Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

Started by Syt, November 17, 2015, 05:50:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Valmy

Wind and solar are great but we need baseload generation. Natural gas using modern combined cycle plants is a decent stop gap if nukes are, as I believe they are, a political impossibility.

I am looking over at ITER with great interest to see if that might be a future replacement.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

crazy canuck

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 16, 2019, 10:36:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2019, 10:17:58 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on August 16, 2019, 10:15:05 AM
Probably by the end of the 21st century there will be a massive carbon recapture infrastructure in place and that coupled with going full Brain, with 4th generation nuclear power plants online we'll be fine.

That is what I am hoping. I am really looking forward to seeing if we get results from the ITER project in 2025-2035.

I also hope it works, but practical application will still be a long way off even if it is completely successful.  Keep in mind that they are just proving that creating excess heat energy is possible but this design is not going to produce sufficient power for net electrical production. 

Also keep in mind that without immediate steps we are going to reach 1.5 degrees of warming by 2034.  Likely earlier as the projection is refined with more recent data showing the arctic is warming faster than anticipated (and the resulting release of methane which will speed things up).

btw, here is a interesting site that has a countdown clock updated with current data regarding emissions.  You can look at the calculations for 1.5 and 2 degrees.

https://www.inverse.com/article/51531-how-long-till-global-temperatures-reach-1-5-degrees-celsius

Here is what I posted the last time you suggested ITER was something that might work in the future.  If it does work, any practical application is way too far off in the future to make a difference.

The Brain

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2019, 02:01:09 PM
There are practical limitations to an immediate massive expansion of nuclear power.  The upfront capital commitments are tremendous and the pool of skilled engineers and workers has shrunk quite a bit.  The time to make that commitment was a decade ago if we wanted to ramp up now.

And yet it has been done successfully even with no experience of nuclear power, so we know for a fact that it's possible. But we've been over this ground.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Valmy

#813
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2019, 02:36:30 PM
Here is what I posted the last time you suggested ITER was something that might work in the future.  If it does work, any practical application is way too far off in the future to make a difference.

Well we are not going to replace everything with fission nuclear plants by 2034 either. Hell even doing the rather conservative step of using very modern natural gas plants is not happening so soon.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

The Brain

Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2019, 02:41:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2019, 02:36:30 PM
Here is what I posted the last time you suggested ITER was something that might work in the future.  If it does work, any practical application is way too far off in the future to make a difference.

Well we are not going to replace everything with fission nuclear plants by 2034 either.

Burn the heretic.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

crazy canuck

Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2019, 02:41:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2019, 02:36:30 PM
Here is what I posted the last time you suggested ITER was something that might work in the future.  If it does work, any practical application is way too far off in the future to make a difference.

Well we are not going to replace everything with fission nuclear plants by 2034 either.

No, but we can do a lot to avoid 1.5 now.  If ITER works, great.  But if we just sit on our hands until the proof of concept test results come in we are going to be in considerable trouble.

Malthus

#816
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2019, 02:33:16 PM
Wind and solar are great but we need baseload generation. Natural gas using modern combined cycle plants is a decent stop gap if nukes are, as I believe they are, a political impossibility.

I am looking over at ITER with great interest to see if that might be a future replacement.

Not necessarily.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.475.4620

QuoteAbstract
Wind is the world's fastest growing electric energy source. Because it is intermittent, though, wind is not used to supply baseload electric power today. Interconnecting wind farms through the transmission grid is a simple and effective way of reducing deliverable wind power swings caused by wind intermittency. As more farms are interconnected in an array, wind speed correlation among sites decreases and so does the probability that all sites experience the same wind regime at the same time. Consequently, the array behaves more and more similarly to a single farm with steady wind speed and thus steady deliverable wind power. In this study, benefits of interconnecting wind farms were evaluated for 19 sites, located in the Midwestern United States, with annual average wind speeds at 80 m above ground, the hub height of modern wind turbines, greater than 6.9 m/s (class 3 or greater). We found that an average of 33 % and a maximum of 47 % of yearly-averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable, baseload electric power. Equally significant, interconnecting multiple wind farms to a common point, then connecting that point to a far-away city can allow the long-distance portion of transmission capacity to be reduced, for example, by 20 % with only a 1.6 % loss of energy. 2 Although most parameters, such as intermittency, improved less than linearly as the number of interconnected sites increased, no saturation of the benefits was found. Thus, the benefits of interconnection continue to increase with more and more interconnected sites. 

Fact is, with a grid connected across North America, you won't need (extra) baseload generation capacity even if you have nothing but wind, because the chance of wind not blowing in enough of North America is basically zero. Add solar and tidal to the mix, and wind, ocean and sun have to simultaneously fail you across North America (to a significant extent) for baseload to become a problem. 
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

The Brain

And the cost of a grid that can shift that kind of power is low enough?
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: The Brain on September 09, 2019, 02:39:40 PM
And yet it has been done successfully even with no experience of nuclear power, so we know for a fact that it's possible. But we've been over this ground.

It took 20 years for the US to get nuclear to over 10% of electricity generation, despite focused federal subsidies.  And then another 15 years to break 20%.

The "good news" is that the US is still at about 20% so it isn't starting from scratch.  Bad news is a good chunk of that 20% is nearing or past obsolescence so big investments will be needed just to maintain share.

I agree the US should recommit but to get a significant amount built on a reasonable time scale will require heavy state investment. It won't happen because politically many Democrats would resist because of the big Nuclear bogeyman and the Republicans will resist because of the big Government bogeyman.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

The Minsky Moment

Meanwhile our country is being led by a certifiable jackass who thinks wind power causes cancer whereas coal dust is a recommended part of a healthy daily diet.  Said jackass will be in charge for another 1.5 years during which time US energy policy will revolve around maximizing the number of industrial accidents and minimizing worker benefit packages.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

viper37

dammit!

Now it's getting serious :mad:

I just read that that silly polar vortex could establish itself just north of the NorthWest Territories in Canada and push even more cold air through Quebec for most winters to come.  :mad:
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

Tamas

Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2019, 09:15:47 PM
dammit!

Now it's getting serious :mad:

I just read that that silly polar vortex could establish itself just north of the NorthWest Territories in Canada and push even more cold air through Quebec for most winters to come.  :mad:

One thing I am still finding hard to stomach is the premise that EVERYWHERE it will be worse for humans to live due to climate change. I accept that most places will be, and some places will become downright uninhabitable or destroyed. But surely SOME areas of the globe will become less unfriendly to human life thanks to the changes?

Valmy

Siberia. The Russians will suddenly have no more terrible places to send their undesirables.

"I sentence you to indefinite exile in...*dramatic pause*...SIBERIA!"

"Wahoo!"
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

crazy canuck

Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2019, 06:11:19 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2019, 09:15:47 PM
dammit!

Now it's getting serious :mad:

I just read that that silly polar vortex could establish itself just north of the NorthWest Territories in Canada and push even more cold air through Quebec for most winters to come.  :mad:

One thing I am still finding hard to stomach is the premise that EVERYWHERE it will be worse for humans to live due to climate change. I accept that most places will be, and some places will become downright uninhabitable or destroyed. But surely SOME areas of the globe will become less unfriendly to human life thanks to the changes?

If you can find evidence that it will better somewhere please post it.

Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2019, 07:21:09 AM
Siberia. The Russians will suddenly have no more terrible places to send their undesirables.

"I sentence you to indefinite exile in...*dramatic pause*...SIBERIA!"

"Wahoo!"

I know you were joking but the melting permafrost turning the North into an inhabitable bog undermines Tamas' gut reaction.

PRC

Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2019, 06:11:19 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 17, 2019, 09:15:47 PM
dammit!

Now it's getting serious :mad:

I just read that that silly polar vortex could establish itself just north of the NorthWest Territories in Canada and push even more cold air through Quebec for most winters to come.  :mad:

One thing I am still finding hard to stomach is the premise that EVERYWHERE it will be worse for humans to live due to climate change. I accept that most places will be, and some places will become downright uninhabitable or destroyed. But surely SOME areas of the globe will become less unfriendly to human life thanks to the changes?

If there are, those areas might see a massive influx of climate migrants, spoiling the Eden like serenity.  Build a wall!