-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.
- Thread starter nwdiver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
SmartElectric
Active Member
Coal in steel making is one of the last uses in Ontario Canada. We dropped coal power production a decade ago (yeah!).
Canada Federal Government is serious about reducing emissions.
Conversion of steel making to use electric arc furnace in Hamilton will reduce emissions equivalent to taking 1.8M gas cars off the road.
Canada Federal Government is serious about reducing emissions.
Conversion of steel making to use electric arc furnace in Hamilton will reduce emissions equivalent to taking 1.8M gas cars off the road.
CleanTechnica: NREL Software Assisting Maui in 100% Solar + Wind Operations Goal.
cleantechnica.com
Throw in some V1G EV charging so the system can be bigger and more stable.
NREL Software Assisting Maui in 100% Solar + Wind Operations Goal - CleanTechnica
REL Methods Assist Maui in Approaching 100% Renewable Operations
cleantechnica.com
Throw in some V1G EV charging so the system can be bigger and more stable.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Includes $25 Billion in Potential New Subsidies for Fossil Fuels
The survival of the fossil fuel industry depends on its ability to convince the public that corporations are taking steps to address the climate crisis. Hydrogen and carbon capture, utilization, and storage have been two of the industry’s key strategies for achieving that goal. Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and Chevron, just to name a few, have touted their investments in hydrogen and carbon capture.
The vast majority of clean-sounding hydrogen is made from natural gas and produces the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide as a waste product. The process itself requires energy, typically supplied by burning more natural gas, which also produces greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, carbon capture and storage are promoted primarily as a means to clean up continued emissions from fossil fuel processing facilities. Carbon capture would do nothing to resolve the array of severe environmental problems caused upstream by drilling, fracking, and mining — let alone the downstream burning of the fuels for energy.
While long-shot, industry-supported “climate” projects depend on government subsidies, so does the rapid scale-up of renewable energy sources already proven to meaningfully slow down the spiraling climate crisis. Put simply, wind and solar work as climate fixes right now, while carbon capture and “decarbonized” hydrogen do not.
The survival of the fossil fuel industry depends on its ability to convince the public that corporations are taking steps to address the climate crisis. Hydrogen and carbon capture, utilization, and storage have been two of the industry’s key strategies for achieving that goal. Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and Chevron, just to name a few, have touted their investments in hydrogen and carbon capture.
The vast majority of clean-sounding hydrogen is made from natural gas and produces the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide as a waste product. The process itself requires energy, typically supplied by burning more natural gas, which also produces greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, carbon capture and storage are promoted primarily as a means to clean up continued emissions from fossil fuel processing facilities. Carbon capture would do nothing to resolve the array of severe environmental problems caused upstream by drilling, fracking, and mining — let alone the downstream burning of the fuels for energy.
While long-shot, industry-supported “climate” projects depend on government subsidies, so does the rapid scale-up of renewable energy sources already proven to meaningfully slow down the spiraling climate crisis. Put simply, wind and solar work as climate fixes right now, while carbon capture and “decarbonized” hydrogen do not.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Working groups reach impasse on Illinois’ clean energy future
Accusations of bad faith negotiating and goalpost-moving have taken center stage as the state's stalled solar industry watches from afar.
pv-magazine-usa.com
In independent but similar letters, the two groups outline that the impasse is centered around what to do with a trio of Nuclear power plants, two of which are expected to be shut down before the end of the year, that are deemed necessary short-term measures to getting Illinois on track to meet it’s climate, clean energy, and employment goals. There are also concerns regarding what generation that would replace the two nuclear plants if they closed, centered around coal and natural gas plant retirement dates.
The Hill: What if the US taxed fossil fuels and gave a check to every American? Turns out, most of the public is into that idea | TheHill.
thehill.com
Then you can use that money to pay for your medical bills. not the worst of ideas, I guess.
What if the US taxed fossil fuels and gave a check to every American? Turns out, most of the public is into that idea
Congress is considering a bill that would add a fee on fossil fuels and distribute the revenue equally as a check. The tax would increase over time and reduce demand for fossil fuels — an…
thehill.com
Then you can use that money to pay for your medical bills. not the worst of ideas, I guess.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
The scheme I have read about has some interesting underlying assumptions and provisions. It is based on the notion that FF consumption goes up with affluence; and that the rebate would be equal for all. So it attempts to make FF consumption a progressive tax on one hand, and on the other hand to motivate affluent people to invest in fossil fuel reductions.
If it was tied to annual carbon reduction targets I could support it.
Interesting Engineering: Caltech's New Space-Based Solar Project Could Power Our Planet.
interestingengineering.com
Some may ask 'why', the right question is 'why not' LOL
Caltech's New Space-Based Solar Project Could Power Our Planet - Interesting Engineering
It's the stuff of science fiction but it's real.
interestingengineering.com
Some may ask 'why', the right question is 'why not' LOL
Interesting Engineering: Caltech's New Space-Based Solar Project Could Power Our Planet.
Caltech's New Space-Based Solar Project Could Power Our Planet - Interesting Engineering
It's the stuff of science fiction but it's real.
Some may ask 'why', the right question is 'why not' LOL
The idea of solar panels in space is older than I am and suffers from one huge drawback - power transmission via microwaves from space to earth. It so happens that water vapor in the air would capture much of that microwave energy (just like the microwave oven in your kitchen) and warm-up/boil-away. There's also the issue of beam divergence where a narrow beam spreads out too wide to be effectively "received". From the article, it seems those problems haven't been solved yet. At this point, it's all just pie-in-the-sky distractions to take the attention away from the fact that we all just need to learn to reduce our energy consumption, while transitioning to renewables.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
And cost.
Panels and microwave equipment in orbit plus ground stations.
Land solar and wind and batteries are so cheap now that I doubt space could compete.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
And a MW to GW scale energy beam in open air. ggg...reat. Those beams are going to have a ... say Km wide safety radius from ground to space PV. That would be pi km^2 of land area. The energy density of land PV is on the order of 0.5x so the beam safety would take up ~ 1.5 E^6 * 0.2 = 0.3 GW of PV on land.
Then you have the cylinder of atmosphere to deal with. It would be a bad idea for a flying animal, let alone a plane, to fly through that beam. At least with CSP there is a bright light on the tower to steer planes away.
Last edited:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
‘Abolish these companies, get rid of them’: what would it take to break up big oil?
Siddiqa is the founder of Polluters Out, a youth-led coalition dedicated to removing the oil and gas industry’s influence from international climate negotiations. She created the group in response to the failed COP25 climate talks in 2019, which made little progress toward curbing carbon emissions. In her mind, the major petroleum giants don’t deserve to be involved in the clean energy revolution.
Carla Skandier, manager of the climate and energy program at the Democracy Collaborative, says groups like hers are now researching ways to end the cycle of harm through nationalizing segments of the fossil fuel industry. In the simplest terms, the process would involve the federal government buying out entire oil and gas companies to take ownership of their infrastructure and assets.
Such public intervention would also prevent oil companies from simply shutting down operations, laying off their workers and leaving behind devastated towns and counties, as coal companies have done, Skandier said. “We need to consider that a lot of these communities are highly dependent on fossil fuel revenues, so we need to plan how we’re going to build community wealth and diversify their economies to make sure they’re not only economically stable but resilient to climate impacts in the future.”
Siddiqa is the founder of Polluters Out, a youth-led coalition dedicated to removing the oil and gas industry’s influence from international climate negotiations. She created the group in response to the failed COP25 climate talks in 2019, which made little progress toward curbing carbon emissions. In her mind, the major petroleum giants don’t deserve to be involved in the clean energy revolution.
Carla Skandier, manager of the climate and energy program at the Democracy Collaborative, says groups like hers are now researching ways to end the cycle of harm through nationalizing segments of the fossil fuel industry. In the simplest terms, the process would involve the federal government buying out entire oil and gas companies to take ownership of their infrastructure and assets.
Such public intervention would also prevent oil companies from simply shutting down operations, laying off their workers and leaving behind devastated towns and counties, as coal companies have done, Skandier said. “We need to consider that a lot of these communities are highly dependent on fossil fuel revenues, so we need to plan how we’re going to build community wealth and diversify their economies to make sure they’re not only economically stable but resilient to climate impacts in the future.”
No really, space based solar power is not a useful idea, literature review edition
This blog is part of my series on countering common misconceptions in space journalism. It’s an extension of my post dismantling the case for space-based solar power. As a writer in the publi…
caseyhandmer.wordpress.com
Space-based solar power is not a thing
This post is part of a series on common misconceptions in space journalism. It’s also part of the sub-series on space resources, and why commercial exploitation of space resources is less ine…
caseyhandmer.wordpress.com
Last edited:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Interesting blog. A few choice quotes:No really, space based solar power is not a useful idea, literature review edition
This blog is part of my series on countering common misconceptions in space journalism. It’s an extension of my post dismantling the case for space-based solar power. As a writer in the publi…
Space-based solar power is not a thing
This post is part of a series on common misconceptions in space journalism. It’s also part of the sub-series on space resources, and why commercial exploitation of space resources is less ine…
As Elon Musk has concisely pointed out, the fundamental problem with space-based solar power is that it’s obtaining a commodity, power, somewhere where it’s expensive and selling it somewhere where it’s cheap. This is not a good business. Indeed, it might make more sense to beam power from Earth to space stations, if they needed it.
I can grant a post-scarcity fully automated luxury communist space economy with self-replicating robots processing asteroids into solar panels, and even then people will still prefer to have solar panels on their roof, to avoid supply interruptions and utility bills. Or maybe they’ll all be post-humans living in some data center orbiting Jupiter. Let’s reel it back in a bit.
I can relax assumptions all day. I can grant 100% transmission efficiency, $10/kg orbital launch costs, complete development and procurement cost parity, and a crippling land shortage on Earth. Even then, space-based solar power still won’t be able to compete, because the antenna receiver alone is basically a solar plant in disguise.
If we can send up massively expensive telescopes for fun, freaking Space Power has to deserve at least some blue sky money.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I believe space telescopes have a vital scientific purpose.
Building expensive solar castles in the sky is a frivolous waste of money. Perhaps Bezos would be interested.
roblab
Active Member
Or, to put it another way, more of us need to transition to renewables (solar, primarily) and batteries. Those of us who are already using solar and batteries don't need to transition to anything. With batteries, I don't send much back to the grid, and don't use the grid, except to fill in while I slowly charge my cars.
When I ask people why they don't drive electric, or use solar panels, I always get the same answer: "It's too expensive!" Well, let me tell you. My average monthly electric bill was over $300 per month. I paid $500 per panel, so my panels cost me around $25K. But that was ten years ago, and they've earned me around $36,000 now, with more coming every month in the form of free electricity. Now the loan is paid off and I'm tempted to go off grid what with PG&E turning off the power for hours or days with no notice. At least the batteries keep me running. And how do you value (in money) having your power stay on (like the last couple days, again)?
Transitioning to renewables is a good idea, but we've always managed with less so I don't feel I need to "reduce our energy consumption". I live the good life.
But buying those panels makes you start thinking, and the reduction in use comes automatically.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Same here. I just keep adding more solar and switching NG to electric heat pumps, cars to EVs, etc.
I have become very conscious and compulsively monitor solar production and energy consumption.
My goal is Fully Automated Luxury Communism (FALC).
Similar threads
