|
Strudel Man posted: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. This. You can't draw any conclusion regarding solar power feasibility from this animation (which doesn't negate the fact that solar power is not a good option for certain places on earth).
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:This. You can't draw any conclusion regarding solar power feasibility from this animation (which doesn't negate the fact that solar power is not a good option for certain places on earth). That's why it's handy to compare installed capacity with power generated. 10% capacity factor. Alanis Morrissette could write an entire stanza about how Germany's quest for renewables has led to an increase coal capacity. I mean, australia's population density is like single digits per square mile and it gets a ton of sun, great combination. Germany's people/sq mile is over 600 and their sun is really bad. If they really want to save the environment, just save all the money you'd spend building up that infrastructure locally and instead ship and build it somewhere useful like India. Help their grid out while you're at it, Germany. There, you're saving the world more efficiently. Good job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted: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. Sorry if I was unclear again, they're not different plans for energy generation, they're different plans for different areas - transport, land use, buildings, etc. Energy generation is just one part of their research, and I think it's worth mentioning the others. quote:save all the money you'd spend building up that infrastructure locally and instead ship and build it somewhere useful like India. Help their grid out while you're at it, Germany. There, you're saving the world more efficiently. Good job. Oh man, that's actually a pretty good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:Oh man, that's actually a pretty good idea. Maybe for an NGO or a venture capitalist, but it'd be completely irresponsible for a nation-state that is nominally beholden to its citizens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Maybe for an NGO or a venture capitalist, but it'd be completely irresponsible for a nation-state that is nominally beholden to its citizens. One planet, brother. Literally I mean. As in, if Germany is trying to lower the carbone pollution produced by their energy generation for its effect on the global climate, that money would perform much better in India. For the local particulate emissions, yeah ok maybe they should keep it in Germany.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:One planet, brother. Actually I think Germany's poor insolation might still be a best use of money than funneling it into India's corrupt bureaucracy. But we're in fairy land anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:One planet, brother. One planet, but millions of people. Those national governments exist to look after the collective interests of those people, and taking German taxpayer's dollars to build windmills in India directly conflicts with German economic and environmental interests. The only way I could see something like what you're suggesting being considered would be if there was some sort of international cap-and-trade program, that emphasized an overall reduction in emissions or increase in energy efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
Kaal posted:One planet, but millions of people. Those national governments exist to look after the collective interests of those people, and taking German taxpayer's dollars to build windmills in India directly conflicts with German economic and environmental interests. The only way I could see something like what you're suggesting being considered would be if there was some sort of international cap-and-trade program, that emphasized an overall reduction in emissions or increase in energy efficiency. Building solar in Germany also conflicts directly with Germany's economic and environmental interests.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:One planet, brother. But since Germany coal consumption has been growing, decreasing carbon pollution is apparently not a major goal
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
Tokamak posted: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. I've lived in Brisbane for 20 years+ and now Melbourne for 2 years+. I don't see any sort of the entrenched hostility that is constantly referred to by people like QM or Hobo. Might have something to do with the fact that they are constantly surrounded by Greens who are extremely anti-nuclear. I've said it before in this thread and the AusPol thread, we need a mixture of energy technologies. Sure, push them separately, however, sitting there and saying 'nuclear power will never have any public support to generate the political will to implement it in Australia' is facetious and clearly falls into the same category of those who don't vote for the Greens because they are a minor party. The parallels are clear, but if you can't see that by yourself no one is ever going to be able to make you. At this point we should be pushing every and any alternate technology to fossil fuels, including things like BZE's renewable plan, and including nuclear power. P.S. I know about 10x the amount of people who think, if elected, the Greens would literally destroy Australia and have us living in caves in a matter of years than those who oppose nuclear power. P.P.S. I vote Greens. Just hate the anti-nuclear idiots that run most of the party. Still not enough to get me to vote for anyone else though...
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
blacksun posted:I've lived in Brisbane for 20 years+ and now Melbourne for 2 years+. I don't see any sort of the entrenched hostility that is constantly referred to by people like QM or Hobo. Might have something to do with the fact that they are constantly surrounded by Greens who are extremely anti-nuclear. Ah yes, growing up and living in Western Sydney, the beating heart of inner-city elitism, I have constantly found myself surrounded by Greens. I've been a member of the party for just over two years and have really pretty much had to seek interaction with Greens. Nuclear, though? Immediate NIMBYism. Jesus, I know people who didn't want to take a manufacturing job in a different part of ANSTO because of the reactor. Polling generally shows 40-60% oppose nuclear power in Australia. Support hovers at about 20-30%. e: in the interests of full disclosure, it was getting slightly better in the last few years. Then Fukushima happened. Support dropped like a stone. blacksun posted:The parallels are clear, but if you can't see that by yourself no one is ever going to be able to make you. If the argument against nuclear power was "We don't support nuclear power because we're never going to build nuclear in Australia because we don't support nuclear power..." you might have a point. Quantum Mechanic fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 13:12
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Update your fact sheets, hydro is now less than 50% of renewables in the US: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=17351 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Update your fact sheets, hydro is now less than 50% of renewables in the US: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=17351 I'm not surprised, hydro is pretty tapped out and it's terrible for the environment (less than fossil fuels but worse than anything else).
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm not surprised, hydro is pretty tapped out and it's terrible for the environment (less than fossil fuels but worse than anything else). Yeah as the charts show its more about the rise of non-hydro renewables and less about hydro changing. Also interesting to note that non-hydro renewables have less seasonal variability than hydro-renewables at scales this large.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
I'd like to see other baseload sources charted alongside hydropower, it seems to be following a regular pattern of demand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I'd like to see other baseload sources charted alongside hydropower, it seems to be following a regular pattern of demand. Hydro is rarely dispatchable. Instead its likely following seasonal water discharge requirements. However, I'm sure the EIA has the chart you're interested somewhere. Edit: quote:Hydropower capacity has increased by slightly more than 1% over the past decade, although actual hydropower generation can vary noticeably by season depending on water supply conditions Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Aug 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
Are those real renewables or is that also counting burning biogas or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Are those real renewables or is that also counting burning biogas or whatever. It seems like it's counting biomass but most of the growth is in wind & solar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Are those real renewables or is that also counting burning biogas or whatever. Biogas is a renewable and if you are burning sewer or landfill gas you have a lower greenhouse gas limit because the gases are worse greenhouse gases than the carbon emitted by burning them. quote:The recent growth in wind and solar, which reflects policies such as state renewable portfolio standards and federal tax credits as well as declining costs of technology, has been the primary driver in the increasing market share of nonhydro renewable generation. There also has been growth in geothermal and biomass sources. Edit: that study also excludes all consumer solar so renewables are likely higher. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Aug 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Are those real renewables or is that also counting burning biogas or whatever. Not a graph but all the data http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf First 4 months of 2014 totals (rounding off, TWh) hydro 88 biomass 19.8 geothermal 5.4 solar 4.6 wind 68.5 Looks like over the past two decades hydro has been fairly constant, it's natural gas that has really taken off, plus wind power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Hydro is rarely dispatchable. Instead its likely following seasonal water discharge requirements. However, I'm sure the EIA has the chart you're interested somewhere. Many large scale hydro facilities are capable of reducing number of turbines in operation for long terms. Some were even designed with the intention that certain turbines would be allocated to specific towns' needs (the Hoover Dam had this for a few Arizona towns before things were switched all to feed into the grid).
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Looks like SONGS is going to cost $4.2 Billion to dismantle: http://www.nanaimodailynews.com/business/san-onofre-nuclear-power-plant-dismantling-will-cost-4-4-billion-take-20-years-1.1273679
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Looks like SONGS is going to cost $4.2 Billion to dismantle: http://www.nanaimodailynews.com/business/san-onofre-nuclear-power-plant-dismantling-will-cost-4-4-billion-take-20-years-1.1273679 That's in the ballpark of the build cost. Nuclear is still cheaper than renewables in most places even if it costs twice the build cost. See: That Finnish clusterfuck of an EPR build.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 00:54
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Are the decade-long dismantling times I often see just waiting for the isotopes in the pressure vessel to decay? News articles always make it seem as if it was a fulltime project.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
blowfish posted:That's in the ballpark of the build cost. Nuclear is still cheaper than renewables in most places even if it costs twice the build cost. See: That Finnish clusterfuck of an EPR build. I never mentioned renewables, just brought up the latest figures of the teardown since the operator hadn't posted any yet. It is in the ballpark for most expensive teardown in the US though. Lurking Haro posted:Are the decade-long dismantling times I often see just waiting for the isotopes in the pressure vessel to decay? When Rancho Seco was prematurely shut down they needed to built a gas-fired power plant just to supply power for the dismantling operating. Mainly fans, pumps and the like. I think there's a lot of "well we're going to have to wait XX years anyway so why go fast". It wasn't too long ago when they finally finished decommissioning Humbolt Bay. Why hire more people to get it done faster when you're going to need a minimum number of people for a long time anyway? Edit: I'm not finding a good source for the rancho-seco power plant, but I'll have a source in a while. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I never mentioned renewables, just brought up the latest figures of the teardown since the operator hadn't posted any yet. It is in the ballpark for most expensive teardown in the US though. Yeah, I brought up renewables since I was reminded of some NIMBY objections over the soon-to-come German Energiewende nuclear teardowns because  concrete used somewhere in a nuclear power plant building won't go in caskets but into building roads or whatever.
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Yeah, I brought up renewables since I was reminded of some NIMBY objections over the soon-to-come German Energiewende nuclear teardowns because I have a paper model of the Finnish EPR and I'm gong to finish the model before the actual reactor comes online. I have only built the ancillary support building.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I have a paper model of the Finnish EPR and I'm gong to finish the model before the actual reactor comes online. Heh, it's the vaporware amongst nuclear power plants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Using the 'political reality' argument has always struck me as particularly disingenuous, or at least ignorant. If we honestly want to talk about what is likely to happen in the near future based on the likely political climate then we pretty much have to admit that catastrophic global warming is inevitable. Taking this attitude, of course, is worthless, so what you should do is advocate for what you believe in and change the political reality to a better one. so yeah, i think you should advocate for nuclear power even if it is unpopular because it is probably the best chance to unfuck ourselves from global warming
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Using the 'political reality' argument has always struck me as particularly disingenuous, or at least ignorant. If we honestly want to talk about what is likely to happen in the near future based on the likely political climate then we pretty much have to admit that catastrophic global warming is inevitable. Taking this attitude, of course, is worthless, so what you should do is advocate for what you believe in and change the political reality to a better one. The problem becomes that both conversations of "what is going to happen realistically?" and "what should we do if I could wave a magic wand?" both end up kinda boring. If we talk about waving a magic wand, people just decide that some things are changeable with the magic wand (politics) but other things aren't (public opinion) or whatever. I'd use my magic wand powers to increase energy efficiency to maximum. Then we're arguing about two fantasies, neither of which are close to reality. On the flip side, arguing about reality is just depressing or smug as it ends with "well, we will see who is right in 2050! If we all still can afford electricity....". edit: magic wand, not magic people. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The problem becomes that both conversations of "what is going to happen realistically?" and "what should we do if I could wave a magic wand?" both end up kinda boring. If we talk about waving a magic wand, people just decide that some things are changeable with the magic wand (politics) but other things aren't (public opinion) or whatever. I'd use my magic wand powers to increase energy efficiency to maximum. Then we're arguing about two fantasies, neither of which are close to reality. On the flip side, arguing about reality is just depressing or smug as it ends with "well, we will see who is right in 2050! If we all still can afford electricity....". i'm not saying 'what should we wave a magic wand over' as much as 'what should we strive for.' just taking the political environment as an unshakable fait accompli seems like giving up the war before the first battle is fought.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:i'm not saying 'what should we wave a magic wand over' as much as 'what should we strive for.' just taking the political environment as an unshakable fait accompli seems like giving up the war before the first battle is fought. It might help to include an alternative solution that includes nuclear, so people can judge just how squeamish they are about it. They may oppose nuclear in the abstract, but seeing the actual price to be paid for no nukes may change some opinions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It might help to include an alternative solution that includes nuclear, so people can judge just how squeamish they are about it. They may oppose nuclear in the abstract, but seeing the actual price to be paid for no nukes may change some opinions. That's a good point. I was pro-renewable, ambivalent about nuclear (primarily because it still puts Americans in hock to countries with uranium ore) but then I saw the data about how expensive and difficult it would be to build near-zero carbon energy infrastructure without nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Radbot posted:That's a good point. I was pro-renewable, ambivalent about nuclear (primarily because it still puts Americans in hock to countries with uranium ore) but then I saw the data about how expensive and difficult it would be to build near-zero carbon energy infrastructure without nuclear. Yes, how terrible it would be to have to get uranium from such shady countries as Canada or Australia
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Piell posted:Yes, how terrible it would be to have to get uranium from such shady countries as Canada or Australia Uranium reserves are slightly different (though by far the largest component is again Australia).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Just go with breeder reactors and run them off your existing waste.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Piell posted:Yes, how terrible it would be to have to get uranium from such shady countries as Canada or Australia Yes, I agree that relying on other countries for materials needed for energy generation isn't optimal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Really? That's a very bizarre opinion to have in today's interconnected world, particularly when talking about friendly countries like those two. There are far bigger concerns with respect to self sufficiency than that. besides that nuclear energy with uranium sourced from sea water extraction is probably the closest you will ever get to completely self sufficient energy production. Any other major source of clean energy requires you to rely on countries far more unstable than Canada. Like there's never been a time when the us was even close to self sufficient nor has it ever been a thing that was even seriously considered. Getting off middle east oil? Sure. But nobody had ever seriously advocated not needing to rely on trade for energy. tsa fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
tsa posted:Like there's never been a time when the us was even close to self sufficient nor has it ever been a thing that was even seriously considered. Getting off middle east oil? Sure. But nobody had ever seriously advocated not needing to rely on trade for energy. The United States might actually approach energy self-suffciency and even become an energy exporter if* tight oil and shale gas extraction continues to grow and produce. EIA estimates are within the 2040-2050 timeframe. *Obviously a big if.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
Radbot posted:Yes, I agree that relying on other countries for materials needed for energy generation isn't optimal. If Canada ever turns against us, we'd have way bigger troubles than not having new uranium from them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 21:40
|
|