|
Phanatic posted:China's GDP is about 15 trillion. The US's is about 21 trillion. On both an absolute measure and per unit of productivity, the US emits far less than China does. In this context purchasing power parity may be the more reasonable GDP measure. In any event steel and concrete require more energy than apps and speculative financial instruments per $ generated in economic activity but China can hardly be expected to transition straight to a service economy although certainly they aim to get there..
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 06:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:China or Xi has announced they are taking climate change much more seriously. Granted, it remains to be seen but this is a good thing. And yet they're building new coal plants right now
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 17:23
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:And yet they're building new coal plants right now And? So we should measure our response as an industry leader by how China does? We're supposed to do BETTER than them, not be on par with them. Stop measuring out commitment by China's. And as we already noted in the last page: China is STILL investing more than us in Green and Nuclear energy, so despite the coal plants (unsurprising for a 30 year old developing Industrial Power) they are still ahead of us. https://www.csis.org/east-green-chinas-global-leadership-renewable-energy https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/02/china-clean-energy-technology-winning-sell/ And yet the US, as a world leader and Industrial power for nearly 120 years is lagging behind, instead choosing to double down on Fossil fuels. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Dec 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
I wouldn't think I'd need to spell out the obvious conclusion that building new coal plants right now doesn't really jive with ending carbon emissions in 40 years, but I guess I have to consider what thread I'm in. Nothing I posted had anything to do with the US?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:I wouldn't think I'd need to spell out the obvious conclusion that building new coal plants right now doesn't really jive with ending carbon emissions in 40 years, but I guess I have to consider what thread I'm in. Nothing I posted had anything to do with the US? They need the power now so you build the power plant you can now. You turn it off and decommission when you don't need it and 30 years out of a coal fired powerstation is likely fine anyway. The Chinese are not here to gently caress spiders and they will be hosed by their populace if they don't add more power. Nuclear and renewables cannot be built fast enough (in their estimation) to keep up with the need and as they probably don't want to be tied to Australian LNG exports, then coal it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
Sure, China's producing 2x the CO2 as the US, because they have loving 4x the population. The per capita numbers are not a good look for the US and we're in no position to complain about them.
Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Dec 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 17:59
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Sure, China's producing 2x the CO2 as the US, because they have loving 4x the population. The per capita numbers are not a good look for the US This is why you need to take into account the *productivity* of that economy. Somalia’s per capita CO2 figures are wonderful! But saying “if we remade our economy to be more like Somalia’s we could really bring down our per Capita CO2 emissions!” would be an absurdity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 18:05
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:The Chinese are not here to gently caress spiders 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:This is why you need to take into account the *productivity* of that economy. Somalia’s per capita CO2 figures are wonderful! But saying “if we remade our economy to be more like Somalia’s we could really bring down our per Capita CO2 emissions!” would be an absurdity. Setting fossil fuels on fire to make Bitcoin/pass numbers around in a database/all the other bullshit that makes GDP a useless metric is not useful economic activity it's what's killing the planet
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
Welcome to Australia, almost everything here will kill you, and aussie slang will make the uninitiated go (Also don't ask for Foster's if you want good beer. They foist that poo poo on the rest of the world because no one at home will drink it.) Crazycryodude posted:Setting fossil fuels on fire to make Bitcoin/pass numbers around in a database/all the other bullshit that makes GDP a useless metric is not useful economic activity it's what's killing the planet I have friends who operate GPU mining farms, I can't find the fucks to give about it since we're almost all hydro here, but all the blockchain/crypto bullshit should be shut down for the good of the planet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Setting fossil fuels on fire to make Bitcoin/pass numbers around in a database/all the other bullshit that makes GDP a useless metric is not useful economic activity it's what's killing the planet Good luck convincing citizens of developed countries to live like subsistence farmers in Somalia. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
Perhaps there is a middle ground to be found somewhere between "subsistence farming" and "3,000 calories of cheeseburger and Bitcoin for every meal" but what do I know I'm just a shitposter
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:30 years out of a coal fired powerstation is likely fine anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
This kind of thing is to completely be expected, all the greater fools us (pun intended) for missing every opportunity to do better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:If you mean 'fine' in the sense that you can fully depreciate the capital costs, maybe. If you mean 'fine' in the sense of climate change, hard disagree. Definitely I meant from a depreciation point of view.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Setting fossil fuels on fire to make Bitcoin/pass numbers around in a database/all the other bullshit that makes GDP a useless metric is not useful economic activity it's what's killing the planet If someone manages to make a profit from selling bitcoin, that it a capital gain, and capital gains do not count towards GDP because they are not productive: no goods are produced and no services are rendered, it's just taking an asset and converting it into cash. The overwhelming lion's share of Bitcoin is speculative investment, which doesn't count towards GDP. Owling Howl posted:In this context purchasing power parity may be the more reasonable GDP measure. In any event steel and concrete require more energy than apps and speculative financial instruments per $ generated in economic activity but China can hardly be expected to transition straight to a service economy although certainly they aim to get there.. Is China transitioning to a service economy a good thing because it means they won't be burning as much carbon to produce steel and concrete, or is it a bad thing because economic activity like "passing numbers around in a database" is killing the planet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
possibly silly question, but if battery storage is the biggest problem renewables face right now, how come wind and solar farms and the like keep growing every year?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:possibly silly question, but if battery storage is the biggest problem renewables face right now, how come wind and solar farms and the like keep growing every year? It's not the biggest problem in most of the world. With good transmission infrastructure you only need storage at very high renewables adaption(>60%). Aside from some edge case, most of the world is nowhere close to that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
Wibla posted:Welcome to Australia, almost everything here will kill you, and aussie slang will make the uninitiated go So that hydro couldn't offset coal or gas powered plants? This just annoys me to no end. The Crypto-Kids think that somehow using hydro makes them green. That hydro could be put to better use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:possibly silly question, but if battery storage is the biggest problem renewables face right now, how come wind and solar farms and the like keep growing every year? Because there are still lots of coal, gas, and nuclear plants online to carry the load when the wind isn't blowing or it's cloudy. Energy storage is a long-term issue to go 100% renewables in the future. An alternative to storage is just overbuilding capacity. If you've got a wind farm spread over a big enough area, there's almost always going be some wind in parts of it. If you can supply your grid with only 50% of your turbines spinning, perhaps you don't need to worry about battery storage. When you've got excess power generation, use it to split water or something and sell the products.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 06:00
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:So that hydro couldn't offset coal or gas powered plants? I assume Wibla is from Norway (98% renewable) or Sweden (~98% renewables and nuclear (committed to phasing our nuclear) or similar. Not sure there is much better use except maybe exports but that is not a given considering the likes of Germany would rather burn gas and coal than import electricity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 07:20
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Energy storage is a long-term issue to go 100% renewables in the future. An alternative to storage is just overbuilding capacity. If you've got a wind farm spread over a big enough area, there's almost always going be some wind in parts of it. What size wind farm do you need to reliably supply California at night without storage?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 08:53
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:possibly silly question, but if battery storage is the biggest problem renewables face right now, how come wind and solar farms and the like keep growing every year? In good locations wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electricity. It doesn't really matter if your new wind farm sometimes result in excess electricity generation if you earn enough the rest of the time to be profitable. When there's excess electricity you can even continue to produce electricity and leave the grid operator with the choice of what generators to idle. Since it costs you nothing to run the wind farm once its built, you can always underbid the competing coal or nuclear power plant and still get paid a bit. However, since it's very inconvenient to randomly idle coal or nuclear power plants the grid operator may chose to simply pay you to idle your wind farm instead. Either way you still get paid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 11:25
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:What size wind farm do you need to reliably supply California at night without storage? Very complicated because as said the best option would be to spread the wind generation as wide as possible (offshore, across country) to get some good wind mixed in with places generating at least something. Enough wind to cover the minimum wind power generation without storage is not realistic as a question (because hydro/pumped hydro is already very good and exists now) but probably significantly more capex than for building out enough nuclear to cover the peak consumption. Certainly a lot more land area in wind farms and their powerlines. Both of them (pure wind/solar, nuclear) could divert excess energy into things like RO and maybe one day atmosphere carbon capture hydrocarbon fuel production but I think nuclear would be far better for that. Owling Howl posted:In good locations wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electricity. It doesn't really matter if your new wind farm sometimes result in excess electricity generation if you earn enough the rest of the time to be profitable. If it was pure wind, then you would probably not be paid to idle your generators and you would have to have robust action plans to prevent adding overvoltage/over-frequency to the grid. Renewable generators in Australia are bleating now because charges related to freq/stability control and distance from the load are being calculated into the rates they get paid (ie, getting significant haircuts).
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 11:41
|
|
|
Of course wind can work at night when solar has no chance, but this is interesting  
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I assume Wibla is from Norway (98% renewable) or Sweden (~98% renewables and nuclear (committed to phasing our nuclear) or similar. Not sure there is much better use except maybe exports but that is not a given considering the likes of Germany would rather burn gas and coal than import electricity. Sure, but any promotion of Crypto is going to run wasteful CPU operations all over the world. They need to fix this and stop spouting nonsense about how they are using renewables where they are located.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
who cares, the only thing dumber than crypto nerds is other people thinking cryto nerds matter *at all*. its just a bunch of clickbait headline bullshit, they're an utterly meaningless rounding error. its just pure social signaling that says "i don't like crypto people, but i also have zero frame of reference to understand this topic"
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
looks like elan musk decided to take his ball and go home (to texas)  Deteriorata posted:Because there are still lots of coal, gas, and nuclear plants online to carry the load when the wind isn't blowing or it's cloudy. Owling Howl posted:In good locations wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electricity. It doesn't really matter if your new wind farm sometimes result in excess electricity generation if you earn enough the rest of the time to be profitable. oh that's cool. glad to see storage isn't as big an issue as i figured it'd be. MomJeans420 posted:Of course wind can work at night when solar has no chance, but this is interesting wow, didn't know wind generated that much more power than solar.  thought it was the opposite
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:oh that's cool. glad to see storage isn't as big an issue as i figured it'd be. It is a big issue because you have to massively overbuild renewable if you want it to be reliable enough without storage to replace traditional energy sources
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:It is a big issue because you have to massively overbuild renewable if you want it to be reliable enough without storage to replace traditional energy sources Yeah and nearly all current renewable energy is predicated on selling all of it’s possible generation, not 20 to 30% of what it does now which is like 40 to 50% of the capacity of the generator due to intermittency. Green groups say nuclear is more expensive than renewables but that is at least partly because nuclear is being throttled back to allow for renewable penetration, driving up the cost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Yeah and nearly all current renewable energy is predicated on selling all of it’s possible generation, not 20 to 30% of what it does now which is like 40 to 50% of the capacity of the generator due to intermittency. That and most of the expense is in the interest from the loans for buildout, operationally nuclear is cheap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
oh okay so it's still bad 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2020 22:36
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Yeah and nearly all current renewable energy is predicated on selling all of it’s possible generation, not 20 to 30% of what it does now which is like 40 to 50% of the capacity of the generator due to intermittency. Huh? You're incorrect if you're trying to imply that capacity factor isn't considered when funding renewables. MomJeans420 posted:It is a big issue because you have to massively overbuild renewable if you want it to be reliable enough without storage to replace traditional energy sources Although in general we had to do this with fossil fuels too. All those peaker plants are effectively over-build.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 02:46
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:oh that's cool. glad to see storage isn't as big an issue as i figured it'd be. The more intermittent sources the more over production for longer periods of time which means more time you'll have to lower prices. Beyond a certain threshold another solar or wind farm won't be profitable anymore. If you want to move beyond that threshold you'll need storage. Denmark has 50%+ wind power in their energy mix because they use Norwegian hydro plants for storage and sell some excess to Germany which is only feasible because Denmark is a small market and incidentally has very, very good wind resources. Obviously not feasible for Germany or the US to do that - not enough hydro nearby and no larger markets nearby to soak up excess demand of that size. Electric Wrigglies posted:Yeah and nearly all current renewable energy is predicated on selling all of it’s possible generation, not 20 to 30% of what it does now which is like 40 to 50% of the capacity of the generator due to intermittency. Yo its the free market, bro. If I can outbid you for 3 hours per day obviously they should buy from me. If you shutting down production makes your operation unprofitable then that's just the market giving you a lesson in darwinism  Wind/solar displace base load operators which raise their costs and thus their prices which enable more wind/solar which displace more base load and on and on. You'll still hit a point where you can't profitably build more wind/solar but that point may be where base load operators only operate half the day. It's very amusing. Regulating this to protect base load operators would be communism and clearly anathema to any good hard working neoliberal free market capitalist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 07:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Huh? You're incorrect if you're trying to imply that capacity factor isn't considered when funding renewables. by capacity factor if you mean the amount of energy provided by a generator when all its power is being accepted by the grid then yes, capacity factor of a coal plant is ninety something percent because it accounts for maintenance, wind is much less (35-75%) due to intermittency but the varying capacity factors are routinely (always?) taken into account. If you mean that wind plants are already budgeting in that only a fraction of the (35%-75%) above possible generation is accepted onto the grid (ie to allow for enough overbuild that requires parking of wind turbines during good generation conditions) then I would be very surprised. Owling Howl posted:
On the market Darwinism, it is something that is helping change the grids for the better overall (and would have been even quicker in Australia if the carbon price was maintained) but there is some perverse outcomes as well. However, the Australian energy market operator is now repricing rates paid to renewable generators to take into account some of the costs previously borne by incumbent generators such as higher line losses (wind and solar generators are often long distance from the load), frequency control (inherent in the incumbent generators) and increased line costs (you need much more interconnection for distant distributed power generation).
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 10:30
|
|
|
Well prepare to be surprised - forecasts for new wind power generation proposals already include some amount of curtailment due to grid constraints. Since the life expectancy of a turbine isnt long enough for current installations to see a 50% wind penetration in most locations of the US, this does not include significant amount of curtailment. As wind generation increase and curtailment increases, engineers will of course consider this fact when analyzing the profitability of a proposed wind generation plant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 15:30
|
|
|
freezepops posted:Well prepare to be surprised - forecasts for new wind power generation proposals already include some amount of curtailment due to grid constraints. Since the life expectancy of a turbine isnt long enough for current installations to see a 50% wind penetration in most locations of the US, this does not include significant amount of curtailment. I'm not surprised that engineers and money people running the ruler over future wind projects would consider curtailment (Thank you. Curtailment, that's the word I needed). Interesting you say that the turbines already built don't have the life required to last until there is curtailment in effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:who cares, the only thing dumber than crypto nerds is other people thinking cryto nerds matter *at all*. its just a bunch of clickbait headline bullshit, they're an utterly meaningless rounding error. its just pure social signaling that says "i don't like crypto people, but i also have zero frame of reference to understand this topic" You mean in terms of total energy consumption? Support this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:You mean in terms of total energy consumption? Support this. Yeah, Crypto at this point is consuming more power than small countries, that's hardly a rounding error. It out consumes Switzerland and Czechia
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
IF you could have something like Intel's SGX and have it be secure, you could switch from cryptocurrencies based on proof of work to ones based on proof of elapsed time and the power usage would be minimal. However, the financial incentive to find those bugs would be huge, and Intel hasn't been kicking rear end on security recently (which is admittedly very hard).
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 21:57
|
|