The Death Of Fossil Fuels
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
I’m glad that the advantages of wind power are obvious even to bumbling idiots like Boris. It’s a slight pity that we don’t have much of a British industry to make the turbines, most of the recent ones have been installed by Ørsted I think, who are Danish.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
- Little waster
- After Pie
- Posts: 2385
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
- Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
Yet another example of unpatriotic Marxist teaching doing Britain's proud history down just because things happen to be true.
We didn't create the largest empire the world has ever seen by paying any attention to pifflingly minor things like reality, as our unbroken string of victories from Yorktown to Singapore via Khartoum, Isandlwana and Kabul (passim) will attest.
Don't worry in future, all such inconvenient facts will be purged from school textbooks and children will instead get a proper traditional education focussed on British exceptionalism, the biographies of glorious British Prime Ministers of the 2020s, creating spreadsheets in Excel and 12 surprising ways of cooking your pet.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
But perhaps he really does remember idiots who said it 20 years ago. So when he said it 7 years ago it wasn't really idiocy, it was just plagiarism.
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
Are you suggesting our Great Leader would stoop to plagiarism? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.
Fintan O'Toole
Fintan O'Toole
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
Is that your own phrase for expressing surprise?JQH wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:37 pmAre you suggesting our Great Leader would stoop to plagiarism? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.
- Little waster
- After Pie
- Posts: 2385
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
- Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
I think it is a direct quote from a Johann Hari interview of Jesus Christ.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
The paper is now available to read/download free here https://www.academia.edu/44237582/Diffe ... lear_powerbjn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:37 pmInteresting paper in Nature Energy. I’ve only read the press release and the summary as it’s behind a paywall. Would be interesting to read the actual paper (hint hint).
Empirically, deployment of nuclear power does not lead to significantly reduced carbon emissions, unlike deployment of renewables. Renewables are something like 7x better at lowering emissions. Also, nukes and renewables anti correlate, they don’t play well together and tend to crowd each other out. This was seen consistently across all countries. They analysed 123 countries over 25 years to come to those conclusions.
Not only uneconomic, but not very good either.“The evidence clearly points to nuclear being the least effective of the two broad carbon emissions abatement strategies, and coupled with its tendency not to co-exist well with its renewable alternative, this raises serious doubts about the wisdom of prioritising investment in nuclear over renewable energy. Countries planning large-scale investments in new nuclear power are risking suppression of greater climate benefits from alternative renewable energy investments.”
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
Thanks boaf, I’ll try to read that properly.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:21 amThe paper is now available to read/download free here https://www.academia.edu/44237582/Diffe ... lear_powerbjn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:37 pmInteresting paper in Nature Energy. I’ve only read the press release and the summary as it’s behind a paywall. Would be interesting to read the actual paper (hint hint).
Empirically, deployment of nuclear power does not lead to significantly reduced carbon emissions, unlike deployment of renewables. Renewables are something like 7x better at lowering emissions. Also, nukes and renewables anti correlate, they don’t play well together and tend to crowd each other out. This was seen consistently across all countries. They analysed 123 countries over 25 years to come to those conclusions.
Not only uneconomic, but not very good either.“The evidence clearly points to nuclear being the least effective of the two broad carbon emissions abatement strategies, and coupled with its tendency not to co-exist well with its renewable alternative, this raises serious doubts about the wisdom of prioritising investment in nuclear over renewable energy. Countries planning large-scale investments in new nuclear power are risking suppression of greater climate benefits from alternative renewable energy investments.”
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
tx!Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:21 amThe paper is now available to read/download free here https://www.academia.edu/44237582/Diffe ... lear_powerbjn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:37 pmInteresting paper in Nature Energy. I’ve only read the press release and the summary as it’s behind a paywall. Would be interesting to read the actual paper (hint hint).
Empirically, deployment of nuclear power does not lead to significantly reduced carbon emissions, unlike deployment of renewables. Renewables are something like 7x better at lowering emissions. Also, nukes and renewables anti correlate, they don’t play well together and tend to crowd each other out. This was seen consistently across all countries. They analysed 123 countries over 25 years to come to those conclusions.
Not only uneconomic, but not very good either.“The evidence clearly points to nuclear being the least effective of the two broad carbon emissions abatement strategies, and coupled with its tendency not to co-exist well with its renewable alternative, this raises serious doubts about the wisdom of prioritising investment in nuclear over renewable energy. Countries planning large-scale investments in new nuclear power are risking suppression of greater climate benefits from alternative renewable energy investments.”
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-no ... nfirms-ieaThe world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades.
Reflecting this uncertainty, this year’s version of the highly influential annual outlook offers four “pathways” to 2040, all of which see a major rise in renewables. The IEA’s main scenario has 43% more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20-50% cheaper than thought.
Despite a more rapid rise for renewables and a “structural” decline for coal, the IEA says it is too soon to declare a peak in global oil use, unless there is stronger climate action. Similarly, it says demand for gas could rise 30% by 2040, unless the policy response to global warming steps up.
So, some good news on the price of renewable energy - but the death of fossil fuels isn't going to happen quickly enough unless we really step up the policy responses, fast.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
All good, but the IEA is full of sh.t when it comes to its predictions of renewables, it always drastically underestimate the growth of renewables, I'm not expecting anything different in this case. Add a few multiples to their predictions to get some where near what it will be.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:05 pmhttps://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-no ... nfirms-ieaThe world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades.
Reflecting this uncertainty, this year’s version of the highly influential annual outlook offers four “pathways” to 2040, all of which see a major rise in renewables. The IEA’s main scenario has 43% more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20-50% cheaper than thought.
Despite a more rapid rise for renewables and a “structural” decline for coal, the IEA says it is too soon to declare a peak in global oil use, unless there is stronger climate action. Similarly, it says demand for gas could rise 30% by 2040, unless the policy response to global warming steps up.
So, some good news on the price of renewable energy - but the death of fossil fuels isn't going to happen quickly enough unless we really step up the policy responses, fast.
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
California allows for “community choice aggregators” as an alternative way of procuring power. Eight such aggregators have ganged together and have published a request to offers for 500MW of “long duration” power storage, which means over 8 hours worth of power, so at least 4GWh in this case. Each project must deliver at least 50MW and have up to six years to complete. This is important as it creates a market for long term storage systems. California has stated that they need 1GW of such storage by 2026, the major commercial suppliers have yet to put out request for storage, but will probably do so soon.
Solutions to the sun don’t shine problem in the offing.
Solutions to the sun don’t shine problem in the offing.
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
So grid storage batteries have dropped in price by 70% over 3 years, and are continuing to drop. This is from the US’s EIA, not the IEA cited above. The EIA are good at collating and analysing historical data, but are about as rubbish with their predictive models as the IEA. For example they estimate that here would be 5.9 GW of storage deployed over the “next few years” in the US. In the Texas grid there is already over 18GW of storage scheduled for completion by 2022.
Some interesting modelling has been done, of a the reliability supply for a range of generation and storage mixes in the USA. With 12 hours of storage and overbuilding of renewables you can hit very high percentages of supply reliability (80-98% in their scenarios). Throw in some HVDC lines and some gas generation in reserve for the corner cases and you have a very low carbon grid. 12 hours storage costs about a Gulf War.
Some interesting modelling has been done, of a the reliability supply for a range of generation and storage mixes in the USA. With 12 hours of storage and overbuilding of renewables you can hit very high percentages of supply reliability (80-98% in their scenarios). Throw in some HVDC lines and some gas generation in reserve for the corner cases and you have a very low carbon grid. 12 hours storage costs about a Gulf War.
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
Ta. I was just looking up how much a Gulf war costs. Turns out it's 2 - 2.4 Gigadollars (all in, long term), so this is only ~1/2 a Gulf war.
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
Whoops, brainfart. Should be Teradollars.
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
Thank bjn, just spent a while reading the comments on the ars technica article too, which was time well spent.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
The BBC has some windfarm p.rn on iplayer.
One of the most interesting bits was that it only took 16 hours to erect one of the Hornsea 8 MW turbines, then another 16 hours by a separate crew to have it wired up and pumping electricity into the grid. bl..dy hell that's quick. The joys of prefabricating everything in advance.
One of the most interesting bits was that it only took 16 hours to erect one of the Hornsea 8 MW turbines, then another 16 hours by a separate crew to have it wired up and pumping electricity into the grid. bl..dy hell that's quick. The joys of prefabricating everything in advance.
- Little waster
- After Pie
- Posts: 2385
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
- Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
In other news, Hinkley Point C began construction in 2008 and is expected to boil its first egg by December 2025 ... unless it is further delayed ... which it almost certainly will be.bjn wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:31 amThe BBC has some windfarm p.rn on iplayer.
One of the most interesting bits was that it only took 16 hours to erect one of the Hornsea 8 MW turbines, then another 16 hours by a separate crew to have it wired up and pumping electricity into the grid. bl..dy hell that's quick. The joys of prefabricating everything in advance.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8317
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
So now they only have to erect another 399 in the next five years.Little waster wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:37 amIn other news, Hinkley Point C began construction in 2008 and is expected to boil its first egg by December 2025 ... unless it is further delayed ... which it almost certainly will be.bjn wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:31 amThe BBC has some windfarm p.rn on iplayer.
One of the most interesting bits was that it only took 16 hours to erect one of the Hornsea 8 MW turbines, then another 16 hours by a separate crew to have it wired up and pumping electricity into the grid. bl..dy hell that's quick. The joys of prefabricating everything in advance.
Actually Hornsea 2 is projected to be finished by 2022, with a total of 165 turbines, and will provide a bit less than half the power (1.4 GW) of Hinkley Point C at total capacity (3.2 GW).
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
Where can I place a bet that Hornsea 3 will be generating power before Hinkley Point C?shpalman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:45 amSo now they only have to erect another 399 in the next five years.Little waster wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:37 amIn other news, Hinkley Point C began construction in 2008 and is expected to boil its first egg by December 2025 ... unless it is further delayed ... which it almost certainly will be.bjn wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:31 amThe BBC has some windfarm p.rn on iplayer.
One of the most interesting bits was that it only took 16 hours to erect one of the Hornsea 8 MW turbines, then another 16 hours by a separate crew to have it wired up and pumping electricity into the grid. bl..dy hell that's quick. The joys of prefabricating everything in advance.
Actually Hornsea 2 is projected to be finished by 2022, with a total of 165 turbines, and will provide a bit less than half the power (1.4 GW) of Hinkley Point C at total capacity (3.2 GW).