FoolInTheDesert t1_j6n3oqz wrote on January 31, 2023 at 2:41 PM

The ratio of energy in to energy out is an often ignored measure of energy production and it's eventual impact on our planet. Solar and wind might help lower CO2/CO emissions but at a great cost. The energy input to energy output ratio for wind and solar isn't good and it will unfortunately lead to massive habitat and wildlife loss as a result of needing to gobble up raw materials to produce or install enough to get the power we need. We will have to put in almost as much as we get out. With nuclear and natural gas we put in the same inputs and get 20x (or more) the return as solar or wind.

The sad thing is that solar and wind are not going to save us and will probably lead to an increase in habitat loss and destruction all over the planet. Natural gas should be used at utility scale as a bridge until we can build more nuclear power plants since they can be built so much faster.

I am a die hard environmentalist who was converted by having an open mind and just looking at the data.

A1phaBetaGamma t1_j6nj1y7 wrote on January 31, 2023 at 4:22 PM

PV Solar : literally turns sunlight directly to electricity

Wind: A blade rotates a generator

Coal: needs to be mined, transported, pulverized then burned in a 10 storey-high oven to filled with high pressure tubes reaching temperatures of 600°C containing expensive treated water to rotate a blade to rotate a generator.

Edit: I didn't even realise how bullshit the rest of this comment is. Nuclear Power plants take on average 10 years of construction before operating

Sinaaaa t1_j6nilg9 wrote on January 31, 2023 at 4:19 PM

It's very simple to debunk your claims, because energy costs money in China too, so you wouldn't get your solar panels below the manufacturing costs..

ScientificSkepticism t1_j6nygwj wrote on January 31, 2023 at 5:56 PM

> The energy input to energy output ratio for wind and solar isn't good... With nuclear and natural gas we put in the same inputs and get 20x (or more) the return as solar or wind.

The hell is this nonsense? The "energy in" is literally sunlight. Natural gas is gas extracted from the earth that you're burning to create more CO2.

The sunlight is going to hit the earth either way, we're capturing some of it as energy. The efficiency there is infinite.

>The sad thing is that solar and wind are not going to save us and will probably lead to an increase in habitat loss and destruction all over the planet.

Complete nonsense. We'd need a 115,000 square mile solar plant to power the entire world. Libya, a country you probably haven't thought of in a while, is 679,000 square miles.

So to power the entire world we'd need an area less than a quarter the size of Libya. Which, again, is a country you haven't thought about in months. No, this is not actually that much area.

The-Brit t1_j6nebsw wrote on January 31, 2023 at 3:52 PM

Data from biased sources I suspect.

Supertrinko t1_j6og9fa wrote on January 31, 2023 at 7:45 PM

The problem with natural gas is we'll run out. Nuclear is great and environmentally friendly, but we absolutely need renewable sources to back it up. No one's putting a nuclear power plant on Niue for example.