Most of us are more concerned with efficiency. Gasoline isn't extremely efficient, but it's the best option right now. Because it's cheap and reliable.

Windmills aren't very reliable, and they're expensive.

Pretty much. I'll meme about tire fires for fun and profit, but the reality is that my only objection to researching better fuel sources is that I don't like the idea of government financing research of any kind.

Solar power isn't reliable, and it's also expensive.

Batteries aren't energy efficient.

Nuclear power is the best option.

But guys... We need to save the planet!

Someone get Gaia and her power rings!

Efficiency in what regard? The percentage of energy used from primary energy source?

solar power has awful amounts of run off, if I remember correctly

it's almost impossible to store efficiently

windmills are inefficient because they cause a ton of noise pollution (and also don't generate energy particularly efficiently, I believe?)

they're both fine as supplemental options, but the advances made in nuclear have been leaps and bounds ahead of advances in solar and wind over the last few decades, from my understanding

I'm not someone who studies this shit though, so if I'm wrong, and someone else here knows better, let me know so that I can correct my opinions 😛

oh, also, another thing that I found out recently is that solar panels actually cause a ton of toxic waste, because they're built using a lot of heavy metals

windmills create a lot of "dirty power" that needs to get wasted, but the farms still get the carbon credits regardless

did not know that. Thanks for the information, @Agent Smith !

also the batteries use rare earth minerals and only have a short use life that need to get replaced and are toxic. plus they require a ton of fossil fuels to extract in the first place

@aguyyouknow depending on site prep method, solar can have runoff issues. It’s no different than any construction site.

The noise level of wind turbines tends to be exaggerated. Some turbines potentially may have noise issues, but it’s mostly not a big issue.

There are trace amounts of toxic elements in conventional photovoltaic solar panels (other types have far more) and waste is a potential problem. There have been claims that a recycling facility will be built, but I haven’t fully researched it yet.

For the most part, wind and solar are effective energy sources and they have been declining in costs since the last decade.

The hardest thing for nuclear is the regulatory landscape. It’s really difficult to get new designs permitted. Nuscale is the first small modular reactor startup that’s been permitted and they plan to have their first plant built this decade. Hopefully they will make it.

to be clear, I meant energy runoff. poor choice of words

solar energy currently doesn't have very good storage efficiency

also, that's fair regarding nuclear

@aguyyouknow @Agent Smith I’m not exactly sure what dirty power agent smith is referring to, but I think I have an idea. Earlier this past decade, grid operators had some difficulties integrating wind power into the grid, this lead to a significant portion of the wind power to be curtailed. Since then, wind curtailments have gone way down because grid operators have learned how to integrate wind better. I think it’s gotten down to less than 1-3% of energy generated (from like 15-30%). It could even be lower because of how rapidly technology is improving.

@aguyyouknow there will always be energy losses from storage. This may sound a bit surprising, but most of the battery storage being built on the grid is providing load balancing services, acting as a peaking plant, is assisting with grid harmonics (I think), or (believe it or not) is deferring costs from really expensive potential upgrades. There really isn’t a good technology for seasonal storage - the best for that so far is pumped hydro, which has its own issues.

https://youtu.be/cUGC8YHXF6c

To bad they weren't doing this all the time....

@Shadows as drunk as they are, it's no excuse for their behavior (:

Here's the video I mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQG1bHugZRA

@Railingo
My folks have been using solar power nearly 2Ø years now, and it paid itself off after only 5. If Dad would triple the array, PG&E would be paying him.
Well... Not after the bankruptcy, but anyways...

Most places have laws that the energy company doesnt have to pay you for more than you consume, i.e. the best you can hope for is a 0 bill

The overage you give them is free to them

And you can't go offgrid with a payback of 5 years, because the battery systems are expensive then stop stealing mybtax dollars for solar refunds and there's no way you break even

Considering the average home uses 908 kwh's each month, and the average cost of electricity is 12 cents. The only way you would break even with solar panels in 20 years without tax credit is if you could get the whole system for under 20k. That includes the battery, and the panels, which you would likely need at least a third larger system than your actual kwh usage so that you can still power your house entirely on extended cloudy days.

Also you can go fuck yourself during the winter if you live in places where it snows. Even if you have a system rated for double the kwh you need, you'll still face outages.

It snows here, he still more than makes it up.

¿Any guesses where this one leads to?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NNLWvWoE-U

https://youtu.be/d1EB1zsxW0k

@DJ_Anuz that’s why most rooftop solar systems are grid tied and utilize net energy metering

And thats why you still need a power plant that backs up the grid, as long as a power plant is required there will be an argument for nuclear as a carbon free option

Solar doesn't replace it

And I've seen it done.