|
DeadlyMuffin posted:We haven't built storage (for solar) because we don't know how to do it at the scale needed. 
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:We haven't built storage (for solar) because we don't know how to do it at the scale needed. Now you understand why "if we could do x, we would have done x by now" is silly to post on its own. I didn't say nuclear is utopian. I didn't say fully automated luxury communism is a pre requisite. We were already discussing utopian ideas, that's what started this. Cup Runneth Over posted:Bro you might want to read the original post chain and realize we're talking about utopian just-fix-everything pipe dreams. droll fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
Based on some quick googling the cost of a Gen III 1-1.2GW reactor is in the ballpark of $5-10B, so let's go high and say $10B because this is California and you gotta grease the environmental and zoning committee wheels a bit. California currently has a $97B surplus, of which Newsom says $49B is "immediately available" for use. So we could, in theory, stamp out four Gen III reactors and add 4-5 GW of 24/7 green energy to the grid, and still be firmly in the black both in terms of total and immediately available state funds. We are not going to do this, but we could.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:34
|
|
|
droll posted:Now you understand why "if we could do x, we would have done x by now" is silly to post on its own. For storage, in response to this? droll posted:Why is nighttime a problem when there is storage? No, it isn't silly and your question was incredibly naive. I'm sorry you seem to be all ruffled about it. You essentially asked "well why is this a problem if we use *thing that literally doesn't exist*?". Biggest problem is that it doesn't exist. You might as well have asked why we don't just use fusion reactors. If we knew how to build storage at scale, we would be doing it. Or someone in the world would be doing it. There is no huge political opposition to storage, nor decades of fear about them exploding and ending the world. I even explained, in the post you quoted, the difference. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:44
|
|
|
It's cool we can agree to disagree 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
droll posted:It's cool we can agree to disagree 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:For storage, in response to this? minor nitpick, but people have been developing storage for this https://e360.yale.edu/features/in-boost-for-renewables-grid-scale-battery-storage-is-on-the-rise
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
You still have to manufacture the storage at a huge scale with some of the most expensive and environmentally (and geopolitically) damaging materials on the planet to acquire
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:You still have to manufacture the storage at a huge scale with some of the most expensive and environmentally (and geopolitically) damaging materials on the planet to acquire just saying it's possible, and its currently being worked on too, so asking "why can't we just do x" is perfectly reasonable imo. it's only a "naive" question because the answer is obviously that the profit motive opposes it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
Rainbow Knight posted:just saying it's possible, and its currently being worked on too, so asking "why can't we just do x" is perfectly reasonable imo. it's only a "naive" question because the answer is obviously that the profit motive opposes it. Not really. It's being worked on, and it's promising, but it does not exist yet on a deployable scale. It's getting there though. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jun 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 20:48
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Since we're getting into utopian speculation, I'd like to see the federal or state government choose a standard reactor design and start stamping out government owned reactors. Electrical power is infrastructure, just like roads and bridges. this is america. as many state legislatures have opined in the case of establishing government ISPs, once some infrastructure has been privately run in the past with a government-granted monopoly, any government attempt to add a competing government opinion would illegally and unfairly infringe the old private owner's rights to profit off that sector indefinitely
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
Rainbow Knight posted:just saying it's possible, and its currently being worked on too, so asking "why can't we just do x" is perfectly reasonable imo. it's only a "naive" question because the answer is obviously that the profit motive opposes it. No, that's not the case. I told you why we can't do X, because it doesn't solve the problem. It can't. It is physically impossible for it to do so, it doesn't address the root causes, which is why oil & gas love it, because attempting to solve things that way sinks you into a quagmire that stalls the whole effort and prevents change. It's naive because it's buying into a line that's been fed to you by, in part, the people who profit from the status quo. Solar & wind will solve the clean energy crisis when electric cars solve the automobile pollution crisis: never. Don't mistake this for saying it's worthless to build any at all, but rather that in 2022 many people believe and push for solving climate change by simply building more solar, wind, and batteries and transitioning out of fossil fuels (and if we're really feeling bold we might even mention compressed methane); nuclear power is lucky to even be name-dropped in any renewable energy discussion. This is clearly an untenable solution for the reasons I've mentioned in my other posts. To have any hope of cleaning up our grid, let alone in a timeframe where we're already 11 seconds past midnight on the doomsday clock, and without millions of extra people in developing countries getting enslaved and shot, and untold miles of precious wildlands being turned into muddy pits in order to dig out the resources to make us Westerners these things, we need a strong backbone of nuclear power supplemented by wind and solar and geothermal and all that other stuff which isn't as reliable as coal and methane and gasoline. So it's not merely that the profit motive opposes it. We can't just do solar because it is not, in fact, that easy. NIMBY resistance, bought-off politicians, and corporate executive boards are not the only thing standing in the way of doing that, unlike nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
im gonna be the guy who says: yes, it's loving pointless to build solar panels when half the state is a desert and we could build actual solar plants. however solar panels are an individual solution. or, well, really more of a cultural signifier that we've convinced ourselves is a solution that also happens to generate a little electricity on the side. solar plants are a state solution and therefore will absolutely not happen, unless some corporation spins up that wants to do it but then they're vulnerable to being poo poo on by pg&e and friends
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 23:41
|
|
|
CMYK BLYAT! posted:this is america. as many state legislatures have opined in the case of establishing government ISPs, once some infrastructure has been privately run in the past with a government-granted monopoly, any government attempt to add a competing government opinion would illegally and unfairly infringe the old private owner's rights to profit off that sector indefinitely No kidding. Hence "since we're getting into utopian speculation". We can't have nice things. At least, not that nice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:im gonna be the guy who says: yes, it's loving pointless to build solar panels when half the state is a desert and we could build actual solar plants. however solar panels are an individual solution. or, well, really more of a cultural signifier that we've convinced ourselves is a solution that also happens to generate a little electricity on the side. solar plants are a state solution and therefore will absolutely not happen, unless some corporation spins up that wants to do it but then they're vulnerable to being poo poo on by pg&e and friends actually it's mediterranean. half the state is chaparral
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
It is also true that the desert and chaparral are complete ecosystems, and not just the junkyard for unattractive infrastructure. I am in favor of solar, and I am in favor of figuring out the least-destructive ways to put it in. It's not as simple, though, as just "put 'em in the desert".
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
Solar plants also suck rear end. They require a huge expanse of land to be cleared and leveled, and depending on the style of solar plant there is a lot of maintenance involved in keeping either the PV panels clean and unobstructed, or for concentrated solar keeping the mirrors properly aligned to the molten salt that's being heated (and also keeping them clean and unobstructed). The land clearance often involves lots of things like glyphosate to prevent vegetation encroachment, which has its own environmental issues This isn't to say that large-scale solar should never be used, but it has many similar tradeoffs to other power generation solutions, and can't be counted upon to be a downside-free alternative. Solar, wind, nuclear, and hydroelectric likely all have a role in a low carbon fuel generation regime, but none of them is the sole answer. That said, if you had to pick one to be the sole answer, it would be nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 02:13
|
|
|
there's just no getting around the fact that the grid is designed for a handful of extremely high energy inputs and isn't designed for anything else. this is also cheaper to maintain and upgrade so it just makes sense to do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 03:11
|
|
|
One of the critical aspects about the legacy grid is that it was designed to be efficient. So you put energy sources next to places that need energy. But what solar and wind need is to be connected to a wide range of areas, because they need flexibility in their usage. It ends up being a very different requirement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 03:47
|
|
|
Kenning posted:Solar plants also suck rear end. They require a huge expanse of land to be cleared and leveled, and depending on the style of solar plant there is a lot of maintenance involved in keeping either the PV panels clean and unobstructed, or for concentrated solar keeping the mirrors properly aligned to the molten salt that's being heated (and also keeping them clean and unobstructed). Solar photo-voltaic farms aren't maintenance free, but I don't think that the maintenance is a big deal. They certainly are a lot easier to put up and maintain than a nuclear power plant, which is a very big, expensive, complicated piece of machinery, which takes many years and many dollars to build. That's a lot of the appeal of solar electricity. Solar PV has greatly lowered in cost and become a very inexpensive form of electricity in recent history. The big solar power towers are uneconomical and when people predict the US to be 20% solar powered by 2050, it won't be coming from the power towers--it will be coming from solar photo-voltaic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 05:24
|
|
|
Solar can only get to a certain percentage of the grid's total power production before you get to trade-offs that suck, such as natural gas peaker plants to cover the period from near-sunset until baseload power plants can scale up. Utility-scale batteries mitigate this and so do hydroelectric that can do pumped storage, but if you want to keep adding solar, eventually you're going to hit a point where there needs to be some ultra-high voltage DC transmission lines to transfer excess to another part of the country and then reverse that later on. The US sucks at building infrastructure though so we don't have any UHV-DC transmission lines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 06:31
|
|
|
well it doesn't help that Wikipedia claims that the first actually fast hvdc circuit breaker got developed ten years ago. even if the DoE or whoever manages long range transmission (... It's the loving power companies, isn't it?) wanted to build one, it kind of looks like the technology isn't there yet to build a full electrical grid with it, although apparently it's amazing at undersea cables and stuff like running from a rural dam to a switching station that ties it into the AC grid. also DC arcs sound hilariously dangerous
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 12:07
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:well it doesn't help that Wikipedia claims that the first actually fast hvdc circuit breaker got developed ten years ago. even if the DoE or whoever manages long range transmission (... It's the loving power companies, isn't it?) wanted to build one, it kind of looks like the technology isn't there yet to build a full electrical grid with it, although apparently it's amazing at undersea cables and stuff like running from a rural dam to a switching station that ties it into the AC grid. also DC arcs sound hilariously dangerous That's why if you search for ultra-high voltage electricity transmission, the first wikipedia article that comes up is "Ultra-high-voltage electricity transmission in China" they've built 34 ultra high voltage lines since 2010 (19 being DC, 15 AC) and basically no other country has completed one, though China is building some for countries in the Belt and Road Initiative. That lets them do things like connect solar farms in the Gobi desert to their eastern cities when it's still day in the desert and the cities are hitting their evening peak demand
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 03:55
|
|
|
fermun posted:That's why if you search for ultra-high voltage electricity transmission, the first wikipedia article that comes up is "Ultra-high-voltage electricity transmission in China" they've built 34 ultra high voltage lines since 2010 (19 being DC, 15 AC) and basically no other country has completed one, though China is building some for countries in the Belt and Road Initiative. That lets them do things like connect solar farms in the Gobi desert to their eastern cities when it's still day in the desert and the cities are hitting their evening peak demand What's the transmission loss on running the lines so far, even at 800 kV?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 05:08
|
|
|
Sydin posted:What's the transmission loss on running the lines so far, even at 800 kV? idk what the actual numbers from the CPC are if they're even public, but apparently math says it should be about half of a comparable AC line, but with the downside of needing to run a much higher charge and less reliable equipment on average
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 05:20
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:idk what the actual numbers from the CPC are if they're even public, but apparently math says it should be about half of a comparable AC line, but with the downside of needing to run a much higher charge and less reliable equipment on average DC is WAAAAY better at long distances, and those downsides even out a lot. Here's an example of a regular HVDC vs HVAC, 400kV:  But you also get the fact that you need way less thick power lines and don't need to build your towers as high (35m vs. around 55m for an AC line), and all that pays for itself with the extra equipment needed to be built to invert it to AC etc. Sydin posted:What's the transmission loss on running the lines so far, even at 800 kV? The only info I can find is on China's first UHVDC line completed in 2010, which delivers 6.4 GW with a transmission loss of around 85 MW at 1907 km and their newer UHVDC lines go up to 1,100 kV, which could allow up to 13 GW transmission by the equipment, but that one is 3324km and they're only delivering 12GW so who knows what they're pumping in at the other end fermun fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Jul 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 05:30
|
|
|
the real question we all want answered is what happens if you throw a rock wrapped in copper wire under a DC line https://youtube.com/shorts/smmdDpYan_8?feature=share
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 05:36
|
|
|
Wait, I know this one because I watched X-Men 2: The same thing that happens to everything else!
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 05:42
|
|
|
Sydin posted:What's the transmission loss on running the lines so far, even at 800 kV?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 05:45
|
|
|
The kidney dialysis regulation proposition is going on the ballot again for the third time so that's every radio, tv, and youtube ad for the rest of the year sold
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 21:32
|
|
|
you love to see it
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 21:45
|
|
|
Can we somehow prosecute this under the Three Strikes law?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 00:19
|
|
|
fun summer 'prank' idea: gonna buy a body cam and go door to door collecting signatures for a ballot to make collecting rental income a class a felony. in like marin or napa or something
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
xarph posted:The kidney dialysis regulation proposition is going on the ballot again for the third time so that's every radio, tv, and youtube ad for the rest of the year sold Not to mention competing ballot initiatives to legalize sports gambling
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 01:11
|
|
|
I think the explosions finally stopped. Nope, one more as I typed this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 06:18
|
|
|
xarph posted:The kidney dialysis regulation proposition is going on the ballot again for the third time so that's every radio, tv, and youtube ad for the rest of the year sold The alien archeologists, upon discovering 1,000 years of dialysis fight-related artifacts, will conclude that to our people a central and sacred practice was this blood rite.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
So, is Gavin Newsom buying ad time in Florida as a jumpstart to his 2024 presidential bid? Because why else would he spend $100,000 on ads on Fox News in Florida over the July 4th weekend? https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/03/politics/gavin-newsom-ron-desantis-ad-2024/index.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 07:47
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:So, is Gavin Newsom buying ad time in Florida as a jumpstart to his 2024 presidential bid? Because why else would he spend $100,000 on ads on Fox News in Florida over the July 4th weekend? lmfao
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 08:23
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:So, is Gavin Newsom buying ad time in Florida as a jumpstart to his 2024 presidential bid? Because why else would he spend $100,000 on ads on Fox News in Florida over the July 4th weekend? He needed the money to secure abortion rights in California
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 09:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
He needs to market the CA Abortionplex
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 16:03
|
|
