>>219341 It's kind of hilarious whenever modern kiwis try to warn libshits that supporting muh private companies will eventually bite them in the ass when that's exactly what happened to them. If you asked them for their opinion on things like this during gamergate days they absolutely would have simped for tech corporations.

>>219456 A single solar pannel normally supplies a household, stores energy and after teh reservs are full, can feed back energy to the grid, renewable energies arent as inneficient as that.

>>219462 >renewable energies arent as inneficient as that. Solar isn't renewable?

>>219463 Im the case of disposing of the panels its fucking awfull, yes.

>>219464 How long does a panel last?

>>219465 A hundred years.

>>219462 >>219463 Isn't there also the issue that mining the resources to build the panels are extremely toxic and harmful for the environment?

>>219467 Oh my yes.

>>219465 Depends of the quality of the panel, one in good condition and quality should last around 20 years. >>219467 Yup, i keep saying as someone that worked with renewables, nuclear is the way to go.

>>219465 >>219466 Also, last I heard, the panels only last short of 20 years, which is the amount of time it takes for you to break even from having one.

>>219470 Anon, panels arent that expensive. For example, somethign for your home would cost around 200 to 300 euros.

>>219389 >His death comes mere days after the company - desperate to avoid bankruptcy - had announced that it would be closing 150 stores and laying off around 20% of its employees, per Business Insider. Get woke, go broke and die.

>>219470 Naw ones made in the 60s are still in use. Really comes down to maintenance and an acceptance that they will produce less as time goes on.

>>219471 Inverter costs about the same as panels and lasts half as long, also iron edison batteries so you have power at night if off grid.

>>219471 I don't think the issue is price, it's the mining of rare earth minerals and the disposal of the unusable panels, which are extremely hazardous to the environment.

>>219471 >Anon, panels arent that expensive. To buy them, probably, but what about the installation? The maintenance costs? And, everything else attached to them? Not to mention that I see a bigger return on money spent buying random shit at Costco than I would ever see from the tax credits that the Feds are offering for buying and installing the damn things. >>219473 >and an acceptance that they will produce less as time goes on So, rather than keep with oil (Which we have so much of that we can piss it away) or nuclear (That would give cities more than enough power than they would ever need); governments demand that we adapt a method of power that is highly pollutive to create, requires regular maintenance, and will steadily decline in the amount of power that I can squeeze out of it. >>219475 >and the disposal of the unusable panels, which are extremely hazardous to the environment Honestly, it sounds more like a Captain Planet episode, where some evil company is telling people to adopt this new "magical" energy source, that is suppose to "save" the environment, but the reality is that the development of said energy source is far more damaging to the environment than if they stuck with what people were using prior.

>>219384 She's demanding cummies at gunpoint? The nerve of this damn brat. Correction needed!

>>219476 >development of said energy source is far more damaging to the environment than if they stuck with what people were using prior Welcome to renewables, where everything is >worse for the environment >more expensive >less efficient Except nuclear, which is heresy to anyone preaching about renewables because it solves all your problems.

>>219478 Its cause they are cowards. Afraid of the big bad atom.

>>219479 More like big oil lobbies doing everything in their power to fuck with nuclear.

>>219479 I think some are, but I actually think it's more nefarious than that. I actually think that green energy companies see nuclear as a business-annihilating competitor, so they try their best to remove it from the market.

>>219481 Its much older than that anon, shitting on nuclear has been going on since the 50s.

>>219482 It is the obvious superior method of power generation and fixing the grid. Maybe not these upsized submarine reactors. But there are some interesting things being done in reactor designs today.

>>219483 Yeah of course it is, look at france, they have their nuclear plants going on, 0 problems and they are the ones that have to supply germany with energy because they are retards.

>>219438 >Before the industrial revolution, cities would quite literally be where people would go if they wanted to die sooner. It is the same thing after the industrial revolution.

Someone give the thread a Heavy Metal theme, just cause.

>>219486 I agree with this.

>>219486 I thought it was going to be unjusted Brendan.

>>219486 No, BRENDAN

>>219488 >>219489 FINE JEEZ

I'd have been fine with Brendan.

>>219489 Heavy Brendan

NEW THREAD >>684052 >>684052 >>684052 >>684052 >>684052 >>684052 >>684052 >>684052 >>684052 >>684052 >>684052 NEW THREAD

>>219059 >keto diet >baked beans They're loaded with sugar... >>218871 >clussy More like clonkers.

>>219462 I find that hard to believe. To charge even a mobile phone you need a pretty big solar panel and that's still going to take several many hours until it charges it fully. A regular charger uses just 10W, so to sustain a household with several appliances that each consume hundreds of watts, plus however many more watts you'd need to recharge your batteries, I imagine it's going to take more than just one panel.

>>219471 >300 eurofiats for an entire house's worth of solar panels You mean 30,000.