I refer to solar wall, which is Tesla tech, because I've not heard anything negative regarding overloads, and the smart systems they use to turn on and off panels or shift power output to the net meter is supposed to be about as efficient as it gets.

I'm a fan of Nuclear, I just don't see any real major expansions on US nuclear due to meltdown fears. Even Obama renewed permits for new plants and issued new ones, as had Trump. Unfortunately, new plants aren't being built, as the power companies don't want to assume the risk, and many places where the state/federal governments are willing to subsidize, protesters end up getting the project shut down.

If Joe Biden really wants to do a good thing, he'll put on a massive push to normalize Nuclear power generation in stable areas of the nation. I just don't think it'll happen though. To much time in the education system spent teaching kids how terrifying meltdowns and their aftereffects are.

It's the nuclear waste that we are punting for some future generations to deal with. If you will it's a extremely toxic battery that will eventually has to be safely disposed of, but who knows maybe we will come up with some solutions

This post was edited by addone on Feb 7 2021 01:40pm

Ultimately, I think waste solutions for nuclear are going to be identical to waste solutions for solar: Store it on the moon.

Bear with me here, Tesla, the same company that's pushing so hard to normalize solar roofing and solar batteries is also pushing SpaceX development in an attempt to make something like moon flight "easy". Give it a few more decades, I don't honestly see why we can't merely store waste on the moon, but mine some of the silicates and other such FROM the moon, turning solar not only "better" but truly clean and far cheaper, and virtually limitless in quantity.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Feb 7 2021 01:58pm

not practical or cost efficient. Imagine taking waste to the moon, the sheer cost and logistics to then bury the waste. You wouldn't simply just place it on the moon and walk away. It would take thousands of years to break down to acceptable level not to mention we have something like 12000 tonnes of high level wastes on the planet every year. By the time we get space travel like taking a bus ride to school our power generation would make nuclear obsolete. At the moment its a necessary evil.

The moon is a limitless energy resource. Setting up a mining operation and a digging operation is the hard part. Once it's initially set up, the moon is perfectly viable as a heavy metal resource and a waste disposal site. Hell, the only really difficult part is getting out of the Earth's Atmosphere. If He3 is the super power resource we think it is, and is as abundant on the moon as we think it is, the probability of new forms of propulsion engineered to get to and from the moon become far more attainable.

...maybe.

it's not even about practicability or cost efficiency - i dont see how this approach could be energy efficient. the energy it takes to ship 1 ton of load to the moon should exceed the amount of energy you can get out of 1 ton of nuclear waste; or at the very least make a huge dent into the net energy gain from this source of power.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 8 2021 03:55am

just blablabla... where are the (political) pictures?

To rebut the argument of many Americans that snow and/or cold makes it impossible to cycle:

What do you figure the temperature is in those photos?
Is cycling in -30 to 40 C reasonable in your opinion?

This post was edited by remco6 on Feb 8 2021 12:36pm

there is almost no snow on the street... rediculous