|
Deteriorata posted:There's not any way to answer that until there is some notion of just what they would be restricting and in what way. Stick with reality, there are an infinite number of abstract hypotheticals you can spin up to worry about.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
Grouchio posted:Thank you. Because quotes like "batten down the hatches; it's going to get a lot worse" are not helpful in the slightest. It has been a rough 36 hours. Big liberal states like California will have their more strict than federal laws to fall back on, and since a majority of polluting citizens live there that should help mitigate at least some of the potential fallout. Louisiana, Texas and oil producting states may be hosed but they already enjoy higher cancer etc rates so...
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:23
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Big liberal states like California will have their more strict than federal laws to fall back on, and since a majority of polluting citizens live there that should help mitigate at least some of the potential fallout. Louisiana, Texas and oil producting states may be hosed but they already enjoy higher cancer etc rates so... Grouchio fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jun 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 13:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1542509020891598848?s=20&t=d6NW4yacuHzZhdh32Fe1Hw
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:07
|
|
|
SCOTUS really wants to send y'all into the dark ages in more ways than one, eh?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 15:15
|
|
|
Wibla posted:SCOTUS really wants to send y'all into the dark ages in more ways than one, eh? Death cult.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Edit: You know what, never mind. Off-topic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-regulator-finds-unsafe-conditions-freeport-lng-export-facility-bars-restart-2022-06-30/quote:HOUSTON, June 30 (Reuters) - The second-biggest U.S. liquefied natural gas export facility hit by fire earlier this month will not be allowed to repair or restart operations until it addresses risks to public safety, a pipeline regulator said on Thursday. So we've got so much natural gas that we can't supply Europe with that the price is dropping.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 03:51
|
|
|
carbon capture has advanced significantly from wild-eyed lie to hilariously failed nonsense
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 13:15
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:carbon capture has advanced significantly from wild-eyed lie to hilariously failed nonsense
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 15:13
|
|
|
It would be so, so much simpler to implement a carbon tax. If carbon capture worked, energy companies would implement it without being told to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 15:20
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:carbon capture has advanced significantly from wild-eyed lie to hilariously failed nonsense Is this in reference to something or just an assertion?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
maybe theyre talking about trees and plants. or those slightly more hightech plankton or algae setups.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Is this in reference to something or just an assertion? similar sort of assertion to those people in the late 90's saying battery tech would sort out the intermittency issues of wind and solar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It would be so, so much simpler to implement a carbon tax. If carbon capture worked, energy companies would implement it without being told to. Carbon Taxes tend to fail pretty badly. Like many attempts to tax companies
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 13:52
|
|
|
Nuclear electricity is very expensive electricity. If you are ideologically committed to powering the US with nuclear electricity, then it makes a lot of sense to implement a carbon tax. The carbon tax could make nuclear cost-competitive with natural gas and/or would provide revenue to for the government to help companies pay for the very expensive nuclear power plants.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 14:34
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Nuclear electricity is very expensive electricity. If you are ideologically committed to powering the US with nuclear electricity, then it makes a lot of sense to implement a carbon tax. Recinding the subventions on fossils would level the field quite fast.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 15:10
|
|
|
rescind the subventions!
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 15:26
|
|
|
Eschew obfuscation!
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
Last time I asked in this thread what the subsidies for fossil fuels were in the US, someone trotted out a subsidy ratio for fossil fuels:other and it was the same ratio as the energy market share of fossil fuels:other. So they receive government subsidy at about the same rate as if the government didn’t care where the energy came from. If you look at recent US levelized cost of electricity numbers, nuclear is like 4–5x higher than natural gas, wind, solar, and just the marginal cost to run an old nuclear plant is about the same as building new natural gas, wind, and solar. Like even if the construction of the very expensive, very complicated, very slow to build nuclear power plant was instant and free, nuclear isn’t even cheaper than other electricity generation technologies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Last time I asked in this thread what the subsidies for fossil fuels were in the US, someone trotted out a subsidy ratio for fossil fuels:other and it was the same ratio as the energy market share of fossil fuels:other. So they receive government subsidy at about the same rate as if the government didn’t care where the energy came from. Those numbers don't include all the military spending to protect the supply, which isn't *entirely* free to the companies that profit thereby (they do pay taxes), but is...fairly significant. They also do not include government policies which artificially stimulate demand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:They also do not include government policies which artificially stimulate demand. What are those?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 15:59
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:What are those? For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System Also for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 16:01
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:The 99.97% was establishing we had a reliable circuit. Our capacity factor (once you take into account downtime and maintenance) was nearly always over 50% (i.e. 6x6 MW generators (36MW nameplate), one offline for major rebuild (so 30MW available), sometimes another offline for routine maintenance (now at 24MW), 18-20 MW load during the night (so we run three generators), 21-23 MW during the day). According to you, we needed to have a 69MW powerstation to fulfil the requirement. I think that 0.3 ERCOT number includes accounting for intermittent energy sources such as wind which then implies gas peaker plants which all multiply up the installed power that would not be required in a pure reliable dispatchable power grid. The numbers for ERCOT are published, stop trying to use whatever installation you’re running as a model of a far larger and more complex power system. If you had zero concern for reliability, and had zero transmission system constraints, taking the peak load and energy delivered for ERCOT gives you around 0.55. Now, toss in a 20% reserve so you can guarantee that there is always at least 10% of the current system demand available for dispatch, extra capacity in certain regions due to transmission line and stability constraints, and the requirement to always handle a total loss of a power station and 0.55 turns into something in the range of 0.3-0.4 rapidly. ERCOT currently sits at a 20% reserve and we have a blackout indicating that reserve fleet isn’t large or varied enough to maintain reliability. Toss solar PV penetration creating the “duck” curve and that just gets even worse with time unless some seriously unpopular rules are made to curtail PV deployment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
I feel the interstate highway system isn't really the culprit, as much as more regional trains would be great being able to go on a long distance car trip I don't think is that big of a contributor to the demand, compared to American cities being overwhelmingly car centric and nigh impossible to navigate without a car in some cases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I feel the interstate highway system isn't really the culprit, as much as more regional trains would be great being able to go on a long distance car trip I don't think is that big of a contributor to the demand, compared to American cities being overwhelmingly car centric and nigh impossible to navigate without a car in some cases. There is a massive amount of long-haul truck freight in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
Electricity prices in northern europe have generally become a lot more expensive since closing down reliable nuclear which produced the cheapest power historically, and shifting in intermittent solar and wind instead, with fossil fuel backups. I don't really buy that solar and wind are cheaper, at least not for the consumer. For the producer... I guess if they don't need to do anything to address their energy sources intermittency problem then yes it's a pretty sweet deal to be an owner of wind or solar, particularly if the intermitency issues means on average higher costs for consumers as they historically have here, win-win for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:technology might make geothermal a lot more viable
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
freezepops posted:The numbers for ERCOT are published, stop trying to use whatever installation you’re running as a model of a far larger and more complex power system. you keep trying to equate a system with intermittent power suppliers in it (ERCOT) to nuclear, which is not intermittent and is dispatchable. The 0.55 in my example includes the reserve and islanded systems are more vulnerable because there is only the local units (in this case, six) available rather than dozens to scores in a proper sized grid. On a larger system, you could easily push that ratio right up well over that. It is not adding needed complexity to a model to include factors which are not relevant (intermittency) which is what you keep trying to do. To step back, the overarching basic truth is that an intermittent generator only (wind and solar) supplied grid would need significantly higher installed capacity than a fully dispatchable supplied grid. Your argument is literally saying that to have one nuclear powerstation providing power all the time, you need to have three built and operational.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 23:40
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:you keep trying to equate a system with intermittent power suppliers in it (ERCOT) to nuclear, which is not intermittent and is dispatchable. The 0.55 in my example includes the reserve and islanded systems are more vulnerable because there is only the local units (in this case, six) available rather than dozens to scores in a proper sized grid. On a larger system, you could easily push that ratio right up well over that. It is not adding needed complexity to a model to include factors which are not relevant (intermittency) which is what you keep trying to do. I cannot see the numbers or how you arrived at a factor of 0.55 and that is for a load that may not represent a larger area ISO grid. So, since your anecdote has unverifiable data and is also not representative of the grid at large since it doesn't face issues like system stability concerns and transmission congestion or need to meet reserve and contingency requirements mandated by NERC/FERC, I have no idea why you would discuss islanding being an issue for the capacity factor for your small system. If you have a consistent load, you will have a better capacity factor of your generation fleet simply because you can plan your gen fleet to match that load. I would use east/west interconnect data, but you really need to look at a single synchronous grid to get an idea as to what is achievable when discussing grid wide issues like the generation fleet and combing through a bunch of ISO's data in different formats is a huge PITA to combine. The numbers I just provided, are the literal ISO kWh delivered and peak load. You cannot achieve a better CF than 0.55 with ERCOT's load with zero reserve power and 100% dispatchable generation fleet. It can't be 0.6 because there are intermittent loads that aren't on all day all year long, to get better than 0.55 would require adding load dispatch to the system (doesn't exist at any real level today). The CF is kWh delivered / Power * time, there is no "pushing that number up" because it is affected by your load profile in addition to your generation fleet. If you have a fully dispatchable fleet, CF is entirely based on your load. At least, not with technology that can be economically deployed today. quote:To step back, the overarching basic truth is that an intermittent generator only (wind and solar) supplied grid would need significantly higher installed capacity than a fully dispatchable supplied grid. Your argument is literally saying that to have one nuclear powerstation providing power all the time, you need to have three built and operational. Yes, if you wanted to make ERCOT fully nuclear you would need to size the generation fleet at peak load + spinning reserve requirement + N-1 contingency + likely a reserve for forced outages depending on individual unit size and how sensitive grid stability is to transmission and unit outages. This would require having a nuclear plant only serve load about one third to one half the time, assuming you eliminate roof top solar or at least keep it at insignificant levels, and removed wind from the region. How much wind and solar you need to deploy is a separate question to run ERCOT, but to properly compare the two you need to account for the fact that the LCOE for nuclear assumes a CF > 0.9 (unachievable fleet wide) and the fact that renewables are non-dispatchable (tremendous negative). It also means that with the way today's grids are operated, nuclear will never ever exist beyond its current penetration because renewables destroy the value proposition of nuclear energy. No one wants to build a nuclear plant or keep them running in California because of their current and future load profile.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 02:39
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Nuclear electricity is very expensive electricity. If you are ideologically committed to powering the US with nuclear electricity, then it makes a lot of sense to implement a carbon tax. Thus isnt really true though. Its expensive in a market where fossil and renewables are heavily subsidized. Everywhere else nuclear is cheaper
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 14:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Thus isnt really true though. Its expensive in a market where fossil and renewables are heavily subsidized. And for the consumer intermittent supply = higher prices on average. We have record breaking prices now and I literally read today that prices won't normalize until OL3 is online. Until then we can only hope for a mild winter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 15:20
|
|
|
Yeah, using nuclear is too expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 21:11
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Last time I asked in this thread what the subsidies for fossil fuels were in the US, someone trotted out a subsidy ratio for fossil fuels:other and it was the same ratio as the energy market share of fossil fuels:other. So they receive government subsidy at about the same rate as if the government didn’t care where the energy came from. One major impact on fossil fuel prices is that many of the costs of using fossil fuels are naturally externalized. But perhaps we could try to internalize some of these costs? Like maybe we can study these external costs, estimate their real dollar value per unit of fuel for various fuel types, and have the government artificially increase the price of these fuels so as to capture those costs, resulting in the heaviest users paying their fair share. It'd be like some sort of... carbon... tax? QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Jul 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
Yeah a carbon tax is absolutely the way to go. There's examples out there of it being implemented successfully, such as in Australia, but the fossil fuel corporations pour money into tearing them apart because they recognize how effective such policies are at changing the energy economies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:One major impact on fossil fuel prices is that many of the costs of using fossil fuels are naturally externalized. But perhaps we could try to internalize some of these costs? Like maybe we can study these external costs, estimate their real dollar value per unit of fuel for various fuel types, and have the government artificially increase the price of these fuels so as to capture those costs, resulting in the heaviest users paying their fair share. It'd be like some sort of... carbon... tax? Exactly. What's the real cost of a lb of a marginal pound of CO2 emitted? Pay up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 23:11
|
|
|
Carbon tax basically already exists on fossil fuels in the form VAT and extra consumption tax here. Which is why it's over $2/liter so even without any minimal fuel efficiency standards, a 1l engine is still considered normal. The downside is that it's pretty regressive and all the "externalities" tend to be pulled out of the rear end to justify whatever number someone wants to reach. I think this wouldn't be very well received if it applied to electricity generation as prices are already pretty 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The downside is that it's pretty regressive and all the "externalities" tend to be pulled out of the rear end to justify whatever number someone wants to reach. Yeah it’s not that straightforward to quantify, IMO. Whatever number you arrive at would involve a ton of subjective judgment calls. Realistically that’s how it would have to work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
Kaal posted:Yeah a carbon tax is absolutely the way to go. There's examples out there of it being implemented successfully, such as in Australia, but the fossil fuel corporations pour money into tearing them apart because they recognize how effective such policies are at changing the energy economies. I dunno if Id say it was successful given Australia's massive dependence on coal and gas. Carbon taxes are just letting industry kick the can down the road and continue emissions that we need to mitigate and halt now
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 00:28
|
|