@janeq
Or pay for, to bring in communitymedia.video ?
@adlerweb @techindepth27

@TechConnectify an amazing piece.
Thank you for all your words and work.

@TechConnectify
Wow, thank you so much for this video! You could have just continued doing your usual "techy" videos and not loose a significant amount of subscribers but you decided to speak up instead. It is just admirable.

@TechConnectify from an worried and angry Canadian, thank you. For both clarifying the costs of renewable energy and especially for speaking out.

@TechConnectify as an anarchist, i'll obviously disagree about the effectiveness of just voting blue.. but damn it's good to hear the truth about the republican regime being spoken loud, clear, and angry.

@BalooUriza @pfriedma The term to look for is "anti-islanding", which is a feature where the inverter detects that the grid is down and shuts off. Grid-tie inverters are required to do this, and should do it whether they're plugged into an outlet or hardwired into an electrical panel.

There are different schemes to detect this, usually they watch the voltage and frequency. You don't want it energizing a dead line, but you also don't want it to think someone else's generator is the 'grid'.

@BalooUriza @pfriedma The thing that worries me is that, with solar plugged in, you now have say a 15 A circuit, with the appropriate breaker, and another source downstream of that. So you potentially have extra fault current that can be dumped in from somewhere there wouldn't normally be a source.

In other words, your circuit with wire sized for 15 A could now possibly source that plus whatever the solar is kicking in.

@TechConnectify
Fantastic writing and delivery.
I hope your passion spreads through the country.

@TechConnectify US #solarpanel prices are absurd:

A palette of 36 no-name panels is 5.600 USD or 4.724,16 EUR in the United States.

You get a similar palette of 36 500 Wp panels in Germany for 2.423,90 USD or 2.044 EUR that’s half the price!

@TechConnectify : Gosh dang this was superb. Thank you.

Technology Connections To talk about the technical part only, I would be curious to hear your position on nuclear power, because when it comes to “building once and then extracting energy at low cost for a long time” that’s where it comes in. It takes up less space (so we might as well use the corn land for forests and nature reserves, it would be better than solar farms, even if solar farms are better than that corn), requires even fewer materials to be extracted, has a much longer lifespan, causes less pollution, fewer direct and indirect deaths, places fewer constraints on the grid (we keep the same format of a few powerful centralized plants that distribute energy to the whole country), no storage problems (batteries are better than burning oil, but not needing them in gigantic quantities at the grid scale is even better, and we can use the materials elsewhere, or extracting even less of them), very small amounts of waste that are relatively easy to manage (much more so than fossil fuels; for renewables, we’ll have to see, but even when it comes to recycling, limiting the amount of things to recycle and the frequency of recycling is still beneficial), allowing for significant fuel recycling (even if this is not done today, it is feasible and would transform a few centuries of reserves into millennia—admittedly, it cannot be said to be renewable, but when we see the progress made in two centuries, it still leaves room to find other solutions, whether it be the improvement of renewables to the point where they catch up with the advantages of actual nuclear power, or nuclear fusion).

In short, superior in almost every respect, except for complexity (but complexity that can be managed, it already is, and in terms of safety, nuclear power is to energy what aviation is to transportation: high dangers, but low risks thanks to controls and quality, and even lower risks than anything else right now).

(and I already agree that solar and wind energy are pretty good replacements for oil and gas, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t use them. Just that they aren’t the best we can do in the 21st century to produce electricity, from what I know, so why not do even better thing when we can)

@TechConnectify Democrats just voted to continue funding DHS. Democrats have demonatrated they don't care about Palestinians and nor do they care about you.

and yes, the lithium only has to be mined once, but where is the mine? not your back yard! it will come from further colonial expansion.

@doctormo @tinspin I'll add: solving power will make solving food *much* easier. Especially the logistics (which requires a lot of power).

@breizh @TechConnectify uranium is neither renewable nor free to harvest at low operating costs. nuclear power is an uniquely insane upfront investment & constant operating expenses and a lot of societal operating expenses to safely store the nuclear waste. until such time it can be safely transmuted. That is also a huge investment to develop and scale that technology.

the last time nuclear power was built it was only possible because the cold war needed the technology to be dual use otherwise it would have just been building nukes to collect dust somewhere.

@TechConnectify

Good man.

hot tran*sexual menace Well, that’s not the conclusion of the IPCC, and I trust them more than I trust you. I’ll still argue for the time being, but you don’t have to trust me neither (one of us is lying, since we’re saying the opposite, so… we’ll need to trust someone else to know who is right).

• Uranium isn’t renewable, I’ve already said it, but it will last for centuries in the current use we do, and millenia if we manage it correctly (for example France could last 3000 years on what they already have in stock. Without extracting any more. But we need to build power plant that can use this stock (we already have in the past, but since it was cheaper to extract new ore at that time we stopped. This and politicals chenanigans too). Steam machines aren’t two centuries old, so millenia of energy is a lot of time to find better sources (and it could be renewables, when they will even better than nuclear, or when we will reach the limits of uranium).

• It’s not free to harvest, but neither are the materials for renewables and batteries. Sure, we can recycle, but uranium too (a little bit of extraction will be needed in both case because recycling is never perfect). And uranium have a very high energy density, so a lot of people over-estimate the quantity we need to extract. We are talking about few orders of magnitude here (see also the attached picture :D).

• The operationnal costs aren’t that high when you count it by MWh. It produce a lot, and I mean, A LOT of power during it’s lifetime, so at the end, it’s pretty cheap. Waste storage isn’t that costly too. You can just burry it. It’s no more dangerous than natural ore patches, and way less dangerous than a lot of other pollution we make. A human life worth of nuclear power waste if all the energy we used was nuclear can be stored in a Coke can (without recycling!). The chemical and plastic pollution produced by a human during it’s life are way worse (you see the comparision of landfill for solar panels. It’s the same, but even smaller).

• The technology built for the military use have nothing to do with the one used for power anymore (except maybe nuclear-powered boats and submarines). Well, we even are recycling cold war weapons into nuclear fuel ^^’ It’s still pretty cheap, if done correctly (today what cost more is the way we are financing it. If it was paid directly by the state via taxes, as it should like the power grid, it would be cheaper. But since we take out loans and use private financing, more than half of the produced electricty sale price goes to pay interest… that’s a problem. Especially since we are building for 80 years or more: the people who will benefit the more from it aren’t even born, so it can’t be done by people that want a ROI during their lives. It have to be made by a state for its future citizens).

@burnitdown @TechConnectify Yes, the Democrats are not perfect. Nowhere near perfect even. Alec mentioned that in the video too.

But don't forget the reality that the US is stuck in a two-party system. You basically have 3 options:

1. Vote Republicans
2. Vote Democrats
3. Don't vote

Option 1 is obviously worst, no need to discuss that.

But not voting is still worse that voting for the Democrats. Don't let your vote go to waste. The rest of the world counts on you!

As someone from the rest of the world, specifically from a country with (way) more than 2 parties, I sincerely hope that someday the US will reform their system and get more than 2 parties too. But first you need to get rid of the current administration, asap.

@TechConnectify Bravery and clarity noted and appreciated.

@TechConnectify Thank you Alec ​​

@TechConnectify Found the time to watch today. Absolutely your best work, even before the call to action at the end.