|
Aethernet posted:https://scitechdaily.com/nuclear-batteries-offer-a-new-approach-to-carbon-free-energy/amp/ Getting these set up close to an urban center is gonna be a nightmare in western countries. So much problems ranging from insurance to security to nimbyism. It's hard to even set up wind turbines anymore due to people freaking out over infrasound giving them morgellons and making their hamsters depressed
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Getting these set up close to an urban center is gonna be a nightmare in western countries. So much problems ranging from insurance to security to nimbyism. It's hard to even set up wind turbines anymore due to people freaking out over infrasound giving them morgellons and making their hamsters depressed Germany's wind and solar expansion is stalled for these exact NIMBY reasons, yup. 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jun 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Germany's wind and solar expansion is stalled for these exact NIMBY reasons, yup. Not to worry, they're building wind farms in  instead 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 01:40
|
|
|
Wibla posted:Not to worry, they're building wind farms in There's actual vehement political opposition to wind farms in Norway? Also, don't you ever suggest that the norwegian economy should diversify and stop pumping up all the oil that it possibly can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 05:53
|
|
|
There's opposition here too to wind power plants. Or rather, they want a 3km minimum radius safety distance. Some people got them smacked up a 1km from home and say at times it makes it really drat annoying. But 3km means more expensive installations because the cheapest spots to install them on are near existing homes, and also landowners who wanted to make money are also pissed, so it's a pretty infected situation by now. drat I wish we had SMRs
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 06:27
|
|
|
3km is death sentence in any but the most sparsely populated parts of a country. Like even on the rural countryside, 3km makes any building almost impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 06:32
|
|
|
I dunno they where able meet that requirement here by removing three of the proposed 16 wind mills that are going to be built.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 06:56
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:There's actual vehement political opposition to wind farms in Norway? There's a ton of local opposition because a lot of onshore wind farm licenses were issued years ago and they scaled them up a lot before actually building them, in a weird kind of bait and switch. There's also a hilarious amount of stupid poo poo going on with the electrical grid in general over here right now, like connecting offshore platforms to the main grid, with the cost being dumped on normal power subscribers, ditto with power cables to the UK and Germany that's so far only contributing to higher prices for everyone. Then there's the minor detail that we could increase our hydro power production by MORE than all the current onshore wind projects by overhauling our existing power plants with newer turbines and generators, a lot of which are getting close to their EOL anyway. But because of how the taxes work, that "doesn't make sense" financially. It's a mess, full stop. MiddleOne posted:Also, don't you ever suggest that the norwegian economy should diversify and stop pumping up all the oil that it possibly can. They're opening up for more drilling in the Barents sea, which is loving stupid. We need to scale that poo poo down, not open new (and more expensive!) oil and gas fields in the far north. At this point I don't even know what we should or could diversify to anymore. I want to focus on SMR technology and developing mature Thorium-based reactors, because we have a shitton of Thorium, but ATOMS ARE SCARY, so we can't do that. It's loving embarassing. Even running pure thermal reactors for district heating would be epic, considering we need heating about 8 months of the year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
Norway not increasing hydro output is a generational mistake. Even outside of Nordpool, a lot of European countries have holes in their plans for dispatchable power that is currently filled by, "UH USE NORWAY AS A GIANT DAMP BATTERY I GUESS". You could make mad bank by improving your hydro fleet over the next couple of decades.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
Yeah - I would do a three-pronged approach: 1. Upgrade existing hydro 2. Introduce nuclear for base-load and district heating 3. Offshore windfarms, if they made sense in combination with 1. and 2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
As long as you are aware thorium reactors suffer from a lot of the same issues as normal Uranium reactors. But there's really no ready and approved examples of Thorium reactors ready for prime time yet either Wibla posted:Yeah - I would do a three-pronged approach: The only thing I'd fault with this is #1 is going to be less effective with increasing droughts and potable water availability becoming an issue. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Jun 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
USSC says that a private natural gas company can wield *Federal* power of eminent domain to seize state-owned land to build a pipeline: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1039_8n5a.pdf The majority completely ignored the 11th Amendment, which basically says flat-out that the Federal government has no jurisdiction to even hear this case. Gorsuch, Thomas, Barrett, and Kagan dissented. The dissents are especially worth a read.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:USSC says that a private natural gas company can wield *Federal* power of eminent domain to seize state-owned land to build a pipeline: The biggest oil company in the world, the United States Government.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The only thing I'd fault with this is #1 is going to be less effective with increasing droughts and potable water availability becoming an issue.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
Well that's good news at least, for Norway/Sweden. But elsewhere, Drought is going to be an issue.  California, of course being one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Well that's good news at least, for Norway/Sweden. But elsewhere, Drought is going to be an issue. Yeah, and I was referring to what I wanted to do in Norway. California? Y'all are hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
Wibla posted:Yeah, and I was referring to what I wanted to do in Norway. Dustbowl 2035. Not just a TF2 map anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Well that's good news at least, for Norway/Sweden. But elsewhere, Drought is going to be an issue. Thats why you don't build cities in the desert.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
karthun posted:Thats why you don't build cities in the desert. This is a common myth, while California is home to 3 named deserts, Los Angeles and a lot of the other city areas are not desert and are technically Mediterranean environments characterized by wet winters and dry summers and are often home to large forests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_climate
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This is a common myth, while California is home to 3 named deserts, Los Angeles and a lot of the other city areas are not desert and are technically Mediterranean environments characterized by wet winters and dry summers and are often home to large forests. I'm pretty sure that over the last 10 years LA has shifted from being CSa/Csb to BSh just like San Diego. LA averaged 10.2 inches (259mm) of rain over the last decade. This is a departure of its historic ~14 inches (355 mm). LA's average daily mean temp is 65.8 f (18.8 c). Its rainfall is in the winter season. 259 mm of rain < 376 (20 * 18.8c) If you want to go full pedantic then LA is semi-arid. I will revise my statement to say not to build cities in areas where precipitation is below potential evapotranspiration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
karthun posted:I'm pretty sure that over the last 10 years LA has shifted from being CSa/Csb to BSh just like San Diego. Maybe you mean't more: "Don't build in a region then turn it into a desert?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 17:42
|
|
|
I was gonna suggest that Seattle will probably be a lot more temperate if climate change pushes up temperatures, but apparently you'll have 112 degree days at high latitudes too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
New York is facing grid issues because of the extreme heat, and maybe shuttering Indian Point wasn't actually a good idea https://gizmodo.com/new-york-faces-blackouts-as-extreme-heat-strains-the-gr-1847206009
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
Things are not looking great for keeping the Dresden and Byron plants open in Illinois. The state legislature adjourned without signing a bill, because the Prairie State coal plant down state is causing issues. Some politicians want an exemption for that gen station, probably because a lot of municipalities got stuck footing the bill for that place. I will be surprised if Byron actually shuts down, as that is one of the newest nuclear plants in the Exelon fleet. But I think Dresden is pretty much done at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 00:52
|
|
|
Orvin posted:Things are not looking great for keeping the Dresden and Byron plants open in Illinois. The state legislature adjourned without signing a bill, because the Prairie State coal plant down state is causing issues. Some politicians want an exemption for that gen station, probably because a lot of municipalities got stuck footing the bill for that place. Its going to be pretty bad if we keep this up, with the only excuse being that "its expensive" as we face down one of the worst environmental crisis our planet and species has seen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 01:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mtsw/status/1410335030262464512 In other news: looks like Plant Vogtle construction is proceeding about as one would expect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 02:05
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:USSC says that a private natural gas company can wield *Federal* power of eminent domain to seize state-owned land to build a pipeline: Everyone agrees the federal government could use eminent domain and build a pipeline over state land. The only issue in the case is whether the federal government can delegate that authority to a private corporation. It’s not as hard a case as the dissents made it look. There’s more in the scotus thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 02:08
|
|
|
On the debate we were having a while ago about the morality of O&G majors, I absolutely concede that ExxonMobil are cartoon villains: https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-exxonmobils-lobbying-war-on-climate-change-legislation
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:On the debate we were having a while ago about the morality of O&G majors, I absolutely concede that ExxonMobil are cartoon villains: Yeah was about to post the NPR link to this, Exxon actually cares that this was exposed because they have new board members who might be a little irked about this view. Probably not enough to do anything other than play down the lobbying. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Jul 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
Posting so I can find this thread tomorrow, had no idea this existed. For some reason the Awful app isn’t keeping my bookmarks. Nothing to see here, can’t wait to binge this thread!
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2021 07:37
|
|
|
Sleepy: Carbon Sequestration into the Ground Woke: Rare Mantle Rocks in Oman Could Sequester Massive Amounts of CO2 (1 gram per cubic meter) Bespoke: Drilling several kilometers down, to mantle rocks, and pumping in seawater saturated with CO2 drawn from the air.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2021 07:14
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Sleepy: Carbon Sequestration into the Ground This is brilliant. Cheap solar because Oman could make this work, although you'd still need to pepper Oman with DACCS towers; efficiency drops off if they're too close together.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2021 08:05
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Sleepy: Carbon Sequestration into the Ground quote:Similar outcrops emerge from Earth’s surface in Alaska, Canada, California, New Zealand, Japan, and other places. Kelemen estimates the worldwide storage capacity of these rocks, including Oman’s, as 60 trillion to 600 trillion tons of CO2—roughly 25 to 250 times the amount that humans have added to the atmosphere since 1850. Kelemen says exploiting that stony repository could have a huge impact. A 2019 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that global warming cannot be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius—a level generally thought to avoid catastrophic impacts—unless humans somehow remove between 100 billion and one trillion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere by 2100. If the process started by 2050, that would mean drawing down two billion to 20 billion tons of CO2 every year. Well that seems like a big fuckin deal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
The idea of drilling down multiple kilometers deep, loading seawater with concentrated CO2, and pumping it round trip seems like it couldn't possibly effective on the scale of pumping trillions or quadrillions of gallons of water per year. Is anyone more chemistry educated able to clarify why they couldn't just mine this mineral, pulverize it to increase surface area, and use the rocks to catalyze carbonate rock formation on the surface? Aren't carbonate rocks stable enough to hold on to CO2 without extreme measures being taken (like burying them multiple kilometers deep)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:The idea of drilling down multiple kilometers deep, loading seawater with concentrated CO2, and pumping it round trip seems like it couldn't possibly effective on the scale of pumping trillions or quadrillions of gallons of water per year. Is anyone more chemistry educated able to clarify why they couldn't just mine this mineral, pulverize it to increase surface area, and use the rocks to catalyze carbonate rock formation on the surface? Aren't carbonate rocks stable enough to hold on to CO2 without extreme measures being taken (like burying them multiple kilometers deep)? Carbonates are not infinitely stable at atmospheric pressure. They will slowly degas CO2, and this will be faster when it's hot. They can also be dissolved by water (rainwater + dissolved CO2 is slightly acidic), which is how limestone caves get carved out. If you want to get rid of the CO2 for good, you need to bury it deep underground. What you're proposing would work in principle, if you treated the resulting carbonate like a landfill and buried it with clay-lined trenches. I suspect that mining the stuff out is going to be pretty difficult and expensive, though, so taking the CO2 to it is far cheaper than bringing up the rock.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
At the end of the day, this is why Blue hydrogen and other things are probably not great solutions, because honestly we need to be removing carbon from the air and getting rid of it, not extracting natural gas and stripping the carbon off and storing it. The solution is to start downsizing on petroleum as an energy source and eliminating those carbon sources all together.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:The idea of drilling down multiple kilometers deep, loading seawater with concentrated CO2, and pumping it round trip seems like it couldn't possibly effective on the scale of pumping trillions or quadrillions of gallons of water per year. Is anyone more chemistry educated able to clarify why they couldn't just mine this mineral, pulverize it to increase surface area, and use the rocks to catalyze carbonate rock formation on the surface? Aren't carbonate rocks stable enough to hold on to CO2 without extreme measures being taken (like burying them multiple kilometers deep)? You could absolutely do this; many approaches to DACCS use carbonate rocks. However, the surface rocks are to a degree already saturated with CO2, meaning you'll have to dig down rather deep to extract the volumes you require, and returning them to the surface will be expensive. You'll also have to provide the free heat that you get from those depths to accelerate the reaction. These are just assumptions though, I'd need to see actual cost numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
I'll absolutely help lobby/invest/fund this idea when I figure out the stock markets, if that helps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:The idea of drilling down multiple kilometers deep, loading seawater with concentrated CO2, and pumping it round trip seems like it couldn't possibly effective on the scale of pumping trillions or quadrillions of gallons of water per year. Is anyone more chemistry educated able to clarify why they couldn't just mine this mineral, pulverize it to increase surface area, and use the rocks to catalyze carbonate rock formation on the surface? Aren't carbonate rocks stable enough to hold on to CO2 without extreme measures being taken (like burying them multiple kilometers deep)? Hydraulic pumps tend to be pretty efficient as far as these things go, so I don't think that it will drive up the overhead that much. I would guess that the biggest cost factor would be the atmospheric sequestration. This sort of thing is very promising, but relies on the development of the other bugbear in environmental energy generation: carbon taxes. Like nuclear energy, it's an idea that draws a lot of opposition from across the political spectrum, but it's key for anything like this to become economically-viable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 07:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
Kaal posted:Hydraulic pumps tend to be pretty efficient as far as these things go, so I don't think that it will drive up the overhead that much. I would guess that the biggest cost factor would be the atmospheric sequestration. This sort of thing is very promising, but relies on the development of the other bugbear in environmental energy generation: carbon taxes. Like nuclear energy, it's an idea that draws a lot of opposition from across the political spectrum, but it's key for anything like this to become economically-viable. The problem with Carbon taxes is they are heavily abused by companies as basically a license to pollute, just pay the tax and you are free to do as you will.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2021 14:40
|
|