Live data from Hacker News

Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

bloomberg.com

271–278 of 278 posts

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#271
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was an answer to parent's "It's simply a matter of scaling up." comment. I agree with you that the exact same fact is true of nuclear. And wind too, while we're at it. I don't think there's a way out of it: our technological civilization lives WAY WAY beyond its means, and that is made possible only by burning through fossil fuels, among many other non-renewable resources. When that dries up (economically speaking…

It seems to me that people don't stop a behavior just because its unsustainable. They only seem to stop a bad behavior entirely when the market provides a less harmful alternative and its costs approximately the same amount or much less. Whale oil and ambergris where replaced by Fossil fuels. Ivory for billiard balls was replaced by plastic. Cigarettes are being replaced by vaping. Look at the amount of people skippi…

"The pace of the world is here to stay, people will just figure out how to sustain it with new stuff".

I don't know how you can think that. The pace of our world requires incredibly huge amounts of energy, which we get from finite fossil fuels. Either they become economically unavailable or climate change becomes so severe that we can't use what remains in the ground. Oil companies don't go to ultra-deep water wells and shale gas just because they are evil money-eating bastards (which is the prevalent narrative). They exploit these economically mediocre sources for the same reason garbage starts to look appealing when you are starved: you are hungry and the good food has run out.

Too many people assume that technology alone is what has allowed us to reach 7.5 billion people. This misses a significant piece of the puzzle, because in reality it's fossil-fuel powered technology. It's a crucial distinction, as shiny but empty trucks and tractors won't help you feed billions of people. Without fossil fuels we have no realistic idea how to feed that many people. So we'll probably continue burning them as long as we can, because the alternative (mass starvation) is even worse.

If we were a rational species, we could fix all of it. We'd massively slow down our economies, have very few kids for some time to reduce our population to more sustainable levels, rely on local food, stop traveling all the time, and so on. Doing it smart, we could reach a relatively slower but very nice and sustainable way of life, augmented by sparse but useful technology. Something a lot more sustainable that the Rude Goldbergian machine we call "modern life".

Since we're not rational and obviously won't do the smart thing, instead it'll degenerate to resource wars (over food, water, gas, etc.) and massive refugee crises way beyond what we're already seeing. Our civilization will stumble from one crisis to the next, blaming this or that ethnic group for what is happening, each time cobbling a half-solution together that seems to work for a time, but gradually it will sched most of the modern things we currently take for granted.

The myth of humanity going from caves to space is just that, a myth. In the real world, countless civilizations have risen and fallen, gaining and then losing most of their culture and scientific knowledge in the process. We've done it bigger than anyone before due to fossil fuels, which for a limited time have replaced our need for human and animal labor, but it is unsustainable and soon it will go away. Human ingeniosity plays a small part in the real story of our world.

The real story is that nature has kindly stored millions years worth of solar energy as fossil fuels and we've gotten so drunk on it for 200 years that we've started to think that we've mastered the universe, with soon to come galactic civilization, godlike AI and the end of death itself. The hangover is not going to be fun for a lot of people, and these delusions will not survive it.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#272
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's take a closer look at this. If you're surprised the GOP is allowing this, then something about your assumptions are wrong. Either you're incorrectly assuming the GOP would actively legislate against wind farms or something else is happening. What do you think is the mostly likely explanation?

There's a distinct possibility your world view is incorrect then if this surprises you. The big misunderstanding the blue has about the red is who pays for things. It's not the GOP hates renewables, they just want the private industry to pay for them, not the taxpayer. Let the cheapest energy source win! Wind and solar absolutely have a great chance at doing that. That doesn't make a good story though... It just stin…

I think the GOP hates renewables is a good enough starting point. The reality is they like policies that reward making money more than they hate renewables, so if your state makes money off of renewables, the state Republican party will like them. If your state makes money from fossil fuels, then the state Republican party will like those most.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#274
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that people don't stop a behavior just because its unsustainable. They only seem to stop a bad behavior entirely when the market provides a less harmful alternative and its costs approximately the same amount or much less. Whale oil and ambergris where replaced by Fossil fuels. Ivory for billiard balls was replaced by plastic. Cigarettes are being replaced by vaping. Look at the amount of people skippi…

"The pace of the world is here to stay, people will just figure out how to sustain it with new stuff". I don't know how you can think that. The pace of our world requires incredibly huge amounts of energy, which we get from finite fossil fuels. Either they become economically unavailable or climate change becomes so severe that we can't use what remains in the ground. Oil companies don't go to ultra-deep water wells…

People thought that the pace of the world couldn't get faster when everyone had horses. They had no distinct concept of energy and now we know nuclear energy is possible.

You see what exists and presume it is all that can exist. You are limited and whether or not it is rational human ingenuity is not limited. Only those civilizations that slowed down as you advocate "failed", and even then they still innovated just in different ways.

You are wrong because you make the same argument as people of yesteryear and they were wrong for reasons unknowable to them but obvious to us now. The future is unknowable to us but it should be obvious that some group of people will do better with some technology or process that seems obvious to them.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#275
post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The pace of the world is here to stay, people will just figure out how to sustain it with new stuff". I don't know how you can think that. The pace of our world requires incredibly huge amounts of energy, which we get from finite fossil fuels. Either they become economically unavailable or climate change becomes so severe that we can't use what remains in the ground. Oil companies don't go to ultra-deep water wells…

People thought that the pace of the world couldn't get faster when everyone had horses. They had no distinct concept of energy and now we know nuclear energy is possible. You see what exists and presume it is all that can exist. You are limited and whether or not it is rational human ingenuity is not limited. Only those civilizations that slowed down as you advocate "failed", and even then they still innovated just i…

Past civilizations did not fail because they slowed down. They slowed down while they were failing. I mean, this is what failing is. They failed at getting enough food and energy to feed their growing population, they failed at managing their growing social and technological complexity. The "people of yesteryear" you reference may have been wrong, until now, for our civilization. But it turns out these people also existed in failed civilizations and guess what, then they were right. Read "The Collapse of Complex Societies" by Joseph Tainter, it's a great book and it makes much more compelling arguments than I ever could about this subject.

Human ingenuity is definitely limited. There are levels of complexity we probably won't manage to get past. More importantly, physical laws have limits, and these are not negotiable. For example, we very probably won't ever get beyond the speed of light. We won't produce energy from nothing. We won't cancel gravity. We won't stop heat death. We won't travel in time. We won't teleport, or beam up as they say. We know that with a relatively high degree of certainty because science has progressed a lot, so we know a lot more about what this universe can do for us, but also about what it cannot do. This is not comparable to a few centuries (or even decades) ago, because then we knew a lot less about both.

We've got 20 years to address climate change and fossil fuel shortage, probably less, before they become catastrophic. There are reasons to think it may already be too late without active measures (carbon capture and so on). 20 years is less than the time it takes to go from brand new technology (let alone lab experiments) to widespread commercial use, which means that technologies that don't yet exist are of no use to address this problem, and that rules out fusion (which hasn't even proven it can produce more power than it consumes, let alone at economically viable scales), among others. I'd say thorium-based fission plants are the only semi-viable bet if we want to continue BAU, because uranium is probably a dead end (there's just not that much that can be exploited with an EROEI > 1).

Note that this is only the energy problem. We also need to deal with over-population, climate change, sea level rise, resource depletion, soil loss, aquifer depletion, species extinction, collapsed fisheries, ocean acidification and so on. At the same time, and at a time when our political institutions are reaching unparalleled levels of passivity and incompetence. If we solve all these problems, remember that our economists and leaders still insist on the need of exponential growth on a finite planet, which means it would soon prove not enough and the new problems we'd face would be even worse.

If you are part of the people who think we're destined to a Star Trek future, I can imagine that the thought of collapse can be painful to you. It used to pain me a lot, but now I'm okay with it. I'd prefer for our civilization to survive, but like with terminal illness, there comes a time when acceptance becomes the only good option.

Our civilization will fail, but eventually the biosphere will recover (though with the amount of damage we do, it'll take more time than with past collapses). Then life will go on for about 500M-1B years, after that it'll be toast and it will most likely be over for life in this corner of the galaxy.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#276
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you suddenly removed the top of a large container of LNG, it wouldn't all instantly vaporise. It would start to boil, rapidly cooling its surroundings due to the latent heat of vaporisation. Large amounts of ice would form on the outside of the container, and pretty soon the boiling rate would drop off substantially as the rate of heat transfer from the now frigid surroundings reduced. If the vaporising gas was ig…

I _so_ want to get MythBusters onto this - we'll need three or four full LNG transport ships, and a _big_ patch of empty ocean...

You can demonstrate this yourself pretty easily using an ordinary 20-lb barbecue tank, a "high pressure" aka 20 psi regulator ($20 on amazon), and a high-pressure burner head (also $20 on amazon). Turn it all the way up - you'll get a great big hot flame at first, but you'll quickly see a shell of ice forming on the outside of the tank, because the process of evaporation drains heat out of the propane very quickly, and it gets cold enough to condense water out of the atmosphere into ice. Within half an hour, that big hot flame will have died down to something very gentle: the tank is still full of propane, but it's now so cold it'll no longer evaporate quickly enough to keep the pressure up. You'll have to turn it off and let it thaw for a few hours before it'll really get going again.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I _so_ want to get MythBusters onto this - we'll need three or four full LNG transport ships, and a _big_ patch of empty ocean...

You can demonstrate this yourself pretty easily using an ordinary 20-lb barbecue tank, a "high pressure" aka 20 psi regulator ($20 on amazon), and a high-pressure burner head (also $20 on amazon). Turn it all the way up - you'll get a great big hot flame at first, but you'll quickly see a shell of ice forming on the outside of the tank, because the process of evaporation drains heat out of the propane very quickly, a…

That's triggered some memories...

https://web.archive.org/web/20001204191400/http://www.lhpo.o...

and specifically:

https://web.archive.org/web/20010215034409/http://www.lhpo.o...

"2.3 Gas installation:

The LHPO runs only on propane, at full bottle pressure (that is, five to ten bars, depending on ambient temperature).

The LHPO may be run from either a bank of propane bottles feeding into a manifold and then proceeding along a main gas pipe to the organ, or from a single propane tank with either liquid or gas feed. If liquid feed, a gasifier must be provided with sufficient peak capacity (see below).

If a single tank, the tank must have at least a three ton filled capacity, to provide enough thermal mass for the required gas delivery rate (see below). The tank connection must be at least 1 1/2 inch inside pipe diameter, to provide for sufficient gas delivery rate.

If a multiple tank installation, at least 28, 33kg capacity bottles are needed. The bottles may not be all close packed into a rectangular array, but must be in one or two rows, with adequate air circulation around the bottle area to provide for heat transfer to the bottles.

If a liquid phase system and a gasifier are to be used, the system must be able to deliver the peak delivery rate (see below) for at least ten minutes continuously."

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are suggesting that a nuclear power plant can detonate like a nuclear bomb, you are wrong, they are a completely different design. Sure they can melt down in rare cases, but that's hardly anything on the scale of a nuke. I would suggest you look at some of the stats for death rates of different power sources. Nuclear is near the bottom, coal kills thousands every year through air pollution. If you want to find…

Safer than some of the alternatives != safe.

So why aren't you panicking over dangerousness of wind turbines? This is pretty bad argument.
Post reply on HN