131–140 of 481 posts
I am reminded by the perhaps revisionist history but still applicable belief that slavery was really ended by industrialization making abolition economically advantageous and not actually a socially driven movement. (In reality it was certainly a convoluted mixture of the two I'm sure.) I hope we are in a similar era with regards to climate change. Surely there's a lot of money to be made in harnessing effectively un…
I am reminded by the perhaps revisionist history but still applicable belief that slavery was really ended by industrialization making abolition economically advantageous and not actually a socially driven movement. (In reality it was certainly a convoluted mixture of the two I'm sure.) I hope we are in a similar era with regards to climate change. Surely there's a lot of money to be made in harnessing effectively un…
I don't think this gets talked about enough because its truly a milestone.
It's still more expensive in colder places, but the math is changing very fast.
Essentially co-dependant renewables, the entirety of West Coast through Colorado balancing primarily between solar and hydro (and natgas peakers). Nothing like Québec (¡hydro!), but still something.
[0] https://i.imgur.com/QMclWZu.png> grey "other" line == sold to neighboring grids
----
If ERCOT ("Texas") would get over their independant grid "benefits" [i.e. not having to follow federal regulations], they could be sloshing their primarily wind-derived kWHs into an even more-beautiful grid of flowing renewables.
Instead, 10-year winter storms risk hundreds dead and billion$ lo$t.
----
TVA is in planning stages for its second massive pump-storage facility — but Texas is probably wiser in its nascent battery storage investment [1], instead. TVA's Racoon Mountain Pumphouse is definitely impressive, but with all the upcoming "depleted" car batteries being reconditioned into the stationary electric storage market... water power storage is probably the more environmentally-damaging method (definitely more expensive?).
[1] https://imgur.com/a/Nm0TFs1>
----
Screenshots via https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electr...>
[nerd warning: my favorite real-time dataset]
US Lower-48 Primary Energy Sourcing: https://i.imgur.com/BWXugy2.png>
----
My layperson recommendations to industry [I'm blue-collar, electrician]: reduce coal, increase nuclear; increase micro battery storage (e.g. see Chattanooga's EPB implementations); maintain but stop building dams/pumped storage.
Solar/wind/nuclear/nat.gas will be able to run everything once we have enough battery storage to handle daily peaks. In a few more years we will be entirely able to remove our dependance from toxic coal [2]
I am reminded by the perhaps revisionist history but still applicable belief that slavery was really ended by industrialization making abolition economically advantageous and not actually a socially driven movement. (In reality it was certainly a convoluted mixture of the two I'm sure.) I hope we are in a similar era with regards to climate change. Surely there's a lot of money to be made in harnessing effectively un…
Even if global greenhouse gas emissions immediately and permanently stop, climate change won’t. We have many years of further warming ahead of us due to the greenhouse gases already dumped into the atmosphere.
I wonder why existing hydro isn't utilized to it's potential. For instance, the Grand Coulee Dam has the highest capacity of any power station in the US of almost 7 MW but usually puts out about a third of that.
It turns out that "releasing immense amounts of water downstream" can have side effects.
I'd expect there's not a big effect on the ultimate amount of water being released downstream either way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am reminded by the perhaps revisionist history but still applicable belief that slavery was really ended by industrialization making abolition economically advantageous and not actually a socially driven movement. (In reality it was certainly a convoluted mixture of the two I'm sure.) More or less. Adam Smith famously wrote that slavery was economically detrimental way back in 1776. It still took nearly 100 years…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It turns out that "releasing immense amounts of water downstream" can have side effects.
What do you think is happening to the water not being utilized in the production of power? I assumed it's still being run downstream, just not through the power producing turbines. I'd expect there's not a big effect on the ultimate amount of water being released downstream either way.
The max is like a car engine’s redline. That the car can hit it doesn’t mean you should at all times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Being able to lounge around while others toil for your gain is absolutely economic. And being comfortable doing it via slave labor is cultural. > if you exclude the enslaved, the south had a higher GDP per capita If you exclude the murders, Ted Bundy was a really nice guy.
Like trying to assess the economy of the Third Reich while omitting that whole pesky war thing
Related: Alec Watson’s recent, and excellent, Technology Connections YouTube piece on renewable energy. “You are being misled about renewable energy technology” https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM?si=CJ_Tt9DnWSKH8eGC
That entire talk didn't once mention the phrase "energy density" which is the real reason we rely so heavily on hydrocarbons. Additionally this talk makes the usual mistake of conflating "electricity" with "energy". While the US does have fairly high percentage of energy in the form of electricity it's still only around 33% of the US energy needs. And still we see that "green energy" only supplements not replaces our…
For planes. For no other major use of hydrocarbons is it the primary concern.