|
Trabisnikof posted:
To elaborate further, semiconductor processing (for all electronics, not just PV) involves some of the most dangerous chemical agents out there. Like the ones that are so toxic that that by the time you smell them you're already half dead, or dissolve your bones, or spontaneously combust in air. Most of the harm in the finished product will be in the form of heavy metals like cadmium and lead, but disposal methods exist for such things. Unlike all the poo poo that ends up floating in the atmosphere when we burn a ton of coal.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:To elaborate further, semiconductor processing (for all electronics, not just PV) involves some of the most dangerous chemical agents out there. Like the ones that are so toxic that that by the time you smell them you're already half dead, or dissolve your bones, or spontaneously combust in air. I think the important criteria are:
Harmful chemicals are no big deal as long as we can reliably deal with them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
Isn't that true of everything, like fission products?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:I think the important criteria are: So in general all the waste from the processing is incredibly harmful, but also quite easy to contain (like nuclear waste) or neutralize.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Pander posted:Isn't that true of everything, like fission products? The question is the same for all harmful materials, of course. The answer, however, isn't. There's also a difference between "we know how to handle this in a safe way" and "from years of practical experience, we know that even the unavoidable gently caress-up by humans doesn't result in serious ecological impact".
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:The question is the same for all harmful materials, of course. The answer, however, isn't. There's also a difference between "we know how to handle this in a safe way" and "from years of practical experience, we know that even the unavoidable gently caress-up by humans doesn't result in serious ecological impact". Sure but production of PV will be subject to the same regulations as any other industrial production. The by-products do not appear to be wildly exotic or toxic by industrial standards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:"from years of practical experience, we know that even the unavoidable gently caress-up by humans doesn't result in serious ecological impact".
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Sure but production of PV will be subject to the same regulations as any other industrial production. The by-products do not appear to be wildly exotic or toxic by industrial standards. From what I've read so far, I agree. Anyone who actually uses the "solar cell production involves highly toxic substances" as an argument against renewables should stop using a lot of industrially produced goods but then again, misinformation, hypocrisy, and bias are not attributes solely found in tree-hugging hippies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Pander posted:Isn't that true of everything, like fission products? Scale matters. Uranium mining and fission byproducts are ridiculously dirty, but you need a whole lot less of it - for example, the world mines something like 60,000 tons of uranium compared to 8,000,000,000 tons of coal. Coal is obviously terrible, but even the industrial processes to create enough PV to make a significant dent in world energy production would create far more pollution and have a much greater impact than mining, enriching, and disposing of enough nuclear fuel for a similar amount of electricity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:but even the industrial processes to create enough PV to make a significant dent in world energy production would create far more pollution and have a much greater impact than mining, enriching, and disposing of enough nuclear fuel for a similar amount of electricity. Do you have some data to back this up? I think you're also comparing a fueled and fuelless electricity generation technique by comparing a fuel cycle to manufacturing process of the generation station. The correct comparison to PV manufacturering isn't the uranium fuel cycle alone but also the plant manufacturing process too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:It looks like there's finally some good info on how Ivanpah is doing, and somehow I just found out Ivanpah doesn't use molten salt to keep generating overnight, that's a really weird oversight/design decision. Apparently BrightSource is coming to include it in their newer plants, if anyone contracts them to build any, but I remember reading about how that was part of the design of these kinds of plants years ago so I'm not sure what's up there. I also didn't know that they used natural gas to get it going in the morning which I thought was odd, as you'd think there's a lot you could do with a bunch of super hot sunlight. Speaking on Ivanpah, has there been any news on what's the problem with it, exactly? I'm not too chuffed about the natural gas stuff, as even if they burn all the natural gas they can it would only be ~15% of there energy. But what exactly is causing them to produce at 40% of their designed capacity? Brightsource is claiming it's bad weather, and/or all part of a 4-year ramp up, but as I can't find any reference to the ramp up before this year, that strikes me as a bit suspicious. If it's in your design doc that you'll only produce half your power in the first year, possibly because you want to make sure nothing is going to explode, that's reasonable and you can tell people before they start complaining the project is a failure, rather than a year later.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Dilb posted:Speaking on Ivanpah, has there been any news on what's the problem with it, exactly? I'm not too chuffed about the natural gas stuff, as even if they burn all the natural gas they can it would only be ~15% of there energy. But what exactly is causing them to produce at 40% of their designed capacity? Brightsource is claiming it's bad weather, and/or all part of a 4-year ramp up, but as I can't find any reference to the ramp up before this year, that strikes me as a bit suspicious. If it's in your design doc that you'll only produce half your power in the first year, possibly because you want to make sure nothing is going to explode, that's reasonable and you can tell people before they start complaining the project is a failure, rather than a year later. Rumors I've heard is that the Bechtel boilers and related plumbing are far less effective than they'd hoped along with them not getting enough insolation in the beginning hours of the day (somehow). But yeah, the reports blame the weather and contrails so 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Dilb posted:Speaking on Ivanpah, has there been any news on what's the problem with it, exactly? I'm not too chuffed about the natural gas stuff, as even if they burn all the natural gas they can it would only be ~15% of there energy. But what exactly is causing them to produce at 40% of their designed capacity? Brightsource is claiming it's bad weather, and/or all part of a 4-year ramp up, but as I can't find any reference to the ramp up before this year, that strikes me as a bit suspicious. If it's in your design doc that you'll only produce half your power in the first year, possibly because you want to make sure nothing is going to explode, that's reasonable and you can tell people before they start complaining the project is a failure, rather than a year later. Yeah I couldn't find anything either. I have no idea what's real either because most of the "sources" when looking was right wing rags circlejerking about how this means all alternative energy is a failure, yet BrightSource sounds like they're using tricky PR coverups as well. My best guess is that nothing is being reported on truthfully, and Ivanpah is having some big and unexpected issues that they're hoping to find a fix for before letting everyone know they happened. I honestly couldn't blame them if that's the case, the thing is a working prototype after all, and dealing with unproven technology and highly charged political climates simultaneously is never an enviable position.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:From what I've read so far, I agree. Anyone who actually uses the "solar cell production involves highly toxic substances" as an argument against renewables should stop using a lot of industrially produced goods but then again, misinformation, hypocrisy, and bias are not attributes solely found in tree-hugging hippies. It's mostly an issue from when China killed the European solar panel industry with cut-rate prices, achieved by disposing of said toxic substances in the nearest river. It's not an inherently unsolvable problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:42
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you have some data to back this up? I think that the comparison to uranium mining is valid because it compares the most ecologically damage part of one power source versus another. The nuclear power plant itself is mostly concrete and steel, and the ecological impact of building a nuclear power plant is dwarfed by the ecological impact of uranium mining. We're still talking about two power sources that are extremely green compared to most other power sources, however. Even hydroelectric has lost a lot of its shine in the public consciousness
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I think that the comparison to uranium mining is valid because it compares the most ecologically damage part of one power source versus another. The nuclear power plant itself is mostly concrete and steel, and the ecological impact of building a nuclear power plant is dwarfed by the ecological impact of uranium mining. Yeah I guess the point I was just trying to make is the best comparison would be all impacts to all impacts. But seeing how I don't have data on it, it doesn't really matter if it would be a better comparison if I can't really make it. Pretty much if the plant doesn't use a carbon-based fuel the power generation is lightyears ahead for the climate. Coal and oil are so bad that gas is better than them, but as soon as you decouple carbon from kwh-produced, bam you're in another tier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:Liquid waste is more difficult, it's packed up and handled by our department of environmental safety. About a decade ago someone was caught pouring liquid waste into a gutter or something, and I'm pretty sure they were fined out of existence. I think the liquid waste from IC and solar cell processing is mostly considered to be hazardous because of organic solvents and the organic thin films which are dissolved in the solvents. I would be surprised if this kind of waste is unique to the silicon IC and solar industry or is more hazardous or more voluminous. I suspect that plastic production has similar kinds of waste and we make way more plastic than we will ever make solar cells. I think the possibly more hazardous and unique form of liquid waste would come from liquid byproducts of the silicon purification process prior to making the Si wafers and turning them into solar cells. This was proposed by someone earlier in the thread, but they didn't really back up the assertion. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Aug 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/2015/08/04/42773...ontent=20150804quote:The ability to store energy could revolutionize the way we make and use electricity. But for many utility companies and regular folks, energy storage is still way out of reach. It's expensive sometimes more expensive than building out old-fashioned infrastructure like power lines and power plants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Seems like the same old problem. You'd think that, given the ample free space out in Wyoming, there'd have to be some kind of space-inefficient but maintenance-efficient solution available to store the energy. Are those types of applications simply impractical on the single-home scale?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Pander posted:Seems like the same old problem. You'd think that, given the ample free space out in Wyoming, there'd have to be some kind of space-inefficient but maintenance-efficient solution available to store the energy. Are those types of applications simply impractical on the single-home scale? Well thermal storage requires a steam turbine which I can't imagine is easier or cheaper to maintain. You could do compressed air storage but again, you need mechanical gadgets. It's just not going to be efficient or maintainable on a small scale. I kinda, sorta like flywheels... the energy density doesn't degrade over time and it's pretty efficient. I have no idea about lifespan and I suspect they'd be incredibly expensive at a small scale. We'll need better and cheaper batteries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Well thermal storage requires a steam turbine which I can't imagine is easier or cheaper to maintain. You could do compressed air storage but again, you need mechanical gadgets. It's just not going to be efficient or maintainable on a small scale. I kinda, sorta like flywheels... the energy density doesn't degrade over time and it's pretty efficient. I have no idea about lifespan and I suspect they'd be incredibly expensive at a small scale. Which solution would be cheaper/easier/better? - nigh unlimited relatively cheap baseload with an updated smart grid (GRID) - extremely decentralized solar/wind with individualized battery system (ANTI-GRID) Seems like a question so dependent on theoretical improvements, both technical and political, that I suppose it's more philosophical in nature than technical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Pumped hydro is probably the simplest to maintain and requires the least technology but the most land area.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Pumped hydro is probably the simplest to maintain and requires the least technology but the most land area. Still seems too impractical on a number of fronts for a single household.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Pumped hydro is probably the simplest to maintain and requires the least technology but the most land area. And when the walls break, it gets really bad really quick. Anosmoman posted:Well thermal storage requires a steam turbine which I can't imagine is easier or cheaper to maintain. You could do compressed air storage but again, you need mechanical gadgets. It's just not going to be efficient or maintainable on a small scale. I kinda, sorta like flywheels... the energy density doesn't degrade over time and it's pretty efficient. I have no idea about lifespan and I suspect they'd be incredibly expensive at a small scale. Flywheels have some really unique and appealing advantages, but the major disadvantages are the types of bearings and the size of the flywheel you'd need to store enough electricity to be useful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Pumped hydro is probably the simplest to maintain and requires the least technology but the most land area. So, so far we have: Batteries - replace them every once in a while, have an electrician install the off the shelf equipment following instructions Fly wheel - hire a mechanical engineer to design a safe installation and maintain it (it'll have a fuckton of energy) Pumped hydro - probably a civil (structural) engineer to design a safe-ish set of cisterns, a mechanical engineer to spec out the pump and an electrical engineer for the requirements of the pump (which probably require a big battery backup anyways).
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Flywheels suspended in vacuum with magnetic bearings are cool so I vote for that solution. Slight risk of sudden unscheduled energetic discharge notwithstanding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Flywheels suspended in vacuum with magnetic bearings are cool so I vote for that solution. That'd be a lot like using the gravity gun in ravenholm from HL2. So many sawblades...
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Pander posted:That'd be a lot like using the gravity gun in ravenholm from HL2. So many sawblades... "Don't touch it...." *flywheel proceeds to shoot off in one direction to cause havoc*
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Well thermal storage requires a steam turbine which I can't imagine is easier or cheaper to maintain. You could do compressed air storage but again, you need mechanical gadgets. It's just not going to be efficient or maintainable on a small scale. I kinda, sorta like flywheels... the energy density doesn't degrade over time and it's pretty efficient. I have no idea about lifespan and I suspect they'd be incredibly expensive at a small scale. It seems like the most cost efficient thing right now might be to somehow get ahold of an EV battery pack or two, but you know, good luck buying one standalone in the first place and having an interface for charging/discharging it. They're prime candidates for Musk's battery pack, really. They're well off old white people who could drop thousands on what they have, so I'm pretty sure they could have gotten solar panels and the Elon Musk Home Package for less than $80k, were they available yet. Maybe if they're lucky the NPR piece will get Lord Musk's attention and get them in on an early test unit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
I vote for the pig poo poo solution demonstrated in Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
In all honesty the cheapest solution over the long term is just pay for the power lines to be run out there, especially as it'll raise the value of the property more than any of the other things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you have some data to back this up? It's admittedly speculative, but again it comes back to scale. A nuclear plant with a couple of reactors can produce a couple GW in a relatively compact structure. I would expect the foundations and mountings, plus the materials for the panels themselves, for the fields of PV panels necessary to generate that much electricity would require significantly more materials. Though it would be good to see data - is anyone aware of comparisons of the amount of building materials involved for different power sources?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It's admittedly speculative, but again it comes back to scale. A nuclear plant with a couple of reactors can produce a couple GW in a relatively compact structure. I would expect the foundations and mountings, plus the materials for the panels themselves, for the fields of PV panels necessary to generate that much electricity would require significantly more materials. These guys do some calculations but I don't know how accurate or useful it is. Keep in mind you can run the calculations for suburban vs urban living and get similarly hugely different numbers in land/energy/material use - and people wouldn't care at all. It's all very true but you're not going to convince anyone with it. In any event the US government is not fighting against nuclear - it's actively supporting it. The problem isn't policy, it's risk averse investors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:These guys do some calculations but I don't know how accurate or useful it is. Keep in mind you can run the calculations for suburban vs urban living and get similarly hugely different numbers in land/energy/material use - and people wouldn't care at all. It's all very true but you're not going to convince anyone with it. In any event the US government is not fighting against nuclear - it's actively supporting it. The problem isn't policy, it's risk averse investors. Why support it with stuff like loan subsidies when the government could simply build the reactors and sell the energy? Sounds like a good retirement path for nuclear submarine engineers. We can borrow money for effectively no cost given current real rates on government bonds, I can't legitimately see a good reason not to do this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Why support it with stuff like loan subsidies when the government could simply build the reactors and sell the energy? Sounds like a good retirement path for nuclear submarine engineers. We can borrow money for effectively no cost given current real rates on government bonds, I can't legitimately see a good reason not to do this. Everyone's brains will explode. Conservatives will like nukes being built, but hate the fact the government does it. Liberals will applaud the public sector control of energy, but hate the idea of nuclear power. So yeah. non-starter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:These guys ... The problem isn't policy, it's risk averse investors. The role of public opinion and policy in hindering nuclear power is absolutely (hugely) overstated by most people (especially pro-nuclear laypersons), but policy does definitely have some role in why investors are weary of nuclear power in the first place. I mean if a country like Germany can up and decide to phase out all nuclear power entirely, ostensibly due to Fukushima and public opinion, that is going to make investors worry, especially since their cost recovery time frame can be measured in decades and no one can predict politics that far ahead. That said, there are enough other things worrying investors that, if they were fixed, would probably make the contribution of fickle policy & public opinion negligible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Neat. http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/small-modular-efficient-fusion-plant-0810
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
quote:propose a new design for a practical compact tokamak fusion reactor
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Pander posted:I can't wait to hear about how it's only 10 years away in 2025. MIT posted:Its an old joke that many fusion scientists have grown tired of hearing: Practical nuclear fusion power plants are just 30 years away and always will be. Hmmmm, I think someone at the press office didn't think this through.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
Any day now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 02:53
|
|