[weambulance]

(02-06-2017 06:11 AM)xmlenigma Wrote:  

I have friends in the Eco Energy space and they can produce clean energy at even cost but Oil Subsidies do not allow them to compete evenly.

Are you saying we are not fucking up nature? The environment? Try breathing in a major metro.. Lack of oxygen.. Its the reason why we all feel great as soon as we step into the outdoors..

Oil spills and Oil sands and fracking.. destroying lands with unnatural chemicals & GMOs..

C'mon.. It doesnt take a scientist to point out that we are screwing with nature... Hence, so many new issues that did not plague most people before.. allergies, intolerances, new disease syndromes etc.

Yeah, I'm sure. It's just the evil oil companies keeping them down, just like all those guys who keep inventing engines that run on water.

And it never occurred to those rich oil companies to buy the amazing new tech and get even richer, right? Because the money just isn't as satisfying if it doesn't come stained with the blood of baby seals and dolphins.

[The Beast1]

(02-06-2017 09:26 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 06:11 AM)xmlenigma Wrote:  

I have friends in the Eco Energy space and they can produce clean energy at even cost but Oil Subsidies do not allow them to compete evenly.

Are you saying we are not fucking up nature? The environment? Try breathing in a major metro.. Lack of oxygen.. Its the reason why we all feel great as soon as we step into the outdoors..

Oil spills and Oil sands and fracking.. destroying lands with unnatural chemicals & GMOs..

C'mon.. It doesnt take a scientist to point out that we are screwing with nature... Hence, so many new issues that did not plague most people before.. allergies, intolerances, new disease syndromes etc.

Yeah, I'm sure. It's just the evil oil companies keeping them down, just like all those guys who keep inventing engines that run on water.

And it never occurred to those rich oil companies to buy the amazing new tech and get even richer, right? Because the money just isn't as satisfying if it doesn't come stained with the blood of baby seals and dolphins.

There's no point in trying to debate the finer points of such issues with people who go, "muh environment" .

These same people foolishly believe the earth is over populated and refuse to have kids.

The air quality in every major city i've lived in is awesome. This includes Los Angeles, New York, Boston, London, and a smattering of shorter stays all across America and Europe. I grew up on a farm in the countryside too. The only difference is the humidity which gives the air a thicker quality.

I've never had health issues or thought, "Gee the air quality is bad here."

I'm all about recycling, reusing, and reducing resource usage. I'm not at all cool with taxing productive industries with stupid "carbon credits" and letting (((them))) provide a market for it.

"Muh global warming" is nothing more than a tax grab.

[Hell_Is_Like_Newark]

(02-06-2017 06:11 AM)xmlenigma Wrote:  

I have friends in the Eco Energy space and they can produce clean energy at even cost but Oil Subsidies do not allow them to compete evenly.

The majority of those oil industry "subsidies" are mostly accelerated depreciation allowances. Exploration and exploitation is capital intensive with lots of risk of 'dry holes' and the tax laws reflect that. If the Trump plan gets passed replacing depreciation with simple expensing, the "subsidies" will be a moot point since every industry in the country will be treated the same when it comes to accounting for capital expenditures.

My job is in energy, where we help our customers use less. Most of our work involves improving building management systems. Two projects I worked on won awards, with the last one lowering utility bills by about $2mil a year (I won't go into detail.. if I do, it will end up releasing PI that can be tracked). 100% of those saving were just running the building systems better. Not a single solar panel or wind turbine was involved.

We do "green" as well and I run the numbers for solar PV, wind, fuel cells, geothermal, etc. systems as well as work with the implementation of such systems. Based on what I know and have done:

Green energy with a few minor exceptions, would disappear overnight if it wasn't for the subsidies. Solar PV, wind, and fuel cells are financial black holes when used for base load power (replacing gas, coal, nuclear power plants). The subsidies are direct payments or use more arcane methods such as forcing utilities to buy green power at retails instead of wholesale rates. The latter has become popular because on paper, it makes green power look profitable.

NJ has done both type of subsidies, with the cost passed on to the rate payer. When the program was ramped up a decade or more back, consumer utility bills went up 50% for residential. My commercial rates got it worse, sometimes hit $0.30 per kWh or more. The increases were to subsidies the building of solar PV throughout the state. There are now PV panels everywhere. As an example, nearly every power pole has them in my city. So what did us rate payers get for this? I ran the numbers. As of 2015 0.7% of all the electricity generated in the state (source: Energy Information Agency) came from solar PV. The legislature commanded that 20% come from green. Over a decade later, we haven't broken 2% if you account for all green energy sources.

[Hell_Is_Like_Newark]

(02-06-2017 09:37 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

The air quality in every major city i've lived in is awesome. This includes Los Angeles, New York, Boston, London, and a smattering of shorter stays all across America and Europe. I grew up on a farm in the countryside too. The only difference is the humidity which gives the air a thicker quality.

Air quality data from around the world (real time):

http://aqicn.org/map//

Its Flash based interface an gets a bit wonky at times.

[weambulance]

Quote:

NJ has done both type of subsidies, with the cost passed on to the rate payer. When the program was ramped up a decade or more back, consumer utility bills went up 50% for residential. My commercial rates got it worse, sometimes hit $0.30 per kWh or more. The increases were to subsidies the building of solar PV throughout the state. There are now PV panels everywhere. As an example, nearly every power pole has them in my city. So what did us rate payers get for this? I ran the numbers. As of 2015 0.7% of all the electricity generated in the state (source: Energy Information Agency) came from solar PV. The legislature commanded that 20% come from green. Over a decade later, we haven't broken 2% if you account for all green energy sources.

Waving a magic wand in an imperious manner didn't change the physical realities of the universe? Shocking.

Trying to use renewable "green" energy as primary generation, not supplemental, adds enormous complexity (and cost) to the system. It's quite foolish to do so. But this is what happens when our legislatures are staffed by lawyers instead of engineers and scientists.

[Hell_Is_Like_Newark]

(02-06-2017 10:17 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

Waving a magic wand in an imperious manner didn't change the physical realities of the universe? Shocking.

Trying to use renewable "green" energy as primary generation, not supplemental, adds enormous complexity (and cost) to the system. It's quite foolish to do so. But this is what happens when our legislatures are staffed by lawyers instead of engineers and scientists.

Somewhere I have a link to a study done by MIT on the effects of green power on the grid. The gist of the paper:

Solar and wind energy output varies dramatically during the day, making management of the grid difficult. Baseload power plants like to be run around 85% capacity 24/7 (big coal and nuke plants). These plants can only adjust their output about 1% per hour. The plants and other grid infrastructure is being damaged from the variable green power.

To compensate, utilities are relying more on gas turbines which can be turned on in minutes should the wind stop blowing or it suddenly gets cloudy. The gas turbines don't capture the exhaust heat, making them really inefficient sources of electricity compared to baseload power plants.

[weambulance]

Yeah, exactly. And when I bring that up with "green energy" proponents, they never have much of an answer for what to do about it. If they do provide an answer, it's something that won't scale.

[The Beast1]

(02-06-2017 10:11 AM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 09:37 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

The air quality in every major city i've lived in is awesome. This includes Los Angeles, New York, Boston, London, and a smattering of shorter stays all across America and Europe. I grew up on a farm in the countryside too. The only difference is the humidity which gives the air a thicker quality.

Air quality data from around the world (real time):

http://aqicn.org/map//

Its Flash based interface an gets a bit wonky at times.

That's the irony of it all. To these greentards, they want 100% zero emissions which is a pipe dream. Ideally, to them there would be no humans.

In London in particular, they like to say London has some of the worst air in Europe.

London is one of the few cities where real work gets done. You don't stack several million people into a small area and expect the air to be like the countryside.

You want a perfect example of unlivable air, go to China. The current technology we have to scrub pollutants from exhaust do wonders already.

At the end of the day, these environmentalists want humans gone.

[Hell_Is_Like_Newark]

(02-06-2017 10:48 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

In London in particular, they like to say London has some of the worst air in Europe.

Green policies have driven the cost of electricity and natural gas up so high that people in the UK have installed wood burning stoves to keep warm during the winter. Wood stoves pollute like crazy, especially if loaded up overnight and run at a slow burn. When I lived in Vermont, every winter morning, the town of Rutland was engulfed in a blanket of wood smoke.

In Germany, which went full retard with green power, tree theft is now an issue.


I am actually what you would refer to as a 'hard green'. I like clean water and breathable air. It drives me mad to see policies that claim to be good for the environment but due the opposite.

[911]

(02-06-2017 06:11 AM)xmlenigma Wrote:  

I have friends in the Eco Energy space and they can produce clean energy at even cost but Oil Subsidies do not allow them to compete evenly.

Are you saying we are not fucking up nature? The environment? Try breathing in a major metro.. Lack of oxygen.. Its the reason why we all feel great as soon as we step into the outdoors..

Oil spills and Oil sands and fracking.. destroying lands with unnatural chemicals & GMOs..

C'mon.. It doesnt take a scientist to point out that we are screwing with nature... Hence, so many new issues that did not plague most people before.. allergies, intolerances, new disease syndromes etc.

As some have mentioned, you have to separate real environmental problems like
toxic pollution, overfishing, GMOs and global warming through CO2, which is not
a real problem. In fact we might be heading towards a cooling period, so
any extra warming from CO2, however small that is, is going to be helpful.

CO2 is a vital ingredient for plant life, it is a natural fertilizer. Greenhouse owners
pump up CO2 to stimulate plant yields. The increase in CO2 levels over
the last entury from 300ppm to 400ppm have resulted in what's known
as "global greening". a stimulation of plant growth by about 16%.
In other words, the extra CO2 is feeding 1/6 of humanity, or about a billion people!
This CO2 greening effect is strongest in drier areas like northern india or
the African Sahel. So when you're emitting CO2, you're actually helping
feed people in Chad or India.

[911]

(02-06-2017 09:26 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 06:11 AM)xmlenigma Wrote:  

I have friends in the Eco Energy space and they can produce clean energy at even cost but Oil Subsidies do not allow them to compete evenly.

Are you saying we are not fucking up nature? The environment? Try breathing in a major metro.. Lack of oxygen.. Its the reason why we all feel great as soon as we step into the outdoors..

Oil spills and Oil sands and fracking.. destroying lands with unnatural chemicals & GMOs..

C'mon.. It doesnt take a scientist to point out that we are screwing with nature... Hence, so many new issues that did not plague most people before.. allergies, intolerances, new disease syndromes etc.

Yeah, I'm sure. It's just the evil oil companies keeping them down, just like all those guys who keep inventing engines that run on water.

And it never occurred to those rich oil companies to buy the amazing new tech and get even richer, right? Because the money just isn't as satisfying if it doesn't come stained with the blood of baby seals and dolphins.

Actually WeAmb, the main component in the valuation of oil companies is in their hydrocarbon assets, or the amount of oil they sit on. The value of these assets would collapse if something like the water engine were to take hold. Most refineries would close, oil would be reduced to the production of plastics and other petrochemical products, so that transformation sector would also crash.

There is no way they'd let the toothpaste out of the tube, any revolutionary substitute for oil would be sidelined. Even in oil-poor countries like Japan, oil companies have been operating for a century, accumulating capital and political influence.

[nomadbrah]

Global Warming regardless of thruthfullness of the hypothesis is a doomsday cult.

[ivansirko]

If Man-Made Global Warming is real and ZOMGWAGTD!!!?!!??!11eleventy.....why lie about it?

I would be more worried about the world if an Ice Age were imminent.....

[Hell_Is_Like_Newark]

(02-06-2017 06:58 PM)911 Wrote:  

The value of these assets would collapse if something like the water engine were to take hold. Most refineries would close, oil would be reduced to the production of plastics and other petrochemical products, so that transformation sector would also crash.

I can assure you that unless you are transported into an alternate universe where the law of conservation of energy does not apply, using water as a fuel for a car like engine will never exist.

[weambulance]

(02-06-2017 06:58 PM)911 Wrote:  

Actually WeAmb, the main component in the valuation of oil companies is in their hydrocarbon assets, or the amount of oil they sit on. The value of these assets would collapse if something like the water engine were to take hold. Most refineries would close, oil would be reduced to the production of plastics and other petrochemical products, so that transformation sector would also crash.

There is no way they'd let the toothpaste out of the tube, any revolutionary substitute for oil would be sidelined. Even in oil-poor countries like Japan, oil companies have been operating for a century, accumulating capital and political influence.

If oil companies knew about such revolutionary technology, they would not suppress it. They would bust their asses to be the first to buy it and become kings of their niche. What's more likely, that a bunch of competitors are colluding to suppress world-changing tech, and have been with full discipline for decades, or the tech is just bullshit?

Even if there was such tech, it would take probably 15 years minimum to propagate. This country is huge, and it would cost literally several trillion dollars to replace all the oil-as-fuel infrastructure and retrofit/replace all the engines and heaters. That's the major challenge for hydrogen fuel cells, even if they were a lot better than they actually are today and electricity was completely free. Then oil would still be needed for industry anyway. So over time, oil prices would decline but level out, and there would be plenty of time to adjust.

The only way "magic tech being intentionally suppressed by an evil gang of oil companies" makes sense is if we recently shifted over into the Captain Planet dimension where people get off on polluting and destroying nature because it's just so damn fun. Otherwise, the idea is on par with the flat earth hypothesis as far as I'm concerned.

[Excelsior]

The first red flag to anyone observing those promoting the dangers of man-made climate change should be the way those people treat nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is the only realistic solution presently available to those so concerned that human activity is changing the climate. It is the only zero-emissions tech capable of generating the amount of energy modern societies anywhere in the world (including places where you can't build a huge dam or geothermal plant). Wind and solar energy simply do not have the capacity to do what we need them to do. If we want to deal with the energy needs of rapidly growing and industrializing societies like Nigeria, India, and Pakistan without generating lots of additional CO2, we need more nuclear energy and we need it fast - wind, solar, and hydro-power are not going to do the trick. There is no other viable baseload power source that can supplant fossil fuels in this particular regard.

The fact that progressives aren't aggressively backing nuclear energy despite their insistence that man-made climate change is an existential threat to humanity might imply two possibilities:

1. These people have other interests that have nothing really to do with stopping man-made climate change, but are served by promoting ineffective ideas of stopping man-made climate change.

AND/OR

2. Man made climate change isn't the existential threat that progressives make it out to be, which is why they're so comfortable promoting a solution that is wholly ineffective in dealing with it (More windmills! More solar panels!) and undermining the one solution that isn't (nuclear energy). They actually don't believe it's that serious, so they act accordingly.

After all, if climate change really was serious enough to end the world as we know it and cause indescribable turmoil, wouldn't they do everything in their power to stop it by NOT ignoring the only viable solution we have for it? Surely, progressives would be leading the way lobbying for nuclear energy. But they aren't. Their current approach tells us they're not terribly worried about the climate, so why should we be so frightened?

Again, think about it: the world can never hope to meet progressive emission reduction targets without more reliance on nuclear energy. Many of these progressives, who aren't too dumb to know this, want to phase out nuclear energy or under-utilize it. What does that tell you?

These people know we have the capacity to totally cut these fossil fuels that they hate so much out of the picture with nuclear energy, but they won't do it. What does that tell you?

Something doesn't add up.

[Genghis Khan]

(02-06-2017 07:46 PM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 06:58 PM)911 Wrote:  

The value of these assets would collapse if something like the water engine were to take hold. Most refineries would close, oil would be reduced to the production of plastics and other petrochemical products, so that transformation sector would also crash.

I can assure you that unless you are transported into an alternate universe where the law of conservation of energy does not apply, using water as a fuel for a car like engine will never exist.

Just tongue in cheek: depends on what kind of water. Heavy water, an electrolysis setup to generate deuterium gas, and a very small fusion reactor could definitely lead to a water based engine. A man can dream...

[Genghis Khan]

(02-06-2017 10:27 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

The first red flag to anyone observing those promoting the dangers of man-made climate change should be the way those people treat nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is the only realistic solution presently available to those so concerned that human activity is changing the climate. It is the only zero-emissions tech capable of generating the amount of energy modern societies anywhere in the world (including places where you can't build a huge dam or geothermal plant). Wind and solar energy simply do not have the capacity to do what we need them to do. If we want to deal with the energy needs of rapidly growing and industrializing societies like Nigeria, India, and Pakistan without generating lots of additional CO2, we need more nuclear energy and we need it fast - wind, solar, and hydro-power are not going to do the trick. There is no other viable baseload power source that can supplant fossil fuels in this particular regard.

The fact that progressives aren't aggressively backing nuclear energy despite their insistence that man-made climate change is an existential threat to humanity might imply two possibilities:

1. These people have other interests that have nothing really to do with stopping man-made climate change, but are served by promoting ineffective ideas of stopping man-made climate change.

AND/OR

2. Man made climate change isn't the existential threat that progressives make it out to be, which is why they're so comfortable promoting a solution that is wholly ineffective in dealing with it (More windmills! More solar panels!) and undermining the one solution that isn't (nuclear energy). They actually don't believe it's that serious, so they act accordingly.

After all, if climate change really was serious enough to end the world as we know it and cause indescribable turmoil, wouldn't they do everything in their power to stop it by NOT ignoring the only viable solution we have for it? Surely, progressives would be leading the way lobbying for nuclear energy. But they aren't. Their current approach tells us they're not terribly worried about the climate, so why should we be so frightened?

Again, think about it: the world can never hope to meet progressive emission reduction targets without more reliance on nuclear energy. Many of these progressives, who aren't too dumb to know this, want to phase out nuclear energy or under-utilize it. What does that tell you?

These people know we have the capacity to totally cut these fossil fuels that they hate so much out of the picture with nuclear energy, but they won't do it. What does that tell you?

Something doesn't add up.

I'll preface this post by stating I too have advocating nuclear as a near-perfect solution. In the Tesla Power Wall thread(index.html?th...1-8.html):

Quote:

And of course my favorite part in all these discussions is the fact that we could in theory go 100% nuclear and we'd be good to go in terms of electricity generation. Could probably also do quite a bit of heat generation as well. But alas for the idealogical stubbornness of environmentalists who more often than not have no real scientific or engineering background. They don't seem to appreciate the irony in dooming all of mankind through climate change by refusing nuclear power plants out of an irrational fear of its danger (not saying meltdowns and contaminations aren't concerned, but compared to the annihilation of mankind they're risks worth taking in my opinion).

I should not have made such a hasty comment. The situation is a lot more complex than "we should go 100% nuclear". Yes, nuclear could eliminate all CO2 emissions (at least through electricity generation). And although I'm exasperated by environmentalists sometimes, I've talked to enough nuclear energy experts to know it's not that simple.

Let's talk about nuclear for a moment:

1. The people advocating for climate change solutions are the same ones who were terrified of a nuclear armageddon in the 1980s. So say you believe that climate change will lead to the complete annihilation of humanity by climate change. And you also believe that going 100% nuclear can lead to the complete annihilation of humanity, especially now considering we haven't been able to stop nuclear proliferation. I hope RVF members can see why some people may not be pushing one doomsday option to alleviate another.

2. NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY). Where do we put nuclear power plants? I do tend to forget that people are emotional first. The reality is nobody wants a nuclear power plant in their neighborhood. I grew up within the radiation radius of a nuclear power plant and getting packets of iodine pills 'just in case' wasn't fun. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima - environmentalists aren't pulling dangers out of the air, there are real safety and environmental concerns with regards to nuclear meltdown and radiation leaks (separate from the whole nuclear armageddon issue).

3. Nuclear waste - do you realize most high-level nuclear waste is 'temporarily' stored on site? The US was supposed to have a 'permanent' storage for high-level waste at Yucca Mountain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Moun...repository

It's still not built. Partly because of the NIMBY issue - would you want a nuclear waste repository in your back yard?

3. Cost - from the Nuclear Power Thread, quoting Tokyo Joe:

Quote:

Assuming that there will be no further cost overruns -- which I don't believe for a second -- the levelized cost of electricity (the LCOE, that is the actual "all-in" cost of generating electricity that includes construction, financing, fuel, operation & maintenance, and all other costs) from this "real doozy" of a project will be a whopping 14.0 cents per kWh. For comparison, assuming a natural gas price of $3.00 per mmBTU, the LCOE for a new combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plant is 3.5 cents per kWh -- one-quarter the cost of electricity from the new reactors. lolzlzolzzolzll

In comparison, solar can hit 5-6 cents per kWh. The Department of Energy is already looking into research programs to bring the cost down to 2-3 cents per kWh as they hit their 2020 targets of 5 cents per kWh last year.

So to conclude: nuclear can
1) can cause armageddon through nuclear proliferation
2) is a safety and environmental hazard
3) what do you do with the waste?
4) cost is outrageous, even for environmentalists.

In contrast, let's look at solar/wind.

I'll focus more on solar since I find its recent progress and potential more impressive.

1) distributed electricity - one of the amazing things about solar is that you can put panels anywhere the sun can shine and generate electricty. Without the need of an electric grid! India and Africa are prime markets for solar. India has 60% of its population living in villages, very often without any connection to the grid. I honestly don't see how India can electrify the entire nation without solar. If India is to achieve rapid economic development for its poorest people, it'll need solar.

India's Prime Minister, a hardcore right-wing nationalist and business-oriented man, seems to agree as he's pushing for 100 GW solar installation by 2022. (Whether India will achieve that goal is a different matter).

http://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/...do/274483/

2) Cost - rapid drop in cost. Solar PV does not make sense economically in some locations, as Hell_is_like_Newark pointed out. But it becomes a whole lot more economically viable when you have installations of millions of solar panels on dirt cheap land:



Not to mention, the cost is dropping at a staggering rate.



As I mentioned before, the Department of Energy is already looking into research programs to bring the cost down to 2-3 cents per kWh (for industrial scale solar farms, not residential or commercial).

3) Grid penetration. Many people believe solar/wind/battery can cover 100% of what the grid needs. Personally, I'm much more skeptical. I err on the side of conservative grid models, which show renewables can indeed penetrate up to 30%. Going to 30% from the current <1% is still an enormous amount of growth and more relevant to the topic of climate change: 30% is fucking big dent in CO2 emissions.

People who are absolutely convinced that 100% renewable penetration is possible (given what we know right now and current technology) are being foolish.

But on the flipside, people who are absolutely convinced 100% renewable penetration cannot happen are also being foolish.

There's a whole lot of research being done in the smart grid. I've asked a few researchers what the smart grid means, and they admit it's a vague all-encompassing term - but in general it implies the ability for the grid, appliances and power generators to self-regulate and adapt to the intermittency of renewable energy.

Imagine the power supply dropping for a split second as cloud coverage hits, thus reducing the power generation of solar panels. The 'smart grid' sends a signal to your refrigerator, telling it to shut off for a minute to compensate - aka demand-side management. Many more things that will go into a smart grid.

Another fascinating research are is microgrids. One example is Brooklyn Microgrid, which is using Ethereum as its backbone to allow people to buy and sell electricity to each other without needing a large utility/grid as a middleman.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...-brooklyn/

Quote:

But that could soon change. Cameron and many of her neighbors have signed onto a project called Brooklyn Microgrid, which is installing infrastructure to enable a small network of Park Slope buildings—and another cluster in neighboring Gowanus—to sever themselves from the larger grid. The microgrid would independently distribute locally sourced electricity without mediation from the utility.

A question renewable energy critics rarely ask: do we need a base load power source? In other words, is it possible to create a grid that can actually run 100% renewable? Microgrids are fascinating in my opinion- the complexity of a grid reduces dramatically if you keep the grid size to a few neighborhoods or even cities, instead of entire regions. I don't know if that's enough to eliminate the need for a baseload power. But I think it's a tremendously exciting research question.

Sidenote: Ethereum is similar to Bitcoin - they're both cryptocurrencies/blockchain technology, however, Ethereum is made to write smart contracts. It's going to be the next big thing in the internet world. It's going to be absolutely huge. Literally, block chains are going to revolutionize the internet.

Take all the research that is being done with smart grids, microgrids - and not to mention the fact that the current grid is absolutely exposed to hostile actors- I do not find it inconceivable to have a 100% renewable grid. Just not today, not with today's technology. But impossible? I'm not counting it out.

So to conclude, solar:
1) can provide much needed distributed electricity generation in countries such as India
2) cost is dropping rapidly
3) possibility of a 100% renewable energy grid

There are many arguments to be made in favor of climate change being a conspiracy. But people being in favor of solar/wind over nuclear isn't one of them.

Also: I see a lot of hate on solar and wind. I'm not sure why. Both are quite frankly spectacular from a technology perspective. Yes, there are a lot of challenges to be overcome. That said, I foresee a future where especially solar plays a BIG role on a global scale. And even with technologies like fusion, it's here to stay.

[Excelsior]

(02-07-2017 01:45 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

Let's talk about nuclear for a moment:

1. The people advocating for climate change solutions are the same ones who were terrified of a nuclear armageddon in the 1980s. So say you believe that climate change will lead to the complete annihilation of humanity by climate change. And you also believe that going 100% nuclear can lead to the complete annihilation of humanity, especially now considering we haven't been able to stop nuclear proliferation. I hope RVF members can see why some people may not be pushing one doomsday option to alleviate another.

There's no valid reason to believe that current generation nuclear plants are a "doomsday option". Gen 3+ reactors are on a whole new level relative to the ones those people grew up with (which are usually 50-60 year old designs). There is no evidence that Nuclear is deadlier than other power sources, especially with modern designs - in fact, the data we do have points to the contrary. The fears you're outlining aren't rational in the present day and shouldn't prevent an informed person from supporting nuclear energy.

Quote:

2. NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY). Where do we put nuclear power plants? I do tend to forget that people are emotional first. The reality is nobody wants a nuclear power plant in their neighborhood. I grew up within the radiation radius of a nuclear power plant and getting packets of iodine pills 'just in case' wasn't fun. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima - environmentalists aren't pulling dangers out of the air, there are real safety and environmental concerns with regards to nuclear meltdown and radiation leaks (separate from the whole nuclear armageddon issue).

Again, this is irrational fear based on antiquated technology. Modern plants are nothing at all like the ones at Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island. They're vastly more advanced with just about no chance of a meltdown thanks to modern cooling/safety systems. An AP-1000 simply isn't comparable to any of the units you mentioned.

Quote:

3. Nuclear waste - do you realize most high-level nuclear waste is 'temporarily' stored on site? The US was supposed to have a 'permanent' storage for high-level waste at Yucca Mountain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Moun...repository

It's still not built. Partly because of the NIMBY issue - would you want a nuclear waste repository in your back yard?

First, it doesn't have to be put in anybody's back yard. Second, this is still an irrational fear. We are far better at disposing of waste than we once were - far less is produced, and large portions can be recycled now. Storage is one of the most easily overcome issues with nuclear power.

Quote:

3. Cost - from the Nuclear Power Thread, quoting Tokyo Joe:

Quote:

Assuming that there will be no further cost overruns -- which I don't believe for a second -- the levelized cost of electricity (the LCOE, that is the actual "all-in" cost of generating electricity that includes construction, financing, fuel, operation & maintenance, and all other costs) from this "real doozy" of a project will be a whopping 14.0 cents per kWh. For comparison, assuming a natural gas price of $3.00 per mmBTU, the LCOE for a new combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plant is 3.5 cents per kWh -- one-quarter the cost of electricity from the new reactors. lolzlzolzzolzll

In comparison, solar in many places can hit 5-6 cents per kWh. The Department of Energy is already looking into research programs to bring the cost down to 2-3 cents per kWh as they hit their 2020 targets of 5 cents per kWh last year.

Solar energy is not reliable and does not produce enough power to work as a baseload source of energy.
Also, nuclear energy is expensive - that's a legitimate point. What is also legitimate is the fact that man-made climate change alarmists are pushing for solutions to the climate issue that are far more expensive and damaging to our current economy, while promising much less certainty that they will actually solve the problem.

Quote:

So to conclude: nuclear can
1) can cause armageddon through nuclear proliferation
2) is a safety and environmental hazard
3) what do you do with the waste?
4) cost is outrageous, even for environmentalists.

1) Not it can't
2) Not it isn't
3) Storage is not complicated
4. Environmentalists promote vastly more outrageous "solutions" to their problems every day.

Quote:

In contrast, let's look at solar/wind.

I'll focus more on solar since I find its recent progress and potential more impressive.

1) distributed electricity - one of the amazing things about solar is that you can put panels anywhere the sun can shine and generate electricty.

Except when the sun isn't shining. Then you have an issue.
And no, batteries aren't the answer. Aside from upping cost, the storage of energy necessarily reduces the efficiency of generation. That's not practical on a large scale as a baseload source.

As a supplementary source, Solar Power is fine for most of the reasons you've outlined, but if your goal is "end fossil fuels in power generation", it isn't going to do it for you.

Quote:

3) Grid penetration. Many people believe solar/wind/battery can cover 100% of what the grid needs. Personally, I'm much more skeptical. I err on the side of conservative grid models, which show renewables can indeed penetrate up to 30%. Going to 30% from the current <1% is still an enormous amount of growth and more relevant to the topic of climate change: 30% is fucking big dent in CO2 emissions.

That's the most optimistic penetration scenario, IMO, and I doubt it becomes reality. Even if it does, such penetration is meaningless for these environmentalists if the baseload source is anything having to do with fossil fuels.

Quote:

But on the flipside, people who are absolutely convinced 100% renewable penetration cannot happen are also being foolish.

Of course they are. We've already seen 100% (or pretty close to 100%) renewable penetration in some places - hydro power can do that for you.
My argument is that solar panels and windmills will not make that happen by themselves in the absence of a much more reliable, productive baseload source. If that baseload source is hydropower (as it is in Costa Rica or Sweden), you can get well over 90% of your power from renewables just by supplementing with windmills and solar panels.
If your plan is to get to that 90%+ with solar panels and windmills as your baseloads, you're going to fail. Guaranteed. If you try to do this without a hydropower baseload and without a willingness to turn to nuclear as a new baseload, you're just going to end up using more fossil fuels. Germany has learned this the hard way.

Quote:

There's a whole lot of research being done in the smart grid. I've asked a few researchers what the smart grid means, and they admit it's a vague all-encompassing term - but in general it implies the ability for the grid, appliances and power generators to self-regulate and adapt to the intermittency of renewable energy.

Imagine the power supply dropping for a split second as cloud coverage hits, thus reducing the power generation of solar panels. The 'smart grid' sends a signal to your refrigerator, telling it to shut off for a minute to compensate - aka demand-side management. Many more things that will go into a smart grid.

I'm not convinced. Sounds like I'm just shit out of luck if I just happen to need to use my appliances when the clouds come. With a reliable baseload power source I don't have that problem, so why on Earth don't we just focus on finding that source instead?
This just doesn't make sense. And yes, all of this twisting and turning to avoid the cold hard truth about nuclear energy as a fundamental necessity to combating the problem they claim is so existential (climate change) leaves me highly skeptical of the motives of these people.

Quote:

Another fascinating research are is microgrids. One example is Brooklyn Microgrid, which is using Ethereum as its backbone to allow people to buy and sell electricity to each other without needing a large utility/grid as a middleman.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...-brooklyn/

Quote:

But that could soon change. Cameron and many of her neighbors have signed onto a project called Brooklyn Microgrid, which is installing infrastructure to enable a small network of Park Slope buildings—and another cluster in neighboring Gowanus—to sever themselves from the larger grid. The microgrid would independently distribute locally sourced electricity without mediation from the utility.

A question renewable energy critics rarely ask: do we need a base load power source? In other words, is it possible to create a grid that can actually run 100% renewable?

1) Yes and 2) No.
This is fine as a supplementary thing and I don't deny the notion that solar power could reduce the use of baseload power if utilized in this manner, but it isn't the answer to the baseload problem.

Quote:

There are many arguments to be made in favor of climate change being a conspiracy. But people being in favor of solar/wind over nuclear isn't one of them.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. Nuclear is too obvious an answer and the points against it too blatantly false/easily refutable by an informed observer for there not to be an issue here. There is simply no excuse for the way Nuclear energy is treated by environmentalists, and that treatment should absolutely lead every observer to question their motives.

I'll end with this:

[911]

Come on dude, a TED talk, by a guy from Berkeley? This guy is a brainwashed idiot, sucking up to crooks like Bill Gates, James Hanson, the IPCC and freaking out about carbon emissions. You guys need to get red pilled, I will throw a global warming datasheet putting together a lot of research I've made on the subject.

CO2 Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a total hoax, based on faulty science and leftist technocratic propaganda. We have at least one century of oil and gas in N. America alone, and five centuries worth of coal. No need to go nuclear, if only on costs alone, at least until we perfect the nth wave super safe no waste cheap nuclear fission technology.

[Genghis Khan]

(02-07-2017 02:26 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(02-07-2017 01:45 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

Let's talk about nuclear for a moment:

1. The people advocating for climate change solutions are the same ones who were terrified of a nuclear armageddon in the 1980s. So say you believe that climate change will lead to the complete annihilation of humanity by climate change. And you also believe that going 100% nuclear can lead to the complete annihilation of humanity, especially now considering we haven't been able to stop nuclear proliferation. I hope RVF members can see why some people may not be pushing one doomsday option to alleviate another.

There's no valid reason to believe that current generation nuclear plants are a "doomsday option". Gen 3+ reactors are on a whole new level relative to the ones those people grew up with (which are usually 50-60 year old designs). There is no evidence that Nuclear is deadlier than other power sources, especially with modern designs - in fact, the data we do have points to the contrary. The fears you're outlining aren't rational in the present day and shouldn't prevent an informed person from supporting nuclear energy.

I bolded the important sentence in my paragraph since you seemed to have completely missed the point that I was talking about nuclear proliferation.

Quote:

Quote:

2. NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY). Where do we put nuclear power plants? I do tend to forget that people are emotional first. The reality is nobody wants a nuclear power plant in their neighborhood. I grew up within the radiation radius of a nuclear power plant and getting packets of iodine pills 'just in case' wasn't fun. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima - environmentalists aren't pulling dangers out of the air, there are real safety and environmental concerns with regards to nuclear meltdown and radiation leaks (separate from the whole nuclear armageddon issue).

Again, this is irrational fear based on antiquated technology. Modern plants are nothing at all like the ones at Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island. They're vastly more advanced with just about no chance of a meltdown thanks to modern cooling/safety systems. An AP-1000 simply isn't comparable to any of the units you mentioned.

I'm confused as to what you're trying to argue. That people have irrational fears? Thanks, but I already stated that people are emotional and nobody wants a plant in their backyard. Cool, glad we agree people are irrational. But that's still a hurdle you have to cross politically and it's a serious one.

"just about no chance of a meltdown" - meaning non-zero chance of a meltdown. Politically dead in the water.

Try telling suburban moms the chance of their kid dying of a meltdown is only one in a trillion. They're not going to care how safe the new designs are, as long there's a non-zero chance of meltdown or radiation leaks, it's a no-go.

You can be an informed person, but understand people have irrational fears about nuclear power and thus conclude there's no point in going all in with supporting something that has a tremendous political challenge.

Quote:

3. Nuclear waste - do you realize most high-level nuclear waste is 'temporarily' stored on site? The US was supposed to have a 'permanent' storage for high-level waste at Yucca Mountain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Moun...repository

It's still not built. Partly because of the NIMBY issue - would you want a nuclear waste repository in your back yard?

First, it doesn't have to be put in anybody's back yard. Second, this is still an irrational fear. We are far better at disposing of waste than we once were - far less is produced, and large portions can be recycled now. Storage is one of the most easily overcome issues with nuclear power.[/quote]

"Back yard" is not to be taken literally. Nevadans across the board rejected the Yucca Mountain storage proposal, even if they lived on the other side of the state. Nobody wants anything nuclear anywhere near them. People would freak out if they realized how much waste is already near them.



Storage is clearly not one of the most easily overcome issues. If it was, we wouldn't have waste in temporary storage.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nucl...repository

Quote:

Congress’ decision to study only Yucca, and its subsequent June 2002 approval/designation of the site, triggered years of legal challenges, strong opposition from many in the state of Nevada, and a significant amount of scientific disagreement about the suitability of the site. This has stalled the project. As a result, the original plan for DOE to begin accepting fuel at Yucca Mountain in 1998 did not happen.

In 2006, the DOE, during the George W. Bush administration, recommended that Yucca should open and begin accepting fuel by 2017. However, opposition continued, and in 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama promised to abandon the project. After his election, the DOE filed a 2010 motion with the NRC to withdraw its Yucca Mountain license application. A number of lawsuits have been filed in response to the DOE’s action.

We can't even do long-term storage right for the waste we have right now. You can argue as much as you want about irrational fears, but unless you have a magic wand that makes irrationality disappear, it is a tremendous political stumbling block. And you're surprised people don't want to push nuclear more?

Quote:

Quote:

So to conclude: nuclear can
1) can cause armageddon through nuclear proliferation
2) is a safety and environmental hazard
3) what do you do with the waste?
4) cost is outrageous, even for environmentalists.

1) Not it can't
2) Not it isn't
3) Storage is not complicated
4. Environmentalists promote vastly more outrageous "solutions" to their problems every day.

1) Yes it can - you've provided no evidence proliferation isn't a serious concern
2) Yes it is - unless you can guarantee zero possibility of meltdown or radiation, it's a hazard (albeit a very small one) and thus politically toxic
3) Yes totally not complicated, that's why Yucca Mountain has been such a success
4) Let's not caricature environmentalists or lump them together into a monolithic block. No doubt some promote outrageous solutions all the time. But quite a few (as I know them personally) are very sensible and see outrageously expensive ideas, including nuclear, for what they are: absolute no-gos.

Try again.

Quote:

Quote:

3) Grid penetration. Many people believe solar/wind/battery can cover 100% of what the grid needs. Personally, I'm much more skeptical. I err on the side of conservative grid models, which show renewables can indeed penetrate up to 30%. Going to 30% from the current <1% is still an enormous amount of growth and more relevant to the topic of climate change: 30% is fucking big dent in CO2 emissions.

That's the most optimistic penetration scenario, IMO, and I doubt it becomes reality. Even if it does, such penetration is meaningless for these environmentalists if the baseload source is anything having to do with fossil fuels.

"IMO" - glad to know we've got your opinion. Backed by what exactly? Bring me some data if you want me to take you seriously on your perspective on the most optimistic scenario.

Who are these environmentalists you talk off? The absolute crazies like Naomi Klein?

I get the impression you don't actually talk to environmentalists in real life and are basing your opinion of them off of sensationalized news

https://21stcenturychallenges.org/what-i...ge-theory/

Quote:

Physicist Professors Robert Socolow and ecologist Stephen Pacala, Co-Directors of The Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton University (Genghis Khan: these guys are environmentalists have come up with a way to frame the challenge of global warming called ‘stabilisation wedges’. The phrase ‘stabilisation wedges’ was coined in a paper in an academic journal in 2004.

The theory claims that humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical and industrial know-how to enable us to transition to a low carbon world.

In order to stabilise the world’s carbon emissions, Socolow and Pacala suggest not searching for one solution, but to harness seven categories of reduction, using current technologies that could be scaled up over the next 50 years. The wedges each play a part in lowering the angle of the line representing carbon emissions growth. Combined they would reduce carbon emissions enough to stabilise carbon concentration in the earth’s atmosphere.

The Department of Energy itself uses the stabilisation wedge theory to divvy up money between energy research programs.

In case you didn't know, both Socolow and Pacala are very prominent in the climate change field. The crazy Naomi Klein even quoted Pacala in her silly book This Changes Everything. She just left out the fact that Pacala believes nuclear should be an option and we need to transition from coal/oil to gas to reduce CO2 emissions.

Quote:

Quote:

But on the flipside, people who are absolutely convinced 100% renewable penetration cannot happen are also being foolish.

Of course they are. We've already seen 100% (or pretty close to 100%) renewable penetration in some places - hydro power can do that for you.
My argument is that solar panels and windmills will not make that happen by themselves in the absence of a much more reliable, productive baseload source. If that baseload source is hydropower (as it is in Costa Rica or Sweden), you can get well over 90% of your power from renewables just by supplementing with windmills and solar panels.
If your plan is to get to that 90%+ with solar panels and windmills as your baseloads, you're going to fail. Guaranteed. If you try to do this without a hydropower baseload and without a willingness to turn to nuclear as a new baseload, you're just going to end up using more fossil fuels. Germany has learned this the hard way.

Obviously, I wasn't talking about places where hydropower can supply the vast majority of your baseload. Those places are set and don't even need nuclear.

Quote:

I'm not convinced. Sounds like I'm just shit out of luck if I just happen to need to use my appliances when the clouds come. With a reliable baseload power source I don't have that problem, so why on Earth don't we just focus on finding that source instead?

Maybe because this perfect reliable baseload power with no negatives doesn't exist.

Or maybe because in many developing nations, such as India, solar panels actually make more sense than trying to connect remote villages to the electric grid, which cannot even keep the lights on 24/7 in the big cities.

Or maybe because the reliable baseload power source you want is outrageously expensive.

Also, it isn't as if people aren't looking for other sources. Fusion is extremely attractive as it doesn't have the proliferation or meltdown concerns fission does. And with D-D reactions (instead of D-T) radiation leakage may not be a concern either. A lot of research is being done in the fusion energy field. And with much support from people in the environmentalist camp.

As for the cloud issue - it gets severely minimized when you have massive solar farms spanning millions of solar panels providing your electricity.

Quote:

This just doesn't make sense. And yes, all of this twisting and turning to avoid the cold hard truth about nuclear energy as a fundamental necessity to combating the problem they claim is so existential (climate change) leaves me highly skeptical of the motives of these people.

Nobody except the absolute crazies like Naomi Klein is avoiding the hard truth about nuclear. From the article above talking about Socolow and Pacala:

Quote:

Doubling the world’s current nuclear capacity – recognised that this would require restoring public confidence in safety and waste disposal.

Even environmentalists such as Socolow and Pacala admit increasing nuclear capacity would be great. Though I don't think they gives the cost and proliferation issues enough credit as serious challenges.

Quote:

Quote:

A question renewable energy critics rarely ask: do we need a base load power source? In other words, is it possible to create a grid that can actually run 100% renewable?

1) Yes and 2) No.
This is fine as a supplementary thing and I don't deny the notion that solar power could reduce the use of baseload power if utilized in this manner, but it isn't the answer to the baseload problem.

You've brought up the baseload question a few times. I don't deny that right now with the technology we have today we need a base load power. I've said it before myself that with where we currently stand, 100% renewable grid isn't happening.

That said, I don't take sure a certain position on this issue. My emphasis on talking about smart grids and microgrids was to demonstrate that people are trying to figure out ways to reduce if not altogether remove a baseload power requirement.

This will have to be another thing we'll have to agree to disagree on. You seem dead set on needing something like nuclear as baseload power. I'm not. I'm very much open to the possibility that we may figure out a way to run without baseload powers.

[Genghis Khan]

(02-07-2017 03:35 AM)911 Wrote:  

Come on dude, a TED talk, by a guy from Berkeley? This guy is a brainwashed idiot, sucking up to crooks like Bill Gates, James Hanson, the IPCC and freaking out about carbon emissions. You guys need to get red pilled, I will throw a global warming datasheet putting together a lot of research I've made on the subject.

CO2 Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a total hoax, based on faulty science and leftist technocratic propaganda. We have at least one century of oil and gas in N. America alone, and five centuries worth of coal. No need to go nuclear, if only on costs alone, at least until we perfect the nth wave super safe no waste cheap nuclear fission technology.

Lay it on us, man. Would love to see a global warming datasheet.

[CynicalContrarian]

End of the day.
Not a single person controls the sun.
Not a single person controls the volcano's.
Not a single person controls the earths magnetic field.

Damn commie's definitely want to control us though...

[roberto]

(02-06-2017 10:56 AM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  

Green policies have driven the cost of electricity and natural gas up so high that people in the UK have installed wood burning stoves to keep warm during the winter. Wood stoves pollute like crazy, especially if loaded up overnight and run at a slow burn. When I lived in Vermont, every winter morning, the town of Rutland was engulfed in a blanket of wood smoke.

In Germany, which went full retard with green power, tree theft is now an issue.

Couple of points from the ground here. One, wood burning stoves are nowhere near as cheap to run as fossil fuels. This is because the calorific density of wood is so low compared with fossil fuels. It's not even close- natural gas is 12500kcal/kg whilst dry wood is 2500kcal/kg. Source Add in the inefficiency of a stove vs a boiler that heats on demand and circulates it via water to the radiators and the gap widens. Yes, there have been huge advances in efficiency with wood chip burning stoves that automatically load, and then heat water. But this is all underpinned by massive, wasteful subsidies. There are companies here who get paid to burn wood 'to kiln dry logs' via the renewable heat scheme. They get paid so much to waste wood this way (rather than let a summer of drying do the work) that they can sell the logs at stupidly cheap prices, as it's just an extra bonus. It's retarded.

So a woodburning stove is very much a lifestyle thing. The only people who run just wood for heating are self sufficient types who like to do it all themselves, and people like me who have easy access to free wood and/or live in a run down cottage with no central heating. If you had to buy the wood then staying warm becomes very very expensive.

As alluded to in the article, wood theft is basically happening because with a mornings work you can make £150 cash with an axe, chainsaw and trailer. Source- I did it myself when I was 17 Although I took stuff that the council had left by the side of the road in the country, and nobody had touched it for years.

[BoiBoi]

(02-06-2017 10:10 AM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  

Green energy with a few minor exceptions, would disappear overnight if it wasn't for the subsidies. Solar PV, wind, and fuel cells are financial black holes when used for base load power (replacing gas, coal, nuclear power plants). The subsidies are direct payments or use more arcane methods such as forcing utilities to buy green power at retails instead of wholesale rates. The latter has become popular because on paper, it makes green power look profitable.

NJ has done both type of subsidies, with the cost passed on to the rate payer. When the program was ramped up a decade or more back, consumer utility bills went up 50% for residential. My commercial rates got it worse, sometimes hit $0.30 per kWh or more. The increases were to subsidies the building of solar PV throughout the state. There are now PV panels everywhere. As an example, nearly every power pole has them in my city. So what did us rate payers get for this? I ran the numbers. As of 2015 0.7% of all the electricity generated in the state (source: Energy Information Agency) came from solar PV. The legislature commanded that 20% come from green. Over a decade later, we haven't broken 2% if you account for all green energy sources.

I work in energy too and while it's true that it's foolish to believe that renweables can replace the conventionals any time soon (e.g. how will you melt steel, extract aluminium, etc.) there are countries in the world where PV makes absolute sense. In Chile there absolutely no subsidies for PV and just recently they held a tender there and guess what, PV was more cost competitive than any other form of energy. Of course, Chile is one of the countries with the highest solar radiation levels in the world, especially in the north. To put it into perspective, in the northern Patagonia (Puerto Mont area) which has absolute shit conditions for PV compared to the rest of the country, the solar radiation is 2x as high as in the best German location (Freiburg area).

Also, in many parts of the world the distribution grid doesn't reach everyone. There insular PV solutions can work fine (I'm mostly talking sub developed countries or remote places here) especially when combiend with a diesel generator in a hybrid setup.

TL;DR: Don't completely discount PV. Just don't be retard about thinking that it'll save the world while powering an entire industrial nation