened in Portugal during the recession the prices for wind and solar rise to more than the market price of coal and gas.

You were able to buy enough hardware to power your home because the price was artificially low. Without the subsidies it would have cost several times more, how much depends on what exactly you bought and how much of a subsidy that company received.

This is the thing about solar that nobody wants to think about, the cost. Not the price but what it actually costs in terms of material and energy to produce them. Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it's cost effective to try it. Just look at dem solar roads. The one bike path that was actually built is already falling apart and would take a few thousand years of uninterrupted operation to make back the money used to construct it.

Solar can work as a supplement if you live close to the equator and SoCal does fit the bill but it doesn't work on a cloudy day or at night or in a Minnesota winter. Nuclear is the best base load electrical energy source available today and has the fewest deaths and lowest environmental impact.

>>3846

>Solar can work as a supplement if you live close to the equator and SoCal does fit the bill

SoCal is one of the few locations on Earth which is both densely inhabited and has enough sunlight for solar to actually generate significant power.

>>3868

>SoCal is one of the few locations on Earth which is both densely inhabited and has enough sunlight for solar to actually generate significant power.

That's what I basically said. I just said it with less enthusiasm because I'm aware of the real costs of variable energy systems.

This is a perfect example of what I meant when I said that solar is cheap because of subsidies.

>Bankruptcy Looms For Spain's Green Energy Giant

>At the Paris climate summit earlier this week, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy pledged to "de-carbonize" his economy. But back home, Spain's biggest renewable energy company is on the verge of becoming the country's biggest-ever bankruptcy.

>two years ago, Rajoy's government cut its subsidies for solar and wind power in Spain. It was early 2013, at the height of Spain's economic crisis. Unemployment was near 27 percent, and the Spanish government was struggling to pay interest on its debts.

>The cutbacks devastated Spain's renewables sector. Some smaller firms went out of business. Big survivors like Abengoa were left living off loans.

>Its stock has plunged more than 50 percent. And the company is applying for creditor protection — the first step toward bankruptcy.

>http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/12/02/458127741/bankruptcy-looms-for-spains-clean-energy-giant

And

>Nevada Solar Power Business Struggles To Keep The Lights On

>Nevada's home solar business is in turmoil as the state's Public Utilities Commission starts to phase out incentives for homeowners who install rooftop solar panels. Some of the largest solar companies have stopped seeking new business in the state and laid off hundreds of workers.

>"The PUC made a decision and it just devastated our industry," says Robco President Rob Kowalczik.

>"It was kind of like the solar gold rush here. All these companies flocked into town, set up an office and sold systems. Now they're gone. There's just a few of us remaining," says Webb.

>But every kilowatt generated on someone's roof is one less the local utility sells. And utilities use that ratepayer money to maintain the electrical grid.

>In the meantime, solar customers like Dale Collier are the big losers. His home in Henderson, outside Las Vegas, has 56 solar panels on the roof. He refinanced his house to pay for them.

>Up until the changes to net metering in Nevada, he was saving about $150 a month on his power bill. But once the incentives are phased out, he figures having solar panels will cost him money.

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/11/470097580/nevada-solar-power-business-struggles-to-keep-the-lights-on

Solar is only cheap right now because someone else is forced to foot most of the bill at gunpoint. Take away the subsidies and the cost of the energy outweighs the cost of the electricity generated. The only way to fix this is going to be finding a way to make PV or some other solar system in huge quantities with practically no human involvement. It could be done with Merkle machines on the moon but nobody is building them or deploying them right now and treaties prevent any one nation or corporation from exploiting the moon or any other planet because "they belong to us all" and you might disrupt the delicate lunar ecosystem or some other UN diplomatic bullshit. Right now the best option is fission and that won't see a renaissance until people can grow up and get over their fear of the N-word.

>>3771

1. Yes, to some degree

It is called climate change now for a reason, some places actually get cooler. A lot is to do with changes in water location, atmospheric heat reflection, and loss of key intra-enivironmental biota

2. Not necessarily

Back before Huang Ho Charlie opened up the first Chinese-style solar factory, the toxic silicon compounds produced were recycled to make more photovoltaic cells from the same amount of silicon. This recycling requires expensive equipment, and fossil fuels are used to transport said waste. This is where China comes in. Not only do they mishandle the various toxic acids and bases used to catalyze the reaction, but also dump the waste in the nearest river, because China.

>>3846

fewest deaths is in part due to the scare campaigns put out by OgrePeace

>>3870(cont.)

So in essence, solar could technically be useful, but since China exists, it's just a gimmick for large scale energy and still fucks the environment up

3. Yes, and yes

Except that hope lies in the hands of hyper-kike power families & Bildeberg Butt Buddies.

The problem lies within the general hate towards anything with "scary" words in it, like "nuclear" or "atomic" because some stupid inbred Pommy fuckwit dropped a few on Abbos in the 20th century

4. It fucks up the water cycle, and the production costs in money and environmental damage are still relatively high, in the short term.

Concrete doesn't grow on trees

>>3871

>fewest deaths is in part due to the scare campaigns put out by OgrePeace

It has the fewest deaths because of all the safety systems built into every design. G3+ and G4 designs are nearly failure-proof and G5 are failure-proof and some can actually consume existing waste.

None will ever get built in this country ('Murricuh!) because of the irrational fears of John Q. Public. I really hate that guy.