My fault.
But I will not let go of a chance to educate someone about something they didn't already know or were mistaken about and I hope that it's a reciprocated gesture.
Sometimes the debate proves both of us mistaken and we both learn.
Yes and no.
The fuel (wind/solar) has all the aspects of the weather; most notably that the availability and potency of the fuel is transitory and changes from day to day.
The fuel (tidal/geothermal) can be dangerous to harvest (hurricanes/typhoons/Hawaii) and very expensive to build/maintain.
The only way we presently know of to harvest those fuels (a
@Cx2H states earlier) are VERY expensive in resources, finances, and environment.
Wind turbines take out flocks of geese and the rare earth neodymium magnets used in their generators are hard to mine, refine, and magnetize and costs an enormous amount in energy and environmental impact.
The most efficient solar cells need a witch's brew of rare earths to manufacture and they still only provide ~20% utilization of all the power that falls upon them.
Rare earth dangers are:
"More mining of rare earth metals, however, will mean more environmental degradation and human health hazards. ALL RARE EARTH METALS CONTAIN RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS SUCH AS URANIUM AND THORIUM, WHICH CAN CONTAMINATE AIR, WATER, SOIL AND GROUNDWATER. METALS SUCH AS ARSENIC, BARIUM, COPPER, ALUMINUM, LEAD AND BERYLLIUM MAY BE RELEASED DURING MINING INTO THE AIR OR WATER, AND CAN BE TOXIC TO HUMAN HEALTH. Moreover, the refinement process for rare earth metals uses toxic acids and results in polluted wastewater that must be properly disposed of. The Chinese Society of Rare Earths estimated that the refinement of one ton of rare earth metals results in 75 cubic meters of acidic wastewater and one ton of radioactive residue. The 1998 leak of hundreds of thousands of gallons of radioactive wastewater into a nearby lake was a contributing factor to Molycorp’s (Mine in Central Valley California) shutdown in 2002."-Renee Cho "Rare Earth metals: Will We Have Enough" The Earth Institute Columbia University September 19, 2012.
Look above please for information contrary to that view.
Our present utilization of nuclear power is expensive, but cost has this way of allowing innovation to succeed when prior prevalent technology is no longer economically viable.
True, but it was using U235 and plutonium and not Thorium.
The only molten salt reactor using Thorium is a
liquid fluoride thorium reactor.
It seems to progress in fits and starts but a look
here has news from 2017 and before about it.
True and good on ya for mentioning that other side of the equation!
That side has the same hurdles that you present w/ changing nuclear power fuels of baked in predominance and sluggish adoption of new technology.
A nice room temperature superconductor would cut electrical usage by a phenomenal amount.
Very true and known for a good long time about earth sheltered homes, but try convincing your significant other to move into one.
Unless you have an angle on a new process for manufacturing aerogels, super insulated homes increase (at least) exterior insulated walls by a factor of 8x's and the extruded polystyrene insulation used for them comes from.....oil.
.
Come again? You still using a pentium PIII desktop?
If not, how is your smartphone more powerful than your desktop?
Recycling? We don't need no steenking recycling!
Actually we do, but for it to make the impact the price to NOT recycle has to hit a high point to convince the masses.
But to use the flip side of your "it costs too much" argument, if recycling waste made lots of money wouldn't there be many more companies doing it and offering to buy your garbage (or at least offering [tax]free pickup?
Cleaner yes, in a place like the PNW that has a lot of hydro-electric.
But everywhere else transportation consumption and pollution just got transferred to coal/oil/natural gas generation plants.
Trains are also not very economically viable except to/from major metropolitan areas and don't service everywhere which explains the surviving dominance of the automobile.
If you really want to give electromotive vehicles a boost, invent a battery that is lighter and packages electricity much more densely for more cycles that does not use hazardous materials.
The Edison Nickel-Iron battery (a nod to Tommy's intelligence) is the only on I know of that fits at least the long cycle life and no hazardous materials criteria, otherwise lead/acid still rules the roost for cost/effectiveness.
If you can invent that it becomes very easy and economically viable since a car can easily and inexpensively be retrofitted w/ an electric motor for each wheel (All Wheel Drive) or just replacing the engine and (maybe) transmission with just one electric motor.
In this one paragraph you admit you understand why "free energy" discoveries might be suppressed and also answer the question I have asked you twice that you have skirted:
