|
Tab8715 posted:As opposed to generation, aren’t there plenty of things we could turn off? That would be relatively easy to do even today? I will never log off
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:55 |
|
|
Just a healthy reminder about The Solutions Project, the original precursor to today's witchdoctor GNDs PV lifetime grams of CO2 effluent equivalent per kWh delivered is 45 on a good day (12 for nuke/wind/hydro) We need copper and silver for PV and focusing mirrors, in gratuitous amounts, about 5 tons Cu / MW, and about 13 kg Ag / MW Again using making GBS threads on The Solutions Project because gently caress them they're loud and ignored nuclear, this comes out to be about 24 million tons of copper and 51k tons of silver in the initial implementation At the end of life it comes out to ~1.2 million meters squared of solar collection area needing replacement every day. That's 1333 tons of copper and 2.8 tons of silver per diem
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
Andrast posted:I will never log off Heh. Even something like turning off A/C during the weekend or off-hours I would think might a sizable impact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:capacity factors for wind and solar are very bad. The capacity factors are improving as more solar and wind are built out. Simultaneously the capacity factors for fossil fuels are getting lower. The inflection point for this was crossed a couple years ago, and it's been discussed in this and the power gen thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
Where are they at now? They're still a poor choice, compared to nuclear with its reliable 90%+, smaller footprint, less material input needed, safer, less pollutants, and intrinsically sequestered and low volume waste.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
bowser posted:Has anyone written about the game theory aspect of climate change mitigation? No government wants to tear apart their entire economy and way of life if other countries don't join them. sure you could write about game theory climate change strategies or you could just sit back and experience what you already know the results will be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
Martian posted:A Dutch company has invented a machine that can replace AC and does not use power. Problem solved I guess! my gut tells me this is nonsense quackery but it seems to actually be in limited commercial use? huh i'll save my cautious optimism for other topics for now, but this would be some pretty cool (  ) weird sorceryEscape Addict posted:I wonder how loud that thermo-acoustic air conditioner would be. It'd be funny if we found an energy efficient way to cool homes but the trade-off was a game show buzzer blasting constantly for miles around. i will also accept this outcome Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Sep 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
So, how many billionaires to turn the U.S. grid fully nuclear going by that study saying 79 for solar?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
because if its less thats bad then
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
lol we can still take their money for desalination plants, reforestation programs, low income housing, healthcare, high density hydroponic farms supplied with low quality waste heat from aforementioned nuclear reactors, fusion r&d & many other Good things! (but yeah it'd be
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
So we know that cows are assholes, beef is bad for the environment, and the sheer quantity of grazing land required for beef is terrible. Do we have any data on horses? On one hand, we like to run a lot and that requires substantial amounts of space. On the other hand, we bleed rich fuckers dry on upkeep costs and die if we so much as look in a mirror, sooo... am I a net positive or do you put me out to pasture? And if you do, is that pasture adequately earth-friendly?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:
The Reality Dysfunction  Peter F Hamilton is a time travelerquote:Earth has been ravaged by global warming, with the destruction of the ozone layer, the cessation of ocean currents and the near-poisoning of the surface by carbon dioxide forcing humanity to retreat within vast domed cities known as arcologies. Huge 'armada storms' continuously batter the cities of Earth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:my gut tells me this is nonsense quackery but it seems to actually be in limited commercial use? Its pretty sweet but it does take energy in the form of (hopefully waste) heat from it's surroundings to drive whatever the mechanism they're talking about is that produces the cool air. So its just like heat powered engines like these https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErlvMZI0tlA powering some crazy acoustic large hadron collider im guessing from that forbes article. Also this has nothing do do with that ^, but that guy's videos are pretty awesome. this ones my fav: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrnul6ixX90&t=179s wooo look at that baby go!! Feral Integral fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Sep 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
Zaurg But A Horse posted:So we know that cows are assholes We already solved that problem in the C-SPAM thread. https://i.imgur.com/VRep0GR.mp4
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
didn't even hear about this until now lol https://twitter.com/ERCOT_ISO/status/1169997692585598979 https://twitter.com/ERCOT_ISO/status/1170108214454706176 we did it guys 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:Where are they at now? They're still a poor choice, compared to nuclear with its reliable 90%+, smaller footprint, less material input needed, safer, less pollutants, and intrinsically sequestered and low volume waste. Which ones are being built, here in reality?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:this really isn't true though... See this is what makes actually discussing energy policy here lame. I'm posting about a generation technology neutral concept: reducing reliability makes running the grid cheaper. You've ignored that entire point to try to make this instead about how renewables are bad because cap factor. Then trying to smear me as loving Mark Jacobson which is both hilariously wrong but also why I really have to limit how much I post in this thread because it doesn't matter what I say or which scientific reports I quote, people will just believe what they want to believe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Which ones are being built, here in reality? The ones in china. The whole crux of my point is political will in the west, w/r/t energy, isn't based in reality, which is a drat shame. Trabisnikof posted:See this is what makes actually discussing energy policy here lame. I'm posting about a generation technology neutral concept: reducing reliability makes running the grid cheaper. Yeah but you gave a figure "99.99%" up time, which is hardly largely unreliable, and worth examining how such a figure could be achieved with only dubiously green renewables, and doesn't come out to be much cheaper (or even at all) at the end of the day when you account for both the installations and associated storage, be it electro-chemical or pumped hydro or whatever. Sorry for the Jacobson smear. e; also you specifically mentioned phasing out nuclear, which didn't strike me as generation-tech neutral... The Protagonist fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Sep 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:See this is what makes actually discussing energy policy here lame. I'm posting about a generation technology neutral concept: reducing reliability makes running the grid cheaper. You've ignored that entire point to try to make this instead about how renewables are bad because cap factor. it really is amazing if you skim one or two climate threads back, or worse peek a climate topic on some other less insane site. its basically the human opinion version of a sound board. or one of those bingo cards. the arguments have barely changed at all. sure you get less outright deniers, but if anything that just let the crazies move into the "we should" game. "the protagonist" is functionally not even a person he's just a bot that jams his nuke-boner into whatever textarea with a post button he can find. it has nothing to do with energy policy or technology and everything to do with depression and substance abuse and desperately wanting to be mentally (internally) superior because he's clearly not externally. really drives home that like, "commenter" is a good name for a the post-internet underclass. just a person who says things. edit: fwiw, on topic, how much could something like the hornsdale power reserve have made if it had been somewhere in texas today? like if it sold out its capacity at the peak rate it could for as long as the $ lasted. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Sep 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 01:34
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:it really is amazing if you skim one or two climate threads back, or worse peek a climate topic on some other less insane site, its basically the human opinion version of a sound board. or one of those bingo cards. the arguments have almost barely changed at all. sure you get less outright deniers, but if anything that just let the crazies move into the "we should" game. I have to keep driving home the point because people still aren't getting it. The argument hasn't changed because greenies keep regurgitating the same nonsense, when a sober census of the facts about our options for clean energy generation lead back to one single solid option. You throw out a lot of personal dispersion towards me, (some of it definitely warrented when I drink/post too much), but calling me myopic for approaching the problem from a myriad of directions with different, solid analytics is, to say the least, a bit grating. Nuclear gets you a better return for the effort and materials in, a far far better return, than the feel-good options people promote because of some feeling they have. It's awful, and I'm not gonna stop opining about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
and now i'm trapped... engage the nukebug and poo poo up another page with his noise... or join trabisnikof in just walking away. lose/lose thanks for poisoning the well rear end in a top hat. please go away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:hornsdale power reserve 129 MWh for $800 million is a bad loving deal my dude
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:and now i'm trapped... engage the nukebug and poo poo up another page with his noise... or join trabisnikof in just walking away. I'm not even being confrontational. What is your problem? e; StabbinHobo posted:"the protagonist" is functionally not even a person he's just a bot that jams his nuke-boner into whatever textarea with a post button he can find. it has nothing to do with energy policy or technology and everything to do with depression and substance abuse and desperately wanting to be mentally (internally) superior because he's clearly not externally. Like look at this poo poo. Everything I post has to do with energy policy and technology, and you're just, like, an rear end in a top hat? The Protagonist fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Sep 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Heh. LMAO, yeah, that's gonna be possible in a world now staring at least a 4 degree increase in the face.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:I'm not even being confrontational. What is your problem? The problem is that the people who are trying to shift the public consensus on nuke energy are you and people like you and as such public opinion is pretty firmly anti nuke. Political reality is we ain't getting new nuke plants. Not in time for it to matter. I mean, political reality is lol we're hosed - but you're just beating an even deader part of the horse than the rest of us
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
I'm never gonna stop beatin' that horse friend. You can't tout a GND from one side of your mouth, talk about how every tenth of a degree saves millions, and then throw the best clean energy option we have in the trash. For instanceThe Protagonist posted:129 MWh for $800 million is a bad loving deal my dude R. E. Ginna, a 582 MW reactor, could generate 13,968 MWh over a the course of a day, and cost $346 million.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
Okay now make Mitch McConnell do something about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
Windmills and horses, friends.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Okay now make Mitch McConnell do something about it. Is this the thread where we discuss climate change solutions to which Mitch McConnell is amenable?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Windmills, horses & pogroms of unprecedented scale friends.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
Pogrom against all engineers, to the ditches with us
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Pogrom against all engineers, to the ditches with us Okay  so long as the financiers and bankers go in with us  e; to contribute to the thread, as I often do in a manner not nuke-related believe it or not, I've been reading the Deep Adaptation paper by one of those extinction rebellion guys, and I highly recommend it quote:That report of subsea permafrost destabilisation in the East Siberian Arctic sea shelf, the latest unprecedented temperatures in the Arctic, and the data in non-linear rises in high-atmosphere methane levels, combine to make it feel like we The Protagonist fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Sep 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:We need copper and silver for PV and focusing mirrors, in gratuitous amounts, about 5 tons Cu / MW, and about 13 kg Ag / MW Regarding emission calculations for resource extraction has anyone studied electrification of mining equipment? I know big draglines are typically hooked up directly to high voltage lines but I was interested to learn that haul trucks in some places have pantographs and use electric power for hill climbing out of open pit mines while the diesels idle. They can also feed back into the grid with regenerative braking while going down into the mine  . Obviously pantographs are better suited for trains but electrifying haul trucks and excavators could significantly reduce the carbon burden of a large scale PV rollout. Pantograph and catenary production would hopefully have commonality with railroads for some kind of new-dealesque massive freight railroad electrification program  . I don't know anything about mining though and other processes may well represent a larger portion of emissions that electrification won't do much to help.http://www.womp-int.com/story/2011vol09/story024.htm   
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Is this the thread where we discuss climate change solutions to which Mitch McConnell is amenable? No this is the thread where we discuss solutions to Mitch McConnell amenable to climate change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:Okay Yeah it's not peer reviewed, wish he would post the full doc with the criticisms in it. If he did I haven't seen it
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:56
|
|
|
mdemone posted:No this is the thread where we discuss solutions to Mitch McConnell amenable to climate change. I've got one Just ███████ from long range
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:56
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:I've got one But shitposting from afar is what we've BEEN doing
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:129 MWh for $800 million is a bad loving deal my dude
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:LMAO, yeah, that's gonna be possible in a world now staring at least a 4 degree increase in the face. They've started doing it some commercial buildings in the Midwest during the summer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:55 |
|
|
Mr Chips posted:The battery was more like USD $50 million. The rest of the cost is for grid connection + 309MW of wind turbines. 315 MW of turbines for ~$750 million is still a bad deal, since current high end state of the art capacity factors for wind turbines float at around ~42% (preface page x, paragraph 2), so your 300+ MW windfarm is actually putting out less than half of what you quoted, on average. My whole point, and I'll just say it again, is any amount of money/time/resources/effort you want to throw at these methods of power generation would serve the public far, far better directed at Gen IV nuclear. And don't say it's too loving late either, because the best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago... or today. e; reminder that it would take 15,000+ of those ~$50million dollar storage centers, at a cost of $700billion+, to provide backup power generation for the nation for four goddamn hours The Protagonist fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Sep 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 03:35
|
|