|
Cartoon posted:Australia 9hrs (source) - 11 hrs (source) The problem is not short-term storage, at this point. For weeks, you have around 10h of daylight instead of 12. Basically, go ahead and add a +20% overbuild to Solar (if used as main) only for that. Correlating with the fact that Winter is normally cloudier, and with less direct sunlight, probably even more. I'll strike down a calculation of reduced insolation tomorrow, if anyone wants it. Did you stop to think that usually, grids are engineered in ways that do not include energy making <1000km costantly for relevant quantities? For the Long-ranged power transmission problem, we have gone this already, at your request, in the Nuclear thread. And where would it be written that "Costly" means "Not-efficient"? quote:As to the solar availability data I note you left out: How does this work? Geopolitical problems are relevant for nuclear policy, but not for solar? The countries which actually are in the position of making an effort for grand-scale Solar are "First-world" and perhaps China (But actually, it just wants to sell panels to Europe). Europe has none of those. USA has some in the very south. Australia's good with deserts, and we established that. Japan has none (and like Europe, no land to spare at all) So, the only one in is USA, and carrying great quantities of energy for over 3k km IS costly. Mainly in infrastructure, which you conveniently left out. If we are to ignore geopolitical constrains, "Hey let's stop being retarded about nuclear regulation" promptly makes all this debate useless. And actually, most of the inefficiencies are not due to the distance, but due to voltage conversions for different ranges needed. So, by centralizing production, you're exponentially growing those. (Converting "part" of a power line needs more infrastructure, since the power line has to be divided from start point, or suffer multiple conversions). Plus, you're building the whole power supply in a way that requires power to go through territories subject to earthquakes, hurricanes, cyclones, superstorms, and anything nature or man decides to throw your way. If you want to assert that centralizing the whole power supply of the USA in the central basin is feasible, then it's another debate. In the current situation, i highly doubt it would be anything near feasible. There may be spelling mistakes, it's 6:13 am.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
The Chinese don't use their own produced solar capacity despite taking a total "gently caress the environment and let's make this economical" approach to building them because it's still over twice as expensive as pretty much anything else they can build for themselves right now. In 2007, they exported 99% of their built solar cell capacity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China Granted, they're world leaders in renewable usage despite all that, with a good portion of their power coming from hydroelectric dams and with plans to fill their offshore wind capacity up by the half point of this century. They can afford to do that with a monopoly on neodymium and dysprosium heavy rare earths. Speaking of which, heavy rare earth availability is a tremendous problem in any western country hoping to build large renewable systems, especially wind turbines. Ironically enough, it's due to nuclear regulations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyqYP6f66Mw Heavy rare earth minerals contain very large quantities of thorium and decent quantities of uranium. Although uranium yields are a good thing and any produced uranium can be sent off to enrichment and fuel fabrication, thorium is unusable waste which is costly enough to deal with that most mining companies have stopped bothering with heavy rare earths. Thorium isn't particularly dangerous mind, it can be chemically stabilized and stored as a nitrate, and it's an extremely weak alpha emitter. But it's radioactive so there's a lot of regulatory hoops to jump through and waste management fines involved whenever you produce it. Keep in mind that you could build solar and wind plants without heavy rare earths, but their cost is generally higher in comparison to PV solar and RE wind turbines in a rare-earth saturated market like China's. Solar thermal is the best example I can give. Its thermoelectric efficiency is limited to steam turbines (which requires an external water loop for cooling, which by the way is quite rare in deserts) unless you scale it up to a ridiculous size that can accomodate gas cooling, but current molten salt storage systems won't support those temperatures. Its cost compared to solar PV, wind, and nuclear will depend on how the state deals with China and how bad their nuclear regulations are, but solar thermal's cost compared to coal is generally 2.5 times higher than coal pretty much everywhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source I know there are claims of solar thermal reaching grid parity but I don't see how that could happen, ever. If you manage to make solar thermal more efficient somehow, there isn't anything to stop you from doing that with coal or nuclear or anything else that's based on the rankine cycle. The turbine and energy storage systems are your biggest problems, and those can be adapted into other heat-electric plants just as well. Energy storage could enable extra cost-effective coal capacity to be stored at night and used during peak hours in the day, effectively making it a possibility for meeting intermediate and peak energy demands. And I suspect this is exactly why Australia is pushing so hard for solar thermal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
Speaking of Chinese Solar potential... China to install 3,000mW solar thermal power by 2015 quote:China will have 3,000 megawatts of solar thermal power installed capacity by 2015, with the total market value reaching 45 billion yuan ($7.15 billion), according to a report released on Wednesday. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2012-11/22/content_15950340.htm
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:Speaking of Chinese Solar potential... m = milli M = mega Interesting article, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 09:06
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:Solar Thermal. Clearly you've put a lot of effort into this post, but I've got to take issue with the premise of your argument - specifically, the inclusion of the last item on the list. From your post, and the contents of the thread in general, it's pretty apparent that you're talking about electricity generation, and as a result, I think you're doing yourself a significant disservice by conflating the top group (used for electricity generation) with the oil sands (used for fuels), and a second disservice by so easily brushing off oil as a necessary resource, and thirdly, why you've selected the oil sands rather than oil as a whole. First - I'm going to pick a random country out of a hat - (for our purposes, I've picked the United States). Looking at the Energy Information Administration's data on energy mix (found here: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec2.pdf), it's made pretty clear that petroleum products aren't competing with the rest of your list for generating electricity. For example, 1% of petroleum is used in the generation of electricity, whereas 71% is used for transportation. In fact, of the five energy categories described by the EIA, only two others (natural gas and renewables) contribute to transportation at all, and even then, only they only power a tiny fraction (7%) of the whole. This actually plays out in a similar fashion across the world - A 2009 International Energy Association chart (scooped from here: http://www.earthtrendsdelivered.org/world_us_midwest_and_state_fuel_mix_electric_generation_sector_2007) shows that in 2007, petroleum provided less than 10% (eyeballing it suggests maybe 7 or 8%) of the world's electrical power. Second - I'm just going to dump a quote here: International Energy Agency posted:Growth in oil consumption in emerging economies, particularly for transport in China, India and the Middle East, more than outweighs reduced demand in the OECD, pushing oil use steadily higher in the New Policies Scenario. Oil demand reaches 99.7 mb/d in 2035, up from 87.4 mb/d in 2011, and the average IEA crude oil import price rises to $125/barrel (in year-2011 dollars) in 2035 (over $215/barrel in nominal terms). Your post essentially brushed off the necessity for oil; given that global demand is going to climb ~14% over the next 25 years, I would suggest that you've dismissed petroleum far too quickly. While considering this, I would also point out that the IEA's assessment suggests that by the end of their forecast (2035), renewables will approach coal as the largest source of electric power generation. That said, the IEA is STILL predicting a 14% growth in demand for petroleum. Third - It seems rather disingenuous that you've selected the oil sands as representative of the oil industry in general; petroleum derived from the oil sands totals roughly 1.6 million barrels/day (sourced: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...article5702107/), and total global production (in 2011, so slightly out of date) is 84.82 million barrels/day (sourced: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2241rank.html). Selecting a petroleum production method that is more in line with standard techniques found in Saudia Arabia (11m bbl/day), Russia (10m bbl/day), the United States (9m bbl/day), or Iran or China (4m bbl/day) would be significantly more representative of typical oil harvesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
Suppose that does seem odd in hindsight. I've just forgotten about that aspect. The only real use of oil for energy generation I'm really aware of in America is in the form of oil peaking plants and emergency diesel generators.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
Pfox posted:From your post, and the contents of the thread in general, it's pretty apparent that you're talking about electricity generation, and as a result, I think you're doing yourself a significant disservice by conflating the top group (used for electricity generation) with the oil sands (used for fuels), and a second disservice by so easily brushing off oil as a necessary resource, and thirdly, why you've selected the oil sands rather than oil as a whole. That's a fair point, to be honest I didn't think about it that much. The idea was to catalogue all forms of energy generation, and you're right, if tar sands are in there then oil should be too. I don't remember deliberately omitting it, so it must have been an oversight. It was a little rushed because I wanted to get the thread up before my contract kicked off. If I did it again I'd include it in a similar fashion to the Coal part, being an historical workhorse, with the advantage of having all of our infrastructure built for it. The picture would be something fair and impartial, like:  Or  As you said, our current oil consumption is on track to rise, but the point is we can and must change these patterns. We're still going to need some oil, of course, but if we overhaul our transport system we can use substantially less, and thus be less dependent on digging up dead dinosaur juice to burn. In other news, I'm starting training as a presenter for this stuff tonight, so wish me luck, and thanks for all the helpful discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:The picture would be something fair and impartial, like: This is neat and all, am I'm glad you're able to so objectively overcome your personal biases against hydrocarbon production to post some anecdotal evidence about explosions. In fact, you might be interested to know that the safety record of hydrocarbon production is actually pretty good, and getting better with each passing year. Oil tanker transport:   "The incidence of large spills is relatively low and detailed statistical analysis is rarely possible, consequently emphasis is placed on identifying trends. Thus, it is apparent from Table 1 that the number of large spills (>700 tonnes) has decreased significantly during the last 42 years during which records have been kept. The average number of major spills for the previous decade (2000-2009) is just over three, approximately eight times less than for the 1970s. Looking at this downward trend from another perspective, 55% of the large spills recorded occurred in the 1970s, and this percentage has decreased each decade to 7% in the 2000s (Figure 1)." http://www.itopf.com/information-services/data-and-statistics/statistics/ With respect to oil platforms, the same holds true. Including catastrophic accidents, the rate of injury among workers in offshore oil and gas production (1 per 100 full-time workers) is significantly below that of: real estate and leasing (~2.5), all industries (incl. government ~3.5), leisure and hospitality (~3.8), construction (~3.9), food and beverage services (~5), air transportation (~7), justice and public safety (~9), and nursing and residential care (~15). http://www.noia.org/website/download.asp?id=53434 While focusing on catastrophic accidents is fun, exciting, and fires up the blood, doing so belies the industry's actual performance. For example: *"Since 1975, offshore drilling in the Exclusive Economic Zone (within 200 miles of U.S. coasts) has a safety record of 99.999 percent, meaning that only 0.0001 percent of the oil produced has been spilled." http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth8.htm *"Between 1993 and 2007 there were 651 oil spills, releasing 47,800 barrels of oil. Given 7.5 billion barrels of oil produced during that period, one barrel of oil has been spilled in the OCS per 156,900 barrels produced." http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth8.htm *Analysis of hard data suggests that "Overall OCS platform spill occurrence rates continued to decline." Cheryl McMahon Anderson and Robert P. Labelle, “Update of Comparative Occurrence Rates for Offshore Oil Spills,” U.S. Minerals Management Service, Spill Science & Technology Bulletin 6, nos. 5–6 (2000): 303–21 If you want to have a conversation about catastrophic industrial accidents, that's well and good, but it does not do your argument any justice to suggest that accidents are a phenomenon exclusive to the production of oil and gas. If your position is that we need to give up any activity that carries with it risk of serious consequences, you're essentially condemning the whole world to a life of subsistence farming. Hobo Erotica posted:As you said, our current oil consumption is on track to rise, but the point is we can and must change these patterns. We're still going to need some oil, of course, but if we overhaul our transport system we can use substantially less, and thus be less dependent on digging up dead dinosaur juice to burn. I'm going to remind you that the IEA report that I included in my first post said, "Growth in oil consumption in emerging economies, particularly for transport in China, India and the Middle East, more than outweighs reduced demand in the OECD, pushing oil use steadily higher in the New Policies Scenario. Oil demand reaches 99.7 mb/d in 2035, up from 87.4 mb/d in 2011..." This is despite the IEA forecasting the growth of renewables to ~33% of global energy production. The use of hydrocarbons isn't something you can handwave away with a pithy phrase. It's here to stay for a significant period of time, and any adult discussion of energy production and consumption must take this into account.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
quote:Your post essentially brushed off the necessity for oil; given that global demand is going to climb ~14% over the next 25 years, I would suggest that you've dismissed petroleum far too quickly. While considering this, I would also point out that the IEA's assessment suggests that by the end of their forecast (2035), renewables will approach coal as the largest source of electric power generation. That said, the IEA is STILL predicting a 14% growth in demand for petroleum. Well, we kinda have to curb our petroleum use in order to stay under our carbon budget. That's kinda the whole purpose of the thread - to find alternatives to burning fossil fuels. quote:Including catastrophic accidents, the rate of injury among workers in offshore oil and gas production (1 per 100 full-time workers) is significantly below that of: real estate and leasing (~2.5), all industries (incl. government ~3.5), leisure and hospitality (~3.8), construction (~3.9), food and beverage services (~5), air transportation (~7), justice and public safety (~9), and nursing and residential care (~15). I am glad that you were able to find an unbiased third party to provide references, like the NOIA.  quote:I'm going to remind you that the IEA report that I included in my first post said, "Growth in oil consumption in emerging economies, particularly for transport in China, India and the Middle East, more than outweighs reduced demand in the OECD, pushing oil use steadily higher in the New Policies Scenario. Oil demand reaches 99.7 mb/d in 2035, up from 87.4 mb/d in 2011..." This is despite the IEA forecasting the growth of renewables to ~33% of global energy production. I'm going to remind you that pointing fingers at China or India and saying "LOOK THEY'RE DOING WORSE!" doesn't actually solve any problems. Yes, emerging industrial nations are using a lot of hydrocarbons; if nobody is going to agree to cut emissions because [X] bogeyman won't do it first / is MORE GUILTY / is an otherwise convenient scapegoat, we're going to blow right on past a 2 degree future in short order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
The Ender posted:Well, we kinda have to curb our petroleum use in order to stay under our carbon budget. That's kinda the whole purpose of the thread - to find alternatives to burning fossil fuels. Hobo Erotica posted:This, as the name would suggest, is a thread for talking about how we power our lives. In fact, the stated purpose of the thread is to discuss in an unbiased way the pros and cons of energy generation. The Ender posted:I am glad that you were able to find an unbiased third party to provide references, like the NOIA. If you disagree with the statistics and data provided, I invite you to supply your own. Then we can compare information and come to a decision as to which numbers are more accurate. The Ender posted:I'm going to remind you that pointing fingers at China or India and saying "LOOK THEY'RE DOING WORSE!" doesn't actually solve any problems. Yes, emerging industrial nations are using a lot of hydrocarbons; if nobody is going to agree to cut emissions because [X] bogeyman won't do it first / is MORE GUILTY / is an otherwise convenient scapegoat, we're going to blow right on past a 2 degree future in short order. If you can point out to me where in my post I said "India and China are doing worse so we don't have to", I will ban myself and never post again. If you actually look at what I posted: quote:I'm going to remind you that the IEA report that I included in my first post said, "Growth in oil consumption in emerging economies, particularly for transport in China, India and the Middle East, more than outweighs reduced demand in the OECD, pushing oil use steadily higher in the New Policies Scenario. Oil demand reaches 99.7 mb/d in 2035, up from 87.4 mb/d in 2011..." This is despite the IEA forecasting the growth of renewables to ~33% of global energy production. I think you'll find that what I said was that the IEA's 2012 report projects that renewables are projected to supply one third of global energy by 2035, and despite this astonishing growth, demand for petroleum is projected to increase by 14%. The IEA report itself confirms that China, India, and the Middle East will consume more petroleum for transport purposes, offsetting reduced demand in the OECD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
Pfox posted:In fact, the stated purpose of the thread is to discuss in an unbiased way the pros and cons of energy generation. (2) Could you discuss the problems stemming from Katrina hitting the heart of the US petroleum industry? Spills, and the like? (3) How are the Chandeleur Islands doing after the Deepwater Horizon, anyway? Are the inhabitants now filthy rich from all the oil on their shore? Or are they merely filthy from all the oil covering their shore? (4) Are you seriously arguing for the mass generation of energy from petroleum in this thread? Maybe you misunderstood, since it is a bit of a misnomer as is, but I believe this thread is about the generation of ELECTRICITY more than it is simply pure ENERGY. If you ARE advocating using $100/bbl oil as a source of grid electric generation, I'd love to hear what sort of plants you propose building. Yes, hobo took a cheap shot at oil (he's VERY VERY fixated on solar to the annoyance of many others), and yes oil is here to stay, but I don't think singing the praises of off-shore drilling is really what the doctor ordered here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
Pander posted:(4) Are you seriously arguing for the mass generation of energy from petroleum in this thread? Maybe you misunderstood, since it is a bit of a misnomer as is, but I believe this thread is about the generation of ELECTRICITY more than it is simply pure ENERGY. If you ARE advocating using $100/bbl oil as a source of grid electric generation, I'd love to hear what sort of plants you propose building. I'll get stuck in to the rest later, but just to quickly clarify, the thread is about Energy as whole, so discussion of oil is definitely relevant. Pfox if you want to write a short summary I can include it in the OP. Stationary energy / Electricity is a big/biggest part of it, but any form of energy generation is legit. Pretty sure I was talking about push bikes before. Pfox, how do you feel about ANWR?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
Is deepwater horizon not on here because it wouldn't fit or what I know it's just tanker spills, but that highlights the problem of the graph
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
Excellent questions. Addressing in order of convenience. Pander posted:(4) Are you seriously arguing for the mass generation of energy from petroleum in this thread? Maybe you misunderstood, since it is a bit of a misnomer as is, but I believe this thread is about the generation of ELECTRICITY more than it is simply pure ENERGY. If you ARE advocating using $100/bbl oil as a source of grid electric generation, I'd love to hear what sort of plants you propose building. I am not. In fact, in my original post, I took issue with Hobo's inclusion of oil sands and said: Pfox posted:From your post, and the contents of the thread in general, it's pretty apparent that you're talking about electricity generation, and as a result, I think you're doing yourself a significant disservice by conflating the top group (used for electricity generation) with the oil sands (used for fuels)... Pander posted:(3) How are the Chandeleur Islands doing after the Deepwater Horizon, anyway? Are the inhabitants now filthy rich from all the oil on their shore? Or are they merely filthy from all the oil covering their shore? This is a good question. While I'm certain you're being facetious, I'm not sure that I have an answer for you - most of the research I've pulled up has been about the Islands not recovering after Hurricane Katrina, not about the oil spill from Deepwater. Pander posted:(1) How is the safety record for refineries on land? I mean I could bring up an anecdote of a local refinery exploding in the early 90s killing a couple dozen workers from my hometown if you'd like, but maybe you have some industry-wide statistics to dismiss my concern. According to International Oil & Gas Producers data, in 2011, the total number of fatalities worldwide in the oil and gas industry was 65 deaths over 3.5 billion hours worked, or roughly 3.2 fatalities per 100 million hours worked. The total number of lost time injuries (fatalities plus injuries) was roughly 0.5 per 100 million hours worked. (pg v) http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/2011s.pdf I will assume that this address your concern. If it doesn't, let me know why not and we can pursue this more. Pander posted:(2) Could you discuss the problems stemming from Katrina hitting the heart of the US petroleum industry? Spills, and the like? I can try. I'm not an American, so my familiarity with Katrina is not as robust as it should be to adequately answer your question. However, using International Oil & Gas Producers data, we can see that onshore oil spills in 2005 were not significantly different from spills in 2011, in terms of spills per million tonnes. http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/2011e.pdf (pg 27). editAdditionally: "According to the MMS, 3,050 of the Gulf of Mexico’s 4,000 platforms and 22,000 of the 33,000 miles of the Gulf’s pipelines were in the direct path of either Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. The hurricanes destroyed 115 drilling platforms, damaged 52 others, and damaged 535 pipeline segments, yet “there was no loss of life and no major oil spills attributed to either storm.”[110] http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth8.htm Pander posted:Yes, hobo took a cheap shot at oil (he's VERY VERY fixated on solar to the annoyance of many others), and yes oil is here to stay, but I don't think singing the praises of off-shore drilling is really what the doctor ordered here. Look, I'm not saying that hydrocarbon production is painless or risk-free. What I am saying is that hydrocarbons are a necessity in the world in which we inhabit, and the best data from the most respected international energy organization suggests that hydrocarbons are here to stay for decades to come. As a consequence of that, any rational discussion of energy (not just electricity production), must acknowledge both the risks and the benefits of petroleum use. Interesting trivia: You might be interested in knowing that offshore is far superior (0.2 spills per million tonnes) to onshore (3.5 spills per million tonnes). slap me and kiss me fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:Pfox, how do you feel about ANWR? Again, not American, but my reading of google reveals that ANWR is the "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." I personally believe that national parks and wildlife refuges are an important part of preserving the environment, and once established they should be protected from drilling and other resource exploitation. I'd be happy to write up a bit on hydrocarbon production. I get that it's not the most popular energy resource in the world, but we don't do ourselves justice by just brushing it off. I'll post something later in the week and we can go over it. Hobo Erotica posted:Is deepwater horizon not on here because it wouldn't fit or what I addressed offshore platform spills later, but unfortunately, I had no fancy graphs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
Eh. Right now I stand at "Nuclear is the best way to generate electricity (eliminate coal, use nat'l gas for heating, use oil only for peaking), oil makes for the best transportation, and hopefully we can develop incredible batteries (hydrogen fuel cells? Others?) to allow renewables to also develop electricity and oil to be less required. I think building nukes on a scale can be done ASAP for a solid 75% of the world's electrical production (security concerns cut out a lot of the third world). I think hybrids/full electrics are nice, but transitioning from oil on a global scale is still 15-25 years off, minimum. I'm a pragmatic environmentalist, so I hate being stuck with coal due ignorance and fear, and I dislike being stuck with oil because it's so goddamn useful at present.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Pfox posted:Again, not American, but my reading of google reveals that ANWR is the "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." I personally believe that national parks and wildlife refuges are an important part of preserving the environment, and once established they should be protected from drilling and other resource exploitation. I'm not a fan of ethanol, as it seems entirely reliant on subsidies, exists only due to political pressure and public ignorance, and is a major driver in food prices. It seems like a highly inefficient means to produce an inferior product at higher costs with multiple negative side effects, all for the singular claim of producing "domestic" fuel. What are your thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
Pander posted:I'm not a fan of ethanol, as it seems entirely reliant on subsidies, exists only due to political pressure and public ignorance, and is a major driver in food prices. It seems like a highly inefficient means to produce an inferior product at higher costs with multiple negative side effects, all for the singular claim of producing "domestic" fuel. In the short-term, my dream mix is hydro, nuclear, and gas for electricity generation, and petroleum and natural gas for transportation. Looking 60+ years out, I would hope to see nuclear and fusion for electricity generation, and fuel cells for transportation. That's probably idealistic and overly optimistic though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
Pander posted:Yes, hobo took a cheap shot at oil (he's VERY VERY fixated on solar to the annoyance of many others), and yes oil is here to stay, but I don't think singing the praises of off-shore drilling is really what the doctor ordered here. I wouldn't say I'm fixated on solar specifically. Fixated on not digging things up, yeah probably.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
Has anyone heard about bloomboxes lately? the one thing that intrigued me most about them was that they claimed reversibility was possible, just not in the first model. Has a reversible model come out yet? Whats the round-trip on it like?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 07:04
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:Has anyone heard about bloomboxes lately? the one thing that intrigued me most about them was that they claimed reversibility was possible, just not in the first model. Has a reversible model come out yet? Whats the round-trip on it like? What exactly are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 08:37
|
|
|
Pander posted:Eh. Right now I stand at "Nuclear is the best way to generate electricity (eliminate coal, use nat'l gas for heating, use oil only for peaking), oil makes for the best transportation, and hopefully we can develop incredible batteries (hydrogen fuel cells? Others?) to allow renewables to also develop electricity and oil to be less required. The best large scale batteries would be liquid metal batteries or flow cell batteries. Both of those types are modular, cheaper per capacity than lithium ion, and last far longer than lead acids. Liquid metal systems are already on the market, while flow cells are getting there. My money would be on flow cells in terms of solving both the large scale and transportation intermittent energy problems. Particularly organic-based flow cells which use ionic liquid solvents for their catholyte and anolyte. They can't pack as much energy as your typical lithium ion battery, but they stand to be much cheaper, much more stable, extremely long-lasting, and very fast in terms of cycling rates. Some organic flow cells have been reported with cell chamber charge/discharge cycle times of just under 2 seconds, which is basically on similar levels with capacitors and things like that. The power rate for these systems is ridiculous. The only issue with flow cells is that you need a solvent, and that solvent adds unnecessary mass and volume to the system, robbing them of their energy density/specificity. However, if you were to make it so the catholyte and anolyte compounds themselves liquid in both charged and discharged states, you could practically overlook the use of solvents and have something closer to a solid-state lithium ion battery in terms of energy density and specificity. This is totally doable with organic-based systems, as organic compounds can be modified with the addition of things like aliphatic chains to depress their melting point without affecting their electron structure too much. Hobo Erotica posted:I wouldn't say I'm fixated on solar specifically. You'll have to dig a lot of things up to build solar plants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:I wouldn't say I'm fixated on solar specifically. You'd have to try very hard to have a national electric grid that doesn't dig things up. I think a bunch of wood-burning power plants and some natural geothermal vents would probably be the limit QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
Office Thug posted:You'll have to dig a lot of things up to build solar plants. Yes of course, and it'd be the same for wind or anything else, but after they're built I mean. 'Not having to keep on digging up the fuel' I suppose would be a more accurate way to describe it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:Yes of course, and it'd be the same for wind or anything else, but after they're built I mean. 'Not having to keep on digging up the fuel' I suppose would be a more accurate way to describe it. So, without trying to play gotcha too much, are you good with recovering uranium from sea water? quote:OAK RIDGE, Tenn., Aug. 21, 2012 — Fueling nuclear reactors with uranium harvested from the ocean could become more feasible because of a material developed by a team led by the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Kaal fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
Kaal posted:So, without trying to play gotcha too much, are you good with recovering uranium from sea water? My understanding is it's too far off to be taken seriously at this stage, and I don't know much more about it, but if really works, then sure why not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:My understanding is it's too far off to be taken seriously at this stage, and I don't know much more about it, but if really works, then sure why not. It's perfectly feasible once uranium mining is regulated into the ground (rightfully so - it is a dirty business).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It's perfectly feasible Can someone tell me if that's what Kaal's link actually means? I get that it extracts 7 times as much 7 times as fast, but is that enough to be viable? And once it starts happening at scale, would removing those quantities of uranimum have any affect on the functioning on the oceans?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:Can someone tell me if that's what Kaal's link actually means? I get that it extracts 7 times as much 7 times as fast, but is that enough to be viable? The classic issue with recovering uranium from the sea water is finding an efficient method of doing so. They basically do it by setting up a uranium filter, and then running thousands of gallons of water through it. It's workable, particularly because fuel costs are such a small part of nuclear reactor overhead, but the method is inefficient and fairly time and cost prohibitive compared to simply mining it ($300/kg versus $150/kg). These scientists have found a filter that is 5-7 times more effective, which should decrease costs and water usage similarly. If the technology proves out, mining uranium could quickly be made obsolete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Recovery_from_seawater
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The classic issue with recovering uranium from the sea water is finding an efficient method of doing so. They basically do it by setting up a uranium filter, and then running thousands of gallons of water through it. It's workable, particularly because fuel costs are such a small part of nuclear reactor overhead, but the method is inefficient and fairly time and cost prohibitive compared to simply mining it ($300/kg versus $150/kg). These scientists have found a filter that is 5-7 times more effective, which should decrease costs and water usage similarly. If the technology proves out, mining uranium could quickly be made obsolete. The other side of this is that fuel costs are such a vanishingly small part of the total costs involved with a nuke plant that even doubling the costs involved to avoid the kind of environmental impact caused by uranium mining is barely relevant to the feasibility of the project as a whole. To be more specific, uranium makes up 13% of the operating costs of a nuclear power plant (http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/fuelaspercentelectricproductioncosts/), and the capital costs for any new project being considered far outpace any operating costs anyway. The cost of uranium isn't essential to the economics of nuclear power generation like the cost of fuel is to fossil fuel power generation. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:The other side of this is that fuel costs are such a vanishingly small part of the total costs involved with a nuke plant that even doubling the costs involved to avoid the kind of environmental impact caused by uranium mining is barely relevant to the feasibility of the project as a whole. True, but the point of the argument here is to sway Hobo Erotica, who had in the thread resisted nuclear in no small part due to the effects of uranium mining in Australia on both the environment and local peoples. Mining presented a large moral concern that led to a general nuclear roadblock to him. Between recycling, changing from once-through cycles, and utilizing thorium, we have effectively unlimited nuclear fuel, so in some sense worrying about nuclear fuel misses the greater debates about nuclear power on the whole. But in this instance it was a tailored argument more than a grand point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
Pander posted:True, but the point of the argument here is to sway Hobo Erotica, who had in the thread resisted nuclear in no small part due to the effects of uranium mining in Australia on both the environment and local peoples. Mining presented a large moral concern that led to a general nuclear roadblock to him. I agree with that totally, my point was that nuclear power is not reliant on the (relatively) cheap cost of uranium mining, and even without the hypothetical down the road advances in seawater extraction noted in the article, the industry could switch over to the current seawater extraction methods without raising prices too significantly. Some regulatory pressure could eliminate uranium mining over time, and this does not have to prevent increased reliance on nuclear power for the purposes of reducing carbon dioxide emissions - that's the point I'm trying to make to Hobo Erotica.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 15:49
|
|
|
edit: not really relevant sorry
Pedrophile fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:What exactly are you talking about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_Energy_Server Fuel cells. Gas+oxygen go in, water/heat/electricity come out. What I want to know is if anyone has gotten them to work in the reverse direction yet: water & electricity go in, hydrogen/gas come out. Their claim is ~50% one-direction efficiency. You could stick a giant array of them on premise at a wind farm, run them in reverse with spare capacity overnight to fill a giant (tube? bladder?) with gas, then turn it back around during the day when capacity exceeds demand or a gap in the wind needs to be covered for. 25% round-trip efficiency is low, but 25% of the spare capacity is infinity-percent more than they get to use now. Something similar could be done with solar panels, let them overproduce during the day to built up the gas store, then run it back through the fuel cell at night.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 15:12
|
|
|
I don't see anything there about it being a reversable reaction. Can it use raw hydrogen?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_Energy_Server Its just an SOFC? The equivalent reverse reaction is electrolysis of water -- a process practically limited to 30-50% efficiency. If you want to store surplus solar capacity, doing it thermally is always easier and more efficient.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
America installed 3.2 GW of solar PV this year:quote:Americans installed a record number of rooftop solar panels, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. The group expects a total national installation of 3.2 gigawatts this year, 684 megawatts of which was installed in the third quarter alone. And fourth quarter rooftop panel projects could double to 1,200 megawatts – the highest number ever.  http://inhabitat.com/americans-installed-a-record-number-of-rooftop-solar-panels- this-year/
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
Even more exciting, 2012 saw 12 GW of wind power installations. Unfortunately that record level of renewable energy growth is at severe risk of being halted unless the tax credits are renewed. I'd expect that solar has a similar relationship with its subsidies. My parents have residential solar, but they have no intention of adding another line of panels until they are eligible for more tax credits. That said, providing incentives for individuals to invest in domestic renewable energy is probably one of the best decisions that government can make. Electricity, regardless of its source, is the future, and it needs the same kind of broad government support as oil received in its own infancy. http://energy.aol.com/2012/09/21/wind-energy-in-the-us-record-breaking-growth-at-risk/ quote:The US wind industry is on track for a record-breaking year. In August, the American Wind Energy Association announced a milestone 50 GW of capacity and installations will this year beat previous records. Kaal fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 08:55
|
|
|
With Steven Chu leaving the Secretary of Energy's chair, who do you think would be the best replacement? I personally want departing Rep. John Barrow, because he is strongly pro-nuclear and he is already leaving the house, so he won't hurt the majority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 09:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
Personally, anyone who would put aside personal politics and a few dozen votes for Harry Reid to re-open and loving use Yucca Flats for what it was built for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 10:11
|
|