Climate Change

[Rasputin]

Ok ok. I surrender. We need to fully transition to 100% wind and solar with 100% battery backup. It’s so cheap, almost free energy. Nothing else comes close. It’s totally possible from an engineering and cost perspective. It’s the best and only option. ]

If you were concerned with cheap, you wouldn't be advocating for nuclear power.

I know, I know, disingenuous troll is disingenuous.

[xyz]

If you were concerned with cheap, you wouldn't be advocating for nuclear power.

I know, I know, disingenuous troll is disingenuous.

For wind and solar to meet the capacity factor of nuke’s they need to be 4x the nameplate. Plus battery backup. When that’s factored in, nukes are cheaper. And wind and solar are site specific.

But carry on with your fantasy.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Mofro261]

For wind and solar to meet the capacity factor of nuke’s they need to be 4x the nameplate. Plus battery backup. When that’s factored in, nukes are cheaper. And wind and solar are site specific.

But carry on with your fantasy.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Why is it either/or in your world?

We don't rely on any one source currently, why would that change? You are the only one suggesting 100% anything.

Think harder.

[BCMtnHound]

Why is it either/or in your world?

We don't rely on any one source currently, why would that change? You are the only one suggesting 100% anything.

Think harder.

FWIW, there are many places in the world that solar and wind are not the best choice. While relatively small in population served, north (and south?) of 50 mostly relies on diesel fuel, if they can’t link to hydro or gas. Same for lots of less developed countries. What’s China’s hesitation on nuclear? India was buying Candu reactors, wonder how those are playing out.

[xyz]

Why is it either/or in your world?

We don't rely on any one source currently, why would that change? You are the only one suggesting 100% anything.

Think harder.

Wind and solar have a place. They obviously work. But given the climate emergency, we should be prioritizing zero emission power generation that’s reliable with the highest performance. Nuke is the smartest way to lower emissions in a hurry.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[::: :::]

I’m not following what you mean by “zero emission”

[Mofro261]

FWIW, there are many places in the world that solar and wind are not the best choice. While relatively small in population served, north (and south?) of 50 mostly relies on diesel fuel, if they can’t link to hydro or gas. Same for lots of less developed countries. What’s China’s hesitation on nuclear? India was buying Candu reactors, wonder how those are playing out.

That's my point too. We get a lot of hydro here, but that won't work where the water doesn't flow. Wind and solar should not be 100% objectives, but expanding lower emissions sources and phasing out high emissions sources doesn't require 100% of any one source.

Binary thinking won't move the needle.

[old goat]

An excellent article about the carbon credit fraud. Don't believe it when some company claims to be carbon neutral. Warning--the article is long.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...-carbon-hustle

(I guess a lot of people don't like long articles--the NYT web site tells you how long an article is supposed to take to read. Or maybe, given that mostly Type A people read the NYT, it's so you can compare your reading speed with par.)

[Core Shot]

Nat gas peakers are essential. Quick ramp up and down.
Nukes need to spool up. Same with coal.
Solar and batteries are fine. But nowhere near ready for prime time.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

That's my point too. We get a lot of hydro here, but that won't work where the water doesn't flow. Wind and solar should not be 100% objectives, but expanding lower emissions sources and phasing out high emissions sources doesn't require 100% of any one source.

Binary thinking won't move the needle.

Stop being pragmatic!! Big brains are at work here!!!!

Looks like Core Shot has entered the fray, more big brains at work!!

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[raisingarizona13]

Lets just embrace the next pandemic please.

*impatiently looks down at wrist watch.

[neufox47]

Nat gas peakers are essential. Quick ramp up and down.
Nukes need to spool up. Same with coal.
Solar and batteries are fine. But nowhere near ready for prime time.

Based on what? The cheapest energy being built today is all renewable.

Peakers are being replaced by battery banks. Battery response is instant, and the battery system can be used for arbitrage anytime with very little variable cost other than the cost of power.

[xyz]

Based on what? The cheapest energy being built today is all renewable.

Peakers are being replaced by battery banks. Battery response is instant, and the battery system can be used for arbitrage anytime with very little variable cost other than the cost of power.

Take off your green tinted glasses.

Are renewables cheap at producing power? Yes? Can batteries provide backup? Yes. Do batteries provide instantaneous power? Yes

What you’re conveniently leaving out is the cost of batteries to provide full time backup power. And of course wind and solar can’t be put anywhere. In Alberta their wind and solar can produce zero power for weeks on end. The cost of abattery bank to provide 1 hr of backup is 1M per MW. When you scale the math up for fulltime backup based on current demand it’s trillions of dollars. An impossible sum of money.

Sure battery technology may improve. But in time to be net zero by 2030? Not a chance.

[Bunion 2020]

So don't bother, right?

[grinch]

He's full of hot air. Maybe thats his plan, and NUCLEAR!!!

Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app

[neufox47]

Take off your green tinted glasses.

Are renewables cheap at producing power? Yes? Can batteries provide backup? Yes. Do batteries provide instantaneous power? Yes

What you’re conveniently leaving out is the cost of batteries to provide full time backup power. And of course wind and solar can’t be put anywhere. In Alberta their wind and solar can produce zero power for weeks on end. The cost of abattery bank to provide 1 hr of backup is 1M per MW. When you scale the math up for fulltime backup based on current demand it’s trillions of dollars. An impossible sum of money.

Sure battery technology may improve. But in time to be net zero by 2030? Not a chance.

Who ever said any economy is getting to net zero by 2030? Talk about a straw man. Renewables are now cheap and should be a major component of any new energy development.

Batteries for homes are less than $1,000 per KWH so I don’t know where you got a price of $1m per MWH. My 18kwh system was $12k installed and that included installing a sub panel to pick and choose which circuits will run on it. Lithium iron batteries can be bought at the consumer level for $300 for a 1.2 kWh battery. Again you seem woefully ill informed and trying to defend the status quo at all costs.

[neufox47]

Take off your green tinted glasses.

Are renewables cheap at producing power? Yes? Can batteries provide backup? Yes. Do batteries provide instantaneous power? Yes

What you’re conveniently leaving out is the cost of batteries to provide full time backup power. And of course wind and solar can’t be put anywhere. In Alberta their wind and solar can produce zero power for weeks on end. The cost of abattery bank to provide 1 hr of backup is 1M per MW. When you scale the math up for fulltime backup based on current demand it’s trillions of dollars. An impossible sum of money.

Sure battery technology may improve. But in time to be net zero by 2030? Not a chance.

My post was specifically about batteries replacing peaking power plants. Virtually no one is saying we should use batteries for long term grid power. They are being used specifically to handle power needs in the short term. Natural gas peaking plants are also incapable of running for extended periods.

Who ever said any economy is getting to net zero by 2030? Talk about a straw man. Renewables are now cheap and should be a major component of any new energy development. Just because they aren’t perfect doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be a significant power generator.

Batteries for homes are less than $1,000 per KWH so I don’t know where you got a price of $1m per MWH. My 18kwh system was $12k installed and that included installing a sub panel to pick and choose which circuits will run on it. Lithium iron batteries can be bought at the consumer level for $300 for a 1.2 kWh battery. Again you seem woefully ill informed and trying to defend the status quo at all costs.

[WMD]

My post was specifically about batteries replacing peaking power plants. Virtually no one is saying we should use batteries for long term grid power. They are being used specifically to handle power needs in the short term. Natural gas peaking plants are also incapable of running for extended periods.

Who ever said any economy is getting to net zero by 2030? Talk about a straw man. Renewables are now cheap and should be a major component of any new energy development. Just because they aren’t perfect doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be a significant power generator.

Batteries for homes are less than $1,000 per KWH so I don’t know where you got a price of $1m per MWH. My 18kwh system was $12k installed and that included installing a sub panel to pick and choose which circuits will run on it. Lithium iron batteries can be bought at the consumer level for $300 for a 1.2 kWh battery. Again you seem woefully ill informed and trying to defend the status quo at all costs.

Thank you!

Xyz believes if he just repeats the same things over and over, and states them as facts, that somehow that will make them true. He's a shill for the fossil fuel industry.

There are many ways to solve the intermittency of renewables, both short term (ie at night when the sun doesn't shine), and long term (such as less daylight in winter). Batteries are one solution that is particularly good for short term, or daily needs. Improving transmission can help with seasonal issues, as well as daily need. Vehicle to grid technology could provide incredible amounts of storage. Smart grids can eliminate a lot of the daily peaks by shifting usage to when power is most abundant. There many other options out there.

In the amount of time and money it takes to build nuclear plants we could overbuild renewables and storage enough to electrify everything possible and power it with renewable energy.

[Markeyz]

Why y’all hate Texas grid?

[Flounder]

Sure XYZ, grid based storage will never work and is too expensive. That doesn’t seem to be the case in Texas, although one could argue the messed up Texas system that allows huge profiteering helps the economics.

It's just a phenomenal kind of scale you can get very cheaply,” Webber said. “They're just so much smaller and cheaper to install than a massive power plant. And they really help us get better economics out of the grid, because they can buy power when there's excess power and then discharge power when there's scarcity.

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/a...waves-00112136

[Bunion 2020]

XYZ aside, how about this?

For decades, scientists have tried to figure out ways to reverse climate change by pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and storing it underground. They’ve tried using trees, giant machines that suck CO2 out of the sky, complicated ocean methods that involve growing and burying huge quantities of kelp. Companies, researchers and the U.S. government have spent billions of dollars on the research and development of these approaches and yet they remain too expensive to make a substantial dent in carbon emissions.

Now, a start-up says it has discovered a deceptively simple way to take CO2 from the atmosphere and store it for thousands of years. It involves making bricks out of smushed pieces of plants. And it could be a game changer for the growing industry working to pull carbon from the air.

Graphyte, a new company incubated by Bill Gates’s investment group Breakthrough Energy Ventures, announced Monday that it has created a method for turning bits of wood chips and rice hulls into low-cost, dehydrated chunks of plant matter. Those blocks of carbon-laden plant matter — which look a bit like shoe-box sized Lego blocks — can then be buried deep underground for hundreds of years.

The approach, the company claims, could store a ton of CO2 for around $100 a ton, a number long considered a milestone for affordably removing carbon dioxide from the air.

Carbon removal may not seem like a top priority — why not just stop using fossil fuels in the first place? — but virtually every projection of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050 involves some amount of it. That’s because certain areas of the economy like aviation, cement-making and steelmaking, are very challenging to do with renewable energy and batteries. It’s hard to make temperatures hot enough with electricity to produce cement or steel, and to fly planes on heavy lithium-ion batteries.

https://www.graphyte.com/

A reminder, there is NO single answer, instead many smaller fixes that "could" keep things viable.

[WMD]

A reminder, there is NO single answer, instead many smaller fixes that "could" keep things viable.

There is no silver bullet but there is lots of silver buckshot.

This sounds promising but as you say certainly isn't going to solve the problem alone. Even at $100/ton, removing all of the carbon we emit each year would cost many trillions. So this could help with the last little bit of hard to abate emissions as we simultaneously stop burning fossil fuels for everything else.

[Core Shot]

Why y’all hate Texas grid?

ERCOT is wild.
The only grid not interconnected.

[xyz]

Thank you!

Xyz believes if he just repeats the same things over and over, and states them as facts, that somehow that will make them true. He's a shill for the fossil fuel industry.
.

How am I shill for the status quo and fossil fuel industry when I won’t shut up about nuclear?

[xyz]

Batteries for homes are less than $1,000 per KWH so I don’t know where you got a price of $1m per MWH.

You answered your own question. How many kW are in a MW?