hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 143 of 153 FirstFirst ... 4393133140141142143144145146 ... LastLast
Results 2,841 to 2,860 of 3042

Thread: God Hates THE WORLD (Natural Disaster Thread)

  1. #2841
    Specially Pegged Donor Overspark's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    NL fuck yeah
    Posts
    4,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Overspark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    Problem is that you know its framed as a 'only solution' in NL Overspark. The proper 'healthy' energy mix is rarely spoken of nowadays. It was i guess 8 years ago.
    Where did you get that idea??? NL has been absolutely terrible on the renewable energy front, we've been the worst country in europe for the past decade and have finally overtaken Malta and Luxembourg (whee) in 2019 with 9% renewable (while Iceland, Norway and Sweden are at 78%, 75% and 56% respectively). We're set to improve in 2020 and 2021 numbers because of wind parks in the North Sea coming online, but we still have a very very very long way to go to be competitive with the rest of the EU. I don't know where your 8 years come from either, as the last NEW coal plants came online in 2015 (two) and 2016 (one) in the Netherlands. Hell, even the UK and Poland are doing better than we are.
    I think we misunderstand.

    I am saying in NL propaganda/media/blabla its all about the ONLY solution is wind/solar (and lol biomass trees). I did not say we actually are doing good on national numbers i ment the national debate. The energy mix i spoke of was a healthy discussion back around then, now its a 1 trick pony. And yes its absolutely retarded we finally made some big solar/wind fields on land to just sell that energy to new Google etc data plants. Where like 10 people work the rest is automated.

    Same for demolishing the excellent gas infrastructure we have for full electric heating and cooking in house. The gains on that can not make up for building a new infrastructure in 50 years.
    Our immediate focus should be mostly on wind+solar (2 tricks), since we have quite a way to go to catch up there. And closing down our coal plants of course, but it has already been codified in law that the last one will shut down in 2030. No-one is seriously considering shutting down our other means of power production in the near future. Gas and oil represent the vast majority of our power production right now. That will only be scaled back as the added production from renewables will allow it according to current plans.

    The transition from gas to electricity in our homes has more to do with our dependence on gas, which we no longer produce in sufficient quantity, and the political reality that flows from that situation (our new dependence on Russia). It won't happen nearly as fast as our politicians were talking about, especially since they did very little to actually accelerate that transition. But it will happen, and it will be a necessary step to bring our CO2 emissions down, even though we have larger fish to fry at the moment. Note that the production of electricity in gas plants is a different matter entirely from gas usage in our homes. The same political pressures apply, but since they barely share infrastructure they don't have to be phased out in the same time frame.

    Quote Originally Posted by GeromeDoutrande View Post
    As for gas vs. electricity infrastructure, I have been to the Netherlands and have noticed that there is already some electricity infrastructure around, and it will have to be upgraded anyway to work e.g. for electric vehicles. And as I said, you can very likely find actual studies about this for the Netherlands.
    Yes, there is. We're actually doing extremely well on EV adoption and are the country with the most charging points in the world relative to size and population. While our electric infrastructure will definitely need plenty of upgrades to keep up with demand we're well positioned to be able to make that change, being only a matter of time and money. The whinging from the electric companies in the public debate is mostly a cry for more subsidies, which might actually make sense.
    Last edited by Overspark; October 30 2021 at 04:17:24 PM.

  2. #2842
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    10,005
    I'm not sure how much more can really be squeezed on the wind+solar front. The NL is absolutely coated with windmills compared to other countries and its still an abysmally small share of power generation. Nuclear is really the only way out of this, it almost feels like throwing more money into renewable energy instead of nuclear right now is a fruitless endeavor as seen with the recent energy crisis.

  3. #2843
    Caldrion Dosto's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    I'm not sure how much more can really be squeezed on the wind+solar front. The NL is absolutely coated with windmills compared to other countries and its still an abysmally small share of power generation. Nuclear is really the only way out of this, it almost feels like throwing more money into renewable energy instead of nuclear right now is a fruitless endeavor as seen with the recent energy crisis.
    Problem even if Nuclear would be the "solution" is that building it takes 10-30 years depending on the levels of fuckups happening.
    That is 0 energy for that period - Wind, solar and wave parks can be build and gradually come online during construction.

    Also placing Nuclear in NL is pretty exciting in event of an accident since that means the entire country is fucked - and its lucky the country is not below sea level...

  4. #2844

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Hollandistan
    Posts
    8,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldrion Dosto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    I'm not sure how much more can really be squeezed on the wind+solar front. The NL is absolutely coated with windmills compared to other countries and its still an abysmally small share of power generation. Nuclear is really the only way out of this, it almost feels like throwing more money into renewable energy instead of nuclear right now is a fruitless endeavor as seen with the recent energy crisis.
    Problem even if Nuclear would be the "solution" is that building it takes 10-30 years depending on the levels of fuckups happening.
    That is 0 energy for that period - Wind, solar and wave parks can be build and gradually come online during construction.

    Also placing Nuclear in NL is pretty exciting in event of an accident since that means the entire country is fucked - and its lucky the country is not below sea level...
    We have one closed plant since 1997, cooling down. 1 active 485 MW since 1973 and redone in 2011. It is one of the major medical nuclear material producers in the world. We also have a 2 MW testing plant at a university.

    Looking at plants in Belgium, France and Germany any of them could fuck us big time.
    Schopenhauer:

    All truth passes through three stages.
    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..

  5. #2845
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    33,228
    "we can't build new plants because current ones are too old"

  6. #2846
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    19,124
    I love how this debate is still going on. Anyone who thinks we should be building new nuclear is wrong on economic grounds alone, end of discussion.

    23 billion pounds is the current estimate for the construction cost of just 3.2GW of capacity at Hinkley Point C. that number will go up. And that is NOT including the cost to energy users of the insanely high (much higher than even offshore wind) rate of subsidy required or the exposure to uranium fuel prices and high general operating costs, not to mention an uncapped estimate of long term waste disposal.

    For 23 billion CAPEX I could build almost 50GW of 2 hour batteries, literally 13 times the power output, assuming NO economies of scale (which in fact would be greatly higher) and NO subsidy needed. Assuming you were dumb and wanted to discharge your batteries at 3.2GW to match the nuclear power plant, you could continuously discharge without charging for 31 hours. In reality every night there is a period of almost free electricity (and sometimes negatively priced!) during which you would charge, and realistic almost all discharge would occur within two 4 hour windows around the two peak demand periods, so this would be insanely over-engineered. Realistically the economic battery solutions will be 2 hour discharge focused on arbitraging peak and trough demand, or 8 hour batteries aimed at smoothing loads.

    There is no sane case for nuclear. It's just masturbation by nuclear tech fanbois.
    Last edited by Lallante; November 3 2021 at 05:27:33 PM.

  7. #2847

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Hollandistan
    Posts
    8,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    I love how this debate is still going on. Anyone who thinks we should be building new nuclear is wrong on economic grounds alone, end of discussion.

    23 billion pounds is the current estimate for the construction cost of just 3.2GW of capacity at Hinkley Point C. that number will go up. And that is NOT including the cost to energy users of the insanely high (much higher than even offshore wind) rate of subsidy required or the exposure to uranium fuel prices and high general operating costs, not to mention an uncapped estimate of long term waste disposal.

    For 23 billion CAPEX I could build almost 50GW of 2 hour batteries, literally 42 times the power output, assuming NO economies of scale (which in fact would be greatly higher) and NO subsidy needed. Assuming you were dumb and wanted to discharge your batteries at 3.2GW to match the nuclear power plant, you could continuously discharge without charging for 31 hours. In reality every night there is a period of almost free electricity (and sometimes negatively priced!) during which you would charge, and realistic almost all discharge would occur within two 4 hour windows around the two peak demand periods, so this would be insanely over-engineered. Realistically the economic battery solutions will be 2 hour discharge focused on arbitraging peak and trough demand, or 8 hour batteries aimed at smoothing loads.

    There is no sane case for nuclear. It's just masturbation by nuclear tech fanbois.
    Also by people who only look at CO2 output. More and more politicians in NL are talking a new NPP in NL. They know the cost, just focus on co2. Imagine the co2 cost for all that high grade concrete for the reaction core mantels.
    Schopenhauer:

    All truth passes through three stages.
    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..

  8. #2848
    Specially Pegged Donor Overspark's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    NL fuck yeah
    Posts
    4,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    More and more politicians in NL are talking a new NPP in NL.
    From the same party who approved 3 new coal plants in 2008 while hand-waving (and not putting into law) something about storing the Co2 underground. Which never happened. And now the owners of said coal plants want to sue the government because they have to be shut down to come even close to reaching (don't worry, we won't actually reach them) our Co2 targets, after several drawn-out lawsuits forced said government to take action to meet the targets they had themselves approved earlier. You can't make this shit up.

  9. #2849
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    24,405
    You could make it up but you'd be called a cynical pessimist or a conspiracy theorist.
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  10. #2850

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Hollandistan
    Posts
    8,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Overspark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    More and more politicians in NL are talking a new NPP in NL.
    From the same party who approved 3 new coal plants in 2008 while hand-waving (and not putting into law) something about storing the Co2 underground. Which never happened. And now the owners of said coal plants want to sue the government because they have to be shut down to come even close to reaching (don't worry, we won't actually reach them) our Co2 targets, after several drawn-out lawsuits forced said government to take action to meet the targets they had themselves approved earlier. You can't make this shit up.
    You can make it better by making lots and lots of bio-mass plants that take wood from Canada and the USA. Shipping it across the ocean, moving it by truck/train, burning it and calling it eco/green. While the companies who are by contract to re-plant new forest in said countries dont re-plant jack shit.

    source:2vandaag

    Greenwashing aye
    Schopenhauer:

    All truth passes through three stages.
    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..

  11. #2851
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    I love how this debate is still going on. Anyone who thinks we should be building new nuclear is wrong on economic grounds alone, end of discussion.

    23 billion pounds is the current estimate for the construction cost of just 3.2GW of capacity at Hinkley Point C. that number will go up. And that is NOT including the cost to energy users of the insanely high (much higher than even offshore wind) rate of subsidy required or the exposure to uranium fuel prices and high general operating costs, not to mention an uncapped estimate of long term waste disposal.

    For 23 billion CAPEX I could build almost 50GW of 2 hour batteries, literally 13 times the power output, assuming NO economies of scale (which in fact would be greatly higher) and NO subsidy needed. Assuming you were dumb and wanted to discharge your batteries at 3.2GW to match the nuclear power plant, you could continuously discharge without charging for 31 hours. In reality every night there is a period of almost free electricity (and sometimes negatively priced!) during which you would charge, and realistic almost all discharge would occur within two 4 hour windows around the two peak demand periods, so this would be insanely over-engineered. Realistically the economic battery solutions will be 2 hour discharge focused on arbitraging peak and trough demand, or 8 hour batteries aimed at smoothing loads.

    There is no sane case for nuclear. It's just masturbation by nuclear tech fanbois.
    No you couldn't.
    200 Mwh battery in Australia was 130 mil pounds.
    You want a 100 Gwh one. So 65b pounds. Even economies of scale cant do this.
    (I used aus numbers because its fucking hard to find good data on this.)

    #edit:
    Tesla produces 500k/annum. At a rough estimate average tesl ahas a 75kwh battery. 100 GWh battery storage would be close to 3 year production. Im betting if you tried your battery storage it would increase prices not decrease
    Last edited by Zeekar; November 4 2021 at 08:34:50 PM.


    

  12. #2852
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    19,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Overspark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    More and more politicians in NL are talking a new NPP in NL.
    From the same party who approved 3 new coal plants in 2008 while hand-waving (and not putting into law) something about storing the Co2 underground. Which never happened. And now the owners of said coal plants want to sue the government because they have to be shut down to come even close to reaching (don't worry, we won't actually reach them) our Co2 targets, after several drawn-out lawsuits forced said government to take action to meet the targets they had themselves approved earlier. You can't make this shit up.
    You can make it better by making lots and lots of bio-mass plants that take wood from Canada and the USA. Shipping it across the ocean, moving it by truck/train, burning it and calling it eco/green. While the companies who are by contract to re-plant new forest in said countries dont re-plant jack shit.

    source:2vandaag

    Greenwashing aye
    Drax in the UK has made hundreds of millions doing exactly this.

  13. #2853
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    19,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    I love how this debate is still going on. Anyone who thinks we should be building new nuclear is wrong on economic grounds alone, end of discussion.

    23 billion pounds is the current estimate for the construction cost of just 3.2GW of capacity at Hinkley Point C. that number will go up. And that is NOT including the cost to energy users of the insanely high (much higher than even offshore wind) rate of subsidy required or the exposure to uranium fuel prices and high general operating costs, not to mention an uncapped estimate of long term waste disposal.

    For 23 billion CAPEX I could build almost 50GW of 2 hour batteries, literally 13 times the power output, assuming NO economies of scale (which in fact would be greatly higher) and NO subsidy needed. Assuming you were dumb and wanted to discharge your batteries at 3.2GW to match the nuclear power plant, you could continuously discharge without charging for 31 hours. In reality every night there is a period of almost free electricity (and sometimes negatively priced!) during which you would charge, and realistic almost all discharge would occur within two 4 hour windows around the two peak demand periods, so this would be insanely over-engineered. Realistically the economic battery solutions will be 2 hour discharge focused on arbitraging peak and trough demand, or 8 hour batteries aimed at smoothing loads.

    There is no sane case for nuclear. It's just masturbation by nuclear tech fanbois.
    No you couldn't.
    200 Mwh battery in Australia was 130 mil pounds.
    You want a 100 Gwh one. So 65b pounds. Even economies of scale cant do this.
    (I used aus numbers because its fucking hard to find good data on this.)

    #edit:
    Tesla produces 500k/annum. At a rough estimate average tesl ahas a 75kwh battery. 100 GWh battery storage would be close to 3 year production. Im betting if you tried your battery storage it would increase prices not decrease
    I literally develop and build grid scale batteries for a living. My numbers are based on actual projects entering construction in 2022. I dont know the Austrian project you are talking about and have no idea when that project was built or where the capex numbers come from, but economies of scale and the passage of a couple of years market development do actually work like that and on that scale. See also: offshore wind.

    Teslas are insanely overpriced for their capability.

    In any case my point was very much not 'so we should build 50GW of battery capacity this year', it was that we should NOT build 3.2GW of nuclear capacity.
    Last edited by Lallante; November 4 2021 at 09:41:04 PM.

  14. #2854
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,806
    Aus is Australia m8.

    Tesla was in regards to the amount of batteries nothing else.
    You're still probably wrong.


    

  15. #2855
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    4,649
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Aus is Australia m8.

    Tesla was in regards to the amount of batteries nothing else.
    You're still probably wrong.
    And not even half remotely convincing from a bystander viewpoint. Lall, you sound like someone who internalized marketing material of the companies he's working for.

  16. #2856
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    24,405
    NPPs are always delivered over budget and late but that will never happen with battery tech.
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  17. #2857
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    NPPs are always delivered over budget and late but that will never happen with battery tech.
    The market will make sure of it.


    

  18. #2858
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    15,330
    dont forget to assume infinite scalability on the production chain.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  19. #2859
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 23, 2017
    Posts
    3,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    I love how this debate is still going on. Anyone who thinks we should be building new nuclear is wrong on economic grounds alone, end of discussion.

    23 billion pounds is the current estimate for the construction cost of just 3.2GW of capacity at Hinkley Point C. that number will go up. And that is NOT including the cost to energy users of the insanely high (much higher than even offshore wind) rate of subsidy required or the exposure to uranium fuel prices and high general operating costs, not to mention an uncapped estimate of long term waste disposal.

    For 23 billion CAPEX I could build almost 50GW of 2 hour batteries, literally 13 times the power output, assuming NO economies of scale (which in fact would be greatly higher) and NO subsidy needed. Assuming you were dumb and wanted to discharge your batteries at 3.2GW to match the nuclear power plant, you could continuously discharge without charging for 31 hours. In reality every night there is a period of almost free electricity (and sometimes negatively priced!) during which you would charge, and realistic almost all discharge would occur within two 4 hour windows around the two peak demand periods, so this would be insanely over-engineered. Realistically the economic battery solutions will be 2 hour discharge focused on arbitraging peak and trough demand, or 8 hour batteries aimed at smoothing loads.

    There is no sane case for nuclear. It's just masturbation by nuclear tech fanbois.
    No you couldn't.
    200 Mwh battery in Australia was 130 mil pounds.
    You want a 100 Gwh one. So 65b pounds. Even economies of scale cant do this.
    (I used aus numbers because its fucking hard to find good data on this.)

    #edit:
    Tesla produces 500k/annum. At a rough estimate average tesl ahas a 75kwh battery. 100 GWh battery storage would be close to 3 year production. Im betting if you tried your battery storage it would increase prices not decrease
    I literally develop and build grid scale batteries for a living. My numbers are based on actual projects entering construction in 2022. I dont know the Austrian project you are talking about and have no idea when that project was built or where the capex numbers come from, but economies of scale and the passage of a couple of years market development do actually work like that and on that scale. See also: offshore wind.

    Teslas are insanely overpriced for their capability.

    In any case my point was very much not 'so we should build 50GW of battery capacity this year', it was that we should NOT build 3.2GW of nuclear capacity.
    UK infrastructure project projections though, so we double the cost and half the output, right? Or are you an order of magnitude out again?

    Can you clarify what you mean by you "develop and build" these things? Did you retrain as an engineer?

  20. #2860
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    19,124
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Aus is Australia m8.

    Tesla was in regards to the amount of batteries nothing else.
    You're still probably wrong.
    And not even half remotely convincing from a bystander viewpoint. Lall, you sound like someone who internalized marketing material of the companies he's working for.
    ahh yes the marketing material of the 12 person company I run which produces zero marketing of any description and doesnt even have customers.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •