The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

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

«‹›3 »

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

OK I'm somewhat reluctant to do this, since I used to post things on here all the time, and they'd get shot down and I'd lose heart, but I've been working on a video that neatly summarises the case for renewables in Australia, and I'm interested in some feedback and maybe a little help.

The idea is to make something that will hopefully spread virally. Maybe not quite "I Never Dreamed We Could Go 100% Renewable - Until I Saw This! Unbelievable!", but something that will get shared.

Format wise it's a sub-10 minute fairly rapid slide show with a voice over, with pictures and photos and diagrams, maybe a few short animations / video bits, even a cartoon or two. Not a slide for every word, but a lot of words would have slides. Here's a link to a google drive file with the slides in it (may need to use cloud converter to put it into pdf, seems like a big file, I am not good with computers): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByXAVa0RBbl0eWJ2ZEhCd0xZWDg/edit?usp=sharing

The slides have fallen well behind the script because I've been ignoring them until the script is more ready, but it lines up in most spots, and at least you can get an idea of the sorts of graphics involved.

The "solar freaking roadways" video is an interesting case study. The idea barely even makes sense, it has virtually no data to back it up, and I personally found the video quite irritating - but it got shared everywhere, over 70 million views, and raised over $2 million through indie gogo. Those are the sort of results I'm aiming for (high, I know).

So what I'm after is technical feedback - anything that jumps out at you as being wrong or not making sense. As you read it you'll see a lot of missing data points, feel free to fill them in if you can. Stylistic feedback is welcome too, but I'm expecting more technical stuff here. I know this is the toughest audience I can think of, but try and be nice just the same.

A few points:

Nuclear is a non starter over here, so I've left it out. So don't bother saying "why not just build nuclear". I'm not anti nuclear but that's not what this is about.

I've also completely left out any mention of climate change. The whole thing is framed in terms of the efficiency of the various methods.

It's at about 7:30 now, I've been running a scalpel over it countless times over the past few weeks, I don't know what else to take out. I'd like to get a 3 minute version as well though.

So here we go:

quote:

Let�s talk about Australia�s energy. We use electricity for everything these days, but where does it come from?

This is a big topic so first we�re going to need some numbers. How much energy do we actually need? If we assume a 40% increase over the next 10 years, it�s 325 TWh per annum. For this, we need a standing capacity of X GW.

How do we power those plants at the moment?

We dig stuff up. Lots, and lots of stuff. Let�s have look at how much stuff we actually go through.

Energy is measured in joules. Coal has an energy content of about 37 million joules, or megajoules MJ, per kilo.

Now Power Plants are measured in Watts, and a Watt means One Joule per Second. So if a power plant is rated at 1 Giga Watt, that means it�s pumping out 1 billion Joules per Second. Right?

So, with coal�s energy content of 37 million joules per kilo, to get that billion joules per second, you need to burn 27 kilos of it every second. But since they�re only around 35% efficient, you actually need to burn around 80 kg of coal per second. That�s 7,000 tonnes per day. In total, Australia goes through X kilos of coal per year. This leaves X kilos of ash, and releases X kg of arsenic, mercury, carbon, etc into the atmosphere.

Mining is still one of the most dangerous industries, and towns close to coal plants report cancer/disease rates X% higher than average. Last year coal was directly responsible for X deaths. (Doctors for the environment)

The other problem with fossil fuels is that they�re extremely combustible � that�s why we use them in the first place, so they have a tendency to catch fire and, well, explode.

But how does a coal plant actually work? Where does the electricity come from? Well, they burn the coal, to boil water, to make steam, to spin a turbine. It�s the spinning turbine that makes the electricity, which goes down the wires and into your home. It�s basically just a giant kettle. All this. To boil water. To make steam. To spin a turbine.

Fortunately, there�s more than one way to spin a turbine.

We�ve all heard about renewable energy, but how much of our energy can it actually provide? A quarter? Half? All of it? Let�s find out.

2:00

Remember we�re talking about that X GW standing capacity. At the moment, Renewables produce around 5%. Let�s aim for 100% and see what happens.

Australia gets X GW of direct solar energy per day. That is enough to power our needs for X years. So there�s obviously more than enough coming in, it�s just a matter of catching it.

And that�s exactly what Concentrated Solar Thermal plants do � Use giant mirrors to concentrate the sun�s heat on a central tower, and use that to boil water to spin a turbine.

This is the Ivanpah facility in Nevada. It produces X (330?) MW. If you put 13 of them together, you get 3.5 GW. If you get 12 of those sites around the country, that�s 42.5 GW, or enough to supply 60% of our target, for a cost of around $175 billion. The only fuel it needs is the sun, and when there�s a huge spill, it�s just called a nice day.

But what about when there�s no sun? Obviously a good question, and the answer is that they store the heat as molten salt, which keeps the system going 24/7. We also have another source of energy: The Wind.

Australia get an average of X GWh of wind energy per day, or enough to power X % of our needs. Again, it�s just a matter of catching it.

3:00

This, is an Enercon E126 turbine. It�s 138 meters tall, has a diameter of 127 meters, and on its own, produces 7.5 MW. If you put 2,000 � 3,000 of them together at one site, you get 13 � 22 GW. If you get 23 of those sites around the country, you get around X GW, or 40% of our energy demand, for a cost of $72 billion.

Now they do take up space, as I�m sure you�ve noticed. X sq km in total (CST / Wind). But there are two points to make here. First, Australia is unique in the world for just how much space it has, and second, that land can still be used for productive purposes. You can�t grow wheat on a coal mine, but you can on a wind farm.

As we know, the weather varies, so the plan has carefully selected a geographically diverse network of dozens of sites across the country, and modelled the meteorological data across several years to see how it holds up.

And the modelling shows that you still need back ups and helpers. Those are: Rooftop PV, existing Hydro, and Biomass.

Solar PV is solar thermal�s better known cousin. Except instead of using heat, it uses the electrical energy of sunlight to move electrons.
4:00

It would take X% of our available roof space to power Australia. But because we have the network, we only need X% for back up purposes. This would provide X GW.

Next up we have existing hydro. The Snowy Mountain Hyrdo Scheme was a classic Nation building exercise, which created thousands of jobs, played a formative role in our cultures, and secured a steady, reliable, renewable source of energy for Australia. At the moment it provides about 5% of Australia�s energy, which the plan will obviously continue to make use of.

Lastly have biomass. This can be anything, but is usually Bagasse, a waste product from sugar production. We use it by burning it, just like coal in the good �ol days. Except instead of taking millions of years to form, it�s produced on a daily basis.

The cost for all these back ups is between $10-20 billion.

To get the best performance out of this new system, we�re going to have to upgrade the transmission grid� from this, to this. That�ll cost around $92 billion.

5:00

So let�s put it all together and see how it performs for us. We know that this is how much energy we need we need over a year. And we also know how much sun and wind these places get over a year. So, this, is how much the wind turbines would give us. This, is how much the solar plants would give us. Straight away you can see that normally this is more than enough (need the slide to show total generation not cut off at the black line), but there are a few points around June and August where it falls short, and that�s where we use our backups of hydro and biomass. And that�s it, right there. We�ve got something to work with.

So it�s technologically possible, but what about getting it built? What effect will this have on the employment market?

Manufacturing would create around 30,000 jobs. This would then roll over into a world class export industry. Construction and Installation would provide around 80,000 jobs at its peak � 8% of Australia�s present construction work force. Then ongoing operations and maintenance would provide for about 40,000 new jobs.

It would literally create a whole new industry, catapulting Australia to the forefront of global innovation.

So what�s it cost all up? The Solar Thermal, plus the wind, plus the back ups, plus the transmission grid, comes to a total of $370 billion. Over 10 years, that works out to be $37 billion a year.

6:00
Where does that fit in terms of our overall spending? Well Australia�s GDP is $1.2 trillion per year, so this plan would cost 3% of GDP per year, for 10 years. To put it in perspective, we spend $20 billion a year on gambling. We can obviously afford this.

But what about the cost of not doing it? Energy at the moment isn�t free, and over 30 years, it�s about the same number of dollars. The difference between the capital cost of the plan and the fuel savings roughly evens out over that time frame. But after that, where are we?

Still with our heads buried in the mines, digging stuff up? Funnelling fossil fuels into furnaces? What happens when the rest of the world doesn�t want our coal? How can you measure the cost of being left behind in a new global industry?

All of this plan was developed by a group called Beyond Zero Emissions, but the point isn�t to say we need to do this plan specifically. The point is to give us a framework with which to think about the issue, and open the door to discussion.

Energy production is of course just one piece of the puzzle Beyond Zero Emissions is also working on many others, including a Transport Plan, a Buildings Plan, a Land Use Plan, and more.

Your donations will help BZE to continue to do the research needed to make these plans happen. Log on to energyfreedom.com.au and pledge your support for a sustainable future.

Australia�s economy has relied on exporting energy for decades. But the global energy market is changing. We need to become an international renewable energy super power.

We are uniquely positioned, with all of our space, and all of our sunlight, to develop the strongest renewable energy industry in the world. We have the solar power. We have the wind power. All we need now is the will power.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2014 04:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 04:22

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

blowfish posted:

How many days of storage do you get for 20 billion (probably not many)?

I'll give you 17 hours and that's my final offer.
(The Ivanpah website doesn't seem to say, but that's the number from Gemasolar in Spain that we've been working with I think)

After that, you burn Biomass I guess.

QuarkJets posted:

Okay, but why not? Your video seems to be about reducing fossil fuel use in Australia, so why not build nuclear power plants that use Australian-produced uranium? You're trying to use an educational approach, so it seems like a really good opportunity to push a cheap and safe energy source whose widespread implementation is restricted only by a lack of education

It's a fair question, and I see where you're coming from, but the answer is basically what Gul Madred said, and what I said in the beginning. It's a non-starter. Including nuclear makes it a whole different Thing, and would get plenty of people who you want to be allies off side.

In a few years, maybe we could do another video, comparing the hundreds of square kilometers needed by the plan to a handful of nuke plants for the same output except more reliable. But that's just not realistic right now, so I'm starting with this.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2014 13:00

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

blacksun posted:

It's funny that in the AusPol thread, everyone constantly posts the meme 'THE GREENS WILL NEVER FORM GOVERNMENT BECAUSE NO ONE VOTES FOR THE GREENS'. At the same time, you all post in the power gen thread about how nuclear power will never happen in Australia because people don't like nuclear power.

Cognitive dissonance much?

Not really? Sounds pretty consistent - unpopular things are unpopular. But I do vote green, and I do talk to people about nuclear, but that's not what this specific video is for. You want to make a nuclear video, go for it. Also I really haven't been doing much posting in either thread for some time.

And thanks phayray I'll try and read those tomorrow.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2014 14:16

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Kind of funny that the one thing I said was "don't bother bringing up nuclear", and yet...

Quantum Mechanic posted:

One of the things that isn't often noted about the BZE plan is that it does rely heavily on capital investment into energy efficiency, not just renewable production.

I had this bit in, but it got cut to keep it down. It's pretty hard to explain a plan like this with all the backgroud in 7 and a half minutes.

"The quickest and easiest way to reduce the gap between the amount that we produce and the amount that we need, is to lower the amount that we need. There are a lot of easy gains to be made with efficiency, and by just targeting low hanging fruit, we can do a lot more with a lot less. That�s another whole video on its own, but here, we�re talking about the production side. So let�s look at what we�ve got."

I decided it took up to many seconds so will likely just make another video for it. BZE have asked me to do one for all of them, starting with energy freedom and building plans next.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2014 23:04

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Thanks, on a phone, but just a quick one to say the oil slides at the end had been cut, and it actually 'ends' on the slide with the 5 other plans on it, sorry if that was unclear. And just to reiterate, the slides are way behind the script ATM and represent only a rough sketch of the final product.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2014 01:21

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Anosmoman posted:

Solar in Germany

Solar in Australia :dance:

# ¿ Jul 31, 2014 03:23

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Tokamak posted:

I think it would have been great if the report suggested a deployment that took into account the attrition of our current assets and staggered construction to meet them.

I'm not sure if you read the whole report or not, but it basically did this. Materials as a percentage of national annual production are on page 102, and the staggered construction you can see in the slides, or read more about from page 108.

edit: Still extremely optimistic of course, and bordering on a war-time style "Let's all do this right now" kind of thing, but a good starting point, and the numbers are there.

Bucky Fullminster fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Jul 31, 2014

# ¿ Jul 31, 2014 03:32

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

ohgodwhat posted:

Just with regards to making a viral video, adding a bunch of "choices" at the end based on various plans might seem to be good educationally, but I wonder if it might make it less effective - paralysis of choice and all that. Essentially, I think it raises doubt in the message. I bet there's a way to honestly convey the possibilities without distracting from your point.

Sorry if I was unclear again, they're not different plans for energy generation, they're different plans for different areas - transport, land use, buildings, etc. Energy generation is just one part of their research, and I think it's worth mentioning the others.

quote:

save all the money you'd spend building up that infrastructure locally and instead ship and build it somewhere useful like India. Help their grid out while you're at it, Germany. There, you're saving the world more efficiently. Good job.

Oh man, that's actually a pretty good idea.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2014 07:24

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Kaal posted:

Maybe for an NGO or a venture capitalist, but it'd be completely irresponsible for a nation-state that is nominally beholden to its citizens.

One planet, brother.

Literally I mean. As in, if Germany is trying to lower the carbone pollution produced by their energy generation for its effect on the global climate, that money would perform much better in India.

For the local particulate emissions, yeah ok maybe they should keep it in Germany.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2014 07:48

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Wish I had some better news to share:

Pelarmis, The Scottish company that was leading the charge for wave power, has gone into administration.

quote:

A WORLD-LEADING Scottish wave energy firm is being put into administration after failing to raise sufficient funds to develop its renewable technology.

Pelamis Wave Power (PWP) invented the pioneering �sea snake� energy converter, which uses the motion of ocean surface waves to create electricity.

The machine is made up of linked sections which flex and bend as waves pass, generating power in the process.

It won inventor Dr Richard Yemm the 2012 Saltire Prize medal for his outstanding contribution to developing the marine renewables sector.

But in a statement, the Edinburgh-based firm said it was �reluctantly� moving to appoint an administrator.

�The directors regret to announce that they have been unable to secure the additional funding required for further development of the company�s market-leading wave-energy technology,� the statement said.

�Pelamis is the world�s most advanced wave-energy technology company. It recently received a strong endorsement of this leading position from independent consultants.�

The statement also detailed �350 man-years of experience in the team, [and] 15,000 hours of real grid-connected test data�.

PWP said the administrator will assess options for the future of the business and its 56 employees, while the company remained committed to its �revolutionary technology�.

The firm was regarded as one of Scotland�s two great hopes in the quest to create clean renewable energy from wave power. The other is �Oyster� inventor Aquamarine Power, which has backing from shareholders including energy giant SSE.

Industry experts highlighted the difficulties faced by the sector but commended the key role PWP has played.

Lindsay Leask, of industry body Scottish Renewables, said: �While this news is clearly concerning for the company and its employees, it shows both the challenging conditions in which this sector operates and the risks inherent in developing new technology.

�PWP�s contribution to this emerging industry has helped cement Scotland�s position as a global leader, and it is important to remember that the prize from the eventual commercialisation of wave energy remains hugely significant.�

Last year, the firm was awarded a share of the Scottish Government�s �18 million Marine Renewables Commercialisation Fund to help bring the sea snake to market.

A government spokesman said: �This is a sad day for Pelamis and an anxious time for employees and their families.�

http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/wave-power-firm-pelamis-goes-into-administration-1-3612769

# ¿ Nov 24, 2014 03:04

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

It's a pretty common story:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khNxvhMeJsM

# ¿ Apr 29, 2015 08:23

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

One of the good things about being a thousand posts behind is you find posts like these:

StabbinHobo posted:

depending on how you do the math tesla is currently shipping car packs at about $175 - 200/kwh. they claim they'll hit $100/kwh by the end of this year. of course they will not, they never hit any date they claim, but realistically we're looking at $100/kwh by 2020.

Anyone know how this is looking?

Also;

CommieGIR posted:

Hm, this sounds familiar:

quote:
Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but China and India aren't doing anything � so we don�t have to change anything.[43]
Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, and maybe China and India are willing to do something, but I've heard about this new energy source/technology that's going to completely solve the problem in 10-20 years � so we don't have to change anything.
Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but even if China and India do something it�s too late for us to do anything and it would cost us a shitload of dough � so we don�t have to change anything.
Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments could and should have done something, but it's too late now![44]

Ah yes, the climate change denial sliding staircase!

Are there 42 other steps out there somewhere? I get the idea and like it, but I googled the sliding stair case and couldn't find that thing

Anyway here's a thing I just finished putting together, it's very basic so there won't be any new information in there for anyone in the thread, but you might enjoy the way it's presented and perhaps find it useful to educate others, feel free to fact check or whatever:

Green Energy is Good to Go

Yes a lot of it is quite old but you get the idea.

Thanks again to everyone keeping all this going.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2019 02:01

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

CommieGIR posted:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming#The_denialist_staircase

I've seen in a couple other places, both expanded and abbreviated.

ah cheers, that was the site I found, I just missed the list somehow. Good resource.

StabbinHobo posted:

the next thing to watch for will be the pricing of the "megapack" deals as they become public in dribs and drabs over the next year or two.

I may have been too optimistic about $100/kWH by 2020, but like, ok, then it'll be 2022.

haha yeah it was a bit cheeky to call it out, you just don't see a prediction close to its date like that very often.

I wonder the extent to which eBikes play into all this? Seems like a pretty big field which has come out of nowhere quite quickly and could have an effect on the R&D and demand and deployment of batteries etc.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2019 10:47

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

QuarkJets posted:

Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough

I have to imagine that they're doing more than just concentrated solar with an AI figuring out where the sun is. Maybe AI-driven adaptive optics to correct the outgoing wavefront to the receiver, to achieve a smaller spot size? That would be truly cool and should accomplish a lot more than what concentrated solar normally achieves

Correcting outgoing wavefronts sounds fascinating, and I wonder if anyone is looking in to it, but this really does sound like they're just aligning the mirrors precisely "with software". I didn't know conventional CST was leaving that much on the table. How do they get the heat from up there in the tower to where it's needed I wonder?

Also:

"One problem with solar is that the sun doesn't always shine, yet industrial companies like cement makers have a constant need for heat. Heliogen said it would solve that issue by relying on storage systems that can hold the solar energy for rainy days"

Oh cool, hear that guys? They have storage systems. What are they you ask? Mind your own business, sheesh.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2019 12:00

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

If molten salt can work at those temperatures then yeah that would make sense, not sure why they couldn't just say that though, it's not like it's secret technology or anything. Feels like CNN were more interested in getting their 'fighting climate change with AI' soundbite.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2019 14:13

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

ElCondemn posted:

Cheap and fast and doing it wrong doesn't kill everyone in the vicinity.

It sure did in Wales in the late 60s, as recently shown in the third episode of season three of The Crown

# ¿ Nov 21, 2019 15:19

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Kaal posted:

We can't solve climate justice without also resolving 1,500 years of colonial patriarchy

I mean, that part probably will turn out to be true

# ¿ Dec 3, 2019 12:12

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

MrYenko posted:

Speaking as a federal civilian employee, nuclear shouldn�t be publicly operated, either.

loving government managers can�t operate their way out of a wet paper bag.

.. Are you saying that you don't want nuclear to be operated at all? Because if I had to choose between it being operated for the greater good, or for profit, I'd have to say the former. Federal government managers and private company managers are all equally human, it is the motive behind it which matters. A private company is incentivised to cut corners wherever possible to make a buck, a public one is not.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2020 02:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 04:22

Bucky Fullminster: Apr 13, 2007

Is there a reason we don't hear much about different batteries like AGM for household energy storage?

With Lithium being somewhat more controversial than we may have been led to believe in terms of its extraction and quantities and such, it feels like there should be more alternatives in the conversation.

Is it to do with the charging / discharging profile or something?

# ¿ Aug 20, 2023 16:00

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

«‹›3 »