Earlier quoted context omitted.
At scale.
You mean like 27 Gwh of yearly installed capacity kind of scale? https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-report-e...
Nice, that gets us enough battery to survive winters in 10 000 years.
Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence
391–400 of 474 posts
Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean like 27 Gwh of yearly installed capacity kind of scale? https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-report-e...
Nice, that gets us enough battery to survive winters in 10 000 years.
Now linearly extropolate oil supply numbers from just prior to Ford's Model-T.
How many thousands of years pass before we can meet current 2096 oil demand?
Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice, that gets us enough battery to survive winters in 10 000 years.
Now linearly extropolate oil supply numbers from just prior to Ford's Model-T. How many thousands of years pass before we can meet current 2096 oil demand?
That is why we need to stop with oil quickly, yes. Nuclear will do that, and people will pick nuclear if the renewables aren't there yet when oil runs out, which it is close to doing today.
Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
That may or may not be true. But it won't stay in the ground as long as there is money to be made by extracting and consuming it. Right now all that's happening is the US is extracting that natural gas, and the middle east extracting that oil, and Europe is importing it. Which pollutes more and costs more. Just develop your domestic supplies. I don't follow your logic.
The only direct thing we (the Netherlands) can do to prevent carastrophic climate change is to leave fossil fuels on our territory in the ground. Everything else is indirect.
No, the only direct thing the Netherlands can do is decarbonise the economy.
Shifting sources of carbon to outside the country is just passing the buck.
Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence
#395Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now linearly extropolate oil supply numbers from just prior to Ford's Model-T. How many thousands of years pass before we can meet current 2096 oil demand?
That is why we need to stop with oil quickly, yes. Nuclear will do that, and people will pick nuclear if the renewables aren't there yet when oil runs out, which it is close to doing today.
No, that is why you made a gross error extrapolating grid battery growth.
> when oil runs out, which it is close to doing today.
Peak oil is a way off yet, and the reason we need to stop using sequestered carbon is because atmospheric insulation is increasing steadily as a direct result of fossil fuel usage. Not because of ground supply shortfall.
The current events highlight the supply chain issue - not a shortage of oil, it's a shortfall in "oil going anywhere".
> Nuclear will do that, and people will pick nuclear if the renewables aren't there
Again, country by country - nuclear makes sense in China, the US to a degree, France, the UK (despite the snails progress) to a degree ... but makes no sense in, say, Australia that has abundant sunlight, fresh air that moves, and near zero prior experience with nuclear power and plant construction (See: the very recent Australian CSIRO report on energy futures for Australia)
Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would you invest in nuclear power, which is several times more expensive per kwh than wind + battery in Denmark Strategic mix. I'm not saying its a good or bad idea, but nuclear can be used as a tool with batteries to make wind much more reliable. urianium sourcing can be an issue, but sadly so are batteries. (granted nuclear fuel is changed more often)
Nuclear is a strategic drone target first and foremost. It's harder to take out renewables and batteries because they are more distributed.
Not really - for either system, the transformer substations are the part that's vulnerable to drones. Any munition capable of breaching the outer containment structure of a nuclear power plant (let alone impacting the core, dozens to hundreds of meters further inside) is closer to a bunker buster than a drone.
What I'd really like to see though is heavy subsidies for synthetic e-fuel plants running a carbon negative process during off peak hours. That would work with both solar & nuclear.
Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence
#397Nothing will happen!!
If countries worldwide had to have their reality checked due a WW3 to find solutions for the a fossil fuel alternative, better than pushing lithium everywhere with devasting consequences, tells you everything that is wrong in our society.
Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, its interesting that a community supposedly of "engineers" are happy to claim expert knowledge of domains in which they have no experience.
That being said, I was apparently also under the impression of outdated or just plain wrong information. While the report I listed mentions the sudden loss of decentralized generation as starting point of the blackout, and also specifically mentions small-scale rooftop PV, it says that the cause for that sudden synchronized drop-off is actually unknown.
You can't get an "informed opinion" by reading crap like that report.
The Spanish systems have systematic design failures for stability and electricity market design. Working out the political failures that led to the design failures is much harder.
Consultancies like https://www.nera.com/capabilities/power--utilities--and-rene... specialize in advising about electricity networks and market design.
Only those working closely in that profession have any knowledge of the underlying causes.
Most everyone else (including this comment) is different levels of ignorance and cluelessness.
Edit E.g. Crap quote from the report "but no significant oscillations with amplitudes above 20 mHz". The rest of it is about that level from what I could tell.
Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
in the election that is running in Denmark right now it looks like nuclear power is back on the table.
Why would you invest in nuclear power, which is several times more expensive per kwh than wind + battery in Denmark, which also has excellent links to reliable hydropower from Norway and Sweden? Especially when your greatest external security threat is Russia which has openly threatened targeting nuclear reactors of a country they are trying to invade? Not to speak of the inconvenient fact that Uranium is not a resou…
I am a bit surprised that a engineer-heavy forum does not think about scaling of batteries.
If everyone in the developed world starts to build batteries massively - in the extent necessary to bridge multiple days of bad weather for millions of people, because that is what happens quite often in northern half of Europe in winter - there will be new strategic dependencies, at least during the buildup phase, and then in a smaller extent for maintenance and modernization. Instead of oil, lithium and other resources not present or not mined in Europe will become worth fighting over and blackmailing over.
When we are already undergoing such a massive transformation, I would like to have a bit more strategic independence, instead of trading Arab/Iranian/Russia pressure for Chinese/Bolivian/Congolese pressure.
Ultimately, we must hope for fusion and/or geothermal to become practical. These are nigh impossible to be subjected to geopolitical constraints.
Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence
#400Earlier quoted context omitted.
The attention to those fringe issues is brought by those conservatives and lobbyists etc who explicitly want to distract and divide attention from climate change and renewables. It's strongly my opinion that there are far fewer people championing 'wokeness' than there are 'getting outraged by it's pervasiveness'. Mainly for the fact that all media like to seize upon controversy, thus turning minor fringe issues into…
IMO, "wokeness" is usually a reaction to the reactionary. Being transgender wasn't some sort of political football 10 years ago even though 10 years ago basically everything that was happening WRT trans individuals that made the pearl clutchers clutch pearls was happening then and earlier. The only reason "the left" started caring about trans individuals is because right wing reactionaries decided that it was the sou…
[deleted]