Renewable energy/energy in general.

[maddocgrotsnik]

How do!

Given Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has highlighted how daft relying in fossil fuels can be, felt we could do with a thread to discuss it.

My main preference is for clean energy. I know some give Nuclear a bad rap, and building Nuclear Power Stations isn’t cheap, I’m not inherently opposed to it. Indeed, my electricity comes from Dungeness, which is just down the road. But I’m also keen to see renewables pushed. Not just as a source of cheap, clean electricity, but as a wider technology.

What I don’t know is how far advanced such renewables are. I know solar arrays are getting there, and one can mount them on your house. And there’s at least one big building in London with built in wind turbines. Whilst I suspect those in themselves are far from “problem solved”, they’re at least something - a way for private residences to reduce their own reliance on the National Grid - maybe even selling back, at least so the advertising bumph claims.

But what of hydroelectric? Britain is nothing if not a big ol’ coastline. Yet it seems serious research and development is only happening off the coast of Scotland - with mixed results as new things are tried and tweaked.

Needless to say I’ve little to no idea what other countries are doing or trying. Hence this thread. Let’s talk about the ups and downs and ins and outs of developing technologies. And provide citations, because we’re all adults here, so claims such as “Big Oil Just Buys Patents Then Sits On Them” will require some level of evidence to support.

[herzlos]

I genuinely don't know why England is so against renewables, or appears to be*. Whilst Scotland is investing huge research into stuff like wave generation, England is trying to expand on fracking.

I'd be all for Nuclear to provide some baseline energy, and rely on a combination of renewables for everything else. Solar isn't as much use this far north and obviously only works during the day, but wind, wave, etc are pretty consistent. We should also be making more use of energy storage systems like pumped water to turn any surplus energy into a reserve to deal with higher demand.

That we're still using fossil fuels is crazy, though at least we don't usually have to resort to coal now.

grid.iamkate.com/ is a cool page that shows you the current power grid. At the moment we're at 46% gas, 19.3% renewable and 25% nuclear/biomass. Though I thought biomass would count as renewable given that it's waste material being burnt.


*My understanding is that there's actually a lot of effort going on with renewables in England too, but we just don't hear about it in the media.

[maddocgrotsnik]

Crazy thing for me when it comes to investment is that once say, wave power is efficiently harnessed? There’s plenty of countries you can export that technology to.

Sure few if any countries quite have the UK’s peculiar mix of demand and coastline, but plenty of countries have significant coastline, and so would likely be interested in purchasing such sources.

Even where Solar perhaps isn’t the most year round efficient source, it’s still helping reduce sole reliance. Even if it’s as low as 10% of overall requirement….it’s still 10%, yeah? And for north of Scotland, how about wind power? Plenty of wind up there. And the only objection you ever hear is a kitten piss weak ‘but they turbines am unlovely’. Even deployed on a house-by-house scale? Every little helps, no?

I do feel there’s an inertia in the general public, where thoughts seem stuck on an “all or nothing” approach. That if solar panels or a wind turbine can’t generate all your need all of the time, it’s just not worth it at all.

[semipotentwalrus]

I'm highly sceptical of nuclear power. It's absurdly expensive, we still haven't solved waste storage no matter how much breed reactors and such are pushed as theoretical solutions, and the human factor is somehow always discounted when discussing nuclear. One of Sweden's six reactors has only just gotten back online after a six month stop for repairs following damage done to it after maintenance because the staff manning the control room incorrectly started the reactor, causing damage to some of the equipment. "Oh, but that's not how it's supposed to be used, you can't blame incompetence on the design itself!" is the sort of hilariously naïve take pushed by physicists and nuclear engineers who are excellently placed to understand the physics and technology involved and exceedingly poor at understanding the human part of the equation.

Another reason I'm deathly tired of the whole nuclear debate (at least in Sweden) is that a lot of the people that push nuclear transparently don't give a shit about the environment. They're reactionaries who seek to discredit environmentalists because environmentalists tend to be left-wing. These are the chucklefucks who complain about wind turbines killing birds, or who complain about the habitat destruction of hydro in places they've never visited and never will visit while completely ignoring the damage mining for fissile materials causes.

Another drawback that isn't really discussed is the path-dependency cost of choosing to go all in on nuclear. Simply brute-forcing through more power output through nuclear while refusing to even consider more efficient, dynamic systems that can handle fluctuating output is going to be a hot mess to deal with in a few decades.

[pacific]

I agree with a lot of points semipotentwalrus (even as someone that works in the industry!) but the problem mostly at the moment is one of necessity. We don't have a viable 'baseline' power production method, other than Nuclear, which can be turned up and down as the grid demands, without otherwise using fossil fuels. Renewables are expanding and improving all the time, as is power storage (which can then be fed into the grid as required) so ideally for the time being we need an energy mix of those other renewable power sources supporting nuclear.

Safety-wise yes you can never exclude the human factor but an awful lot has been learned from previous disasters, and most notably from Fukushima. As far as I know all international members of WANO are now operating on a 'one in a million' basis, of taking into account complex combinations of natural disasters, terrorism, accidents etc. and there always being a capacity to get cooling to stations which have had their own power supply destroyed. In the UK, for example, there were specially constructed vehicles (which were effectively designed from the ground up) are stored in depos throughout the UK and can get to any active station even with all motorways and A-roads destroyed, and do so within a specific timeframe.

My main interest will be what better technologies come from Nuclear, such as the small modular reactors, and Thorium reactors for example. There is definitely a lot of scope for development (and an awful lot of money going into it).

[semipotentwalrus]

Apr 11, 2023 11:32:34 GMT -5 pacific said:

We don't have a viable 'baseline' power production method, other than Nuclear, which can be turned up and down as the grid demands, without otherwise using fossil fuels.

One reason I'm so deathly tired of the Swedish debate on the subject is that Sweden does. The Swedish nuclear proponents want to attribute Sweden's industrial success to nuclear power when we've had the geographical bingo of having absurd hydroelectric potential, if not as great as Norway. Every wind plant we build is less base load needed from our dams, which can instead be used for variable power instead. It is my understanding that nuclear plants are exceedingly inefficient if used variably as the overwhelming majority of the cost of a nuclear plant is in the plant itself, not fuel. I've seen some suggestions of using molten salt to store thermal energy from reactors to allow them to go full tilt all the time, but that technology is just as unready as the corresponding tech for renewables.

As another objection, again using Sweden as an example, IIRC we relied on imports 40 hours last year. If a country can drop their reliance on fossil fuels without nuclear bus has to use oil to top up the grid those last 40 hours, so what? Let fossil fuel remain as topper plants, which they do better than anything that isn't hydro. Getting rid of base load fossil fuels is a colossal net gain. The argument that we'd be relying on fossil fuels for some hours every year feels like a Nirvana fallacy to me; we're already relying on fossil fuels, it's not like this would make it worse!

On the subject of reactor cooling, fast neutron reactors that use liquid sodium, lead, molten salt or the like don't require active cooling to prevent overheating. They also don't need to be pressurised lime boiling water reactors and thus won't risk exploding into a radioactive steam cloud if there's a breach.

[maddocgrotsnik]

Another thing to throw into the pot of discussion? Saving power is initially expensive.

See, in the U.K. power bills are going mental. What was £50 a month last year, is £100 a month this year. And that’s me living on my own, and rarely putting the heating on. It’s also me, living on my own, with the most energy efficient devices and white goods I can afford. To the point I’m giving consideration to investing in a £109 kettle which, once boiled, keeps the water hot for 4 hours. In theory, rather than boiling it for each cuppa, I need only boil it a couple of times a day.

Whats pausing my hand right now is looking into whether said kettle is at all energy efficient in the boiling process. If not, might as well keep my current kettle and spend a fraction on a good old fashioned vacuum flask, dispensing the boiled water into the flask.

In the past year, I’ve also bought a washing machine (previous flat came with one) and a freezer (previous flat had a fridge/freezer). In that market, prices vary wildly. But if you’ve got a family, a more expensive, super efficient washing machine can make sense, as you’re likely doing multiple loads a week. But, if like far too many people you can’t afford said expensive, or even middle price and efficiency? You end up paying month on month through higher than absolutely necessary energy bills. Couple that with key or card meters, and it’s another example of Poverty Being Expensive.

[herzlos]

You're probably better with a 1-cup kettle - it's got a reservoir and only boils a cups worth of water at a time, so you don't need to worry about keeping the surplus water hot.

But you otherwise raise a good point. Energy efficient anything costs more - be it insulated windows, fuel efficient cars, appliances, etc. Hell, even getting solar panels or ground source heat pumps are only things that the wealthy can do.

It's just so generally expensive being poor. The example that's hit me a few times is replacing appliances; I've got decent income and decent credit, as well as a pretty big car. So if a random appliance fails on me (like a washing machine or a fridge) I can go online, compare prices and go collect one from the nearest store. I can potentially get a new washing machine running within a couple of hours of the old one failing.

Now if I was on a limited budget, I may not have the money available to buy one without going to a super expensive pay-per-week shop, I may not be able to collect myself and thus get to pay £30 for delivery within the next week. Without a fridge for a week I'm almost certainly condemned to paying more for food because I can't keep it cold, so I may be forced to buy whatever can get delivered soonest which almost certainly isn't the cheapest.
And so on.

[herzlos]

On the fuel source front; I don't like nuclear, but do we have any better options for baseline generation? We seem to use a lot of gas, but I was under the impression gas pricing is why we're in this mess as it is.

Could something like biofuel become a viable alternative? It should at least be relatively easy to source, store and transport.

[easye]

Scientists successfully replicate historic nuclear fusion breakthrough three times

www.cnn.com/2023/12/20/climate/nuclear-fusion-energy-breakthrough-replicate-climate/index.html

Scientists in California shooting nearly 200 lasers at a cylinder holding a fuel capsule the size of a peppercorn have taken another step in the quest for fusion energy, which, if mastered, could provide the world with a near-limitless source of clean power.

Last year on a December morning, scientists at the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California (LLNL) managed, in a world first, to produce a nuclear fusion reaction that released more energy than it used, in a process called “ignition.”

Now they say they have successfully replicated ignition at least three times this year, according to a December report from the LLNL. This marks another significant step in what could one day be an important solution to the global climate crisis, driven primarily by the burning of fossil fuels.

For decades, scientists have attempted to harness fusion energy, essentially recreating the power of the sun on Earth.

After making their historic net energy gain last year, the next important step was to prove the process could be replicated.

Brian Appelbe, a research fellow from the Centre for Inertial Fusion Studies at Imperial College London, said the ability to replicate demonstrates the “robustness” of the process, showing it can be achieved even when conditions such as the laser or fuel pellet are varied.

[easye]

Perhaps, the way forward for Climate Change action? Make fossil fuels unprofitable and hammer them like Big Tobacco?

www.cnn.com/2024/01/08/politics/climate-change-supreme-court-minnesota-oil-companies/index.html

Supreme Court declines to weigh in on Minnesota’s climate lawsuit against big oil companies

The Supreme Court declined to weigh in on a climate change case the state of Minnesota is pursuing against ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute trade group and other fossil fuel groups.

The Supreme Court’s decision notes that Justice Brett Kavanaugh would have agreed to hear the case.

Besides Minnesota, California, other states and municipalities have sued big oil companies, in some cases asking courts to compel them to pay for abatement funds to help pay for damages from climate-fueled disasters like floods, wildfires and extreme heat.

[easye]

A National Story set local to me about why Coal is still a thing and a transition to.... Nuclear. 

Why a town on the front line of America's energy transition isn't letting go of coal

www.npr.org/2024/03/28/1240708556/why-a-town-on-the-front-line-of-americas-energy-transition-isnt-letting-go-of-co

One view is that Wyoming, built on fossil fuels and long one of America's top energy producing states, with major wind and solar projects coming online, is on the front lines of America's transition to lower carbon energy.

But another view is that demand for electricity in America is surging and it's too soon to write off coal.

"I foresee that coal's gonna come right back around," Green says. "That's what I think. But maybe I'm foolish."

Coal jobs also tend to pay a lot more, at least right now, than work in the solar or wind industry, he says. And anyway, most of those are just initial construction jobs.

"They think they can change something that doesn't really need to be changed as far as I'm concerned. If it's been this way for a hundred years, why would we change it now?" Green asks.

[easye]

Who is looking out for miner's again?

www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/04/16/1245011608/silica-dust-mine-safety-coal-black-lung-final-rule

Finally! Tough new safety rules on silica dust are out to protect miners' lungs

On Tuesday, federal officials posted new rules to protect coal and other miners from toxic silica dust, a growing problem in mines that has left thousands sick and dying.

It took mine safety regulators 50 years to do what federal researchers had long urged: make the exposure limit to silica dust twice as restrictive as currently allowed and directly regulate exposure so citations and fines are possible when miners are overexposed.

The new regulation also imposes for miners the same silica exposure limits that already apply to all other workers in the United States.

"No miner should ever have to sacrifice their health or lungs in order to provide for their family," said Chris Williamson, the assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health.

I am sure many in the impacted regions will just grumble about these "job killing" regulations.