Has anyone bothered to look into Hillary's proposal to build half a billion solar panels?

This is something I've never gotten about environmentalists.

Can't we literally do both?

none of the shit she proposes can be paid for.

Molten Salt Reactors or LFTR are perfectly safe.

And they provide alot more power then coal or solar.

youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI

But you cant make bombs with a Thorium Reactor right... ?

thanks doc

Solar panels are outrageously expensive and actually have a large environment impact due to the space they take up and the materials needed to construct/maintain them,

The difference is coal power is naturally profitable and would develop without government interference. Solar is not.

It just shows how stupid Clinton supporters are.

They dont even know what a Thorium Reactor is.

>why wasn't this fact checked?

Why do you think?

As much as The West Wing tries my patience, their cynical jew Josh Lyman explains it pretty well: youtube.com/watch?v=7fkMR96I0sw

It's no different than any other politician's bullshit promise. Can't be done, won't be done. Just a good "why yuo no suppert :DDDDD?" cudgel to brain opponents over the head with.

Thorium reactors can either be designed such that you can make bombs, or so that they are essentially impossible to operate due to hard gamma emissions.

Only one of those is actually an option.

Literally Fedora energy

Yeah but couldn't the government just run solar at a tax deficit to supplement its own electricity programs or some shit?

I dunno.

I see no reason we can't use Solar to decrease the amount of coal we need while still digging coal up until its out.

I don't need to fucking get my pay cut and my engineer cousin doesn't need to see his mates lose his jobs because the government hates coal.

Of course, hybridized systems with multiple power sources is better. You can even have tiered charges. People who want greener options can pay a bit extra. We apply the same thing to animal ethics in Aus. People want chickens to have more space, so you charge more for pasture eggs than cage ones. Greenies dont like putting their wallets where there mouths are. There is zero problems with offering different products to suit different budgets or ideologies. Anyobe who says otherwise is a comie, and that applies to both sides of the fence. If people pay into solar then r n d gets spent on better solar, bussiness always fund established markets in order to expand them.

Forget that. Has Antoine even noticed how big a failure solar is? It's a total scam. Not because it doesn't work (it does) but it's so corrupt it only screws the customer. Here in Vegas people spent millions on installing panels with the promise that they'd be paid back in energy once the grid went live then SUPRISE no one was allowed to hook their panels to the grid because it would undercut the electric company. So solar city (an Obama company) pockets millions for nothing.

t. Nevadan.

7.5 trillion USD folks
A presidential candidate just proposed to increase spending by 7.5 trillion USD

let that sink in
CTR, i know you're reading this, please explain

A Thorium Reactor makes uranium-233 which is not weapons grade.

If you want to make bombs you use a Breeder Reactor or you just reprocess fuel rods out of a LWR.

just use logic and intuition. If it was profitable to build and install solar panels you better believe some rich billionaire fuck would be buying them up and increasing his wealth. That's not happening.

I'm a realist, I think we should invest heavily into research into alternative forms of energy (much more than we do now, cut down on gibs, which dwarf public science research to find it) but in the meantime continue doing anything economically feasible. If we don't mine and burn coal china will, and we'll buy the energy from them, and that's simply a fact. Pissing money down the toilet on economically infeasible solar panels is a sure fire way to a poor economy and an equally bad environment.

>half a billion meme panels
WHY

Here in Ontario, we are now paying some of the highest electricity rates in the world because of Premier Orville Redenbaucher's green energy wealth transfer scheme. I pay $250 a month on average. Only about $50 is actual usage, the rest is various taxes and fees.

Solar and wind is also a blight on the land. Last time I visited home, thousands of acres of arable farmland had been converted to solar farms. You can literally smell the dead ducks, who try to land on them thinking they are water.

And Trump threw it all back at her how the government mismanaged solar already, invested billions and it'll never pay back. The facts, but you can go fact check of Shillary's website and fact check, cause you know, when you can't debate like Hillary you refer people elsewhere.

It'll cost over 500bil to do this, and with the governments track record, it'll operate at a loss. They already did this scam and failed, what'll be different this time? You can't trust the government on big projects like this, Hillary would just give the contracts to friends and family.
What about updating the grid? Then updating plants to go compensate when solar isn't adequate. You do realize our electric infrastructure is 3rd world like Trump said, it's better just for people to put them on their roofs, then you won't need to update the grid which is 1950s tech in parts of NYC and elsewhere.

In the end this is just a big scam to put the government everywhere, when meanwhile optimal is giving tax breaks and rebates or low interest or zero interest loans for people who can install them on their property to do so. If the government does this it'll be one huge money pit.

How do you figure this cost? I want to be prepared when someone says
>MUH cited sources

>I think we should invest heavily into research into alternative forms of energy

No, we already have done the research back in the 50's

We have the Fedora Reactor.

But they wont use them because it upsets the Oil Cartel. So instead its classified under the Invention Secrecy Act.

That is why you dont even know about them, because they keep the idea from you. They know solar is a dream.

They have all the good stuff under lock down.

no, people dont concern themselves with her policies because she actually doesnt have any

her entire voter base is planted firmly in "trump is a mean bully and also hitler"

If Hillary wins, better forget about ever going nuclear because it would displease her Saudi overlords.

Solar panels are useless unless there's an equal backup in alternate energy for them. Same goes for wind turbines, they're but a public relations appeal. The only thing solar panels are good for are small household equipment like a tv or lights

Nuclear is the future, ITER is the way

to get 5kW per panel it will cost $15k per panel currently. Half a billion panels as HRC quoted would cost $7.5 trillion.

>Solar panels are a joke
Depends on which side you are. From the point of view of Germany? Yes: total disater. Huge amounts of wasted subventions on an industry that is now flourishing - in China. Germany? Solar companies are closing one after the other...

America will not be able to compete with China here. So that would just be another highly subventioned/loss-making industry that provides oh soo many new awesome jobs... (for a half a year or something... then we're back to China.)

beat me to the punch
these numbers will look even worse then prices inflate in response to the debate

This, they make the damn things in china, and they have a finite lifespan.

So our renewable energy future relies on paying china out the ass, forever.

>dude solar/wind energy will solve all our energy problems lmao!

Don't tell the goyim that manufacturing semiconductors for solar panels rapes the environment as hard as burning coal ever will

who cares China will be the one building them and they won't last more than 8 years.

then all that toxic waste will be dumped in us land fills or shipped back to china.

any actual environmental nazi was triggered as fuck by that bullshit.

minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/indium/mcs-2013-indiu.pdf

That is because they have the Indium needed to produce ITO which is very scarce on earth and required to have electrically conducting glass.

So the next step is to meme this data for normies?

It is not a serious proposal, it is "virtue signaling" to her "green" supporters.

Solar is fine if we had some place to store all the energy. Until battery tech makes a few leaps, solar will be a a meme technology. Nuclear is the only way to go.

Cred Forums really has no idea how economy works...
That money spend on U.S. companies will give back tax money and loans for thousands of American workers. If done right the U.S. might get into the position to have the best solar tech and can use this to earn money from other first world countries.
It's not an over night thing but in general a good idea since solar might stay around for quite a while.

Trillions of dollars to produce about as much power as maybe a dozen modern nuclear plants, with less efficiency.

People fear what they don't understand, and the public is generally very underinformed or misinformed about nuclear power

Of course we can. What liberals and environmentalists fail to understand is that there is no magic bullet for weening us off fossil fuels. We need to be utilizing more of everything - more wind, more solar, more nuclear, more natural gas, more everything. Even our existing hydroelectric facilities are in desperate need of upgrading.

Thorium is no more viable at this point than sustainable fusion. They work fine on paper and in some small scale tests, but nobody's come up with an industrial scale reactor design that works yet.

an infographic including
etc would be best

duh, but we have to let people know how dumb the proposal actually was

solar will never be economical because of the scarcity of the required materials

Yeah. IMHO it's in general a very bad idea if governents try to push certain industries anyways, for whatever bullshit reasons (muuh green economy; good jobs!!).
The Donalds approach is just SO MUCH BETTER here: make sure companies have a good environment, and dont over-regulate. Companies will figure it out themself in what industries to invest.

Anything else is literally communism anyways.

The nuclear boogeyman is too scurry for libcucks, compared to clean, pretty solar

>the best solar tech
Ha. Weren't you, Germany, supposed to have the best solar tech? How did that turn out for you damn keks?

this

>solar will never be economical because of the scarcity of the required materials

It will as soon as we can store the energy. Today's solar tech is far enough to disprove your point.

She said taxes would pay for it, so essentially she doesn't really know since big business won't actually bother to pay.

There is a limited amount of indium on our planet

Storage is another matter. Soon we will be having wars over lithium, and don't even say fuel cells because the dems killed that

>as soon as we can store the energy
So... we're supposed to invest in batteries now? Build more water dams?

And the U.S. consumes about 5 trillion megawatt (not kilowatt) hours per year.

I did the math once and you could cover every square acre of North America with solar panels and it would only produce about half of the electricity needs of the U.S. alone, assuming that all of North America recieves the same amount of sunlight as sunny Florida.

Solar is fine on a small scale (single family dwellings, etc.) in sunny environments, but you can't power a nation with it.

If there is such a market for solar, why does the government have to prop it up?

This. End of the story.

>So... we're supposed to invest in batteries now? Build more water dams?

I'd invest in battery technology. If you score big there you are set for life.

>There is a limited amount of indium on our planet

>Storage is another matter. Soon we will be having wars over lithium, and don't even say fuel cells because the dems killed that

You have a point there but like oil if the price rises people invest more in mining the material.

>If there is such a market for solar, why does the government have to prop it up?

>If there is a cheaper solution that destroys the planet, why should we stop using it?

Storage it is only an issue when you can produce energy in abundance, which solar is incapable of. It may work for single family dwellings where people are at work for the day, and not consuming power at that time, but not for businesses, or the nation as a whole.

Solar panels require mining of materials that is HORRIBLE for the environment

Guess where that mining is done?

CHYNA

What makes you think they will be 5 KW panels?

500,000,000*5KW is 2,500,000,000,000 watts, 2.5 Terawatts

The US averaged only 5 Gigawatts last year, 2.5 Terawatts is about 500 times more electricity than total US use.

She probably confused a single watt's worth of solar panels with a single solar panel. Half a billion watts in additional capacity is perfectly doable and actually quite reasonable, half a billion panels is not.

China is a shit hole anyway.

If we had somewhere to store energy, solar would be the gold standard. We dont need a dyson sphere when we can build a solar array in orbit to power the entire world. But there is nowhere to put all the excess energy even if you built the worlds biggest battery, it wouldn't be enough.

This is the other side of it, batteries are terribly inefficient, and the ones that aren't are massively expensive

What are we gonna do, have a big fuckin flywheel?

we couldn't afford to build or replace such an array

>americans want to stop the coalburning
kek

I have no idea. I'm for nuclear. I'd be for solar if it were a viable option, but it isn't at this time.

Actually it's worse than that.

Solar panels have a set lifetime. They degrade over the years until they're basically no better than a piece of silicon on your roof. Also, the "efficiency" that is on the label is actually out of around 70% of total possible efficiency. There's a physical limit to how good solar panels can get. right now, most up and coming/in development solar panels run about 10-15% of that 70% limit, and pretty much all solar panels will degrade past 50% efficiency in 20 years. Solar energy is a meme. It will cost more to continuously replace solar panels than it will save us, while causing a huge trash and recycling problem, since not everyone will properly dispose of their old panels.

We should be investing in fusion power, but our government just puts military money into that for weapons research and calls it "ignition"

t. researcher at a university where everyone fangirls over solar panels

5 billion, not trillion

>solar panels flash fry any birds that fly overhead, many of which were endangered
>wind turbines displace endangered animals and chop them up when they get too close

You see they only care about animals when it's helpful to the agenda.

Flaming birds: google.com/amp/sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/08/18/birds-bursting-into-flames-above-solar-farm-stirs-calls-to-slow-expansion-streamer-solar-field-central-valley-heat-streamer-fire-burn/amp/?client=ms-android-sprint-us

Wind turbines:grandforksherald.com/news/region/3805700-study-finds-north-dakota-birds-displaced-wind-turbines

Nope, hydroelectric reservoirs.

When you have spare electricity, you use it to pump water up a reservoir. When you need spare electricity, you let the valves loose and the water powers a generator.

The Brits are masters of this, because they have huge power spike during TV commercial breaks where everyone powers on their 1,500 watt kettles to make tea.

youtube.com/watch?v=slDAvewWfrA

Works fantastic with solar. During the day, spare electricity is stored as hydroelectric, and during the night, it's let loose.

Those aren't solar panels. They are mirrors that direct heat into a water container.

>solar panels flash fry any birds that fly overhead

I think you're confused. You're thinking about the solar reflectors

The panels just make electricity when the sun hits them. They are really bad for the environment still, EXTREMELY toxic to create them.

The only way to get off fossil fuels completely in this century is Nuclear. The new plants are so efficient that they can use waste from older plants as fuel. But the public will through a bitch fit and want only solar and wind cause it's safer.

The U.S. consumes about 5billion mega watts of electricity; or about 5 petawatts. I see where you made the mistake, but you didn't take into account that the consumption statistics are listed as megawatts rather than watts.

>The US averaged only 5 Gigawatts last year
The fuck are you smoking?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption
The US consumed just under 5000 TWh of electricity in 2013 according to the DoE

That's a 570 GW capacity to support the US's electrical needs. Including non-grid consumption it's nearly double that.

If 5 GW was all we needed you could run the entire United States on one modern nuclear plant.

time.com/3972710/hillary-clinton-presidential-election-climate-change/

No it wouldn't because we would be consuming it faster than we could produce it. There wouldn't be anything TO store.

Less than Trumps wall you retarded niggers

see I thought Jews were good at math?

actually my good man, this is one kind of coal burner that should not be gassed

...

ssshhh goy don't tell the other goyim about the true clean energy alternative to fossil fuels they must believe nuclear is bad at all cost

Now that I look at it again, we are both wrong. The wikipedia statistic is in MW*hour/Year, which is 570 gigawatts.

.5 gigawatts is a drop in the bucket, so it's probably 500 million solar panels of a lesser capacity and reduced price.

>normies will eat that up

You don't get it OP
we're just gonna tax the rich people
rich people have a lot of money
once we get all the money we can anything we want

>solar panels

why not make a wall out of solar panels?

The funny thing is rich people already pay most of the taxes.

>nuclear

I like nuclear and all but its hardly our "only option." Open your mind fellow burger.

If we push nuclear we won't need any other options

You see goyim, a wall along the southern border, along with the cost of workers, and all the safety procedures will cost less than the wall, by a lot. Fucking goyims

>Government subsidized solar panels
>Solar companies end up inflating their costs of operation in order to get more money

See: Universities.

>Open your mind fellow burger.

Yes open the mind to more nuclear source investigation

...

5 billion megawatts doesn't convert to 500 gigawatts. You are screwing up your decimal points and prefixes.

>this is fine according to liberals

Fucking morons don't even realize when they're being played

Solar panels work well if they were to be installed on homes/roofs. But, they are uber expensive, so who's gonna make them a mandatory building code enforcement AND pay for them? The cost gets passed onto the consumer (home buyer).

Wind power takes way too many turbines to work. If you live in a zone that has wind, likely you will decimate property values with obstructed views. Undesirable, and not enough returns on investment. At night time, the blinking red lights are FUCKING ATROCIOUS TO LOOK AT. Ask anyone that lives in Kansas or east Colorado. Or the beaches of the costs with now ruined views.

Coal is finite, pollutant, and middle of the road in efficiency. Did I mention it is finite?

Nuclear has it's obvious implications, not to mention the waste. We haven't developed rockets to shoot that shit into the sun yet, either (which would be a cost deficiency). If you think the U.S. is immune to nuclear meltdowns like what recently happened in Japan, take a look at Iran's recent failures by way of COMPUTER VIRUS. One disgruntled computer geek, and BOOM; everyone gets a glowing red tan from exposure.

When you have a massive problem to solve, sometimes the best option is to simply chip at it one piece at a time. Solar panels on every home would create a www of power harvesting across all grids, with stations acting like routers. All you need are electrical engineers to keep fault points routing the juice when a station goes down from lightning strikes or breaker faults.

When services like these run "at profit", we're hindered in progress due to profit. When they are run by government institutions, we're hindered by regulations to a standstill.

The answer to the energy problem will have to come from an outsider, or outsiders, doing what Tesla and Edison did back in the days, before government or stingy capitalists could get their grimey claws on it all.

It doesn't cost anything.

You could transfer tax breaks from oil companies to home owners and utilities to cover loans from utilities to homeowners, and the savings for the utilities in fuel costs and infrastructure plant costs would cover both the interest and the principle.

Austin Texas did this with home energy improvements and alternative energy generation loans that were paid off by the lower costs on utility bills, and didn't have to build a coal fired plant saving billions.

See what real managers can do?

Solar panels is a nice ADDITION

You can never run a city on solar panels alone because you will always need a constant income of energy, otherwise you'd have blackouts every day, solar panels and windmills do not give constant power, energy plants do.

>Storage it is only an issue when you can produce energy in abundance
No, storage is an issue because the average person consumes the majority of their energy at night.

NUCLEAR

They act like a Controlling parent !!!!

Do you want to go to bed now or in 5 mins ?

Guess what MOM, I am growing up and its time to EXTEND MY BEDTIME.