Germany sets solar power record: 50% of electricity demand - Polidicks

governments/power plants should have this program where they pay you a small amount of dosh to have some solar panels on your roof

[QUOTE=redBadger;36114081]Nuclear power isn't the answer, anyone who disagree's is a fucking dolt. I don't even need to begin explaining why; anyone whose taken a basic environment class should know better.[/QUOTE] Anyone who has ever done even a cursory amount of research on the history of nuclear power and modern reactor safety would be able to tell you that a modern nuclear reactor is one of the safest and most efficient power sources within the realm of our current technology. Basically, your "argument" is nonexistent and outdated.

[QUOTE=redBadger;36114081]Nuclear power isn't the answer, anyone who disagree's is a fucking dolt. I don't even need to begin explaining why; anyone whose taken a basic environment class should know better.[/QUOTE] could you please explain why

They're gonna hog all the sun, though!

[QUOTE=redBadger;36114081]Nuclear power isn't the answer, anyone who disagree's is a fucking dolt. I don't even need to begin explaining why; anyone whose taken a basic environment class should know better.[/QUOTE] I AM ENLIGHTENEd THANK YOU

[QUOTE=Ordigenius;36114564]could you please explain why[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://puu.sh/xrIP[/IMG] [sp]He can't.[/sp]

[QUOTE=redBadger;36114081]Nuclear power isn't the answer, anyone who disagree's is a fucking dolt. I don't even need to begin explaining why; anyone whose taken a basic environment class should know better.[/QUOTE] Nuclear energy is actually pretty damn safe.

[QUOTE=Tippmann357;36115929]Nuclear energy is actually pretty damn safe.[/QUOTE] And they have massive energy yields, just go look at LFTRs. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4[/media]

I think it is awesome that so many facepunchers share my view. Too bad my fellow countrymen and women don't. Hey, how about founding a Facepunch Nation?

[QUOTE=Impact1986;36116354]I think it is awesome that so many facepunchers share my view. Too bad my fellow countrymen and women don't. Hey, how about founding a Facepunch Nation?[/QUOTE] Why would we found a nation with a negative population growth?

I like this.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;36112152]Ironically, even factoring in Fukushima and Chernobyl, nuclear power causes less deaths per terawatt than solar and wind energy. [URL="http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html"](Source)[/URL] [IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/76499769/energysafety.PNG[/IMG] Admittedly not the greatest comparison as solar plant farms are safer to install than rooftop panels, but still interesting.[/QUOTE] And then you have death from heat strokes and cold winters in the more extreme weather we get here in Europe already, caused by the very real climate changes happening to streams in the Atlantic Ocean, deaths from Ozone stress(mostly elderly) due to heavy use of cars during warm days, deaths from the already increasing number of storms and floods throughout the last 50 years, deaths from Hurricanes(look up the US statistics of Hurricane numbers in the US and be surprised), deaths from storms, deaths from hunger caused by desertification and so on and so on. I can easily tell your statistics is total bogus since Chernobyl alone caused thousands of deaths directly and harmed millions of lifes indirectly(cancer rates in London newborns 8 to 18 months after the accident) how that results into 0.04 per TWh is absolutely beyond me since that would mean we produced trillions of TWh since then, Nuclear Energy alone. Then we have the indirect indirect indirect deaths, for example the hundreds of thousands of people in contact with fumes or directly dying in the gigantic coal-mine fires in China. I could go on and on but I don't want to, the point I'm trying to make: These death rates depend on what you look at and that's why it's so damn complicated that death rates are in no way an indicator whether we should do something we know that is good, but expensive, or not. [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/chernobyl-still-causing-cancer-in-british-children-475263.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Killuah;36117485]And then you have death from heat strokes and cold winters in the more extreme weather we get here in Europe already, caused by the very real climate changes happening to streams in the Atlantic Ocean, deaths from Ozone stress(mostly elderly) due to heavy use of cars during warm days, deaths from the already increasing number of storms and floods throughout the last 50 years, deaths from Hurricanes(look up the US statistics of Hurricane numbers in the US and be surprised), deaths from storms, deaths from hunger caused by desertification and so on and so on. I can easily tell your statistics is total bogus since Chernobyl alone caused thousands of deaths directly and harmed millions of lifes indirectly(cancer rates in London newborns 8 to 18 months after the accident) how that results into 0.04 per TWh is absolutely beyond me since that would mean we produced trillions of TWh since then, Nuclear Energy alone. Then we have the indirect indirect indirect deaths, for example the hundreds of thousands of people in contact with fumes or directly dying in the gigantic coal-mine fires in China. I could go on and on but I don't want to, the point I'm trying to make: These death rates depend on what you look at and that's why it's so damn complicated that death rates are in no way an indicator whether we should do something we know that is good, but expensive, or not. [URL]http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/chernobyl-still-causing-cancer-in-british-children-475263.html[/URL][/QUOTE] First, it's a rough estimate linked to deaths (not non-lethal health impacts - and even then considering the effect of hydrocarbon fuel burning, they would be still way in front). There were roughly 5000-10000 people killed either direct exposure to radiation or linked cancer deaths from Chernobyl. And we do produce huge amounts of energy - the average consumption of the world is 15 TW (works out to 132,000 TWh a year). I also stand by my arguments that solar and wind power can't run a national grid alone - they aren't consistent enough, and would have difficultly responding to changing demands from the grid (particularly solar energy, where you'd require more power from it at the times of the year when it's least effective). I'm also not saying we shouldn't use sustainable energy on the national grid, but you require a steady source like nuclear or hydrocarbon (nuclear being my preferred choice) to support it.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;36111800]Except they're not generating excess energy. You'd have to either have over 100% of your energy requirements from solar panels and save the excess, or use other power supplies - either wind power which again is at the mercy of the elements, or biomass (which will still release carbon). Or you could combine solar/wind/biomass energy with nuclear energy instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to the Fukushima disaster (which is unlikely to happen in Germany, what with it being away from a fault line and all).[/QUOTE] And even less likely to happen, since none of the plants in Germany were 1st Generation don't-have-a-containment-dome-around-the-reactor setups like the six reactors in Fukushima were. Hell, most 3rd Gen reactors have to have a guy at a console press a button on a console every other hour or else the whole thing goes into shutdown mode. Modern reactors are designed not to fail, and their containment systems border on indestructible. This reaction to Fukushima is a knee-jerk just like Three Mile Island's backlash.

As long as those panels can power the tigers then I'm alright with it.

Germans are the masters of engineering.

Fuck I want back to Germany so bad. [editline]29th May 2012[/editline] Also, I remember the thread with people saying Solar Panels were a bad idea.

Solar power is nice but its very expensive to produce and the gains are tiny compaired to that expense. You also must cover massive tracts of land to power anything with it on a large scale, and if you happen to get a rainy season you'll have to ration power. For these reasons, its ideal for small scale things or for supplimenting an existing power source. Thorium Reactors are honestly the way to go. Nuclear Reactors are already a 100% clean source of energy - the only major downside is a meltdown risk (which is a risk that almost exclusively applies only to high-risk areas on earth and with older rector technology), and the nuclear waste (which is very toxic and radioactive, but reasonably safe as long as they stay contained within a mountain for a thousand years). Thorium is going to be much cheaper to mine than uranium, it has 100% zero meltdown risk, it produces very little waste compaired to Uranium, is extremely efficent, etc. It is literally the dream energy material. If every powersource on earth was thorium, and if some of those reactors exclusively did nothing but produce artificial fuels (typically they have a large energy drain to produce) for cars and etc, we would literally completely eliminate our carbon footprint and be able to produce and do almost anything (as the energy levels we would get would far exceed anything we've ever had before) till an untold amount of time in the far future before we'd run out. And, despite all of that, we'd probably only need to have half the amount of powerplants worldwide as we do today. Short of cold fusion, thorium technology exists today and is the perfect powersource. Sadly, as long as we have a large swath of sheep and lobbyists investing into dead energy futures, we'll never see it come to fruition.

[QUOTE=TehWhale;36111733]Batteries usually work well[/QUOTE] Batteries are actually crap and expensive for this kind of storage.

[QUOTE=Dysgalt;36115970]And they have massive energy yields, just go look at LFTRs. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4[/media][/QUOTE] That's a great find, thanks for sharing that. I need to find a version that is just that 5 minute cut, so I can share that with my friends.

[QUOTE=Killuah;36117485]I can easily tell your statistics is total bogus since Chernobyl alone caused thousands of deaths directly and harmed millions of lifes indirectly(cancer rates in London newborns 8 to 18 months after the accident) how that results into 0.04 per TWh is absolutely beyond me since that would mean we produced trillions of TWh since then, Nuclear Energy alone.[/QUOTE] I take it you've also calculated the huge number of deaths from coal, given that coal fired plants release a significant amount of radioactive waste. [editline]30th May 2012[/editline] I'm not saying that uranium based fission will save the world, but anything is better than coal.

Ideally, people would get over the irrational nuclear fear, and put up with the relatively safe and eco friendly nuclear power with reasonable amounts of renewable sources (barring hydroelectric dams, which destroy entire ecosystems) whilst putting money into nuclear fusion research.

Okay but what happens when a super volcano erupts and you loose the sun? Germans left without power, nuclear stations remain.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;36122191]Okay but what happens when a super volcano erupts and you loose the sun? Germans left without power, nuclear stations remain.[/QUOTE] Germany generates power from shitty news company? Interesting.

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36122233]Germany generates power from shitty news company? Interesting.[/QUOTE] Wow gee dident know they had a German version.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;36112502]No, I mean the critics are probably more worried about the results of a Chernobyl scaled disaster. Of course the powerplants are much more secure nowadays, but just [I]if[/I] such a thing happens again it would be disastrous.[/QUOTE] The problem is people don't see the big picture, and when they don't see the big picture, knee jerk decisions such as completely abolishing nuclear power are made. sadly

I don't trust power generation systems that rely almost completely on mother nature to behave all the time or can only work for half the day.

[QUOTE=MIPS;36122409]I don't trust power generation systems that rely almost completely on mother nature to behave all the time or can only work for half the day.[/QUOTE] This is what I've been saying. Wind and Solar power are good for supplementing other types of power supplies, and they are both (Solar particularly) good for supplying rural or isolated areas with power as they don't need to be supplied with fuel or maintained constantly. I think nuclear, solar/wind, hydro and geothermal energy all have good points and can all co-exist together, and should do in some respects - they all have key strengths the others don't. Hydrocarbon plants have the one advantage that they're cheap, at least in the short term, but that isn't an excuse to use them (or if you really have to, use gas). I can understand the third world needs energy as well, but ironically they would be suited to using solar panels, or a solar panel and hydrogen cell set-up - they won't be chained down to fuel purchases, you can put the panels where they are needed without worrying about pollution or supply, and they require less maintenance. You could use a cell system of small plants, instead of one large one with all the infrastructure that requires.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;36122191]Okay but what happens when a super volcano erupts and you loose the sun? Germans left without power, nuclear stations remain.[/QUOTE] this is probably the stupidest thing i've read today. when a super volcano erupts we'll probably all starve to death or die otherwise painful deaths

[QUOTE=Lazor;36122752]this is probably the stupidest thing i've read today. when a super volcano erupts we'll probably all starve to death or die otherwise painful deaths[/QUOTE] You'll be dead while I'm in my nuclear powered bunker eating algae. To the vaults brothers!