|
Zero VGS posted:Yes, we should just take the car company's word for it. A reputable car company like Volkswagen would never fib. Heck, on the bike path use solar panels as overhead shade. As a cyclist, I'd appreciate that.
|
# ¿ Sep 24, 2018 21:49 |
|
|
# ¿ May 19, 2024 17:50 |
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:If distributed generation is a priority, it seems like it would be easier to bury a small self-contained nuclear reactor every few thousand people or so. Put in enough fuel for 30? 50? years and replace it when that runs out - no pollution (directly from the generation), no maintenance. I'd love to see that but currently, SDG&E is trying to bury a huge amount of high-level waste from the San Onofre nuclear plant (that they broke) onto a beach in containers that might last 40 years. So I just don't trust the industry.
|
# ¿ Sep 25, 2018 16:40 |
|
A covered bike path is hardly a difficult engineering feat. Bridges too:
|
# ¿ Sep 25, 2018 20:59 |
|
suck my woke dick posted:Putting fuel in intermediate storage isn't really a serious issue though. Spent fuel barrels aren't exactly going to spontaneously crack open even if they're attended to by idiots. There was an incident in the last few weeks when that almost happened: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-onofre-plant-20180812-story.html The contractor, Holtec International, was cited for the incident that occurred earlier this month when a canister got caught on an inner ring as it was being lowered into a Cavity Enclosure Container at a newly constructed “dry storage” facility on the site of the plant that is in the process of being decommissioned, Edison said in a statement last week. The transfers have been placed on hold. ... David Fritch said on Aug. 3 one of the canisters being lowered into the cavity enclosure “could have fallen 18 feet.”
|
# ¿ Sep 26, 2018 19:18 |
|
suck my woke dick posted:Well, nucular waste barrels are designed to survive a full on trainwreck so I doubt this was a serious safety issue by itself. It’s just that “lol we just drop the things who gives a poo poo” is generally an unacceptable standard of workmanship at a nuclear site. 0.625" Stainless with less than a 40 year life, not the permanent stuff. San Onofre storage canisters may start leaking radiation into the environment as early as 2020, possibly sooner. The NRC reported a similar container at the Koeberg nuclear plant in South Africa failed after 17 years from chloride-induced stress corrosion cracking (CISCC), triggered by corrosive salt in the marine environment. Koeberg is located in a similar corrosive marine environment as San Onofre: on-shore winds, surf and frequent fog. The Koeberg container crack depth was 0.61″. The San Onofre canisters are 0.625″ thick. The canisters at other California locations are even thinner (0.50″). There are over 2000 loaded canisters in the U.S. Most are 1/2″ (0.50″). San Onofre started loading canisters with spent fuel in 2003. If San Onofre canisters have experience similar to Koeberg, that means a canister at San Onofre would start releasing radiation into the environment as early as 2020.
|
# ¿ Sep 26, 2018 22:46 |
|
qkkl posted:The misconception here is that nuclear waste leaking into the environment is some kind of doomsday event. It isn't. Most likely if a barrel leaks the nuclear waste will just collect around the barrel and no one gets hurt. In the less likely chance that the waste leaches into groundwater the cancer rates in the local population go up by a few percentage points for a few decades. In the absolute worst-case scenario that is essentially impossible to happen accidentally and some fresh nuclear waste is dumped directly into the water supply then yes, several tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands may die from radiation poisoning after they drink the highly radioactive tap water. There are better designs with longer predicted lifetimes than 40 years. Also, I don't live too far from this, so it's not just theory for me. P.S. Love my rate increases due to this "Too Cheap To Meter" screwup.
|
# ¿ Sep 27, 2018 16:51 |
|
karthun posted:Here is an imgur link We use about 2800 kwh a year. 220kwh in Sept. When I replace the 40mpg 2000 Toy-Auto with an EV, I'm sure that will go up.
|
# ¿ Oct 3, 2018 17:26 |
|
Zero VGS posted:I got an EV in 2014 (used 2013 electric smart car convertible on eBay for $9000) and I don't think any other purchase has saved me so much money. There's a free charger a block from my house so in the almost 5 years I've had it I've paid for windshield wiper fluid and that's absolutely it. According to that chart I'm in one of the most eco-friendly areas to use it (local power is mostly natural-gas and renewables). But I don't drive it for self-validation as much as it enables me to be even more of a massive cheapskate. Every other car I've had has been an accursed money pit, and unlike the rest of them I can jump into this in the morning when it's -10 Fahrenheit out, hit the ignition and know the wheels are going to turn, I don't have to pray to God the engine will start. I can sit in stop and go traffic in complete silence and drop the top in the summer. There's a free-charger at the coffee shop near where I live as well as metered ones at the Amtrak station. I've got 257k miles on the Toy-Auto so eventually, it will need to be replaced. EV makes sense.
|
# ¿ Oct 3, 2018 23:49 |
|
fishmech posted:It's extremely easy to overeat while still eating vegetables. Just look at the entire western world, they're all getting fat. Yes, but it is extremely difficult to overeat while ONLY eating vegetables.
|
# ¿ Oct 22, 2018 22:10 |
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Hydrogen fusion will free us from this tyranny 20 years from practical since 1979
|
# ¿ Oct 22, 2018 22:49 |
|
Baronjutter posted:I think a lot of people are just sick of "well in 20 years we'll totally have cheap practical fusion" used as an excuse to not invest in other things or worry about future energy usage. This. And the perfect analogy is how the automobile industry used the promise of fuel-cell cars to kill California's electric car push in the 1990's. Oh yes, we have some fuel cell cars now. Just do the math on the efficiency of the entire cycle.
|
# ¿ Oct 23, 2018 01:07 |
|
Smiling Demon posted:Has there been any real development with batteries? Last time I looked into things pumped hydro storage, a technology more than a century old, was significantly better than any battery. In the automotive space, VW and others have a large investment in solid-state battery solutions (slated for cars in 2025), rechargeable zinc-air batteries may become a real thing, prices for LiOn are approaching $100/kw-h capacity years ahead of schedule. In the backup area, 'flow' batteries are becoming a thing. Oh and Elon's big powerwall in Australia appears to be working out nicely. https://electrek.co/2018/05/11/tesla-giant-battery-australia-reduced-grid-service-cost/
|
# ¿ Oct 23, 2018 23:34 |
|
fishmech posted:You just keep being massively ignorant. Model 3s don't function, their interior design is worse than a Yugo that's been robbed, and the bumpers fall off when it rains. What we were talking about is the Bolt, and GM's sold inifinitely more functional Bolts than there are Model 3s ordered (and remember, vast amounts of the orders aren't being filled because Herr Elon decreed that the $35k model is going to be on hold indefinitely). Maybe so, but I suspect most of the Model 3's are here (So. Cal). The numbers I see on the roads (I commute in Studio City by bicycle) is impressive as heck. They all just SHOWED UP.
|
# ¿ Oct 29, 2018 18:09 |
|
I don't this accounts for storage: Carbon emissions and costs associated with subsidizing New York nuclear instead of replacing it with renewables Highlights • A comparison of costs and CO2 emissions of New York's nuclear power and with renewable scenarios until 2050 is provided. • Shutting nuclear down today and replacing it with onshore wind will save $7.9 billion until 2050. • Renewable scenarios lead to CO2 savings up to 27.4 Mt until 2050. • Reinvesting cost savings from renewable scenarios into additional wind capacities will increase CO2 savings up to 32.5 Mt. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618326829
|
# ¿ Nov 20, 2018 20:38 |
|
bawfuls posted:what if.... we built all that wind power and shut down coal plants instead of nuclear plants?? I got into an argument with a German national on just that point. Why shut down functioning nuke plants while you're still burning coal. His response: Jobs. Claimed a lot of workers in the German coal industry. Hmm... have I heard this somewhere else?
|
# ¿ Nov 21, 2018 20:15 |
|
Rime posted:Trust me when I say that this is so far from on the ground reality that it may as well be CGI. I have a friend who worked on the construction of the San Onofre Nuclear Generators. Huge mistakes (like installing one of the reactors backward), lots of hazards that were not reported included an issue with the site that involved having to pump a poo poo-ton of concrete under stuff because of where it was built.
|
# ¿ Dec 13, 2018 18:00 |
|
ulmont posted:Related article from a few months back: What's more, an aircraft reduces its weight as it consumes the fuel. Batteries don't get lighter. Still, battery aircraft already make sense as General Aviation Trainers (far lower fuel and TCO), and may eventually make sense for General Aviation in general.
|
# ¿ Jan 3, 2019 22:54 |
|
Nebakenezzer posted:You can try floating that in the Aeronautical Insanity thread, but don't be surprised if it goes down a little spicy We'll see how this plays out in the next decade, but there are battery based trainers now being offered. The schools hold on to aircraft for a long time, so this won't be like autos. Will take far longer.
|
# ¿ Jan 4, 2019 18:15 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:Whats the range, useful load and charge time? Let me get the specs on the one I have seen: Pipistrel Alpha Electro 2-seat electric trainer: Payload: 200 kg Endurance: Up to 60 min (+ reserve). Take off over 50' obstacle MTOW: 885 feet (270 m) The 17 kWh battery pack is dual-redundant and designed to be either quickly replaceable within minutes (swappable) or charged in less than one hour.
|
# ¿ Jan 4, 2019 20:25 |
|
bawfuls posted:This molten salt thermal storage company just got a $26M first round and their concept looks interesting. It started at Stanford and then got into Google's incubator. Better than electrolysis/fuel cells.
|
# ¿ Jan 10, 2019 01:41 |
|
PG&E (LA Utility) is going BK: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-14/who-could-get-hurt-by-pg-e-s-fire-driven-bankruptcy-quicktake Mainly because of the fire lawsuits (estimated costs could hit $30 billion) but I'm sure dealing with SONGS (nuke plant they broke) doesn't help. I have SDG&E and my rates (14¢/kwh ... and that's a discount) suck partly because of SONGS. But I don't use much electricity anyway. Only 288 kWh for the month.
|
# ¿ Jan 15, 2019 20:30 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:SDG&E and SONGS is a different utility than PG&E. PG&E is shutting down Diablo Canyon (a different nuke) because it isn't worth the money to upgrade to meet incoming one-through cooling standards. At this point PG&E biggest asset is probably their downtown SF HQ building. You are right ... it's owned by Southern California Edison (78.2%) and San Diego Gas & Electric (20%).
|
# ¿ Jan 15, 2019 21:54 |
|
What's the thinking on Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors (and Stable Salt Reactors)?
|
# ¿ Feb 20, 2019 23:31 |
|
Rime posted:Got to gently caress around inside of, and manually restart, a 122 year old Westinghouse Pelton Wheel AC Generator last night. My father ran an 8 story Manhattan parking garage that was built pre-automotive. The elevator motors were installed some time prior to 1920 and were still going strong in the 1970's (the elevators were 100% manual, cable and counterweight design). Incredible design and quality.
|
# ¿ May 9, 2019 23:20 |
|
AlexanderCA posted:I'm not a very experienced mechanical engineer. But in my jobs so far I've never encountered planned obsolescence. Nissan CVT
|
# ¿ May 10, 2019 03:23 |
|
I’d say major appliances are worse, most automobiles are better and electronics are way better.
|
# ¿ May 10, 2019 04:07 |
|
Harik posted:Me. Repeatedly, at $25/pop and they lasted 18 months on the outside. The LED was fine, the 110AC circuit was always what crapped out. Eventually they got better and one day I replaced the last early one and haven't touched any of them since. Call it an early adopter tax. Now I'm just shaking my cane that the world settled on piss-yellow imitations of incandescent as "white" and buying anything less ugly is specialty. Crafted Steel Bicycles. I see people cycling on the same Peugeots, Fujis etc. that I was assembling at a bike shop when I was in High School, in the early 1970's.
|
# ¿ May 10, 2019 06:21 |
|
The Dipshit posted:Man, I want a steel bike for a commuter. There's several builders out there. My folder (Brompton) is steel as is my recumbent (Bacchetta Giro 26). The best way to get vintage stuff is at garage and estate sales. Lots of bikes that haven't been ridden in decades. I use the LA subway system and I see classic steel bikes on almost every trip.
|
# ¿ May 10, 2019 18:12 |
|
Baronjutter posted:Isn't the steel stuff incredibly heavy and thus rather energy-inefficient for the human powering it? So a fine steel bike weighs in at 18lbs. A carbon-fiber bike can be 14lbs (if you spend a few $1k). A 'common' steel bike (something that sold for $200 in 1975) may weigh in at 24lbs. Does it matter? Maybe if you're a 150lbs Cat-1 racer. Less if you're a 62 year old 235lbs bike commuter :-) Oh, and steel is recyclable. And IMHO feels better.
|
# ¿ May 10, 2019 19:38 |
|
bawfuls posted:ok but what about aluminum? Surely that’s the relevant comparison no? Nothing wrong with it. I'm just too big for the weight limits on the aluminum folders. But the classic steel bikes do have a nice feel.
|
# ¿ May 11, 2019 06:35 |
|
Phanatic posted:Why? Without electrical isolation between the steel and aluminum, the aluminum hull acts as an anode to the stainless steel, resulting in aggressive galvanic corrosion. ... and the HMS Sheffield.
|
# ¿ May 13, 2019 19:40 |
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:It is for the reason that the stresses on frame in a bike design prevent you from taking real advantage of aluminum strength to reduce weight, yes? The lack of a fatigue limit (in AL) for one. Typically AL frames use larger diameter tubing to account for the lower tensile strength. This works well, but you also end up with a stiffer frame ... and some prefer the springiness of a steel bike.
|
# ¿ May 14, 2019 17:56 |
|
Platystemon posted:If you’re stressing the thing real hard, they will both fatigue. quote:By continually applying loads to a material, in many cases loads way below the yield limit, you stress it and cause fatigue on it. ... So yes, aluminum can fail due to fatigue and continued stress cycles, but there is no fatigue limit as you can see on steel. Note: I have broken (steel in fact) bike frames, most notably a Bob Jackson on a training ride when I was on the cycling team in college. Separated the downtube from the bottom bracket. VideoGameVet fucked around with this message at 21:33 on May 14, 2019 |
# ¿ May 14, 2019 21:31 |
|
Platystemon posted:A million cycles is a lot. If the frame is being stress cycled every second in an eight hour workday, it takes a month to hit a million cycles. I got into cycling as a sport because at 14 I broke a Raliegh bike's frame and my mom managed to get the shop to replace that with a Peugeot PX10e in 1972. Sweet bike.
|
# ¿ May 15, 2019 00:52 |
|
No nukes should be shut down until all coal and gas plants are. That being said, the economics appear to be better for wind/solar/storage and the timeframe to add capacity is superior.
|
# ¿ Aug 27, 2019 17:47 |
|
Pander posted:The theory should be to add wind and solar and storage wherever it works to add it. Where it is infeasible to add it, due to land scarcity, population density, or poor wind/insolation resources, construct nuclear plants. Then we need to focus on a standardized design that can get built and turned on in a rapid fashion. Right now it takes too long.
|
# ¿ Aug 27, 2019 18:37 |
|
Crazycryodude posted:The way to avoid Fukishimas is to not build nuclear reactors where they'll get smashed by tidal waves, or if you do at least make sure the diesel backups are high enough off the ground to not get swamped. The way to avoid Chernobyls is to not build pre-refit RBMK reactors. Both of these are incredibly easy and not at all hard to do. Might not be a bad idea to relocate the waste from San Onofre away from the ocean.
|
# ¿ Aug 27, 2019 18:38 |
|
Crazycryodude posted:Eating meat more than once a week (and eating red meat at all), eating fruit that's out of season/doesn't grow within a reasonable range of where I live, having the AC so low/the heat so high, traveling so far for work and pleasure, having two-day shipping, all sorts of poo poo. In the hypothetical eco-communist future I'm gonna have to live more communally and not eat cheeseburgers anymore, I fully accept that. I gave that stuff up decades ago for health reasons. Your mileage may vary.
|
# ¿ Aug 28, 2019 17:35 |
|
StabbinHobo posted:I mean truth be told we may already be done for. I'm not as blackpilled as the median cspam climate change thread poster about it, but they're not entirely without reason. I understand this completely.
|
# ¿ Aug 28, 2019 22:58 |
|
|
# ¿ May 19, 2024 17:50 |
|
StabbinHobo posted:this is the most explicit and plausible anyone has ever been: https://berniesanders.com/issues/the-green-new-deal/ I do agree with that, I just think the global CO2 emissions plot I referenced is a fantasy. India and China will move into the middle class and besides, we have multiple feedback loops in full effect.
|
# ¿ Aug 29, 2019 01:09 |