You want actually green energy? Focus on nuclear fusion.
Solar panels are an addition to the grid at best, wind turbines cause more damage in production, deployment and disposal.
Dams are good but depends on location and geothermal are HEAVILY reliant on location. Doing 'green energy' without considering this means you're either a fool or you're scamming people.
It's a nice offset for the extra AC draw in summer. Of course that balance goes away if the tards get their way in forcing everyone from natural gas to electric heating.
It's why I've got nothing against putting them on roofs of houses to try and provide a slight boost.
But I'm against having entire fields of them on the ground in MOST areas as a lot of those areas can be better used agriculturally or even serve the environment better left to go wild for insect and fauna population.
What I don't understand is why they aren't on top of every parking lot in the country. They would provide much needed shade in the summer, and generate a lot of extra electricity without taking up extra real estate.
Think about how large a Walmart parking lot is, and imagine over basically every parking space there is a solar panel the size of a car. Multiply that by every one of those enormous parking lots and you would have a field of solar panels the size of Rhode Island.
Seriously, I often wounder if people in charge of city planning in most countries are just dumb by design or their corruption stops them from making decisions like this that benefit everyone.
There's a weird middle ground where the scale isn't quite large enough to justify the cost. That's a lot of extra infrastructure to add to a parking lot for possibly not a lot of actual benefit.
Solar panels are complete trash. They should only be used as a last resort--when portability and lack of grid make it the only option.
It's a function of cost over time. In the best possible conditions solar panels barely make back their cost. All other power systems generate 10-100x their value in energy. Solar power is just setting money on fire.
European countries are realizing that the push for more renewable energy and electrification of economies will be jeopardized unless they spend more on grids and other related infrastructure like batteries and other sources of energy that can be quickly tapped
At that point just bite the bullet and go nuclear. Those batteries will be landfill in a couple of years
Unfortunately, the 'solution' proposed here is to waste even more money on batteries and other crap, instead of switching to real electricity.
Have you heard of the Greenpeace experiment where they tried to foist solar panels on people in India? Even the poorest people in the world don't want this crap. It's a luxury good in wealthy countries for the redistribution of wealth from the population to organized lobbies and corporate cronies.
If you suffer no/reasonable losses transmitting across the world. Ocean temperature superconductos would help. Space based solar sounds more feasible and also works 24/7.
You want actually green energy? Focus on nuclear fusion.
Solar panels are an addition to the grid at best, wind turbines cause more damage in production, deployment and disposal.
Dams are good but depends on location and geothermal are HEAVILY reliant on location. Doing 'green energy' without considering this means you're either a fool or you're scamming people.
It's a nice offset for the extra AC draw in summer. Of course that balance goes away if the tards get their way in forcing everyone from natural gas to electric heating.
It's why I've got nothing against putting them on roofs of houses to try and provide a slight boost.
But I'm against having entire fields of them on the ground in MOST areas as a lot of those areas can be better used agriculturally or even serve the environment better left to go wild for insect and fauna population.
What I don't understand is why they aren't on top of every parking lot in the country. They would provide much needed shade in the summer, and generate a lot of extra electricity without taking up extra real estate.
Think about how large a Walmart parking lot is, and imagine over basically every parking space there is a solar panel the size of a car. Multiply that by every one of those enormous parking lots and you would have a field of solar panels the size of Rhode Island.
Initial cost.
Because that...is a REALLY smart idea.
Seriously, I often wounder if people in charge of city planning in most countries are just dumb by design or their corruption stops them from making decisions like this that benefit everyone.
There's a weird middle ground where the scale isn't quite large enough to justify the cost. That's a lot of extra infrastructure to add to a parking lot for possibly not a lot of actual benefit.
Or they're corrupt.
Probably both.
Lauri speaks truth. It's also not taught in any school that I know of. They're too busy imagining cities and hating suburban life.
I think molten salt plants are more efficient than vast fields of photovoltaics. They also go best of in the desert where nothing will grow.
Most independence from the grid. Even if you're connected. Even if you don't have to be independent, it's good to be.
Solar panels are complete trash. They should only be used as a last resort--when portability and lack of grid make it the only option.
It's a function of cost over time. In the best possible conditions solar panels barely make back their cost. All other power systems generate 10-100x their value in energy. Solar power is just setting money on fire.
The spanish PM just spoke :
“ we should not eliminate any hypothesis, but he has unilaterally ruled out any link to renewables”
Lol. sounds EXACTLY like the vaccine injury coverup.
source :
https://x.com/javierblas/status/1917293017863500283
"It could be anything at all, except for what we did."
The most classic politician move.
Rbmk reactors do not explode.
I bet there were no power outages when Franco was in power. Just saying.
At that point just bite the bullet and go nuclear. Those batteries will be landfill in a couple of years
HAH. Good one. They'd sooner go back to coal than nuclear. They really hate effective sources of energy.
Unfortunately, the 'solution' proposed here is to waste even more money on batteries and other crap, instead of switching to real electricity.
Have you heard of the Greenpeace experiment where they tried to foist solar panels on people in India? Even the poorest people in the world don't want this crap. It's a luxury good in wealthy countries for the redistribution of wealth from the population to organized lobbies and corporate cronies.
In theory wouldn't a global infrastructure where we have a follow the sun grid work? It would be the only time I would be ok with globalization
If you suffer no/reasonable losses transmitting across the world. Ocean temperature superconductos would help. Space based solar sounds more feasible and also works 24/7.
success does not knock the grids of 3 countries down
Their definition of success might.
Engineers and everyone who understands physics has been saying the inertia behind turbines was vital to grid stability for years :
https://x.com/energybants/status/1860120891298054251
Of course they were overruled by green lunatics.
These people want you to be cold, miserable and unable to go anywhere because of an electric car.
“How Too Much Energy Can Cause Blackouts”
-the New York Slimes
Power failed successfully.