Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Environmentalism

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Rojik View Post

    Believe what you want. We will all be dead before anything really hits. Now can I put up a ref pic of some random quote to support my statemernt
    The smoke from the fires in Australia is becoming a very large problem, even at the Australian open. Apparently the smoke is beginning to drift across the Pacific.
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

    Comment


    • This is an excellent article touching on science denial and ideology. The subject of the article is an evangelical Christian atmospheric physicist who has been nominated to Time's "Most Influential" peoples list. Worth a read.

      Katharine Hayhoe: 'The true threat is the delusion that our opinion of science somehow alters its reality'

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post

        Coming from someone who thinks it perfectly fine to dump decommissioned nuclear reactors in the deep ocean.


        Yep. Decommissioned nuclear plant stuff is a combination alpha and beta emitter for the most part. The radioactive bits stay put where they're dumped and the water acts as a very effective shield against the radiation. The USN and others monitor sunken nuclear subs and note that just feet from the wreck's nuclear parts the radiation drops to normal background. Placed in a subduction zone, over tens of thousands of years this stuff will be buried in silt and then subducted back into the Earth's core where it came from.

        Comment


        • Until you look at more of the picture...



          Solar sits idle or under-producing roughly 75 to 80% of the time. Where do you get the make-up energy when it's not producing? What do you do with the other capacity when it is?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post

            Coming from someone who thinks it perfectly fine to dump decommissioned nuclear reactors in the deep ocean.
            In all fairness, this isn't actually a crazy idea, especially given the difficulty in planning safe storage on land for some of the longer lived wastes.

            Newer reactor designs can use their own waste products as fuel. Hopefully this greatly reduces the problem of waste disposal for nuclear power.

            I also feel it's worth pointing out that, despite fears, nuclear power has killed orders of magnitude fewer people than fossil fuels.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

              In all fairness, this isn't actually a crazy idea, especially given the difficulty in planning safe storage on land for some of the longer lived wastes.

              Newer reactor designs can use their own waste products as fuel. Hopefully this greatly reduces the problem of waste disposal for nuclear power.

              I also feel it's worth pointing out that, despite fears, nuclear power has killed orders of magnitude fewer people than fossil fuels.
              Directly in accidents, the total is exactly three (3) if you discount the utter stupidity of Chernobyl that only occurred because a Communist government demanded stupid testing and built a crappy reactor system being unaccountable for its actions.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                Solar sits idle or under-producing roughly 75 to 80% of the time. Where do you get the make-up energy when it's not producing? What do you do with the other capacity when it is?

                From existing coal and gas power stations burning more of their fuel, with storage used at peak demand. It ain't rocket surgery.
                In future storage will hopefully replace (some) power stations as they are decommissioned.

                Lets not pretend volatility is limited to renewable energy.

                eia-natural-gas.jpg

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                  In all fairness, this isn't actually a crazy idea, especially given the difficulty in planning safe storage on land for some of the longer lived wastes.

                  Newer reactor designs can use their own waste products as fuel. Hopefully this greatly reduces the problem of waste disposal for nuclear power.

                  I also feel it's worth pointing out that, despite fears, nuclear power has killed orders of magnitude fewer people than fossil fuels.
                  I'm in favour of nuclear, if anyone claims to be all for green energy yet refuse to consider nuclear as an option they aren't identifying the benefits. At least with nuclear the waste can be stored somewhere, not spewed out of a chimney and all over the country side.
                  "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
                  Ernest Hemingway.

                  Sapere aude.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                    In all fairness, this isn't actually a crazy idea, especially given the difficulty in planning safe storage on land for some of the longer lived wastes.

                    Newer reactor designs can use their own waste products as fuel. Hopefully this greatly reduces the problem of waste disposal for nuclear power.

                    I also feel it's worth pointing out that, despite fears, nuclear power has killed orders of magnitude fewer people than fossil fuels.

                    Nuclear is very desirable for providing baseload power but apart from the waste issue the biggest problem is cost.
                    New nuclear power is going up in price whilst renewables are plummeting.

                    For example the UK is building a new nuclear plant at Hinckley, it should produce 25 terrawatts a year.. The station is guaranteed to receive 92.50 per megawatt hour of energy for 35 years.

                    In contrast in the latest auction of offshore wind should generate 28 terrawatts a year and their guaranteed minimum price is about 40.00 per megawatt hour generated and only for 15 years.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gooner View Post


                      From existing coal and gas power stations burning more of their fuel, with storage used at peak demand. It ain't rocket surgery.
                      In future storage will hopefully replace (some) power stations as they are decommissioned.

                      Lets not pretend volatility is limited to renewable energy.

                      eia-natural-gas.jpg
                      Actually, in a way it is. A plant that sits unutilized can't be brought on and off line rapidly unless you are talking about peaking plants. Those are inefficient in operation but can be rapidly brought on and off line. For "normal" conventional and nuclear fuel plants it takes anywhere from hours to days to bring one up on line and the same to shut it down. Idling such plants hot (eg., up and ready to produce electricity but not doing so is expensive-- very expensive.

                      That solar requires storage to extend its run time is an expense that other forms of power generation don't require. It's also very expensive to build and the sheer volume required makes it almost prohibitively expensive. It's also inefficient as you don't store at 100% efficiency nor do you discharge that power later.

                      In Germany, another problem that's repeatedly come up is that the power produced by solar is unstable. That is, there are momentary drops and surges in it. For the average residential consumer, these are a rare nuisance. For commercial customers, they can be fatal to their business operations for weeks afterwards. Many larger companies and those that require "clean" (signal-wise) stable power are now installing Uninteruptable Power Supplies (UPS) and back up diesel or natural gas generators to prevent problems from the grid being unstable.

                      https://www.instituteforenergyresear...lectric-grids/

                      https://notrickszone.com/2017/11/11/...and-sun-power/

                      https://www.tdworld.com/grid-innovat...energy-miracle

                      Then there's the "Smart grid" that isn't. Germany's leading the way on this one too. They're up to about half-a-trillion euros spent building it now and it's not close to finished. Redispatch (moving electricity around) costs are now at about $400 million euros a year on top of normal costs as well, and climbing.

                      https://www.cleanenergywire.org/fact...man-power-grid

                      It's gotten so bad that Poland and France are trying to disconnect their grids from Germany's.

                      https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...man-renewables

                      http://www.thegwpf.com/germanys-rene...grid-collapse/

                      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...lackout-energy

                      Then to top it all off, Germany is the world's leader in expensive electricity... So much for going Green...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gooner View Post


                        Nuclear is very desirable for providing baseload power but apart from the waste issue the biggest problem is cost.
                        New nuclear power is going up in price whilst renewables are plummeting.

                        For example the UK is building a new nuclear plant at Hinckley, it should produce 25 terrawatts a year.. The station is guaranteed to receive 92.50 per megawatt hour of energy for 35 years.

                        In contrast in the latest auction of offshore wind should generate 28 terrawatts a year and their guaranteed minimum price is about 40.00 per megawatt hour generated and only for 15 years.
                        I did a quick comparison between Palo Verde Nuclear and Ivanpah Solar, the two largest nuclear and solar plants in the US. The results, in a nutshell, are:

                        Palo Verde costs a bit over 5 times what Ivanpah did to construct. (11.5 billion versus 2 billion in 2016 dollars). Palo Verde produces 35 times more electricity annually. Solar is simply stupid.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                          Actually, in a way it is. A plant that sits unutilized can't be brought on and off line rapidly unless you are talking about peaking plants. Those are inefficient in operation but can be rapidly brought on and off line. For "normal" conventional and nuclear fuel plants it takes anywhere from hours to days to bring one up on line and the same to shut it down. Idling such plants hot (eg., up and ready to produce electricity but not doing so is expensive-- very expensive.
                          Combined Cycle Gas Turbine power stations can come online within 1 hour. Generally you can predict power output from wind and solar to better than one hour.


                          That solar requires storage to extend its run time is an expense that other forms of power generation don't require. It's also very expensive to build and the sheer volume required makes it almost prohibitively expensive. It's also inefficient as you don't store at 100% efficiency nor do you discharge that power later.
                          Energy storage is one of those areas that are having lots of money spent on it. Expect technological advances and cost reductions, just as there has been with solar and wind.
                          https://www.smart-energy.com/industr...rage-projects/

                          The cheapest and easiest might still be pumping water up hills which of course is nothing new.

                          Then to top it all off, Germany is the world's leader in expensive electricity... So much for going Green...
                          Merkel is a massive idiot. Closing down all Germany's nuke plants by 2022 but keeping coal until 2038.

                          No surprise that the USA has seen a big reduction in GHG emissions in recent years but Germany hasn't.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                            I did a quick comparison between Palo Verde Nuclear and Ivanpah Solar, the two largest nuclear and solar plants in the US. The results, in a nutshell, are:

                            Palo Verde costs a bit over 5 times what Ivanpah did to construct. (11.5 billion versus 2 billion in 2016 dollars). Palo Verde produces 35 times more electricity annually. Solar is simply stupid.
                            I doubt if you could build new nuclear stations for that money. Hinckley C is going to cost about 20 billion. In contrast the price of solar continues to decline

                            BTW I make it 45 times as much electricity from Palo Verde!

                            Tracking-Solar-Prices-Decline.png

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gooner View Post


                              Nuclear is very desirable for providing baseload power but apart from the waste issue the biggest problem is cost.
                              New nuclear power is going up in price whilst renewables are plummeting.

                              For example the UK is building a new nuclear plant at Hinckley, it should produce 25 terrawatts a year.. The station is guaranteed to receive 92.50 per megawatt hour of energy for 35 years.

                              In contrast in the latest auction of offshore wind should generate 28 terrawatts a year and their guaranteed minimum price is about 40.00 per megawatt hour generated and only for 15 years.
                              Just one nitpick here, baseload power only means the minimum output before the plant has to shut down. During off peak periods, if the demand for power is less than the baseload production, the company is forced to pay other utilities to take their electricity.
                              "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
                              Ernest Hemingway.

                              Sapere aude.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post

                                Just one nitpick here, baseload power only means the minimum output before the plant has to shut down. During off peak periods, if the demand for power is less than the baseload production, the company is forced to pay other utilities to take their electricity.
                                And, that's happening in Germany with almost alarming frequency. The other problem is when solar and wind over produce. That is they are making more electricity than the grid is calling for. Then, producers have to find places to dump the extra electricity or even just give it away free. The Poles and French are tired of Germany dumping their excess power on their grids and messing up their production using coal and nuclear respectively. Their solution is to disconnect their grid from Germany's exacerbating Germany's grid instability and further causing the price of electricity to rise there.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X