|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Why can't we (both the US and the rest of the EU) just work with the French and the Canadians? The French are already in an open market with the rest of the EU, and us Americans seem to have less of a knee jerk reaction to Canada compared to the rest of the world. You still need fields of antennas if you don't want to fry something by accident, it takes a lot of space in orbit (as if astronomers didn't already hate Starlink, now you get light AND microwave pollution) and you have to get it all into space to begin with. Just go with a good mix of terrestrial solutions.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
in addition aren't space-rated solar panels rather more costly than ones used here on earth? even above and beyond the costs and considerations required to get them into orbit in the first place
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2022 15:34
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:in addition aren't space-rated solar panels rather more costly than ones used here on earth? even above and beyond the costs and considerations required to get them into orbit in the first place The vetting alone is dramatically more expensive than terrestrial slapper-on-a-ruff panels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Also is space based solar for Earth based energy A Thing That Could Happen or is that just a bunch of infeasible bullshit? A system that gets 24/7 sunlight seems like it'd resolve the storage issues with renewables. Electricity generation is a cost problem. Going into space is High Cost. This UK report that Aethernet linked https://t.co/wIlZ6SiL7Z?amp=1 posited things like remote automated assembly of a complicated active electronically steered phased array antenna by robots in space in order to get the cost down. The antenna array transmits the electricity generated by the solar cells in space to the ground station receiving antenna, in the form of RF electricity. I don't think you can take the cost predictions in the report very seriously. I'm not sure that storage is really an issue with the continued adoption of intermittent renewable electricity generation sources. Currently wind and solar generate ~12% of the US's electricity. This is predicted by the EIA to almost triple to 32% in 2050. The prediction is that most of this will be due to increased adoption of solar. This is assuming no new storage technology. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/04%20AEO2021%20Electricity.pdf edit: mediaphage posted:in addition aren't space-rated solar panels rather more costly than ones used here on earth? even above and beyond the costs and considerations required to get them into orbit in the first place I'm not sure how fundamental the cost of III-V semi-conductor multi-junction space solar cells is. The space solar cell industry is a very boutique industry. I suspect that there isn't a huge driver to reduce the cost of these cells, given all of the other costs to go into outer space. edit2: A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Why can't we (both the US and the rest of the EU) just work with the French and the Canadians? The French are already in an open market with the rest of the EU, and us Americans seem to have less of a knee jerk reaction to Canada compared to the rest of the world. Do the French and the Canadians actually need to generate a lot of electricity? Their manufacturing output is very small when compared to heavy hitters like China & the US. For that reason, it might be more practical for them to pay the high costs for nuclear electricity, when compared to countries who more meaningfully produce products for the world to enjoy. E.g. China is only 5% nuclear powered. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Feb 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2022 15:39
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Do the French and the Canadians actually need to generate a lot of electricity? Their manufacturing output is very small when compared to heavy hitters like China & the US. For that reason, it might be more practical for them to pay the high costs for nuclear electricity, when compared to countries who more meaningfully produce products for the world to enjoy. E.g. China is only 5% nuclear powered. In France's case they are a major electricity exporter, so yeah. Even then, France actually has a lot of manufacturing still including Aerospace and Automotive manufacturing. They are not actually a small time player there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Do the French and the Canadians actually need to generate a lot of electricity? Their manufacturing output is very small when compared to heavy hitters like China & the US. For that reason, it might be more practical for them to pay the high costs for nuclear electricity, when compared to countries who more meaningfully produce products for the world to enjoy. E.g. China is only 5% nuclear powered. it is perhaps small potatoes compared to massive industrial processes, i don't actually know. but a large majority of heating in canada, despite recent updated building codes, is from carbon fuels. (and it gets real bad in the maritimes, where they still burn oil)  over time ofc you could build sufficiently insulated homes that the power requirements should drop precipitously but we're a long way from that
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
My current apartment got really drat cold this winter even with the heating at full blast. Felt like there was a draft or a leak. I was able to get away with no heating until about midway through december but early january I nope'd out of that attempt to save on power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:it is perhaps small potatoes compared to massive industrial processes, i don't actually know. but a large majority of heating in canada, despite recent updated building codes, is from carbon fuels. (and it gets real bad in the maritimes, where they still burn oil) You can probably swap a lot of that oil out for heat pumps with an appropriate policy push - just look at the Scandis, with a similar climate but with massive penetration of HPs. Insulation helps, but is less vital for modern devices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:You can probably swap a lot of that oil out for heat pumps with an appropriate policy push - just look at the Scandis, with a similar climate but with massive penetration of HPs. Insulation helps, but is less vital for modern devices. sure, i don't disagree. just noting that there's a lot of power that needs to be made up eventually. with a bunch of conservative provincial governments i'm not sure i see much room for policy pushes that aren't federal, i think. maybe in quebec.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:sure, i don't disagree. just noting that there's a lot of power that needs to be made up eventually. with a bunch of conservative provincial governments i'm not sure i see much room for policy pushes that aren't federal, i think. maybe in quebec. You'd think the Maritimes would catch on to the potential of offshore wind, but as far as I can tell there's not a single operational offshore wind farm in Canada. That's pretty much just leaving money on the table at current prices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2022 19:13
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:You'd think the Maritimes would catch on to the potential of offshore wind, but as far as I can tell there's not a single operational offshore wind farm in Canada. That's pretty much just leaving money on the table at current prices. yeah, agree. there was a huge project planned for the maritimes, but it was delayed and now that company's url doesn't resolve
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Why can't we (both the US and the rest of the EU) just work with the French and the Canadians? The French are already in an open market with the rest of the EU, and us Americans seem to have less of a knee jerk reaction to Canada compared to the rest of the world. France is a bit protective of their industry, for a variety of reasons (national security, protection of french industry and jobs, general politics) so nobody has done much with licensing out their designs. Canada split up AECL a while back, selling the reactor design/licensing parts to SNC-Lavalin <cough>, and requiring the remaining 'crown corporation' to outsource all its day to day operations. It's effectively dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:In France's case they are a major electricity exporter, so yeah. Even then, France actually has a lot of manufacturing still including Aerospace and Automotive manufacturing. They are not actually a small time player there. Aethernet posted:You can probably swap a lot of that oil out for heat pumps with an appropriate policy push - just look at the Scandis, with a similar climate but with massive penetration of HPs. Insulation helps, but is less vital for modern devices. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Feb 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 09:13
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The thing with France is that they've found themselves an exporter in no small part because of Germany's incompetence/willful negligence (lots of high up peeps have a vested interest in getting Germany hooked on russian energy). I thought it was also a postwar German policy to make themselves dependent on other nations so that they don't start more wars and get economic influence over their trading partners.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 09:52
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:I thought it was also a postwar German policy to make themselves dependent on other nations so that they don't start more wars and get economic influence over their trading partners. To an extent yes but that was never supposed to be steered by substantial cheap personal investment in a single country's supply, especially for a critical sector it was never supposed to be a policy of putting all eggs in one other country's basket - an obvious aggressor's basket to boot
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 12:59
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:To an extent yes but that was never supposed to be steered by substantial cheap personal investment in a single country's supply, especially for a critical sector But they don't invest in just a single countrys supply? They import electricity from all their neighbors, not just France or Poland. For fossil fuels it is mainly Russian, Norwegian, American, British, and Dutch fossil fuels, roughly in order of import amount. In total Russia supplies approximately 22% of the total energy consumption for Germany but they are hardly the only suppliers, being about as big as the next two or three major suppliers combined. The point is though, that Germany seem to be perfectly fine with importing a lot of their energy needs and don't really seem to see it as a problem that they will end up buying Russian gas or French nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 14:04
|
|
|
Another study finding that an all-renewable grid is perfectly doable. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/02/20/texas-energy-winter-renewable-jacobson-dessler-rogan/
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Another study finding that an all-renewable grid is perfectly doable. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/02/20/texas-energy-winter-renewable-jacobson-dessler-rogan/ Yeah, no. There's only one grid where this has worked: South Australia, but its a low demand grid. Nobody else has done this with actual industrial grid demand. Renewables alone is just a selling point for Natural Gas. I'm going to remain skeptical of renewables only as long as it continues to be encouraged, mysteriously, by groups with Natural Gas directly benefiting. Every other places where they contend its 100% Renewables: Its for specific periods of time, not continuously, or ignores things like access to hydro and geothermal. Then you get the other side with these people praising 13,000 acres of solar panels as "progress". CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Feb 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Another study finding that an all-renewable grid is perfectly doable. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/02/20/texas-energy-winter-renewable-jacobson-dessler-rogan/ I would have to dig into that study, as the article as written makes me suspect their assumptions. That WaPo article states that “energy demand” will be down 57% in 2050 if the grid transitions to renewables and electrical energy is used for more processes like cars and heating. If the modeled that as less electrical usage, then of course a renewable grid can keep up. But the reality is switching to more electrical heating and transportation is going to keep electrical demand constant or increase it. I also liked (sarcasm, not really) that they used a simple 30 second model for weather. I bet all they did was model weather patterns for load and generation. I bet they did not take any transmission constraints or reactive power issues into account. Those are solvable, but add a significant cost to this whole undertaking that is not being captured. It’s great (this time truth) that places are pushing for renewables. But without looking at the whole picture, they are setting things up for failure when reality sets in and the extra costs add a factor of 10-100 to what’s needed. Then everyone throws their hands in the air and says that natural gas will keep working.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 16:46
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Another study finding that an all-renewable grid is perfectly doable. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/02/20/texas-energy-winter-renewable-jacobson-dessler-rogan/ That's another one of Jacobson's greatest hits. Considering the guy previously made all renewable models work by literally sliding the decimal point one to the right and tried to sue other researchers for pointing that out I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 17:00
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
suck my woke dick posted:That's another one of Jacobson's greatest hits. Considering the guy previously made all renewable models work by literally sliding the decimal point one to the right and tried to sue other researchers for pointing that out I'm not holding my breath. Oh yeah, I forgot he tried to sue (and withdrew, as well as was forced to pay the lawyer fees for the defense) the National Academy of Sciences for pointing out he was largely rigging the studies and models to be favorable to his premise. https://www.science.org/content/article/10-million-lawsuit-over-disputed-energy-study-sparks-twitter-war
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:That's another one of Jacobson's greatest hits. Considering the guy previously made all renewable models work by literally sliding the decimal point one to the right and tried to sue other researchers for pointing that out I'm not holding my breath. This helps to explain why my first instinct was something seemed really off about that study.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/arvindpawan1/status/1495633882544316416?s=20&t=tWZgsCo-QfkLxpmYJvHxrA https://twitter.com/nicknet100/status/1495881672520347656?s=20&t=tWZgsCo-QfkLxpmYJvHxrA
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
All the "100% renewables" studies are absolutely correct in that it's possible in a purely technical and engineering sense. In the same way that the hyperloop is possible. The key metric is obviously cost and omitting it makes studies like that as worthless as Dar Insaat videos. I suppose a lot of people are resistant to viewing it through the lens of economics since we're talking about saving the planet from climate apocalypse and the destructive forces of capitalism and so on so cost really shouldn't be an issue. But it loving is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 13:30
|
|
|
ROFL https://twitter.com/zacharybasu/status/1496082574384549888 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 14:07
|
|
|
"We'll just certify it quietly at a later date" - Germany https://twitter.com/MaxSaltori/status/1495461640590004227?s=20&t=ayzzAnYPynijN4wcezMgqA Owling Howl posted:All the "100% renewables" studies are absolutely correct in that it's possible in a purely technical and engineering sense. In the same way that the hyperloop is possible. The key metric is obviously cost and omitting it makes studies like that as worthless as Dar Insaat videos. The problem is again: When we say we want to save the planet, and say using things like Renewables + Nuclear, it turns into "That's too expensive and slow". Suddenly saving the planet is only acceptable on a budget. Its freaking tiring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 14:13
|
|
|
The reason to talk about energy generation in economic terms is that it enables you to leverage existing power systems. When fossil fuels are recognized as fundamentally more expensive than green energy sources, you can act with alacrity in concert with sociopolitical forces rather than against them. The rapid expansion of solar and wind - driven both by tax subsidies and production innovations that reduced prices - can be seen as a good example of this principle in action.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 14:59
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The reason to talk about energy generation in economic terms is that it enables you to leverage existing power systems. When fossil fuels are recognized as fundamentally more expensive than green energy sources, you can act with alacrity in concert with sociopolitical forces rather than against them. The rapid expansion of solar and wind - driven both by tax subsidies and production innovations that reduced prices - can be seen as a good example of this principle in action. The problem being the existing power systems are largely controlled by interests that favor fossil fuels due to political will. Solar and Wind being cheaper is not going to change that because a few lobbyist phone calls is all its needed to ensure the status quo remains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The problem being the existing power systems are largely controlled by interests that favor fossil fuels due to political will. Solar and Wind being cheaper is not going to change that because a few lobbyist phone calls is all its needed to ensure the status quo remains. While the idea of leveraging existing power systems may threaten those whose priority is to dismantle them, the climate crisis is far too critical to subordinate below political goals. We cannot wait for capitalism to collapse or a global socialist revolution before making constructive progress on an existential threat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 15:09
|
|
|
Kaal posted:While the idea of leveraging existing power systems may threaten those whose priority is to dismantle them, the climate crisis is far too critical to subordinate below political goals. We cannot wait for capitalism to collapse or a global socialist revolution before making constructive progress on an existential threat. Agreed, but that's why I loathe when people pretend capitalism is going to save us with cheap energy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 15:11
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The reason to talk about energy generation in economic terms is that it enables you to leverage existing power systems. When fossil fuels are recognized as fundamentally more expensive than green energy sources, you can act with alacrity in concert with sociopolitical forces rather than against them. The rapid expansion of solar and wind - driven both by tax subsidies and production innovations that reduced prices - can be seen as a good example of this principle in action. The problem is that this approach fundamentally confuses economic constraints as resource constraints. And as hard as most developed countries' economic systems try to shove that square peg into a round hole, it's an abstract representation that breaks down when talking about national priorities. Nuclear plants require specialized labor, lots of concrete and steel, and some refined fuel. Solar plants require specialized (but less so) labor, and lots of concrete, steel, and glass. On some level these can be weighed against each other based on the costs but this breaks down almost immediately - just adjusting the discount rate on the capital costs can result in wildly varying comparisons that swing the analysis in any direction you want. In a crisis those constraints become physical ones rather than financial ones. Climate change just isn't being treated as a crisis (yet).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:But they don't invest in just a single countrys supply? They import electricity from all their neighbors, not just France or Poland. For fossil fuels it is mainly Russian, Norwegian, American, British, and Dutch fossil fuels, roughly in order of import amount. In total Russia supplies approximately 22% of the total energy consumption for Germany but they are hardly the only suppliers, being about as big as the next two or three major suppliers combined. I see where you and I are disconnecting here. I am talking specifically about natural gas, about half of which Germany imports from Russia. The overwhelming majority of the rest comes from Norway and the Netherlands. Natural gas imports and electricity imports may both broadly be energy industry topics, but as far as heating consumers are concerned they're not quickly or inexpensively interchangeable for each other. They do indeed have a problem there; all of Europe has a problem right now with underwhelming investment in either baseline generation or transmission/storage capabilities and renewables blends that would permit an extremely-renewables-heavy generation industry to serve as suitable substitute. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Feb 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2022 14:30
|
|
|
"An adversary state can beep boop turn off 20% of our energy portfolio, including half our natgas" is baaaaaaaaaaaaaad. Did you see Donald Trump praising the invasion of Ukraine in no uncertain terms recently? Germany cannot count on American support for NATO, not with American leadership as demonstrably unreliable as it is. Christ, have you been following the mess after mess after mess that the current administration has been making? Any sane defense planner in Europe needs to be making the rational assessments that it's probably all downhill for dependable American involvement in European peacekeeping from here. Yes, I see defense planning and strategic energy investment through the same lens. Anyone paying attention since 1915 ought to as well. I also see defense planning and strategic mindfulness in national investments as important responsibilities for any policy of pacifism to work. Germans have a choice to either: 1) recognize that their doctrine of creating lasting peace through deep economic ties applies to allied states, neutral states, and even states with chilly relationships, NOT states with actively hot and hostile imperial designs just next door 2) keep getting exploited Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Feb 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The problem is again: When we say we want to save the planet, and say using things like Renewables + Nuclear, it turns into "That's too expensive and slow". Suddenly saving the planet is only acceptable on a budget. Its freaking tiring. It's a different kind of problem than that, "we can do it entirely with renewables" becomes "we don't need nuclear power, shut those down" becomes "we need more fossil fuels!" This is literally what happened in Germany. Unrealizable energy plans are also routinely used to create disappointment in renewable energy. When the plan requires nearly every home to have rooftop panels and battery storage by 2050, it's important to consider alternatives
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's a different kind of problem than that, "we can do it entirely with renewables" becomes "we don't need nuclear power, shut those down" becomes "we need more fossil fuels!" This is literally what happened in Germany. The other problem as well is the idea that long term projects are somehow not worth it? Like: Most of the largest and successful projects humanity has done have not been quick wins. Nuclear programs take time and the time, money, and effort to do so is worthwhile if it leads to us, at a future date, ending fossil fuel energy generation everywhere we can. “Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
solar panels on every rooftop, an SMR in every pot Seriously, from my perspective with a focus on climate change and the sheer gargantuan amount of cheap energy we are expected to have at our disposal by 2040 and 2050 to get on to any optimistic RCP track, every single renewables and nuclear project just needs to be rubber stamped as fast as possible right now. we are going to need all of it
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:solar panels on every rooftop, an SMR in every pot Agreed. Like, solar and wind everywhere we can possibly put it, and nuclear everywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
respectfully, I see discussions about renewables versus nuclear as the energy generation version of circular firing squads within the working class: doesn't accomplish anything, and conveniently excuses those responsible for getting us into trouble from direct responsibility through lobbying, information suppression, and enormous subsidy year over year and decade over decade, fossil power interests have backed us globally into a corner where we simultaneously are dealing with a climate catastrophe while also increasingly trying to handle shortfalls in our power budgets gently caress those nerds, start building everything else, and do not believe them when they try to engineer astroturfed bullshit about windmills causing cancer, smart grids and renewables not being feasible if planned correctly, or nuclear baseload being either completely unnecessary or dangerous and cost ineffective
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
Orvin posted:I would have to dig into that study, as the article as written makes me suspect their assumptions. That WaPo article states that “energy demand” will be down 57% in 2050 if the grid transitions to renewables and electrical energy is used for more processes like cars and heating. If the modeled that as less electrical usage, then of course a renewable grid can keep up. But the reality is switching to more electrical heating and transportation is going to keep electrical demand constant or increase it. Please read the study before critiquing it. Your concerns that weren't addressed in the article may be addressed there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
Heh https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1498005296299622408?s=20&t=PTp3ZtSCFx0IiIAdMvP9Fw
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2022 21:01
|
|
