|
Andrast posted:I guess we could just shove money into science and hope for a breakthrough that magically changes that but that's not exactly realistic.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
R. Mute posted:Seems to be the way forward for both renewables and nuclear, though. Nuclear energy works right now, renewables don't. If you want to reduce the usage of fossil fuels by a relevant amount nuclear is basically the only option.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:I mean, it's obvious that I think it's a problem. But in terms of potential for disaster if handled improperly, which is apparently the only way it'll be handled, green energy has a massive advantage over nuclear. So imo we should invest in green energy. You're welcome. If potential for disaster is the deciding factor then we should go back to animal power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:What pushed Germany over the edge was not the green boogeyman, but the Fukushima accident and the incompetent fuckwits trying to deal with the situation. Germany has already been extremely sceptical of nuclear energy since '86, when Chernobyl traumatized the population and was closely followed by a scandal where the management of a research pebble-bed reactor conspired to hide a(relatively harmless) accident and tried to blame an increase in radioactivity on Chernobyl. Fukushima was the last straw. German angst is the fertile soil for Green fearmongering. I remember the Chernobyl hystery of my childhood and how I had to read Pausewang and other lunatic poo poo. And I remember how the Green party repeatedly tried to claim the reactor failure at Fukushima had claimed 20.000 lifes, when these were the victims of the Tsunami. The Greens are the anti-rational shitheads Germany deserves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Renewables are not satisfying our energy needs, so lets shut down all the nuclear plants and reopen old soviet coal plants -- German energy policy in action
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Nuclear energy works right now, renewables don't. If you want to reduce the usage of fossil fuels by a relevant amount nuclear is basically the only option. MeLKoR posted:If potential for disaster is the deciding factor then we should go back to animal power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Develop and build renewables all you want! Replace coal with renewables if you can! You can't. Whatever you do don't start using more coal!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Yeah, and renewables people never harp on about the 'potential' of renewables if only we just invested and buitl uit. And in the meantime those good ol' coal plants from the soviet era keep chugging away in east germany. Super solution Could be worse, you could be the Netherlands closing your set of high tech just finished in 2016 coal plants with carbon capture technology so you can import more energy from whoever will sell it cheap (yes lignite will be fine, thanks) so you can technically achieve your climate goals. Maybe authorizing 3 new coal plants in 2010 and then decomissioning them at a costs ~$7 billion in 2016 wasn't a great plan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
The EU really needs a C02 tax. Well, the world ideally but it would be a start.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Renewables don't work? Not as the main base of your energy. Renewables can be an additional energy resource but they absolutely need something else to form the base of the energy structure (some countries with a fuckload of hydropower might be an exception).
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Not as the main base of your energy. Renewables can be an additional energy resource but they absolutely need something else to form the base of the energy structure (some countries with a fuckload of hydropower might be an exception).
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Why tho? Because large scale energy storage is basically impossible with the current technology and you need electricity even when it's not sunny or windy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Solar and wind both have varied output based on the weather. You need enough power to keep the grid up even when the weather is bad for energy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Renewables are not satisfying our energy needs, so lets shut down all the nuclear plants and reopen old soviet coal plants -- German energy policy in action And lets pay billions of Euros to rent-seeking farts with voltaic cells on their homes or shares in some bird-shedding windmill to make big bucks from some poor schmock who has to rent a flat and has to pay the skyrocketing energy prices. Frankly, the "Energiewende" was one of the most blatant "take from the poor to pay the rich" move in the last decades. And as an addendum: I remember Germans with an academic degree buying iodine after Fukushima because they were afraid of Ocean currents/winds from Japan. Andrast posted:Because large scale energy storage is basically impossible with the current technology and you need electricity even when it's not sunny or windy. And yet there's as of now no incentive to invest into an improved storage capacity, while the subsidies for producing more and more energy without anybody needing it gets guaranteed subsidies. This level of stupidity makes me rage even more than the German angst stupdity that fuels the Green success. Einbauschrank fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Einbauschrank posted:And as an addendum: I remember Germans with an academic degree buying iodine after Fukushima because they were afraid of Ocean currents/winds from Japan. Happened in Finland too. Pharmacies across the country were cleared out. The government had to issue an official statement to the tune of "stop buying iodine you dumb fucks, there is no danger"
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Here's a little suggestion to combat climate change globally and not just by focusing on electricity generation: how about we destroy capitalism and immediately engage in some massive ecological planification?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
The energy storage deficiency is a myth, we are perfectly capable to accommodate even a very rapid increase of renewable energy generation with conventional pumped storage and other storage facilities, the obstacle currently is that the price delta of peak and low production electricity is too low to make storage economically profitable, therefore there's little incentive for investors to build more of it. Increasing photovoltaic capacity in particular would naturally increase the price delta, and make storage profitable, thus the problem of short-term storage is self-solving for any foreseeable future. As for long term storage, that is not currently a real problem, the issue now is the aforementioned periodic peaks in energy supply generated by renewables.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
I mean the way things are done right now we outsource a lot of our CO2 emissions to Asia and everything, what if we tried to do something about these stealth emissions? It would have a tremendous impact on worldwide emissions, big league. And by hanging a few CEOs we could eliminate yacht- and jet plane-induced emissions but that's just a small bonus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Here's a little suggestion to combat climate change globally and not just by focusing on electricity generation: how about we destroy capitalism and immediately engage in some massive ecological planification? That's the German Green Party's plan. At least they seem hellbent on deindustrializing Germany. Most of their voters are civil servants, so in their world nobody needs to produce anything to afford nice things. Einbauschrank fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The energy storage deficiency is a myth, we are perfectly capable to accommodate even a very rapid increase of renewable energy generation with conventional pumped storage and other storage facilities, the obstacle currently is that the price delta of peak and low production electricity is too low to make storage economically profitable, therefore there's little incentive for investors to build more of it. Increasing photovoltaic capacity in particular would naturally increase the price delta, and make storage profitable, thus the problem of short-term storage is self-solving for any foreseeable future. As for long term storage, that is not currently a real problem, the issue now is the aforementioned periodic peaks in energy supply generated by renewables. Or we could just use nuclear power which is relatively cheap, safe and environmentally friendly
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Or we could just use nuclear power which is relatively cheap, safe and environmentally friendly Or we could make unicorns run in hamster wheels. Nobody likes nuclear energy, so unless you are going to stage a coup and implement your own policy, that's not an option. Besides renewable energy is not a competitor, there's no need to become an anti-renewable luddite making completely outlandish claim just because you have a hard on for nuclear plants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Or we could make unicorns run in hamster wheels. Here's the myths about energy storage is that you'll be able to power your Grid at the same time you're generating stored energy which is not true because you either power part of the grid and power part of the stored energy or you spend the six-hour window you have building up your energy storage it's not going to be both at the same time and that's kind of the problem with Renewables is well they are very good in the long run they're not going to displace things like coal and natural gas because you have to choose which you're going to invest your energy grid and either your pairing the Grid or your power in your storage not both
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Or we could make unicorns run in hamster wheels. I'm not anti-renewable, hell I'm currently writing a master's thesis on organic solar cells. I just think it's really dumb to do major investment in lovely expensive solar cells when the tech is rapidly improving when nuclear power already exists and is fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
The tech is improving because people are investing into it, isn't it. Nuclear energy also didn't pop up one day for free.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The tech is improving because people are investing into it, isn't it. Nuclear energy also didn't pop up one day for free. People buying bad crystalline silicon solar cells isn't really improving the research rate on alternative solar cell architectures. also this CommieGIR posted:Here's the myths about energy storage is that you'll be able to power your Grid at the same time you're generating stored energy which is not true because you either power part of the grid and power part of the stored energy or you spend the six-hour window you have building up your energy storage it's not going to be both at the same time and that's kind of the problem with Renewables is well they are very good in the long run they're not going to displace things like coal and natural gas because you have to choose which you're going to invest your energy grid and either your pairing the Grid or your power in your storage not both Andrast fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Nuclear is a fossil fuel, too. At least until fusion power works, but that's a technology that is twenty years away from working, and has been 20 years away from working for half a century already, no reason to believe it won't stay 20 years away from working for the next fifty years. But as long as your nuclear power plants are managed by a competent administration that is concerned entirely by security and reliability and gives absolutely zero gently caress at all to profitability, corner cutting, and the masturbation habits of shareholders, nuclear power is the best option we have currently. By all mean, renewable energies need to be developed as much as possible, I wholeheartedly encourage them; but that's in complement to nuclear. Coal-burning must be banned, like, twenty years ago; it's the worst fossil fuel. Gas is awful too, especially when it's extracted through fracking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Nuclear is a fossil fuel, too. Nuclear literally isn't a fossil fuel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Nuclear is a fossil fuel, too. uhh...
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:But as long as your nuclear power plants are managed by a competent administration that is concerned entirely by security and reliability and gives absolutely zero gently caress at all to profitability, corner cutting, and the masturbation habits of shareholders, nuclear power is the best option we have currently. I can understand having little hope on that front, in the world we live in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:By all mean, renewable energies need to be developed as much as possible, I wholeheartedly encourage them; but that's in complement to nuclear. Coal-burning must be banned, like, twenty years ago; it's the worst fossil fuel. Gas is awful too, especially when it's extracted through fracking. Not to mention between earthquake in the US due to injection fracking and leaking methane which is an EVEN MORE POTENT GREENHOUSE GAS, the strive for 'Cheap, affordable energy' is loving us hard in the rear end. Friendly Humour posted:uhh... Fossils of stars, mannnnn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Andrast posted:People buying bad crystalline silicon solar cells isn't really improving the research rate on alternative solar cell architectures. Would the research be going at the current rate if nobody was showing commercial interest in solar cells. CommieGIR posted:Here's the myths about energy storage is that you'll be able to power your Grid at the same time you're generating stored energy which is not true because you either power part of the grid and power part of the stored energy or you spend the six-hour window you have building up your energy storage it's not going to be both at the same time and that's kind of the problem with Renewables is well they are very good in the long run they're not going to displace things like coal and natural gas because you have to choose which you're going to invest your energy grid and either your pairing the Grid or your power in your storage not both Hm, yet the infrastructure for periodic transferring of power to storage already exists both on the macro and consumer scale and is used, and probably wouldn't need to be upscaled much for at least two decades. I don't really see a problem?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Hm, yet the infrastructure for periodic transferring of power to storage already exists both on the macro and consumer scale and is used, and probably wouldn't need to be upscaled much for at least two decades. I don't really see a problem? Yes, you're right. But they are doing that with an on-demand constant flow generating system like coal or gas. Not one that only has a 6 hour window for peak output (solar) or even less (wind). Renewable are not the solve all end all you are portraying them as. We covered this in the Energy thread multiple times, as you know. Either we: Drastically decrease our power needs (not happening) Cover VAST areas of desert and plains in renewables (not happening) or Find something that can help meet the needs of a growing power demand alongside renewable supplements (totally can happen) Renewables are supplements. Period. That's it. Unless you are an island nation with low power demands, renewables are probably not going to fully replace your on demand power generating systems. Pick one. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
What don't we invade sunnier countries and take their suns? It worked last time...
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:But as long as your nuclear power plants are managed by a competent administration that is concerned entirely by security and reliability and gives absolutely zero gently caress at all to profitability, corner cutting, and the masturbation habits of shareholders, nuclear power is the best option we have currently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Flowers for Algeria is right and we should start by renationalising the energy sector and then continue by nationalising the rest as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Fukushima was what, 10 years beyond it's absolute maximum lifetime? No it wasn't. What the two oldest reactors, the ones that had issues were, was scheduled to start being shut down in 2012 and 2013 respectively, with the goal of having replacement reactors for them on-site by about now. steinrokkan posted:The energy storage deficiency is a myth, we are perfectly capable to accommodate even a very rapid increase of renewable energy generation with conventional pumped storage and other storage facilities, With facilities like them, sure. But no nation has enough of those facilities, as a huge amount more need to be built to handle a rapid increase in renewable energy generation. And it's not like you can just toss gigawatthours of pumped storage or battery banks up overnight, at least not if you want them to be safe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
"Big government is irradiating your children and forcing you to pay a premium for energy from wasteful solar panels: Vote Conservative to stop the madness"
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
fishmech posted:With facilities like them, sure. But no nation has enough of those facilities, as a huge amount more need to be built to handle a rapid increase in renewable energy generation. I'll defer to the judgment of the research groups that made the math and said that this is in fact not the case, and that the storage sector develops in step with the energy generation sector.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I'll defer to the judgment of the research groups that made the math and said that this is in fact not the case, and that the storage sector develops in step with the energy generation sector. So you are saying Germany has enough storage, right now, to handle that 11% piece of the energy pie?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Nuclear is a fossil fuel, too. What you are probably trying to say is that easily accessed uranium is limited in quantity and has to be mined. Ok. It's not that simple, but ok. Accepting that, nuclear still doesn't release C02.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 22:09
|
|