|
I am going to go on a bit of a tangent here.... What kind of chemical reactions can you usefully get out of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) or Methane (CH4?) Like what can you to actually get it to react as a solid? Or react to say a less agressive green house gas? (I know CH4 if combusted will result in CO2, so let's go with something a little less obvious.) How hard is it to convert Methane/Natural gas to say Propane? (Since Propane is heavier than air, I assume it does adversely contribute to global warming, but maybe I'm mistaken.) TLDR: What exactly can you do with Carbon Dioxide or Methane available in the atmosphere?
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
You have to expend energy. As much energy as can be gotten from burning the propane, theoretically. There's other stuff, but that's the biggest current issue imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 03:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:(You should really stop commenting so much on energy or climate policy if you don't even have a cursory understanding of the topic at hand.) No one, not a single individual has presented anything persuasive that dispute Momjeans420 earlier natural gas argument. My comments are not meant to be taken as literal truth but me thinking out loud trying comprehend a complex topic. I’ve been wrong more than once. I would hope that my time spent posting especially on a Sunday Night would be seen in the absolute least a sign of willingness to learn. After all, this is the Debate and Discussion sub-forum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:In response to me saying "if we use natural gas as a stopgap, then we need a plan to quickly transition off of it". That kind of response suggests that you don't already have any alternatives in mind, which would mean just using natural gas forever. That's apparently not what you meant, but it's a straightforward interpretation of what you wrote You’re telling me the reason there’s this skepticism of my posts because I haven’t presented a plan to transition off of Natural Gas? The original post I quoted was the topic of Natural Gas use in China which they’re using as a transition energy source. My alternatives, would renewables with nuclear. Along with a massive sustainability urbanization build out kept under the current carbon budget then massive drop in consumption or the end of consumerism. And then the sole task of humanity would be solving or adapting to climate change. Or the Green New Deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 03:36
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:No one, not a single individual has presented anything persuasive that dispute Momjeans420 earlier natural gas argument. Side note but it's really annoying to me for some reason that somebody dropped "go read Momjeans420's post in energy gen" on you in the climate thread, as a rebuttal for your nonsense, and then you popped up in here and have ever since been namedropping Momjeans without displaying any comprehension. "somebody show me China has nuclear baseload" SMDH. Do you think nuclear is an intermittent power source? That's the degree of ill-informed posting that people here are taking umbrage with. You're trying to sound smart by using the correct terminology and looking like an idiot in the process. Post less and study more, unless you have an agenda to push in which case carry on my wayward goon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 04:28
|
|
|
Rime posted:Side note but it's really annoying to me for some reason that somebody dropped "go read Momjeans420's post in energy gen" on you in the climate thread, as a rebuttal for your nonsense, and then you popped up in here and have ever since been namedropping Momjeans without displaying any comprehension. A poster(s) from this thread brought the earlier conversation of natural gas as a transition fuel into the global warming thread during completely a entirely different discussion. I find this completely inappropriate as it is confusing to cross thread post and rather rude. I found his argument persuasive. I find his post a source as much as anything else. No one is disputing it or than repeating “We can build renewables and nuclear.” and Nuclear was disputed in detail by that same poster as well but was glossed over. Rime posted:"somebody show me China has nuclear baseload" SMDH. Do you think nuclear is an intermittent power source? No, nuclear isn’t a intermittent power source. I looked before posting if China had a plan for Nuclear Power as a base load and I didn’t really find anything definitive. And even if it was, it’ll be decades before that occurs from technical, economic and political challenges. And that still doesn’t answer what we’re suppose to do in the interim. Hence, my question. Rime posted:That's the degree of ill-informed posting that people here are taking umbrage with. You're trying to sound smart by using the correct terminology and looking like an idiot in the process. Have you ever been in the capacity of teaching anyone? Or ever asked a dumb question? People ask questions that may seem off, make mistakes but people will make mistakes. It is the humanity in all of us and personally I find this “perfection” standard absolutely so high it’s taken to a literally fault. I don’t know how better to convey myself. In my view, we want people to be engaged because even with mistakes the cost of not engaging far outweighs it entirely. Edit - I find the climate advocate community extremely hostile to nearly everyone who doesn’t meet X, Y and Z standard. We want to pull people up, not push them down. Climate change is as much as political problem as it is a environmental one. We have to win peoples hearts and minds. You do that by building a big tent and being inclusive. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Jan 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I looked before posting if China had a plan for Nuclear Power as a base load and I didn’t really find anything definitive. And even if it was, it’ll be decades before that occurs from technical, economic and political challenges. And that still doesn’t answer what we’re suppose to do in the interim. Could you please define base loading please? I'm very curious about what you think it means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 06:33
|
|
|
Pander posted:Could you please define base loading please? I'm very curious about what you think it means. Baseload usually implies being a significant portion of the power mix. Nuclear in China is less than 5% of electrical generation - just above mild curiosity into useful demonstration/feasibility plant scale level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 11:12
|
|
|
If you google the term, or just ask, you'll find that a base load power plant is used to describe any plant that mostly operates at a constant rate. These are your hydro electric dams, you big coal power plants, and your nuclear power stations. Base load plants are ones made to run as close to 100% capacity as possible. This oposite of this is intermitent generation, peaker plants, gas turbines and the like. edit: Also to the post about reacting methane, this is actually what happens naturally. Methane reacts in the atmosphere to make water and co2. So if we stop releasing it then it will eventually be worked out of the system. We just have to stop first. Killer-of-Lawyers fucked around with this message at 12:10 on Jan 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 12:05
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:If you google the term, or just ask, you'll find that a base load power plant is used to describe any plant that mostly operates at a constant rate. These are your hydro electric dams, you big coal power plants, and your nuclear power stations. Base load plants are ones made to run as close to 100% capacity as possible. There are specific definitions of base load that all get confused with each other - but in general terms it is the minimum level (ie, MW, not MWhrs) of power consumed over a reasonable period of time. So you can use wind power by itself for base load power if you have enough capacity such that even when it (the wind generation system as a whole, not individual units) is generating at its minimum the wind power system would still be providing that minimum "baseload" of power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
I think the confusion ends up being the difference between the base load, and a base load power plant, whos meaning can be confusingly contradictory. You can supply base load with any source, if you want, but not every source is a base load plant. Probably because having entire production methods becoming and unbecoming base load plants as your nations power make up changes would also be confusing. In this case, a nuclear reactor that is in france, or china are both base load plants, even though france has 70 percent nuclear and china five. This would hold true for a big coal powerplant as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 17:38
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:I think the confusion ends up being the difference between the base load, and a base load power plant, whos meaning can be confusingly contradictory. I imagine if China's nuclear reactors stopped tomorrow, the idle capacity in its coal fleet, plus hydro / wind etc would make up the difference. In France if the nuclear was shut off, it is brown out time. That is the difference in the usage that Tab was using it as (my understanding of the context anyway). Baseload power is the power source that you use to provide the baseload (ie, approximately all of it). In France it is Nuclear, China it is coal+hydro. In any event outside the delicious taste of language semantics, the point remains that the scale of China's nuclear power is interesting but otherwise unimportant for the Chinese power system except in terms of potential. 35 GW currently installed and only another 945 GW to go to replace coal (assuming no increasing electrical demand). Australia installed 0.1 GW of battery storage good for four hours and it made international news, imagine how much noise it is going to make when Elon does a 100 GW in a 100 days deal for China? It would still take years to cover off what is required there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 07:35
|
|
|
A quick Wikipedia search shows that China barely has any Nuclear Power but I’m still completely lost if they are intended to use it has a base load. A few article sort of allude to it but the complexity behind such a plan is extreme.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
There aren't many nations that don't use it for base load? Like france does more load following because it makes up such a large portion of the power grid, but if it's only 5% then why the hell wouldn't they use it as base load? You do your load following with the plants best suited for that, not the other way around on a lark.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
Speaking of... how did France end up with Nuclear as a base load in the first place? How the hell are they the only one?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:56
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Speaking of... how did France end up with Nuclear as a base load in the first place? How the hell are they the only one? They wanted energy Independence and Nuclear was the best way to get there for them. They just went whole hog on it. We really should all have done the same 30 years ago but oh well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:14
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:They wanted energy Independence and Nuclear was the best way to get there for them. They just went whole hog on it. It was the 1970s oil crisis that did it. France was highly dependent on oil and had none of its own. Note that their reactors are aging and they haven't exactly been building a bunch of replacements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:34
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It was the 1970s oil crisis that did it. France was highly dependent on oil and had none of its own. Yeah, that was the time to go full in on nuclear. Now it's not economic compared to renewables. We still need to build a few but not more than enough to maintain current baseload generation without dipping into fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:37
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It was the 1970s oil crisis that did it. France was highly dependent on oil and had none of its own. France has largely said they plant to expand the fleet and their fuel reprocessing is still top notch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:France has largely said they plant to expand the fleet and their fuel reprocessing is still top notch. God I wish we reprocessed fuel for our non-existent gas cooled Fast Neutron Reactors. I think there's one in the planning stage, but it will never break ground 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:07
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:A quick Wikipedia search shows that China barely has any Nuclear Power but I’m still completely lost if they are intended to use it has a base load. A few article sort of allude to it but the complexity behind such a plan is extreme. Yeah, I'm confused too. Earlier in this thread, it was commonly posted that China is more committed to nuclear power than the US. And that the US is ignorant & backwards when compared to China & other Asian countries for not learning to love the atom. China only being 5% nuclear powered is not really a big commitment. Maybe this is hinting at the idea that nuclear power might not really be the slam dunk technology this thread thinks it is? silence_kit fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Jan 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 13:47
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Yeah, I'm confused too. Earlier in this thread, it was commonly posted that China is more committed to nuclear power than the US. And that the US is ignorant & backwards when compared to China & other Asian countries for not learning to love the atom. To be fair, negligible/minor for China is enough to now make it third world wide in nuclear electrical generation fleet and without really thinking about it has enough in construction and planning to make it the worlds largest nuclear power generator.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 14:12
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:l Maybe this is hinting at the idea that nuclear power might not really be the slam dunk technology this thread thinks it is? This kind of idiocy is what got us into this mess. "If nuclear power is good, why aren't I already supporting it. Checkmat" Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Jan 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 14:17
|
|
|
I haven't looked too hard into that before but my impression was that China wasn't that China has a lot of nuke plants, it was that they were building more new ones. Unlike pretty much everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 15:41
|
|
|
50 reactors are under construction worldwide, 11 of them in China. China is also working on moving to a closed nuclear fuel cycle, gen IV projects and thorium. France is actually moving away now - kinda - from nuclear power. After Fukushima and the 2016 Framatome scandal, the populace is still positive on nuclear power, but a lot less than before. And the government does not really see a big future on nuclear power. The idea is to reduce nuclear power in the energy generation mix from 72% that it is today to 50% by 2025 (although the phase-out might be postponed to 2035 in the end).
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:50 reactors are under construction worldwide, 11 of them in China. China is also working on moving to a closed nuclear fuel cycle, gen IV projects and thorium. As of October, they are reversing course and actively looking for new sites, especially as France exports a lot of nuclear generated power. They don't have funding or sites locked in yet, but I suspect they are going to keep/expand/upgrade the current fleet: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614579/why-france-is-eyeing-nuclear-power-again/ Meanwhile in the US: NIMBYism haunts Nuclear Power, but Coal, Oil, and Gas apparently has a radioisotope problem: https://twitter.com/JustinNobel/status/1219605764462874625?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:33
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:I am going to go on a bit of a tangent here.... ignoring all practical concerns both CO2 and CH4 can be reacted into methanol without requiring anything else besides energy. CO2 can be reacted with Magnesium and Calcium bearing minerals to produce solid carbonates. This pathway is one of the ways in which carbon is naturally sequestered in the oceans via rock weathering.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
This is loving terrifying, because they were spraying that highly radioactive brine on roads as far away as Missouri to deice roads and in the summer on dirt roads in rural areas to 'keep the dust down' (hint: it doesn't) and ALSO selling it in bottles as liquid de-icer YOU COULD PUT ON YOUR PORCH AND WALK AND DRIVEWAYS. quote:Brine-spreading is legal in 13 states, including the Dakotas, Colorado, much of the Upper Midwest, northern Appalachia, and New York. In 2016 alone, 11 million gallons of oil-field brine were spread on roads in Pennsylvania, and 96 percent was spread in townships in the state’s remote northwestern corner, where Lawson lives. Much of the brine is spread for dust control in summer, when contractors pick up the waste directly at the wellhead, says Lawson, then head to Farmington to douse roads. On a single day in August 2017, 15,300 gallons of brine were reportedly spread. In Louisiana they also donated used pipes to schools and parks to make into fences, benches and PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT. FOR CHILDREN. Sitting on a fence for an hour would give a kid a year's worth of radioactive dosage. Jesus H. Christ. quote:The levels of radium in Louisiana oil pipes had registered as much as 20,000 times the limits set by the EPA for topsoil at uranium-mill waste sites. Templet found that workers who were cleaning oil-field piping were being coated in radioactive dust and breathing it in. One man they tested had radioactivity all over his clothes, his car, his front steps, and even on his newborn baby. The industry was also spewing waste into coastal waterways, and radioactivity was shown to accumulate in oysters. Pipes still laden with radioactivity were donated by the industry and reused to build community playgrounds. Templet sent inspectors with Geiger counters across southern Louisiana. One witnessed a kid sitting on a fence made from piping so radioactive they were set to receive a full year’s radiation dose in an hour. “People thought getting these pipes for free from the oil industry was such a great deal,” says Templet, “but essentially the oil companies were just getting rid of their waste.” Jesus, seriously, go read this article then light up your goddamn reps' phones, this is horrific. Oracle fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Jan 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 00:05
|
|
|
Oracle posted:This is loving terrifying, because they were spraying that highly radioactive brine on roads as far away as Missouri to deice roads and in the summer on dirt roads in rural areas to 'keep the dust down' (hint: it doesn't) and ALSO selling it in bottles as liquid de-icer YOU COULD PUT ON YOUR PORCH AND WALK AND DRIVEWAYS. This does not seem ideal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
Oracle posted:This is loving terrifying, because they were spraying that highly radioactive brine on roads as far away as Missouri to deice roads and in the summer on dirt roads in rural areas to 'keep the dust down' (hint: it doesn't) and ALSO selling it in bottles as liquid de-icer YOU COULD PUT ON YOUR PORCH AND WALK AND DRIVEWAYS.  The flaring is radioactive. The processing flaring is spreading radioactivity....The natural gas burnoff is RADIOACTIVE!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:As of October, they are reversing course and actively looking for new sites, especially as France exports a lot of nuclear generated power. They don't have funding or sites locked in yet, but I suspect they are going to keep/expand/upgrade the current fleet: Holy loving hell this is really bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
Beyond lying about Climate Change for over 40 years, the Oil and Gas Industry work TIRELESSLY to find new ways to kill us all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 01:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:France has largely said they plant to expand the fleet and their fuel reprocessing is still top notch. https://www.reuters.com/article/fra...t-idUSL8N1PH4D6 quote:Under the previous government’s 2015 energy transition law, France needs to cut the share of nuclear energy in its power mix to 50 percent by 2025 from about 75 percent today. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-nuclear-energy-emmanuel-macron-reactors-environment-global-warming-a8654371.html quote:French President Emmanuel Macron has said the country will move more slowly than promised to cap the amount of energy it derives from nuclear energy. Not cutting it as fast as the previous guy is not the same thing as an expansion. (Fuel reprocessing really doesn't matter, either. Fuel contributes so little to the cost of operating a nuclear plant that even with a once-through fuel cycle it's a rounding error, fractions of a cent per kWh on the end-user's bill.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 01:34
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Not cutting it as fast as the previous guy is not the same thing as an expansion. I never claimed it was a cost, its more that it eliminates what normally would be waste and turns it back into usable fuel. Its worth noting that you are quoting an article that is a year PRIOR to the one I shared.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I never claimed it was a cost, its more that it eliminates what normally would be waste and turns it back into usable fuel. Hadn't read to the end of the thread before I posted. From that article, though: quote:France intends to shut down about 15 aging reactors before 2030, says Jessica Lovering, a nuclear researcher at Carnegie Mellon. So building six reactors wouldn't necessarily increase the share of electricity produced by nuclear plants across the nation, particularly as demand increases in the coming years. I don't think this supports your claim that France is looking to expand, rather than reduce, nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:As of October, they are reversing course and actively looking for new sites, especially as France exports a lot of nuclear generated power. They don't have funding or sites locked in yet, but I suspect they are going to keep/expand/upgrade the current fleet: I saw this earlier in the OSHA thread and I'm still trying to process it. The US is just broken. Fundamentally and irretrievably broken. This could be the current generation's version of leaded fuel, only instead of crime and diminished intellect, it's everyone getting cancer in the early 2040s and dying en masse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 13:28
|
|
|
Megillah Gorilla posted:I saw this earlier in the OSHA thread and I'm still trying to process it. It's already happening now. Coal often includes radioisotopes like thorium that just get blown out the stack or sits on open hills of fly ash along with heavy metals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:It's already happening now. Coal often includes radioisotopes like thorium that just get blown out the stack or sits on open hills of fly ash along with heavy metals. Its been happening since the 90's. At least with fracking. Coal its been going on for as long as we've used coal. Those cancer causing numbers are baked in I'm assuming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 17:23
|
|
|
Germany had a decrease in coal power production of 20%+ last year. The resulting reduction in emissions has put the 2020 Paris goal into theoretical reach again(lol, it's not gonna happen) https://www.smart-energy.com/renewable-energy/germany-renewables-up-to-43-coal-emissions-down-in-2019-report/ Interestingly, the main reason for this is the EU carbon emission certificate scheme. It made coal power uncompetitive with basically everything less.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Germany had a decrease in coal power production of 20%+ last year. The resulting reduction in emissions has put the 2020 Paris goal into theoretical reach again(lol, it's not gonna happen) Yeah, 42% how often and how long, that almost sounds like they are padding their numbers...
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 19:44
|
|