Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 6:41 pm
Chapeau!
It really is worth celebrating every time a piece of legislation is passed that makes these kinds of things more difficult, no matter how limited or local. It all adds costs and reduces certainty, which feeds back into lowering the profitability of fossil investments.bjn wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:08 pmInteresting side story in an Ars Article, the construction of a major gas pipeline has been abandoned on the East Coast because it just all got too hard because of legal challenges. The owners, Duke Energy and Dominion Energy have also decided to sell of all their natural gas assets as well. They are both mainly electricity generators rather than fossil fuel companies. Dumping of assets before they become stranded?
"A new era upon us—one for clean energy, and one where the risks of fossil fuel infrastructure are increasingly exposed," said Kelly Martin, director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Dirty Fuel campaign.
Greg Buppert, senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, said that six years ago, when landowners and communities took up the battle against the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, there was little reason to think they would succeed.
"The remarkable thing is these communities, organizations and landowners never backed down," Buppert said. "They've won a victory, really for every community facing the unfair burden of an unneeded project."
"Two things really stand out to me as the lessons—the voices of the community matter and the law matters," said Buppert.
U.S. Energy Secretary Dan Brouilette blamed a "well-funded environmental lobby" for making the Atlantic Coast project "no longer economically viable." He asserted that the result will be higher energy costs for consumers.
The American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry's largest advocacy group, said in a statement after the cancellation of the Atlantic Coast pipeline that "outdated and convoluted permitting rules are opening the door for a barrage of baseless, activist-led litigation."
Coming in less than 48 hours, the pipeline decisions amounted to a vivid rebuke of President Donald Trump's efforts to sweep aside obstacles to the oil and gas industry's desired expansion. The future of big fossil fuel infrastructure projects is more murky than ever, despite Trump's three executive orders expediting pipelines, his relentless regulatory rollbacks and his abandonment of climate policy.
In this case they’d actually won a legal challenge in the Supreme Court, but threw their hands up anyway..Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:16 pmIt really is worth celebrating every time a piece of legislation is passed that makes these kinds of things more difficult, no matter how limited or local. It all adds costs and reduces certainty, which feeds back into lowering the profitability of fossil investments.bjn wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:08 pmInteresting side story in an Ars Article, the construction of a major gas pipeline has been abandoned on the East Coast because it just all got too hard because of legal challenges. The owners, Duke Energy and Dominion Energy have also decided to sell of all their natural gas assets as well. They are both mainly electricity generators rather than fossil fuel companies. Dumping of assets before they become stranded?
I'm pleasantly surprised at how much of the work the market is doing, given the current inefficacy of political action.
You shouldn’t try to find out. Chicken numbers are classified. That’s why the saying is “don’t count your chickens”. Just try it and see what happens to you.
It would be an interesting approach to try a "free market" for fossil fuels - it's tricky to calculate the financial costs of mitigating things like pollution and climate change and pricing them into the market. Without doing that, however, what the US is really arguing for is taxpayer subsidies for fossil fuels.FlammableFlower wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:08 amOh look the US is trying to subtly support fossil fuels...
Precisely. People with massive fortunes built on the polluting industries don’t want the costs of their filthy fuels taken into account, otherwise they won’t have massive fortunes anymore. So it is down to fighting tooth and nail. The good fortune is that other generation systems are undercutting them right now, even without a carbon charge. Backdoor active subsidies and regulation have been attempted to keep them alive however, eg:Trump attempting to mandate the prioritisation of FF systems over renewable systems in the electricity market, or Queensland paying for coal miners’ sole use infrastructure.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:08 pmIt would be an interesting approach to try a "free market" for fossil fuels - it's tricky to calculate the financial costs of mitigating things like pollution and climate change and pricing them into the market. Without doing that, however, what the US is really arguing for is taxpayer subsidies for fossil fuels.FlammableFlower wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:08 amOh look the US is trying to subtly support fossil fuels...
Having said that, exactly the same has just happened with the Manston Airport application, so either it's more common than I thought, or this government has decided to change the unwritten rules.Sciolus wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 8:36 pmNo. The Drax case went through the planning process to the technocratic Planning Inspectorate, who evaluated it against the full range of public policy, and recommended it should be refused. The Secretary of State, who makes the final decision, overruled PINS. It is extremely unusual for PINS to refuse permission for any application that gets that far, and unprecedented for the SoS to go against PINS's recommendation.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 2:33 pmIt's a sunny, windy day. Without some other form of power generation, wind and solar cannot reliably provide power - still nights occur. This is not to say wind and solar can't be of immense use, but we need to maintain power in all conditions, not just bright or windy ones.
That's why gas can't be fully replaced with wind and solar, and likely why the go ahead for more gas powered generation has been given.
This was a political decision.
More technical article here (about the topic not this installation): http://watt-logic.com/2017/10/12/inerti ... %20to%20GJ.Grumble wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 6:58 pmThe article is deplorably lacking in detail, however the essentials of the article including the stability afforded by traditional power stations having big spinning lumps of metal seem correct. It’s kind of an obvious solution really - replace one big spinning metal thing with another. I wish they had a bit more info though.FlammableFlower wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:20 pmThought's from those with more understanding of this?:
Giant flywheel project in Scotland could prevent UK blackouts
That’s awesome. Things like this, parts of the system you’d never even think of as a layman, are going to improve so much now there is a market for EVs. Gives me hope that part of the future will be cool.jimbob wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 3:59 pmA blogpost about Gallium Nitride FETs in power conversion - with respect to electric vehicles
https://efficiencywins.nexperia.com/inn ... rsion.html
One thing that is mentioned but not expanded on, is that the increased efficiency and reduced heat losses means that in many say 10kW applications, you can move from active to passive cooling, which makes it far easier to make the power inverters waterproof (no cooling fans) so makes them more attractive for remote and mobile installations.
The IET recently did a webinar on "electric vehicles – reducing carbon emissions through power electronics" which is now up on YouTube here.jimbob wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 3:59 pmA blogpost about Gallium Nitride FETs in power conversion - with respect to electric vehicles
https://efficiencywins.nexperia.com/inn ... rsion.html
One thing that is mentioned but not expanded on, is that the increased efficiency and reduced heat losses means that in many say 10kW applications, you can move from active to passive cooling, which makes it far easier to make the power inverters waterproof (no cooling fans) so makes them more attractive for remote and mobile installations.
Yes, there are lots of places where you'd want 650V solid-state switches. Low voltage (even down to 20V-40V) have been used in start-stop systems or mild-hybrid systems (which are the simplest hybrid types). Anywhere you have brushless motors is another place for some type of FET.MartinDurkin wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:10 amThe IET recently did a webinar on "electric vehicles – reducing carbon emissions through power electronics" which is now up on YouTube here.jimbob wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 3:59 pmA blogpost about Gallium Nitride FETs in power conversion - with respect to electric vehicles
https://efficiencywins.nexperia.com/inn ... rsion.html
One thing that is mentioned but not expanded on, is that the increased efficiency and reduced heat losses means that in many say 10kW applications, you can move from active to passive cooling, which makes it far easier to make the power inverters waterproof (no cooling fans) so makes them more attractive for remote and mobile installations.
https://youtu.be/q5ZGY6TjaTk
Gives a bit more context to electric vehicle charging and where these FETs can fit in.
Something about booking models for a fashion show?jimbob wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:20 amJust as you have high-voltage grid cables with low-voltage domestic use, to minimise long-distance resistive losses, many poser-management schemes (in computers, for example) have similar "high" voltage rails (about 20V) and point of load voltage converters to step the voltage down to IC-friendly voltages - again for minimising resistive losses.
dyqik wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 12:01 pmSomething about booking models for a fashion show?jimbob wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:20 amJust as you have high-voltage grid cables with low-voltage domestic use, to minimise long-distance resistive losses, many poser-management schemes (in computers, for example) have similar "high" voltage rails (about 20V) and point of load voltage converters to step the voltage down to IC-friendly voltages - again for minimising resistive losses.
The nice thing about solar is the the technology is pretty much the same regardless of the size of the generation project. The big ones just use the same panels as the small ones, just more of them. Possibly larger inverters for the big projects. It also means a small project could scale up easily enough if theres is demand that it can met.Little waster wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:41 pmHeart warming story on the BBC news today.
Market forces means heroin is now low carbon.
I vaguely remember in the Old Country, Ben Pile regurgitating the $piked party line opposing the trend towards small scale and self-sufficient micro-generation projects in the 3rd World as being patronising.
Apparently what vast barren lawless poverty stricken countries like Afghanistan need is large centralised fossil fuel plants with expensive and vulnerable distribution networks, dependent on the vagaries of global fossil fuel prices and the expertise of foreign consultants. It is what Stalin would have wanted.