[–] green_man 4 points 16 points (+20|-4) ago 

Pretty much all "green energy" is a fake and gay scam.

[–] Vc83 1 point 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

if it can only be kept afloat by taxpayer subsidies, it's trash.

[–] jogger_please 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Residential solar is economical without any subsidies at all, especially if you remove subsidies for coal and natural gas used to fire utility plants. The only place it's not is in areas served with cheap hydro power.

[–] mustafa_mond 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The American fossil fuel industry itself receives billions in taxpayer industries. And don't even get started on agricultural or medical industries.

[–] satisfyinghump 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Agreed but it's trash sometimes due to restrictions placed on such areas like solar panel efficiency.

[–] VoatIsRunByJews 5 points 4 points (+9|-5) ago  (edited ago)

I research related technologies for a living. Harvesting energy from a giant hydrogen bomb in the sky is much more efficient from an eternal point of view than drilling for hydrocarbons. If Algiers was still a stable colony, all of Europe's electricity demand could be met with a small patch of basic silicon solar cells in the Sahara.

And soon advanced chemistry will make hydrocarbon (think gasoline) production from air and water using sunlight a useful tool. No more Arab wealth.

And the ultimate "green" technology, converting mass to energy, will let us leave the untermench behind and colonize the stars. It's only a matter of time. I don't believe that God would make it impossible or we will be stuck in this cluster forever.

[–] jogger_please 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

There are still a lot of people can't do math, which is why it makes my rooftop solar even better. Spread out over the life of the system I pay less than half for electricity than they do and the cost per mile to drive my car is 1/3 of theirs. Freedom includes freedom to waste money. I save enough every year to buy several lowers and ammunition. Next up: .458 SOCOM upper.

[–] Notimportant36 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

When I was in school for electrical engineering a project we had to do was to determine profitability of a prospective solar plant. So, worked through the basic specs of the best panels available, used solar profiles to determine approximate generation. Simply, EVEN WITH the subsidies it was barely profitable at 20 years (18 years IIRC), and that was assuming minimal maintenance required and an estimate on how much could be sold.
I ran the numbers changing just the location and most anywhere north of Texas is not efficient enough, and would need to be around twice the efficiency for the same cost per panel before subsidies would not be required.

[–] [deleted] ago  (edited ago)


[–] IsaacJan ago 

Are all whites rednecks do you think, new account?

[–] Dominus_Stercae 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Note that the problems reported in the article are not with photovoltaics, but with concentrating solar plants - the ones that focus sunlight onto boilers. That's not too surprising given the very high temperatures, volatile fluids, and moving parts.

[–] Monday685 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The idea of molten salt in the tower generators is fascinating.

Good point though. This article is not about solar cells.

Edit: I had to lookup stercae. Nice!

[–] PhilKDick [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Good point

[–] carnold03 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Get government out of the equation and the industry could develop more efficiently.

[–] prairie 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

In fact, it could only develop efficiently, because wasteful companies are not competitive. But when the government picks the winners, all bets are off.

[–] knuteson 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Large installations that get energy for free from the sun run into cost overruns? Say it ain't so!

[–] freespeechplease 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Solar can work, What if we just had a Huge Ring of panels on the surface around the planet? So that light is always being collected and sent to the worldwide grid. No more Battery/storage problems. No more carbon emissions. It would make earth just as green as the Space Station. Earth is a Space Station after all.

[–] PhilKDick [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I read Larry Niven's Ringworld, once upon a time. Liked it. Based on Dyson's concept of a sphere completely enveloping a star, using 100% of its energy output, in an efficient way. A ringworld is more doable. But not doable with the priorities of our overlords, sadly.

[–] Count_Monte_Cristo 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

While the USA and Europe are dicking around with "Green Energy" (((scams))) the Chinese have built or is building dozens of advanced nuclear power plants.

USA could easily develop clean and safe Thorium Molten Salt nulcear reactors but all of our resources have to go to joggers and illegal aliens.

[–] PhilKDick [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Yes, modern nuclear power plants are much safer. It's just a matter of disposing of the waste, Bill Gates, of all people, spent big on promoting safer new plants, but then the antiquated Fukushima plant got hit by the tsunami. I'm no Gates fan, but I'm a believer in nuclear power.

[–] Count_Monte_Cristo 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Thorium Molten Salt reactors do not meltdown and would be perfect for earthquake prone areas like Japan and California.

The fatal flaw for Fukushima was not the reactor design but the fact the emergency diesel generators were put on the seaward side of the containment buildings at ground level. Admittedly the 42 ft. (!) tsunami wave that breached the seawall and knocked out the generators was a 1000 year event but if they had put the generators on the opposite side of the building and up a dozen feet above ground it would averted the catastrophe.

[–] prairie 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

It's literally our only energy source. Solar and nuclear plants are all nuclear.

[–] ShapkaUshanka 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Agreed. But I wouldn't trust a nuclear plant , having workers and management based on diversity and not real education

[–] ardvarcus 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

Reality: solar does not make economic sense; coal does make economic sense. Eat it, liberals.

[–] Plavonica 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Nuclear makes best sense. But only if it is done correctly, and not by a communist government.

[–] lanre 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Until it irradiates your entire country.

[–] generate 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

not by a communist government.

not sure which one are you referring to tbh US or USSR, Fukushima or Chernobyl. US is more commie now I guess.

And remind me again why not just burn fucking oil and gas? Because faggots don't like it?

[–] RandomFurryDude 2 points 1 point (+3|-2) ago 

Coal is garbage, oil is fucktons better, so is gas.

Nuclear is king.

[–] RealBiggly 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

Solar makes great sense on a sailing boat. That's about it really.

[–] Goorbekind 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

no. its because the engineers and scientists had no fuckn clue what they were doing. and were doing it just to get paid, because they didn't have to concern themselves with the financial liability.

the whole thing was stupid since day one.

[–] PhilKDick [S] ago 

Kinda like the Faucis and Birxes and WHO's on first people

[–] Goorbekind ago 

well a windmill doesn't produce enough power in its lifetime to pay the expenses of production.

mineral resourcing, fuel, transport, refinery, placement, transport of employees.

its redundant.

load more comments ▼ (7 remaining)