|
It's total generated energy. Here is a cool chart in English https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2019 It's "net generation"(whatever that means) so the numbers are slightly different.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:It's total generated energy. Here is a cool chart in English I'm fairly certain that the 8.2% biomass is mostly American timber made into wood pellets. It counts as renewables without accounting for transportation emissions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
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. To clarify, China is using nuclear power for base load right now, what you're lost on is how much of their base load is planned to be nuclear in the future 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. Comparing "% of total capacity, today" doesn't really make much sense when determining a nation's relative commitment to nuclear power. Put one rover on the moon with a MMRTG generator in it and suddenly the moon is "the most committed to nuclear power" lol To put the numbers in simpler terms, today China has almost as much nuclear power capacity as the United States does, but they plan to produce a lot more than we plan to produce. While we're in the process of building 2 reactors, they're building 11. While we are in the planning stage to build 10 more, they have plans to build 50. To create a car analogy, we're just a little down the street from them, but they're driving at 40 mph while we're trying to pull out of a parking spot. And you're asking "well aren't we really more committed to going fast?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:47
|
|
|
Jesus Christ guys, Rolling Stone is not for serious journalists, I don't even need to read it to tell you it's full of poo poo. The author is known for hit pieces on oil and gas that are just wrong on the facts, so it''s not worth the time to debunk. Anything specific you have questions about, post them here and if I know I'll respond. Re: what went wrong here, I don't know why there was a blowout, but you don't need more regulation to solve them as there are already severe financial incentives to avoid them. In California, you have a blowout prevention and control plan, weekly drills, and our regulatory agency (now called CALGEM as of 2020, but everyone still calls them DOGGR) can witness these drills. It's still too early to see what people in the know think of the data from the satellite, as they extrapolated the entire leak from one day's worth of data, but the EDF has been working with the oil and gas industry on the satellite and other methane monitoring methods. I'm not an reservoir engineer, but I work with them for my job and extrapolating how much oil and gas was in a formation based on limited data points is always part of the fight in litigation. I will say that at least this article doesn't use FLIR to attempt to show leaks, although I thought it did when I saw it weeks ago. Someone using FLIR to try and show leaks at a drilling or production site is almost always wrong and just making poo poo up, FYI. At least if the satellite's methods are proven we'll have real data we can use. CommieGIR posted:Yeah, 42% how often and how long, that almost sounds like they are padding their numbers... I'm with you on this one, only because I don't see them making such a drastic change in one year. Speaking of Germany and nukes, here's a working paper on how much Germany's phasing out of nuclear power has cost them, which attempts to take into account things such as health issues from burning coal, which are very real. An interesting quote from the paper: quote:Specifically, over 70% of the cost of the nuclear phase-out is due to the increased mortality risk from local air pollution exposure as a consequence of producing electricity by burning fossil fuels rather than utilizing nuclear sources
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
Radon in Marcellus Shale gas *edit* Our biggest drop in CO2 emissions is going to be another worldwide recession, which surely is coming in a few years, unless the new monetary policies are going to keep the markets going up and up forever. I highly doubt that, but who knows. MomJeans420 fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Jan 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 00:20
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:Jesus Christ guys, Rolling Stone is not for serious journalists, I'm not going to comment on the article, but this line of thinking isn't great. You should judge a piece on its merits. There was a time when some of the best journalism in Australia was coming out of loving BuzzFeed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
True, or Teen Vogue. I should have expanded more that you can find things debunking pretty much anything Justin Nobel publishes about oil and gas, so it's just not worth getting into it. He's a keep it in the ground activist and you'll spend 10x the energy refuting bullshit as it takes him to write it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:Jesus Christ guys, Rolling Stone is not for serious journalists, I don't even need to read it to tell you it's full of poo poo. The author is known for hit pieces on oil and gas that are just wrong on the facts, so it''s not worth the time to debunk. Anything specific you have questions about, post them here and if I know I'll respond. It cites New York Times articles that report on similar concerns, is the New York Times also not for serious journalists? Rolling Stone isn't some conspiracy theorist rag, they publish legitimate stories. Like this is just pointing that when it comes to certain geographical regions oil and gas drilling is going to dredge up a bunch of naturally-occurring radioactive material. Are you disagreeing with that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
Think of any thing you know well that may not common knowledge among the typical New York Times crowd. For me it'd be oil and gas, guns, raves, and computers, but I'm sure everyone here has interests that aren't well understood by the common man. Now go read things written by the NYT and you'll find that yes, they're often not reliable too. I don't mean this as some dumb "fake news" I only watch Fox bullshit (I don't watch any news, but it certainly wouldn't be Fox), but you'll see the more technical it gets, the less your average journalist is able to understand it. The NYT article linked to is from 1990, if there was a big issue it seems it would have come up again in the past 30 years. Here's a study commissioned by West Virginia on the disposal of drilling wastes at landfills
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:I'm with you on this one, only because I don't see them making such a drastic change in one year. A 5% YoY change is significant, but its not so drastic as to make assuming the numbers are faked the more reasonable assumption.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:Think of any thing you know well that may not common knowledge among the typical New York Times crowd. For me it'd be oil and gas, guns, raves, and computers, but I'm sure everyone here has interests that aren't well understood by the common man I know a reasonable amount about nuclear physics and nuclear medicine, certainly more than "the common man," and there are things in that article that strike me as a legitimate concern, if they're being reported accurately. There are also things in that article that are clearly bullshit even if the reporter is being 100% accurate in his reporting. But I can't just say "Lol, Rolling Stone, it's obviously all fake."
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 02:05
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:Think of any thing you know well that may not common knowledge among the typical New York Times crowd. For me it'd be oil and gas, guns, raves, and computers, but I'm sure everyone here has interests that aren't well understood by the common man. Now go read things written by the NYT and you'll find that yes, they're often not reliable too. I don't mean this as some dumb "fake news" I only watch Fox bullshit (I don't watch any news, but it certainly wouldn't be Fox), but you'll see the more technical it gets, the less your average journalist is able to understand it. The NYT article linked to is from 1990, if there was a big issue it seems it would have come up again in the past 30 years. I think it's well known that even the best popsci sources are bad at reporting on technical topics, but as a technical person I did not find significant issues with this rolling stone article, certainly not to the extent that you have (e.g. "everything written here is bullshit"). And you are still returning to attacking the source instead of the content. So I will repeat my question: QuarkJets posted:Like this is just pointing that when it comes to certain geographical regions oil and gas drilling is going to dredge up a bunch of naturally-occurring radioactive material. Are you disagreeing with that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 03:09
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:if there was a big issue it seems it would have come up again in the past 30 years. "Ah yes, well if we've known about an issue for a while but somehow industry manages to silence criticism it must not be too bad" they said while the planet burns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 04:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:"Ah yes, well if we've known about an issue for a while but somehow industry manages to silence criticism it must not be too bad" they said while the planet burns. Nevermind that this article (that momjeans clearly just skimmed) is also citing peer-reviewed publications from the last few years
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 04:53
|
|
|
Rolling Stone definitely has an entirely serious and legitimate hard news unit led by Matt Taibbi and Michael Hastings. They focus on in-depth feature reporting, and have broken a lot of important stories. They're an award-winning news organization. Anyone who is doubting that should immediately rethink their media source diet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 14:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:A 5% YoY change is significant, but its not so drastic as to make assuming the numbers are faked the more reasonable assumption. Solar and wind power have huge fluctuations due to weather. When they make up almost half your power generation you get pretty wild fluctuations on a year to year basis. A better metric would be to look at yearly added capacity and these figures look very bad. 2018 was pathetic, 2019 and absolute disaster. Expansion has pretty much stopped due to NIMBYsm. There is zero interest from the Merkel government to change anything about it. Lots of early subsidized installation are going offline this year so we might start to see shrinking capacity soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
Gas geben.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 23:56
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
this might not be the right place, but does anyone here work in commercial solar? if you were say a middle aged person with a bad back, and therefore not really capable of starting from the "bottom" (physical labor on roofs), how would you go about getting a foot in the door? I'm thinking anything along the lines of sales engineering, or installation project management. For instance, I read this post and think "this thing is going to sell like hot-cakes": https://runonsun.solar/~runons5/blogs/blog1.php/solworks/est/hands-on-ensemble-my-trip-to-enphase How can I help accelerate that as a day job? I'm of course completely unqualified, which is why i'm trying to figure out how and where to start. My operating assumption is that this industry is growing much faster than they can hire qualified people, so on-the-job training has to be "normal" to some degree, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:this might not be the right place, but does anyone here work in commercial solar? if you were say a middle aged person with a bad back, and therefore not really capable of starting from the "bottom" (physical labor on roofs), how would you go about getting a foot in the door? I'm thinking anything along the lines of sales engineering, or installation project management. I worked for Enphase when they were still a startup, and know multiple fellow graduates of my bachelors program that work there still. They're a good company in general. You have to have an engineering degree to get in on the high level stuff. If you lack that then you're going to end up in the admin side of things, and that's just luck, networking, and persistence. Project management for, and installation of said equipment is something that can be trained up, but you have to find a company willing to build you up. Some electrical experience will be required so maybe starting with some trade skills as an electrician and working on a pathway to becoming an installer of some kind. You'll want to take some basic electrical engineering courses as well if possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
FYI: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2020-01-22/california-needs-clean-energy-after-sundown-geothermal-could-be-the-answer Three local energy providers have signed contracts this month for electricity from new geothermal power plants, one in Imperial County near the Salton Sea and the other in Mono County along the Eastern Sierra. The new plants will be the first geothermal facilities built in California in nearly a decade — potentially marking a long-awaited turning point for a technology that could play a critical role in the state’s transition to cleaner energy sources. ... The U.S. Geological Survey estimated in 2008 that California has nearly 15,000 megawatts of geothermal potential — nearly one-fifth of the total capacity of all power plants in the state today. That number could rise substantially if energy companies are able to develop new technologies that allow them to exploit deeper, lower-temperature geothermal reservoirs that currently aren’t economically feasible. ... What are the environmental impacts of this? How do the costs and time for construction compare to nuclear and natural gas?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
hopefully they hit the wrong fault line, trigger "the big one", and knock off a fifth of US GDP for a decade
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 21:37
|
|
|
I too wish for millions of deaths
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 00:04
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:What are the environmental impacts of this? How do the costs and time for construction compare to nuclear and natural gas? Depends on the methods. If they’re hitting the low hanging fruit and simple binary installs, cheap as gently caress with low ongoing maintenance - 90% yearly uptime at stable baseload generation , installation for nameplate capacity at around $1.3m/mW up to 60? https://refman.energytransitionmodel.com/publications/1280/download
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 08:13
|
|
|
Awesome installation costs, in line with large reciprocating HFO units on upfront capex with the obviously far lower ongoing costs. How often does an otherwise good well end up not being a goer based upon pollutants? Obvious one being SO2 but as with fracking, it is disturbing a wide variety of geological strata.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 12:07
|
|
|
What's with all the rumblings from Rolls Royce regarding micro nuclear plants? I guess they plan on building 15 reactors in the UK . U couldn't find much for details.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:What's with all the rumblings from Rolls Royce regarding micro nuclear plants? their renders don't inspire me with confidence that they're on the AM and instead it looks pretty FM:   https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/nuclear/small-modular-reactors.aspx https://newatlas.com/energy/rolls-royce-plans-mini-nuclear-reactors-in-britain/ They estimate costs at $78 per MWh, which is a floor. For context the current low range price on PV+storage with existing technology is ~$100 according to lazard. technical description for nerding out to: https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/customers/nuclear/smr-technical-summary.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:their renders don't inspire me with confidence that they're on the AM and instead it looks pretty FM: Does that cost include the cost of decomissioning&disposal?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Does that cost include the cost of decomissioning&disposal? Probably not
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
Were they intentionally going for 'Mothra egg' with this design or was that a happy coincidence?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 00:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:their renders don't inspire me with confidence that they're on the AM and instead it looks pretty FM: This is an awful design.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
First time I'm hearing about the RR plant, this is pretty interesting. What are the chances they'll hit those cost estimates though? Well maybe after Brexit it will be under $78/MWh after all...Family Values posted:Were they intentionally going for 'Mothra egg' with this design or was that a happy coincidence? They were going for your mom's dildo
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 01:23
|
|
|
I'm being deployed for three weeks to decapitate and repower some old Clipper towers in Texas. While reading up on the (pretty drat cool and innovative) quad-generator direct-drive tech Clipper had, I discovered that South Dakota could have been 100% renewable and a net energy exporter ten years ago. Keep in mind that 17TWh of annual generation assumed 2.5MW turbines, and we're building 4.2MW on land these days. Repowering the shitbox old Mitsubishi towers down at Roscoe, for example, would bring it from 800MW to 3.6GW. That's a decent nuke plant or hydro dam, and you ain't buying a reactor for $1 Billion. Never forget: the only roadblock to a renewable grid is political will and the money handcuffing it. 
Rime fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Jan 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 04:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/karnfull_en/status/1225085709805113350?s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 05:41
|
|
|
Rime posted:
3.6GW nameplate or actual including capacity factor? Lifetime of the units? CommieGIR posted:This is an awful design. How exactly did they gently caress up and how bad is it in your view?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 06:09
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:3.6GW nameplate or actual including capacity factor? Lifetime of the units? Should be nameplate power, as is the standard in the electric industry. If I had to take a guess based on South Dakota wind resource id's say 40%-ish capacity factor, and 25 year lifetime. Capacity factor is somewhat tricky in the wind industry tough, because you can put a huge rotor in front of a small generator and be doing a really high capacity factor but lovely LCOE.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 05:09
|
|
|
Yeah, what they said ^. We're putting up 150m rotors on 90m towers now, those things will put out a megawatt if you sneeze at them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 05:41
|
|
|
I did my thesis on rock radioactivity. I used to collect samples of rocks, smash them up, and put them through a Gamma Ray spectrometer to measure radioactivity. I had some fun, rather radioactive, samples with high potassium counts. What you would expect for rhyolites. We also had access to core samples of the Bakken from North Dakota. My most radioactive, highest percentage of U, Th, and K samples did not hold a candle to how radioactive the Bakken core was. Additionally the use of FLIR cameras to identify leaks of light hydrocarbons is a solid technology so I dunno what the complaint is
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 09:22
|
|
|
does anyone have any insider opinions (or even just industry-familiarity) with NREL? are they really doing cool poo poo? or is it just some federal bureaucracy limping along post-perry/trump gutting? is the stuff they do moving the ball, or just meta-analysis of what industry (or china) is doing to move the ball?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 04:06
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:does anyone have any insider opinions (or even just industry-familiarity) with NREL? are they really doing cool poo poo? or is it just some federal bureaucracy limping along post-perry/trump gutting? is the stuff they do moving the ball, or just meta-analysis of what industry (or china) is doing to move the ball? They do lots of really good research and are the premiere (but still token) renewables lab in the national lab system, the rest of which are nuclear (weapons) except the other token fossil fuel lab. They’ve faired better than other government agencies under Trump since they’re part of the national lab system. What’s the context?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:does anyone have any insider opinions (or even just industry-familiarity) with NREL? are they really doing cool poo poo? or is it just some federal bureaucracy limping along post-perry/trump gutting? is the stuff they do moving the ball, or just meta-analysis of what industry (or china) is doing to move the ball? They do a lot of analysis, and basically they are the grandaddy of all the non-Silicon based thin film solar cells out there. Besides the perovskite solar cells. But they get chump change next to the weapons labs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 07:55
|
|
