|
this might not be the right place, but does anyone here work in commercial solar? if you were say a middle aged person with a bad back, and therefore not really capable of starting from the "bottom" (physical labor on roofs), how would you go about getting a foot in the door? I'm thinking anything along the lines of sales engineering, or installation project management. For instance, I read this post and think "this thing is going to sell like hot-cakes": https://runonsun.solar/~runons5/blogs/blog1.php/solworks/est/hands-on-ensemble-my-trip-to-enphase How can I help accelerate that as a day job? I'm of course completely unqualified, which is why i'm trying to figure out how and where to start. My operating assumption is that this industry is growing much faster than they can hire qualified people, so on-the-job training has to be "normal" to some degree, right?
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
hopefully they hit the wrong fault line, trigger "the big one", and knock off a fifth of US GDP for a decade
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2020 21:37
|
|
|
does anyone have any insider opinions (or even just industry-familiarity) with NREL? are they really doing cool poo poo? or is it just some federal bureaucracy limping along post-perry/trump gutting? is the stuff they do moving the ball, or just meta-analysis of what industry (or china) is doing to move the ball?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2020 04:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:They do lots of really good research and are the premiere (but still token) renewables lab in the national lab system, the rest of which are nuclear (weapons) except the other token fossil fuel lab. thanks. researching a job opp.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2020 05:16
|
|
|
there are several dedicated tesla/musk shitposting threads if you're bored: c-spam: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3862673 yospos: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3862643
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
the numbers on solar+storage are getting pretty amazing: https://www.energy-storage.news/blogs/battery-storage-at-us20-mwh-breaking-down-low-cost-solar-plus-storage-ppas $20/MWh *with storage* for batteries that cost $310/kWh, which will likely halve over the decade MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Mar 24, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
without taking the time to dig up the graphs i'm gonna say the US shale market threw what, 6 - 8 Mbpd on the market over the course of the last decade? assuming 80% of that evaporates over the course of the next 2 years, that will more than offset any increase russia and ksa *could* do, let alone what they'll still be doing by then. eat poo poo and die permian frackers, you're done
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
welcome to the internet, everything is terrible and you should feel unhappy all the time
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2020 00:29
|
|
|
it doesn't matter if in reality 50 - 90% of all flights are canceled and planes grounded, what matters is an anecdote in AN ARTICLE I READ because it perfectly fits my favorite narratives and its TECHNICALLY CORRECT* * the best kind ofc
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2020 06:10
|
|
|
oh look an entire 10 seconds spent googling and thats from march
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2020 14:50
|
|
|
Lou Takki posted:Yeah they don't want me to go above 99% which isn't really a big deal I suppose. tesla's 3.78kW system is $7770 after the fed tax credit, or $2.06/W
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2020 01:07
|
|
|
screenshot attached
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2020 04:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Can you buy panel installs from tesla? They used to only do leased panels. no i photoshopped it
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2020 04:42
|
|
|
sometimes when I get really high I imagine half the navy's budget and manpower re-directed into an offshore wind build-out
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
I wish we had like a nuclear/grid version of the strategic petroleum reserve. Whats the sunk capital and opex cost there?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
hey remember NuScale, the poster-child for the "Small Modular Reactor" concept that was going to use assembly line manufacturing and low-enriched fuel to break through the cost and saftey barriers? yea thats over now https://losalamosreporter.com/2020/08/22/get-out-of-the-fluor-nuscale-small-modular-reactor-project/ quote:The Fluor/Nuscale scheme to finance the development of this reactor by enlisting many small municipal utilities to subscribe to the power is only about 30% subscribed, and two municipalities recently dropped out while one new one opted in.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
its not modular anymore now though, its just small
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
freezepops posted:Baseload generation isn’t really a thing if you have a power grid with significant sources of non-dispatchable generation. Since you don’t have control of energy sources like PV, other than curtailment, the minimum power generation required to meet the lowest load point can be zero or even negative (depending on market structure and how renewable energy like wind and solar are incentivized). It also doesn’t take much renewable penetration for baseload requirements to be eliminated on a year long basis, even Texas with a renewable energy penetration of about 15-20% has had the grid operate with negative prices as non-dispatchable energy sources exceeded load. this is the difference between someone who actually understands the topic at hand, and people who formed their opinion of renewables in 2010 and refuse to learn anything new since (genx'ers incrementally ossifying their brains as they become the new boomers)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2020 20:03
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I mean, it's not that they don't work but the places that it's easy to drill are long and gone. That's how fracking along with horizontal drilling brought back so much drilling to the US. Along with recovering previously retired wells. you are mistaking narratives for numbers. narratives are things to paint on top of understanding the numbers, but are almost always marginal changes in rates and derivatives. the bulk of underlying things doesn't follow the marginal narratives, it trudges on much the same. if all you ever learn is narratives you'll trip over your lack of context into thinking wildly oversimplified narratives are an accurate understanding of real world numbers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Ballparking that chart... That comes out to 11.52 Gigawatts? the US installed 9GW of wind in 2019: https://www.windpowerengineering.com/2019-was-the-u-s-wind-industrys-third-strongest-installation-year/ 
MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Sep 2, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2020 02:53
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Perhaps some very educated person on energy infrastructure or engineering in this thread could tell me this, since I just recently became curious -- theoretically speaking, like, say we wanted a new nuclear power plant built as soon as possible, how fast could one safely be built? Like say for example, the USA were to go full command economy tomorrow, or like if Jeff Bezos commanded that a nuke plant be made somewhere. What I had read from this and that source was that the main reason why nuke plants take like 20 years to be built is because of all the extensive preparation and the fundraising. the navy (really its contractors) have been able to build a ton of nuclear subs in about 7 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#List_of_boats on the other hand, every one of chinas projects in the last decade has stalled and not gone online yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China#Reactor_technologies the most ardent optimist libertarian would probably say 5 years. reality says "null/undefined".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2020 03:36
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Okay, what are these numbers?  it probably hit 70/30 before covid, now its swinging back the other way haaaaard. also, while we're on the fracking topic again, whenever you see some stemlord bullshiting you about how fracking wells are no worse than normal wells remember that its the perfect kind of lie. "technically true" while supporting the false conclusion. fracking wells have a decay curve measured in months, vs traditional wells decades. to get the same amount of natgas to market you have to frack exponentially more wells. so even if they were perfectly the same amount of risk as a conventional well, the overall practice of fracking is still absolute crackhead insanity (still not as bad as tar sands tho).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2020 03:47
|
|
|
sure if by "better" you mean "without these pesky labor unions complaining about injuries"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2020 04:01
|
|
|
clearly if i were the god emperor of america i would right click on the menu and just put 200! nukebugs ideology always comes down to their mistaking reality for a game of civ
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Sorry that reality got on your way about PV and Wind, Germany. what churlish and childish tripe. gently caress you chud we're doing this without you. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2020 14:32
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Nah, that's wrong.... mods are like illiterate cops. they can't read/follow the thread, they don't pretend to understand whats going on, they just shoot based on tone. MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What the gently caress is with you people and ad homs? but we don't. we spend alllllll of our time having to sift through and occasionally correct and yell at the nukechuds with their endlessly smug and condescending bullshit built on their wholesale ignorant understanding of the basic reality we theoretically share. *you* are the problem, people aren't "ad-hom"ing you in a debate, they're pointing out what a loving miserable contributor to the debate you as a person are. (to be fair its you as a type of person, the nuke contrarian, you're not unique or special in this regard) this is the problem with the endless endless nuke debate. its not anchored in the reality of energy generation as evolving on earth. its entirely in service of your posting ego. the problem with nukechuds is the chuds not the nukes, so you can never solve it talking about nukes. i'm sorry for anyone else wasting their time reading along, here are some charts so that it was worth your time. first off, here we see emissions from the energy sector dropping quickly:  why's that? well here we see its because of a huge shift to renewables and drop in coal:  but whats that? some concern troll dragging you into their bullshit again over what renewables means? well here's the breakdown, spoiler alert its wind and solar:  wait whats that? all of that seems counter to everything you've read on facebook and in this thread? yes, thats the problem. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2020 01:25
|
|
|
and thus we come full circle gently caress you chud, we're doing this without you (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2020 01:53
|
|
|
for all our sakes I just put him on ignore Anyone following Stanford Energy's youtube channel's "digital grid summer series"? Its amazing how much work has already gone into this, some of the pilot projects are as early as '06. https://www.youtube.com/user/PrecourtInstitute/videos check out how massive the real marginal action is around the 6pm solar-fade/load-ramp demand peak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITgxaFEymEo&t=3230s MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:From how I’m reading this, wouldn’t germany be close to carbon neutral if, in addition to the growth in renewables and the savings, it had let the nukes running while shutting down more coal in turn? the first one clearly answers your question about carbon neutrality. (the answer is no, of course not, no one is even close to that, regardless of nukes, not even france) the second one shows the math to answer the second half of your question. Since "Energiewende" began (2013) nuclear production has been reduced about 20TWh/year while coal went down ~85 TWh/year. Over that same time period wind and solar increased about 90TWh/year. Essentially wind and solar replaced coal 1:1 while nuclear just got retired slowly. It is only a relentless prioritizing of being a technically correct contrarian concern troll that keeps people talking about nukes. In actual realty (see graphs) the german energy transition is going far far better than almost anywhere else in the world, and we should be praising them and emulating them not tut-tuting our amateur horseshit about nukes. This is analogous to concern trolling about long waiting times or various other nitpicks of the canadian or british healthcare system when people are promoting medicare for all. You're not helping, you're not even really correct, you're just babbling contrarian nonsense in service of undermining consensus and progress in order to defend the status quo. MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2020 13:21
|
|
|
I didn't have jack poo poo to do with selecting the timeframe of when Energiewende begain, that was entirely up to german voters. But please keep lecturing from your place of ignorance. I especially like the trick you used where you insert a bunch of "if" qualifiers so you can post bullshit off the top of your head rather than google and read for 5 minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2020 13:59
|
|
|
in a way his borderline illiteracy, inability to acknowledge let alone learn from being corrected, and reflexive escalation/goal-post-moving acts as a sort of "Cunningham's law" forcing function to bring real info into the thread. I had to paste a ton of charts and graphs, Phanatic had to quote a ton of real-facts to refute his bullshit, Kaal has to do all the math of proving him wrong over and over again. we've gone like a dozen pages now of mostly people correcting this chud, but if you dare call him that you'll catch a probo! 20 pages of trolling is a-ok, only name calling is bad. btw, as further proof that nuke chuds only like to argue about nukes to be smug on the internet, there was a pretty big development/step-forward in the nuclear industry in the last few days, and it didn't even show up in here! https://wognews.net/news/2020/9/the-new-chinas-nuclear-10-bln $10B for 4 x 1150MW reactors IMHO the development process of AP1000 -> CPR1000 -> ACPR1000 -> Hualong One is the real "standardization" of nuclear energy plants, its just that standards are messier and develop more ad-hoc than engineers ever think they will. Also its China doing it so our opinions matter even less than usual. MightyBigMinus fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Sep 9, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2020 14:17
|
|
|
The thing about li-ion storage numbers is those reports are all like trying to catch a falling knife. A 2 year old report that aggregates numbers across the 3 - 5 years worth of installs prior to it being published are going to be nearly 2 - 3x higher than fresh-new-deal numbers. to wit, its getting to be very common for new solar plants to have 50 - 500MW of li-on storage baked into the quote from day one. this isn't an internet nerd debate over if li-ion will ever work for this, reality has already decided yes and already started building. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/09/11/us-developer-secures-15-year-ppa-for-400-mw-of-pv-180-mw-540-mwh-of-storage/ quote:US developer secures 15-year PPA for 400 MW of PV, 180 MW/540 MWh of storage
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2020 15:48
|
|
|
Solvent posted:I [...] have been reading this thread because this is a subject I wanted to understand better. Solvent posted:Am I just full of misinformation lol?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
CrypticTriptych posted:Ten or even five years ago I was sure that a huge resurgence in nuclear was going to be necessary to get off fossil fuels in a reasonable time frame, and was very pro-atoms. Since wind, solar, and storage costs have dropped so fast, and show room for more improvement in the future, I think we're past the point where that makes sense anymore. I still think nuclear is amazing tech and has a place in decarbonizing the grid, but it's not going to be at the front of the pack for a long time, maybe ever. Ramping up the specialized skills and heavy industry required to construct and operate that many reactors would take years even as a moonshot project with lavish national funding, and that's clearly not in the cards. this is why it so perfectly functions as a test of peoples character as much as it has to do with nukes. its an almost perfect proxy for "are you still capable of learning new things and changing your opinions" vs "my brain froze in place at 35. between now and death I'm going to slowly brain-petrify into a boomer by being more and more condescending while simultaneously getting more and more wrong". (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
thesis: value is imputed by the labor it takes to make a thing antithesis: value is whatever anyones willing to pay for it synthesis: value is the energy cost of acquisition & consumption
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
~130 EJ a year from oil gas and coal in a 'net-zero' scenario huh? do they explain that? is it the typical "a magic BECCS will appear" ?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2020 05:37
|
|
|
quote:In the IPCC net-zero scenarios, the negative emissions produced using BECCS range from 5-10 Gt CO2.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2020 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
Kaal posted:Currently it takes about five years for a 2 GW fission plant to get built in China quote:- but that pace will certainly quicken as they move into mass production. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 22:12
|
|