Interesting and Humour - page 530
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Solar power is not as environmentally friendly as it sounds. Solar cells are bullshit, the main asshole with a battery station. And money-wise, too.
Come on, load your arses point by point.
If there is sun, there is electricity; if there is no sun, there is no electricity. No one needs it. Just like with wind turbines you need a large battery bank. All the way from individual rooms to individual buildings.
The production and disposal of batteries does not improve the environment at all. And the cost of the solar cells themselves in the entire turn-key project is not great.
Not to mention the fact that the lifetime of solar cells and batteries varies many times. I don't remember, but it seems like the batteries last about two or three years. And they need to be replaced.
That's a bit far-fetched - any option for storing kinetic energy, even a weight on a rope.
If there is sun, there is electricity; if there is no sun, there is no electricity. No one needs it. Just like with wind turbines you need a large battery bank. All the way from individual rooms to individual buildings.
What's the point? Accumulation can happen any way you like. You could store hydrogen, for example.
And where to look ? the weight on the rope
What's there to see, we just have to imagine:
weights on a rope, rope on a pulley, sunshine, it turns a motor, motor - pulley, pulley - weight.
No sunshine, the weight unwinds the rope and turns the pulley, and turns the motor, there is energy.
To put it crudely. )
In short, apart from batteries, do you have anything to object to?
what do you mean, object? and to what?
As I said, there is an illusion that solar and wind power are environmentally friendly at the moment.
In short. is there anything besides batteries to argue with?
Yes, there are plenty of objections.
For one thing, more exotic accumulation would reduce efficiency. Also hydrogen extraction will be more costly than simple storage in batteries.
Secondly, all exotic types of energy extraction like solar or wind, are extremely environmentally dependent and will only work in certain regions. Trying to transfer energy from one region (say, where there is a lot of wind or solar) to another region will result in big losses. By the way, hydroelectric power plants are famous for this, as they require expensive transmission lines for thousands of kilometres. The current does not flow through the wires for free, but with losses to heat the street. All this reduces efficiency.
Thirdly, again due to the instability of natural conditions (sun then cloudy, then wind then doldrums, etc.) the capacity of such stations will not be constant, and therefore they cannot be used independently. At the very least, they will have to be combined into one infrastructure with classic power plants. Whichever way you look at it, you come back to the fact that all these "clean" plants are just a supplement to the conventional ones, increasing their energy efficiency, but not replacing them in any way.