|
Helter Skelter posted:Hopefully they do better wrt environmental impact than natural gas fracking has. My understanding is that it will likely be so. Gas fracking has a very specific place it needs to be to get at the gas and if it's close to/going through a water table, so be it. Seems with enhanced geothermal there are regions that are better for doing it, wrt underground geology and whatnot, but it's in theory easier to avoid environmental issues that have plagued natgas
|
# ? Jul 24, 2023 14:00 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 07:22 |
|
In other news, the past month has definitely not been very kind to offshore wind...
Dante80 fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Jul 24, 2023 |
# ? Jul 24, 2023 15:01 |
|
Dante80 posted:In other news, the past month has definitely not been very kind to offshore wind... Your URL is fubar.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2023 15:10 |
|
marchantia posted:My understanding is that it will likely be so. Gas fracking has a very specific place it needs to be to get at the gas and if it's close to/going through a water table, so be it. Seems with enhanced geothermal there are regions that are better for doing it, wrt underground geology and whatnot, but it's in theory easier to avoid environmental issues that have plagued natgas So with enhanced geothermal, I guess it is not necessary to extract the liquid and any toxic heat-exchange liquid can mostly be recycled into the system? Or is it that it is simply not very toxic at all so it doesn't matter as much if it leaks into the water table?
|
# ? Jul 24, 2023 15:24 |
|
Zudgemud posted:So with enhanced geothermal, I guess it is not necessary to extract the liquid and any toxic heat-exchange liquid can mostly be recycled into the system? Or is it that it is simply not very toxic at all so it doesn't matter as much if it leaks into the water table? My only enhanced knowledge comes from those podcasts posted earlier but there seem to be a both. First is that they can be closed-loop. But also it shouldn't be as bad in the first place because there isn't a bunch of oil and other crap in the ground where you're drilling: quote:"Our new analysis, however, shows that these fluids only account for between 4 and 8 percent of wastewater being generated over the productive lifetime of fracked wells in the major U.S. unconventional oil and gas basins," Vengosh said. "Most of the fracking fluids injected into these wells do not return to the surface; they are retained in the shale deep underground.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2023 15:52 |
|
Wibla posted:Your URL is fubar. Oops! Edited: https://fortune.com/2023/07/22/offshore-wind-projects-nixed-due-to-costs-despite-clean-energy-needs/
|
# ? Jul 24, 2023 16:46 |
|
I keep hearing about "rooftop solar" but how come no one is talking about Backyard Hydro? In all seriousness though, what are the drawbacks to trying to dam a small stream for like, powering remote farms? Does it probably screw with the later/irrigation supply of your neighbours? Affect the ability of wetlands to filter/hold water? Not enough power gets generated?
|
# ? Jul 26, 2023 00:31 |
|
hurts the local ecology more than it generates power, most like
|
# ? Jul 26, 2023 00:55 |
Google Jeb Bush posted:hurts the local ecology more than it generates power, most like On any sort of scale, yeah. Looks fun as hell though
|
|
# ? Jul 26, 2023 01:03 |
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I keep hearing about "rooftop solar" but how come no one is talking about Backyard Hydro? Building a dam and installing/maintaining/monitoring electrical generation is tremendously expensive. It's not economically viable at a small scale. That's aside from the water rights and ecological destruction issues.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2023 01:09 |
|
Deteriorata posted:Building a dam and installing/maintaining/monitoring electrical generation is tremendously expensive. It's not economically viable at a small scale. That's aside from the water rights and ecological destruction issues. Yeah, in Australia the few little single digit MW hydro's I knew about have been decommissioned. In Europe I have been to a few dams that were originally built with a small hydro since decommissioned and I watched a documentary about EU has funded and is going around pulling out old disused dams (that generally used to have a hydro) to return the local ecology and water course to its natural state. Dams are awesome but lots of shallow little dams everywhere is not an ecologically worthwhile solution. Better to install a HFO power plant than to gently caress up the local ecology most of the time. Rooftop solar is such a gently caress up to me. Its main purpose is to transfer the cost of capital from energy provision capex of the government to being hidden within the capital tied up in housing stock (with consequently higher interests costs needed to be passed onto renters, etc). If you equalized it, I am sure it is far more expensive than nearly any other source of power and actively harms grid economics and operation (isolating sections of grid requires relying on software or individually isolating each house on that section).
|
# ? Jul 26, 2023 09:18 |
|
Some off-gridders have hydro, you can find videos on YouTube. We're talking a couple hundred watts, usually. That's nothing to scoff at when it produces power 24/7, at least for off-grid.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2023 11:36 |
|
Supreme Court clears way for Mountain Valley Pipeline construction to proceed The justices agreed to lift lower court orders that froze construction of the project while legal challenges play out. The Supreme Court’s order is a victory for West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a conservative Democrat who has championed the project and pushed for it during debt ceiling negotiations in June. In the brief order, the court offered no extensive reasoning and no dissents were noted. The order came as the White House announced new actions to combat climate-fueled extreme heat, which has been baking cities in the Southwest for weeks before moving Northeast on Thursday. Despite climate activists urging the Biden administration to stop approving fossil fuel projects like the Mountain Valley Pipeline, White House officials have been supportive of the pipeline since it was first introduced in Congress last year. More recently, administration officials including White House senior adviser John Podesta and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm voiced support this year for the pipeline’s approval.
|
# ? Jul 27, 2023 18:32 |
|
It's unfortunate but it's politically unfeasible to completely halt fossil fuel related infrastructure projects while energy needs continue to grow without a readily available alternative.
|
# ? Jul 27, 2023 18:38 |
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I keep hearing about "rooftop solar" but how come no one is talking about Backyard Hydro? Outside of all the many environmental issues, not enough power would be the main shortfall for the end user. You need a good change in elevation and the reservoir to go with it. So this already is bad for flat farm land. You could make small ones of say 6ft or so but output would be like a few watts to maybe 10's of watts. There is a reason why in your video they are only showing off a string of LED lights and not something more impressive like a space heater. You would still be dependent on batteries and all the costs they bring. Just like for wind, hydro improves with scale. The bigger the better it gets. At small scales not much is going to beat the 1000's of watts rooftop solar brings in and even those are generally still dependent on batteries or grid.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2023 03:20 |
|
Water rights are not something you want to gently caress with as a individual.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2023 04:05 |
|
Yeah I'm watching this discussion about hydro and boy howdy, if you think it's hard to put a windmill on a hillside, holy fuckballs people will start decade-long interstate suits and hire Pinkertons over the possibility of interrupting a few cubic feet of water per second, regardless of whether the dam operators actually plan to retain anything. Edit: I don't want to come off as providing any kind of support for stupid water rights wars especially where they make no modern sense and are obviously exploitative. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Jul 30, 2023 |
# ? Jul 30, 2023 04:16 |
|
Potato Salad posted:Yeah I'm watching this discussion about hydro and boy howdy, if you think it's hard to put a windmill on a hillside, holy fuckballs people will start decade-long interstate suits and hire Pinkertons over the possibility of interrupting a few cubic feet of water per second, regardless of whether the dam operators actually plan to retain anything. In a number of states you are legally forbidden from placing a barrel on your property to collect rainwater.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2023 05:08 |
|
Phanatic posted:In a number of states you are legally forbidden from placing a barrel on your property to collect rainwater. That's insane
|
# ? Jul 30, 2023 07:18 |
|
Fortune published a piece on the nuclear industry which some here may find intriguing.Fortune posted:Since the turn of the millennium, at least $50 billion has been spent on a frantic effort to create a new Golden Age for nuclear energy in the U.S. Billions more are being lavished on an even more desperate effort to launch small reactors as supposedly safer, cheaper alternatives to yesteryear’s elephant-sized versions. Most of the money comes from ratepayers and taxpayers, accompanied by an avalanche of public relations that rivals the 1950s “Atoms for Peace” campaign with its claims of “too cheap to meter” electricity. The conclusion appears to be in line with this thread
|
# ? Jul 30, 2023 09:40 |
|
Zelthar posted:Just like for wind, hydro improves with scale. The bigger the better it gets. Speaking of scale, read this one today.. China is installing offshore wind turbines as tall as 30 Rock in the Taiwan Strait I had no idea we had gotten up to 16MW nameplate per turbine. O_o
|
# ? Jul 30, 2023 13:01 |
|
Dante80 posted:Speaking of scale, read this one today.. Red Alert 4's graphics sure are impressive! Owling Howl posted:Fortune published a piece on the nuclear industry which some here may find intriguing. The idea to me that a mere 50 billion$ is "crowding out" investment in renewables doesn't ring true to me; it seems like 5 billion$ has been invested by the Biden Admin in renewables? But if they're so much cheaper wouldn't this make sense? Nuclear is more expensive, so it needs more money while setting up the manufacturing infrastructure for renewables doesn't need as much to get started? But even if they weren't it makes sense to me that the US might prefer to let the free market more efficiently source the cheaper renewable solutions and then rely on state investment for infrastructure with higher barrier to entry costs such as nuclear. This article implies the Biden Admin put 85 billion$ into battery tech. So it seems to me that Nuclear isn't even getting the total majority of the new climate change initiative investments?
|
# ? Jul 30, 2023 14:09 |
|
Owling Howl posted:Fortune published a piece on the nuclear industry which some here may find intriguing. eh, it's just another cynical hit piece by green wishful thinking that both declares that it is the hydrocarbon industry that funds anti-nuclear and at the same time can't help but put a lot of energy into downtalking nuclear. Invokes half a century ago dreaming (Too cheap to meter) to discredit current proponents, claims that the biggest issue that proponents complain about has been not enough money (its cynical red tape and green opposition), invokes/repeats complete bullshit narratives (hurr the few thousand tonne a year of waste can't be disposed of). Makes up even more rubbish (nuclear has not prevented carbon emissions in the same article saying that 15% of energy is from nuclear). Nakedly hypocritical (in the same article that it states that certain reactors have not done over 40 years like other reactors have so implies it is wishful thinking to go over 40 years then states that it is only a matter of money that long distance powerlines and renewables would solve the US energy transition even though no one has done it ever without massive hyrdo resources that just don't exist at sufficient scale in the US). Basically; does a victory lap around nuclear laughing how nuclear can't overcome the regulatory environment while at the same time whining like a little bitch that the regulatory environment is holding back the renewable dream. Yes, there is some legitimate points in there (heavy industry takes a while to spin up, there are definitely hands in the till, industry has been its own worse enemy through hubris/arrogance etc). I disagree with the conclusion. The US and state governments set up effective and predictable investment and permitting environment (similar to what the EU and Germany is trying to achieve to save the EU wind industry from grinding to a halt), the private project management/investment industry will come with nuclear plants, including hydrocarbon companies (did you know Total Energies invests billions in solar and wind? They do because big companies like big investments with decent but surmountable barriers to entry which nuclear represents if projects were predictable like in China/South Korea). The proof of that is organizations in China/South Korea/Russia are building reactors in about 8 to 10 years pretty consistently. This does not mean nuclear only power is the way to go, this just means that a healthy portion of nuclear can be a very effective way to reduce the overall environmental and human impact of power generation over just a pure renewable only grid.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2023 14:30 |
|
Greatly respect renewable supporters I just don't think they have a viable plan for getting Toronto through a winter without burning things on a timeline that's faster than nukes
|
# ? Jul 30, 2023 15:49 |
|
I don't know of any nuclear supporters who are anti-renewables but I do know a lot of renewable supporters who are anti-nuclear. That's a problem. And it's why you see articles like this Fortune one, which don't really seem to understand nuclear power. Take for instance that the article creates an implication that replacing a decommissioned reactor costs as much as a whole new facility, and the stated assumption that nuclear power somehow robs investment from electrical transmission upgrades (no really, what the gently caress?)
|
# ? Jul 30, 2023 20:32 |
|
The rest of what bugs me in the article has already been called out, but the numbers comparison also bugs me. Yep, it's 50b - over 20 years. So we're looking at 2.5b per year total support for nuclear across the entire country. When put in that kind of context, the amount seems paltry instead of the eyewatering way it's phrased in the article.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2023 20:52 |
|
Owling Howl posted:Fortune published a piece on the nuclear industry which some here may find intriguing. Kinda grim, because the same bolded conclusion also applies to whether we will address climate change at all.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 07:49 |
|
Article is a hit piece. Yeah a bunch of corrupt folks messed things up. That’s not unique to the technology.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 07:50 |
|
I wouldn't really call this a hit piece, but somewhat cynical and lazy (because it simply works as a summary of the author's book on corruption in the US Nuclear Industry). A much better written, and much more realistic recent article would be this: quote:Why a new era for US nuclear looks unlikely Dante80 fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Jul 31, 2023 |
# ? Jul 31, 2023 08:35 |
|
Yeah, I agree that's a no-stary eyed, business as usual if nothing drastic changes prediction.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 09:34 |
|
In other news... Britain commits to hundreds of North Sea oil and gas licences quote:LONDON, July 31 (Reuters) - Britain on Monday committed to granting hundreds of licences for North Sea oil and gas extraction as part of efforts to become more energy independent, drawing criticism from environmental campaigners.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:00 |
|
"We have seen how Putin has used natural gas dependence to steer European politics. We thus conclude that we must deepen our dependence on natural gas." How have we not disposed of these obvious alien invaders yet.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2023 17:47 |
|
No idea if this is promising or not, but it sounds cool: https://news.mit.edu/2023/mit-engineers-create-supercapacitor-ancient-materials-0731 paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2304318120 MIT engineers create an energy-storing supercapacitor from ancient materials quote:Made of cement, carbon black, and water, the device could provide cheap and scalable energy storage for renewable energy sources. quote:The key to the new supercapacitors developed by this team comes from a method of producing a cement-based material with an extremely high internal surface area due to a dense, interconnected network of conductive material within its bulk volume. The researchers achieved this by introducing carbon black — which is highly conductive — into a concrete mixture along with cement powder and water, and letting it cure. The water naturally forms a branching network of openings within the structure as it reacts with cement, and the carbon migrates into these spaces to make wire-like structures within the hardened cement. These structures have a fractal-like structure, with larger branches sprouting smaller branches, and those sprouting even smaller branchlets, and so on, ending up with an extremely large surface area within the confines of a relatively small volume. The material is then soaked in a standard electrolyte material, such as potassium chloride, a kind of salt, which provides the charged particles that accumulate on the carbon structures. Two electrodes made of this material, separated by a thin space or an insulating layer, form a very powerful supercapacitor, the researchers found. quote:The team calculated that a block of nanocarbon-black-doped concrete that is 45 cubic meters (or yards) in size — equivalent to a cube about 3.5 meters across — would have enough capacity to store about 10 kilowatt-hours of energy, which is considered the average daily electricity usage for a household. Since the concrete would retain its strength, a house with a foundation made of this material could store a day’s worth of energy produced by solar panels or windmills and allow it to be used whenever it’s needed. And, supercapacitors can be charged and discharged much more rapidly than batteries.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2023 15:51 |
I can believe that is will store energy at a glance. But the volumetric energy density would be pretty awful and I have doubts about how consistent the manufacturing process can be without a ton of funding. Maybe it'll be another alternative for massive stationary power storage in places where size and efficiency doesn't matter.
|
|
# ? Aug 1, 2023 16:23 |
|
Can’t wait to have a 12.5ft cube in my backyard! Fake edit: There are potentially some really great applications for this. The energy storage density is terrible, but if it’s insanely cheap, there are plenty of opportunities where this would be a good option. Actual edit: M_Gargantua posted:I can believe that is will store energy at a glance. It SOUNDS like it’s just as simple as mixing a measured amount of carbon black into cement and Bob’s your uncle. If that’s the case, it could be scaled tomorrow. You’re right though. If the carbon black doesn’t naturally want to stay distributed within the mixture in a way that cures into effective energy storage, then yeah manufacturing process R&D will be a major question. Doom Rooster fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Aug 1, 2023 |
# ? Aug 1, 2023 16:25 |
|
M_Gargantua posted:I can believe that is will store energy at a glance. Cement isn't exactly CO2 neutral, so I think it would only be useful in places where you're using cement anyway and it can be weaker than regular cement. I suppose foundations for houses is fine? The materials are cheap so if the process is also cheap then I guess why not turn your house into a battery provided it's reasonably efficient.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2023 16:38 |
|
Building oil rigs to pump carbon into the atmosphere and generate energy at the same time as you build carbon capture and storage facilities to pull carbon out of the atmosphere and consume energy would be ironically Keynesian in a "pay people to dig holes and fill them back in again" kind of way if the amount of carbon the CCS facilities were going to pull was anywhere near significant As it is, it's just depressingly familiar.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2023 17:30 |
|
Just to note, when people talk about CCS, they're usually talking about carbon capture & sequestration at the exhaust of a combined cycle gas generator, so it's really a label for "greenwashed natural gas" You can indeed hypothetically condense out the water and compress the carbon waste while remaining energy positive. Hypothetically. What's challenging for CCS hopefuls (aside from remembering not to talk about global domination in the open with other lizardfolk and tuck in the zippers of their human skin suits each time they go into public) is that fossil fuel plants are hideously expensive once you remove the monster subsidies states hand to fossil industry. Add the expense of sequestration on top of the cost of fuel and it's no better a value proposition than nuclear power -- slightly worse according to California. You also have to put the pressurized co2 somewhere, and wouldn't you believe it, that's a long term storage problem requiring locating geographically stable regions with features preventing bleed into surrounding groundwater or just escaping back into the atmosphere. It's really not possible to store all that CO2 in pressure vessels, so we're talking injection into the same kind of features that trapped natgas in the first place, except hopefully now re-sealable. TLDR, when some child eater like Sunak talks about CCS, he's not talking about the altruistic kind of carbon sequestration that the IPCC RPCs say we need online at great scale by 2040-2050. He's talking about even more expensive natural gas plants that have a smiley face and tree painted on the side that claim to use a technology that has only ever been used fraudulently (as discussed a few times previously), because that's what capitalism demands. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Aug 1, 2023 |
# ? Aug 1, 2023 17:43 |
As someone who lives in these cursed islands, I can guarantee that we are out of the fight entirely. Nothing is going to get better here for generations (not that there will be generations in which to do it...)
|
|
# ? Aug 1, 2023 22:47 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 07:22 |
|
I've seen the carbon capture project at Sleipner mentioned as an example of a successful scheme. That's worth examining because it's also some of the lowest hanging fruit. The CO2 being captured and injected constitutes about 10% of the gas coming out of the well in the first place, which has always needed to be separated off but dumped to atmosphere rather than captured. So CCS at scale is perfectly feasible if you have a massive tax incentive from the Norwegian government, most of the injection infrastructure is already in place, your extraction process is something you're already doing and you have a concentrated waste product. For comparison, the exhaust from a combined cycle gas station is about 5% CO2 and atmospheric CO2 is .04%.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2023 23:29 |