|
Wheeee posted:Which is why it's basically dead in Thanks
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 11:01
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
and being pursued in places like 
.
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
Obama loves the corporations, as evidenced by TARP and the bank bailout as well as the stimulus and lack of sending bank jerks to jail. Therefore we must vote to defund the government, cut taxes and drown the bastard in the bathtub because of how we hate him and want him to die. No of course not republican, I mean libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Which is why it's basically dead in Well, it's pursued in China because the party bosses live in Beijing and don't want to live in Beijing's air.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Well, it's pursued in China because the party bosses live in Beijing and don't want to live in Beijing's air. So you're saying the solution is to allow coal power plants to blow unfiltered exhaust into the air until the
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Which is why it's basically dead in It works in China because they use standardization and have a much saner and more progressive regulatory agency. With standardization, you build a bunch of identical power plants instead of single special snowflake plants, which reduces inspection time/cost and construction time/cost due to each subsequent plant being more familiar. quote:By way of contrast, China has stated that it expects its costs for plants under construction to come in at less than $2000/kW and that subsequent units should be in the range of $1600/kW. This estimate is for the AP1000 design, the same as used by EIA for the USA. This would mean that an AP1000 in the USA would cost about three times as much as the same plant built in China. Different labour rates in the two countries are only part of the explanation. Standardised design, numerous units being built, and increased localisation are all significant factors in China. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/ In the US, standardization is difficult because you still need to build a single plant "standard" first, which can take up to two decades and would carry an extremely high cost, just like any other plant. No one has the time or money to do this. Instead, US nuclear companies are trying to shrink their new nuclear plants down to a Small Modular format, to make them mass-producible in factories. We can expect these to get through development and inspection and licensing some time before the next ice age.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Office Thug posted:We can expect these to get through development and inspection and licensing some time before the next ice age. Ironically, because of global warming, we might not! :D
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
i've seen places that try to do the math on how much coal/oil/gas has been found, how much has been burned, how many ppm that translated to, and how many degrees C that translates to, and how many meters sea rise that translates to but has anyone taken those 'yet to be burned' reserves and backed out the math on exactly how badly we'd bankrupt the big energy companies? like X (hundred?) billions? and therefore y (hundreds of) thousand jobs etc and then go the next notch, all the index funds and pension funds and 401k/ira funds that would tank I think if anyone actually did the math it would come out to like 2 - 10x worse than the financial crisis
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Well, it's pursued in China because the party bosses live in Beijing and don't want to live in Beijing's air. This, essentially. China, with a much larger population mostly below western ideals for a standard quality of life, ratcheted up coal burning (and hydro-electric, and natural gas, and...) to provide energy for a whole shitload of infrastructure and other poo poo - enter massive environmental problems, so much so that the government there is looking to thorium as an alternative. Also, as to how politically viable this tech is in the states, here's  Kirk Sorensen again, with a much more recent, slightly more technical video on the LFTR (being pursued by his own company FLIBE energy) talking about both the political will (and climate) for new energy in the US, and also briefly about China I believe
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
It's up to local and state governments to spearhead alternate/renewable energies. Can you dig it
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:i've seen places that try to do the math on how much coal/oil/gas has been found, how much has been burned, how many ppm that translated to, and how many degrees C that translates to, and how many meters sea rise that translates to You're assuming the big oil companies stay in the same business. I would not be surprised if they make a switch to other industries. Saudi Aramco (which isn't the best example compared to Exxon, BP, or the other private companies.) Is increasingly branching out. I would not be surprised as resource extraction declines the big private and state owned oil companies turn into power generation and water purification conglomerates. Water will continue to be an issue as more and more locales have longer and longer droughts. You can use a desalination plant or on a small scale pull it out of the air. Senor P. fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Sep 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:You're assuming the big oil companies stay in the same business. I would not be surprised if they make a switch to other industries. this is hand waiving sillyness proven reserves are baked into the balance sheet and therefore market cap of all of these companies. to be told they can't use those reserves anymore means (tr?)billions of dollars have to evaporate. edit: 1.6 trillion barrels http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=57&aid=6 edit2: http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxon-mobil-corporation-announces-2013-reserves-replacement-totaled-103-percent exxon has 13B of just oil, at $100/bbl thats $1.3T. their market cap is $440B: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=XOM and thats just one oil company, not counting gas, and no coal StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Sep 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:this is hand waiving sillyness No sane person is talking about banning oil usage, the stuff is just too useful and there are uses for it that renewables are ill-suited for - like making plastic. The point is to stop using it for poo poo we don't need it for (so that we can stretch supplies longer on the stuff we still do need to use oil for) and to stop burning it since that's way shittier for the environment than, say, using it to manufacture plastic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Cool Bear posted:I would bet all of my money that nothing will happen until it is profitable. That means that oil needs to increase in price. Carbon taxes. Wheeee posted:Hell naw son, The way they keep oil prices low is by ensuring we don't make it more difficult or expensive to burn fossil fuels. Carbon taxes would immediately make nuclear power and renewables competitive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Carbon taxes already exist in many places. They have little to do with oil usage because most oil usage is not in power plants. And batteries for electric transport are still not all that great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Regardless, a carbon tax will raise the price of burning fossil fuels, which we desperately need to do.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Regardless, a carbon tax will raise the price of burning fossil fuels, which we desperately need to do. All increasing the price of burning fossil fuels will do is gently caress the poor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 03:17
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:All increasing the price of burning fossil fuels will do is gently caress the poor. Unless the carbon tax is redistributed per capita directly to the population  http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change?language=en "All legislation will gently caress the poor" might honestly be accurate, but I mean, where does that leave us? No legislation fucks the poor, politically viable legislation fucks the poor, no win situation there.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Unless the carbon tax is redistributed per capita directly to the population down with slavery posted:"All legislation will gently caress the poor" might honestly be accurate, but I mean, where does that leave us? No legislation fucks the poor, politically viable legislation fucks the poor, no win situation there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 03:20
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:If we're in "redistribute carbon taxes to the poor" fantasyland we may as well just wish for nationalized energy production. I would unironically support this so? Bottom line is that it needs to become more costly to emit carbon if we're going to continue down the path we are without destroying the climate. How you want to get there is up to you. I gave you an easy way, the fact that our political system is so hosed up isn't really my problem. My realistic assessment of the situation is "we're hosed" but that's less fun to talk about.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:No sane person is talking about banning oil usage, the stuff is just too useful and there are uses for it that renewables are ill-suited for - like making plastic. The point is to stop using it for poo poo we don't need it for (so that we can stretch supplies longer on the stuff we still do need to use oil for) and to stop burning it since that's way shittier for the environment than, say, using it to manufacture plastic. paineframe i vaguely recall your screen name as not-a-moron but what you just posted here is some seriously dumb poo poo lets run down the list - "no sane person is talking about banning oil usage" yes you are right no one but you brought that up. i was very specific, formulaic even, in how much I was talking about limiting it. try re-reading the part about ppm-> degrees C-> meters - "useful for plastic" plastic is an absurdly tiny part of what oil & gas get used for and has nothing to do with coal. therefore it is overall completely loving irrelevant. even if it was the only thing left companies could do with oil that would support a $1/bbl price not a $100/bbl so they'd all go bankrupt anyway. but mostly i'm sorry for participating in this dumb tangent. - "the point is blah blah blah" no that's not the point that's happytalk nonsense, the "point" is to avoid catastrophic feedback loops from rapid warming by keeping ppm well below 400. you can't bitch about the other side being anti-science when you refuse to grasp the basic numbers at hand. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Sep 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
ma i married a tuna posted:That's really the sort of thing I meant earlier too. Do you have any information on cost, specifically, investment vs savings? Unfortunately, I'm not privy to financial particulars. Big companies don't like to share that info with employees usually. I can say, however, that all of the equipment was paid for and installed with straight cash. Our CEO is a bit eccentric and doesn't believe in borrowing money for anything. All the equipment to take everything off-grid was doable within the profit margin of the company, and we're definitely not anywhere close to fortune 500 status or anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
I'm kinda doubting your company runs off the grid...that would be costly. How are y'all storing energy and how do you meet peak energy demand? More than likely you are just generating your own energy usage, and push/pull from the grid without much net costs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I'm kinda doubting your company runs off the grid...that would be costly. How are y'all storing energy and how do you meet peak energy demand? More than likely you are just generating your own energy usage, and push/pull from the grid without much net costs. They announced with quite a bit of fanfare that we are 100% off grid. They have 100 acres of solar panels and 45 windmills (it's super windy here). I know they have a storage facility underground somewhere on campus, but I don't know where or what method they use. Our campus is 900 acres and 85% empty so I haven't exactly gone exploring for a big pit full of batteries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Out of all technologies right now, batteries are most in need some kind of major breakthrough. Like maybe a higher temperature superconductor to make SMES units a viability. Or anything that can replace the basic lithium batteries which have been around in, more or less, the same form since the 1970s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:They announced with quite a bit of fanfare that we are 100% off grid. They have 100 acres of solar panels and 45 windmills (it's super windy here). I know they have a storage facility underground somewhere on campus, but I don't know where or what method they use. Our campus is 900 acres and 85% empty so I haven't exactly gone exploring for a big pit full of batteries. I can pretty much guarantee you're not actually "off the grid" in the sense that you are actually isolated from it. That would just be stupid, since no setup ever generates exactly as much energy it needs, even with good energy storage means. I'm certain they mean that the net power you draw from the grid is zero, or negative. That's great, but you're not "off the grid." There is literally no good reason to be "off the grid," so that's fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 12:55
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:I can pretty much guarantee you're not actually "off the grid" in the sense that you are actually isolated from it. That would just be stupid, since no setup ever generates exactly as much energy it needs, even with good energy storage means. I'm certain they mean that the net power you draw from the grid is zero, or negative. That's great, but you're not "off the grid." There is literally no good reason to be "off the grid," so that's fine. You could definitely be right, but as I said before, our CEO is pretty eccentric. She makes a big deal about people using imprecise language (she gets mad about the hyperbolic "literally" and saying "less" when you mean "fewer" and so on), so it would surprise me if her announcement had such an imprecise statement in it. I suppose it's possible she doesn't understand the technology and just repeated what the various contractors told her. Suffice it to say at least that our organization no longer pays a power bill at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:You could definitely be right, but as I said before, our CEO is pretty eccentric. She makes a big deal about people using imprecise language (she gets mad about the hyperbolic "literally" and saying "less" when you mean "fewer" and so on), so it would surprise me if her announcement had such an imprecise statement in it. I suppose it's possible she doesn't understand the technology and just repeated what the various contractors told her. Suffice it to say at least that our organization no longer pays a power bill at all. Unless the lights get dimmer and your computer turns off when the wind dies down and the sun goes behind clouds, OR your company apparently owns the world's largest concentration of off-grid battery systems, you're grid-tied. There is a good reason to be off-grid, though - when you live in the middle of nowhere and tying to the grid isn't an option to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 16:37
|
|
