|
Phanatic posted:What the gently caress, Greens? A very sharp mutual acquaintance of ours who lived in Germany is convinced that renewable without nuclear are a long con to keep fossil fuels in use
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 13:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:A very sharp mutual acquaintance of ours who lived in Germany is convinced that renewable without nuclear are a long con to keep fossil fuels in use There's a lot of money going into exactly that
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Actual we do, because people like you keep coming into the thread making the same stupid anti-nuclear arguments that they do. ok, thats it, i give up this thread, these forums, its all pointless gently caress you taffer, you dumb rear end in a top hat. you just thew a "people like me" at me for poo poo I have 100% never said. you could comb my entire posting history and never find what you just whole cloth made up and accused me of. you are a liar and a lovely person on the inside. people like you, and unfortunately you're not at all unique in this regard, are simply mentally incapable of understanding anything that isn't COKE VS PEPSI or PATRIOTS VS COWBOYS. your simple stupid mind can only split things into the FOR and AGAINST camp and anyone who isn't loudly in the camp of your preference MUST therefore be in the other camp. i'm not saying the truth is in the middle, i'm saying the truth has an almost completely tangential and barely connected relationship to the idiotic sports fan cheering section of your broken little boy brain. gently caress this dumb thread and these stupid forums. gently caress you mods. gently caress you lowtax. gently caress you tim berners lee. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
Capitalism, not capitalization am I right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
Settle down Beavis
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:A reminder that Germany is the country that shut down their entire nuclear grid as a reaction to Fukushima, and as you can see they still haven't recovered. Germany still gets around 10% of its electricity from domestic nuclear power. The nuclear phase out was decided upon long before Fukushima. All Fukushima did was change the time tables. I gotta say, I really hate the anglo-saxon navel gazing about the "the failed German renewable dream". Germany has been ruled by conservative pro-business coalitions for the last 14 years and Merkel campaigned on a pro-nuclear, anti-green platform. Green parties don't hold any power in Germany on the federal level. Also, Germany is way ahead of its set goals for renewable power generation. It's not exactly a failure if you didn't set out to achieve much. The conservative governments have pretty much refused to lay the political ground for further renewable expansion and to fight lovely NIMBYsm. Once a year some gray haired Bavarian crypt keeper crawls out of his crypt to announce some dumb project to move transmission lines underground. NIMBYs cheer for a while and then it's back to business as usual till next year. It's all a huge joke. Nothing gets done. There is no political will.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:There's a lot of money going into exactly that That's the result, certainly, and if you assume the whole thing is all about getting rid of carbon emissions you'd expect a stronger response among renewable advocates
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:
This is absolutely a political failure
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
Total Meatlove posted:This is absolutely a political failure If people are scared about radiation from power lines it’s also an educational failure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:ok, thats it, i give up Too bad we can't power the world with bad posting. This guy would be a natural resource. To bring things back on track, what's the relevancy of wave power at this point? I remember hearing about some startup companies about a decade ago but they're all pretty silent these days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:OK, a question: when it comes to Grid storage, has anybody tried flywheels It's not a completely terrible idea, especially on relatively small grids with limited amounts of inertia resisting a change in the system frequency. Because a flywheel synchronised to the grid delivers energy as the frequency falls and absorbs energy as the frequency rises, them being connected to the grid means that large losses of generation or supply have a less rapid effect on the system frequency, giving the electricity system operator and plant providing frequency response longer to respond. With a move towards asynchronous generation from wind and solar from the traditional big spinning steam and gas turbines, system inertia is on a falling track even though total generation and supply remains relatively constant. Hell, we could just take steam/gas turbines from older power stations, attach a pony motor to them to get them up to speed and synchronised, and leave them spinning in a vacuum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Too bad we can't power the world with bad posting. This guy would be a natural resource. IIRC the pilot projects turned out to be pretty meh (and you'd need to build loads of them them along a fuckton of beach), Pelamis went bankrupt, and interest is not very high.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 19:12
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Maintaining anything in the ocean is a loving nightmare too. If you can possibly avoid building something on or in the ocean, avoid it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Too bad we can't power the world with bad posting. This guy would be a natural resource. I'm pretty down on most ocean-based power generation. Material science isn't magic, and the ocean is a very harsh environment to build, operate, and maintain equipment on. There are good arguments for offshore wind (better resource availability, bigger turbines, preserves arable land, typically nearer to population centers than deserts/hills), but boy its expensive to build and maintain em, and the increasing frequency and intensity of storms doesn't bode well. Similar environmental problems exist for wave generation techs, but also minus several key upsides of wind power. Like, it's just fundamentally more difficult to build a means to capture very variable ocean waves (they can quickly change direction, wavelength, height, frequency, etc). Wind is also relatively uniform over a cross-sectional area, while waves can vary based on wavelengths measured in dozens of feet. Meaning, your wave-catching device can't be too big or else it may fight against itself as different waves hit at different times over the same device. I've seen other ocean techs too, like some that propose using temperature gradients between water depths in a large water column to fuel circulation loops that can push turbines. I just doubt that most of these techs could ever generate enough power to overcome their lengthy list of drawbacks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Germany still gets around 10% of its electricity from domestic nuclear power. The nuclear phase out was decided upon long before Fukushima. All Fukushima did was change the time tables. Oh yeah? I wasn't aware of the nuclear phaseout, thanks for that. The way our media spun it was just that Merkel decided NO NUKES. RDevz posted:It's not a completely terrible idea, especially on relatively small grids with limited amounts of inertia resisting a change in the system frequency. Because a flywheel synchronised to the grid delivers energy as the frequency falls and absorbs energy as the frequency rises, them being connected to the grid means that large losses of generation or supply have a less rapid effect on the system frequency, giving the electricity system operator and plant providing frequency response longer to respond. With a move towards asynchronous generation from wind and solar from the traditional big spinning steam and gas turbines, system inertia is on a falling track even though total generation and supply remains relatively constant. Hell, we could just take steam/gas turbines from older power stations, attach a pony motor to them to get them up to speed and synchronised, and leave them spinning in a vacuum. I can't see that the rotating mass of a steam/gas turbine would really be enough to deliver any usable energy, at least at grid levels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:Oh yeah? I wasn't aware of the nuclear phaseout, thanks for that. The way our media spun it was just that Merkel decided NO NUKES. Red/green decided that maybe at some point in the future another government would get to watch the nukes turn off. Then Merkel decided to kick the can down the road so far that the reactors effectively would be running till they wear out. Then Fukushima happened and Merkel decided that, actually, they should shut down ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:ok, thats it, i give up yeah ok we get it we all have to agree with you otherwise that would be tribalism or something
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
Pander posted:I'm pretty down on most ocean-based power generation. Material science isn't magic, and the ocean is a very harsh environment to build, operate, and maintain equipment on. There are good arguments for offshore wind (better resource availability, bigger turbines, preserves arable land, typically nearer to population centers than deserts/hills), but boy its expensive to build and maintain em, and the increasing frequency and intensity of storms doesn't bode well. Another one that may have some upside (but cannot really be used everywhere) is tidal power generation. Two large barrages exist in South Korea and France (254 and 240MW capacity respectively), and another one is coming online in England (Meygen, ~400MW). Some of the proposals are bonkers btw, like the Severn barrage (8.6GW) and the Penzhin plant (87GW). It's not only barrages though. Some of the technologies under consideration now are DTP (essentially large dams going out to sea) or even artificial reservoirs with circular walls (tidal lagoons). Dante80 fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Sep 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:Red/green decided that maybe at some point in the future another government would get to watch the nukes turn off. Then Merkel decided to kick the can down the road so far that the reactors effectively would be running till they wear out. Then Fukushima happened and Merkel decided that, actually, they should shut down ASAP. I just looked it up and under the original Schröder phase-out the last reactor was expected to go offline some time around 2021 (there was no exact date because the companies were free to chose how they want to use the remaining allowed Wh/operation time). With Merkel's backpedaling we are pretty much back at the same point. The last reactors are expected to go offline some time 2021/22 IRC Also, holy poo poo, after Fukushima polls were 80% in favour of the nuclear phase out. 8% opposed. I don't even remember it being so extreme
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
RDevz posted:It's not a completely terrible idea, especially on relatively small grids with limited amounts of inertia resisting a change in the system frequency. Because a flywheel synchronised to the grid delivers energy as the frequency falls and absorbs energy as the frequency rises, them being connected to the grid means that large losses of generation or supply have a less rapid effect on the system frequency, giving the electricity system operator and plant providing frequency response longer to respond. With a move towards asynchronous generation from wind and solar from the traditional big spinning steam and gas turbines, system inertia is on a falling track even though total generation and supply remains relatively constant. Hell, we could just take steam/gas turbines from older power stations, attach a pony motor to them to get them up to speed and synchronised, and leave them spinning in a vacuum. I'm not sure how common this is, but they actually do this in Newfoundland. In the thermal generating plant, one of the generators is used as a flywheel. But when I saw them doing this, the plant was still in operation. Although if I remember correctly, when the new hydro dam is online, they will continue to use the generator as a flywheel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Also, holy poo poo, after Fukushima polls were 80% in favour of the nuclear phase out. 8% opposed. I don't even remember it being so extreme That was pretty much expected, judging from what exactly happened to Fukushima (as well as the two+ hundreds of billions of dollars that will be spent over the next 4 decades to deal with what happened).
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:That was pretty much expected, judging from what exactly happened to Fukushima (as well as the two+ hundreds of billions of dollars that will be spent over the next 4 decades to deal with what happened). Tsunami kills 20,000, and here we are bitching about cleanup of a melted reactor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:That was pretty much expected, judging from what exactly happened to Fukushima (as well as the two+ hundreds of billions of dollars that will be spent over the next 4 decades to deal with what happened). Well, judging from the media coverage, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Tsunami kills 20,000, and here we are bitching about cleanup of a melted reactor. It's not us that are bitching about it. Moreover, the total cost of the Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami is calculated around $360Bn (for reference, Katrina stood at ~$250Bn). The Fukushima Disaster alone adds another $180-200Bn on top of that. The death of the Japan nuclear industry is also estimated to cost around $84Bn. I mean, I'd bitch about it too. And I'm pro nuclear energy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
got your numbers handy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Another one that may have some upside (but cannot really be used everywhere) is tidal power generation. Two large barrages exist in South Korea and France (254 and 240MW capacity respectively), and another one is coming online in England (Meygen, ~400MW). The catastrophic disruption to the local ecosystem caused by dams is completely forgotten decades later. So I'm already leery about building other devices designed to significantly impede the natural flow of water, such as a tidal power generator. *looks up Penzhin*  Okay, effectively building a turbine 50 miles wide to generate 87GW in a relatively unpopulated area, sounds great, don't see any problems with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
There are also some bigger numbers floating around, but I don't really trust the sources. At all. Think tank puts cost to address nuke disaster up to 81 trillion yen Fukushima’s Final Costs Will Approach A Trillion Dollars Just For Nuclear Disaster
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Pander posted:The catastrophic disruption to the local ecosystem caused by dams is completely forgotten decades later. So I'm already leery about building other devices designed to significantly impede the natural flow of water, such as a tidal power generator. There are indeed potential problems (like noise pollution, marine life getting sucked to the turbines, biofouling, changes in sedimentation processes on beaches etc). But we are talking about much, much less problems than hydro, considering. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Sep 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:There are indeed potential problems (like noise pollution, marine life getting sucked to the turbines, biofouling, changes in sedimentation processes on beaches etc). But we are talking about much, much less problems than hydro, considering. I mean, the construction process also involves a fair bit of devastation that's getting glossed over here. When you make 87GW worth of turbines, you're doing some loving work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
This includes $73 billion in reparations and compensation to those affected, including payouts to businesses whose operations were impacted and payouts for mental anguish, amounting to several hundred thousand dollars per person. Not that I'm complaining, but imagine if the coal industry had to make payouts like that? The compensation for the Kingston fly ash spill worked out to about $35k per person...after a four-year lawsuit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:I can't see that the rotating mass of a steam/gas turbine would really be enough to deliver any usable energy, at least at grid levels. It doesn't need to deliver energy for a long time, and each 500 MW steam turbine that's being slowed down at a rate of 0.125 Hz/sec delivers low double digit MW to the grid - the point is to reduce the rate of change of frequency as a result of a large infeed loss to something that's more manageable for normal frequency control methods (which take 2-10 seconds to respond) to cope with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
Something about that doesn't feel right to me, as the turbine "catches" whatever is flowing through it, forcing it to spin. With only the turbine itself, the power you'd have available would only be the rotational mass of the actual turbine by its rotational velocity. I could be wrong on this, I'd need to check the numbers, but I don't think it would work as you hope
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:Something about that doesn't feel right to me, as the turbine "catches" whatever is flowing through it, forcing it to spin. With only the turbine itself, the power you'd have available would only be the rotational mass of the actual turbine by its rotational velocity. It’s a real thing. Look up “inertial response”. Here’s a report from the Nordics grid. Sweden averaged about 170 GJ of rotational kinetic energy. It’s not much, but it’s important for grid stability. Or you could use it to power your nuclear reactor’s cooling system as it shuts down. Please don’t attempt that, Comrade Dyatlov
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 05:42
|
|
|
Huh, more energy available than I would have thought. I stand corrected.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
Lol nimbylibs love that wind power...in poorer neighborhoods, anyway. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/nyregion/hamptons-wind-farm.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
Saudi oil refinery just blowed up real good. They’re claiming an attack by Houthi drones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Saudi oil refinery just blowed up real good. They’re claiming an attack by Houthi drones. Why does this timeline continue to act like a Clancy novel?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Saudi oil refinery just blowed up real good. They’re claiming an attack by Houthi drones. They are also claiming its under control. It doesn't look under control.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/1174010549077794818
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 04:44
|
|
