You've never EVER had to just "charge real quick" before you head out with low battery? Really?

It's just so incredibly sloooooow

I'm guessing this is US-centric?

So you mean that eating meat is taboo for an absolutely tiny proportion of the world? How could that possibly be relevant?

Meat consumption is taboo? Where do you live, farmville?

Now I am actually honestly not sure if you are actually being serious or if you are trying to troll.

"It’d be like me “playing around with the thought of powering all of America with renewables” and suggesting our only course of action with renewables is putting a giant dome over Hawaii to harness geothermal power from the active volcanoes and then running multiple 10ft thick cables 2,500 miles across the Pacific in order to feed the mainland at a cost of 200 trillion dollars and a 100 year supply of copper. It’s an absurd and misleading proposal."

Have you been smoking crack perhaps?

Yes I could have clarified that I was discussing solar but I thought the context of the conversation was enough. But sure, "renewables" was bad formulation on my part.

I took it he was quoting a title after the ":" but I get it.

Maybe you should try reading the comment I was replying too?

Very funny how everything that you don't agree with suddenly becomes "right wing". But please prove me wrong, provide me with said "right wing think tank" that I supposedly copied from. Shouldn't be hard to find if that's the case.

If you take a look at the comment that I was replying to, you will have your answer for the first question.

Because it was the scenario I chose. You are more than welcome to submit your own analysis with your own scenario and eventual limitations etc.

I didn't include coal plants because we weren't talking about coal plants. You are more than welcome to submit your own rundown including coal plants.

Solar is not one of the "most expensive" forms of renewable.

If you didn't find the analysis helpful, you are once again, more than welcome to submit your own. The analysis is very helpful in the context of the comment I replied too.

Stupid decision, especially for a game that is most often played online. I'll have to ask the starbreeze guys what they were thinking next time I visit lol

I do not see any link

I take it you didn't even bother to read my comment. So why answer it?

Sorry, what article?

Let's play around with the thought of powering all of America with renewables. America’s coal, gas, petroleum and nuclear plants generate a combined baseload power of 405 GWavg, or “gigawatts average.” (Remember, a gigawatt is a thousand megawatts.) Let’s replace all of them with a 50 / 50 mix of onshore wind and CSP (solar), and since our energy needs are constantly growing, let’s round up the total to 500 GWs, which is likely what we’ll need by the time we finish. Some folks say that we should level off or reduce our consumption by conserving and using more efficient devices, which is true in principle. But in practice, human nature is such that whatever energy we save, we just gobble up with more gadgets. So we’d better figure on 500 GWs.

To generate this much energy with 1,000 of our 500 MW renewables farms, we’ll put 500 wind farms in the Midwest (and hope the wind patterns don’t change…) and we’ll put 500 CSP farms in the southwest deserts—all of it on free federal land and hooked into the grid. Aside from whatever branch transmission lines we’ll need (which will be chump change), here’s the lowdown:

Powering the U.S. with 500 wind and 500 CSP farms, at 500 MWavg apiece.

        Steel ………………..  503 Million tonnes (5.6 times annual U.S. production)
    Concrete …………..  1.57 Billion t (3.2 times annual U.S. production)
    CO2 ………………….  3.3 Billion t (all U.S. passenger cars  for 2.5 years)
    Land …………………  91,000 km2 (302 km / side)


  

35,135 sq. miles (169 mi / side)

(the size of Indiana)

60-year cost ……… $29.25 Trillion

That’s 29 times the 2014 discretionary federal budget.

If we can convince the wind lobby that they’re outclassed by CSP, we could do the entire project for a lot less, and put the whole enchilada in the desert:

Powering the U.S. with 1,000 CSP farms, producing 500 MWavg apiece.

        Steel ……………….   787 Million t (1.6 times annual U.S. production)
    Concrete ………….  2.52 Billion t (5.14 times annual U.S. production)
    CO2 …………………  3.02 Billion t (all U.S. passenger cars for 2.3 years)
    Land ………………..  63,000 km2 (251 km / side)


  

24,234 sq. miles (105.8 mi / side)

(the size of West Virginia)

60-year cost ……. $18.45 Trillion

#That’s to 18 times the 2014 federal budget.

Or, we could power the U.S. with 500 AP-1000 reactors.

Rated at 1,117 MWp, and with a reactor’s typical uptime of 90%, an AP-1000 will deliver 1,005 MWav. Five hundred APs will produce 502.5 GWav, replacing all existing U.S. electrical power plants, including our aging fleet of reactors.

The AP-1000 uses 5,800 tonnes of steel, 90,000 tonnes of concrete, with a combined carbon karma of 115,000 t of CO2 that can be paid down in less than 5 days. The entire plant requires 0.04km2, a patch of land just 200 meters on a side, next to an ample body of water for cooling. (Remember, it’s a Gen-3+ reactor. Most Gen-4 reactors won’t need external cooling.) Here’s the digits:

        Steel ……….  2.9 Million t (0.5% of W  &  CSP / 0.36% of CSP)
    Concrete …  46.5 Million t (3.3% of W  & CSP / 1.8% of CSP)
    CO2 ………..  59.8 Million tonnes (2% of W & CSP / 1.5% of CSP)
    Land ……….  20.8 km2 (4.56 km / side) (0.028% W & CSP / 0.07% of CSP)


  

1.95 sq. miles (1.39 miles / side)

(1.5 times the size of Central Park)

60-year cost ……… $2.94 Trillion

#That’s 2.9 times the 2014 federal budget.

Small Modular Reactors may cost a quarter or half again as much, but the buy-in is significantly less, the build-out is much faster (picture jetliners rolling off the assembly line), the resources and CO2 are just as minuscule, and they can be more widely distributed, ensuring the resiliency of the grid with multiple nodes.

And this is without even mentioning MSRs.

Was this project a complete shitshow of sheldon before seen-proportions?

Yes.

Does this mean that we should make the move towards powering the US from 100% renewables instead?

Well if you hate math and logic enough to even consider it, sure. Go ahead.

Where are you getting this "$32 per watt" number from?From googling I cannot find anything even close to that ballpark

That is true but it has had smooth integration with other video hosts since as far as I can remember, something I would love to see here

At the very least some integration with PeerTube

It was such an amazing game, ruined by a rushed ending that just completely skipped over many of the events that had happened in the story. It makes me so mad because it could easily have been a 10/10.

I still very much recommend it tho

Genuinely wholesome advice, thank you <3