It fucking isn't. It really fucking isn't. It damages your house. Anywhere with it is gonna break sooner, as soon as storm, roof, leaks, window can't see out of, don't charge properly, they made this Solar road in France, what went wrong, the road did, and the stupid battery. That battery is often even worse. But it doesn't even provide 30% output, on your demand, it needs a constant back up, and depending on where you are much less. Too hot it doesn't work, the acid depletes, no light no charge. The panels are stacking up like rubber tyres. Billions and billions of tonnes of their horrible waste, it doesn't recycle effectively. It has acid, lead, plastic, and a shit for shit battery. It is just a way of selling another crappy service. A service under constant maintenance, constant repair, constant parts.
A windmill, turbine is better. Again subjective to the weather. But hell you could probably fix it. Panel no chance. Think on that. You want self sufficiency. But you have to make panels and batteries. Hahaha. No chance, services, parts, constant costs. Turbine is better. But it really isn't environmental. You need this big huge pylon and the land cleared, it still falls on your house. But hell you could probably fix it. Nuclear, that fuel isn't available.
Although nothing beats your own ability to make fire. Nothing historically has. Any system where you can power off of it is the only system you complete have control over.
Windmill yes but as you said wind dependant. I have trees on my property and water from the well and dugout. In a desperate situation I can take the multiple spare alternators off my fleet of cars and hook them to a simple windmill or build a steam generator that’s word burning to produce electricity as well as secondary heating. Super cheap plentiful fuel, just a lot of work on my end but doable.
Nuclear fuel could be available and cheap if it wasn’t for idiots and hippies (whops tautology!) being anti nuclear since the 70’s. Theyd rather have a battery powered car same as their cell phone charger by a nimby coal plant.
Yep. The source of fuel is common on this planet. Seawater contains uranium, costly to source that way in comparison. Again to create into reactor fuel is a much bigger process. Hang on, it needs less than constant petrol combustion, but refining it, requires a much bigger process, you're talking for every other household. Nuts. Then there's the waste. Far more parts are needed for any designs. And it uses lots of resources, lots more resources for any cooling or shutdown. Also it doesn't last forever, wears quick, but the output is potentially much more. They are making these mini reactors. Again no longevity but will keep up with demands. Super costly to make.
The fuel source could be mass produced like many other things and be made user serviceable if need be. Having multiple reactors in a neighborhood creates redundancy. If everyone has a car you can bum a ride to work when yours breaks. If everyone has to take the bus, no one’s getting to work if the bus breaks.
I don’t like being on a shared resource with others if I can have a dedicated system for my family that I can maintain. Sometimes the cost is worth it.
I understand your point. However there's a huge cost, converting and enriching it, and no, it's not cheap to refine or mass produce. But it's the amount of parts needed on each system utilized, and the further resources water, salts, and the waste on top. The output is huge, you're talking a town of people powered, 10s of thousand, even on a smaller reactor. But there is that offset, costs, parts, resources, waste. There is also the lifetime where these mini reactors are supposedly only serviceable for around a decade. The first nuclear reactors are faster being replaced not even in a person's lifetime, what around 30 years, generously 50, but that's asking for lies. These newer reactors are using enriched fuels to generate their output. A much greater process.
It fucking isn't. It really fucking isn't. It damages your house. Anywhere with it is gonna break sooner, as soon as storm, roof, leaks, window can't see out of, don't charge properly, they made this Solar road in France, what went wrong, the road did, and the stupid battery. That battery is often even worse. But it doesn't even provide 30% output, on your demand, it needs a constant back up, and depending on where you are much less. Too hot it doesn't work, the acid depletes, no light no charge. The panels are stacking up like rubber tyres. Billions and billions of tonnes of their horrible waste, it doesn't recycle effectively. It has acid, lead, plastic, and a shit for shit battery. It is just a way of selling another crappy service. A service under constant maintenance, constant repair, constant parts.
A windmill, turbine is better. Again subjective to the weather. But hell you could probably fix it. Panel no chance. Think on that. You want self sufficiency. But you have to make panels and batteries. Hahaha. No chance, services, parts, constant costs. Turbine is better. But it really isn't environmental. You need this big huge pylon and the land cleared, it still falls on your house. But hell you could probably fix it. Nuclear, that fuel isn't available.
Although nothing beats your own ability to make fire. Nothing historically has. Any system where you can power off of it is the only system you complete have control over.
Windmill yes but as you said wind dependant. I have trees on my property and water from the well and dugout. In a desperate situation I can take the multiple spare alternators off my fleet of cars and hook them to a simple windmill or build a steam generator that’s word burning to produce electricity as well as secondary heating. Super cheap plentiful fuel, just a lot of work on my end but doable. Nuclear fuel could be available and cheap if it wasn’t for idiots and hippies (whops tautology!) being anti nuclear since the 70’s. Theyd rather have a battery powered car same as their cell phone charger by a nimby coal plant.
Yep. The source of fuel is common on this planet. Seawater contains uranium, costly to source that way in comparison. Again to create into reactor fuel is a much bigger process. Hang on, it needs less than constant petrol combustion, but refining it, requires a much bigger process, you're talking for every other household. Nuts. Then there's the waste. Far more parts are needed for any designs. And it uses lots of resources, lots more resources for any cooling or shutdown. Also it doesn't last forever, wears quick, but the output is potentially much more. They are making these mini reactors. Again no longevity but will keep up with demands. Super costly to make.
The fuel source could be mass produced like many other things and be made user serviceable if need be. Having multiple reactors in a neighborhood creates redundancy. If everyone has a car you can bum a ride to work when yours breaks. If everyone has to take the bus, no one’s getting to work if the bus breaks. I don’t like being on a shared resource with others if I can have a dedicated system for my family that I can maintain. Sometimes the cost is worth it.
I understand your point. However there's a huge cost, converting and enriching it, and no, it's not cheap to refine or mass produce. But it's the amount of parts needed on each system utilized, and the further resources water, salts, and the waste on top. The output is huge, you're talking a town of people powered, 10s of thousand, even on a smaller reactor. But there is that offset, costs, parts, resources, waste. There is also the lifetime where these mini reactors are supposedly only serviceable for around a decade. The first nuclear reactors are faster being replaced not even in a person's lifetime, what around 30 years, generously 50, but that's asking for lies. These newer reactors are using enriched fuels to generate their output. A much greater process.