Blow on them really, really hard.



On solar, Azi, you DO realize that first off, solar panels, even crappy civilian ones, pay for themselves in roughly eight years, right? That's materials, labor, AND profit there. And yes, they ARE that efficient that it would really take that little area. Add to that that crappy panels have a ~40-year life span and you've got yourself a pretty good energy source.

Also, they can be put nearly anywhere. You don't need blazing sun for them to work. Germany is using them heavily, I hear, and they're not exactly Arizona over there. Solar panels are still capable of generating power even on cloudy days.

To be frank, with thin-film technologies advancing rapidly, there's not a damn reason solar can't power the world. You can put that stuff in SHINGLES, for crying out loud, not to mention windows and even paint.

On the other hand, people are so stuck on traditional power sources that the public mind is blocking integration. Everyone associates solar panels with hippies. Nuclear, on the other hand, is a black hole of funds which will never be profitable, produces more waste than you give it credit for that is MUCH more dangerous than average, and which has already filled Yucca Mountain, and is very inefficient.

To put it this way, wind and solar are renewable, relatively efficient, and pretty darn cost-effective. I think that makes them a superior option.

Oh no, we're doing experiments!

Reminds me of this thing I read where a kid increased the resolution of a computer at school, explained (to computer asstarded people) that he basically opened up parts of the screen and got in trouble because what if they didn't want them to see those parts of the screens.

...

I'm sorry, but I have nothing. Those people should be put out of their misery as gently as possible. My grandparents are more computer-literate than that, and they had to call me over to their house to tell them how to turn their monitor off.

Solar is not efficient in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The only things it isn't worse than are coal and natural gas. That's what I meant about considering environmental costs. Even nuclear produces way less greenhouse gas.

All I meant in my critique of solar in people's earlier posts is that it was idealistic. I'm not against solar. But half a million square kilometers IS a lot. It's a long term solution, not a short term one. I'm still okay with pursuing it. I fucking am personally pursuing it.

Wind is probably more efficient, particularly those VAWTs for less windy areas. But then there's the whole "People don't want to live near turbines" issue that lowers public interest.

Is there a source you can point me to on this? I'm doing a paper on alternative energy, actually, so any info could be great. Does the same apply to thin-film?

"Not In My Backyard" is a very tiresome mindset a lot of people have and, frankly, tough shit they can learn to deal with it.

Actually, wind farms do plenty well setting up on farm farms. It's nothing but benefit to the farmers, who don't lose the use of their own land and are paid good money as long as the posts are still standing, i.e. effectively forever. There is literally no downside for them.

So, who wants to go replay MGS: Twin Snakes and listen to the very relevant to this topic lecture about how NUCLEAR POWER SUCKS.

Nuklear Power, on the other hand, is a mighty fine thing.

Unless they are a threat to local endangered wildlife, then there's a slight problem with developing wind power.

While some areas may get to enjoy large-scale wind farms, Northwest Arkansas will not be one of those areas. And looking at the solar power potential for the US, we're not a great area to rely extensively on solar paneling either. We need cleaner power production here other than the coal and gas-fired plants we're currently relying on. And unfortunately, Nuclear (fusion and fission) looks like the best choice for growing areas like us.

Your argument would hold more weight if they actually had results on the bats. People love to pull the wildlife card, but the fact of the matter is that the turbines don't actually kill that much.

As for the solar, it looks to me like part of their ratings system is how much empty space there is, which is why Texas isn't lit up more. But to be frank, 4-5 kWh/m^2/day isn't exactly terrible. Not when half of Arizona, the absolute poster-state for solar power, only gets 6-7 and half of California only gets 5-6.

The point being that just because it's in a green area doesn't mean it's not viable. I direct you back to the example of Germany, which is by no means Arizona, who are using the technology just fine.