|
Just drill the Yellowstone Caldera, what could possibly go wrong?
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 07:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
Who doesn't love a good man-made earthquake.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 07:41
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I feel that is a bit semantical, but yes that was my point by putting anything other than geothermal heating under iffy. I know for instance that Iceland has lots of "real" geothermal power, but I also know that style is not really applicable anywhere not sitting upon a dormant/active volcano. Right. Many people seem to mix up these technologies so just thought to make sure. In Finland they have made an experimental geothermal power plant for disctric heating. The difficult part is that they had to drill more than 6 kilometers deep wells. Would be a lot easier in Iceland for sure. The need is obvious, annually over 80% of household energy usage is used in heating the houses or heating up water. So any ways to make this more efficient or co2 neutral would be great help. It remains to be seen if that kind of system can be even close to viable in reality.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 08:37
|
|
|
Anyone know anything more about this story? https://news.stanford.edu/2019/05/23/lessons-south-korea-solving-geothermals-earthquake-problem/
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 08:40
|
|
|
Pyre File posted:Just drill the Yellowstone Caldera, what could possibly go wrong? Sulphur dioxide released from the massive volcanoes would certainly help with the global warming! For a years..
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 08:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nuclearkatie/status/1400181614039158791?s=20 I found this deeply ironic as Wyoming's Governor JUST threatened to sue anyone who refused to buy Wyoming coal. In the meantime, how's New York doing post Indian Point closure? https://twitter.com/bagga_sid/status/1400170974129971205?s=20 Not good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:The shale revolution but also yes, it's bullshit. Political issues are a much bigger problem than finding and producing it, but repeat the Arab oil embargo and it won't take too long until we're drilling all over Los Angeles (we still have A TON of oil under LA).  Agreed entirely, attacking the problem of oil consumption as a demand issue isn't going to solve much. All it will do merely increase our imports from less desirable places as you mentioned and probably cause higher prices or even supply shortage. Thinking about this more... I really wouldn't want own a ICE Vehicle past say... 2030.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 04:31
|
|
|
Taffer posted:MomJeans has been a longtime O&G shill in this thread, regularly saying the industry can't or shouldn't be restricted because of some amorphous danger to society. You should not take them seriously. This post is unhelpful. I know this is difficult to understand but Oil and Gas is essentially modern civilization. It's everything from mobility, plastics, medicine, chemicals, electricity, etc. but we now need to figure out how to make this kind of stuff without emitting. We have some of the technology but we're seriously lacking in social and political will plus you actually have to do the work too! The energy transition even in the absolute best case scenario will take decades. This industry employees nearly a quarter of the world population. Being involved in it doesn't make someone a shill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 04:31
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:This post is unhelpful. He admitted to not only working in the industry, but investing in it. As shill as you can possibly get without being a lobbyist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 04:43
|
|
|
Or a politician from Texas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 04:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:He admitted to not only working in the industry, but investing in it. Literally every 401k to even pensions for even elementary school teachers is invested into Oil and Gas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Literally every 401k to even pensions for even elementary school teachers is invested into Oil and Gas. This is very disingenuous from someone trying to insist on a more honest conversation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 05:23
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Literally every 401k to even pensions for even elementary school teachers is invested into Oil and Gas. That's like saying gassing up your car to be able to do anything in modern society is propping up oil and gas. You know as well as all of us that someone having a 401k doesn't mean they're significantly invested in fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 05:35
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:This post is unhelpful. you know someones a shill when they spout off about dumb poo poo like plastics and medicine. I know this is "difficult to understand" alfred but those aren't co2 emissions problems and if we banned 95% of oil production we'd still be just fine for them. using them as a marginal concern troll proves you're a shill, or just a dumb person repeating shill talking points.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 12:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:He admitted to not only working in the industry, but investing in it. *You work in the nuclear industry*. Are you a shill?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 12:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR’s posts make so much more sense now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 12:28
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:you know someones a shill when they spout off about dumb poo poo like plastics and medicine. I know this is "difficult to understand" alfred but those aren't co2 emissions problems and if we banned 95% of oil production we'd still be just fine for them. Now do synthetic fertilizer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 12:46
|
|
|
I do not work in the nuclear industry nor have any financial investment/interest in it, but thanks for playing. I kinda expected better from you Phanatic. The entirety of my motivation for supporting nuclear is my formal education in physics and my belief it is the best way to address the ongoing crisis. Nothing else. All that aside, it changes little that he advocates for an industry that is actively destroying the planet to make a profit. Phanatic posted:Now do synthetic fertilizer. We can mine Sodium Nitrate, Phosphates, Potash, etc. The Ostwald Process would also allow us to source it from Ammonia, which can be source from water and air alone. Natural Gas is not the only source for Artificial Fertilizer, and even then if we managed to shift Fossil Fuels away from power generation and transit, it would doubtless be fine to produce artificial fertilizers via Natural Gas because we'd still have an abundance of it and its environmental impact would be significantly lessened. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Jun 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 13:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I do not work in the nuclear industry nor have any financial investment/interest in it, but thanks for playing. I apologize if I misinterpreted this: CommieGIR posted:I do Nuclear Science and Energy outreach at schools, as I attended school for Physics and was doing fuels research. So I have some various samples to demo to students. and I retract the claim. CommieGIR posted:We can mine Sodium Nitrate, Phosphates, Potash, etc. The Ostwald Process would also allow us to source it from Ammonia, which can be source from water and air alone. Natural Gas is not the only source for Artificial Fertilizer, and even then if we managed to shift Fossil Fuels away from power generation and transit, it would doubtless be fine to produce artificial fertilizers via Natural Gas because we'd still have an abundance of it and its environmental impact would be significantly lessened. If those things meant we could produce fertilizer for cheaper, then we'd already be doing it. So why aren't we?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 13:59
|
|
|
Pander posted:This is very disingenuous from someone trying to insist on a more honest conversation. I'm not being disingenuous. I'm serious and I get that it might be a little weird but I wouldn't think twice about someone's investments into Oil and Gas because the industry makes the civilized modern world function. Yes, it is true that they're emitting but I don't see it as completely value-less like say tobacco. MightyBigMinus posted:you know someones a shill when they spout off about dumb poo poo like plastics and medicine. I know this is "difficult to understand" alfred but those aren't co2 emissions problems and if we banned 95% of oil production we'd still be just fine for them. using them as a marginal concern troll proves you're a shill, or just a dumb person repeating shill talking points. You are missing the OPs original point that it is wrong to invest in these industries. It makes literally no sense to say that when they're produce a ton of products and services that incredible useful to modern society and will remain as such. We haven't even hit peak oil demand. Africa and some parts of Asia will still be expanding their own fossil fuel infrastructure over the next few years because of their growing economy. Is it wrong to invest in this kind of stuff? EDIT - I'd be shocked if the total global emissions for O&G was 5% for everything that wasn't fuel or Natural Gas. I'm sure it's low but I doubt it's that low. Taffer posted:That's like saying gassing up your car to be able to do anything in modern society is propping up oil and gas. You know as well as all of us that someone having a 401k doesn't mean they're significantly invested in fossil fuels. Exactly, this is my point. Merely investing isn't going magically prop up the Oil and Gas industry. Of course, there might be wiser investments given recent political changes, economics, etc. but I'd be more interested in the person's intent with the investment more than the investment itself. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Jun 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 14:53
|
|
|
We're back to "but it's cheap" "Cheap" killed the Earth. Part of what makes it cheap is how we use various parts of oil for different purposes it's suited to. It would be a lot more expensive if we were only using some of it for some of the purposes but banned the rest. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Jun 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 14:57
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:We're back to "but it's cheap" Got it. Norman Borlaug is history's greatest monster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 15:04
|
|
|
The best way to protect yourself from Climate Change is going to be entering modern civilization - things like reliable electricity, clean running water, emergency services, etc. and then decarbonization. While renewables are finally beating traditional fossil fuels in that they're way more cost effective that is not uniform globally - yet. That's why Asia and Africa is still building Natural Gas Plants. And you still have issues with supply, logistics, training, education, etc. I cannot in my mind justify holding them back when every other Countries emitted so much in the past to build actual functional cities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 15:08
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I apologize if I misinterpreted this: The outreach is just a local Science Outreach thing, not with any nuclear group. I do it because I love science. I don't get paid for it and its not associated with any nuclear group Phanatic posted:Got it. Norman Borlaug is history's greatest monster. Oh cmon now. Phanatic posted:If those things meant we could produce fertilizer for cheaper, then we'd already be doing it. So why aren't we? I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here, that we shouldn't be moving off fossil sourced fertilizers because.....its cheap? We do it because its easy and because that's how the logistics are setup right now. But that's the problem with Climate change: We have to make changes and shift away from such things. He isn't wrong: We are not ending our fossil glut on the cheap, and BEING cheap has gotten us into this mess. The idea that we will solve Climate Change on the cheap is "Capitalism will save us, despite being the reason we are in this mess" CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Jun 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
It's the trolley problem, but add a clearly visible wall on current track and there's a fee to pull the lever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
Here's freaking fantastic article that describes my thoughts on the matter of the energy transition along with a ton of good content, https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1400504954633269255?s=20 quote:To some extent, until oil demand starts falling, production will simply shift to other producers, which would not reduce emissions and may have other unintended consequences. Consider that while the global majors—including Shell, Chevron, Exxon, BP, and Total—attract the most attention, they only produce 15 percent of the world’s oil and gas supply. Most oil and gas is produced by state-controlled companies that are much less responsive to activist pressure and less dependent on financing from financial institutions that are. If oil production shifts to national firms in the world’s leading petrostates, that would increase the share of global supply controlled by OPEC+ and increase the cartel’s control of world oil markets. Indeed, Saudi Aramco, Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, and Russia’s Rosneft are all investing large sums today to increase oil production, motivated not just by a desire to monetize the oil before the world no longer needs it, but even more by a belief that demand for their oil will rise as Western firms are pressured to curb investment. Ironically, almost half of investors in a recent survey said oil companies were good investments because they would benefit from another oil price boom before decarbonization becomes an issue. quote:Or perhaps the growing stigmatization of oil firms will improve the prospects of adopting much more ambitious climate policies by weakening the political influence of an industry that has long opposed tough climate measures. Indeed, a less-noticed proposal Chevron shareholders narrowly voted down would have disclosed the company’s political lobbying, which might have done more to curb emissions than the one they approved. Or perhaps the lawsuits against Big Oil will spur similar ones against industries producing products that use oil, such as automakers, airlines, and shipping firms, and force them to move more quickly to create carbon-free alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
It's a concern worth thinking about, but that doesn't mean democracies shouldn't regulate their companies or divest from unsustainable practices. There isn't a single environmentalist that doesn't support reducing fossil fuel usage overall, in addition to improving the regulation on companies doing business in democratic countries. The two approaches are not in conflict, and indeed differentiating regulated oil companies from unregulated authoritarian state companies may well lead to political and economic benefits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
To be honest the only valid use of the american imperial forces I could imagine would be to violently enforce some serious climate change mitigation treaties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Here's freaking fantastic article that describes my thoughts on the matter of the energy transition along with a ton of good content, I mean, the article is 100% correct, and its also why Climate Change mitigation is going to mean MORE Energy needed. Not less. We have to replace hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Joules of Fossil fuel energy with electricity. Demand will only increase.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
Sextro posted:To be honest the only valid use of the american imperial forces I could imagine would be to violently enforce some serious climate change mitigation treaties. Bombing the poo poo out of factories in Europe? We did that already.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I mean, the article is 100% correct, and its also why Climate Change mitigation is going to mean MORE Energy needed. Not less. We have to replace hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Joules of Fossil fuel energy with electricity. Demand will only increase. This isn't entirely true. Producing domestic & commercial space heating using heat pumps uses considerably less energy than a fossil fuel-powered boiler. Electric motors are more efficient at converting stored power into motion than internal combustion engines. The UK's Climate Change Committee sees overall final energy demand in 2050 falling by about a half compared to today. Figure 1.4 in https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...le-html-version
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 19:56
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:This isn't entirely true. Producing domestic & commercial space heating using heat pumps uses considerably less energy than a fossil fuel-powered boiler. Electric motors are more efficient at converting stored power into motion than internal combustion engines. The UK's Climate Change Committee sees overall final energy demand in 2050 falling by about a half compared to today. Figure 1.4 in https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...le-html-version I was mostly referring to transit, not household cooling/heating. Electrifying transit, which is one of the largest contributors of emissions, will be critical. And "more efficient" is kind of a misnomer, yes the MOTORS are better at converting such, but storing the energy is not as efficient as a liquid petrol/diesel storage. Gasoline has like 100x the energy density, and you are going to have to make up at least half of that in charging and storing it in lithium batteries for transit, or provide it directly via overhead wires for rail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It's a concern worth thinking about, but that doesn't mean democracies shouldn't regulate their companies or divest from unsustainable practices. There isn't a single environmentalist that doesn't support reducing fossil fuel usage overall, in addition to improving the regulation on companies doing business in democratic countries. The two approaches are not in conflict, and indeed differentiating regulated oil companies from unregulated authoritarian state companies may well lead to political and economic benefits. You are right but the regulations that being proposed won't help and could potentially backfire. That's the crux of the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I was mostly referring to transit, not household cooling/heating. Electrifying transit, which is one of the largest contributors of emissions, will be critical. And "more efficient" is kind of a misnomer, yes the MOTORS are better at converting such, but storing the energy is not as efficient as a liquid petrol/diesel storage. https://www.researchgate.net/public...ectric_Vehicles ICEs are really inefficient. What's crucial in the calculation is the actual power source for the EV, which in a decarbonised economy will be renewables, nuclear, or perhaps a proportion of CCUS-equipped gas plant. In that context, EVs will be more efficient than even diesels. Right now, they're less efficient than diesels and about as efficient as a petrol ICE vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:https://www.researchgate.net/public...ectric_Vehicles Diesels are very efficient, their own paper demonstrates that. Worth noting: The average thermodynamic efficiency for a nuclear plant is about 37-40%, Diesel ICE engines are about 40-50% efficient. But it doesn't address what I was claiming, which is that increased demand from EVs being charged meaning increased need for supplied energy via the grid, joule for joule. You have to assume with decreased range due to inefficiency of Lithium batteries, that they'll need to charge more frequently than a comparable ICE engine would fill up. The CHARGING efficiency is high, I'll give you that. The Battery to Wheel efficiency is far less, about 70%. So no, we will need more energy, a lot more, because like I said you are replacing joules normally supplied by liquid fuels with joules provided by the grid, and that's assuming no resupplying from your car to the grid. https://theconversation.com/switching-to-electric-vehicles-could-save-the-us-billions-but-timing-is-everything-106227  
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Jun 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:https://theconversation.com/switching-to-electric-vehicles-could-save-the-us-billions-but-timing-is-everything-106227 bawfuls fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Jun 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 06:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Diesels are very efficient, their own paper demonstrates that. Worth noting: The average thermodynamic efficiency for a nuclear plant is about 37-40%, Diesel ICE engines are about 40-50% efficient. Those are charts of electricity demand, not energy demand. You will of course need more electricity if you're moving away from energy supplied as fossil fuels to energy supplied as electricity. But because EVs have a higher WTW efficiency than ICEVs for most plausible electricity decarbonisation scenarios (barring an all-nuclear scenario) the overall volume of energy demanded from the energy system will be lower, assuming the same number of miles are travelled. Additional charging will create some additional miles travelled at the margin, but most EVs will be charged either at home, their destination, or dedicated charging stations analogous to petrol stations. This doesn't produce a great deal of additional travel. Now, if you were talking about heavy transport, aviation or maritime, then I'd agree with you as the synthetic fuels we'll use for those will be extremely energy intensive to produce.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 06:51
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Those are charts of electricity demand, not energy demand. You will of course need more electricity if you're moving away from energy supplied as fossil fuels to energy supplied as electricity. But because EVs have a higher WTW efficiency than ICEVs for most plausible electricity decarbonisation scenarios (barring an all-nuclear scenario) the overall volume of energy demanded from the energy system will be lower, assuming the same number of miles are travelled. Additional charging will create some additional miles travelled at the margin, but most EVs will be charged either at home, their destination, or dedicated charging stations analogous to petrol stations. This doesn't produce a great deal of additional travel. Ok now you are just splitting hairs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 13:01
|
|
|
Better than atoms! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 13:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
Hi thread! I'm not an energy expert by any means, so I hope people won't jump down my throat for fault of mere ignorance - but as energy storage goes, I was wondering if anyone had ever proposed generating methane from atmospheric CO2 and reacting it with water, using excess capacity generated from renewables. So, for example, if it's a series of really sunny days in the Southwest, you could use that excess unneeded solar capacity to spin up a methane generating plant, create liquid methane by drawing down CO2 from the air, then storing it as a stockpile for natural gas plants to fire up at night or in peak demand times. I did a cursory google on this and found a study from 2020: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200227114523.htm Which proposes to use nanoparticles to assist in the CO2+H2O -> CH4 process. Is this being explored? I see the issues coming up with battery storage in the shortage of rare earth metals and lithium, as well as the geographic issues with pumped hydro, and wonder if methane might be a solution? DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Jun 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 15:56
|
|
