|
Some of you will be happy about this. https://twitter.com/RepAOC/status/1227645281300336646
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2020 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:Some of you will be happy about this. Very happy
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 04:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted: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. thanks. researching a job opp.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 05:16
|
|
|
Stoked to see it sit on a desk in the senate and die there, just like every other piece of pro-environmental legislation has for years. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 05:36
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:Some of you will be happy about this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:thanks. researching a job opp. Oh, on that note: All national labs jobs involve wayyy more paperwork than you might normally expect in a research position, especially as a staff scientist (postdocs get away with less paperwork BS). Weapons labs are the worst (for, fairly obvious reasons of needing to track all the radioactive sources in triplicate) but there's a lot of fairly unnecessary form ticking in those jobs, speaking from experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
NREL Unveils 15MW Reference Offshore Wind Turbine Fuckin' siiiiick. That'd be a 250m rotor diameter, blades 120m long, towers upwards of 800' tall. I love my job. 
Rime fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Feb 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 02:22
|
|
|
So, I live in Pennsylvania and through my energy company I get to "choose" my energy supplier thanks to the magic of deregulation! I have 144 different "plans" I can sign up for from apparently dozens of providers. Some of which claim to be 100% renewable. After doing some quick research almost none of these companies even seem to own any power generation, they just take my money and buy Renewable Energy Credits equal to the amount of electricity I used. This whole "choice" system seems like a pointless extra layer of complexity/cost/opportunity for someone else to make a profit from what should ultimately be 100% public concern. Now, I can't claim to have any knowledge of how an electrical grid works, but I can't imagine my "choice" is actually changing where the electricity in my walls is coming from and I feel dirty for even participating in this system. Anyway, mostly looking for confirmation that I am correct, and further education on the topic so I can better argue to others how stupid this all is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 03:27
|
|
|
That type of de-regulation is just lining the pockets of the middle men. All the generators in Pennsylvania (and most of the Eastern US) participate in an automated wholesale market that moves generation around based on the cost to produce and demand. Since most green energy is intermittent, it doesn’t have a direct cost associated with it for generation. It takes whatever the current market price that is set by the other generators. So maybe the green credits make it back to the wind turbine owners, and helps to make a business case for longer term maintenance, or expanding the wind farm. But probably not. You individually signing up for green energy is not going to change how many wind turbines are spinning in the near or long term. A group of people the size of a small city might have an effect, but that would mostly come from subsidizing the construction of a new wind farm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 04:20
|
|
|
Yeah, that's just somebody in government discovering one weird trick to make their buddies rich. Fun fact: most of the big turbine farms are owned by Oil & Gas companies because doing so "reduces" their emissions on paper and "greens" the companies image, resulting in huge tax breaks by gaming the carbon credit system. Pretty much every Clipper farm was built & owned by BP, at one point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
Here's a super cool test of using wind to provide grid reliability services: http://www.caiso.com/Documents/WindPowerPlantTestResults.pdf quote:The results demonstrate that wind resources have the capabilities to help accelerate the shift toward a future electric grid with high levels of renewable generation. These results—much like those from a similar test in 2018 on an inverter-controlled solar power plant—promise nextgeneration advances for increased amounts of renewable generation, including pairing it with storage to create more effective dispatchable resources.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2020 03:39
|
|
|
so i used to like elon musk and tesla, but unfortunately, he's been somewhat of a loving useless douchenozzle these past couple of years. but i am curious, has his company been doing any good works recently?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 09:35
|
|
|
there are several dedicated tesla/musk shitposting threads if you're bored: c-spam: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3862673 yospos: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3862643
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
In cool Energy Generation news, there've been some great work on utilizing inverter based electricity generation to provide grid reliability services better than most synchronous generation methods: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104061901830215X https://www.utilitydive.com/news/wind-plants-can-provide-grid-services-similar-to-gas-hydro-easing-renewab/574070/ quote:CAISO, along with Avangrid Renewables, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and General Electric, conducted tests at a wind farm near San Diego last year. The takeaway was that "a wind plant could perform as well — and in some cases even better — than a conventional unit," Clyde Loutan, renewable energy advisor and team lead, told Utility Dive. This shows that utility scale inverter based renewables (wind/solar) can provide some of the few remaining grid services that have been held up as excuses why we must continue to burn natural gas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:In cool Energy Generation news, there've been some great work on utilizing inverter based electricity generation to provide grid reliability services better than most synchronous generation methods: That's just bundling a wind farm as one virtual generator, making them perform better as a group. You still need a mix of storage or peaker plants or a massive overhead to supplement them when they can't meet demand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:That's just bundling a wind farm as one virtual generator, making them perform better as a group. You still need a mix of storage or peaker plants or a massive overhead to supplement them when they can't meet demand. Did you not read either link? By bundling them together you can in fact provide the exact same grid services that those peaker plants provide and sometimes better than them. As the chart I linked shows, wind can perform better at disturbance ride through and slow and arrest frequency decline than natural gas peakers. quote:CAISO has more than 7,000 MW of wind capacity in its portfolio, and with "relatively simple operational upgrades and market redesigns," virtually all of it could provide, and be compensated for, ancillary services — which in turn could create entirely new markets for renewables. Of course you still need to provide overhead for when plants go down, just like with any generation source. You'll always have to build more capacity than demand, since reactors trip, black sky events, we leak our natural gas into the air and then start to run out, etc. The massive improvement is providing these grid reliability services that often people (based on outdated knowledge) assume only can provided by synchronous sources.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Did you not read either link? By bundling them together you can in fact provide the exact same grid services that those peaker plants provide and sometimes better than them. The problem this solves is stabilizing voltage and frequency, which inverters naturally can react to instantly. That's just one of the uses of peaker plants. You can use the same systems for any kind of generator. Maximum power output still doesn't change, it just smoothes a few dips. It can make it however easier to direct unneeded capacity into storage, water desalination or carbon sequestration. -e- And guess what, solar already works this way. It only makes wind perform more like solar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
Using inverters to help steady the grid makes a lot of sense, so it's good to see wind being utilised for that as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2020 06:09
|
|
|
the numbers on solar+storage are getting pretty amazing: https://www.energy-storage.news/blogs/battery-storage-at-us20-mwh-breaking-down-low-cost-solar-plus-storage-ppas $20/MWh *with storage* for batteries that cost $310/kWh, which will likely halve over the decade MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Mar 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:the numbers on solar+storage are getting pretty amazing: That number is quite misleading. The article explains it better. It is $20/MWh for the Solar portion, then an additional kicker of $20/MWh for the storage to be added on. But it isn’t a 1 for 1 storage to Solar. When they dove into the numbers, it looked like the storage output price was still going to be at about $98/MWh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
That $20 number is not the cost of solar plus the cost of storing it before distribution, that is the cost from the averaged costs inclusive of solar power that was fed directly to the grid which makes up the majority of power distributed from the combined facility. You had me very excited as we generate power onsite between 10c/kwhr and 20c/kwhr depending on fuel price so this would have been amazing. In light of the Covid enforced economic retraction, are batteries really likely to get cheaper now? Fuel prices are tanking and are gong to be tanked for next five years or so, so I imagine it is going to gut the non-stop number go up expansion of the renewable industry that was evident before covid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
Fuel price tanking is hyper-short term, as soon as SA or Russia blinks or enough shale operators go bankrupt it will return to higher than before the crash.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:That $20 number is not the cost of solar plus the cost of storing it before distribution, that is the cost from the averaged costs inclusive of solar power that was fed directly to the grid which makes up the majority of power distributed from the combined facility. I think much of the current fuel price drop now in corona times have been due to a price war between Russia and Saudi Arabia. I assume if that resolves the prices will pop up a bit. Though I have also heard that a lot of big money is also divesting from fossil fuels since the long term value of the buissness is in doubt. Mostly due to the fact that stated reserves are not likely to be fully utilized due to climate change and the associated public opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
There's been a huge glut in oil supply for a while. It's not just COVID-19. The market has too much oil in the first place, OPEC is increasing production while the world enters pandemic and possibly recession or even depression. Personally, I wonder how MBS feels about partially shattering the global economy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:There's been a huge glut in oil supply for a while. It's not just COVID-19. TBF the Saudis wanted to cut production, but the Russians decided to go hog wild.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2020 00:03
|
|
|
Redgrendel2001 posted:TBF the Saudis wanted to cut production, but the Russians decided to go hog wild. That is true but then either out of spite, anger, "game theory", etc. MBS proceeded to flood the market. I wonder if he took the upcoming pandemic into consideration. I'll bet he didn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2020 00:06
|
|
|
Extraction cost is like $5/barrel iirc so if you assume you may eventually have to leave oil in the ground the economically rational thing to do is to flood the world in oil as long as the price is >$5/barrel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2020 16:33
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
suck my woke dick posted:Extraction cost is like $5/barrel iirc so if you assume you may eventually have to leave oil in the ground the economically rational thing to do is to flood the world in oil as long as the price is >$5/barrel. And if the price is below $5/barrel? What makes shutting down extra hard is that with the travel restrictions, the old standby of undertaking that huuuuge and long delayed maintenance rebuild of your plant is likely not possible with the current world travel situation. If you shutdown for weeks now, it is still likely you will have that lengthy shut maintenance task still hanging over your head after starting up again. Glad I am in gold, no problems selling that product at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 09:11
|
|
|
without taking the time to dig up the graphs i'm gonna say the US shale market threw what, 6 - 8 Mbpd on the market over the course of the last decade? assuming 80% of that evaporates over the course of the next 2 years, that will more than offset any increase russia and ksa *could* do, let alone what they'll still be doing by then. eat poo poo and die permian frackers, you're done
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:without taking the time to dig up the graphs i'm gonna say the US shale market threw what, 6 - 8 Mbpd on the market over the course of the last decade? assuming 80% of that evaporates over the course of the next 2 years, that will more than offset any increase russia and ksa *could* do, let alone what they'll still be doing by then. For now, but they'd be right back as soon as the market shits Edit: you know what I'll leave it as is
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 04:50
|
|
|
https://grist.org/climate/the-world-is-on-lockdown-so-where-are-all-the-carbon-emissions-coming-from/quote:Pedestrians have taken over city streets, people have almost entirely stopped flying, skies are blue (even in Los Angeles!) for the first time in decades, and global CO2 emissions are on-track to drop by … about 5.5 percent. (Answer: Electricity and heating, all the other stuff is pretty much noise).
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:https://grist.org/climate/the-world-is-on-lockdown-so-where-are-all-the-carbon-emissions-coming-from/ and concrete/construction materials. A lot of people honestly believe a big chunk of the economy is being directly consumed by the worlds billionaires (because paper wealth gets confused with consumption) and that dialing back the economy enough to protect the environment would mainly affect the billionaires. If you went into the climate change thread and asked how their suggested changes are going to affect Africa, you would be shouted down as concern trolling. Well, here we are with a 5% reduction in emissions, billionaires still paper rich and Americans are out of work and going hungry in their millions not six months in. Electric Wrigglies fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Apr 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:https://grist.org/climate/the-world-is-on-lockdown-so-where-are-all-the-carbon-emissions-coming-from/ I figured the drop would be far smaller than people were expecting, but I am definitely surprised that air travel isn't a bigger portion. There are other benefits though, automobile travel and other daily-life waste producers have practically stopped, which has reduced non-CO2 emissions by an amount that has significantly changed air and water quality in a really surprisingly short of time. But that'll just make our local environments more pleasant, not better for the overall climate, sadly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Taffer posted:I figured the drop would be far smaller than people were expecting, but I am definitely surprised that air travel isn't a bigger portion. Remember, many airlines are flying empty airplanes around because the systems of incentives are such that it makes "sense".
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Remember, many airlines are flying empty airplanes around because the systems of incentives are such that it makes "sense". Who still is? Airlines bid for slots. But to prevent an airline from just bidding for slots it's not going to use and using that to freeze out competitors, airlines are required to maintain a certain uptime on the slots they have or those slots go back into the pool to be bid on. So when this all started, yes, airlines were flying empty planes so that they wouldn't lose their slots. But the appropriate regulatory agencies decided to indefinitely waive that process. What airlines are still flying empty airplanes around?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Who still is? In the US the bailout requires them to continue service to all airports they previously serviced, so they can cut down on some flights but not all of them: quote:In creating their schedules for the next couple of months, some U.S airlines have reverted to decades-old strategies, adding circuitous routing, like so-called tag and circle flights, to satisfy conditions of the CARES Act, which requires airlines fly to nearly every airport they served before the Covid-19 crisis. If they don’t meet the standards defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation, or DOT, they will lose their share of $25 billion in grants.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 22:09
|
|
|
Taffer posted:I figured the drop would be far smaller than people were expecting, but I am definitely surprised that air travel isn't a bigger portion. In the scheme of things, air travel is a tiny small high hanging fruit but somehow it manages to take up most of the climate debate twitter feed. Automobiles are much bigger problem but we have some solutions but implementing them is challenge. And airlines, at least in the United States are considered a utility. Planes are going to keep flying even with a few passengers but some flight routes will probably be cut down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:In the US the bailout requires them to continue service to all airports they previously serviced, so they can cut down on some flights but not all of them: That's not the same thing as flying empty planes. That's flying circular routes rather than point-to-point. It sucks for the pax because they're on the plane for a lot longer but there are pax.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
I guess it beats driving, eh? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
I'm getting confused. Is this supposed to be good or bad? Are we supposed to be unhappy that airlines are bad for the environment or are we supposed to be unhappy that airlines are currently not as convenient for passengers as they used to be?
silence_kit fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Apr 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 00:05
|
|
