Why not require all commercial building to have solar power?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why not require all commercial building to have solar power?

Wheeee: Mar 11, 2001; When a tree grows, it is soft and pliable. But when it's dry and hard, it dies.

Hardness and strength are death's companions. Flexibility and softness are the embodiment of life.

That which has become hard shall not triumph.

SKELETONS posted:

This wouldn't work in LA because buildings over a certain height are required to have helipads. Mandating a fission nuclear reactor in the basement of all buildings would, however, and would be far less unsightly.

Whoa now, I don't want no god drat atoms in my city, power's gotta be safe ya know?

# ¿ Sep 17, 2014 06:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 17:29

Wheeee: Mar 11, 2001; When a tree grows, it is soft and pliable. But when it's dry and hard, it dies.

Hardness and strength are death's companions. Flexibility and softness are the embodiment of life.

That which has become hard shall not triumph.

Hybrid cars are stupid, they still burn gas. They should put a wind turbine on top of the cars so they can charge with the wind as they drive instead that way they could drive on battery all the time.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2014 07:24

Wheeee: Mar 11, 2001; When a tree grows, it is soft and pliable. But when it's dry and hard, it dies.

Hardness and strength are death's companions. Flexibility and softness are the embodiment of life.

That which has become hard shall not triumph.

Cool Bear posted:

I just read the OP and I regret to inform you that you have all been trolled by a master of the internet who has tricked you into describing your knowledge and recommendations for the future of renewable energy! You fools! The answer is thorium anyway

Thorium reactors still have engineering hurdles that need to be resolved to bring power plants online, that poo poo's corrosive as hell.

Fact is that there's no political will in the West to develop nuclear power and arguing about its technical merits isn't going to change that. Solar and wind are inferior technologies that will keep us reliant on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future but that's where the cultural capital and money are.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2014 09:51

Wheeee: Mar 11, 2001; When a tree grows, it is soft and pliable. But when it's dry and hard, it dies.

Hardness and strength are death's companions. Flexibility and softness are the embodiment of life.

That which has become hard shall not triumph.

blowfish posted:

Since , and :india: are currently ironing out the issues with breeders and Thorium reactors, we'll probably import Chinese nuclear power plants after solar/wind top out due to insufficient storage.

Hell naw son, :911:

would never import that commie garbage, instead there will be trillion-dollar contracts given to Lockheed to develop their own drat reactors once the need is great enough to overcome cultural and political barriers.

Really the only way that nuclear could take off again in America is if the Koch brothers decided to complete their transformation into cartoon villains and astroturf a new political movement to allow them to build plants.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2014 10:25

Wheeee: Mar 11, 2001; When a tree grows, it is soft and pliable. But when it's dry and hard, it dies.

Hardness and strength are death's companions. Flexibility and softness are the embodiment of life.

That which has become hard shall not triumph.

Cool Bear posted:

Nuclear power is not profitable in the short run.

Which is why it's basically dead in :911:

and being pursued in places like :china:

# ¿ Sep 20, 2014 10:33

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why not require all commercial building to have solar power?