The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

marchantia: Nov 5, 2009; WHAT IS THIS

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 10:39

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

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

Wibla: Feb 16, 2011

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

Zudgemud: Mar 1, 2009; Grimey Drawer

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

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

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.

"This means that the probability of having environmental impacts from the human-made chemicals in fracking fluids is low, unless a direct spill of the chemicals occurs before the actual fracking," he said.

More than 92 percent of the flowback and produced water -- or wastewater -- coming from the wells is derived from naturally occurring brines that are extracted along with the gas and oil.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161017150835.htm

# ? Jul 24, 2023 15:52

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

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

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

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

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

hurts the local ecology more than it generates power, most like

# ? Jul 26, 2023 00:55

Adenoid Dan: Mar 8, 2012; The Hobo Serenader; Lipstick Apathy

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

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Raenir Salazar posted:

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?

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

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

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

Wibla: Feb 16, 2011

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

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

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

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

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

Zelthar: Apr 15, 2004

Raenir Salazar posted:

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?

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

GlassEye-Boy: Jul 12, 2001

Water rights are not something you want to gently caress with as a individual.

# ? Jul 30, 2023 04:05

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

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

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

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.

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.

In a number of states you are legally forbidden from placing a barrel on your property to collect rainwater.

# ? Jul 30, 2023 05:08

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

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

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

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.

So far, the effort has produced little in tangible assets: roughly one gigawatt of capacity from the Watts Bar-2 reactor completed after decades of on-and-off-again construction and the promise of 2 GW from the long-delayed Plant Vogtle in Georgia. So far, not a single molecule of CO2 emissions has been avoided by a new reactor, and the primary beneficiaries are not the people who paid but publicly-owned utilities, reactor design companies, and PR and law firms. They are part of a chorus of advocacy groups and government agencies, led by the Department of Energy (DOE), advancing the idea that low-carbon nuclear is essential to any long-term climate change solution.

The story is selling well but the push for more and more money�in direct subsidies, ratepayer financing, and government grants or loans�has a dark side. To cite just a few examples, former state officials and utility executives in Illinois and Ohio face lengthy prison terms for bribery schemes linked to subsidies for unprofitable nuclear plants. In South Carolina, two former Scana executives received prison sentences after pleading guilty to criminal charges in 2020 and 2021 over a nuclear project that ultimately collapsed. Two Westinghouse executives also charged are facing a similar fate, with one still awaiting trial in October.

When it comes to costs and schedules, the lack of honesty surrounding nuclear projects is often breathtaking. In Georgia, where two Westinghouse reactors at Vogtle have been under construction since 2009, only one is completed and is now struggling to achieve commercial operation after multiple unplanned reactor and turbine trips, according to recent Georgia Public Service Commission staff testimony. That testimony also included allegations that utility executives have been providing �materially inaccurate� cost estimates over the project�s life. Vogtle�s estimated total $33 billion cost, as outlined in the testimony, versus $13.3 billion originally estimated makes it the most expensive power plant ever built in the United States. Most of the tab is being footed by ratepayers, with the US taxpayer, via DOE, providing $12 billion in loans.

And still, the messaging that nuclear is a must for reducing emissions goes on at a fever pitch. But the message is distorted: The industry cannot deliver what is needed. The U.S. lost its industrial base, including heavy forging capacity, decades ago�and the costs of a major nuclear buildout could now be in the trillions.

Moreover, the billions currently being spent on nuclear are crowding out viable, less costly solutions for decarbonizing the power sector (not only renewables such as wind and power but also high-voltage direct current transmission lines to deliver them to where they�re needed), thus slowing the transition. A surfeit of renewables projects is seeking grid access, enough to meet 90% of the Biden administration�s goal of a carbon-free power sector by 2035, according to a Berkeley Lab report, but the country�s Balkanized electricity market system, monopolistic utilities, and lack of adequate transmission capacity will likely prevent most of it from succeeding.

The transmission capacity needed for renewables will require anywhere from $30 billion to $90 billion to meet demand by 2030, with the figures rising to $200 billion to $600 billion between 2030 and 2050, according to a study by the Brattle Group. Squandering such sums on nuclear should be out of the question.

Our current fleet of 92 reactors generates about a fifth of the nation�s electricity, but most of the plants are slated for permanent closure by 2050, assuming they operate well beyond their 40-year design life. The DOE admits that such �life extensions� put operators in uncharted waters because there is no actual experience to support 60- or 80-year reactor lifetimes.

The problem of where to put used nuclear fuel (radioactive waste) remains after funding was withdrawn for an estimated $100 billion underground repository project at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Proposed privately-owned interim storage sites in New Mexico and Texas, though licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, face intense local and state opposition as well as political obstacles at the federal level.

Industry officials privately acknowledge these challenges. Even so, nuclear is receiving the most favorable media coverage since the 1950s, and the latest annual Gallup poll on nuclear, released in April, showed the highest level of support in a decade for nuclear power among the American public�at 55%. Nuclear opponents in Congress are now silent on the issue or even hinting at changed views, and bipartisan support in Congress has over the past couple of years resulted in billions in tax incentives and other forms of support for both existing and planned nuclear plants.

But public opinion is fickle�and no guarantee for the future. Since Gallup began polling on nuclear in 1994, support peaked at 62% in 2010, a year before the triple meltdowns at Fukushima. After that, it went steadily down, to a low of 44% in 2016. Nor is popular opinion an indicator of whether nuclear�s formidable technical, financial, environmental, and geopolitical challenges can be overcome.

The primary aims of today�s promoters are to prevent aging, uneconomic reactors from closing, and to secure funding for small modular reactors (SMRs) and �advanced� reactors (and associated fuels).

The push for smaller reactors appears to have been an act of desperation by a nuclear-centric energy agency�the DOE (which also oversees the country�s nuclear weapons programs)�after its failed attempt to create a nuclear �renaissance� in the early 2000s. Although that project generated interest (utilities filed plans for 28 large-scale reactors), only the two at Vogtle were ever built.

The Renaissance was already failing when the Fukushima disaster occurred in March 2011. Two years later the DOE began pushing the concept of SMRs (with factory-built modules) based on conventional light-water cooling technology as a safer alternative. So-called advanced reactors based on long-shelved old designs were resuscitated even though they too pose safety and proliferation risks, and like SMRs cost far more than conventional designs on a per-megawatt basis because they lack the benefits of scaling.

While the PR focused on small reactors, the struggle to build�or complete�the white elephants continued in South Carolina and Georgia. The Tennessee Valley Authority finally completed Watts Bar-2 in Tennessee, at a cost of $4.7 billion (not counting what had been spent since the project was launched in 1971).

For Westinghouse, things weren�t going swimmingly. Its bankruptcy in 2017 took the South Carolina project (along with its majority owner, SCE&G) with it, leading to the eventual prison sentences, and a $9 to $10 billion tab. Another $3 billion was spent trying to save two plants in Florida, which ultimately failed. Including conservative industry estimates of $1 billion spent on �renaissance� reactor project applications that went nowhere, and the $33 billion estimate for Vogtle, the tab for saving nuclear approaches $50 billion�and counting.

�We don�t have a narrative, a story,� complained nuclear engineer turned Silicon Valley venture capitalist Ray Rothrock at a 2018 DOE meeting. �Right now we are selling Vogtle and Summer. If we try to sell this idea of nuclear to somebody, it will be a hard sell. We need a new story.�

The small reactor paradigm became the �new story� that Rothrock and others were looking for, advertised as flexible, light-on-its feet space age technology. In 2020 the DOE announced plans to spend almost $5 billion in cost-share awards for its three lead projects�one SMR and two advanced reactors.

An Atlantic article in March this year advanced these concepts as new thinking by clever �newcomers� to nuclear, who, in fact, are mostly old industry hands. Forbes, in a February article, describes SMRs as a potential �go-to energy source� with �enormous� growth potential. �By 2030, there will be five or 10. By 2035 or 2040, there will be a real hockey stick in terms of growth. The financing will be a lot easier because there will be a reference project,� Holtec International senior vice president Rick Springman told Forbes.

But this push for smaller reactors depends on prototypes being built and successfully operated by 2030 and follow-on orders for hundreds more. That doesn�t seem likely. Contrary to its own hype, the DOE understands this. In March the agency admitted in a report that only large reactors (1 GW or more) have a shot at making an impact on decarbonization. But they would have to be built en masse�200 to 300 by 2050�which is roughly double or triple the number ever built in this country. While SMRs and advanced reactors could still play a role, to its credit, the DOE report warned that �waiting until the mid-2030s to deploy at scale could lead to missing decarbonization targets and/or significant supply chain overbuild.�

Based on Vogtle�s price tag the cost to the nation would be somewhere between $3 trillion and $5 trillion�or more. �They just don�t seem to be tethered to reality,� a prominent nuclear industry CEO said of the proposal. �That�s a lot of [expletive deleted] money and I�m not sure where it all comes from.� As for advanced reactors �that have been around since the 1960s,� he added, �Doesn�t anybody [in the industry] but me think there will be multiple technical revolutions in competing energy production techniques?�

It�s hard to see how any of the nuclear hype becomes real unless Congress is ready to ignore market signals, nationalize the electricity sector, and rebuild an industrial infrastructure that disappeared decades ago.

The conclusion appears to be in line with this thread :cheers:

# ? Jul 30, 2023 09:40

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

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

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Dante80 posted:

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

Red Alert 4's graphics sure are impressive! :aaa:

Owling Howl posted:

Fortune published a piece on the nuclear industry which some here may find intriguing.

The conclusion appears to be in line with this thread

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

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

Owling Howl posted:

Fortune published a piece on the nuclear industry which some here may find intriguing.

The conclusion appears to be in line with this thread

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

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

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

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

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

aniviron: Sep 11, 2014

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

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Owling Howl posted:

Fortune published a piece on the nuclear industry which some here may find intriguing.

The conclusion appears to be in line with this thread

Kinda grim, because the same bolded conclusion also applies to whether we will address climate change at all.

# ? Jul 31, 2023 07:49

Mid-Life Crisis: Jun 13, 2023; by Fluffdaddy

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

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

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). :v:

A much better written, and much more realistic recent article would be this:

quote:

Why a new era for US nuclear looks unlikely
Evidence suggests the Inflation Reduction Act and the advent of small modular reactors is unlikely to lead to a US nuclear resurgence in the medium term.

(...)

There are some things about the future of US electricity that nearly all analysts agree on. One is that electricity grids are set to be dominated by variable renewables, namely solar and wind, alongside battery storage, as these offer an increasingly cheap source of low-carbon power generation.

Another is that existing nuclear power plants are likely to keep running for as long as they can do so safely. The IEA describes extending nuclear power lifespans as an �an indispensable part of a cost-effective path to net zero by 2050�.

When it comes to new nuclear energy, it remains possible to be optimistic. �I think that at least some upcoming US nuclear projects will be better managed than the AP1000 projects � which is a really low bar to clear � and if they are, and they come in relatively on schedule and on budget, then I expect more and more of them will be built, especially with a third of the cost being taken away by a tax credit,� says Bowen.

Yet beyond hopes and hypotheticals, data shows us there is currently no new generation of GW-scale nuclear plants set to come online. Meanwhile, the federal tax credits available mean there are a number of SMR projects in development, and in all likelihood some of these will produce power for the US. However, ever-increasing price estimates, along with the fact that much SMR technology is still at the development stage, makes it unlikely SMRs will play a major, competitive role in the rapid decarbonisation of the US power system that is required over the next few decades.

Dante80 fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Jul 31, 2023

# ? Jul 31, 2023 08:35

Electric Wrigglies: Feb 6, 2015

Yeah, I agree that's a no-stary eyed, business as usual if nothing drastic changes prediction.

# ? Jul 31, 2023 09:34

Dante80: Mar 23, 2015

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.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak confirmed plans for more than 100 such licences, which attracted bids earlier this year and said hundreds of future licenses could also be granted.

He also announced fresh support for two carbon capture and storage (CCS) clusters in Scotland and northern England.

Britain has a target to reach net zero emissions by 2050 but Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said even by this date the country is expected to get more than a quarter of its energy from oil and gas.

He said new domestic fossil fuels would help to improve the energy security and reduce reliance on states such as Russia.

"We have all witnessed how (Russia's President) Putin has manipulated and weaponised energy... Now more than ever, it�s vital that we bolster our energy security," he said in a statement.

(...)

# ? Jul 31, 2023 13:00

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

"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

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

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.

The two plates of the capacitor function just like the two poles of a rechargeable battery of equivalent voltage: When connected to a source of electricity, as with a battery, energy gets stored in the plates, and then when connected to a load, the electrical current flows back out to provide power.

�The material is fascinating,� Masic says, �because you have the most-used manmade material in the world, cement, that is combined with carbon black, that is a well-known historical material � the Dead Sea Scrolls were written with it. You have these at least two-millennia-old materials that when you combine them in a specific manner you come up with a conductive nanocomposite, and that�s when things get really interesting.�

As the mixture sets and cures, he says, �The water is systematically consumed through cement hydration reactions, and this hydration fundamentally affects nanoparticles of carbon because they are hydrophobic (water repelling).� As the mixture evolves, �the carbon black is self-assembling into a connected conductive wire,� he says. The process is easily reproducible, with materials that are inexpensive and readily available anywhere in the world. And the amount of carbon needed is very small � as little as 3 percent by volume of the mix � to achieve a percolated carbon network, Masic says.

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.

After a series of tests used to determine the most effective ratios of cement, carbon black, and water, the team demonstrated the process by making small supercapacitors, about the size of some button-cell batteries, about 1 centimeter across and 1 millimeter thick, that could each be charged to 1 volt, comparable to a 1-volt battery. They then connected three of these to demonstrate their ability to light up a 3-volt light-emitting diode (LED). Having proved the principle, they now plan to build a series of larger versions, starting with ones about the size of a typical 12-volt car battery, then working up to a 45-cubic-meter version to demonstrate its ability to store a house-worth of power.

There is a tradeoff between the storage capacity of the material and its structural strength, they found. By adding more carbon black, the resulting supercapacitor can store more energy, but the concrete is slightly weaker, and this could be useful for applications where the concrete is not playing a structural role or where the full strength-potential of concrete is not required. For applications such as a foundation, or structural elements of the base of a wind turbine, the �sweet spot� is around 10 percent carbon black in the mix, they found.

# ? Aug 1, 2023 15:51

M_Gargantua: Oct 16, 2006; STOMP'N ON INTO THE POWERLINES; Exciting Lemon

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

Doom Rooster: Sep 3, 2008; Pillbug

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.

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.

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

Owling Howl: Jul 17, 2019

M_Gargantua posted:

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.

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

Gort: Aug 18, 2003; Good day what ho cup of tea

Dante80 posted:

In other news...

Britain commits to hundreds of North Sea oil and gas licences

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

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

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

Barry Foster: Dec 24, 2007; What is going wrong with that one (face is longer than it should be)

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 10:39

Endjinneer: Aug 17, 2005; Fallen Rib

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

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

«‹›349 »