|
QuarkJets posted:Last week's news pertains solely to inertial confinement fusion, which is a super loving cool idea (what if we create a star using a shitload of lasers???) but isn't given much traction as a likely candidate for commercially-viable fusion; more scientists prefer the tokamak concept (squeeze a donut of high energy plasma with super powerful magnets). What they achieved last week was a record in terms of raw energy produced. That's definitely not first computer chip territory; that would be a prototype reactor that actually produces much more energy than it consumes and turning that excess into electricity, which the NIF is still nowhere close to accomplishing. The NIF / z-machine is a complete dead end for practical fusion of any type. Simplifying it a lot, the fuel it 'burns' are precision manufactured 'pellets' that are dropped into the target area one at a time. These pellets are expensive as heck, and there is no process for continuously feeding them. Though 'power output' is measured, there is no way to turn that into useful 'work', and no plans to even try. The money sunk into this place over the decades would have been better spent nearly anywhere else.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2021 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
EoRaptor posted:The NIF / z-machine is a complete dead end for practical fusion of any type. Simplifying it a lot, the fuel it 'burns' are precision manufactured 'pellets' that are dropped into the target area one at a time. These pellets are expensive as heck, and there is no process for continuously feeding them. Though 'power output' is measured, there is no way to turn that into useful 'work', and no plans to even try. That's a myopic view. The z machine does some amazing x ray research. Fusion isn't even at break even in a conceptual way yet, let alone a practical. We should not be dependent on it as a plan in any manner beyond a laboratory. We need to get better at magnetic confinement, and waaay better at material manufacturing that can withstand the plasma. Fission is the way for the next 20-50 years at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2021 01:35
|
|
|
There may not be a physical way to "trap" the neutrons regardless of what magnetic confinement we come up with. The breakthrough would more likely be in quickly/easily/cheaply resurfacing the reactor vessel and centrifuging out the transmuted elements from the old vessels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2021 01:43
|
|
|
Yeah its important to remember that INF might provide us a lot of good data, but at the end of the day, INF is mostly about feeding data to the DOE about the Nuclear Weapons programs, far less about Fusion power research.Infinite Karma posted:There may not be a physical way to "trap" the neutrons regardless of what magnetic confinement we come up with. The breakthrough would more likely be in quickly/easily/cheaply resurfacing the reactor vessel and centrifuging out the transmuted elements from the old vessels. My work was more in Fission than fusion, but I know there's a lot of research being done into neutron reflectors for immediately outside the magnetic containment sections to help trap/reflect neutrons that would otherwise be lost. Usually stuff like Beryllium with Carbon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2021 01:49
|
|
|
I thought this guy was more objective or sth? 'Every euro invested in nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse' Can nuclear energy help us meet climate goals? The editor of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, Mycle Schneider, says no. He explains his stance to DW.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:I thought this guy was more objective or sth? He's appealing to "Cheap Energy" And when you do that, its almost ALWAYS going to result in more fossil fuel usage. So he's talking out his rear end. Bonus: quote:Mycle Schneider is a Paris-based nuclear energy consultant and anti-nuclear activist. Hm, I wonder why he might think Nuclear can't help us. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Sep 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:I thought this guy was more objective or sth? This guy appears to have dedicated his entire career to promoting fossil fuels in the name of environmentalism, so no he can gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
Ha!, figures..I've read that Status Report from time to time and was under the impression that it was mostly objective and dry. Little did I know lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
He's always working for one anti-nuclear commission or another with a hidden funding source. I'm sure he sleeps on a fat bed of fossil fuel industry cash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
Kaal posted:He's always working for one anti-nuclear commission or another with a hidden funding source. I'm sure he sleeps on a fat bed of fossil fuel industry cash. To be fair a low of Green/Renwables groups are doing this stuff too, but yeah it seems like they align a lot with the Fossil fuel industry, which is disconcerting. Renewables and Nuclear need to align better. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Sep 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:05
|
|
|
is the magazine/thing he's an editor and consultant of also a proxy for hydrocarbons? like i get keeping tabs on your opponents, but this is like having Tobacco exec on a lung cancer board. ( this has probably happen)
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:is the magazine/thing he's an editor and consultant of also a proxy for hydrocarbons? You can skim through it here if you'd like. They generally speak glowingly of how complementary fossil gas is with renewables. They refer to "clean fossil fuels" and "natural gas" as "thermal energy" and celebrate the closure of every nuclear plant. They're funded by an array of Green Party lobbyist organizations that often have ties to fossil gas companies. The MacArthur Foundation is a massive American hedge fund with significant investments in fossil fuels; The NRDC is another hedge fund with similar types of oil and gas investments; the Heinrich Boll Foundation is the German Green Party's lobbyist group that is directly funded by the government; EWS is the largest of the Green Party's fossil gas companies; SES is the Swiss Energy Foundation, a lobbyist group urging the country to shutter nuclear, hydro, and international energy exchange projects in order to promote national fossil gas development. The list goes on and on. These people are a greenwashing plague on the environmental movement, and I don't see how they sleep at night. If we survive the climate crisis it will be in spite of them, not because of them. https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/wnisr2020-v2_hr.pdf Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Sep 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
welp, i hope non regressives and the lcd public at large super speedrun their position on atomz, like at this point people should be my specific school of contrarian thought. "Big hydrocarbon is anti it, therefore I'm pro it."
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
We need to find any traces of corruption, laundering, or conspiracy to kill millions through greenwashing activism - from these foundations and hedge funds. And shut them down. Doing so would help the long-term climate cause and direction this decade. I wonder what lobbyist groups would have that sort of muckraking power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 07:39
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:We need to find any traces of corruption, laundering, or conspiracy to kill millions through greenwashing activism - from these foundations and hedge funds. And shut them down. Doing so would help the long-term climate cause and direction this decade. And very few anti-fossil fuel groups are also pro-nuclear. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Curious about how they got organized. I'd guess as part of university engineering groups. The best group I'd seen that's unabashedly pro-nuclear and anti-fossil fuel is the American Nuclear Society, the college cohort especially. I remember about a dozen years back when one of the greenpeace founders went "yeah we actually need nuclear power to make energy green", generated a lot of buzz. Doesn't seem like the rest of greenpeace followed him, they're still on the "let's shutter nuclear plants and not at all consider the ramifications" train.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
Pander posted:I got bad news for you. Most of the nuke industry is made up of corporations with significant fossil fuel investments. So even the biggest pro-nuclear lobbies like the NEI are still never gonna talk poo poo about fossil fuel promoters. As a reminder Greepeace sells is own brand of natural gas that they have promised would be 100% renewable in 10 years for the last 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
Pander posted:I got bad news for you. Most of the nuke industry is made up of corporations with significant fossil fuel investments. So even the biggest pro-nuclear lobbies like the NEI are still never gonna talk poo poo about fossil fuel promoters. This is, unfortunately, very true. In fact a lot of newer blood in the Nuclear field are calling out groups for promoting fossil fuel talking points, even anti-Global Warming talking points. Its an uphill fight to be sure because a lot of the embedded experience in Nuclear associations and groups is older, conservative leaning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
karthun posted:As a reminder Greepeace sells is own brand of natural gas that they have promised would be 100% renewable in 10 years for the last 10 years. Green Nat Gas? How is that a thing? is this some bio fermenting thing with algae or yeast? Sounds like the biomass/wood pellet scam but with a few extra science steps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
You can make natural gas from waste materials via anaerobic digestion. I think you can also trap methane as it escapes from a landfill with the right setup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 19:59
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:You can make natural gas from waste materials via anaerobic digestion. I think you can also trap methane as it escapes from a landfill with the right setup. You can, yes, but in Greenpeace's case they put the cart before the horse and are now stuck selling fossil natural gas. And its kind of beside the point: We need to get away from carbon sourced energy period, this includes methane in general, and Greenpeace doesn't understand that nuclear does just that, they just are stuck on old, misinformed ideals about nuclear energy. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Sep 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Green Nat Gas? How is that a thing? is this some bio fermenting thing with algae or yeast? Sounds like the biomass/wood pellet scam but with a few extra science steps. It is only 5-10% biomass natural gas. Rest is traditional fossil nat gas. Greenpeace has said that moving to 100% no more then 10 years away for the last 10 years. It's like fusion bring 40 years away when it really is never.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
speaking of fermented methane, you can do small time biogas at home these days, with food scraps and poops. the same company is making a bigger one for restaurants to use. and farmers have been doing this for a while.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:speaking of fermented methane, you can do small time biogas at home these days, with food scraps and poops. the same company is making a bigger one for restaurants to use. and farmers have been doing this for a while. It's done on a reasonably large scale in the UK, although production of biomethane requires additional steps to biogas production per se. One of the wriggles is that the UK's gas quality standards are based on the rather wet gas that comes out of the north sea, so for grid injection most biomethane needs propane added to bring it up to spec. It's a good use for some wastes that would otherwise just rot, so I assume it'll continue into the future, most likely for GGR.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
karthun posted:As a reminder Greepeace sells is own brand of natural gas that they have promised would be 100% renewable in 10 years for the last 10 years. Nah. It's a co-op that uses the Greenpeace brand(and in which Greenpeace is a regular co-op member holding symbolic shares worth a couple hundred bucks). One of the products of the co-op is aimed at promoting electrolytic gas from renewables by creating market demand and investment opportunities for the technology. If you are in Germany and use gas at home for water heating or cooking and want to support the development of this technology, go ahead and use it. It's a good thing, despite obsessive internet contrarianism and media smears. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 10:31
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Nah. It's a co-op that uses the Greenpeace brand(and in which Greenpeace is a regular co-op member holding symbolic shares worth a couple hundred bucks). One of the products of the co-op is aimed at promoting electrolytic gas from renewables by creating market demand and investment opportunities for the technology. If you are in Germany and use gas at home for water heating or cooking and want to support the development of this technology, go ahead and use it. It's a good thing, despite obsessive internet contrarianism and media smears. Electrolysis produces hydrogen, not natural gas. While you can upgrade hydrogen to synthetic methane that requires a non-fossil carbon source to ensure you're genuinely delivering emissions reduction, as well as a very expensive and energy intensive conversion process. Is that what they're doing? Because I would be very surprised if so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 11:29
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Electrolysis produces hydrogen, not natural gas. While you can upgrade hydrogen to synthetic methane that requires a non-fossil carbon source to ensure you're genuinely delivering emissions reduction, as well as a very expensive and energy intensive conversion process. Is that what they're doing? Because I would be very surprised if so. They are mixing hydrogen gas directly into the gas supply infrastructure. Up to 10-20% hydrogen is generally considered acceptable and safe IRC
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 12:23
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Nah. It's a co-op that uses the Greenpeace brand(and in which Greenpeace is a regular co-op member holding symbolic shares worth a couple hundred bucks). One of the products of the co-op is aimed at promoting electrolytic gas from renewables by creating market demand and investment opportunities for the technology. If you are in Germany and use gas at home for water heating or cooking and want to support the development of this technology, go ahead and use it. It's a good thing, despite obsessive internet contrarianism and media smears. Aethernet posted:Electrolysis produces hydrogen, not natural gas. While you can upgrade hydrogen to synthetic methane that requires a non-fossil carbon source to ensure you're genuinely delivering emissions reduction, as well as a very expensive and energy intensive conversion process. Is that what they're doing? Because I would be very surprised if so. so it turns out they're still pretty invested in renewable energy. one of their initiatives is an electrolytically derived hydrogen gas powered by renewable energy. fossil NG comprises about 15% of their energy portfolio. i think where they really took heat, and deservedly so despite what GABA ghoul insists is a media smear, is that they market their gas product as ecologically friendly. up until last year it was 99% fossil gas and 1% hydrogen. last year they added 10% biogas to the mix, so it's now 89% fossil gas, 10% biogas, and 1% hydrogen. supposedly they plan to transition entirely away from fossil gas by 2027. make of this what you will. they also tried to sue europe for helping fund a nuclear project in england so
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 12:24
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Electrolysis produces hydrogen, not natural gas. While you can upgrade hydrogen to synthetic methane that requires a non-fossil carbon source to ensure you're genuinely delivering emissions reduction, as well as a very expensive and energy intensive conversion process. Is that what they're doing? Because I would be very surprised if so. Your skepticism is entirely warranted, because less than one percent of the Greenpeace Gas mix is "green hydrogen". They basically were going nowhere with electrolysis, because there's very little excess wind energy (apparently someone kept agitating for German nuclear plants to be closed). This year the company began offering optional services that mix in about 10 percent biogas, mostly derived from paludiculture (wet peatland agriculture) or sugar beet composting. It really should be pointed out that the company is very small and only able to serve about 30,000 customers. Most gas companies are offering some form of biogas harvesting, generally from sewage treatment. https://www.greenpeace-energy.de/privatkunden/gas/unser-gas-im-detail.html https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/9/2198/htm Kaal fucked around with this message at 13:03 on Sep 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 12:38
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:so it turns out they're still pretty invested in renewable energy. one of their initiatives is an electrolytically derived hydrogen gas powered by renewable energy. fossil NG comprises about 15% of their energy portfolio. i think where they really took heat, and deservedly so despite what GABA ghoul insists is a media smear, is that they market their gas product as ecologically friendly. up until last year it was 99% fossil gas and 1% hydrogen. last year they added 10% biogas to the mix, so it's now 89% fossil gas, 10% biogas, and 1% hydrogen. supposedly they plan to transition entirely away from fossil gas by 2027. make of this what you will. Can you actually provide any evidence of anyone ever being misled by this tiny rear end glorified Patreon for electrolyzer operators? Or maybe show some misleading claims or information material? I know some random English speaking blogs with an axe to grind shitposted about it and now it is common knowledge on the internet that "Greenpeace is selling gas", but is there any factual basis for calling it misleading?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 13:12
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Can you actually provide any evidence of anyone ever being misled by this tiny rear end glorified Patreon for electrolyzer operators? Or maybe show some misleading claims or information material? I know some random English speaking blogs with an axe to grind shitposted about it and now it is common knowledge on the internet that "Greenpeace is selling gas", but is there any factual basis for calling it misleading? Again, they are selling normal imported Russian gas. You appear to be misled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Can you actually provide any evidence of anyone ever being misled by this tiny rear end glorified Patreon for electrolyzer operators? Or maybe show some misleading claims or information material? I know some random English speaking blogs with an axe to grind shitposted about it and now it is common knowledge on the internet that "Greenpeace is selling gas", but is there any factual basis for calling it misleading? This is called greenwashing, and all of the big fossil fuel companies do it. They publicly emphasize token investment in green energy and underemphasize that they are predominantly a fossil fuel company. With this mix, and these goals, Greenpeace Energy is as much of a green company as British Petroleum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:With this mix, and these goals, Greenpeace Energy is as much of a green company as British Petroleum. i’d buy that if bp sourced a majority of their energy from renewable methods. greenpeace energy says only 15% of their sales are natural gas (i can’t find a breakdown by mwh equivalents though and i’m sure it would show a bit more). with that said i find it telling that they changed the name of the energy coop because of the scrutiny on their ng sales. they are swearing to stick to a goal of no fossil ng in their gas blends by 2027. no clue if they’ll make it. they deserve scrutiny for this gas stuff but i still hope they’re successful. they’re small potatoes anyway but it’s interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:i’d buy that if bp sourced a majority of their energy from renewable methods. greenpeace energy says only 15% of their sales are natural gas (i can’t find a breakdown by mwh equivalents though and i’m sure it would show a bit more). According to Greenpeace Energy, their "green" gas mixture is 89% natural gas right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 23:29
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:According to Greenpeace Energy, their "green" gas mixture is 89% natural gas right now. yes i posted that earlier in the thread but that gas is only a fraction of their current energy sales
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:According to Greenpeace Energy, their "green" gas mixture is 89% natural gas right now. It's not their "green" gas. It's not named that way, it's not advertised that way. It's a product explicitly designed to do one thing and it does it. poo poo you read on blogs on the internet isn't always correct
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 08:18
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:It's not their "green" gas. It's not named that way, it's not advertised that way. It's a product explicitly designed to do one thing and it does it. poo poo you read on blogs on the internet isn't always correct They call themselves Greenpeace Energy (and soon Green Planet Energy), everything has a green colorscheme and they call it ProWindgas, even though electrolysed hydrogen makes up less than a percent of the mix.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 11:53
|
|
|
It's still mostly Natural Gas, and is entirely the opposite of what Germany should be doing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:yes i posted that earlier in the thread but that gas is only a fraction of their current energy sales Yes, they do also provide wind and solar electricity directly to the grid. But their gas product is 90% natural gas while being marketed as a green product; that's the rub. Like here's a profile statement that they wrote: https://www.greenpeace-energy.de/fileadmin/docs/sonstiges/GPE_Profile_EN.pdf proWindgas is the name of their product that started off as 100% natural gas, and that currently contains 1% H2 from wind energy. That name seems pretty misleading to me! QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Sep 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:It's not their "green" gas. It's not named that way, it's not advertised that way. It's a product explicitly designed to do one thing and it does it. poo poo you read on blogs on the internet isn't always correct See my previous post, in which I cite a statement that Greenpeace Energy published. It would seem that you're the one believing poo poo they read on blogs on the internet
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yes, they do also provide wind and solar electricity directly to the grid. But their gas product is 90% natural gas while being marketed as a green product; that's the rub. yes, i pointed this out earlier in the thread, i just don't think a company that sells 85% renewables is "just like" bp even if they're doing stupid poo poo too
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 18:30
|
|