|
CommieGIR posted:For energy generation (the scope of this thread) yes. However, there are other things fossil sourced components are used in that we don't have green tech answers for yet. Alea iacta est
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
Kaal posted:Alea iacta est Yes, it is. But either way, cutting fossil fuels out of energy generation entirely is a significant impact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
I mean, absent a suitable public policy in place one might not want to cheer high natural gas prices if only because the short-term effect is likely to be to make coal plants more economic to dispatch and to push back their retirement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
It's almost like we need to nationalize electricity production, so that we can simultaneously prioritize green sources and make electricity more affordable using wealth taxes
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 02:20
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's almost like we need to nationalize electricity production, so that we can simultaneously prioritize green sources and make electricity more affordable using wealth taxes That sounds like Socialism, friend (and I agree, we should. Especially to listen to Texas' gigantic tears as we nationalize their grid)
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 02:45
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's almost like we need to nationalize electricity production, so that we can simultaneously prioritize green sources and make electricity more affordable using wealth taxes That's communist! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 06:27
|
|
|
https://www.ft.com/content/31a05474-1de8-459e-9bf2-65bfedbe8875 This is excellent news, as it points to a future where repowering wind farms is routine and can have minimal environmental impact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 06:40
|
|
|
I agree that fossil fuels should be priced out of the market, but the flip side is that high prices encourages exploitation of marginal fossil fuel sources such as tar sands etc. Low prices for fossil fuels should result in a lot of wells, mines, conversion etc being uneconomical and that carbon remaining out of the atmosphere. High taxes on fossil fuels to ensure the externalities are costed in? That's worth pursuing. I'm sure I've been overly simplistic here so happy to be educated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 09:44
|
|
|
The "tax the externalities" bit, in a perfect world, would be great: "Perform permanent DAC and sequestration yourself, ton for ton as you emit it that day, or pay the state to do it" ideally, that's how capitalism should work, but as we all know, capitalism is implemented globally to provide a fig leaf of cover over the massive subsidy represented by the lack of responsibility for externalities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us-france-koreaquote:Nuclear construction costs in the US did spiral out of control, especially after the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979. But this wasn't universal. Countries like France, Japan, and Canada kept costs fairly stable during this period. And South Korea actually drove nuclear costs down, at a rate similar to what you see for solar. Studying these countries can offer lessons for how to make nuclear cheaper — so that it can become a useful clean energy resource around the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Tear up the pipelines, destroy the coal plants, sink the oil wells, and then tax carbon on top of that. Society is only going to shift to green technology when that is the cheapest and easiest way available. It's going to be hard to innovate and shift to green technologies when half the population is dead and the survivors are desperate for food and water
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:It's going to be hard to innovate and shift to green technologies when half the population is dead and the survivors are desperate for food and water Yeah I guess we'll just see if society collapses into the ground if gas prices go over $4/gallon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Yeah I guess we'll just see if society collapses into the ground if gas prices go over $4/gallon. That's still ridiculously cheap compared to other places in the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That's still ridiculously cheap compared to other places in the world. I considered a different version of the joke where I compared American gas prices to those in Europe, but it wasn't as snappy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
Kaal posted:High fossil fuel prices are only good. Impose carbon taxes on top of them. The world is never going to address the climate crisis if oil is cheaper than water. Yes and no. What we really isn’t high or low energy prices but energy prices that are stable. What we do not want during the energy transition is wild price swings that we’re seeing with Natural Gas because all this will likely do is drive up prices for consumers to the point of even supply shortages - which could be a very real possibly in Asia. Renewables are already cost competitive with fossil fuels, it’s now getting them scale which is the freaking tough part while demand is still growing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Renewables are already cost competitive with fossil fuels, it’s now getting them scale which is the freaking tough part while demand is still growing. They're cost competitive when they're available, not so much when the wind isn't blowing or the sun is down, which is the forever argument we face in this thread. You need some reliable form of always available power or a breakthrough in storage, which seeing as how the breakthrough hasn't happened yet is why so many people in this thread are fond of nuclear. If we're really facing a crisis (which personally I'm not worried about but is still a common view), then the additional cost to build out nuclear is nothing in the grand scheme of things (same with disposing of nuclear waste). And as I've said before, regulatory and environmental law reform could make nuclear and distribution of both nuclear and renewable power a lot quicker, easier, and cheaper. But say you want to reform something like CERCLA and the default response is "you hate the environment," not "oh sometimes laws have unintended (or intended but not disclosed) consequences that let NIMBYs control the future."
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 02:07
|
|
|
Putting aside the nuclear question, a bigger problem is that society is just uninterested and unwilling to steer as many resources towards non-carbon energy as is actually required. Where are our mass engineering storage projects, where are our massive state renewable projects. More and more money is being funneled, but it's still nowhere near enough and above it's still mostly incentive money rather than any kind of war economy where the state directly intervenes in education, construction and investment. Market is dominant and markets say investment goes to gas. Hundreds of thousands of people every year across the US and EU are learning skills which are only usable in fossil fuel industries. It's so blatantly backward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 05:46
|
|
|
Possibly good news from Japan, likely incoming Prime Minister wants any and all reactors that are available to be restarted https://twitter.com/Knjshiraishi/status/1443106560985628677?s=20
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:They're cost competitive when they're available, not so much when the wind isn't blowing or the sun is down, which is the forever argument we face in this thread. You need some reliable form of always available power or a breakthrough in storage, which seeing as how the breakthrough hasn't happened yet is why so many people in this thread are fond of nuclear. If we're really facing a crisis (which personally I'm not worried about but is still a common view), then the additional cost to build out nuclear is nothing in the grand scheme of things (same with disposing of nuclear waste). And as I've said before, regulatory and environmental law reform could make nuclear and distribution of both nuclear and renewable power a lot quicker, easier, and cheaper. Unless the renewables are in space, where sunlight is constant and NIMBYs are absent: https://t.co/wIlZ6SiL7Z?amp=1 This is a real study commissioned by the UK government, published yesterday, claiming space solar is probs cheaper than nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 17:39
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Unless the renewables are in space, where sunlight is constant and NIMBYs are absent: Again, anytime someone says "Its cheaper than nuclear" I have to scoff because we are not getting out of this mess on the cheap. Period. Its expecting the Free Market (r) to save us from The Free Market. Either we're willing to do anything to fight climate change, or we're not unless its cheap. And if it has to be cheap, then we're likely hosed. https://twitter.com/StandUp4Nuclear/status/1443271749055832064?s=20 CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Sep 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 17:42
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Unless the renewables are in space, where sunlight is constant and NIMBYs are absent: Terrestrial solar is cheaper than space solar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Unless the renewables are in space, where sunlight is constant and NIMBYs are absent: I don't know if you can really take their cost model seriously, since it is a very speculative technology. One of the items they highlighted in the article was that they were going to assemble the phased array antenna, which goes on the satellite, in space, with autonomous robots. But still lol that it is cheaper than nuclear later edit: I love how CommieGIR's response to the space boondoggle power plant report was not to question the cost model but to go into his standard spiel about how cost of energy doesn't matter silence_kit fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Oct 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 00:35
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:They're cost competitive when they're available, not so much when the wind isn't blowing or the sun is down, which is the forever argument we face in this thread. You need some reliable form of always available power or a breakthrough in storage, which seeing as how the breakthrough hasn't happened yet is why so many people in this thread are fond of nuclear. If we're really facing a crisis (which personally I'm not worried about but is still a common view), then the additional cost to build out nuclear is nothing in the grand scheme of things (same with disposing of nuclear waste). And as I've said before, regulatory and environmental law reform could make nuclear and distribution of both nuclear and renewable power a lot quicker, easier, and cheaper. Right on but the sun isn’t going to shine all day, the wind isn’t going to always blow and people even TYOOL are still afraid of Nuclear. That only leaves as you said either massive breakthroughs in storage - OR - practically we need to massively overbuild renewables. That seems like the most pragmatic solution unless we’re ready for a massive pro-nuclear political campaign but given today’s politics I don’t think that is going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 01:40
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I don't know if you can really take their cost model seriously, since it is a very speculative technology. One of the items they highlighted in the article was that they were going to assemble the phased array antenna, which goes on the satellite, in space, with autonomous robots. You can launch the rockets from anywhere and no one can NIMBY you in space (yet).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 01:46
|
|
|
astronomers are nimby, but Musk and other techbros are dumbasses that dont care.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 04:10
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:You can launch the rockets from anywhere and no one can NIMBY you in space (yet). The rectenna needed to receive the power is alas several square kilometres in size, so there's plenty of scope for NIMBYs to gently caress this one up too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 13:43
|
|
|
NIMGEO!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 13:48
|
|
|
Oops, didn't want to sweep those radiotelescopes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:The rectenna needed to receive the power is alas several square kilometres in size, so there's plenty of scope for NIMBYs to gently caress this one up too. Also, where are you going to be launching all your stuff from? Are you going to build a spaceport?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Unless the renewables are in space, where sunlight is constant and NIMBYs are absent: This dates back to the 1970’s. Solar Satellites, microwaves to beam energy to earth. I even attended Gerald K O’Nell’s Princeton event (as a PENN undergrad) in 1977.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Also, where are you going to be launching all your stuff from? Are you going to build a spaceport? Uh is this post serious? You don't need your own space port to launch satellites
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 22:43
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Uh is this post serious? You don't need your own space port to launch satellites You need a space port, and the NIMBYists have an opportunity to prevent things like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
boris johnson had a case of galaxy brain and wants a galactic britain, flying british spaceships from british spaceports located on the british isles. britain is a place famously well-situated to serve all major launch markets and not just the like two polar orbit launches every year that can also be done from a normal launch site by using a bigger rocket. i don't think i'm going to be proven wrong within the foreseeable future if i just default to taking some unknown consultancy's report about britannic solar space beams as seriously as any other piece of PR fluff coming out of her majesty's government
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 11:49
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Phanatic posted:You need a space port, and the NIMBYists have an opportunity to prevent things like that. you don't need one if you just sensibly buy launches at someone else's spaceport, meaning it's someone else's nimby problem however you still need to place some receivers into the british countryside which have nowhere to go that isn't also full of rich landowners who will cry bloody murder. i guess you can just hand them a hundred million pounds in unmarked 50 pound bills to shut up or foist the things on the scots because they'll never vote for you anyway (but maybe they'll just secede and hold your power grid hostage). also you need to somehow retool the struggling british engineering and r&d sectors to somehow create affordable automated in orbit assembly which is uhhh physically possible i guess but i'm not holding my breath for the brits to do it within the next several decades suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Oct 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 11:52
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:The rectenna needed to receive the power is alas several square kilometres in size, so there's plenty of scope for NIMBYs to gently caress this one up too. The logical location for that is the offshore world farms the UK already building, despite the objections of NIMBYs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-47400641 I guess some people in HMG have worked out that if solar power does becomes the only viable way of generating electricity, the UK, which gets perhaps 3 sunny days a year, is hosed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 12:13
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:boris johnson had a case of galaxy brain and wants a galactic britain, flying british spaceships from british spaceports located on the british isles. britain is a place famously well-situated to serve all major launch markets and not just the like two polar orbit launches every year that can also be done from a normal launch site by using a bigger rocket. They could use Diego Garcia but then you'd have all the expense of setting up a remote space port and shipping to it, when you could just buy access elsewhere. So unless it's a sovereign capability play, it's probably not feasible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 12:25
|
|
|
The UK won't touch Diego Garcia, that's American for all intents and purposes, and the less they interact with it the more they can just ignore the Chaggosians
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 13:16
|
|
|
The UK space port is supposed to be in actual Britain, as in the oversized rainy island to the north of France, not some more sensibly located rock acquired when the empire was still doing better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 13:31
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:This dates back to the 1970’s. Solar Satellites, microwaves to beam energy to earth. Oh yeah, it is an old idea. It was probably a more attractive idea back when it was expensive to produce solar panels. People were really more into ideas like this and engineering solar concentrators back then. If you point a solar cell at a more concentrated resource, you don't need to manufacture as many to get the same power output. The solar cell can be slightly more efficient too. All other things being equal, pointing the solar cell at a more concentrated resource improves the output voltage of the cell--the more intense solar source leads to a higher build-up of excited state electrons in the cell which can be extracted from the cell at higher voltages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 14:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
silence_kit posted:Oh yeah, it is an old idea. It was probably a more attractive idea back when it was expensive to produce solar panels. People were really more into ideas like this and engineering solar concentrators back then. If you point a solar cell at a more concentrated resource, you don't need to manufacture as many to get the same power output. I wonder if you used a lower power version over a city-sized region you would have a thing that could power phones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 19:14
|
|