|
CommieGIR posted:I dunno if Id say it was successful given Australia's massive dependence on coal and gas. Australia revoked their carbon tax in 2014, it was only in place for a couple of years. It was effective while it was in place
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I dunno if Id say it was successful given Australia's massive dependence on coal and gas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
Isn’t the big argument trotted out against carbon taxes, or any similar type of tax is that they unfairly target poor people. Usually pushed by the industries that want to avoid the taxes. Because if the taxes are collected and applied to communal services or credits, it can offset or even make things cheaper for the poor the taxes are supposedly hurting. Like a huge gasoline tax would hurt like hell. But if good public transport was rolled out at the same time (funded in part or whole by the taxes), lots of poor people could get rid of all the other expenses tied to owning a car and be better off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 01:02
|
|
|
Orvin posted:Isn’t the big argument trotted out against carbon taxes, or any similar type of tax is that they unfairly target poor people. Usually pushed by the industries that want to avoid the taxes. Because if the taxes are collected and applied to communal services or credits, it can offset or even make things cheaper for the poor the taxes are supposedly hurting. If you used carbon taxes from the heaviest polluters to subsidize everyone else, poor people would probably come out ahead of where they are now lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 01:10
|
|
|
Orvin posted:Isn’t the big argument trotted out against carbon taxes, or any similar type of tax is that they unfairly target poor people. Usually pushed by the industries that want to avoid the taxes. Because if the taxes are collected and applied to communal services or credits, it can offset or even make things cheaper for the poor the taxes are supposedly hurting. Of course taxes are unfair against poor people if the rich/big companies can just avoid them. Like trading CO2 credits. WTF, why do you even allow that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 01:18
|
|
|
Orvin posted:Isn’t the big argument trotted out against carbon taxes, or any similar type of tax is that they unfairly target poor people. Usually pushed by the industries that want to avoid the taxes. Because if the taxes are collected and applied to communal services or credits, it can offset or even make things cheaper for the poor the taxes are supposedly hurting. The most straightforward proposal is to take the income from the carbon tax and hand it out as a per capita universal dividend. IIRC Matt Bruneig wrote on this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:Of course taxes are unfair against poor people if the rich/big companies can just avoid them. Carbon taxes are a different mechanism to price carbon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:CO2 credits aren't avoiding carbon prices, they're literally how you pay them (by buying the credits). I thought everybody got a quota and you only pay if you exceed it, but companies can sell their unused quota.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 01:39
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:I thought everybody got a quota and you only pay if you exceed it, but companies can sell their unused quota. Or the government can just auction them all off and keep all the proceeds directly. What's important is that once the system is established, the carbon price is a very real cost - either one you pay by buying a credit, or one you implicitly pay by not selling it at market rate
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 02:08
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:I thought everybody got a quota and you only pay if you exceed it, but companies can sell their unused quota. Those quotas weren't static. I read an article about a power plant and their carbon credits. At the beginning they had so much credits they could sell them at profit. Then they dropped to even. Later they needed to start buying credits. And the next stage the credits would have become expensive enough that they started upgrading their plant to use biofuel or some other method.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 11:34
|
|
|
Orvin posted:Isn’t the big argument trotted out against carbon taxes, or any similar type of tax is that they unfairly target poor people. Usually pushed by the industries that want to avoid the taxes. Because if the taxes are collected and applied to communal services or credits, it can offset or even make things cheaper for the poor the taxes are supposedly hurting. An effective carbon tax would raise the costs of fuel and electricity which kind of are an important part of the cost of a lot of things. A carbon tax would be good for the environment but I don’t see how it would lead to greater prosperity for Americans, including poor Americans. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Jul 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 12:02
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:Those quotas weren't static. I read an article about a power plant and their carbon credits. At the beginning they had so much credits they could sell them at profit. Then they dropped to even. Later they needed to start buying credits. And the next stage the credits would have become expensive enough that they started upgrading their plant to use biofuel or some other method. The quotas/credits don't have to happen in the first place, that's just how politicians can continue giving handouts to fossil fuel donors. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Jul 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 12:08
|
|
|
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) implemented in California is proving to be an effective regulation at reducing the carbon intensity of the transportation sector. The jist of it is the carbon intensity (CI) of the aggregate transportation fuel pool sold in CA must drop over according to a prescribed curve. Every year it gets lower. Fuel producers must either produce a fuel that meets the CI curve or buy credits from those who produce a fuel with a CI score lower (better) than the curve. The effect is that fuel producers are incentivized to switch from fossil to renewable feedstocks, implement projects to reduce the CI of the refining and logistics processes and also incentivizes EV uptake because electrons used for transportation count as part of the aggregate transportation fuel pool. I don't see why this wouldn't work for the power sector as well. Aviation fuel is already likely up. e: added link spf3million fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Jul 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 13:24
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:An effective carbon tax would raise the costs of fuel and electricity which kind of are an important part of the cost of a lot of things. A carbon tax would be good for the environment but I don’t see how it would lead to greater prosperity for Americans, including poor Americans. Doing nothing is exactly what got us in this mess. Doing something is obviously going to cause pain somewhere, because if it was overall good, cheap, and/or efficient, it would already be done by companies. It’s that some of the pain to the most vulnerable can be mitigated by proper use of the taxes. It’s what the companies and richer people don’t want everyone else to think about. If everyone realized that you tax the poo poo out of fuels, the use those taxes to provide food subsidies for poor people, or public transit subsidies, or any number of other uses that primarily help the poor or the “not super rich”, then they might be in favor of them. Then the fossil fuel companies might see sales go down, or rich people might have to actually check some of their consumption. So yes, a fuel tax would cause everything to go up in price. But if you are barely getting by paycheck to paycheck, and need to struggle to keep a car running to get to your job. If you could stop having to pay for everything related to your car because solid reliable affordable bus service was started when the fuel tax went into place, you might be okay with that. Your food and clothing would go up, but no more gasoline, car insurance (maybe), car repairs and/or stress over shorty car. And yes, not all areas of the country can have reliable bus/train service added in this example. Some people are still going to get hurt and left behind. But it is still a case of doing something, rather than just the usual of trotting out “Won’t somebody think of the children” to try and weasel out of the taxes. Finally, I also realize that there is very little political will for this sort of thing, so nothing of the sort would actually happen. Something may happen organically as car manufacturing dries up and continues to drive up prices that puts the total cost of vehicle ownership outside the reach of a lot of people. So instead of trying to get ahead of the issue, we will just have a lot of people with zero transportation options and high prices on all their goods anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 14:20
|
|
|
literally anything would work better than what we're doing because its not a policy problem its a power one
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 14:20
|
|
|
freezepops posted: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. You keep including irrelevant statistics (CF of a grid with gobs of non-dispatchable power) to drive the agenda of making it seem more complex than what it is. The Queensland grid in 2000 was not interconnected with NSW and had about 8,400 MW of installed capacity (mostly black coal), and consumed 43 TWhr to 50 TWhr in the years '98 through '00 or 0.59 to 0.68 if you assume 100% reliability (ie, no reduction in installed power for planned maintenance). This was a public sector grid that was full of needless redundancy and license to always take the overly conservative approach. Once the interconnector was installed (and QLD could export cheap power south), the CFs jump up over 0.7 near on 0.8 before the addition of heaps of renewable has driven the theoretical CF to about 0.5. At no point does a sane dispatchable grid run at 0.3 to 0.4. France operates its reactors at 78% with renewables reducing their utilization (French reactors are in load following so the windfarms have done nothing more than reduce the setting the reactors run at saving a few tonnes of yellowcake). This is on top of the fact that you refer to the cost of solar and wind where they have only cut the lunch of an existing grid. If you took a fully stable wind grid and then carved out a portion for nuclear (like in France in reverse) and curtailed wind to allow for that nuclear generation without curtailment, nuclear would look absolutely amazing relative to wind as well! A renewable grid without gobs of hydro requires either carbon or nuclear to be cheap. If nuclear was given the support by the green movement that wind has enjoyed, Europe would likely be importing far less gas from Russia and the overall EU hydrocarbon footprint would more closely resemble France's - at even cheaper rates as the same thing that has brought wind and solar close (mass production) would apply as well (when you actually have serial production instead of one offs). Remove all hydrocarbon from California's grid that is part and parcel of the "renewables value preposition" and your pricing would look much different. Source for Aussie power, wiki for French numbers, https://www.energy.gov.au/publications/australian-energy-update-2021 Also, you say that my previous example was easy because we could plan the generators to the load, but what the gently caress did you think France (or other wholly centrally governed grid) do? Just randomly build an odd number of reactors and was just lucky it was close to the expected load? On the carbon pricing, Australia had put in place a system to price carbon not as shock therapy, but as a gentle pressure applied relentlessly approach. That is the secret sauce to the pricing mechanism is that it makes thinking about carbon as a ever present component of decision making. It was a very cut down version of what was originally proposed and was overturned by a change in government but that is a different story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:On the carbon pricing, Australia had put in place a system to price carbon not as shock therapy, but as a gentle pressure applied relentlessly approach. That is the secret sauce to the pricing mechanism is that it makes thinking about carbon as a ever present component of decision making. It was a very cut down version of what was originally proposed and was overturned by a change in government but that is a different story. Yeah the thing to remember is that it takes less pressure than people think to start making big changes. Business is already fairly cost-aware - decisions like choosing global suppliers based on a minor reduction in price, or upgrading equipment for a small improvement in efficiency, is fairly routine. Ensuring the carbon emissions are part of economic decisions, and keeping the window open to further improvements based on automatic increases, ends up being quite effective. And by leveraging the existing system and major stakeholders, rather than first trying to defeat them entirely, society can move forward on the climate crisis with some degree of rapidity. There are a number of major corporations who are advocating for carbon taxes because they have invested in the technologies involved and believe they will have an advantage over their competitors. Finding a way to work with existing interests and enable green technology to expand globally is the best method for meeting the challenges of the climate crisis. Consider how much effort is made in this thread to debate prescriptive policy decisions like sending money to one green technology over the other; reducing the stakes by broadening the appeal of all low-carbon technologies, and applying a consistent pressure on society to build and distribute clean energy is the best solution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:An effective carbon tax would raise the costs of fuel and electricity which kind of are an important part of the cost of a lot of things. A carbon tax would be good for the environment but I don’t see how it would lead to greater prosperity for Americans, including poor Americans. Again, from the lived Australian experience where we briefly had a well designed carbon tax before the conservatives got into power and reversed it, the impact on consumers was nil. That is because the tax raises income for the government who passed it on as tax cuts which offset the price increases for consumers. It still worked to reduce emissions because producers had increased input costs and so there was competition to reduce those costs by reducing their carbon emissions. Until the conservatives undid it all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:An effective carbon tax would raise the costs of fuel and electricity which kind of are an important part of the cost of a lot of things. A carbon tax would be good for the environment but I don’t see how it would lead to greater prosperity for Americans, including poor Americans. Poor people are also the most impacted by pollution and climate change, and lose massive amounts of prosperity every year as a result. That's what continues to happen if we do nothing. For some reason this ongoing loss of prosperity is never considered important by the people who oppose carbon taxes So ideally you're taxing carbon so as to compensate those most effected by it, literally and directly increasing their prosperity. The people who would lose the most prosperity in this situation are the people who own polluting industries
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 03:56
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:You keep including irrelevant statistics (CF of a grid with gobs of non-dispatchable power) to drive the agenda of making it seem more complex than what it is. The Queensland grid in 2000 was not interconnected with NSW and had about 8,400 MW of installed capacity (mostly black coal), and consumed 43 TWhr to 50 TWhr in the years '98 through '00 or 0.59 to 0.68 if you assume 100% reliability (ie, no reduction in installed power for planned maintenance). This was a public sector grid that was full of needless redundancy and license to always take the overly conservative approach. Once the interconnector was installed (and QLD could export cheap power south), the CFs jump up over 0.7 near on 0.8 before the addition of heaps of renewable has driven the theoretical CF to about 0.5. In that last post I did not include any non-dispatchable power in calculating the theoretical best case CF for a gen fleet to meet ERCOT load. How the energy was generated did not factor into my calculation at all because I was determining an upper bound on the capacity factor for a generation fleet. For ERCOT, using peak load (the minimum generation you need to have connected to the grid at 70GW), and kWh delivered (385TWh) you get a CF of 0.55 assuming your generation fleet was fully dispatchable and you kept minimum legally required reserve with no room for any forced outage (6%). I believe ERCOT is currently aiming to achieve a 20% dispatchable reserve over peak load, (to cover outages both planned and forced, while still meeting the minimum reserve requirement) that will eventually push the CF for the dispatchable units of the grid down to around 0.45 using the numbers above. Actual numbers, due to wind and solar, will push that even lower. As for France's nuclear fleet, as mentioned earlier, is can run at a higher utilization because they are not anywhere close to 100% of the grid they are operating in and France exports a lot of energy. Nuclear only makes up around 30% of the EU grid that France participates in. This allows for a much better utilization when you only look at their dispatchable low marginal cost generators (which would be nuclear). If you looked at the French total generation fleet, you will see much lower numbers. I could not find an installed capacity in the link provided, but using the numbers from here: https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/wholesale-statistics/annual-generation-capacity-and-peak-demand-nem Peak capacity for 2019-20 is about 50GW Energy consumed 265TWh That gives a total capacity factor of around 0.6, which is pretty good, especially since that includes renewable energy. I imagine a lot of the performance increase is due to the wider grid (physically dispersed) which allows for a much better load profile. Looking at the peak load of the system (only 35GW), to do a similar calculation I did for the ERCOT grid, I get a max CF of around 0.85. So I believe my intuition is correct, that the load profile of the Australian grid is simply much more consistent. To provide some context, the ERCOT grid only delivers around 50% more energy while having 100% more demand. The eastern and western interconnect will be closer to an ERCOT load profile than an Australian one due to the number of time zones each grid spans. This is another impediment to larger nuclear deployment (and renewable for that matter) in the United States. quote:This is on top of the fact that you refer to the cost of solar and wind where they have only cut the lunch of an existing grid. If you took a fully stable wind grid and then carved out a portion for nuclear (like in France in reverse) and curtailed wind to allow for that nuclear generation without curtailment, nuclear would look absolutely amazing relative to wind as well! A renewable grid without gobs of hydro requires either carbon or nuclear to be cheap. If nuclear was given the support by the green movement that wind has enjoyed, Europe would likely be importing far less gas from Russia and the overall EU hydrocarbon footprint would more closely resemble France's - at even cheaper rates as the same thing that has brought wind and solar close (mass production) would apply as well (when you actually have serial production instead of one offs). This part, I am not sure what point you are making. I did not any comparison between the two sources, yet as it would be fruitless to do so when even something as simple as a CF is hard to get across. Unless you are intending to respond to where I pointed out current US grid market mechanisms are a large impediment to nuclear deployment? If so, yes that is one of the many issues that need to be addressed in the US prior to larger deployments of nuclear and I agree. quote:Also, you say that my previous example was easy because we could plan the generators to the load, but what the gently caress did you think France (or other wholly centrally governed grid) do? Just randomly build an odd number of reactors and was just lucky it was close to the expected load? I will stand by the statement that industrial installations that use a generator to serve load are not comparable to system wide grid operations and that these are largely things you cannot compare as they really are not similar in scope with many orders of magnitude difference between the size of the load/generation. Not to mention additional headaches like transmission congestion which is largely a non-factor in industrial installations or small area networks. Historical data is good, but it is a lot harder to predict where the grid's demand will be 5 years from now than a single industrial installation's future load. At least in my experience, industrial customers tend to have an idea as to what loads they need to run and how often, although some industrial installations will have terrible capacity factors due to seasonal variation such as a sugar beet plant where their generators CF is sub 0.2 simply because they only spend a few months out of the year running.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 05:14
|
|
|
I would not have been so quick to jump on it if you said that 0.6 was what you would expect from the start (as opposed to three nuclear plants needed for every one expected to be fully used) but even from your own post, it is acknowledged that renewables in that system is driving down that number and would go up if you took the non-reliably peak time renewables out. These pushing the number of reactors needed is part of the pressure the greens push on the uninformed to scare them about how many reactors would be needed. I linked some posts ago a green advertisement that the number of reactors needed was part of the scare (sooo dangerous and soooo expensive). My comment about the wind/nuclear carveout and other generator being curtailed was to your comment that nuclear is too expensive. For nuclear to go ahead I am of the firm belief it wont happen properly until the green movement gets behind it. They successfully stopped it (certainly helped by other causes like a plant blowing the gently caress up but insecticide is still used after Bhopal killed more than all the nuclear tragedies combined), are proud it has been kept down and continue to work tirelessly to ensure that non-nuclear remains a priority over the environment. With the green onboard on board, the legislative trickiness and a lot of NIMBYism would go away (because a lot of nuclear NIMBY is actually activists turning up, nuclear does not need to be placed in nice places like wind or gently caress up beautiful river systems like hydro) and then the technical challenges would be just that, like spacex re-using boosters 100 times where 10 years ago it was seen as foolish talk to consider using a booster twice. Modern tech and design is actually pretty loving good. E) and actually, because you would not be seen as some sort of evil gremlin to be involved in the industry, it would allow nuclear (like space-x) to attract bright young thangs to burn out on rapid and effective design as well as motivated people for all the other jobs that go on. That is worth a lot and is probably underappreciated as well. Electric Wrigglies fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Jul 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2022 09:06
|
|
|
European Parliament backs listing nuclear energy, gas as 'green' The proposal to label natural gas and nuclear energy as "green" as a guide for private investors was met with resistance along the way. But EU lawmakers ultimately gave it the green light. https://www.dw.com/en/european-parliament-backs-listing-nuclear-energy-gas-as-green/a-62377411 Seems like some good news? Gas still gets a pass but under some conditions at least.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:European Parliament backs listing nuclear energy, gas as 'green' Aren't there pretty solid stats about the carbon produced across the lifecycle of most power generation sources? Couldn't they set a metric like 0.25 kg of CO2 per kWh to define "green" energy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Aren't there pretty solid stats about the carbon produced across the lifecycle of most power generation sources? Couldn't they set a metric like 0.25 kg of CO2 per kWh to define "green" energy? Yes I'm sure they could, but there's a ton of politics around that since every country wants to protect their approach
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:European Parliament backs listing nuclear energy, gas as 'green' It is good news. Gas will always have plenty of support from groups that don't care about the environment, but this opens up avenues to clean nuclear power that will be needed. The article had a pretty inaccurate depiction of 'France supporting the classification of gas and nuclear power as green, while Germany opposes it'. Germany was consistently the biggest champion of classifying gas as green, while France was pretty opposed to that. The reason that nuclear and gas were tied together is so the two biggest EU nations could compromise on supporting their favorite energy source. But DW buried that bit at the bottom, where Scholz explains all the 'virtues' of gas as a "green transition fuel". At the same time as all this, and not unrelated, France just fully-nationalized its nuclear power fleet EDF and announced plans to build more. Meanwhile, Germany authorized an equity bailout of its biggest gas company, Uniper SE, which invested heavily in Russian projects like Nord Stream 2 and has been undercutting sanctions by paying Putin in Rubles for their gas imports. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-06/french-premier-says-state-wants-to-own-100-of-edf https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-04/uniper-in-talks-over-bailout-package-to-plug-9-4-billion-hole
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BrianGitt/status/1544784594301591552?s=20&t=QITYCntUKavEKl-oJM34uA Japan is reading the room and doesn't want to be in Germany's position in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 00:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:https://twitter.com/BrianGitt/status/1544784594301591552?s=20&t=QITYCntUKavEKl-oJM34uA Good. Let's see if the country Germany used as an example of why they had to shutter their nuke plants now follows their lead. (spoiler: they won't)
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 00:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:https://twitter.com/BrianGitt/status/1544784594301591552?s=20&t=QITYCntUKavEKl-oJM34uA The brownouts in 2011 sucked. Don't need that again. Japan should also require all devices to support both 50 and 60hz so they can decide on one in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 00:28
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:Japan should also require all devices to support both 50 and 60hz so they can decide on one in the future. A lot of modern devices do support both to make to easier for export, so wouldn't surprise me if they don't require it because the market already forces that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:A lot of modern devices do support both to make to easier for export, so wouldn't surprise me if they don't require it because the market already forces that. It's fine for stuff that uses a wall-wart AC/DC adapter. It's less good for things that have AC motors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It's fine for stuff that uses a wall-wart AC/DC adapter. It's less good for things that have AC motors. True, forgot about that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It's fine for stuff that uses a wall-wart AC/DC adapter. It's less good for things that have AC motors. The bulk of AC motors would need to be swapped out, transformers would need to be down-rated, the HV transmission system would need a bunch of new cap banks and inductors to keep reactive power levels balanced, all the network protection and operating protocols would need to be reviewed and some changed. The reason they haven't standardised on one frequency already is its a massive effort. Something like changing the side of the road everyone drives on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 03:20
|
|
|
Turning Japan to one grid would truly be nightmare project.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 09:29
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Good. Let's see if the country Germany used as an example of why they had to shutter their nuke plants now follows their lead. (spoiler: they won't) Didn't they salt the reactors they shut down to ensure no backsies?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 09:38
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Didn't they salt the reactors they shut down to ensure no backsies? IIRC they did, yeah. Germans are nothing but thorough, after all. Thoroughly loving themselves (and the rest of Europe  )
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 09:53
|
|
|
slorb posted:The bulk of AC motors would need to be swapped out, transformers would need to be down-rated, the HV transmission system would need a bunch of new cap banks and inductors to keep reactive power levels balanced, all the network protection and operating protocols would need to be reviewed and some changed. I walked down the MV distribution in northern Japan. There was a mix of medium and low voltage and 50 and 60hz all in the same manhole a few times because of nearby US equipment in facilities. Never found out if the JEC specifically prohibited mixing voltages and frequencies in distribution manholes, but boy didn't seem like a great idea. There was also a manhole where the lid was just a welded piece of jagged steel that covered a very non-symmetrical hole. That thing terrified me, if someone tried to flip it on its side (normally safe to do with manhole lids) it'd knife edge onto the 6600V conductors 3 feet down and probably cause a massive arc blast. Oh, and there was a "phone booth" style 6600V-208V transformer cubicle on a golf course that had to be 50 years old. The door fell off when I opened it. Fortunately it fell out to me, and not into the cubicle where it'd smack the transformer and bare copper conductors. I wrote so many scathing safety issues in my report. Japan owns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 10:07
|
|
|
Wibla posted:IIRC they did, yeah. Seems like the germans can't stop loving over europe nomatter what they do...
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 10:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nytimesworld/status/1544789568095920129?s=20&t=TkZ8sHYrQmLPya4akbFX9Q
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:https://twitter.com/nytimesworld/status/1544789568095920129?s=20&t=TkZ8sHYrQmLPya4akbFX9Q "Nooooo you can't just nationalize utilities they must be privately owned!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
This is maybe promising?quote:Over the past decade, nuclear power plants across the country have been shutting down early in favor of cheaper natural gas power.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 03:21
|
|