Renewable Energy Research - Internet Flamewars


  • ♿ (Parody)

    That's what I thought we were talking about at first. Was a little disappointed that we weren't, but I suspect the levels of :WTF: are similar.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    No renewables (currently practical) are. None.

    ...hydro isn't a renewable?

    You have a point in that the anti-nuke folks need a :facepunch: though -- next-gen reprocessing technologies such as pyroprocessing that don't try to separate transuranides from each other provide a much more practical long-term solution to both spent fuel and proliferation than what we have right now.

    @abarker said:

    Yes, there are designs like that. Are there actually any in service?

    Sadly, the anti-nuke lobby caused the one that was in service (the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II) to get decommissioned during the Clinton administration...

    @PleegWat said:

    They've been throwing rocks on the ocean floors, not telling anyone where exactly

    How shallow? I'm wondering if they could get busted hard for posing a menace to sea navigation...


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @tarunik said:

    ...hydro isn't a renewable?

    Hydro is an awkward fly-in-the-ointment for people pushing an anti-modernity agenda, and so they define it as being non-renewable.



  • @dkf said:

    All those turbines manage to only kill hundreds? A few cats can achieve the same thing.

    Well, they only count the endangered ones, AFAICT. Others don't matter, apparently.



  • @Mikael_Svahnberg said:

    We have excellent salmon fishing in Sweden, despite the 64TWh of hydropower output. Not everyone builds dams like the Hoover dam. "Salmon stairs" are the norm, and not only the salmon uses them to migrate.

    Letting the fish past the dams isn't the only problem. By damming a river, you also alter the river's flow behind the dam for miles, most notably by deepening and widening the river. Many salmon species require relatively shallow and gravelly waters for spawning, but if you put too many dams along a river, you destroy all their spawning grounds. But that isn't the only way that dams harm salmon. Dams also slow river flow, which slows juvenile salmon when trying to reach the ocean. That can increase the mortality rate of the juveniles as they try to reach the ocean.

    The Columbia River in North America was almost made completely inhospitable to salmon due to over-daming. Of the portion ofthe Columbia which is in the US, only 51 miles (the Hanford Reach) is not tidal or part of a dam's reservoir. Due this high level of damming, salmon and steelhead populations have taken huge hits. Yes, salmon ladders help, but they don't completely fix the problem of getting around the dams. There is nothing done to address the problem of destroyed spawning grounds. There is nothing done to address the fact that the slower river flow means that the juvenile salmon now take months instead of the 2-3 weeks it took them before the dams were built.

    Of course, none of that takes into account the impact the dams have had on other species, such as the northern pikeminnow (aka squawfish). The pikeminnow has thrived in the dammed river, which is problematic because the pikeminnow eats salmon eggs and juvenile salmon. Combined with the longer journey that the juvenile salmon have to get to the ocean, it's easy to see at least part of the reason that the juvenile salmon have seen an increased mortality rate since the dams were built.

    So don't go using the salmon stairs to wave away concerns about the environmental impact of dams.


    Note: I picked most of this information up doing a research project on the Hanford Reach back in middle school, so I don't remember half the sources. However, what I've written matches up with the information here and here.



  • @tarunik said:

    How shallow? I'm wondering if they could get busted hard for posing a menace to sea navigation...

    I'm not sure how deep the water is, but the article I saw is about an important commercial fishing area off the coast of the Netherlands. If I had to guess, I'd say probably a few tens of meters. The rocks they're dropping are supposed to improve habitat for the fish. I'm pretty sure that if they're a hazard, it's only to the fishing nets (and allegedly to the vessels hauling them), not to ordinary navigation.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Is nuclear? Don't you still need a lot of water to flow through a nuke plant?

    Yes. We have Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station not too far away. I actually have a bunch of friends who work there.

    And as @RaceProUK pointed out, the water requirements for a nuclear plant are pretty small compared to a hydro plant.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @abarker said:

    And as @RaceProUK pointed out, the water requirements for a nuclear plant are pretty small compared to a hydro plant.

    I :hanzo:'d you. Even so, Palo Verde uses waste water, not a fresh source, which I doubt would be doable out there.



  • @abarker said:

    Letting the fish past the dams isn't the only problem.

    One you didn't mention is that slowing the flow of the river results in warmer water, which can be problematic for some species.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @abarker said:
    Hundreds of birds are killed by wind turbines in the US each year. Don't know about numbers elsewhere.

    Wow.

    Hundreds of birds?

    IT'S ARMAGEDDON!

    Fark had an article a couple days ago comparing the number of birds killed by wind power with the number killed by domestic cats. "Don't know the numbers" but the difference is orders of magnitude. (The cats won, of course.)

    Sorry, I looked up where I got my numbers[1]. That was for a single wind farm (California’s Altamont Pass). And that was just the number of golden eagles, red tail hawks, and burrowing owls they were killing annually (about 793). Start throwing in other species and accounting for other wind farms, and ‾\_(°°)_/‾.

    Memory plays funny tricks.



  • @JazzyJosh said:

    A giant concrete inclosure isn't sufficient?

    Well that's an archaic spelling. Did you just climb out of your time pod? We spell it "enclosure" now.



  • It's monday.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @RaceProUK said:

    but when you consider how busy city centres are, it could generate a decent amount.

    "hundreds of marathon runners" produced enough power to provide one 5-watt LED bulb power for 40 days, across 125 tiles. You'd need a hell of a lot of tiles, and downtown-level foot traffic to do much of anything. Maybe you'd produce enough power for street lights.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @RaceProUK said:

    I don't think the set of places where solar generators make sense overlaps with the set of suitable places to bury radioactive waste

    The deserts of the US Southwest might disagree.


  • FoxDev

    @FrostCat said:

    Maybe you'd produce enough power for street lights.

    I seem to recall someone already mentioned that:
    @RaceProUK said:
    but it could be good enough for street lighting. Where it's busy, anyway.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @RaceProUK said:

    I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it; it'll probably never work for a baseload supply, but it could be good enough for street lighting. Where it's busy, anyway

    I suspect only in limited places. Dallas is so hot, for example, that there's not much foot traffic except in a few places.



  • It would be better if we have the next generation of our power systems lined up before we have depleted our current ones.

    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elforsk.se%2Fcalculator%2F

    Is where I got the numbers from...


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Mikael_Svahnberg said:

    It would be better if we have the next generation of our power systems lined up before we have depleted our current ones.

    You say that like we're not researching any of it or anything. We have alternatives. They just aren't as economical as the stuff we're doing now. Scarcity will cause us to do different things. Like maybe find more of the stuff. This has happened with oil and natural gas already.



  • it can be aruged that the whole "base load" argument is a historical relic from when the only options were large scale power plants. The movement towards microproducers, and distributed power sources (such as wind power) is quite active. Wind power in particular grew with 17% last year, and constitutes 10% of Sweden's energy production today.

    Stay stuck in your relic, if you please. The rest of us morons are gone with the wind.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Mikael_Svahnberg said:

    it can be aruged that the whole "base load" argument is a historical relic from when the only options were large scale power plants.

    It can, but you'll probably lose the argument. 😛


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @RaceProUK said:

    I seem to recall someone already mentioned

    Reading ahead is a :barrier: to 🏤, you know that.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Mikael_Svahnberg said:

    The rest of us morons are gone with the wind.

    And then on a still day, you work in the dark.

    Oh, no, wait, you use coal or nuclear for base load.



  • @Mikael_Svahnberg said:

    it can be aruged that the whole "base load" argument is a historical relic from when the only options were large scale power plants.

    It can also be argued that the sky is made of out mint Jell-O and airplanes fly by filling their engines full of magical elves who eat the Jell-O really really fast.

    It'd be a pretty stupid and extremely wrong argument, just like the one you're making about base load.

    @Mikael_Svahnberg said:

    The movement towards microproducers, and distributed power sources (such as wind power) is quite active.

    Doesn't matter; the wind doesn't blow 24/7/365. Neither does the sun shine. The power grid requires X% capacity (and no I don't know the exact number, but it's pretty high) to serve as power transmission. If the load is ever too low, the grid collapses-- like what happened in the US Eastern Seaboard back in 2003. It took them, what, 8 hours to bootstrap the grid back up?

    That incident was due to a software bug. Too little base-load and the same could happen simply from a nation of people turning on their air conditioners too fast.

    People die when the power stops.

    @Mikael_Svahnberg said:

    Wind power in particular grew with 17% last year, and constitutes 10% of Sweden's energy production today.

    Does Sweden know you're on this forum making every Swede look like a moron?


  • FoxDev

    @FrostCat said:

    @RaceProUK said:
    I seem to recall someone already mentioned

    Reading ahead is a :barrier: to 🏤, you know that.

    I've noticed the acceleration in your post rate; after my Spoon™?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Nope. A little less busy at work.

    Plus, a day off today.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    Does Sweden know you're on this forum making every Swede look like a moron?

    He's also causing me to click the little heart icon below your posts, the bastard. Talk about a BAD IDEA.


  • Java Dev

    The problem is, solar/wind/etc. don't produce power when you need it. They produce power when it suits them. You need additional generators that can be started up immediately when the wind takes up and the wind turbines shut down.



  • @FrostCat said:

    "hundreds of marathon runners" produced enough power to provide one 5-watt LED bulb power for 40 days, across 125 tiles. You'd need a hell of a lot of tiles, and downtown-level foot traffic to do much of anything. Maybe you'd produce enough power for street lights.

    What this reminds me of:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi_XLOBDo_Y


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @PleegWat said:

    You need additional generators that can be started up immediately when the wind takes up and the wind turbines shut down.

    LIAR. Magical batteries would work, too.



  • A long time ago, a friend and I jokingly drew up a patent diagram of a urinal with a built-in waterwheel, intending it to be a hydroelectric generator powered by urination.



  • Well, that's certainly taking "microproduction" to a whole new level. At least there will never a shortage, although its availability (from any given generator) will be very intermittent.



  • @mott555 said:

    A long time ago, a friend and I jokingly drew up a patent diagram of a urinal with a built-in waterwheel, intending it to be a hydroelectric generator powered by urination.

    Why stop at urinals? Install it in the flush mechanism of traditional toilets as well. Hell, build it into faucets. Electricity from indoor plumbing!

    Of course, that ignores the fact that we'd need increased water pressure to maintain the flow.


  • :belt_onion:



  • I for one am in favor of nuclear energy. The problem comes when you add incompetent goverments and money lust companies. I mean, a few more fuckingshimas and the world is screwed.

    Also, say that right now nuclear energy is being paid at 1MU / GWh. That's not enough to pay for 10,000 years of waste storage, so who pays for this? All of us!



  • @Eldelshell said:

    I for one am in favor of nuclear energy. The problem comes when you add incompetent goverments and money lust companies. I mean, a few more fuckingshimas and the world is screwed.

    That's why I propose the US Navy run the reactors. They're government, but they're not incompetents. Built-in career path for ex-military guys which doesn't waste their years of training. And the US gets cheap power to-boot. It's a win-win.


  • Java Dev

    Batteries will likely be involved anyway - I don't think there's much you can fire up at ~10 seconds notice.

    Disclaimer: The aforementioned number is pulled from my arse. I expect it's more than a second, but less than a minute, but did not do my research.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    Doesn't matter; the wind doesn't blow 24/7/365. Neither does the sun shine.

    Sweden's baseload is mostly hydro. They've got great geology and topography for that sort of thing, and most of the suitable places are already dammed. (They're boosting power output mostly by upgrading the turbines and generators; modern designs really are better.) Since they don't have a lot of thermal power, they can adapt to fluctuating output from renewable sources fairly easily.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Too little base-load and the same could happen simply from a nation of people turning on their air conditioners too fast.

    Yes, but different countries (and parts of countries) have different profiles of consumption. Sweden doesn't really need very much cooling; they're much keener on heating. Yes, they've excellent insulation in their buildings, and they have to: the Swedish backwoods has almost as brutal a climate as the Canadian or Alaskan backwoods (and for about the same sorts of reasons). Spain's different, but comparing that with Sweden is like comparing Arizona with Quebec…


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @PleegWat said:

    Batteries will likely be involved anyway - I don't think there's much you can fire up at ~10 seconds notice.

    Pumped storage systems can fire up on that sort of timescale. The main limits seem to be mostly related to how fast the pressure waves move given that you don't want to totally wreck the “plumbing”. :D



  • @blakeyrat said:

    ; the wind doesn't blow 24/7/365. Neither does the sun shine.

    Are you really so entrenched that you cannot see the fallacy in this logic. The wind doesn't blow 24/7/356 in one location, which is why I called it a distributed power source. If the wind does not blow (or the sun does not shine) in one place, it certainly does in another place. With the help of wind power we are thus moving away from single points of failure to a more robust power grid.

    But let's turn the table for a while and engage in an exchange of ideas. Why don't you explain to me, assuming that I am the idiot you claim, why wind power cannot be used for base load? And while you are at it, why does the power grid require a certain capacity for it not to collapse?



  • @boomzilla said:

    We have alternatives. They just aren't as economical as the stuff we're doing now.

    There are indeed alternatives -- we should be working at making them more efficient so they actually are ready for large scale use once we need them.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Mikael_Svahnberg said:

    And while you are at it, why does the power grid require a certain capacity for it not to collapse?

    Actually, it doesn't. Or wouldn't if demand was static. What the grid needs is to ensure that overall power input and power output are fairly closely matched, and that there is not an excessive amount of load flowing through any particular link, and to make sure that any transients as things change don't cause an overload anywhere. It's managing the dynamic load that is challenging, especially as a problem in one place can very quickly cause a transient overload elsewhere.


  • 🚽 Regular

    It's too bad we can't harness the power of flamewars.



  • @Zecc said:

    It's too bad we can't harness the power of flamewars.

    ❓ You looking for power? Or a burned-out grid?



  • @Mikael_Svahnberg said:

    Are you really so entrenched that you cannot see the fallacy in this logic. The wind doesn't blow 24/7/356 in one location, which is why I called it a distributed power source.

    Correct.

    @Mikael_Svahnberg said:

    If the wind does not blow (or the sun does not shine) in one place, it certainly does in another place.

    That is not a guarantee. (Especially the sun one-- how fucking BIG is your power grid that it spans like 10 timezones???)

    @Mikael_Svahnberg said:

    With the help of wind power we are thus moving away from single points of failure to a more robust power grid.

    Compared to a grid whose base-load is supplied by nuclear (or, heck, even coal & gas) plants? No. It's significantly more vulnerable.

    @Mikael_Svahnberg said:

    Why don't you explain to me, assuming that I am the idiot you claim, why wind power cannot be used for base load?

    I've already done that.

    @Mikael_Svahnberg said:

    And while you are at it, why does the power grid require a certain capacity for it not to collapse?

    I've already provided a dramatic and recent example of this happening.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Mikael_Svahnberg said:

    we should be working at making them more efficient so they actually are ready for large scale use once we need them.

    Who says we aren't? Who says we shouldn't?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @PleegWat said:

    Batteries will likely be involved anyway - I don't think there's much you can fire up at ~10 seconds notice.

    I don't think these things are generally run so close to the razor's edge that 10 seconds matter that much, but even so, capacitors / batteries for evening out short term stuff like that don't sound nearly so awful as, say, storing solar output for nighttime.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Zecc said:

    It's too bad we can't harness the power of flamewars.

    I had my idea before I read this (but admittedly after you typed it).


  • Fake News

    LFTR, Fischer-Tropsch process, do the engineering, put them together. Jesus Christ.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Compared to a grid whose base-load is supplied by nuclear (or, heck, even coal & gas) plants? No. It's significantly more vulnerable.

    Mikael_Svahnberg:
    Why don't you explain to me, assuming that I am the idiot you claim, why wind power cannot be used for base load?

    I've already done that.

    Mikael_Svahnberg:
    And while you are at it, why does the power grid require a certain capacity for it not to collapse?

    I've already provided a dramatic and recent example of this happening.

    You have called me an idiot for not getting it, but as yet you have most adamantly not tried to explain why wind power is more vulnerable, cannot be used for base load, or why the power grid collapses in the absence of input. For the last item you have contributed one anecdote, but without an explanation model that generalises from the specific case, this anecdote is useless.


  • kills Dumbledore

    @Mikael_Svahnberg said:

    cannot be used for base load

    Because there isn't a steady, reliable base output. Even over a wide area, total wind will be highly variable

    @Mikael_Svahnberg said:

    why the power grid collapses in the absence of input

    Because people don't just stop using electric when the grid is at its limit. They carry on until it's overloaded and then lose power


Log in to reply