The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[Cheerful Charlie]

Not an adequate or reasonable answer. We need to start the process of coming up with a solution now. A serious and intelligent solution. Nobody not caring about this is worth paying attention to.

 

[skepticalbip]

There are absolutely no plans on where it can be permanently buried safely.

Who cares? Just leave it where it is stored now.

The anti-nuke crowd (that know nothing about the nuclear industry) think that the fact that they don't like something (even though they don't understand it) makes it a dire problem. It is much like the religious evangelicals that argue "I don't understand therefore god", the anti nuke crowd argue "I don't know and refuse to learn about the nuclear industry therefore it is a dire problem".

 

[skepticalbip]

Not an adequate or reasonable answer. We need to start the process of coming up with a solution now. A serious and intelligent solution. Nobody not caring about this is worth paying attention to.

There has been a solution for several decades that has long since been implemented. The fact that you don't know this only speaks to the lack of sincerity in your "argument".

Maybe what we need to work on is a solution for safe disposal of all the retired solar panels. There is a lot of toxic materials in solar panels that we don[t want contaminating our drinking water or getting into the environment. As of now, they are just dumped.

 

[bilby]

Not an adequate or reasonable answer. We need to start the process of coming up with a solution now. A serious and intelligent solution. Nobody not caring about this is worth paying attention to.

You do know that every technology for generating electricity creates toxic wastes, right?

And that nuclear power is the only such technology that completely stores and manages those wastes?

Nuclear waste is the only toxic waste stream that’s effectively managed. It’s also by far the smallest in size.

If hazardous waste is your big concern, nuclear power should be your favourite way to make electricity.

Assuming rationality on your part, of course. Which is an increasingly poor assumption.

 

[bilby]

Not an adequate or reasonable answer. We need to start the process of coming up with a solution now. A serious and intelligent solution. Nobody not caring about this is worth paying attention to.

There has been a solution for several decades that has long since been implemented. The fact that you don't know this only speaks to the lack of sincerity in your "argument".

Maybe what we need to work on is a solution for safe disposal of all the retired solar panels. There is a lot of toxic materials in solar panels that we don[t want contaminating our drinking water or getting into the environment. As of now, they are just dumped.

As are the toxic wastes from their manufacturing.

 

[bilby]

The U.S. has 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste.

That sounds like a lot to have built up in just seventy years.

For comparison, how long does it take the wind or solar industries to produce 90,000T of toxic wastes?

I assume that it’s far more than seventy years, given that you clearly think the figure for nuclear waste is relatively large.

Or had you not thought about a comparison, and just blithely assumed that the number for nuclear is large enough to be scary in its own right?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Not an adequate or reasonable answer. We need to start the process of coming up with a solution now. A serious and intelligent solution. Nobody not caring about this is worth paying attention to.

There has been a solution for several decades that has long since been implemented. The fact that you don't know this only speaks to the lack of sincerity in your "argument".

Maybe what we need to work on is a solution for safe disposal of all the retired solar panels. There is a lot of toxic materials in solar panels that we don[t want contaminating our drinking water or getting into the environment. As of now, they are just dumped.

The U.S. has 90,000 tons of waste sitting in local stockpiles that do not have any workin solution for permament disposal today. You don't know anything about any of this. I am going to ignore you along with Bilby. You ate wasting electrons here.

 

[bilby]

Not an adequate or reasonable answer. We need to start the process of coming up with a solution now. A serious and intelligent solution. Nobody not caring about this is worth paying attention to.

There has been a solution for several decades that has long since been implemented. The fact that you don't know this only speaks to the lack of sincerity in your "argument".

Maybe what we need to work on is a solution for safe disposal of all the retired solar panels. There is a lot of toxic materials in solar panels that we don[t want contaminating our drinking water or getting into the environment. As of now, they are just dumped.

The U.S. has 90,000 tons of waste sitting in local stockpiles that do not have any workin solution for permament disposal today. You don't know anything about any of this. I am going to ignore you along with Bilby. You ate wasting electrons here.

What’s wrong with continuing the current arrangement indefinitely?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The U.S. has 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. There are absolutely no plans on where it can be permanently buried safely. Yeah, just kick that can down the road. Let our descendents deal with it. Such a plan. It is not getting done, is it? Maybe we can somehow get right winged politicians to get as excited about America's nuclear waste problem as they are about CRT or Don't Say Gay? Or obstructing Build Back Better.

1) It's not causing problems where it is.

2) It's a political hot potato, not a scientific problem.

3) It's actually better that we don't do anything with it for now--eventually we will come to our senses and reprocess it.

 

[Tigers!]

There are absolutely no plans on where it can be permanently buried safely.

Who cares? Just leave it where it is stored now.

As long as it cannot contaminate any water systems then it will be fine where it is.

 

[Swammerdami]

Georgia's reactors were projected to cost $15 billion but ended up costing $30 billion. A fellow could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with that extra $15 billion. Where did it all go? (These were two new reactors at an already-existing site — That should have avoided some costs.)

Some of the over-run was probably due to proponents low-balling the projected cost to ensure investor interest. But what was the money spent on? How much could have been saved with weaker containment? Does the standard "withstand collision with a fully-fueled 747" seem excessive?

And how will the capital cost amortize out to dollars per MWh? What is the appropriate discount rate to use for this calculation?

These are all rhetorical questions. Some of the experts here had all the answers while I was still repairing vacuum-tube computers for a living; and I do NOT want to come up to speed. (If anyone has the answer to my financial questions, please put them in a Spoiler box so I won't need to read them. I see my only role as identifying holes in some of the argumentation here. Whatever the scarcity of lithium or U235, these holes are NOT in short supply! )

I notice that Georgia politicians will have the daunting task of allocating the $30 billion cost between electricity rate-payers and Georgia Power shareholders! No wonder it's so expensive to campaign for elected office in Georgia!

Wind and solar are only viable if supported by either fossil gas, or high-grade handwavium.

You have quoted infinity as the cost of energy storage. I know lithium is expensive, but is it really THAT high? I know we're not running out of Lithium because in another thread YOU assured us that Helium was the ONLY material we're running out of!

Batteries are not the only way to store power. For example I previously mentioned Buoyancy energy storage, cheaper than batteries for long-term storage. This answered all the complaints mentioned in-thread, so the anti-storage ilk . . . completely ignored it!

All arguments for anything can be made to seem ridiculous if you strip away the nuances, to leave only the straw.

But ceteris isn't paribas, is it? Has it really not occurred to you that present dams will deliver (more than) eight times their current power per capita, if the population were eight times smaller?

That has nothing to do with carbon dioxide

Just to be clear, I am NOT arguing against nuclear power. But on my soapbox, Conservation should top the list of energy solutions, ahead of nuclear AND renewables.

Still, "renewability" does have a nice ring to it! That's how the Earth managed to get by for billions of years. These days, fanatics of every ilk seem to treat the Earth as disposable. Presumably Elon Musk will rescue our great grandchildren by transporting them to another star system!

I will sit back now and listen to the experts. But I'm afraid I'll pay little heed to someone unable to acknowledge that dams would produce eight times the power per capita with a smaller population.

 

[bilby]

But I'm afraid I'll pay little heed to someone unable to acknowledge that dams would produce eight times the power per capita with a smaller population.

I am more than happy to acknowledge that fact.

But your false belief that I don’t, apparently stems from your failure to understand the actual argument I made, from which you inferred that bit of nonsense.

A smaller population will not change the final amount of carbon dioxide emissions, because the population isn’t relevant to determining what that final amount will be.

All that matters is how much fossil fuel resource exists - that is, how much fossil fuel can ever be made available to burn.

That amount of carbon is the only factor in determining how much carbon dioxide ends up in the atmosphere, absent a concerted worldwide effort to stop burning such fuels.

If a population of X billion takes Y years to burn it all, then a population of X/2 will take ~2Y years. The only value for X whereby the fossil fuels don’t all get burned is zero.

Capitalism ensures that the resource will be fully utilised, up to the point where it’s cheaper to use other energy sources, or globally unlawful to do so.

The fact that other sources of power have a very small additional effect in forestalling the inevitable isn’t relevant to the question of whether that endpoint is reached.

Population reductions cannot alter this simple arithmetic, and adding minor nuances (such as a greater proportion of energy coming from other sources) just further delays the inevitable. Unless and until that proportion is 100%, no degree of population reduction will help.

We need a population of zero fossil fuel burning humans. If we can achieve that with one billion non-fossil fuel burning humans, then we can equally well do it with eight, or twelve, billion non-fossil fuel burning humans.

Anything else eventually leads to all of the fossil fuels being burned. Regardless of how many people work on this, or how long they take to achieve it.

 

[bigfield]

Batteries are not the only way to store power. For example I previously mentioned Buoyancy energy storage, cheaper than batteries for long-term storage. This answered all the complaints mentioned in-thread, so the anti-storage ilk . . . completely ignored it!

IIRC lpetrich provided a link to a paper explaining how this would work, and I skimmed rhrough it. I thought it was an interesting technology, but it doesn't scale.

From the article you linked:

"BEST is easily scalable to specific applications ranging from kilowatts to megawatts, hence finding applications in multiple ancillary services from frequency regulation to spinning reserves and load shifting."

We don't need ancillary services that supply megawatts, we need solutions that can deliver gigawatts of electricity and are capable of sustained discharge for weeks at a time.

You have to wonder why the engineers behind BEST systems haven't yet produced a larger scale version. It's not like there isn't a market opportunity.

 

[Swammerdami]

But I'm afraid I'll pay little heed to someone unable to acknowledge that dams would produce eight times the power per capita with a smaller population.

I am more than happy to acknowledge that fact.

But your false belief that I don’t, apparently stems from your failure to understand the actual argument I made, from which you inferred that bit of nonsense.

A smaller population will not change the final amount of carbon dioxide emissions, because the population isn’t relevant to determining what that final amount will be.
. . .
If a population of X billion takes Y years to burn it all, then a population of X/2 will take ~2Y years. The only value for X whereby the fossil fuels don’t all get burned is zero.

Let's see if I understand. If 8 billion would burn all viable fossil fuels in 125 years, then 1 billion would burn it all in 1000 years.
Fuel all gone. Same disastrous effect on climate change either way.

Meanwhile, if policy makers would just listen to bilby, the 8 billion will NOT burn all fossil fuel; they'll switch to nuclear. Problem solved. World saved. Is this correct so far?

So ONE billion will destroy the climate; it will just take them 1000 years. Eight billion will NOT destroy the climate.

Do I have to make my question specific from here? Does nuclear plant construction take eight times as long in the hypothetical? Is the reason why 1 billion fail that bilby would be missing from that subset?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Again. Solar and wind. From planning, to building to profit is short. From planning to building to profit for nuclear is 15 to 20 years, debending on the usual delays and over budget issues that often accompany nuclear projects. Operating nuclear is exspensive. Nobody is eager to build under these circumstances.

We got to the moon use slide rulers, we developed multiple Covid-19 vaccines in record time... via large buckets of ensured Government dollars. We could make nuclear a priority. The largest thing holding nuclear back is the general American take on nuclear and NIMBY-ism.

Those fuckwads with the 'no wind mill" signs wouldn't want a nuclear plant either. The trouble in America is, few give a damn about climate change.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Batteries are not the only way to store power. For example I previously mentioned Buoyancy energy storage, cheaper than batteries for long-term storage. This answered all the complaints mentioned in-thread, so the anti-storage ilk . . . completely ignored it!

IIRC lpetrich provided a link to a paper explaining how this would work, and I skimmed rhrough it. I thought it was an interesting technology, but it doesn't scale.

From the article you linked:

"BEST is easily scalable to specific applications ranging from kilowatts to megawatts, hence finding applications in multiple ancillary services from frequency regulation to spinning reserves and load shifting."

We don't need ancillary services that supply megawatts, we need solutions that can deliver gigawatts of electricity and are capable of sustained discharge for weeks at a time.

You have to wonder why the engineers behind BEST systems haven't yet produced a larger scale version. It's not like there isn't a market opportunity.

Indeed, the issue is some of the 'solutions' provide help for relatively small supplemental applications. Yes, they can help powers thousands or tens of thousands of homes... for a bit.

However, we need solutions that provide power (a few magnitudes more of it) all the time. There is only a couple batteries the size large enough to get there, and they are already charged up, the trouble is getting the power from the Van Allen belts or deep in the Earth's crust into our power lines. Everything else is relatively small and simply too limited in magnitude to provide long-term and sustainable power. Batteries and power storage don't work.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

World’s largest green hydrogen project unveiled in Texas, with plan to produce clean rocket fuel for Elon Musk

The 60GW Hydrogen City project, announced by local start-up Green Hydrogen International, will be powered by wind and solar, with an on-site salt cavern for H2

www.rechargenews.com

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Texas is working on wind to hydrogen. Supposedly first phases to start by 2026. Meanwhile, proposed smal reactors will save excess power in vast hot salt storage systems. Nuclear also has a storage problem. Demand is variable. At low demand times, they have wasted power, and thus income.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Batteries are not the only way to store power. For example I previously mentioned Buoyancy energy storage, cheaper than batteries for long-term storage. This answered all the complaints mentioned in-thread, so the anti-storage ilk . . . completely ignored it!

Buoyancy is simply a variant on gravity storage--it suffers from very low energy density and while buoyancy gets rid of the heavy masses it replaces them with the floats and it means the cables are underwater--much harder to keep them from corroding.

 

[bilby]

But I'm afraid I'll pay little heed to someone unable to acknowledge that dams would produce eight times the power per capita with a smaller population.

I am more than happy to acknowledge that fact.

But your false belief that I don’t, apparently stems from your failure to understand the actual argument I made, from which you inferred that bit of nonsense.

A smaller population will not change the final amount of carbon dioxide emissions, because the population isn’t relevant to determining what that final amount will be.
. . .
If a population of X billion takes Y years to burn it all, then a population of X/2 will take ~2Y years. The only value for X whereby the fossil fuels don’t all get burned is zero.

Let's see if I understand. If 8 billion would burn all viable fossil fuels in 125 years, then 1 billion would burn it all in 1000 years.
Fuel all gone. Same disastrous effect on climate change either way.

Meanwhile, if policy makers would just listen to bilby, the 8 billion will NOT burn all fossil fuel; they'll switch to nuclear. Problem solved. World saved. Is this correct so far?

So ONE billion will destroy the climate; it will just take them 1000 years. Eight billion will NOT destroy the climate.

Do I have to make my question specific from here? Does nuclear plant construction take eight times as long in the hypothetical? Is the reason why 1 billion fail that bilby would be missing from that subset?

ANY NUMBER will destroy the climate if we don’t see a massive policy shift.

NO NUMBER will do so if we do see a massive policy shift.

THEREFORE knowing the number adds nothing whatsoever to our knowledge about whether or not the climate will be destroyed.

Therefore population is not a factor at all; It is an irrelevant distraction from the actual issue, which is whether (and if so, how) we are going to stop burning all the fossil fuel.

You appear to be do desperate for me to be saying something absurd, that you are prepared to invent hugely complex arguments to assign to me, rather than to think about my incredibly simple and easy to follow logic.

A large population isn’t something I think is better for the environment; It’s just something I can demonstrate arithmetically to not be worse (despite your intuition that it must be worse, because bilby must be a moron, because he doesn’t agree with your beliefs), in the long run. Therefore massive population reductions are pointless; They just kick the can down the toad without solving anything.