Bill Nye Saves the World: And other stuff? - General

[QUOTE=Karmah;52150481]I know the market is small for it, but I wish Bill would do an informative science show on advanced topics. Something appropriate for 20+ year olds. Like imagine a modern Bill Nye except instead of explaining basic physics instead discusses topics in Quantum physics. Like amp it up an age group, exchange basic High School concepts and tackle Year 1 University/College concepts. As supplementary study material this wouldn't be of any use to me anymore, but actual videos in these fields generally suck and are produced by textbook companies. Since the show I want doesn't exist I subscribe to SciShow, the Seeker, and PBS Space time to fill the gap.[/QUOTE] Yessss, I was excited for this show until I saw [I]that.[/I] I'd love to see more quality put towards the sea of cruddy educational videos.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52150628]What exactly is wrong with nuclear power?[/QUOTE] Mostly misinformation. So [I]it would have been a really good opportunity to work against that[/I]. (I haven't seen the segment, so someone please correct me if he actually tried to do that.)

If people want to see a sequel to bill nye the science guy, look up eyes of nye. it's what the format should had been but more serious.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;52150962]Mostly misinformation. So [I]it would have been a really good opportunity to work against that[/I]. (I haven't seen the segment, so someone please correct me if he actually tried to do that.)[/QUOTE] He didn't. The nuclear-power guy only got one sentence, interjected in between the green-power guy and the other person, saying nuclear is viable - and then Bill just waved his hand at him, said "yeah but no one wants that, it's really expensive and takes a long time to build", before letting the green-power guy dominate the entire panel. It was really annoying.

[QUOTE=BanthaFodder;52149259]Looking at the lyrics to that sex-junk song again, holy shit, is it outright stating that sexuality is a choice? What a great way to make strides for the LGBT community, by stating that queer individuals CHOOSE to be that way and that they're basically just hyper-sexual fetishists who own scores of sex toys and who will fuck anyone or anything. That sure doesn't confirm the assumptions of every old homophobe to ever exist, no sir no way. What an ass-backwards approach towards... well, [i]everything[/i], I seriously can't believe they greenlit this as is.[/QUOTE] I don't think it quite says the choice part, but it comes [I]somewhat[/I] close-ish if you don't pay a lot of attention to this mess of lyrics. Not that this changes much about it. It's overall one of the most offensive things I've recently seen online.

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52150988]He didn't. The nuclear-power guy only got one sentence, interjected in between the green-power guy and the other person, saying nuclear is viable - and then Bill just waved his hand at him, said "yeah but no one wants that, it's really expensive and takes a long time to build", before letting the green-power guy dominate the entire panel. It was really annoying.[/QUOTE] Really makes you think, especially considering that infamous clip of Bill Nye appearing on The Nightly Show and getting completely ignored and talked down to when he tried to explain that finding water on Mars is a big deal.

I didn't know Erika Moen got the money for a tv show

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52150988]He didn't. The nuclear-power guy only got one sentence, interjected in between the green-power guy and the other person, saying nuclear is viable - and then Bill just waved his hand at him, said "yeah but no one wants that, it's really expensive and takes a long time to build", before letting the green-power guy dominate the entire panel. It was really annoying.[/QUOTE] This has happened several times, with any speaker that poses an opposing argument (Even ones that they could legitimately debunk in an argument). During the alternative medicines panel, one of the speakers intended to defend something about crystals as a medicine, and Bill just laughed him off and ended the panel before he could get a word in. Even if they're going to argue something most people disagree with, doesn't dismissing it without a legitimate discussion come off as even a LITTLE bit bias? It would have been much more interesting and downright effective to actually hear the opposing side's argument and then discuss it right there. Instead most panels consist of "Yeah, we're right. This is important. We're right." Very little objective discussion about why opposing arguments are ineffective or bad.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52150628]What exactly is wrong with nuclear power?[/QUOTE] Nothing, except that people really, [I]really[/I] don't want it. You can thank TEPCO for sealing the deal in 2011, but many countries' populations already had a majority aversion to nuclear power before then.

[QUOTE=Karmah;52150481]I know the market is small for it, but I wish Bill would do an informative science show on advanced topics. Something appropriate for 20+ year olds. Like imagine a modern Bill Nye except instead of explaining basic physics instead discusses topics in Quantum physics. Like amp it up an age group, exchange basic High School concepts and tackle Year 1 University/College concepts. As supplementary study material this wouldn't be of any use to me anymore, but actual videos in these fields generally suck and are produced by textbook companies. Since the show I want doesn't exist I subscribe to SciShow, the Seeker, and PBS Space time to fill the gap.[/QUOTE] but then Bill would be stepping on [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Through_the_Wormhole"]Morgan Freeman's turf[/URL]

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;52151190]Nothing, except that people really, [I]really[/I] don't want it. You can thank TEPCO for sealing the deal in 2011, but many countries' populations already had a majority aversion to nuclear power before then.[/QUOTE] That is very wrong. [url=https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics/Nuclear-Units-Under-Construction-Worldwide]Look at all the reactors that are being built [I]right now[/I][/url]. Utilities and governments especially like nuclear power because its a constant source of air-pollution free base-load energy. Bill dismissing the fact that 60 reactors are under construction worldwide tells me that he either hasn't done any research into modern nuclear power or that he has become a puppet of renewable energy companies. Nuclear gets flak from fossil fuels because it replaces their base load energy while being clean, and it gets flak from renewables for being clean while providing more reliable electricity and supporting a traditional energy grid. Nuclear waste is a separate issue dealt with differently across governments (storage in US, reprocessing in France). Calling climate skeptics wrong/dumb and saying you can replace everything with renewables shows that you may care about the environment but haven't looked into energy politics at all. Its not just about meeting power demands; you have to consider reliability, resilience, maintenance, energy prices, land development, etc. These are real scientific issues with related social challenges that should be discussed on the show. Gender and identity politics don't belong on a show marketing itself on science and saving the world.

by the way, is it me or do most of the laugh tracks on this show sound really, obviously fake? so fake that they're often placed far too early for even a believable real crowd to react to a joke.

[QUOTE=TheJoey;52151305]by the way, is it me or do most of the laugh tracks on this show sound really, obviously fake? so fake that they're often placed far too early for even a believable real crowd to react to a joke.[/QUOTE] I got that vibe off the ice cream video, the laughter synced up too well just as the cringey punchlines were delivered.

I watched the first 15 or so minutes of the first episode a few days ago, but I couldn't stand it. It's just so cringeworthy (American humour can often be bland, but this takes bland to a new level) and it's as if the show is trying to cater to 10 year olds. If I were say a climate change denier (I'm not, but for argument's sake) and I decided to be open-minded and watch the first episode, I'd feel that the show would be talking down to me as if I'm a child; condescending. That's not how you win over people. I love watching science videos. I'm subscribed to PBS Space Time, SciShow, SciShow Space, SciShow Psych and Tom Scott on YouTube; I watch those kinds of videos each day before bed. Granted, SciShow aren't exactly professional in how they deliver their content, but this Bill Nye show is just absolutely dreadful in comparison.

[QUOTE=BF;52151343]I watched the first 15 or so minutes of the first episode a few days ago, but I couldn't stand it. It's just so cringeworthy (American humour can often be bland, but this takes bland to a new level) and it's as if the show is trying to cater to 10 year olds. If I were say a climate change denier (I'm not, but for argument's sake) and I decided to be open-minded and watch the first episode, I'd feel that the show would be talking down to me as if I'm a child. That's not how you win over people. I love watching science videos. I'm subscribed to PBS Space Time, SciShow, SciShow Space, SciShow Psych and Tom Scott on YouTube; I watch those kinds of videos each day before bed. Granted, SciShow aren't exactly professional in how they deliver their content, but this Bill Nye show is just absolutely dreadful in comparison.[/QUOTE] This is the worst part. I know Youtube comments are shit but there's a ton of people in the comments of those skits basically saying how their negative thoughts about each topic are now validated because of how awful the videos are. Though the youtube comments section is full of awful people, I think it's really likely that others who just try and give the show a shot would feel the same.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52149887]Preaching to the choir with me. The sad part is that the expert they got on Bill Nye's show [B]specifically wrote on Thorium reactors. But they never got into that or asked much from him.[/B] :v:[/QUOTE] :angry::hairpull::why: I have no face right now.

[QUOTE=Hidole555;52151376]:angry::hairpull::why: I have no face right now.[/QUOTE] if that makes you wanna tear your hair out then don't watch the bit on the gender/sexuality abacus. i dont think they gave a single scientific fact about LGBT people in that episode. literally just said "its ok to be gay" at best and "straight people are closet bisexuals, also im horny" at worst.

[QUOTE=Hidole555;52151376]:angry::hairpull::why: I have no face right now.[/QUOTE] The "Nuclear debate" panel ironically was 95% about renewables.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52151393]The "Nuclear debate" panel ironically was 95% about renewables.[/QUOTE] 95% on renewables? I think that's lowballing, Tudd. I'd say it was 99.8% renewables. And that's a conservative estimate.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52151382]if that makes you wanna tear your hair out then don't watch the bit on the gender/sexuality abacus. i dont think they gave a single scientific fact about LGBT people in that episode. literally just said "its ok to be gay" at best and "straight people are closet bisexuals, also im horny" at worst.[/QUOTE] My new favorite is watching the diet episode, and how much they shit on the Paleo diets, out of all alternative diets they could have chosen. It's essentially the only diet they criticize and they do it horribly with little to no science mentioned on why. Its just one gigantic segment of critiquing with no discussion and truly comes off as indoctrination (agree with me cause I said so). Atleast the panel on that episode actually had someone with a real degree and ability to discuss excercise vs genetics. Still doesn't excuse nearly every panel is filled with a comedian for no goddamn reason on a science show except to detract the conversation for the ADHD audience. [editline]25th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52151397]95% on renewables? I think that's lowballing, Tudd. I'd say it was 99.8% renewables. And that's a conservative estimate.[/QUOTE] I was being generous. Trying to hide how much I really despise this show to appear unbiased. It pisses off people with opinions across the board. So I shouldn't really care.

[QUOTE=Karmah;52150481]I know the market is small for it, but I wish Bill would do an informative science show on advanced topics. Something appropriate for 20+ year olds. Since the show I want doesn't exist I subscribe to SciShow, the Seeker, and PBS Space time to fill the gap.[/QUOTE] If anyone is interested in the original premise of this shitshow: It's not science, mostly philosophy or modern debate, but if other people are looking for things similar to Cosmos that breaks down philosophical and exisential concepts, check out the channels Big Think and the School of Life. They're actively updating which is really cool and have a huuuge scope of content and topics. Just scroll through their video thumbnails, and [i]something[/i] is gonna catch your interest within a few seconds. They do everything right that Bill Nye definitely did not here. [url]https://www.youtube.com/user/bigthink/videos[/url] Big Think is experts and guest speakers (ironically even Bill on his better days) brought on to explain, or just speculate on topics like astrophysics/theoretical physics (with sort of a philosophical spin), breakdowns of common debates in the public sphere, and general life advice. It's a little dry, but good for just podcasting while you're doing something else, since it's talk-based, and it definitely introduced me to a lot of fascinating topics + helped me get what I didn't pick up on in classes . [url]https://www.youtube.com/user/schooloflifechannel/videos[/url] School of Life is shorter, more visual, and really entertaining. Animated shorts that break down every spectrum of philosophy, political theory, economics, city planning, and sexuality ([i]not[/i] like whatever the fuck was OP. This shit is the gold standard for what Bill should've done). For the most part it's contemplative about daily life - overcoming shyness, healthy relationships, being fulfilled at work, being confident - asking all the right questions without being preachy or like a PUA advert. Hopefully this show improves, but if not, there's these channels and probably a few others. Any recommendations?

Isn't the gender binary stuff and the sexuality thing with the ice creams actually a social construct instead of science? Like I've never seen this guy before but he does not seem like a scientist,he seems more of a fake Sex Ed teacher (at least judging by this show).

[QUOTE=weyu6572;52151508]Isn't the gender binary stuff and the sexuality thing with the ice creams actually a social construct instead of science? Like I've never seen this guy before but he does not seem like a scientist,he seems more of a fake Sex Ed teacher (at least judging by this show).[/QUOTE] He used to make topical videos about science for early teen (and honestly late teen too cause he was awesome) science classes, and they were usually on VHS. He had this make believe lab and he would constantly do visual experiments and play with fossils and tectonic simulators and just about everything you can imagine that would win a science fair. It was cool as fuck, and it was honestly informative. It kinda sucks how he went down this neo-liberal track instead of sticking to good presentations of science.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52151269]That is very wrong. [url=https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics/Nuclear-Units-Under-Construction-Worldwide]Look at all the reactors that are being built [I]right now[/I][/url]. Utilities and governments especially like nuclear power because its a constant source of air-pollution free base-load energy. Bill dismissing the fact that 60 reactors are under construction worldwide tells me that he either hasn't done any research into modern nuclear power or that he has become a puppet of renewable energy companies. Nuclear gets flak from fossil fuels because it replaces their base load energy while being clean, and it gets flak from renewables for being clean while providing more reliable electricity and supporting a traditional energy grid. Nuclear waste is a separate issue dealt with differently across governments (storage in US, reprocessing in France). Calling climate skeptics wrong/dumb and saying you can replace everything with renewables shows that you may care about the environment but haven't looked into energy politics at all. Its not just about meeting power demands; you have to consider reliability, resilience, maintenance, energy prices, land development, etc. These are real scientific issues with related social challenges that should be discussed on the show. Gender and identity politics don't belong on a show marketing itself on science and saving the world.[/QUOTE] This doesn't exactly refute my statements. In the developed world ([url=http://www.globescan.com/images/images/pressreleases/bbc2011_nuclear_energy/bbc2011_energy.pdf]according to this poll from 2011,[/url] admittedly only a scant 7 months following Fukushima), the majority of constituents do not want new nuclear reactors to be built at the very least, with varying proportions of people also saying "get rid of the ones we have asap!" (Spain, Chile, and Germany with that 55% and 52% :wow:) Developing countries have a more accepting viewpoint. China is an outlier on that nei.org list only because they cannot afford, public health-wise, to continue to burn fossil fuels at the rate they are. Believe me, I [I]love[/I] nuclear energy. But for many countries, that makes you and I the minority. In sum, I think we're arguing from different angles to say the same thing: people don't know jack 'bout nuclear and are afraid.

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;52151581]This doesn't exactly refute my statements. In the developed world ([url=http://www.globescan.com/images/images/pressreleases/bbc2011_nuclear_energy/bbc2011_energy.pdf]according to this poll from 2011,[/url] admittedly only a scant 7 months following Fukushima), the majority of constituents do not want new nuclear reactors to be built at the very least, with varying proportions of people also saying "get rid of the ones we have asap!" (Spain, Chile, and Germany with that 55% and 52% :wow:) Developing countries have a more accepting viewpoint. China is an outlier on that nei.org list only because they cannot afford, public health-wise, to continue to burn fossil fuels at the rate they are. Believe me, I [I]love[/I] nuclear energy. But for many countries, that makes you and I the minority. [B]In sum, I think we're arguing from different angles to say the same thing: people don't know jack 'bout nuclear and are afraid.[/B][/QUOTE] That bums me out so much. A ton of people are afraid of nuclear energy and a big show on Netflix like this could have educated so many people. But instead we get "Nobody wants nuclear power" and then nothing else about it. Like what a great way to share information about nuclear energy to the world. So much potential seems to have been wasted with this show. :disappoint:

This show is what people think science is. Let that sink in. Everyone I know IRL is jerking this show off and touting it as the second coming (cumming?) of christ...

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52148834][B]American leftists as a whole have become more hostile.[/B] Its one thing to debate/teach using peer reviewed science, but if you're going to be a prick to the people you are trying to educate then people won't listen to you even if you are correct. [/QUOTE] The American right as a whole has become a lot more hostile as well. It's really sad. [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52148834] Bill dismissing nuclear power as a player in solving climate change is a horrible step backwards. Reactors are being built all over the world, just not a lot are being built in the US. To dismiss that no one wants them because they are expensive is such a surface level argument that I can't believe he isn't going into more detail.[/QUOTE] He didn't say its because they were expensive, though that is part of the problem. He was saying that no one wants them. Which is sort of correct. Support for nuclear power has constantly wavered around the 50%, [URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/190064/first-time-majority-oppose-nuclear-energy.aspx"]with Gallup showing a sudden spike in 2016[/URL]. Obviously though that is where he would have given Thorium Guy time to explain his reasoning but they more or less ignored him until they started talking about voting out Republicans and ending coal reliance. [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52151269]That is very wrong. [URL="https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics/Nuclear-Units-Under-Construction-Worldwide"]Look at all the reactors that are being built [I]right now[/I][/URL]. Utilities and governments especially like nuclear power because its a constant source of air-pollution free base-load energy. Bill dismissing the fact that 60 reactors are under construction worldwide tells me that he either hasn't done any research into modern nuclear power or that he has become a puppet of renewable energy companies. Nuclear gets flak from fossil fuels because it replaces their base load energy while being clean, and it gets flak from renewables for being clean while providing more reliable electricity and supporting a traditional energy grid. Nuclear waste is a separate issue dealt with differently across governments (storage in US, reprocessing in France). [/QUOTE] Clearly as someone who has done the research, what can you tell me about the Stanford guys [URL="http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2015/pr-50states-renewable-energy-060815.html"]plan[/URL]? I haven't looked too much into it myself but seeing as how wind and solar energy is already being extensively used in some regions I see no reason why they both can't exist. As an aside, the idea that he has "become a puppet of reneable energy companies", the same companies who can't pay their bills without a ton of government subsidies, is pretty laughable. [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52148834]Calling climate skeptics wrong/dumb and saying you can replace everything with renewables shows that you may care about the environment but haven't looked into energy politics at all. Its not just about meeting power demands; you have to consider reliability, resilience, maintenance, energy prices, land development, etc. [/QUOTE] Why do you assume they haven't looked into those things? [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52148834]These are real scientific issues with related social challenges that should be discussed on the show. Gender and identity politics don't belong on a show marketing itself on science and saving the world.[/QUOTE] I agree. [QUOTE=Tudd;52149000]He didn't even argue that it was "too expensive." He just flat out said "People don't want that" on the episode. Begins around 17:55 on the first episode for reference. Besides Nuclear Power has the benefit of being cheap in comparison to R&D technologies when you start talking about efficiency of generating power relative to cost and area needed.[/QUOTE] The thorium guy didn't get nearly enough time to speak to the benefits of nuclear power but you guys are seriously shortchanging renewables, and I say this as a proponent for nuclear power. [editline]26th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tudd;52151402] I was being generous. Trying to hide how much I really despise this show to appear unbiased. It pisses off people with opinions across the board. So I shouldn't really care.[/QUOTE] We are pretty late in the game for your to try to appear unbiased, friend.

[QUOTE=bdd458;52150630]It's because "cultural appropriation" has been misused by some who heard it in their Anthropology classes. It's a basic concept of culture, that they're fluid and change over time - in response to either new cultures or ideas/technologies/whatever. Part of that is the spooky ~cultural appropriation~, in which one culture takes stuff from another (or inherits/is given it from another). It's not good, and it's not bad. It's just a descriptor of a basic function of how cultures operate, it's not an issue and any attempt to actually stifle it tbh is extremely misguided.[/QUOTE] Its ironic that people get pissed when white girls where kimono or hanbok, but nobody bats an eye when asians wear Dirndl Dresses and Lederhose or the tons of asian girls with native american war bonnets

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52151617]wall of text[/QUOTE] If proponents of renewables knew about energy politics they would be willing to discuss concerns beyond energy demand/capacity. As far as I know their response to reliability is energy storage technology which is another subject in its own right. Coexistence of energy sources is [I]necessary[/I] for logistical issues. Sun doesn't shine, wind doesn't blow, gas prices spike, etc. Renewables are reliant on natural gas to provide energy during off peak hours which partially defeats the point of having renewables to eliminate fossil fuels. This is where the energy storage argument comes in, but my point is that I have yet to see renewables + energy storage work on the level of an energy grid. It may be possible but I have yet to see a proof of concept. Their solution below is specifically what I have a problem with: [QUOTE=Article]Solutions to the grid integration problem are obtained by prioritizing storage for excess heat (in soil and water) and electricity (in ice, water, phase-change material tied to CSP, pumped hydro, and hydrogen); using hydroelectric only as a last resort;and using demand response to shave periods of excess demand over supply. No batteries (except in electric vehicles), biomass, nuclear power, or natural gas are needed. Frequency regulation of the grid can be provided by ramping up/down hydroelectric, stored CSP or pumped hydro; ramping down other WWS generators and storing the electricity in heat, cold, or hydrogen instead of curtailing; and using demand response.[/QUOTE] Renewables also [I]hurt[/I] nuclear power plants because they can provide most/all of the grid's energy for part of the day. Current reactors have to be kept at a relatively constant power level during operation and when the renewables provide all of the electricity, coupled with policy that requires utilities to prioritize renewable energy use, the nuclear plant loses money for the hour or two renewables provide power since it can't sell the electricity it produces. This cuts into operational costs of the plants and accelerates plants closing due to economic reasons. The best way to eliminate carbon emissions is to use nuclear power for base load and use renewables + storage to fulfill peak energy demand, not by switching to 100% renewables. A general environmental issue is maintenance and waste from dispersed energy resources. Centralized power plants produce less physical waste per unit of energy and are subject to government environmental regulations and competing energy prices, so they constantly strive to improve their energy output. Its also logistically easier because its at one location instead of at thousands of solar panels / wind turbines in odd locations. I support electric vehicles because centralizing the carbon emissions to a coal plant powering the car is much easier to regulate than inspecting millions of cars for emissions. I am also concerned that solar panels and wind turbines will produce significantly more physical waste in producing replacement parts than a traditional power plant per kWh. Based on how people treat smartphones and tablets I would imagine a broken solar panel would be replaced rather than repaired because it would be cheaper or logistically easier. I would be more inclined to repair my $10b nuclear plant than replace it.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52151677]If proponents of renewables knew about energy politics they would be willing to discuss concerns beyond energy demand/capacity. As far as I know their response to reliability is energy storage technology which is another subject in its own right.[/QUOTE] You'll have to excuse the snark but considering they are winning bigly right now I'd imagine proponents of renewables know a lot about energy politics, particularly so if you believe they can buy influence as opposed to, say, the nuclear lobby. [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52151677]Coexistence of energy sources is [I]necessary[/I] for logistical issues. Sun doesn't shine, wind doesn't blow, gas prices spike, etc. Renewables are reliant on natural gas to provide energy during off peak hours which partially defeats the point of having renewables to eliminate fossil fuels. This is where the energy storage argument comes in, but my point is that I have yet to see renewables + energy storage work on the level of an energy grid. It may be possible but I have yet to see a proof of concept. Their solution below is specifically what I have a problem with:[/QUOTE] Which is why I think there are certain places where rewneables can provide 100% of power or work with an alternative (preferably nuclear) [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52151677]Renewables also [I]hurt[/I] nuclear power plants because they can provide most/all of the grid's energy for part of the day. Current reactors have to be kept at a relatively constant power level during operation and when the renewables provide all of the electricity, coupled with policy that requires utilities to prioritize renewable energy use, the nuclear plant loses money for the hour or two renewables provide power since it can't sell the electricity it produces. This cuts into operational costs of the plants and accelerates plants closing due to economic reasons. The best way to eliminate carbon emissions is to use nuclear power for base load and use renewables + storage to fulfill peak energy demand, not by switching to 100% renewables.[/QUOTE] You're preaching to the choir here. I never advocated for 100% renewables. [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52151677]A general environmental issue is maintenance and waste from dispersed energy resources. Centralized power plants produce less physical waste per unit of energy and are subject to government environmental regulations and competing energy prices, so they constantly strive to improve their energy output. Its also logistically easier because its at one location instead of at thousands of solar panels / wind turbines in odd locations. I support electric vehicles because centralizing the carbon emissions to a coal plant powering the car is much easier to regulate than inspecting millions of cars for emissions. I am also concerned that solar panels and wind turbines will produce significantly more physical waste in producing replacement parts than a traditional power plant per kWh. Based on how people treat smartphones and tablets I would imagine a broken solar panel would be replaced rather than repaired because it would be cheaper or logistically easier. I would be more inclined to repair my $10b nuclear plant than replace it.[/QUOTE] Ostensibly, if it were cheaper to replace a broken solar panel or wind turbine part then the part that was replaced would be recycled. I really don't see cheap logistics as a fault in this case.