|
Nitrousoxide posted:What if we build BOTH nuclear and non-nuclear power. I think that's what all pro-nuclear people want
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Grid storage should be done with materials you can spuce in bulk with the least environmental impact, and lithium isn't it. I guess it will be cool to get to chant no blood for lithium in our terrible future instead of for oil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements#/media/File:Elemental_abundances.svg lithium is "it" because its loving incredibly abundant and element number goddamn 3. I loving dare you to find a better electron-to-mass ratio that's also more abundant on earth that you can make a battery out of. if you're gonna poo poo talk it just because its a word you've heard of but clearly don't understand at least google it for 5 minutes, otherwise you're just air-horn broadcasting that you're full of poo poo and don't know what you're talking about. oil/fossil-fuels are produced and consumed, lithium is reused hundreds to thousands of times and can then be over 95% recycled to go on to be used hundreds to thousands of times again, and again, and again. the difference in resource extraction and consumption is tens of orders of magnitude. the whole "lithium is the new oil" meme is just people who are functionally innumerate and incapable of understanding things on a deeper level than KEYWORD BAD StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Nov 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I think that's what all pro-nuclear people want I mean, was that controversial? I'm pro-nuke and pro-renewable. We're going to need to build heaps of both. VideoGameVet posted:Well, if you're slowing down to 15knts or less, that changes the equations. The kite system looks like it has a better shot of succeeding. I don't think it works in the way you think it does. Mind going through the math on it to double check?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 06:10
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That is 20% of US *electrical* demand. Not energy demand. Nuclear and renewables combined are about 10% of US energy demand. Electrical generation for August 2019 was about 400 terawatt-hours. 5% of that 20 terawatt-hours. A typical reactor is about 1.3 gigawatts electrical with like a 90% capacity factor. So about 23 reactors. Absent a major political realignment, it ain't going to happen. So if you're counting gasoline engines in vehicles for the total energy consumption that's to a certain extent fair when considering a whole economy switch over to electricity. However you also need to factor in that Battery EV's are like 4-5x as efficient per kilowatt hour of energy needed to travel a mile. A Tesla 3 can go it's 300ish miles on the equivalent energy of 2 and change gallons of gasoline.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 06:13
|
|
|
Unless it sees a firetruck and decides to kill itself
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 07:05
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:this is so goddamn dumb and wrong its amazing. you could do a psych phd on how this fake-fact became "truth" almost overnight. never let reality get in the way of a good narrative. Ahhh yes, I'm sure the fact that it's reusable is of great comfort to the poor bolivian natives forced to work in mines on land stolen from them! Really though what's the ecological devastation and gross use of water in dry areas as long as we make sure it happens on the back of the third world, so we can enjoy our endless stupid cars still in the west? edit: And to bring it back to the original point, to produce batteries that emit co2 anyways! So we don't even see a reduction in the carbon footprint. Genius! Killer-of-Lawyers fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Nov 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 07:17
|
|
|
Joey Steel posted:I mean, was that controversial? I'm pro-nuke and pro-renewable. We're going to need to build heaps of both. There is some work on the problem. Don't know if they will succeed. https://theweek.com/articles/825647/why-cargo-ships-might-literally-sail-high-seas-again
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
Oh, wait, I guess that the co2 part is just part of the cycle that would concentrate co2 out of the air, in which case yeah, my concerns on that front are invalid. I still would rather see kinetic storage/domestic lithium mining/baseload green power than just banks and banks of lithium batteries on the grid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 08:29
|
|
|
well then good thing you have no say
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
The sustainable future of using orders of magnitude more lithium than we currently do because atoms are scary and we'll never be able to defeat the obstructionist tactics that oil/gas ghouls utilize against nuclear rollout so we can have some half decent baseline power generation and not rely on an absolutely unholy amount of storage sitting around also the same oil/gas ghouls won't dare obstruct massive solar builds and the hundreds of millions of tons of Liion power cells that would need to be produced globally every few decades e: but the windmills kill birds and also my property values I'm very concerned about the birds people have raised concerns about the birds too we need to stop doing wind and think about this while we burn some more of my 
Marxalot fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Nov 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
i mean... its 2019 dude none of this is speculative anymore. you could maybe have made that dumb take in 2010 or something, but now you're just like... unaware of the world around you? solar and wind and batteries are getting built. that's not an opinion you can go look at them in google maps and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:i mean... its 2019 dude none of this is speculative anymore. you could maybe have made that dumb take in 2010 or something, but now you're just like... unaware of the world around you? https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3  Clearly. Also that doesn't address the enormous amount of storage we'd need to be purely solar/wind. Either we throw down herculean amounts of batteries everywhere to make sure half the country doesn't get rolling blackouts because it's winter and a few cold fronts blew through (or california caught fire again), or we're stuck with fission reactors as a baseline powersource.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
Photo-voltaic solar is predicted to be a relevant electricity generation technology in the US. The EIA predicts that in 2027, the US will have more photo-voltaic solar electricity generation capacity than nuclear electricity generation capacity. Photo-voltaic solar electricity has greatly dropped in price, is now cheaper than nuclear electricity in many parts of the country, and the price is still dropping. If anyone in this thread has a (edit: informed) prediction for when the price will stop dropping, please let me know. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Nov 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
i know i'm conflating the eia and iea here but its a common pattern: these agency predictions are always absurdly conservative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
^^^ Isn't the majority of that China? Also we don't generally burn oil to make electricity whatsilence_kit posted:Photo-voltaic solar is predicted to be a relevant electricity generation technology in the US. The EIA predicts that in 2027, the US will have more photo-voltaic solar electricity generation capacity than nuclear electricity generation capacity. There's a vast gulf between "relevant" and "this is pretty much all we can do". Similarly, there's a vast gulf between the amount of storage needed to not -waste- solar power production vs the amount of storage and excess generation we would need to not get hosed over every time a decent sized weather system settles in over the US. Storage and excess generation that would be better used in poorer coal burning countries. Also lol that yall keep doing the "but nuclear is expensive!" gimmick when that's literally the entire purpose of hostile regulations and subsequent agency defunding put forward by the oil lobby. Drown them in red tape. Delay construction by any means so anyone dumb enough to invest in commercial nuclear (jesus christ why aren't these govt all owned) has to sit back and eat interest on their loans. Also somehow the fossil fuels industry isn't going to/isn't currently trying to undermine solar/wind at all. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Nov 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
lol you don't know what mtoe is but you feel entitled to lecture people about energy policy
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:lol you don't know what mtoe is but you feel entitled to lecture people about energy policy Maybe if you  harder the posts will read themselves to you and your graphs might get better
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
I'm always wary of sources that promote solar in terms of capacity, given that solar has such a low capacity factor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
Smiling Demon posted:I'm always wary of sources that promote solar in terms of capacity, given that solar has such a low capacity factor. Regardless of that, the chart is showing how predictions for solar have been massively over conservative. If it was kwh produced you’d see very similar curves, where reality massively blows out predictions year after year. Often these predictions have regulatory restrictions that make them more conservative, which is a big part of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:lol you don't know what mtoe is but you feel entitled to lecture people about energy policy Yeah but you think your computer skills translate to energy policy Tbh I had to look up what mtoe meant and I've worked in power generation for ten years now
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Regardless of that, the chart is showing how predictions for solar have been massively over conservative. If it was kwh produced you’d see very similar curves, where reality massively blows out predictions year after year. It's a bad chart showing growth in solar per year taken out of context from a blog ran/funded/whatever by a nonprofit. The IEA has a habit of projecting linear growth in renewables (ie; we added 420GW this year, we'll do the same next year") but just thrown out there without any context or proper labeling it looks like it's claiming the IEA is predicting solar capacity will fall. Also solar power generation is measured in oils for similarly normal reasons. Here's a much less stupid chart from the same blog  e: alternatively the IEA is dumber than hell and actually thinks solar power generation will go down with wind/hydro picking up the slack, but I'm not going to bother digging more than I already have Marxalot fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Nov 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
Smiling Demon posted:I'm always wary of sources that promote solar in terms of capacity, given that solar has such a low capacity factor. If you take the EIA's projections (are you wary of this source?) for US electricity generation, they predict solar photovoltaic to not quite catch up with nuclear, but to come close in 2050, when their predictions stop. Their prediction is that solar will be the fastest growing source of electricity in the US. In any case Marxalot was either being really misleading or was being really ignorant when he claimed that solar photovoltaic electricity is irrelevant because in 2018 it only generated 1.5% of the US' electricity. He's either ignoring or unaware of what's happened with photovoltaics in the past 10 years. Marxalot posted:the entire purpose of hostile regulations and subsequent agency defunding put forward by the oil lobby. Drown them in red tape. Delay construction by any means so anyone dumb enough to invest in commercial nuclear (jesus christ why aren't these govt all owned) has to sit back and eat interest on their loans. Oh, I thought the belief in this thread was that US nuclear regulators were just bad at their jobs or that the regulations placed on nuclear electricity were poorly designed. I always wondered how thread posters here could reconcile their views on liking socialism and planned economies and believing them to be very efficient with their narrative for why nuclear electricity was so expensive and for why the industry was stagnant, which was to vaguely blame all of the failures of the technology on government regulations. I guess this belief (malicious actors have infiltrated all of the US nuclear regulatory government bodies) resolves the paradox.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:The sustainable future of using orders of magnitude more lithium than we currently do because atoms are scary and we'll never be able to defeat the obstructionist tactics that oil/gas ghouls utilize against nuclear rollout so we can have some half decent baseline power generation and not rely on an absolutely unholy amount of storage sitting around Storage could be helped along by forcing vehicle-to-grid storage for electric cars. Then the batteries used in EV's do dual use of replacing gas engines and providing storage for the grid. Of course you'd need some way to compensate the vehicle owners for wearing our their batteries by doing this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Storage could be helped along by forcing vehicle-to-grid storage for electric cars. Then the batteries used in EV's do dual use of replacing gas engines and providing storage for the grid. Maybe, but that would kind of require a -lot- of people running around with cars that are unused and fully charged all the time or don't need that much range for their daily use. Maybe you could make it an opt-in program and people would recieve money for their trouble? I've never lived with an EV so vOv silence_kit posted:If you take the EIA's projections (are you wary of this source?) for US electricity generation, they predict solar photovoltaic to not quite catch up with nuclear, but to come close in 2050, when their predictions stop. Their prediction is that solar will be the fastest growing source of electricity in the US. Go back and read the dude who I was responding to with that extremely professional edit of an EIA webpage. The guy seems to think going solar/wind-only is viable because if you look at this graph here and extrapolate out to infinity, numbers go up. Providing enough power generation and storage to go entirely renewable without blackouts every time a state catches fire or the weather turns bad for an entire week would be absolutely insane given that we already have the technology to provide effective base load power generation 24/7. silence_kit posted:Oh, I thought the belief in this thread was that US nuclear regulators were just bad at their jobs or that the regulations placed on nuclear electricity were poorly designed. I hate to burst your lolbertarian bubble, but It's almost as if our current government is ran by rich assholes, in the service of rich assholes. Rich assholes buy elections, buy entire media outlets, fund extremely legitimate nonprofits, and generally run one of the largest/most pervasive propaganda machines in the history of mankind. Some of these rich assholes are even in the fossil fuels industry and actively lobby the government to do whatever it takes to squeeze out their competition! A socialist state would put an end to that situation. Here's a handy flowchart!  e: can we get a hearty "lol" for the idea that malicious actors could never infiltrate the us government, particularly any part of it that handles energy or environmental regulations? I forgot to mention that bit. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Nov 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:without blackouts every time a state catches fire or the weather turns bad for an entire week would be absolutely insane given that we already have the technology to provide effective base load power generation 24/7.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:this is demonstrably false to anyone living in reality well this was hard - https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity (though I admit linking a vox article as proof that I live in reality puts me on shaky ground) Now answer why it -should- be 100% renewable and free of any dirty atoms~ Justify the effort. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Nov 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:Maybe, but that would kind of require a -lot- of people running around with cars that are unused and fully charged all the time or don't need that much range for their daily use. Maybe you could make it an opt-in program and people would recieve money for their trouble? I've never lived with an EV so vOv I would imagine the user would define a limit to how much of the battery is available for grid usage so they don't go out to their car and find it nearly dead from being drained by the grid. As long as people can be plugged in at work and at home then 90% of the time the car will be available to the grid for use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:well this was hard - https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity lol dude read your own link, it makes the exact same point: quote:And a 100 percent EAF is a little crazy anyway; the existing power system is not up and available 100 percent of the time. There are brownouts and blackouts, after all. No power system is 100 percent reliable. we are very close to $150/kWH already, will absolutely hit it within the 2020s. thank you for re-affirming the clear and obvious conclusion that wind/solar/batteries are simply going to sweep the field. combined with smart metering, more dynamic pricing and demand response they'll render it pointless to keep talking about nuclear. they really already have. I mean, that plan doesn't even try to factor in HVDC and modest over-provisioning. it will clearly be less "effort" to just continue to ride these curves than it could ever be to simultaneously convince america to build massive government infrastructure projects and be cool with a bunch of new/upgraded nuclear plants. either one of those alone is a big reach, but thinking you can pull a two-for-one with them is just... silly. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Nov 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 04:07
|
|
|
I love your posts
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:There is some work on the problem. Don't know if they will succeed. linked article posted:A system of sails that can be attached to current cargo vessels, that are maneuverable and retractable, and could cut fuel use by 20 percent. Quick scanning has this as no more than a reduction in necessary motive power from the engines... which can't be fossil fuels going forward, so where is the 80% missing power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 05:49
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:lol dude read your own link, it makes the exact same point: "Ha ha well if we just considerably lower our standards and this new technology takes off" I like that you have an entirely different and insane takeaway from the same exact passage that made me link that vox article 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 05:54
|
|
|
I'm enjoying his focus on smart metering, dynamic pricing and demand response.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Oh, I thought the belief in this thread was that US nuclear regulators were just bad at their jobs or that the regulations placed on nuclear electricity were poorly designed. Nuclear in this thread and others seems to split from “Build Nuclear” and “Build Nuclear but Nuclear and other renewables aren’t enough today.” I guess I’m sort of happy there aren’t any anti-Nuclear activists but they do certainly exist in the real world. As to the second part, what are the theories for the decline of Nuclear Power in France? I did see that they just recently announced building new plants but a for a while things have been on a decline. China, India, etc. are also building plants as well but I don’t think - last I read anyhow - that’ll it’ll deliver more than maybe 15% of demand? Sure, lovely corporations have wrongfully influenced energy policy as if we don’t know [There’s a monthly oil company horror story published daily these days and The Rockefeller Foundation is ironically funding many Climate Change Lawsuits] but either way it’s huge oversimplification to just blame a bunch of lovely rich (billionaires) people. The problem is so much bigger than that. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Nov 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 07:02
|
|
|
France has been leading the revitalization of European nuclear power through the design and construction of a new standardized plant. But they've been plagued with delays and overruns, which they've largely blamed as due to the loss of institutionalized knowledge from halting all construction for 20 years under more fossil-fuel friendly administrations. They're effectively having to relearn everything, and rebuild their heavy construction industry. For example: Right now they basically need to redo a bunch of welds on pipework that is very difficult to access at this point. At this rate, China will have its versions of the European Pressurized Reactor running before France does. Still, the Macron government appears to have learned from the German Greens debacle after Fukushima, and while it wants to promote wind power it is broadly intent on decommissioning coal plants rather than nuclear ones. Their overall plan is basically the same as this thread's - develop a fully functional and standardized nuclear plant design, and then build it around the world. Kaal fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Nov 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 13:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KendraWrites/status/1196122097363357696?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
One of the good things about being a thousand posts behind is you find posts like these:StabbinHobo posted:depending on how you do the math tesla is currently shipping car packs at about $175 - 200/kwh. they claim they'll hit $100/kwh by the end of this year. of course they will not, they never hit any date they claim, but realistically we're looking at $100/kwh by 2020. Anyone know how this is looking? Also; CommieGIR posted:Hm, this sounds familiar: Are there 42 other steps out there somewhere? I get the idea and like it, but I googled the sliding stair case and couldn't find that thing Anyway here's a thing I just finished putting together, it's very basic so there won't be any new information in there for anyone in the thread, but you might enjoy the way it's presented and perhaps find it useful to educate others, feel free to fact check or whatever: Green Energy is Good to Go Yes a lot of it is quite old but you get the idea. Thanks again to everyone keeping all this going.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:One of the good things about being a thousand posts behind is you find posts like these: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming#The_denialist_staircase I've seen in a couple other places, both expanded and abbreviated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:One of the good things about being a thousand posts behind is you find posts like these: https://about.bnef.com/blog/behind-scenes-take-lithium-ion-battery-prices/   the next thing to watch for will be the pricing of the "megapack" deals as they become public in dribs and drabs over the next year or two. I may have been too optimistic about $100/kWH by 2020, but like, ok, then it'll be 2022. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Nov 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 04:14
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:this is 8 months old but has lots of nice graphs:
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 07:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming#The_denialist_staircase ah cheers, that was the site I found, I just missed the list somehow. Good resource. StabbinHobo posted:
haha yeah it was a bit cheeky to call it out, you just don't see a prediction close to its date like that very often. I wonder the extent to which eBikes play into all this? Seems like a pretty big field which has come out of nowhere quite quickly and could have an effect on the R&D and demand and deployment of batteries etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 10:47
|
|