The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I still don't buy the green hydrogen. It just makes the Con red flags pop up. Making hydrogen at a loss with green energy, that could otherwise be used directly for the grid. The math just seems suspect to me. Kind of like the math a solar contractor uses to make it seem like a homeowner is saving a lot of money with solar panels, when in reality, they aren't, by a long shot, at least where I live.

Regarding nuclear, couldn't that excess low demand time power just go to really green hydrogen?

 

[bilby]

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.

I still don't buy the green hydrogen. It just makes the Con red flags pop up. Making hydrogen at a loss with green energy, that could otherwise be used directly for the grid. The math just seems suspect to me. Kind of like the math a solar contractor uses to make it seem like a homeowner is saving a lot of money with solar panels, when in reality, they aren't, by a long shot, at least where I live.

Regarding nuclear, couldn't that excess low demand time power just go to really green hydrogen?

Nuclear doesn’t imply anywhere close to the demand for storage that intermittent renewables do. Existing pumped hydro is sufficient in most cases, and modern nuke designs can load follow as well - the lack of load following for nuclear is largely a feature of Generation I and II designs, which nobody has built since the 1970s.

The French use both, and do just fine.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I just report what the people who want to build their mini-reactors are saying about their projects. They foresee times their reactors will be creating excess electricity. Go argue with them. Go do your homework.

Of course we all remember claims nuclear power would create so much electricity so cheaply we would not bother to meter it. Nuclear big promises. Now plant operators are demanding operating subsidies because that bad old renewable and gas are making nuculear power unprofitable.

 

[skepticalbip]

...

I just report what the people who want to build their mini-reactors are saying about their projects. They foresee times their reactors will be creating excess electricity. Go argue with them. Go do your homework.

Of course we all remember claims nuclear power would create so much electricity so cheaply we would not bother to meter it. Nuclear big promises. Now plant operators are demanding operating subsidies because that bad old renewable and gas are making nuculear power unprofitable.

That is a baseless and incorrect assertion. Again look to the difference between the cost of electrical energy in France and Germany. France's energy that relies heavily on nuclear is much cheaper than Germany's energy that tried its best to rely heavily on wind and solar.

The problem with nuclear power in the U.S. is politicians (not scientists that understand energy) in control of government that are trying their best to shut down the industry using the power of government control.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Why Illinois paid $694 million to keep nuclear plants open

Nuclear power finds itself caught between cheaper sources of carbon-emitting energy and heavily subsidized clean power sources like wind and solar.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Tigers!]

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

The article had the following line "The project in Duval County — a sparsely populated Democratic stronghold about 145km (90 miles) west of Corpus Christi".
Is it important to the project that it be located in a Democratic stronghold?

 

[bigfield]

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

The article had the following line "The project in Duval County — a sparsely populated Democratic stronghold about 145km (90 miles) west of Corpus Christi".
Is it important to the project that it be located in a Democratic stronghold?

Well if they are putting up wind turbines on site then it probably means they'll get get fewer complains about Wind Turbine Syndrome.

 

[bilby]

It would be interesting to see a list of other brutally overpriced drugs that could likewise be produced by state run plants to keep needed drug prices sane.

It would be interesting if brutally overpriced nuclear power could instead be produced by state run plants to keep needed electricity prices sane.

But apparently that’s unthinkable and completely impossible.

It’s odd how having the government do unprofitable things is always a terrible idea, until those things are things you want to have happen, at which point it suddenly doesn’t matter whether anyone is making a profit.

I would note that the proportion of taxpayers who use insulin is dramatically lower than the proportion who use both electricity and a stable climate.

Of course, I could be an arsehole, and tell you that nobody’s ever going to make cheap insulin that doesn’t earn profits, so you should just forget about it. But fortunately, there’s a smart guy quoted above who understands that that’s not a real argument against it at all.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Good idea. I hereby delegate you to write Governor Newsome and explain it all to him. Let us know how it all turns out.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, I can't help but think of the way LEDs work, particularly for laser diodes.

Laser diodes, like controllers of large scale electric grids, have to very carefully balance current in the network.

If they don't, overloads or equipment damage can occur: if the turbine is pushing too hard on an axle or coil, so as to produce voltage, and that voltage has an insufficiently open path across the network through the "capillaries" of end user use, it puts strain on those parts, and increases system "pressure", at least for the grid.


This means that production needs to go up and down on the basis of what is and is not being used.

So here's a thought...

Like the way a laser diodes balances current based on supply, with a number of smaller systems that maintain the voltage with a ladder...

There are a number of technologies that require electricity, and don't always need to run. They are nice to have but not necessarily immediately useful.

Such technology would include carbon capture to petrochem, a variety of scalable Indoor farming, much automatic manufacturing, and the like.

While our systems can be unmanned and efficient when they run, they simply don't always need to be running if we make them efficient enough.

So I would think that we should scale renewable energy up...

And then also scale nuclear up...

Scale them both up as much as possible, in fact...

And then scale it up with a load balancer that operates a variety of on-demand manufacturing, capture storage, and indoor farming that will rotate load for accommodating off-peak use.

Instead of asking "how do we handle base load with nuclear and weird-hours peak on solar" with "let's figure out a way to soak the load on shit we need and GO BIG".

 

[bilby]

So, I can't help but think of the way LEDs work, particularly for laser diodes.

Laser diodes, like controllers of large scale electric grids, have to very carefully balance current in the network.

If they don't, overloads or equipment damage can occur: if the turbine is pushing too hard on an axle or coil, so as to produce voltage, and that voltage has an insufficiently open path across the network through the "capillaries" of end user use, it puts strain on those parts, and increases system "pressure", at least for the grid.


This means that production needs to go up and down on the basis of what is and is not being used.

So here's a thought...

Like the way a laser diodes balances current based on supply, with a number of smaller systems that maintain the voltage with a ladder...

There are a number of technologies that require electricity, and don't always need to run. They are nice to have but not necessarily immediately useful.

Such technology would include carbon capture to petrochem, a variety of scalable Indoor farming, much automatic manufacturing, and the like.

While our systems can be unmanned and efficient when they run, they simply don't always need to be running if we make them efficient enough.

So I would think that we should scale renewable energy up...

And then also scale nuclear up...

Scale them both up as much as possible, in fact...

And then scale it up with a load balancer that operates a variety of on-demand manufacturing, capture storage, and indoor farming that will rotate load for accommodating off-peak use.

Instead of asking "how do we handle base load with nuclear and weird-hours peak on solar" with "let's figure out a way to soak the load on shit we need and GO BIG".

The problem with that approach is that it requires centralised control with which every demand component (or at least, a sizeable subset of demand components) cooperates.

People are shit at that. Everyone wants somebody else to switch off their factories, while they themselves keep going at the most profitable rate.

Our current system expects everyone to pretty much do their own thing, as profitably as possible, with regards to demand, and just manages supply to meet the fluctuations in demand that inevitably occur.

Which is why attaching uncontrollably variable sources of supply to the system is vandalism. It does exponentially increasing harm to system stability as more of it is added; Our systems can cope with about 20% or so of supply from such sources, and at much lower percentages, the harm is barely noticeable (while the profits, particularly when large subsidies and wholesale price guarantees are in place, are huge). But as the Germans have proven, you simply cannot keep the lights on if you go much past that 20% mark, and as you try to do so, the costs and instabilities explode in your face - leaving you going cap in hand to the Russian gas oligarchs.

Socialism would be one possible way out of this, but it has other problems.

 

[ZiprHead]

Germany announced today it would restart some coal fired power plants.

 

[bilby]

Germany announced today it would restart some coal fired power plants.

That’s the result of using ideology instead of engineering in your decision making process.

 

[skepticalbip]

...

So, I can't help but think of the way LEDs work, particularly for laser diodes.

Laser diodes, like controllers of large scale electric grids, have to very carefully balance current in the network.

If they don't, overloads or equipment damage can occur: if the turbine is pushing too hard on an axle or coil, so as to produce voltage, and that voltage has an insufficiently open path across the network through the "capillaries" of end user use, it puts strain on those parts, and increases system "pressure", at least for the grid.


This means that production needs to go up and down on the basis of what is and is not being used.

So here's a thought...

Like the way a laser diodes balances current based on supply, with a number of smaller systems that maintain the voltage with a ladder...

There are a number of technologies that require electricity, and don't always need to run. They are nice to have but not necessarily immediately useful.

Such technology would include carbon capture to petrochem, a variety of scalable Indoor farming, much automatic manufacturing, and the like.

While our systems can be unmanned and efficient when they run, they simply don't always need to be running if we make them efficient enough.

So I would think that we should scale renewable energy up...

And then also scale nuclear up...

Scale them both up as much as possible, in fact...

And then scale it up with a load balancer that operates a variety of on-demand manufacturing, capture storage, and indoor farming that will rotate load for accommodating off-peak use.

Instead of asking "how do we handle base load with nuclear and weird-hours peak on solar" with "let's figure out a way to soak the load on shit we need and GO BIG".

That sounds as reasonable as having McDonalds decide and regulate when and how much their customers are allowed (and required) to eat.

 

[Jarhyn]

...

So, I can't help but think of the way LEDs work, particularly for laser diodes.

Laser diodes, like controllers of large scale electric grids, have to very carefully balance current in the network.

If they don't, overloads or equipment damage can occur: if the turbine is pushing too hard on an axle or coil, so as to produce voltage, and that voltage has an insufficiently open path across the network through the "capillaries" of end user use, it puts strain on those parts, and increases system "pressure", at least for the grid.


This means that production needs to go up and down on the basis of what is and is not being used.

So here's a thought...

Like the way a laser diodes balances current based on supply, with a number of smaller systems that maintain the voltage with a ladder...

There are a number of technologies that require electricity, and don't always need to run. They are nice to have but not necessarily immediately useful.

Such technology would include carbon capture to petrochem, a variety of scalable Indoor farming, much automatic manufacturing, and the like.

While our systems can be unmanned and efficient when they run, they simply don't always need to be running if we make them efficient enough.

So I would think that we should scale renewable energy up...

And then also scale nuclear up...

Scale them both up as much as possible, in fact...

And then scale it up with a load balancer that operates a variety of on-demand manufacturing, capture storage, and indoor farming that will rotate load for accommodating off-peak use.

Instead of asking "how do we handle base load with nuclear and weird-hours peak on solar" with "let's figure out a way to soak the load on shit we need and GO BIG".

That sounds as reasonable as having McDonalds decide and regulate when and how much their customers are allowed (and required) to eat.

We need to be using way more energy than we are even producing at all right now to start capturing excess carbon.

There is no shortage of things we need to use energy for, least of all the environment, and energy being cheap benefits pretty much everyone. In addition, we need to divorce ourself from oil and it's global supply chain.

We only get that if we can manage a fixed base load with excess production and variable alternative load.

 

[skepticalbip]

...

So, I can't help but think of the way LEDs work, particularly for laser diodes.

Laser diodes, like controllers of large scale electric grids, have to very carefully balance current in the network.

If they don't, overloads or equipment damage can occur: if the turbine is pushing too hard on an axle or coil, so as to produce voltage, and that voltage has an insufficiently open path across the network through the "capillaries" of end user use, it puts strain on those parts, and increases system "pressure", at least for the grid.


This means that production needs to go up and down on the basis of what is and is not being used.

So here's a thought...

Like the way a laser diodes balances current based on supply, with a number of smaller systems that maintain the voltage with a ladder...

There are a number of technologies that require electricity, and don't always need to run. They are nice to have but not necessarily immediately useful.

Such technology would include carbon capture to petrochem, a variety of scalable Indoor farming, much automatic manufacturing, and the like.

While our systems can be unmanned and efficient when they run, they simply don't always need to be running if we make them efficient enough.

So I would think that we should scale renewable energy up...

And then also scale nuclear up...

Scale them both up as much as possible, in fact...

And then scale it up with a load balancer that operates a variety of on-demand manufacturing, capture storage, and indoor farming that will rotate load for accommodating off-peak use.

Instead of asking "how do we handle base load with nuclear and weird-hours peak on solar" with "let's figure out a way to soak the load on shit we need and GO BIG".

That sounds as reasonable as having McDonalds decide and regulate when and how much their customers are allowed (and required) to eat.

We need to be using way more energy than we are even producing at all right now to start capturing excess carbon.

There is no shortage of things we need to use energy for, least of all the environment, and energy being cheap benefits pretty much everyone. In addition, we need to divorce ourself from oil and it's global supply chain.

We only get that if we can manage a fixed base load with excess production and variable alternative load.

Yeah, there are people in the world that are malnourished so McDonalds should make more of everything on their menu and require their customers to eat larger orders and more often than they currently do.

 

[Jarhyn]

...

So, I can't help but think of the way LEDs work, particularly for laser diodes.

Laser diodes, like controllers of large scale electric grids, have to very carefully balance current in the network.

If they don't, overloads or equipment damage can occur: if the turbine is pushing too hard on an axle or coil, so as to produce voltage, and that voltage has an insufficiently open path across the network through the "capillaries" of end user use, it puts strain on those parts, and increases system "pressure", at least for the grid.


This means that production needs to go up and down on the basis of what is and is not being used.

So here's a thought...

Like the way a laser diodes balances current based on supply, with a number of smaller systems that maintain the voltage with a ladder...

There are a number of technologies that require electricity, and don't always need to run. They are nice to have but not necessarily immediately useful.

Such technology would include carbon capture to petrochem, a variety of scalable Indoor farming, much automatic manufacturing, and the like.

While our systems can be unmanned and efficient when they run, they simply don't always need to be running if we make them efficient enough.

So I would think that we should scale renewable energy up...

And then also scale nuclear up...

Scale them both up as much as possible, in fact...

And then scale it up with a load balancer that operates a variety of on-demand manufacturing, capture storage, and indoor farming that will rotate load for accommodating off-peak use.

Instead of asking "how do we handle base load with nuclear and weird-hours peak on solar" with "let's figure out a way to soak the load on shit we need and GO BIG".

That sounds as reasonable as having McDonalds decide and regulate when and how much their customers are allowed (and required) to eat.

We need to be using way more energy than we are even producing at all right now to start capturing excess carbon.

There is no shortage of things we need to use energy for, least of all the environment, and energy being cheap benefits pretty much everyone. In addition, we need to divorce ourself from oil and it's global supply chain.

We only get that if we can manage a fixed base load with excess production and variable alternative load.

Yeah, there are people in the world that are malnourished so McDonalds should make more of everything on their menu and require their customers to eat larger orders and more often than they currently do.

So, you don't think we should produce as much energy as we possibly can on a renewable basis and throw the surplus behind unfucking our atmosphere, feeding our population, and ending foreign energy reliance.

We have the technology, the surplus resources and the manpower to make it happen.

 

[skepticalbip]

...

So, I can't help but think of the way LEDs work, particularly for laser diodes.

Laser diodes, like controllers of large scale electric grids, have to very carefully balance current in the network.

If they don't, overloads or equipment damage can occur: if the turbine is pushing too hard on an axle or coil, so as to produce voltage, and that voltage has an insufficiently open path across the network through the "capillaries" of end user use, it puts strain on those parts, and increases system "pressure", at least for the grid.


This means that production needs to go up and down on the basis of what is and is not being used.

So here's a thought...

Like the way a laser diodes balances current based on supply, with a number of smaller systems that maintain the voltage with a ladder...

There are a number of technologies that require electricity, and don't always need to run. They are nice to have but not necessarily immediately useful.

Such technology would include carbon capture to petrochem, a variety of scalable Indoor farming, much automatic manufacturing, and the like.

While our systems can be unmanned and efficient when they run, they simply don't always need to be running if we make them efficient enough.

So I would think that we should scale renewable energy up...

And then also scale nuclear up...

Scale them both up as much as possible, in fact...

And then scale it up with a load balancer that operates a variety of on-demand manufacturing, capture storage, and indoor farming that will rotate load for accommodating off-peak use.

Instead of asking "how do we handle base load with nuclear and weird-hours peak on solar" with "let's figure out a way to soak the load on shit we need and GO BIG".

That sounds as reasonable as having McDonalds decide and regulate when and how much their customers are allowed (and required) to eat.

We need to be using way more energy than we are even producing at all right now to start capturing excess carbon.

There is no shortage of things we need to use energy for, least of all the environment, and energy being cheap benefits pretty much everyone. In addition, we need to divorce ourself from oil and it's global supply chain.

We only get that if we can manage a fixed base load with excess production and variable alternative load.

Yeah, there are people in the world that are malnourished so McDonalds should make more of everything on their menu and require their customers to eat larger orders and more often than they currently do.

So, you don't think we should produce as much energy as we possibly can on a renewable basis and throw the surplus behind unfucking our atmosphere, feeding our population, and ending foreign energy reliance.

We have the technology, the surplus resources and the manpower to make it happen.

So you don't think that McDonalds should produce as much food as they possibly can?

 

[Jarhyn]

...

So, I can't help but think of the way LEDs work, particularly for laser diodes.

Laser diodes, like controllers of large scale electric grids, have to very carefully balance current in the network.

If they don't, overloads or equipment damage can occur: if the turbine is pushing too hard on an axle or coil, so as to produce voltage, and that voltage has an insufficiently open path across the network through the "capillaries" of end user use, it puts strain on those parts, and increases system "pressure", at least for the grid.


This means that production needs to go up and down on the basis of what is and is not being used.

So here's a thought...

Like the way a laser diodes balances current based on supply, with a number of smaller systems that maintain the voltage with a ladder...

There are a number of technologies that require electricity, and don't always need to run. They are nice to have but not necessarily immediately useful.

Such technology would include carbon capture to petrochem, a variety of scalable Indoor farming, much automatic manufacturing, and the like.

While our systems can be unmanned and efficient when they run, they simply don't always need to be running if we make them efficient enough.

So I would think that we should scale renewable energy up...

And then also scale nuclear up...

Scale them both up as much as possible, in fact...

And then scale it up with a load balancer that operates a variety of on-demand manufacturing, capture storage, and indoor farming that will rotate load for accommodating off-peak use.

Instead of asking "how do we handle base load with nuclear and weird-hours peak on solar" with "let's figure out a way to soak the load on shit we need and GO BIG".

That sounds as reasonable as having McDonalds decide and regulate when and how much their customers are allowed (and required) to eat.

We need to be using way more energy than we are even producing at all right now to start capturing excess carbon.

There is no shortage of things we need to use energy for, least of all the environment, and energy being cheap benefits pretty much everyone. In addition, we need to divorce ourself from oil and it's global supply chain.

We only get that if we can manage a fixed base load with excess production and variable alternative load.

Yeah, there are people in the world that are malnourished so McDonalds should make more of everything on their menu and require their customers to eat larger orders and more often than they currently do.

So, you don't think we should produce as much energy as we possibly can on a renewable basis and throw the surplus behind unfucking our atmosphere, feeding our population, and ending foreign energy reliance.

We have the technology, the surplus resources and the manpower to make it happen.

So you don't think that McDonalds should produce as much food as they possibly can?

I think that your question does not answer the situation. Producing renewable energy energy to be stored long term in liquid format is not in any way equivalent to producing spoilable food that must be consumed immediately, nor does it contribute to a accelerated velocity of technology development, energy development, or improved standard of living.

The first thing we need is enough energy to "waste" on pulling all the excess hydrocarbons we burned back out of the atmosphere, and that isn't going to happen without a massive energy surplus

 

[Swammerdami]

...

There are a number of technologies that require electricity, and don't always need to run. They are nice to have but not necessarily immediately useful.

Such technology would include carbon capture to petrochem, a variety of scalable Indoor farming, much automatic manufacturing, and the like.

While our systems can be unmanned and efficient when they run, they simply don't always need to be running if we make them efficient enough.

So I would think that we should scale renewable energy up...

And then also scale nuclear up...

Scale them both up as much as possible, in fact...

And then scale it up with a load balancer that operates a variety of on-demand manufacturing, capture storage, and indoor farming that will rotate load for accommodating off-peak use.

Instead of asking "how do we handle base load with nuclear and weird-hours peak on solar" with "let's figure out a way to soak the load on shit we need and GO BIG".

Battery charging, desalination, chemical production, refrigeration, and many other pumpings are just some more examples of electricity use which can be performed at off-peak times.

The important first step is to charge different prices for electricity at different times, reflecting supply and demand.

How many countries implement such variable metering? How expensive is such metering?

So you don't think that McDonalds should produce as much food as they possibly can?

The system that I (and presumably Jarhyn) envision would not involve forceful coercion of McDonald's or anyone else. I am proposing that the free market does what it does best, by making proper pricings available.