The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

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

Grognan: Jan 23, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

Setting the surrounding wildlife on fire as a side effect is amazingly metal. It's like GWAR and Greenpeace had a baby. The three eyed fish from Simpsons is out, long live the phoenix generator.

# ? Aug 18, 2014 21:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 09:09

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Someone needs to make some birds per Kw chart for various power generation since it's all the media likes to talk about.

# ? Aug 18, 2014 21:41

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Hedera Helix posted:

fake edit: I'm trying to find comparisons for which methods end up doing the most harm, but it's difficult to find sources that are both trustworthy and easy for a lay audience to follow.

That's an entire branch of science which is currently being developed so don't worry if you couldn't find a good source. There are few studies that work both cross-impact (co2, water, wildlife, human, etc) and cross-industry/source (power production, fuel cycle, resource extraction, etc).

I had heard about the bird issues out at Ivanpah, but I imagine they'll be able to reduce the number of birds killed, airports have a similar issue. However, I'm sure this will be a siting issue for future plants, especially for birds covered under the endangered species act.

Grognan posted:

Setting the surrounding wildlife on fire as a side effect is amazingly metal. It's like GWAR and Greenpeace had a baby. The three eyed fish from Simpsons is out, long live the phoenix generator.

Power towers look pretty metal-scifi to me.

Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Aug 18, 2014

# ? Aug 18, 2014 21:45

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.

Trabisnikof posted:

Power towers look pretty metal-scifi to me.

I'm imagining that the background noise of the power tower is like a loop of the Doom BFG firing.

computer parts posted:

You could also do it with nuclear.

Testing pressure relief valves at a PWR plant almost guarantees you'll be cooking at least a few birds, especially in cold environments. Birds love to nest in the large openings, not realizing that 550+ degree F steam at something like 2200 psi is just a flip of a switch away. When they actuate, bones come flying out.

# ? Aug 18, 2014 22:37

muike: Mar 16, 2011; ガチムチ　セブン

Extremely Radical Bird Death Questioned by Authorities while Avians Languish, Suffocate from Conventional Pollution

# ? Aug 19, 2014 00:32

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

Phanatic posted:

Maybe more people would treat global warming as an environmental emergency if the people with the biggest professed interest in preserving the environment would act as if it were one.

Totally, then maybe we'd be able to build some new nuclear power plants

# ? Aug 19, 2014 08:02

military cervix: Dec 24, 2006; Hey guys

Robert Wilson over at theenergycollective.com consistently debuffs a lot of the myths concerning green energy. This makes him a good, but depressing read. This time, it concerns the effectiveness of solar panels in Germany, which seems to be a favourite topic around here: http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/456961/reality-check-germany-does-not-get-half-its-energy-solar

# ? Aug 20, 2014 12:28

Unormal: Nov 16, 2004; Mod sass? This evening?! But the cakes aren't ready! THE CAKES!; Fun Shoe

I just finished up this course, and really enjoyed it/learned a lot, I'd recommend future sessions of it to energynoobs: https://www.coursera.org/course/ourenergyfuture

# ? Aug 24, 2014 01:47

Senor P.: Mar 27, 2006; I MUST TELL YOU HOW PEOPLE CARE ABOUT STUFF I DONT AND BE A COMPLETE CUNT ABOUT IT

Pander posted:

I'm imagining that the background noise of the power tower is like a loop of the Doom BFG firing.
Testing pressure relief valves at a PWR plant almost guarantees you'll be cooking at least a few birds, especially in cold environments. Birds love to nest in the large openings, not realizing that 550+ degree F steam at something like 2200 psi is just a flip of a switch away. When they actuate, bones come flying out.

LOL no.
That's why they have things like grating, access doors, and chimneys to vent out steam. At least at they did at my plant.

I did see birds nesting above an rarely used card reader near a door, outside. Most of our birds seem to prefer the natural draft cooling towers, watching..... waiting....

# ? Aug 24, 2014 22:40

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:

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.

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.

Support for the Greens polls at about 10 - 14% (to be very generous). If we want to talk about political realities, that would seem to indicate it would be easier to change public opinion towards voting for nuclear power than for the Green majority in the lower house.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 04:51

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

lol abbottsgonnawin

Keep moving those goalposts, you shining star.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 05:24

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:

Keep moving those goalposts, you shining star.

I'm not the one carrying the goalposts faster than Andrew Bolt.

EDIT: Your argument is literally 'nuclear power isn't feasible in Australia because it's a political reality that nuclear power isn't feasible in Australia'.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 05:41

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Nuclear power has major problems in Australia, because we tend to build cities in the same places that make good sites. You need huge amounts of fresh water, something we don't have in abundance in the southern half. Either that or you have them way up north and have to deal with huge transmission distances.

Anywhere you do it you will need to get approval by traditional owners and they have every right to be sceptical about any promises made to them about safety and cleanup, given how utterly hosed over they have been at every opportunity.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 05:49

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.

Frogmanv2 posted:

Nuclear power has major problems in Australia, because we tend to build cities in the same places that make good sites. You need huge amounts of fresh water, something we don't have in abundance in the southern half. Either that or you have them way up north and have to deal with huge transmission distances.

Anywhere you do it you will need to get approval by traditional owners and they have every right to be sceptical about any promises made to them about safety and cleanup, given how utterly hosed over they have been at every opportunity.

Not really, you can use salt water if you build them near the coast, or alternatively you can place them in the same location as existing coal-fired plants (which use huge amounts of water) and access the same water supply. Also there is the option of using non-water based cooling systems.

And the traditional land owners would be fine with using multiple orders of magnitude more land for biofuels, solar plants and wind farms?

This video was posted last page but it really should be posted again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J06Vhlw52o

# ? Aug 25, 2014 05:52

Capt. Morgan: Feb 23, 2006

The largest nuclear plant in the USA uses treated sewage for colling.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 05:55

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:

EDIT: Your argument is literally 'nuclear power isn't feasible in Australia because it's a political reality that nuclear power isn't feasible in Australia'.

No, actually, there's quite a few reasons it isn't feasible in Australia which I've listed many times, the political attitude of Australians towards it being merely the first hurdle in the way of introducing it into Australia. A political attitude that, mind you, you insisted didn't exist and that I must just surround myself with anti-nuclear Greenies.

I mean Jesus, if there was a plan for Australia's climate future that involved, as a non-negotiable first step in a path of obstacles, the election of a majority of Greens to Federal Parliament, I'd consider that pretty much in the realm of fantasy as well. I don't think your gotcha about polling numbers is quite the gotcha you believe it to be.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 05:56

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:

No, actually, there's quite a few reasons it isn't feasible in Australia which I've listed many times, the political attitude of Australians towards it being merely the first hurdle in the way of introducing it into Australia. A political attitude that, mind you, you insisted didn't exist and that I must just surround myself with anti-nuclear Greenies.

I mean Jesus, if there was a plan for Australia's climate future that involved, as a non-negotiable first step in a path of obstacles, the election of a majority of Greens to Federal Parliament, I'd consider that pretty much in the realm of fantasy as well. I don't think your gotcha about polling numbers is quite the gotcha you believe it to be.

If you want to discuss the hurdles to implementation in Australia, then we should. Perhaps instead of you brick-walling at 'it's not possible because people don't want it'.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 05:58

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Australia is kinda outside my bounds, but hasn't it gone backwards on global warming policy recently? Also, don't they have a ton of coal and other cheap dirtier fuels?

# ? Aug 25, 2014 05:59

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.

Trabisnikof posted:

Australia is kinda outside my bounds, but hasn't it gone backwards on global warming policy recently? Also, don't they have a ton of coal and other cheap dirtier fuels?

Correct on both accounts. We have a bunch of invalids running the country and have the worlds dirtiest coal fired power plant. Absolutely anything happening here towards lowering emissions is currently a pipe-dream at best.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 06:02

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:

If you want to discuss the hurdles to implementation in Australia, then we should.

Ball's in your court, mate, I've already posted them before. Hell, you've already responded to them before. Badly.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 06:15

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:

Ball's in your court, mate, I've already posted them before. Hell, you've already responded to them before. Badly.

Thanks for being both the arbiter and participant in the debate.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 09:13

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

lol abbottsgonnawin

And I addressed your responses and in return was accused of "brick-walling." So what now?

# ? Aug 25, 2014 09:24

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

Frogmanv2 posted:

Nuclear power has major problems in Australia, because we tend to build cities in the same places that make good sites. You need huge amounts of fresh water,

You need to tell this to the people who are running Palo Verde outside of Phoenix, Arizona, which is the largest power plant in the entire US and isn't located near any fresh water.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 14:43

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.

Phanatic posted:

You need to tell this to the people who are running Palo Verde outside of Phoenix, Arizona, which is the largest power plant in the entire US and isn't located near any fresh water.

Yeah, it's the one that uses treated sewage water from Phoenix for cooling. It's a bit of an anomaly in the US, where more sites worry about design basis floods than droughts. The vast majority of US nuke plants are in the midwest, southeast, and northeast, adjacent to lakes and rivers.

Wikipedia suggests the placement of PV might have been an insider sweetheart deal. It's a nice plant, my company has an side office in AZ just to contract there.

# ? Aug 25, 2014 16:50

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9889882/Wind-farms-will-create-more-carbon-dioxide-say-scientists.html

Aberdeen University scientists will publish a finding in Nature stating that the carbon dioxide saved by utilizing wind farms instead of coal or natural gas would not offset the loss of carbon into the atmosphere by the destruction of the British peat as part of the industrial process of siting and maintaining the wind farms.

Interesting argument here, albeit limited in scope. One example where the great amount of land required for renewables could directly mitigate their positive renewable features.

# ? Aug 31, 2014 23:23

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Pander posted:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9889882/Wind-farms-will-create-more-carbon-dioxide-say-scientists.html

Aberdeen University scientists will publish a finding in Nature stating that the carbon dioxide saved by utilizing wind farms instead of coal or natural gas would not offset the loss of carbon into the atmosphere by the destruction of the British peat as part of the industrial process of siting and maintaining the wind farms.

Interesting argument here, albeit limited in scope. One example where the great amount of land required for renewables could directly mitigate their positive renewable features.

I'd be interested to read that article when it comes out. However, while looking through the nature website to see if it was published, I found this note about the previous paper from the same author two years ago:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v494/n7438/full/494430f.html posted:

The Correspondence headline 'Avoid constructing wind farms on peat' (J. Smith et al. Nature 489, 33; 2012) is misleading: it is developments on non-degraded, pristine peats that should be avoided.

Still sounds like a good idea. I'm usually in favor of limiting development in most non-degraded, pristine wildlands. Especially if they serve such a key role such as peat apparently does.

# ? Sep 5, 2014 22:13

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.

It's understandable to have a bias like that. God knows I like peated scotches and any motherfuckers trying to ruin that with windfarms will die horrible horrible deaths.

# ? Sep 5, 2014 22:18

Hollismason: Jun 30, 2007; FEEL FREE TO DISREGARD THIS POST

It is guaranteed to be lazy, ignorant, and/or uninformed.

I'm kind of curious about wave energy and energy generation related to harnessing the oceans power. Are there any really good resources for reading up on that?

# ? Sep 5, 2014 23:30

tsa: Feb 3, 2014

Phanatic posted:

You need to tell this to the people who are running Palo Verde outside of Phoenix, Arizona, which is the largest power plant in the entire US and isn't located near any fresh water.

Yep, the idea austrialia can't have nuclear for technical reasons is hilariously ignorant.

# ? Sep 5, 2014 23:55

GordonComstock: Oct 9, 2012

Hollismason posted:

I'm kind of curious about wave energy and energy generation related to harnessing the oceans power. Are there any really good resources for reading up on that?

https://coastalenergyandenvironment.web.unc.edu/2014/07/22/fau-gets-green-light-on-experimental-lease/

This article focuses on harnessing energy from the Gulf Stream. It's still very much in its infancy. And if you scroll down, there are a couple of references you can click on.

# ? Sep 19, 2014 17:30

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

New Nature article about that liquid metal (now lithium-antimony-lead) grid battery technology:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13700.html

They're projecting a 15% capacity loss after 10 years of daily cycling. Almost the same performance as their previous combination, at a fifth the price.

# ? Sep 22, 2014 17:18

Phayray: Feb 16, 2004

A new report on the latest "independent" "test" of Andrea Rossi's cold fusion device is out and it's just as good as the first one. Article PDF

Here is the 2013 test in case you missed it, I can't remember if it was discussed in this thread or not.

# ? Oct 10, 2014 22:46

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:

A new report on the latest "independent" "test" of Andrea Rossi's cold fusion device is out and it's just as good as the first one. Article PDF

Here is the 2013 test in case you missed it, I can't remember if it was discussed in this thread or not.

Pretty sure it was, and it was generally eyerolled at.

Attitude's generally been along the lines of proof before belief.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 04:07

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Pander posted:

Pretty sure it was, and it was generally eyerolled at.

Attitude's generally been along the lines of proof before belief.

Yeah the thing is they don't need to jump through all these hoops if it really works. Build one - even just a small one - and sell electricity to the grid. If the scientific community refuses to see the light you have a cool monopoly on cold fusion. The only thing better than a patent would be nobody believing in your tech or being able to replicate it.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 05:16

double nine: Aug 8, 2013

So is nuclear/fossil/solar/hydro/wind/geothermal the energy mix that we're stuck with, or are there still sci-fi level energy sources that could plausibly be the saviour of our energy concerns?

# ? Oct 11, 2014 12:34

Friend Commuter: Nov 3, 2009; SO CLEVER I WANT TO FUCK MY OWN BRAIN.; Smellrose

double nine posted:

So is nuclear/fossil/solar/hydro/wind/geothermal the energy mix that we're stuck with, or are there still sci-fi level energy sources that could plausibly be the saviour of our energy concerns?

Fusion's the only sci-fi energy source anybody vaguely credible has been talking about, and it's been 20+ years away since the first H-bomb was detonated and the price tag on test reactors is stratospheric and rising, so I reckon we're poo poo out of luck on sci-fi power plants.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 12:39

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.

double nine posted:

So is nuclear/fossil/solar/hydro/wind/geothermal the energy mix that we're stuck with, or are there still sci-fi level energy sources that could plausibly be the saviour of our energy concerns?

There'll always be charlatans and the like trying to sell some magical idea, like combining atoms in non-nuclear processes, or this one innovative trick involving supermagnets those scientists don't want you to know. But in general fusion's the only type with a plausible end goal. We even know the journey: replicate the sun's conditions. The problem is doing it. Fusion requires a lot of energy input very precisely to overcome resisting forces while simultaneously shielding the fusion equipment from the heat and radiation output. Any one aspect of the problem (besides a gravity well equal to the sun) is doable, but in concert it's proven impossible to break even so far without employing misleading wordplay.

We're stuck with what we have for the current, critical phase of the fight against manmade climate change. In light of that, it seems pretty irresponsible to not clamor for an immediate, complete replacement of fossil energy sources with nuclear and renewable energy sources.

Financial and political inertia prevent such a transfer.

And so the world burns.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 16:14

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Pander posted:

There'll always be charlatans and the like trying to sell some magical idea, like combining atoms in non-nuclear processes, or this one innovative trick involving supermagnets those scientists don't want you to know. But in general fusion's the only type with a plausible end goal. We even know the journey: replicate the sun's conditions. The problem is doing it. Fusion requires a lot of energy input very precisely to overcome resisting forces while simultaneously shielding the fusion equipment from the heat and radiation output. Any one aspect of the problem (besides a gravity well equal to the sun) is doable, but in concert it's proven impossible to break even so far without employing misleading wordplay.

We're stuck with what we have for the current, critical phase of the fight against manmade climate change. In light of that, it seems pretty irresponsible to not clamor for an immediate, complete replacement of fossil energy sources with nuclear and renewable energy sources.

Financial and political inertia prevent such a transfer.

And so the world burns.

The way I see it, if the puzzle if finally cracked for real that there would be investors lining up or at least the government would look into it, but if no one cares there is probably a reason.

Ultimately, the issue isn't going to be solved and climate change will almost certainly get worse, and of course everyone will be pointing fingers at each other about who was responsible...like it always does. Even so progress is being made but I suspect that another economic crisis will slow down change even further and eventually the unstable economics of neoliberalism plus damage from climate change will steadily lower the quality of life of the population.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 16:19

The Dipshit: Dec 21, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

double nine posted:

So is nuclear/fossil/solar/hydro/wind/geothermal the energy mix that we're stuck with, or are there still sci-fi level energy sources that could plausibly be the savior of our energy concerns?

Well, you could read up on the Polywell nuclear reactor and pray to whatever motivates you that it actually works. It has made it past the long research stage and they are trying to raise funds to build something they can run a turbine off of.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 18:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 09:09

Tunicate: May 15, 2012

Looks like they just gave a talk at U of Maryland

# ? Oct 11, 2014 18:31

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

«‹›348 »