Germany decides to abandon nuclear power by 2022

[Chakra-X]

We are going to need to get past fossil fuels though.

I'm still mad that we have a huge fireball factory in space that generates free energy, but we can only use a weeeee bit for power.

 

[DiebytheSword]

We are going to need to get past fossil fuels though.

I'm still mad that we have a huge fireball factory in space that generates free energy, but we can only use a weeeee bit for power.

No one said we shouldn't. What I said is that it needs to be done responsibly. You can cut off oil production for ****s and giggles, but you need to have something that can replace it. There is nothing, NOTHING, on earth that could concievably replace oil today, tommorow, or next week. The Sun is a fantastic idea, except that every roof in the world would need a solar panel filled with poisonous metals (electronics), that doesn't reliably produce energy (overcast), can't withstand a hailstorm (glass roofs are not popular for a reason), can clear itself of snow (some can now, or so I hear), and can power your car, the trucks that deliver stuff to you and heat your ass in the norther and southern extremes. People who live in sunny states should not assume that the fires of the sun can pierce the darkest woods of Germany or Pennsylvania for that matter. Not to make things political, but the current push to drive up the price of oil so we'll get off of it and do something green will freeze a lot of asses this winter. That same oil heats many of my freinds houses, and they don't know how they are going to pay for a tanker full of oil at this point. The oil is there, were just not allowed to drill it, frack it, or burn it. Instead, we must now invest $10,000 or more to install a wind turbine that can catch fire or a solar array that won't work through the cold ass Pocono winter.

Does that mean we stop reasearching other power sources? No. It means we use them when they are ready, which they aren't.

 

[Avenger]

@Cucumba:

The second law of thermodynamics does not bend to your will here. The term "renewable" is a specific term, it does not mean "infinitely renewable", it simply means that it is an energy-source that will not be consumed because we have such a ridiculously large amount of it that we cannot spend it all in a realistic timeframe.

I know that you don't "believe" in climate change, as you probably do not believe in evolution or the lex parsimoniae, and as such I will have a hard time helping you understand that renewable energy is not a fantasy thing, and that it is in fact what we will rely upon in the future. Some things of interest:

Solar cells are constantly being improved upon, making them far more efficient, and viable for long term investment. They will at some point become a competative power source to fossil and nuclear fuels, once supply and demand balances out (and I can assure you it will).

Battery capacity is also constantly being improved upon, and we expect to see "living" batteries that improve over time in a decade or so - not to mention the implementation of nanowires that substantially increase battery efficiency which is only a few years away.

Wind power is more limited, but is still viable in areas with a great deal of wind and a low population.

Fusion, although not truly renewable, will be making its entrance around a hundred years from now, and at this point, solar power will likely be efficient enough to power up a majority of the domestic grid, whereas fusion will handle industry.

Fossil and fissile fuels require storage space and a consideration for pollution, and they will become increasingly scarce over the years, whereas the energy sources above will not.

That being said, we cannot meet the current energy requirement with renewables, so they are necessary until they can be gradually replaced. That does not make renewables "fantasy fuels", and saying so implies at least a mild ignorance of modern energy trends.

 

[DiebytheSword]

@Cucumba:

The second law of thermodynamics does not bend to your will here. The term "renewable" is a specific term, it does not mean "infinitely renewable", it simply means that it is an energy-source that will not be consumed because we have such a ridiculously large amount of it that we cannot spend it all in a realistic timeframe.

I know that you don't "believe" in climate change, as you probably do not believe in evolution or the lex parsimoniae, and as such I will have a hard time helping you understand that renewable energy is not a fantasy thing, and that it is in fact what we will rely upon in the future. Some things of interest:

Solar cells are constantly being improved upon, making them far more efficient, and viable for long term investment. They will at some point become a competative power source to fossil and nuclear fuels, once supply and demand balances out (and I can assure you it will).

Battery capacity is also constantly being improved upon, and we expect to see "living" batteries that improve over time in a decade or so - not to mention the implementation of nanowires that substantially increase battery efficiency which is only a few years away.

Wind power is more limited, but is still viable in areas with a great deal of wind and a low population.

Fusion, although not truly renewable, will be making its entrance around a hundred years from now, and at this point, solar power will likely be efficient enough to power up a majority of the domestic grid, whereas fusion will handle industry.

Fossil and fissile fuels require storage space and a consideration for pollution, and they will become increasingly scarce over the years, whereas the energy sources above will not.

That being said, we cannot meet the current energy requirement with renewables, so they are necessary until they can be gradually replaced. That does not make renewables "fantasy fuels", and saying so implies at least a mild ignorance of modern energy trends.

This, this right here. [broad gesture with arms wide at your post on my big monitor]

This is why we have a hard time communicating without trouble. I disagree with you, therefore:

1) "I will have a hard time helping you understand" As if I am a bleeting ignorant cave beast that needs your elevation to become enlightened, you couldn't think of a better way to reach an understanding? Of course not! You don't want an understanding, only that every viewpoint naturally assume its submissive position to yours. Because you are always right.
2) "saying so implies at least a mild ignorance of modern energy trends" Oh that's right. I forgot, I'm ignorant, and since I haven't reached the same conclusions I clearly need to be told twice.

The sad thing? We agree. Re-read my posts. None of these things are hear yet, you yourself point this out with every bullet. These things all fail to put out more useful energy than it takes to make them work for us. Solar panels will be awesome when, Wind would be great if only, Batteries are getting better (and still won't generate enough heat to warm your car in winter, this is why the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf failed miserably over here).

I can declare that we will one day have warp drive to sail the stars, and I'd be pitching pure fantasy if I said we could do it right now. We can't. Would you rather that I use the term science fiction? These things NEED to be worked on, I've stated that as well prior to this post. Until then, Fossil Fuels are your reality. Have faith in green all you want, until it works its just your imaginary friend.

As an aside, Climate Change is never something I challenged. It HAS changed multiple times throughout our past. The arrogance with which people believe that man can destroy or fix the earth is what I've always disagreed with. So can the world get hotter or cooler? Sure, the Wooly Mammoths and Dinosaurs had the thermostats at wildly different settings. Does my car, and every other car on earth accelerate or decelerate this process, I would think not. Since one Volcano, moody Sun, or impact event could undo whatever impact we had in a moment, I would worry more about them than wether my car has performance robbing emissions controls (which ironically forces me to burn more fuel and put even more **** in the air).

Do I think Fossil Fuels will run out? No, but they'll get so hard to get to it might as well run out. At which point some other energy source will be what we turn to.
Do I think we should stop working on renewable energy, or stuff we can't deplete, in the time it takes the sun to go all Red Giant on us? Hell yeah, its called forward planning. When you shoot yourself in the foot with it, its called self sabotage.

None of our power solutions work other than Nuclear and Fossil Fuels, turning them off now so we can develop green energy, is, well, kind of stupid.

Example; my car sucks. It's running now, and it does the job, but it stinks up the place, and my weird European neighbor is getting all tin-foil hat on me, stocking up on end of the world stuff because the weather changes. Its time to sell this bad boy! In my rush to hug the trees, however, it seems I forgot I need a car to get to work. Now I can't afford a car.

Well, you get my point. Or at least you should, your so darn superior.

 

[Avenger]

1) "I will have a hard time helping you understand" As if I am a bleeting ignorant cave beast that needs your elevation to become enlightened, you couldn't think of a better way to reach an understanding? Of course not! You don't want an understanding, only that every viewpoint naturally assume its submissive position to yours. Because you are always right.

Well, this is my actual field of study, you'll have to pardon me if I seem patronizing. This is literally what I do. And let's face it, you started off quite hostile by calling renewable energy "fantasy", which it certainly is not by any modern standard. You see, my nation, is actually fortunate enough to have hydropower, which is renewable (to some extent), and extremely efficient. Do you think hydropower was very efficient before they invented proper turbines? No, and they never would have had they not seen the potential and necesstiy for efficient, clean power at a relatively low cost.

2) "saying so implies at least a mild ignorance of modern energy trends" Oh that's right. I forgot, I'm ignorant, and since I haven't reached the same conclusions I clearly need to be told twice.

I attend lectures and seminars on the subject, as well as know several people who work with fossil fuels (consultants for the Norwegian oil and gas industry), so I think it's at least somewhat fair to say I know this quite well in comparison to say, someone who doesn't do these things.

The sad thing? We agree. Re-read my posts. None of these things are hear yet, you yourself point this out with every bullet. These things all fail to put out more useful energy than it takes to make them work for us. Solar panels will be awesome when, Wind would be great if only, Batteries are getting better (and still won't generate enough heat to warm your car in winter, this is why the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf failed miserably over here).

We do not agree as much as you'd like. You blatantly misused a law of physics to suit your rhetoric. There is no logic in using that law to support your argument. Next up, we have the different opinions we have on efficiency! See, we have already succeeded in making efficient solar panels. Norway is one of the pioneering countries in this, and the US is some distance behind, so I don't blame you for not understanding this (look up Renewable Energy Company, it's doing quite well these days. Either way, the reason we can't supply enough power, is we don't have enough solar panels. We can't pump them out fast enough. It just takes too much time, and it's not a matter of efficiency or cost! It's just time consuming to make.

True, we have not converted yet, but that is because governments are hesitant to make the switch. Honestly, if not for the oil industry back in the day, we would already be using electric cars, and could have contained large amounts of the CO2 emissions that resulted from the electricity generation.

As an aside, Climate Change is never something I challenged. It HAS changed multiple times throughout our past. The arrogance with which people believe that man can destroy or fix the earth is what I've always disagreed with. So can the world get hotter or cooler? Sure, the Wooly Mammoths and Dinosaurs had the thermostats at wildly different settings. Does my car, and every other car on earth accelerate or decelerate this process, I would think not. Since one Volcano, moody Sun, or impact event could undo whatever impact we had in a moment, I would worry more about them than wether my car has performance robbing emissions controls (which ironically force me to burn more fuel and put even more **** in the air).

I said anthropological climate change. Almost all scientists agree that mankind has contributed to global warming to at least some extent, and anyone with a high school diploma and a physics/chemistry book can tell you why. Your car does very little. Every car in the world contributes what, between 5 and 20% of human CO2 emissions (which is a huge amount, contrasted with natural CO2 which took millions of years to reach that level). Cars aren't such a huge problem, however- the problem is the source of electricity for industry and domestic markets. See, driving an electric car doesn't matter if you're getting your electricity from coal. In Norway, you'd be doing the world a huge favour by not driving a fossil-powered car, because pretty much all our electricity is clean. In your state, it's probably just as stupid to drive an electric car, so I agree that a lot of people have jumped on the bandwagon without understanding their predicament.

Oh, and your statement about volcanoes, etc? Please recant that, it's just plain wrong, and I'd rather you remain at least somewhat factual if you're going to have an aggressive attitude towards me.

Do I think Fossil Fuels will run out? No, but they'll get so hard to get to it might as well run out. At which point some other energy source will be what we turn to.
Do I think we should stop working on renewable energy, or stuff we can't deplete, in the time it takes the sun to go all Red Giant on us? Hell yeah, its called forward planning. When you shoot yourself in the foot with it, its called self sabotage.

"Run out" clearly means "no longer available at an affordable price" in this context. I'm confused as to what you mean by shoot yourself in the foot - I for one wouldn't expect anyone to buy an electrical car, for instance. But I would expect people to get their politicians to push the agenda on renewable energy sources, and to be veered off of fossil and nuclear fuels as quickly as is realistically possible.

None of our power solutions work other than Nuclear and Fossil Fuels, turning them off now so we can develop green energy, is, well, kind of stupid.

I don't believe I ever argued we would be turning them off, so this is a straw-man. No scientist in my field would tell you that we should turn off fossil fuels or nuclear power and go cold turkey without anything to hold us over. Cutting down, however, wouldn't be a bad idea.

Example; my car sucks. It's running now, and it does the job, but it stinks up the place, and my weird European neighbor is getting all tin-foil hat on me, stocking up on end of the world stuff because the weather changes. Its time to sell this bad boy! In my rush to hug the trees, however, it seems I forgot I need a car to get to work. Now I can't afford a car.

Like I said, no one has ever suggested you should do any of these things. It's just nonsensical to bring it up in the first place.

Well, you get my point. Or at least you should, your so darn superior.

When I've heard similar arguments from a five year old, thenyes, I will act superior. I expect better from you than rhetoric, thinly veiled and poorly executed.

On a side note, you'd be doing the world a favour if you found a way to make computer production more energy efficient. The production of a computer is ridiculously anti-green.

 

[harSens]

People who live in sunny states should not assume that the fires of the sun can pierce the darkest woods of Germany or Pennsylvania for that matter.

There's not a whole lot of people living there though. Those that do live in the middle of a renewable energy source We can go a long way with smart local production and more efficient use of the energy we have. For example, most green houses are now so efficient that they produce rather than consume electricity, rest heat from industry can be (and was in my former apartment) used to heat houses, etc.

 

[Grega]

I think we need to start planning GEO thermal power plants instead.

Using an underground magma stream to boil water rather than burning coal. The idea has a future, it just needs investors and researchers to come up with a system thats actually doable with our technology.

 

[dutchmeat]

I think we need to start planning GEO thermal power plants instead.

Using an underground magma stream to boil water rather than burning coal. The idea has a future, it just needs investors and researchers to come up with a system thats actually doable with our technology.

I've heard of that theory, using underground warmth to generate power.
However, if we're going to use this technology everwhere in the world, wouldn't that decrease the earth's core tempature over x years ?
A decrease of tempature in the core might result in a decrease of the speed of the core's flow, proberly messing up the earth's magnatic field and what more.

But then again, I'm no scientist.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Well, this is my actual field of study, you'll have to pardon me if I seem patronizing. This is literally what I do. And let's face it, you started off quite hostile by calling renewable energy "fantasy", which it certainly is not by any modern standard. You see, my nation, is actually fortunate enough to have hydropower, which is renewable (to some extent), and extremely efficient. Do you think hydropower was very efficient before they invented proper turbines? No, and they never would have had they not seen the potential and necesstiy for efficient, clean power at a relatively low cost.

You don't seem patronizing, by your own admission you are patronizing. I am asking you nicely to stop. Its unwarranted, and you will never change minds this way. If you want me to see your point of view, you'd do best to treat me as an adult, which I am nearly twice your age, and certainly not a child. Hydropower, an excellent example, where and when we can use it, it is used. It can't be used everywhere because it affects migration of Salmon. This brings me back to the points I was using before: It will hurt something. There is always a drawback, period. How many birds are killed annually by wind farms? Pennsylvania is a land locked state, it has a great lake in one distant corner. Hydroelectric power is out of our grasp. We're a fairly wet state, Solar Power does not work well here. When we get our violent wind storms in spring and fall, they take a fair amount of damage. Hail, again, causes damage in the summer. My point isn't that we shouldn't try, its that we need to proceed in a way that keeps the affordable existing power going while the other types of energy are developed. European nationals seem to forget the US is an entirely different beast. Rewiriing a state the size of country is no mean feat.

I attend lectures and seminars on the subject, as well as know several people who work with fossil fuels (consultants for the Norwegian oil and gas industry), so I think it's at least somewhat fair to say I know this quite well in comparison to say, someone who doesn't do these things.

I don't automatically taunt people who don't understand computer science. I'm afraid you've made your point and it shows terribly bad character on your part.

We do not agree as much as you'd like. You blatantly misused a law of physics to suit your rhetoric. There is no logic in using that law to support your argument. Next up, we have the different opinions we have on efficiency! See, we have already succeeded in making efficient solar panels. Norway is one of the pioneering countries in this, and the US is some distance behind, so I don't blame you for not understanding this (look up Renewable Energy Company, it's doing quite well these days. Either way, the reason we can't supply enough power, is we don't have enough solar panels. We can't pump them out fast enough. It just takes too much time, and it's not a matter of efficiency or cost! It's just time consuming to make.

There's no logic in it? Entropy causes all kinds of problems with power transmission. Solar power does get over this part, but has other issues. If your losing more power over your power lines than you're making with a wind farm, you are not getting ahead. I'm not even going to get into the mind boggling logic of how bad electrics and hybrids are here. More fossil fuel is used to deliver the parts than a locally made car would use if it burned gas. Because of ridiculous emission laws, cars have been made horribly inneficient.

True, we have not converted yet, but that is because governments are hesitant to make the switch. Honestly, if not for the oil industry back in the day, we would already be using electric cars, and could have contained large amounts of the CO2 emissions that resulted from the electricity generation.

Electric cars will not work. They don't defrost windshields here. I'd hate to see them work where its really cold. Does that mean we shouldn't work at them? No, of course not. Its an example of jumping into the technology when it has not replaced the internal combustion engine in every concievable way. This is what I mean about flipping the switch. Our Commander in Chief is no scientist. He intends to make fossil fuels as painful as possible to use when the fossil fuels are the only thing in our infrastructure that currently works. Instead of spending billions on banks, he should have spent it on infrastructure projects that get the type of set up that makes it sensible to switch to renewable energy. He has not, and yet he is flipping that switch anyway.

I said anthropological climate change.

No, you did not. I'm not going to quote you to prove you wrong. You misspoke.

and I'd rather you remain at least somewhat factual if you're going to have an aggressive attitude towards me.

Who started the aggression? Don't presume that I'm feeling aggressive towards you when I'm not. You insulted me twice in one post and I'm supposed to be happy with it and lick your boots? Please. Your arrogance does not suit you. You're a smart kid with a smart mouth, bad combination because you could be so much more than what you lower yourself to.

"Run out" clearly means "no longer available at an affordable price" in this context. I'm confused as to what you mean by shoot yourself in the foot - I for one wouldn't expect anyone to buy an electrical car, for instance. But I would expect people to get their politicians to push the agenda on renewable energy sources, and to be veered off of fossil and nuclear fuels as quickly as is realistically possible.

Agreed, what we disagree on is the method of pushing (Obama's careless approach towards it is a real concern for the US.), and what is realistically possible.

I don't believe I ever argued we would be turning them off, so this is a straw-man. No scientist in my field would tell you that we should turn off fossil fuels or nuclear power and go cold turkey without anything to hold us over. Cutting down, however, wouldn't be a bad idea.

It is most certainly not a straw man when it is an actual concern in my country. Some of Obama's cabinet are scientists, and cutting off Fossil Fuels without having anything in place to take over in a realistic way is not only what they are advocating, but what they are already working towards. See Obama's neccesarily skyrocket comment for proof in concept.

Like I said, no one has ever suggested you should do any of these things. It's just nonsensical to bring it up in the first place.[/qoute]

You got me there, what is realistic in Norway is totally realistic in the United States.

When I've heard similar arguments from a five year old, thenyes, I will act superior. I expect better from you than rhetoric, thinly veiled and poorly executed.

Not all of my comments were rhetoric, as I've pointed out. My countries situation is not the same as yours.

[qoute]On a side note, you'd be doing the world a favour if you found a way to make computer production more energy efficient. The production of a computer is ridiculously anti-green.

I don't actually work in my field of study. The Dot Com crash of the 90s has more or less permanently sealed that line of work off from me. Its too late for me to start over and try to get back into it.

That being said, both AMD and Intel are hard at work lowering thermal waste and thus power consumption.

The company where I work has made energy conservation steps, which I wholly support. Lights that turn off when they don't sense movement in the area, lights that consume less energy, a new Cimate Control unit which maintains our air temperature at the desired levels AND consumes less electricity. There are countless things that are realistic to do. Switching to solar and wind in the united states are not realistic at this point in time. Saying they are in Norway is like congratulating the Romulans for having their warp drive and how much it will help the world; it doesn't apply here. Good for you Romulan, enjoy deep space.

I have no problem getting off of fossil fuels, so long as were being serious about when it can be done and devolping it on the side until its ready to go.

 

[DiebytheSword]

There's not a whole lot of people living there though. Those that do live in the middle of a renewable energy source We can go a long way with smart local production and more efficient use of the energy we have. For example, most green houses are now so efficient that they produce rather than consume electricity, rest heat from industry can be (and was in my former apartment) used to heat houses, etc.

And those people are both fortunate and well positioned to do so. Not everyone is, hence the point of my comments. Rest heat from industry works in a small nation, the United States is quite a bit larger. You've been here, you've been in my state too if I'm not mistaken to visit PCJoe, we don't have everything built on top of industrial buildings, in most cases, not even remotely near them. That's not to say we don't build energy efficient buildings, some are very efficient and use very little power to heat the home thanks to Ceramic Heating and off peak hour charging. And yes, I've heard of people producing enough energy to put back on the grid, but those set ups are prohibitively expensive which bring me back to the feasible thing. If you can't afford it what good is it?

 

[Eon]

eh, environmental activists are a renewable resource so we should just use them for power generation.

 

[Avenger]

Soylent green is people.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Soylent green is people.

I'd agree with this, but I'd be labeled a gun nut for listening to Charleton Heston.

 

[harSens]

And those people are both fortunate and well positioned to do so. Not everyone is, hence the point of my comments. Rest heat from industry works in a small nation, the United States is quite a bit larger. You've been here, you've been in my state too if I'm not mistaken to visit PCJoe, we don't have everything built on top of industrial buildings, in most cases, not even remotely near them. That's not to say we don't build energy efficient buildings, some are very efficient and use very little power to heat the home thanks to Ceramic Heating and off peak hour charging. And yes, I've heard of people producing enough energy to put back on the grid, but those set ups are prohibitively expensive which bring me back to the feasible thing. If you can't afford it what good is it?

Fair enough. There are quite some densely populated areas in the world though (Europe, Japan, China). I think it's feasible for Germany to get rid of nuclear power by 2022 without resorting to coal, oil, natural gas or other fossil fuels. Your arguments seem to center around "you can't use renewable energy Y at place X". I agree with you that renewable energy is perhaps more location specific than, say, oil and that getting electricity from renewable energy is perhaps still somewhat troublesome. However, in a lot of places the right kind of green energy (or reuse of 'gray' energy) will work, and a lot of applications do not require electricity, but simply heat or mechanical power, which can often be obtained efficiently without resorting to electricity or oil.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Fair enough. There are quite some densely populated areas in the world though (Europe, Japan, China). I think it's feasible for Germany to get rid of nuclear power by 2022 without resorting to coal, oil, natural gas or other fossil fuels. Your arguments seem to center around "you can't use renewable energy Y at place X". I agree with you that renewable energy is perhaps more location specific than, say, oil and that getting electricity from renewable energy is perhaps still somewhat troublesome. However, in a lot of places the right kind of green energy (or reuse of 'gray' energy) will work, and a lot of applications do not require electricity, but simply heat or mechanical power, which can often be obtained efficiently without resorting to electricity or oil.

And I'll stress again that there is nothing wrong with doing it where and when its feasible, so long as the switch is done with forethought.

 

[Nemix]

Since when does using nuclear energy, cause pollution? It in fact does NOT cause pollution in the sense of CO2 (apart from getting the ores). The only waste it has is radioactive waste. And while that is incredibly nasty stuff, nuclear powerplants produce a lot of power. You'd need roughly between 2500 and 3000 wind mills to produce equal the power. Imagine the amount of space 3000 windmills need. And 2500-ish windmills is based on having wind 24/7. So really, you'd need a lot more, 4 times more. So while a nuclear power plant is about 2 square miles large, 10,000 wind mills will cover a piece of land the size of 375 square miles. 375 square miles that can be used for other important things, housing, food, nature, etc.

source (possibly not reliable, but I am inclined to believe him and cannot be arsed right now to do the calculations myself): http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080520021116AAM0ZEM

Incidentally, stuff like this can also be taken in account (that said, the recent events in Japan blow these away, but still):



http://www.inquisitr.com/18588/wind-power-causes-more-deaths-than-nuclear-power/

So it does pollute because of the radioactive waste, so I'm right. XD

 

[Avenger]

Of course it pollutes. Virtually everything does.

 

[Eon]

So it does pollute because of the radioactive waste, so I'm right. XD

Your ass puts methane into the ozone everytime you fart.

Fix that.

 

[Avenger]

Methane into the ozone? How high are you right now?

And yes, I've heard of people producing enough energy to put back on the grid, but those set ups are prohibitively expensive which bring me back to the feasible thing. If you can't afford it what good is it?

They'll get cheaper. A friend of mine is working on nanofilms, which will cost virtually nothing, and add percentages to efficiency. Plus, you could use solar panels (thermal) for heating if nothing else. Even you could do that, and it's not ridiculously expensive. Hell, you could do it yourself, with enough know-how. PV solar is expensive but getting cheaper and better, whereas thermal solar has been cheap for a while. Plus it's an investment into your own home, not into some corporation. I know a ton of fairly conservative farmers who buy geothermal and solar, simply because a) it's not all that expensive as a long term investment, and b) they're paying money into their own home.

Think of renewable energy as owning, and fossil/nuclear energy as renting. Sure, a lot of people have to rent, but if you can afford it, you should buy.

In theory, we might all become energy independent in a few decades. That would be pretty awesome.

 

[Avenger]

Windmills really aren't pretty. They hire consultants for millions of dollars to figure out how to hide them as best as possible.