|
What's all this noise about solar power "reaching parity" with fossil fuels? Or something like that, anyway. Apparently costs are coming down. Also I've heard about Elon Musk's batteries that are going to revolutionize the grid somehow. I don't know the technical details and it's probably just hype. But if it is, why is it so hard to discern what's worth getting excited about and what isn't? It's not just reddit or Wired or whatever; it's everywhere.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:And your point is? The data source you claimed supported declining nuclear input to electrical utilities clearly shows increasing production historically since 2012 and expected modest increases all the way to 2040. Plus Crystal River shut down in 2009, and the other plants you mentioned are also already shut down, so what kind of stuff are you smoking to expect them to further decrease nuclear output in the future? You think they're going to input massively negative electricity? You really don't understand the difference between a baseline scenario and a what-if scenario do you? The baselines are the same, the results with and without maximum investment in wind are different. You're upset because a scenario premised on the idea of "what if we did something different" doesn't match the baseline they are measuring against. Meanwhile, yes they're building a few new units. At sites already approved for expansion. But beyond those units, what new construction is on the horizon? Fundamentally these couple of units can't offset the retirements, they barely offset SONGS. When the time from beginning of permitting to online is so long, how many decades will it be until the next generation of plants are built, if at all? Also this is a separate point, but yes actually decommissioning nuclear power plants can use a lot of energy and in effect have a negative effect as net consumers during the decades long shutdown process (see rancho seco). Blue Star posted:What's all this noise about solar power "reaching parity" with fossil fuels? Or something like that, anyway. Apparently costs are coming down. Also I've heard about Elon Musk's batteries that are going to revolutionize the grid somehow. I don't know the technical details and it's probably just hype. But if it is, why is it so hard to discern what's worth getting excited about and what isn't? It's not just reddit or Wired or whatever; it's everywhere. Solar power is getting very cheap and that's been boosting the install base. Which is a good thing, but not a panacea. Musk is a master salesman and is selling used/lame Tesla batteries as whole-house batteries. Which, if we saw a larger rollout of variable pricing for consumers, could have some interesting effects. Still too expensive for any real impact at the moment as far as I know. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You really don't understand the difference between a baseline scenario and a what-if scenario do you? The baselines are the same, the results with and without maximum investment in wind are different. You're upset because a scenario premised on the idea of "what if we did something different" doesn't match the baseline they are measuring against. The data I'm referring to isn't a "what-if scenario", it's what they consider to be the most likely scenario, and it holds to a constant "nuclear energy will not suddenly crater" projection. Trabisnikof posted:
Plenty enough to keep nuclear output fairly steady, and certainly not to result in the bizarre wind scenario where it craters out by 2050. Your whole argument that none will ever be built again is patently false and you should stop making it, because it is insane and blatantly against the evidence. Noone's saying it's going to surge, it doesn't have to to merely mount up to 5%-10% growth over 35+ years. Trabisnikof posted:
Literally no one counts a nuclear power plant needing energy for deconstruction as a net electrcty drain attributable to nuclear, just like no one counts it against coal when energy is used to demolish a coal plant. And again, I really don't see why it isn't getting through your thick skull that nuclear energy capacity is guaranteed to grow by 2020 in particular due to no new shutdowns on the horizons and no shutdowns underway that haven't already ended generation, while there's at least two reactors going online between then and now. That alone makes your weird supposed "baseline" scenario fall on its face. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Literally no one counts a nuclear power plant needing energy for deconstruction as a net electrcty drain attributable to nuclear, just like no one counts it against coal when energy is used to demolish a coal plant. I'm ignoring the rest of your post because well, I'm not going to be the one that successfully explains to you the difference between business as usual and a study scenario. Meanwhile, actually yes the energy used in decommissioning a power plant is part of the lifecycle assessment for that plant. It is one of the larger externalities for power plants and is included in pretty much every single piece of academic literature on the topic. When considering the costs of a coal plant, yes we have to consider the costs of cleaning up the coal pile afterwards or the costs taking down the wind turbines for a wind farm. Likewise, the costs associated with decommissioning a nuclear power plant are an important cost to consider. If you have to build a natural gas power plant to power your shutdown effort, yes that is an impact that should count against you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm ignoring the rest of your post because well, I'm not going to be the one that successfully explains to you the difference between business as usual and a study scenario. This insane accounting method is used by no one when discussing current and future contributions to the power grid by energy type. So of course you resort to defending it as justification for something the report doesn't agree with you on in the least. It's amazing how you don't understand that nothing about the projected figures used repeatedly from year to year in reports is a "study scenario" if the purported scenario that assumes magically all nuclear power plants in progress don't happened doesn't count as one. You still haven't actually shown this in any of the reports from 2010 to 2015, which all show that the agency believes nuclear will slowly grow over time (and incidentally, some of the older ones have projections that by now accord with reality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Meanwhile SONGS, Crystal River and Vermont Yankee have all been taken out of service in the last couple of years. That's 3.7 GW of net power generation lost. Power uprates at existing units can be pretty sizable. Exelon just nixed uprates a couple years ago thanks to the devil's bargain made for super cheap natural gas. So new nukes isn't the only way to increase capacity. A reminder that given nuke plants' 90%+ capacity factor, adding 350 MW of nuclear power is roughly equivalent to adding (350*0.9/0.3) = ~1GW of wind power nameplate capacity in an ideal location. Spitballing with those, but they're in the right ballparks. I'm hopeful about the future of SMRs. They remove several of the current generations' greatest weaknesses: huge capital costs, huge footprints, and large population centers nearby to utilize the power. Regional deployment by smaller utilities in a modularized fashion will be a major sea change in how nuclear power has been deployed in the US for decades, and could remove a lot of the fear associated with a massive failure at a massive and complex generating station.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Meanwhile SONGS, Crystal River and Vermont Yankee have all been taken out of service in the last couple of years. That's 3.7 GW of net power generation lost. Vermont Yankee was especially sad, as they are trumpeting it as a 'Success for Renewables' Know what replaced it? Burning biomass. Basically coal with a nicer name.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Vermont Yankee was especially sad, as they are trumpeting it as a 'Success for Renewables' Biomass is a step up, actually. It contains carbon that was extracted from the atmosphere recently, so there is no net CO2 gain in burning it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Biomass is a step up, actually. It contains carbon that was extracted from the atmosphere recently, so there is no net CO2 gain in burning it. It all depends on what you are burning: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/08/18/is-biomass-really-renewable/
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It all depends on what you are burning: Coal and oil are 100% carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere for millions of years. Whatever the objections of that blog are, biomass represents a vast improvement over them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Coal and oil are 100% carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere for millions of years. Whatever the objections of that blog are, biomass represents a vast improvement over them. And trees are carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere for decades. That is indeed an improvement but it doesn't seem worth it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Coal and oil are 100% carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere for millions of years. Whatever the objections of that blog are, biomass represents a vast improvement over them. Of course its an improvement, I'm not disagreeing. But we need to be focusing on energy solutions that do NOT involve releasing any CO2 whatsoever. They went from Vermont Yankee, which was releasing no CO2 other than the CO2 involved with its upkeep and construction, to biomass which releases CO2 as part of its normal operation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And trees are carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere for decades. That is indeed an improvement but it doesn't seem worth it. Those trees would die and rot eventually anyway, and their carbon returned to the atmosphere in the near term regardless. Burning biomass is significantly better than burning fossil fuels. No hand-waving will change that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Those trees would die and rot eventually anyway, and their carbon returned to the atmosphere in the near term regardless. Unless they would have lived for decades longer and taken years to decompose instead of a few minutes. Its still releasing more carbon into the atmosphere and yes its better than natural gas but we have energy sources that can be pursued that do not release carbon dioxide and biomass should not be put into the same category as them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Unless they would have lived for decades longer and taken years to decompose instead of a few minutes. Its still releasing more carbon into the atmosphere and yes its better than natural gas but we have energy sources that can be pursued that do not release carbon dioxide and biomass should not be put into the same category as them. I'm not putting them in the same category as the others. What I objected to was lumping biomass with coal as being equally bad. We need to avoid letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Replacing nuclear with biomass is a small step backward, but nowhere near as bad as burning coal. Replacing coal with biomass would be a significant step forward in net CO2 emissions. I'm in favor of making progress in the right direction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I'm not putting them in the same category as the others. What I objected to was lumping biomass with coal as being equally bad. That is fair enough. I was mostly upset that a reliable and working reactor was shut down in favor of it. But I'll admit my bias.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:
It would probably also require razing whole forests and using up an assload of cropland, if we started using it for any significant fraction of coal's current usage. The much smaller populations of Europe centuries ago before coal really boomed faced impending lack of wood and crops to burn for energy before coal became practical. And that was with way smaller energy requirements.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Coal and oil are 100% carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere for millions of years. Coal is. Oil's not. That's why burning natural gas is a shitload cleaner than burning coal, you're burning 4 hydrogens for every carbon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Coal is. Oil's not. That's why burning natural gas is a shitload cleaner than burning coal, you're burning 4 hydrogens for every carbon. I'm aware of that. The carbon in the oil is what has been sequestered for millions of years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It would probably also require razing whole forests and using up an assload of cropland, if we started using it for any significant fraction of coal's current usage. The much smaller populations of Europe centuries ago before coal really boomed faced impending lack of wood and crops to burn for energy before coal became practical. And that was with way smaller energy requirements. Biomass is quite efficient for domestic heat production, which is its primary utility. In that capacity, there isn't really anything that is more efficient or environmentally-friendly since it requires very little infrastructure (though it can cause localized air quality issues in dense residential areas). Here in Oregon (specifically Eugene), 25% of homes require biomass to heat the building. Upgrading all of them to use electrical or fossil-fuel heating would be counter-productive in terms of environmental cost, particularly because our winters are mild. Biomass is fundamentally a carbon-neutral energy source because the time-scale of sequestration > release > sequestration is short (energy crops are harvested annually) and generally occurs on its own regardless of whether it burns or rots. Beyond that, biomass energy production can be a good use for industrial waste (woodpulp) or unproductive agricultural land (switchgrass). It can also be a good revenue source to permit more intensive forest management in National Parks that can't be allowed to burn naturally. The idea that biomass energy production requires cutting down mature trees is rather obsolete. Economics alone would dictate that those trees be cut for lumber long before they were burned for energy. Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Biomass can also be used in existing coal-fired power plants to directly replace coal, reducing emissions now without long construction lead times. Anything that replaces coal is good. Also biomass has the potential to be a renewable generation source that can flatten intermittent supply (smoothing renewables) since new dams are kinda unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Biomass is quite efficient for domestic heat production, which is its primary utility. In that capacity, there isn't really anything that is more efficient or environmentally-friendly since it requires very little infrastructure (though it can cause localized air quality issues in dense residential areas). Here in Oregon (specifically Eugene), 25% of homes require biomass to heat the building. Upgrading all of them to use electrical or fossil-fuel heating would be counter-productive in terms of environmental cost, particularly because our winters are mild. Yes, but coal isn't being used for that, so you wouldn't be replacing the few remaining coal burning household heaters in the country, you'd be replacing actual coal electrical plants that need sometimes hundreds of tons of coal a day. It's orders of magnitude bigger impact than heating a bunch of hippie/farmer cabins that only need the heat a few months a year
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yes, but coal isn't being used for that, so you wouldn't be replacing the few remaining coal burning household heaters in the country, you'd be replacing actual coal electrical plants that need sometimes hundreds of tons of coal a day. It's orders of magnitude bigger impact than heating a bunch of hippie/farmer cabins that only need the heat a few months a year The potential supply for biomass in the US is ~100 GW by 2030, so yes, biomass isn't a panacea, but that's still meaningful. Heck we can do ~50GW using waste and non-dedicated crops. quote:DOE (2011) provides an estimate of 696–1,184 million annual dry tonnes of biomass inventory potential (of which 52%–61% represents dedicated biomass crops) in 2030.21 The estimated biomass feedstocks correspond to roughly 100 GW of dedicated biopower capacity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yes, but coal isn't being used for that, so you wouldn't be replacing the few remaining coal burning household heaters in the country, you'd be replacing actual coal electrical plants that need sometimes hundreds of tons of coal a day. It's orders of magnitude bigger impact than heating a bunch of hippie/farmer cabins that only need the heat a few months a year Coal is used for electrical generation, and a lot of electricity is used to heat houses during the winter. In those older houses where biomass is used to heat instead of central heating, biomass directly replaces that energy cost (and in a much more efficient way than electrical room heaters). I think that you might be surprised at how many normal, residential houses still use wood fireplaces and pellet stoves. Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Coal is used for electrical generation, and a lot of electricity is used to heat houses during the winter. In those older houses where biomass is used to heat instead of central heating, biomass directly replaces that energy cost (and in a much more efficient way than electrical room heaters). I think that you might be blinding yourself to how many normal, residential houses still use wood fireplaces and pellet stoves. It's a very small number that have wood fireplaces and pellet stoves that can adequately heat the house, especially with the move to fireplaces as means of decoration starting in the 50s or so. Unless you're talking about retrofitting houses with normal central heat systems that currently run off electricity, oil, or gas? The vast majority of housing stock out there is either natural gas (about half) or electric (somewhere around 35-40%. Functional fireplaces for whole-home heating are very rare in practice, and pellet burners or other solid fuel furnaces are quite rare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's a very small number that have wood fireplaces and pellet stoves that can adequately heat the house, especially with the move to fireplaces as means of decoration starting in the 50s or so. Unless you're talking about retrofitting houses with normal central heat systems that currently run off electricity, oil, or gas? 10 - 12% of American homes use wood for a primary or secondary heat source. That's more than 35 million people. More than two percent of American homes use wood as the sole source of heat. Pellet stoves were invented in the 1980s, and Americans have installed more than a million of them since then. http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/5849/2010-census-shows-wood-is-fastest-growing-heating-fuel Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Kaal posted:10 - 12% of American homes use wood for a primary or secondary heat source. That's more than 35 million people. More than two percent of American homes use wood as the sole source of heat. So they're already using it as a source of heat and therefore they're not going to use less coal by continuing to use the wood. I'm not getting what you're trying to propose, they sure haven't been burning coal in those systems for quite some time. Also it's the "fastest growing method" because it started from very little recent usage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
The main reasonable objection to biomass is land use and conservation problems inherent therein.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:55
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So they're already using it as a source of heat and therefore they're not going to use less coal by continuing to use the wood. I'm not getting what you're trying to propose, they sure haven't been burning coal in those systems for quite some time. Also it's the "fastest growing method" because it started from very little recent usage. Again, the alternative is that they go back to using coal-based electricity - not freezing to death.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Again, the alternative is that they go back to using coal-based electricity - not freezing to death. Who is proposing that they retrofit their homes with electrical heaters specifically? Let alone the fact that many states that have heavy electrical usage also have heavy hydro or nuclear power supply.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
I've been reading the last page thinking "what the hell is biomass heating? It can't just be a fancy term for a loving fireplace or wood stove can it?". Like I guess that's an option if you live in the country or something and have a little house built totally around the idea of heating that way, and it's a good idea to use sawdust and anything you can burn that would have otherwise gone to waste. But I can't imagine going out of our way to "cultivate biomass" would be very good for our ecological footprint. And you still have to ship, process, and deliver all those pellets. My parent's neighbour has a whole wood burning heating system and half his back yard is just a huge shed full of wood and pellets and anything he can possibly burn. He's always cruising around looking for anything he can salvage as firewood. I mean that's not to discount any particular method of saving energy, I'm sure biomass has its place, I just find it hard to imagine it being worth really pursuing beyond heating cabins or home heating near cheat sources of biomass waste. I think one of the most environmental things humans can do is leave nature alone, reduce our actual land footprint. Denser cities, less land used for farming/forestry/mining. I can't think of any power source with a smaller physical footprint vs the energy it produces than nuclear, and that's taking into account the mining needed. Nuclear also has a great benefit of producing a ton of hot water. Place the nuclear plants close to dense populations or anyone that needs heating and use the plant for heating. Some of the most energy efficient cities in the world have networks of hot water pipes to create district heating systems (which can also be heated by biomass too, probably work out better) Also insurance loving HATES residential "biomass" heating. Some companies will flat out refuse to insure homes that have wood stoves, or charge much higher rates.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I've been reading the last page thinking "what the hell is biomass heating? It can't just be a fancy term for a loving fireplace or wood stove can it?". Like I guess that's an option if you live in the country or something and have a little house built totally around the idea of heating that way, and it's a good idea to use sawdust and anything you can burn that would have otherwise gone to waste. But I can't imagine going out of our way to "cultivate biomass" would be very good for our ecological footprint. And you still have to ship, process, and deliver all those pellets. My parent's neighbour has a whole wood burning heating system and half his back yard is just a huge shed full of wood and pellets and anything he can possibly burn. He's always cruising around looking for anything he can salvage as firewood. The nice thing about biomass from waste is you can actually get slightly negative carbon footprints if that waste would have decomposed. We produce enough industrial and agricultural/forestry waste stock that we could actually build meaningfully sized biomass power facilities. Also biogas for power is another medium scale technology that can achieve a negative footprint, by capturing and burning methane from landfills that would instead have been released to the atmosphere (methane is very bad for the climate). Home scale anything will help but can't solve the problems alone, so we really do need to be looking at feasible technologies we can implement quickly, like biomass from waste.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I've been reading the last page thinking "what the hell is biomass heating? It can't just be a fancy term for a loving fireplace or wood stove can it?". Like I guess that's an option if you live in the country or something and have a little house built totally around the idea of heating that way, and it's a good idea to use sawdust and anything you can burn that would have otherwise gone to waste. But I can't imagine going out of our way to "cultivate biomass" would be very good for our ecological footprint. And you still have to ship, process, and deliver all those pellets. My parent's neighbour has a whole wood burning heating system and half his back yard is just a huge shed full of wood and pellets and anything he can possibly burn. He's always cruising around looking for anything he can salvage as firewood. It's a fancy way of saying "burn wood pellets instead of coal/oil in your central heater". Since people keep going  nuKKKular bad and governments outside of paternalistic states like China don't feel like forcing the issue, there will not be enough nuclear. Biomass (or hilarious amounts of pumped storage lakes) will have to take up the slack whenever there is a non-windy night, and it will suck, though not quite as much as coal.e: and what Trabisnikof said. If it's from waste, it obviously doesn't come with as much extra environmental damage. Are there estimates of how much of the country we can run on waste wood chips and landfill methane? I bet it's enough to be economically interesting, but not enough to actually sustain an all renewable grid. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
blowfish posted:It's a fancy way of saying "burn wood pellets instead of coal/oil in your central heater". Since people keep going Yeah the thing is like almost nobody gets coal delivered for heating these days, and oil heat is also totally on the way out. In 2000, 0.1% of households used coal or coke:  Also, oil usage was at 9%, and not all of them can be easily or safely converted to burning wood or other solid fuel. Incidentally, coal and coke usage for heating was at 55% back in 1940 and wood at 23%. Times sure change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
blowfish posted:And what Trabisnikof said. If it's from waste, it obviously doesn't come with as much extra environmental damage. Are there estimates of how much of the country we can run on waste wood chips and landfill methane? I bet it's enough to be economically interesting, but not enough to actually sustain an all renewable grid. Well it certainly isn't possible for the entire country to run on biomass, if only because there are some things it does well and some things it does not. But there are some promising developments with so-called energy crops, which are hardy, energy-rich plants that require little in the way of close oversight or fertilization. Switchgrass, for instance, can be planted into rocky or steep fields and then be machine-harvested once a year for ten years or more. Switchgrass is so easy to take care of that it gets ornamentally planted by many commercial developers since it doesn't really need irrigation or weeding and basically takes care of itself. It would also be a good candidate for genetic modification, so as to further increase its productivity. If people are looking for a silver-bullet solution, then biomass is not it. If people have recognized that a silver-bullet solution doesn't exist, then it's a pretty interesting field of development. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
I'm too lazy to find a good number, so have a map instead: I have a feeling there's not a realistic and good dry ton to GW converter. Since some waste must be tastier than other waste.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm too lazy to find a good number, so have a map instead: Its UCS, so I'm unsure of the reliability of their views on other renewables. But either way, I still feel that Biomass is just a crutch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm too lazy to find a good number, so have a map instead: even if you rounded up all the agricultural waste products, and even assuming an equal energy density to coal (lol), you still only have 1/10 of annual coal consumption in biological waste
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Palace of Hate posted:even if you rounded up all the agricultural waste products, and even assuming an equal energy density to coal (lol), you still only have 1/10 of annual coal consumption in biological waste Yes, no single renewable will ever replace all of coal's power generation. The solution is using them together to fill in each other's gaps. New biomass and existing hydro can provide essential supply reserves for a more dynamic grid. Anything that replaces coal is good for the climate and good for the land around said coal plant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yes, no single renewable will ever replace all of coal's power generation. The solution is using them together to fill in each other's gaps. New biomass and existing hydro can provide essential supply reserves for a more dynamic grid. got any sources on those prophecies for the the future and foolishly simple sweeping statements Dairy Days fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 19:57
|
|