The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

hobbesmaster posted:

Just throw it into an eccentric orbit, the sun will eat it eventually.

You can't "just" throw something into an eccentric orbit if you're starting from a nearly circular one, sadly. It takes almost as much delta-v as the basic "throw it into the sun" would.

# ? Jul 24, 2014 08:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 23:22

EoRaptor: Sep 13, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

tsa posted:

That's a perfectly viable option for the earth, unless you mean politically viable and even then you'd probably hear the same complaints even if it's on the moon. Fukiyama is like a case study on how good water is at absorbing and dealing with radiation and that was without any protections at all. Of course you should probably handle it in a better way than the italians did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_%27Ndrangheta

Even a remote, inhospitable place still has weather, which will degrade and disperse any material. Also, even if the material isn't harming anyone or anything, humans can't leave anything alone and access problems would be constant. The complete lack of air and water on the moon prevents the first problem, and cost and distance (and lack of air) prevents the second.

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

Yeah, about that...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cq7isloJj8

Look at all these people loving around with it when they should have left it alone! No wonder it all went wrong...

# ? Jul 24, 2014 20:11

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Or you could just do breeder reactors unless space terrorists are a legitimate problem for you.

# ? Jul 24, 2014 20:13

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

OK I'm somewhat reluctant to do this, since I used to post things on here all the time, and they'd get shot down and I'd lose heart, but I've been working on a video that neatly summarises the case for renewables in Australia, and I'm interested in some feedback and maybe a little help.

The idea is to make something that will hopefully spread virally. Maybe not quite "I Never Dreamed We Could Go 100% Renewable - Until I Saw This! Unbelievable!", but something that will get shared.

Format wise it's a sub-10 minute fairly rapid slide show with a voice over, with pictures and photos and diagrams, maybe a few short animations / video bits, even a cartoon or two. Not a slide for every word, but a lot of words would have slides. Here's a link to a google drive file with the slides in it (may need to use cloud converter to put it into pdf, seems like a big file, I am not good with computers): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByXAVa0RBbl0eWJ2ZEhCd0xZWDg/edit?usp=sharing

The slides have fallen well behind the script because I've been ignoring them until the script is more ready, but it lines up in most spots, and at least you can get an idea of the sorts of graphics involved.

The "solar freaking roadways" video is an interesting case study. The idea barely even makes sense, it has virtually no data to back it up, and I personally found the video quite irritating - but it got shared everywhere, over 70 million views, and raised over $2 million through indie gogo. Those are the sort of results I'm aiming for (high, I know).

So what I'm after is technical feedback - anything that jumps out at you as being wrong or not making sense. As you read it you'll see a lot of missing data points, feel free to fill them in if you can. Stylistic feedback is welcome too, but I'm expecting more technical stuff here. I know this is the toughest audience I can think of, but try and be nice just the same.

A few points:

Nuclear is a non starter over here, so I've left it out. So don't bother saying "why not just build nuclear". I'm not anti nuclear but that's not what this is about.

I've also completely left out any mention of climate change. The whole thing is framed in terms of the efficiency of the various methods.

It's at about 7:30 now, I've been running a scalpel over it countless times over the past few weeks, I don't know what else to take out. I'd like to get a 3 minute version as well though.

So here we go:

quote:

Let�s talk about Australia�s energy. We use electricity for everything these days, but where does it come from?

This is a big topic so first we�re going to need some numbers. How much energy do we actually need? If we assume a 40% increase over the next 10 years, it�s 325 TWh per annum. For this, we need a standing capacity of X GW.

How do we power those plants at the moment?

We dig stuff up. Lots, and lots of stuff. Let�s have look at how much stuff we actually go through.

Energy is measured in joules. Coal has an energy content of about 37 million joules, or megajoules MJ, per kilo.

Now Power Plants are measured in Watts, and a Watt means One Joule per Second. So if a power plant is rated at 1 Giga Watt, that means it�s pumping out 1 billion Joules per Second. Right?

So, with coal�s energy content of 37 million joules per kilo, to get that billion joules per second, you need to burn 27 kilos of it every second. But since they�re only around 35% efficient, you actually need to burn around 80 kg of coal per second. That�s 7,000 tonnes per day. In total, Australia goes through X kilos of coal per year. This leaves X kilos of ash, and releases X kg of arsenic, mercury, carbon, etc into the atmosphere.

Mining is still one of the most dangerous industries, and towns close to coal plants report cancer/disease rates X% higher than average. Last year coal was directly responsible for X deaths. (Doctors for the environment)

The other problem with fossil fuels is that they�re extremely combustible � that�s why we use them in the first place, so they have a tendency to catch fire and, well, explode.

But how does a coal plant actually work? Where does the electricity come from? Well, they burn the coal, to boil water, to make steam, to spin a turbine. It�s the spinning turbine that makes the electricity, which goes down the wires and into your home. It�s basically just a giant kettle. All this. To boil water. To make steam. To spin a turbine.

Fortunately, there�s more than one way to spin a turbine.

We�ve all heard about renewable energy, but how much of our energy can it actually provide? A quarter? Half? All of it? Let�s find out.

2:00

Remember we�re talking about that X GW standing capacity. At the moment, Renewables produce around 5%. Let�s aim for 100% and see what happens.

Australia gets X GW of direct solar energy per day. That is enough to power our needs for X years. So there�s obviously more than enough coming in, it�s just a matter of catching it.

And that�s exactly what Concentrated Solar Thermal plants do � Use giant mirrors to concentrate the sun�s heat on a central tower, and use that to boil water to spin a turbine.

This is the Ivanpah facility in Nevada. It produces X (330?) MW. If you put 13 of them together, you get 3.5 GW. If you get 12 of those sites around the country, that�s 42.5 GW, or enough to supply 60% of our target, for a cost of around $175 billion. The only fuel it needs is the sun, and when there�s a huge spill, it�s just called a nice day.

But what about when there�s no sun? Obviously a good question, and the answer is that they store the heat as molten salt, which keeps the system going 24/7. We also have another source of energy: The Wind.

Australia get an average of X GWh of wind energy per day, or enough to power X % of our needs. Again, it�s just a matter of catching it.

3:00

This, is an Enercon E126 turbine. It�s 138 meters tall, has a diameter of 127 meters, and on its own, produces 7.5 MW. If you put 2,000 � 3,000 of them together at one site, you get 13 � 22 GW. If you get 23 of those sites around the country, you get around X GW, or 40% of our energy demand, for a cost of $72 billion.

Now they do take up space, as I�m sure you�ve noticed. X sq km in total (CST / Wind). But there are two points to make here. First, Australia is unique in the world for just how much space it has, and second, that land can still be used for productive purposes. You can�t grow wheat on a coal mine, but you can on a wind farm.

As we know, the weather varies, so the plan has carefully selected a geographically diverse network of dozens of sites across the country, and modelled the meteorological data across several years to see how it holds up.

And the modelling shows that you still need back ups and helpers. Those are: Rooftop PV, existing Hydro, and Biomass.

Solar PV is solar thermal�s better known cousin. Except instead of using heat, it uses the electrical energy of sunlight to move electrons.
4:00

It would take X% of our available roof space to power Australia. But because we have the network, we only need X% for back up purposes. This would provide X GW.

Next up we have existing hydro. The Snowy Mountain Hyrdo Scheme was a classic Nation building exercise, which created thousands of jobs, played a formative role in our cultures, and secured a steady, reliable, renewable source of energy for Australia. At the moment it provides about 5% of Australia�s energy, which the plan will obviously continue to make use of.

Lastly have biomass. This can be anything, but is usually Bagasse, a waste product from sugar production. We use it by burning it, just like coal in the good �ol days. Except instead of taking millions of years to form, it�s produced on a daily basis.

The cost for all these back ups is between $10-20 billion.

To get the best performance out of this new system, we�re going to have to upgrade the transmission grid� from this, to this. That�ll cost around $92 billion.

5:00

So let�s put it all together and see how it performs for us. We know that this is how much energy we need we need over a year. And we also know how much sun and wind these places get over a year. So, this, is how much the wind turbines would give us. This, is how much the solar plants would give us. Straight away you can see that normally this is more than enough (need the slide to show total generation not cut off at the black line), but there are a few points around June and August where it falls short, and that�s where we use our backups of hydro and biomass. And that�s it, right there. We�ve got something to work with.

So it�s technologically possible, but what about getting it built? What effect will this have on the employment market?

Manufacturing would create around 30,000 jobs. This would then roll over into a world class export industry. Construction and Installation would provide around 80,000 jobs at its peak � 8% of Australia�s present construction work force. Then ongoing operations and maintenance would provide for about 40,000 new jobs.

It would literally create a whole new industry, catapulting Australia to the forefront of global innovation.

So what�s it cost all up? The Solar Thermal, plus the wind, plus the back ups, plus the transmission grid, comes to a total of $370 billion. Over 10 years, that works out to be $37 billion a year.

6:00
Where does that fit in terms of our overall spending? Well Australia�s GDP is $1.2 trillion per year, so this plan would cost 3% of GDP per year, for 10 years. To put it in perspective, we spend $20 billion a year on gambling. We can obviously afford this.

But what about the cost of not doing it? Energy at the moment isn�t free, and over 30 years, it�s about the same number of dollars. The difference between the capital cost of the plan and the fuel savings roughly evens out over that time frame. But after that, where are we?

Still with our heads buried in the mines, digging stuff up? Funnelling fossil fuels into furnaces? What happens when the rest of the world doesn�t want our coal? How can you measure the cost of being left behind in a new global industry?

All of this plan was developed by a group called Beyond Zero Emissions, but the point isn�t to say we need to do this plan specifically. The point is to give us a framework with which to think about the issue, and open the door to discussion.

Energy production is of course just one piece of the puzzle Beyond Zero Emissions is also working on many others, including a Transport Plan, a Buildings Plan, a Land Use Plan, and more.

Your donations will help BZE to continue to do the research needed to make these plans happen. Log on to energyfreedom.com.au and pledge your support for a sustainable future.

Australia�s economy has relied on exporting energy for decades. But the global energy market is changing. We need to become an international renewable energy super power.

We are uniquely positioned, with all of our space, and all of our sunlight, to develop the strongest renewable energy industry in the world. We have the solar power. We have the wind power. All we need now is the will power.

# ? Jul 30, 2014 04:51

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

What capacity factor does your 330MW solar thermal plant have and how variable is solar output in general (maybe somewhat predictable most of the time, considering it's Australia)? How many days of storage do you need? How many days of storage do you get for 20 billion (probably not many)?

suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Jul 30, 2014

# ? Jul 30, 2014 08:44

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

blowfish posted:

What capacity factor does your 330MW solar thermal plant have and how variable is solar output in general (maybe somewhat predictable most of the time, considering it's Australia)? How many days of storage do you need? How many days of storage do you get for 20 billion (probably not many)?

Since he's referencing the Ivanpah project, lets use their numbers to answer your solar questions:

$2.2Billion
~392MW Gross Capacity (3 towers)
~377MW Net Capacity
31% Capacity Factor
1,000 GWh annual generating capacity

Now that's mostly peak-following in places with high A/C use rather than heater use (like Australia) so relatively little would have to be stored relative to wind. I'm not familiar with Australian peak and off-peak loads, but I'm sure you could look it up if you were really interested.

# ? Jul 30, 2014 09:19

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

Hobo Erotica posted:

Nuclear is a non starter over here, so I've left it out. So don't bother saying "why not just build nuclear". I'm not anti nuclear but that's not what this is about.

Okay, but why not? Your video seems to be about reducing fossil fuel use in Australia, so why not build nuclear power plants that use Australian-produced uranium? You're trying to use an educational approach, so it seems like a really good opportunity to push a cheap and safe energy source whose widespread implementation is restricted only by a lack of education

If you're using the solar roadways video as your road map (hurr hurr puns), then you'll notice that the solar roadways video has no facts or figures and is essentially a combination of cartoons, Power Thirst Voiceovers, and sensationalized sentences like "Solar FREAKING roadways." Videos that appeal to reason with dollar figures and deaths/year are not viral videos. It's okay to have facts and figures, but they have to be hidden in a flashy presentation with a catchy voiceover

# ? Jul 30, 2014 10:45

GulMadred: Oct 20, 2005; I don't understand how you can be so mistaken.

QuarkJets posted:

Okay, but why not? Your video seems to be about reducing fossil fuel use in Australia, so why not build nuclear power plants that use Australian-produced uranium? You're trying to use an educational approach, so it seems like a really good opportunity to push a cheap and safe energy source whose widespread implementation is restricted only by a lack of education

Because the Australian public doesn't like nuclear. Coal is the enemy, Australia is a desert, and it's perfectly reasonably to push for a CST-dominated path for reducing carbon. Shoehorning nukes into the discussion wouldn't do much to broaden the appeal of the pitch, and would certainly provoke more opposition (perhaps even official condemnation from Sierra, Greenpeace et al).

It's a question of focus. If your goal is "educate the public about power" then, sure - debunk some atoms. If your goal is "stop burning coal" and your means is "educate the public about power" then you avoid the subject.

Analogy: if a Democratic politician in the USA wants to reduce crime then they should talk about sentencing reform, work-training programs, decriminalization, investment in education, social safety nets, etc... They should say nothing whatsoever about gun control.

# ? Jul 30, 2014 11:15

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

The Australian public probably doesn't like the high prices and intermittency issues associated with solar power, either, but you don't see me claiming that it's "shoehorning" to discuss the benefits of solar power in an educational video about alternatives to fossil fuels. Why not address a hybrid strategy?

If your goal is "stop burning coal" and your means is an educational video then it shouldn't matter which fuel source you choose to educate them about

e: Do whatever you want in your video. I just think that it's funny that you're using a line as cliche as "I'm not against nuclear power, but..."

QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 12:29 on Jul 30, 2014

# ? Jul 30, 2014 12:12

CombatInformatiker: Apr 11, 2012

Back in the real world, most people form strong, irrational opinions, influenced mainly by emotions and mass media. If you show them a plan based on a good balance between solar and nuclear, they will ignore or discredit you and your plan outright.

Solar power is better than fossil fuel, so a solar-based plan which is actually executed is better than a more reasonable plan which just ends up in a drawer.

Sure, you can continue ignoring the reality of political decision making and go on sperging "but you're all dumb and if only everyone would listen to me this world would be a better place" and see how far this gets you. Meanwhile, others can try pushing plans which actually have a chance of being implemented.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

# ? Jul 30, 2014 12:53

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

But I'm not ignoring the political reality, that's why I'm suggesting that nuclear power needs better public education and awareness. Maybe a campaign based on emotions and mass media

# ? Jul 30, 2014 12:59

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

blowfish posted:

How many days of storage do you get for 20 billion (probably not many)?

I'll give you 17 hours and that's my final offer.
(The Ivanpah website doesn't seem to say, but that's the number from Gemasolar in Spain that we've been working with I think)

After that, you burn Biomass I guess.

QuarkJets posted:

Okay, but why not? Your video seems to be about reducing fossil fuel use in Australia, so why not build nuclear power plants that use Australian-produced uranium? You're trying to use an educational approach, so it seems like a really good opportunity to push a cheap and safe energy source whose widespread implementation is restricted only by a lack of education

It's a fair question, and I see where you're coming from, but the answer is basically what Gul Madred said, and what I said in the beginning. It's a non-starter. Including nuclear makes it a whole different Thing, and would get plenty of people who you want to be allies off side.

In a few years, maybe we could do another video, comparing the hundreds of square kilometers needed by the plan to a handful of nuke plants for the same output except more reliable. But that's just not realistic right now, so I'm starting with this.

# ? Jul 30, 2014 13:00

blacksun: Mar 16, 2006; I told Cwapface not to register me with a title that said I am a faggot but he did it anyway because he likes to tell the truth.

Hobo Erotica posted:

It's funny that in the AusPol thread, everyone constantly posts the meme 'THE GREENS WILL NEVER FORM GOVERNMENT BECAUSE NO ONE VOTES FOR THE GREENS'. At the same time, you all post in the power gen thread about how nuclear power will never happen in Australia because people don't like nuclear power.

Cognitive dissonance much?

# ? Jul 30, 2014 13:12

Phayray: Feb 16, 2004

Before getting into a discussion of BZE vs nuclear and starting another derail, anyone promoting or discussing the BZE report should also read the two fairly detailed critiques, one by Martin Nicholson and Peter Lang and another by Ted Trainer. They both tend to challenge the base assumptions of the report with regards to future energy demands and potential efficiency gains rather than the "why not nuclear?" argument, which is a fair argument but I think ends up sidetracking from issues with the report itself (since you're challenging the premise and not the analysis contained within).

The reason I bring this up is because I don't think the report is trying to answer the question of "What is the best way to replace fossil fuels?" but rather "If we were to go 100% renewable, how would it be done and how much would it cost?" which is an interesting discussion by itself.

I can't find any responses by ZCA to the critiques but if someone has a link that'd be appreciated.

# ? Jul 30, 2014 13:29

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

blacksun posted:

It's funny that in the AusPol thread, everyone constantly posts the meme 'THE GREENS WILL NEVER FORM GOVERNMENT BECAUSE NO ONE VOTES FOR THE GREENS'. At the same time, you all post in the power gen thread about how nuclear power will never happen in Australia because people don't like nuclear power.

Cognitive dissonance much?

Not really? Sounds pretty consistent - unpopular things are unpopular. But I do vote green, and I do talk to people about nuclear, but that's not what this specific video is for. You want to make a nuclear video, go for it. Also I really haven't been doing much posting in either thread for some time.

And thanks phayray I'll try and read those tomorrow.

# ? Jul 30, 2014 14:16

Pander: Oct 9, 2007; Fear is the glue that holds society together. It's what makes people suppress their worst impulses. Fear is power.

And at the end of fear, oblivion.

Phayray posted:

The reason I bring this up is because I don't think the report is trying to answer the question of "What is the best way to replace fossil fuels?" but rather "If we were to go 100% renewable, how would it be done and how much would it cost?" which is an interesting discussion by itself.

This is good advice. It's disingenuous to handwave away nuclear when you ask "what is the best way to replace fossil fuels" for political reasons, because then your understanding of the word "best" and how it applies scientifically are immediately suspect. Looking at it through a lens of "how is 100% solar/wind achievable and what will it cost?" is more honest and direct.

In terms of viral video, you're kind of screwed. Viral status often relies on unexpected ideas, arresting presentation, and celebrity cache. If you don't have the first two, you better have the last one. An informative video or powerpoint about AusSolar is fine in an academic sense, but if it isn't entertaining or amazing it's kinda hard to get viral.

# ? Jul 30, 2014 15:20

Quantum Mechanic: Apr 25, 2010; Just another fuckwit who thrives on fake moral outrage.
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me

lol abbottsgonnawin

blacksun posted:

It's funny that in the AusPol thread, everyone constantly posts the meme 'THE GREENS WILL NEVER FORM GOVERNMENT BECAUSE NO ONE VOTES FOR THE GREENS'.

No, the meme in AusPol is "the Greens can't form government because people don't vote Green because the Greens can't for government because..." It's a statement to the circular logic that people don't vote for the Greens, not because they don't like them/disagree with them, but because voting Labor is perceived as a more effective vote, because the Greens are unlikely to form government. This is completely different from the fundamental fact that Australians misunderstand, distrust and to some extent fear nuclear power.

blacksun posted:

At the same time, you all post in the power gen thread about how nuclear power will never happen in Australia because people don't like nuclear power.

Nuclear power is never going to happen in Australia because a) Australians hate it, b) Australia doesn't have the scientific or engineering expertise or the productive capacity to even begin incorporating large-scale nuclear power into our grid in a reasonable time frame, and c) thanks to various geopolitical realities regarding the United States and the nuclear programs of small desert nations, we are unlikely to be able to take advantage of various things like reprocessing and breeding that are the common answer to issues of waste. Of course, if America goes even more gung-ho about climate change, that might shift a bit, but President Cruz 2016 is unlikely to be any more cool with us reprocessing fuel than the US was back in the 70s.

I've also read the Nicholson/Lang critique before and it's not really any more compelling now than it was then. It literally begins with "the plan makes some assumptions that we don't like. When you ignore these assumptions, the plan DOESN'T WORK!!!"

Yes? When you ignore large sections of the plan, the plan fails. They also spend a lot of time on phrases like "we doubt" "we think it prudent" and similar phrases without any backup for WHY it's the case. They certainly cite the numbers they find more prudent, but don't really make a case for why. Are the BZE estimates optimistic? Sure, I'll cop that. They're not plucked out of thin air, though, any more than Nicholson and Lang's are. I'll also cop the timeline being unworkable, though; the timeline is as much a marketing gimmick as anything else, accomplishing 100% renewable energy in ten years would basically require a wartime-style planned economy.

I'm not even going to touch Trainer since the poor guy's way out of his depth in trying to critique an engineering study, and his major problem seems to be that ongoing future sustainability is incompatible with a system that relies on industrial production and economic growth. I agree with that, but it's not really germane to the discussion. (as an aside, check out the comments on that article sometime; apparently being pro-renewable means you're a totalitarian plant)

One of the things that isn't often noted about the BZE plan is that it does rely heavily on capital investment into energy efficiency, not just renewable production. It's been noted before in the thread that Australians have an almost heroic lack of regard for insulation in their homes, and that's true of a lot of other things. We're accustomed, as a society, to wasting tremendous amounts of energy compensating for our lack of foresight in planning, construction and maintenance. Part of what I'd guess you'd call the philosophy of the plan is that spending money on saving a megajoule of energy that didn't need to be consumed is better and most likely more efficient than spending money on generating a megajoule of energy, through any means.

Quantum Mechanic fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jul 30, 2014

# ? Jul 30, 2014 16:19

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Just say "This plan is a mix of several zero carbon energy generators but solar will be the largest contributor*".

*by number of facilities

# ? Jul 30, 2014 16:44

crazypenguin: Mar 9, 2005; nothing witty here, move along

For what it's worth, Australia might actually be a place where they can get away with being nuclear-phobic. Don't they have pretty consistent year-round sunlight?

Most the problem with solar is seasonal variability, not daily variability. With the storage you need to get power from wind, you're basically well over what's necessary to accommodate solar's daily fluctuations. And with thermal solar, the problem is even smaller still.

The real big problem with solar is when you're getting a 200x difference in power generated in January vs July. There's not enough storage in the world to store for 6 months and then discharge for 6 months. You just can't smooth that out.

# ? Jul 30, 2014 19:59

Hedera Helix: Sep 2, 2011; The laws of the fiesta mean nothing!

Have all the good sites for hydroelectric dams been claimed there?

# ? Jul 30, 2014 20:04

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

crazypenguin posted:

The real big problem with solar is when you're getting a 200x difference in power generated in January vs July. There's not enough storage in the world to store for 6 months and then discharge for 6 months. You just can't smooth that out.

Your numbers are off (200x is goodnatured hyperbole I assume), but the point is still valid that there is seasonal variation (based on your distance to the equator). However, in places where there is a high degree of seasonal solar power production there is often an high degree of seasonal power demand.

That is, if its stupidly sunny in the summer its also likely that's a place that will be hot and thus have a lot of A/C.

Edit: this report by the Australia Electricity Market Operator is probably the definitive answer on 100% renewables in Australia: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/documents/08_2013/100-percent-renewables-study-modelling-outcomes-report.pdf

tl;dr:

1. Would require 2-3x overbuilt capacity versus maximum demand
2. Would require utility grade bio-gas & bio-mass
3. $220-$340B AUS in costs (assuming perfect investment like we do with lcoe numbers, but real world is higher)
4. Up to 5,000 Square KM of land required
5. Increased PV installed capacity would switch Australia to a winter-peak from a summer-peak
6. Looks like they're working on an assumption of 10GW of baseload Geothermal, which is a boon for Australia
7. These models were for 2030 & 2050 along with a fast and slow technology/economic growth option accounting for the ranges

Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Jul 30, 2014

# ? Jul 30, 2014 20:12

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Kind of funny that the one thing I said was "don't bother bringing up nuclear", and yet...

Quantum Mechanic posted:

One of the things that isn't often noted about the BZE plan is that it does rely heavily on capital investment into energy efficiency, not just renewable production.

I had this bit in, but it got cut to keep it down. It's pretty hard to explain a plan like this with all the backgroud in 7 and a half minutes.

"The quickest and easiest way to reduce the gap between the amount that we produce and the amount that we need, is to lower the amount that we need. There are a lot of easy gains to be made with efficiency, and by just targeting low hanging fruit, we can do a lot more with a lot less. That�s another whole video on its own, but here, we�re talking about the production side. So let�s look at what we�ve got."

I decided it took up to many seconds so will likely just make another video for it. BZE have asked me to do one for all of them, starting with energy freedom and building plans next.

# ? Jul 30, 2014 23:04

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

GulMadred posted:

Because the Australian public doesn't like nuclear. Coal is the enemy, Australia is a desert, and it's perfectly reasonably to push for a CST-dominated path for reducing carbon. Shoehorning nukes into the discussion wouldn't do much to broaden the appeal of the pitch, and would certainly provoke more opposition (perhaps even official condemnation from Sierra, Greenpeace et al).

Like, condemnation from the people who are usually decent on social policy, mixed at conservation and terrible at energy policy?

My initial reaction to people on the :supaburn:

ATOMZ

bandwagon is "gently caress you idiots" even if they're greenpeace or whoever, maybe your video will get seen by more people if it stirs up a bit fo a shitstorm? :v:

e: sadly, that's probably not a video that would appear on BZE's website

e2: notes on your actual slides, take with a grain of salt:
* You end on an "oil is horrible" note, rather than a "solar thermal is good and can actually work" note. Even I as someone who wishes a third of the country were nature reserves get tired of hearing it since it's such a stereotypical thing for any environmentalist/green/ecologist/... to say and environmental doomsaying (no matter how accurate) does not make people care. Will your target audience have heard it multiple times already? If yes, then be brief on the subject and lump it into the initial "stuff we dig out of the ground" section.

* It is long and has more than one detailed graphs. Solar FREAKING roadways seems effective to me partly because it is so incredibly simplistic. Have a coherent storyline, a catchy message, and a coherent storyline. Repeat the catchy message a reasonable number of times in a way people are not used to. Add a fig leaf of supporting information so people will feel like ~~it's~~ they're smart. Try to keep your graphs simple, as in "here's two smooth lines illustrating the principle", with the only possible exception being the graph where all renewables add up to fill the energy demand. Add a part that says "for detailed information see [webpage]" at the end so anyone who actually wants to know what's going on can look at it.
The "it's long" part would be helped by cutting down/moving to the digging stuff up-part the "oil bad" final set of slides. It feels out of place in an "oh god, this goes on and I have to sit down again just as I was getting up to leave" way.

suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Jul 31, 2014

# ? Jul 31, 2014 00:24

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Thanks, on a phone, but just a quick one to say the oil slides at the end had been cut, and it actually 'ends' on the slide with the 5 other plans on it, sorry if that was unclear. And just to reiterate, the slides are way behind the script ATM and represent only a rough sketch of the final product.

# ? Jul 31, 2014 01:21

Quantum Mechanic: Apr 25, 2010; Just another fuckwit who thrives on fake moral outrage.
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me

lol abbottsgonnawin

crazypenguin posted:

Don't they have pretty consistent year-round sunlight?

Yes. Insolation values in the places where BZE indicated solar thermal builds are fairly consistent.

Hedera Helix posted:

Have all the good sites for hydroelectric dams been claimed there?

Pretty much. Most of our good hydro is in Tasmania.

# ? Jul 31, 2014 02:02

blacksun: Mar 16, 2006; I told Cwapface not to register me with a title that said I am a faggot but he did it anyway because he likes to tell the truth.

Quantum Mechanic posted:

The Greens Forming Government in Australia is never going to happen in Australia because a) Australians hate the Greens, b) Australia doesn't have the scientific or engineering to understand why the Greens policies are actually better than the 'common sense' solutions of the middle right, and c) thanks to various geopolitical realities regarding the United States we won't ever elect a Left-wing government while we import a majority of Right-wing culture from the US

See how interchangeable your arguments here are?

I'm all for a video being made supporting and educating the BZE plan for renewable energy in Australia, I'm just sick of the counter-productive attitude so many people here have regarding nuclear power. It's like they don't want to talk about it because they think it will poison the well.

# ? Jul 31, 2014 03:04

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

crazypenguin posted:

For what it's worth, Australia might actually be a place where they can get away with being nuclear-phobic. Don't they have pretty consistent year-round sunlight?

Most the problem with solar is seasonal variability, not daily variability. With the storage you need to get power from wind, you're basically well over what's necessary to accommodate solar's daily fluctuations. And with thermal solar, the problem is even smaller still.

The real big problem with solar is when you're getting a 200x difference in power generated in January vs July. There's not enough storage in the world to store for 6 months and then discharge for 6 months. You just can't smooth that out.

I liked solar a lot more before I saw this

Solar in Germany :negative:

# ? Jul 31, 2014 03:08

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

Quantum Mechanic posted:

I'll also cop the timeline being unworkable, though; the timeline is as much a marketing gimmick as anything else, accomplishing 100% renewable energy in ten years would basically require a wartime-style planned economy.

That's by far the worst part of the report. Choosing optimistic numbers where you foresee technological improvements making them the norm in the future is one thing. Choosing optimistic numbers that redirect the entire domestic and some international supply of a product is dishonest to a point that borders on fraud.

poo poo like that really undermines the claim that you have the science/numbers on your side. It's similar to the claim by the current government that it could switch the technology mix of our national broadband deployment and complete it sooner and cheaper. Anyone with any insight into the industry would know they would be lucky to reach peak deployment, and it would be unlikely to finish any sooner then the original plan.

If the plan suggested 30-40 years, it would put it on similar timeframe to other technologies but that's okay. If your numbers are in line with similar, mature technologies, you pass the sniff test for determining whether your plan is realistic, or is some miracle, pseudo scientific bullshit. I think it would have been great if the report suggested a deployment that took into account the attrition of our current assets and staggered construction to meet them. Alas it stuck to publicising an unrealistic deployment for public attention, not for the people for which these decisions matter.

blacksun posted:

It's like they don't want to talk about it because they think it will poison the well.

Because it will. I don't know if your Australian or not, but even the mining of Uranium is a contentious issue. Some people don't even like the fact we operate a research/industrial reactor. People barely give a poo poo about the detrimental impacts of coal. We had a coal mine fire recently that caused toxic smoke to pass over population centres for a month. It had readily observable health impacts, yet no order was given to evacuate those towns, and the government made every effort to make it appear like it was no big deal.

Tokamak fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Jul 31, 2014

# ? Jul 31, 2014 03:17

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Anosmoman posted:

I liked solar a lot more before I saw this

Solar in Germany

Fun part: this doesn't even account for how the German system involves a ton of placements that only get max output for fractions of the day, due to poor aiming and enviromental shadow.

# ? Jul 31, 2014 03:21

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Anosmoman posted:

Solar in Germany

Solar in Australia :dance:

# ? Jul 31, 2014 03:23

Pander: Oct 9, 2007; Fear is the glue that holds society together. It's what makes people suppress their worst impulses. Fear is power.

And at the end of fear, oblivion.

Anosmoman posted:

I liked solar a lot more before I saw this

Solar in Germany

Germany's an example where "installed" capacity and actual generation are widely widely disparate. Having 30 GW of installed solar is a great concept, but not so useful when you have a 10% capacity factor with it (~36 GW installed vs. 31,400 GWh produced in a year)

# ? Jul 31, 2014 03:23

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Tokamak posted:

I think it would have been great if the report suggested a deployment that took into account the attrition of our current assets and staggered construction to meet them.

I'm not sure if you read the whole report or not, but it basically did this. Materials as a percentage of national annual production are on page 102, and the staggered construction you can see in the slides, or read more about from page 108.

edit: Still extremely optimistic of course, and bordering on a war-time style "Let's all do this right now" kind of thing, but a good starting point, and the numbers are there.

Bucky Fullminster fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Jul 31, 2014

# ? Jul 31, 2014 03:32

Hedera Helix: Sep 2, 2011; The laws of the fiesta mean nothing!

I've asked this before, but how feasible is it to used overproduced electricity from solar in industrial applications? Like, for water desalinization, or electrolyzing water to get hydrogen gas, which could then be used to produce ammonia?

# ? Jul 31, 2014 03:37

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

Hobo Erotica posted:

I'm not sure if you read the whole report or not, but it basically did this. Materials as a percentage of national annual production are on page 102, and the staggered construction you can see in the slides, or read more about from page 108.

edit: Still extremely optimistic of course, and bordering on a war-time style "Let's all do this right now" kind of thing, but a good starting point, and the numbers are there.

Yeah, I did. The second paragraph supports my claim. It's not a good supporting point if its extremely deceptive. Saying that we are just going to change our national broadband technology mix without consideration to the real world, is a good starting point.

Tokamak fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Jul 31, 2014

# ? Jul 31, 2014 03:40

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Hedera Helix posted:

I've asked this before, but how feasible is it to used overproduced electricity from solar in industrial applications? Like, for water desalinization, or electrolyzing water to get hydrogen gas, which could then be used to produce ammonia?

The idea that solar is over-produced isn't really something that happens. Instead we'd just turn off other power plants. Especially since solar forecasts are very good the day-ahead market usually just means that if there is a glut of solar that's when other power plants are turning off. Same with wind.

# ? Jul 31, 2014 03:50

Hedera Helix: Sep 2, 2011; The laws of the fiesta mean nothing!

Trabisnikof posted:

The idea that solar is over-produced isn't really something that happens. Instead we'd just turn off other power plants. Especially since solar forecasts are very good the day-ahead market usually just means that if there is a glut of solar that's when other power plants are turning off. Same with wind.

But... if you're trying to achieve a majority of electric power produced from renewables, after a certain point, wouldn't there be few (or no) additional coal or gas plants to shut down? Or would they remain, for days when there's not much sunlight?

# ? Jul 31, 2014 03:54

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Hedera Helix posted:

But... if you're trying to achieve a majority of electric power produced from renewables, after a certain point, wouldn't there be no more coal or gas plants to shut down? Or would they remain, for days when there's not much sunlight?

Bio-gas from sewage treatment and landfills, hydro (if dispatchable), geothermal and are usually what people talk about in a 100% renewables scenario as responsive capacity. But the issue isn't when there's too much supply, you can always turn off generation stations (if they are sized right). The issue is when there isn't enough generation and its there that you either need a lot of responsive capacity or heavily overbuilt wind/solar. Most 100% renewable models do a bit of both.

# ? Jul 31, 2014 04:03

Quantum Mechanic: Apr 25, 2010; Just another fuckwit who thrives on fake moral outrage.
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me

lol abbottsgonnawin

blacksun posted:

See how interchangeable your arguments here are?

Are you deadset serious?

blacksun posted:

a) Australians hate the Greens,

If you think the average distrust of the Greens as a political party in Australia is even equivalent to the level of entrenched NOPE about nuclear, I don't know what to tell you.

blacksun posted:

b) Australia doesn't have the scientific or engineering to understand why the Greens policies are actually better than the 'common sense' solutions of the middle right

Did you just check out halfway through that sentence or something? I was speaking about the actual level of nuclear science expertise in Australia. ANSTO couldn't run a nuclear grid alone. It's nothing to do with the education of our populace, it's to do with the number and education of our scientists, and thanks to recent changes in university and research policy, that's going to get worse before it gets better.

blacksun posted:

c) thanks to various geopolitical realities regarding the United States we won't ever elect a Left-wing government while we import a majority of Right-wing culture from the US

Please explain how the soft importation of culture is equivalent to the actual direct diplomatic and political pressure that was put on Australia by the United States with respect to our nuclear program, tia

Tokamak posted:

That's by far the worst part of the report. Choosing optimistic numbers where you foresee technological improvements making them the norm in the future is one thing. Choosing optimistic numbers that redirect the entire domestic and some international supply of a product is dishonest to a point that borders on fraud.

It's not important to the viability of the plan overall, though. Changing the roadmap to 20, 30 years doesn't really change the major point that the research is viable, because a switchover to renewables doesn't have to (and most likely won't) happen overnight, and aside from a few parts like the grid switchover, very little of the project is dependent on large, work-intensive breakpoints. It could happen gradually without affecting the viability of the plan.

Like it's been said before, the plan isn't "This is how Australia WILL go to 100% renewable energy." It's "this is how Australia COULD go to 100% renewable energy." I'll definitely accept that it could well have been better to leave timeframes out of the plan entirely.

# ? Jul 31, 2014 04:16

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Anosmoman posted:

I liked solar a lot more before I saw this

Solar in Germany

The fact that this goes negative makes me think it must be solar radiance minus black body radiation from the earth itself. But that would also mean it's not a very good guide to the productivity of solar power, since only the former figure would be relevant for that.

# ? Jul 31, 2014 04:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 23:22

ohgodwhat: Aug 6, 2005

Hobo Erotica posted:

Thanks, on a phone, but just a quick one to say the oil slides at the end had been cut, and it actually 'ends' on the slide with the 5 other plans on it, sorry if that was unclear. And just to reiterate, the slides are way behind the script ATM and represent only a rough sketch of the final product.

Just with regards to making a viral video, adding a bunch of "choices" at the end based on various plans might seem to be good educationally, but I wonder if it might make it less effective - paralysis of choice and all that. Essentially, I think it raises doubt in the message. I bet there's a way to honestly convey the possibilities without distracting from your point.

# ? Jul 31, 2014 05:05

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

«‹›348 »