End of the oil age and the rise of renewables/nuclear/new sources. (1 Viewer)

[JohnRawls]

Oh yeah...we have commented on that on this site numerous times. The same mindless anti-nuke leftists from the 80s and 90s are now chanting pro nuke slogans.

Its not their fault, really. They are muppets. They believe what they are told to believe.

As much as I like nuclear, it is not viable with the current safety standards and people totally unwilling to be or live near by any nuclear power plant. That is just the reality of it. It is literally the most unprofitable energy source to build or replace because the project go overbudget all the time if you look at almost all recent projects. Alternatively you can slash the standards heavily which basically means cutting security measures big time lets say on redundancy in systems and other safety measures which will reduce the price but will make people panic even more when it is near them.

 

[JohnRawls]

Pricey, repair costs are outrageous, and replacing/recycling the batter is a financial nightmare, not to mention a potential ecological disaster.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/french-recycling-plant-fire-housing-900-tonnes-lithium-batteries-2024-02-18/

Missouri Battery Recycling Plant Fire

After Missouri plant fire, an NFPA expert discusses the unique hazards involved in lithium-ion battery recycling.

www.nfpa.org

Still, it is magnitudes less of a problem if the initial price of the vehicle is same or less than combustion engine vehicles and on top of that you don't need to pay for gasoline anymore.

 

[VanceMack]

Well previously the price was a problem that they were 2x-3x-5x-10x pricier. Quality is something that can be fixed easier than production price.

And BTW...thats just EVs. The batteries that are needed to store and fuel a city?

Massive Green Battery Plant Catches On Fire Again Weeks After Major Toxic Blaze

A massive California battery facility that caught fire and spewed toxic smoke in January caught on fire again on Tuesday night, according to multiple reports.

dailycaller.com

Moss Landing, the world’s biggest grid battery, caught fire again

Vistra’s flagship energy-storage project in California turned into a towering inferno, forcing evacuations and raising fresh concerns about large battery…

www.canarymedia.com

https://www.wkrn.com/news/national/video-shows-massive-explosion-rip-through-battery-processing-plant-in-missouri/

 

[VanceMack]

I don

As much as I like nuclear, it is not viable with the current safety standards and people totally unwilling to be or live near by any nuclear power plant. That is just the reality of it. It is literally the most unprofitable energy source to build or replace because the project go overbudget all the time if you look at almost all recent projects. Alternatively you can slash the standards heavily which basically means cutting security measures big time lets say on redundancy in systems and other safety measures which will reduce the price but will make people panic even more when it is near them.

I dont see how the world gets even close to being off fossil fuels without nuc...which is still a fossil fuel.

 

[JohnRawls]

And BTW...thats just EVs. The batteries that are needed to store and fuel a city?

Massive Green Battery Plant Catches On Fire Again Weeks After Major Toxic Blaze

A massive California battery facility that caught fire and spewed toxic smoke in January caught on fire again on Tuesday night, according to multiple reports.

dailycaller.com

Moss Landing, the world’s biggest grid battery, caught fire again

Vistra’s flagship energy-storage project in California turned into a towering inferno, forcing evacuations and raising fresh concerns about large battery…

www.canarymedia.com

https://www.wkrn.com/news/national/video-shows-massive-explosion-rip-through-battery-processing-plant-in-missouri/

That is a good question, we don't have a solution to that in a reasonable way yet. So we can't be 100% renewables or we will need too much overproduction which is also economically non-viable. Or at least you will have to be Iceland or something that can use a lot of geothermal and hydro.

 

[JohnRawls]

I don

I dont see how the world gets even close to being off fossil fuels without nuc...which is still a fossil fuel.

I am not saying to go 0% off fossil fuels, that is not possible right now but the trend will continue to phase out fossil fuels/nuclear more and more as time progresses.

 

[VanceMack]

I am not saying to go 0% off fossil fuels, that is not possible right now but the trend will continue to phase out fossil fuels/nuclear more and more as time progresses.

I am not anti 'green'. I am a realist. I don't think we find a resolution until another more potent viable energy source is discovered and harnessed.

 

[Revelation]

As much as I like nuclear, it is not viable with the current safety standards and people totally unwilling to be or live near by any nuclear power plant. That is just the reality of it.

thank you John

good observation; Thorium reactors are safe and never melt down causing danger. why would you wanna live near any of this?

the Fukushima MOX reactors were Plutonium reactors retrofitted in Uranium reactors and run at 100%


um, like REAL Crazy people. but GE did that, for reasons i can't state here.

have we forgotten Fukushima yet? of course we have. do we know why Fukushima blew? prolly not, might have to dig on that one. (don't hold yur breath)

It is literally the most unprofitable energy source to build or replace because the project go overbudget all the time if you look at almost all recent projects. Alternatively you can slash the standards heavily which basically means cutting security measures big time lets say on redundancy in systems and other safety measures which will reduce the price but will make people panic even more when it is near them.

don't expect one word on these things from the Fake News.

.

 

[JohnRawls]

I am not anti 'green'. I am a realist. I don't think we find a resolution until another more potent viable energy source is discovered and harnessed.

If the prices of renewables keep dropping for 5 more years than they will literally be significantly more profitable than the cheapest fossil fuels. Right now fossil fuels are still comparable to some degree but already having problems in that regard in extreme cases in places with ample wind/sun.

 

[Revelation]

That is a good question, we don't have a solution to that in a reasonable way yet. So we can't be 100% renewables or we will need too much overproduction which is also economically non-viable. Or at least you will have to be Iceland or something that can use a lot of geothermal and hydro.

actually my Science friends say GOOD battery tech coming out.

the stuff we have now has all the Negatives and none of the Positives.

kinda what happens when you mix Politics with nutty ideas and push, push .........

.

 

[VanceMack]

That is a good question, we don't have a solution to that in a reasonable way yet. So we can't be 100% renewables or we will need too much overproduction which is also economically non-viable. Or at least you will have to be Iceland or something that can use a lot of geothermal and hydro.

As a model, the state of Washington does a good job of using its natural resources. 57% of its produced energy comes from hydroelectric power. But even they have their down periods.

 

[noonereal]

note how germany is now in decline because of this lunacy.

Wtf are you talking about?

 

[VanceMack]

If the prices of renewables keep dropping for 5 more years than they will literally be significantly more profitable than the cheapest fossil fuels. Right now fossil fuels are still comparable to some degree but already having problems in that regard in extreme cases in places with ample wind/sun.

Again...you cant get to 'renewables' without utilizing massive amounts of fossil fuel energy to obtain, refine, manufacture, and transport the minerals needed. Its like spending 100$ to be able to say "I only spent 45$!"

 

[stealthycat]

Depends on the country. European Union graph is above Gas,Oil,Coal is 35%, renewables are 45%, nuclear is 20%.

USA

Energy source	Billion kWh	Share of total
Total - all sources	4,178
Fossil fuels (total)	2,505	60.0%
Natural gas	1,802	43.1%
Coal	675	16.2%
Petroleum (total)	16	0.4%
Petroleum liquids	12	0.3%
Petroleum coke	5	0.1%
Other gases3	11	0.3%
Nuclear	775	18.6%
Renewables (total)	894	21.4%
Wind	425	10.2%
Hydropower	240	5.7%
Solar (total)	165	3.9%
Photovoltaic	162	3.9%
Solar thermal	3	0.1%
Biomass (total)	47	1.1%
Wood	31	0.8%
Landfill gas	8	0.2%
Municipal solid waste (biogenic)	6	0.1%
Other biomass waste	2	0.1%
Geothermal	16	0.4%

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

 

[Revelation]

I am not anti 'green'. I am a realist. I don't think we find a resolution until another more potent viable energy source is discovered and harnessed.

yep. if we did this Sanely like when the Model T Ford came out and he made economical repairable cars, then sure, let it rip.

however the Political Nut jobs got a hold of this, and paste Green on it creating a nightmare.

i would like an affordable car i could plug in, just not the crap they are producing now. (and don't talk about car repairs of any kind any more. good by reliable simple Toyota Corolla, i feel bad for the young people on that one. the WEF loves you though)


.

 

[Revelation]

Again...you cant get to 'renewables' without utilizing massive amounts of fossil fuel energy to obtain, refine, manufacture, and transport the minerals needed. Its like spending 100$ to be able to say "I only spent 45$!"

yep, when penciled in they found that there is a new loss from wind energy.

but it is 'Green' the Lunes will scream back; and yes i went to the Local meeting on this.

.

 

[JohnRawls]

As a model, the state of Washington does a good job of using its natural resources. 57% of its produced energy comes from hydroelectric power. But even they have their down periods.

Sure, the is a very known problem with renewables that we can't store it yet for a reasonable price. So seasonal factors definitely is an issue. The idea is sort of expand in to multiple directions and places for that seasonal change not to be a problem if you diversify and overproduce a bit. Not as effective as storing access energy in to some sort of battery that doesn't exist yet but it makes renewables more viable than most think especially for larger linked networks like USA, Europe, etc.

 

[Revelation]

Wtf are you talking about?

i guess the Fake news didn't inform you on that one.

again, don't hold yur breath.......keep shouting 'Green, green, green'

.

 

[JohnRawls]

USA

Energy source	Billion kWh	Share of total
Total - all sources	4,178
Fossil fuels (total)	2,505	60.0%
Natural gas	1,802	43.1%
Coal	675	16.2%
Petroleum (total)	16	0.4%
Petroleum liquids	12	0.3%
Petroleum coke	5	0.1%
Other gases3	11	0.3%
Nuclear	775	18.6%
Renewables (total)	894	21.4%
Wind	425	10.2%
Hydropower	240	5.7%
Solar (total)	165	3.9%
Photovoltaic	162	3.9%
Solar thermal	3	0.1%
Biomass (total)	47	1.1%
Wood	31	0.8%
Landfill gas	8	0.2%
Municipal solid waste (biogenic)	6	0.1%
Other biomass waste	2	0.1%
Geothermal	16	0.4%

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

To be expected, Gas is very cheap in the US because it is a byproduct of oil shale extraction. This in itself kinda changes the profitability calculation for renewables. For places that don't have the story is much more easier especially for heavy importers.

 

[noonereal]

i guess the Fake news didn't inform you on that one.

again, don't hold yur breath.......keep shouting 'Green, green, green'

.

It is good to not post nonsense if you want to communicate

I still have no clue what you mean except that your posts seem like a chant of homage to 2 Doll.

 

[VanceMack]

Sure, the is a very known problem with renewables that we can't store it yet for a reasonable price. So seasonal factors definitely is an issue. The idea is sort of expand in to multiple directions and places for that seasonal change not to be a problem if you diversify and overproduce a bit. Not as effective as storing access energy in to some sort of battery that doesn't exist yet but it makes renewables more viable than most think especially for larger linked networks like USA, Europe, etc.

Its part of the green energy lie that keeps getting told. take California as an example. They talk about their green initiatives and how things are 'going green...but even at its best, its only during the daylight hours. As soon as night falls, the fossil fuels kick in.

They crow about California producing 100% renewable energy!!!

Yeah.......about that.

For 10 hours. During non summer months. At a cost of building MASSIVE solar farms in the desert...you know...the place they demanded be left alone due to western spotted lizard. utilizing fossil fuels.

its a scam.

 

[JohnRawls]

Its part of the green energy lie that keeps getting told. take California as an example. They talk about their green initiatives and how things are 'going green...but even at its best, its only during the daylight hours. As soon as night falls, the fossil fuels kick in.

They crow about California producing 100% renewable energy!!!

Yeah.......about that.

For 10 hours. During non summer months. At a cost of building MASSIVE solar farms in the desert...you know...the place they demanded be left alone due to western spotted lizard. utilizing fossil fuels.

its a scam.

While I don't know much about California, I would assume that they are one of the best places in the world for Solar energy production and they probably produce a lot of Solar. Solar energy doesn't get produced in the night. That is to be expected.

While overall it is okay because in the evening/night energy consumption is way lower anyways but it still requires deversification in to other sources of renewables then like Wind or Hydro or anything else including fossil fuels or batteries that don't exist.

Is that the case that they overproduce Solar because it is super cheap for them and then at night there is no sun so no solar?

 

[Ethel2]

We will always need oil to:
• make plastics
• make diesel fuel for trucking and trains
• make jet fuel for military and commercial aviation
• make fuel oil (HFO) for global shipping
• provide Heating and electricity in remote locations
• lubricate machinery
• manufacture paints and solvents
et al . . .

The oil age is here to stay. Renewables can facilitate cutting down on oil, but they will not ever totally eliminate the need for oil.

The oil age is here to stay-until it isn’t. Eventually oil will become more and more difficult to extract and in the end there will be no more oil. It might be in 50 years, maybe a bit longer, but oil is a finite resource. Our grandchildren will need to sort this out. For now, in most of our lifetimes, oil is relatively easy as a source of energy. What we should be doing is conserving it through the use of other energy sources, but unfortunately humans are lazy and tend to do what’s easy.

 

[VanceMack]

While I don't know much about California, I would assume that they are one of the best places in the world for Solar energy production and they probably produce a lot of Solar. Solar energy doesn't get produced in the night. That is to be expected.

While overall it is okay because in the evening/night energy consumption is way lower anyways but it still requires deversification in to other sources of renewables then like Wind or Hydro or anything else including fossil fuels or batteries that don't exist.

Is that the case that they overproduce Solar because it is super cheap for them and then at night there is no sun so no solar?

The problem is so far, the massive solar farms in the west havent stood the test of time or lived up to measured expectancy.

11 years after a celebrated opening, massive solar plant faces a bleak future in the Mojave Desert

What was once the largest solar power plant of its type in the world appears headed for closure just 11 years after opening.

apnews.com

 

[Ethel2]

Its part of the green energy lie that keeps getting told. take California as an example. They talk about their green initiatives and how things are 'going green...but even at its best, its only during the daylight hours. As soon as night falls, the fossil fuels kick in.

They crow about California producing 100% renewable energy!!!

Yeah.......about that.

For 10 hours. During non summer months. At a cost of building MASSIVE solar farms in the desert...you know...the place they demanded be left alone due to western spotted lizard. utilizing fossil fuels.

its a scam.

Ummm…that’s not correct. I have solar panels (and I’m getting more, mostly because I don’t want to pay PGE anything) plus a couple of storage batteries that supply nearly all the power I need. Last year my total electric bill was $9.71. Installing solar panels and batteries comes with a nice 30% federal tax credit too. I’ll be selling power back to the electric companies now. The break even point is just 4.2 years. I’m not doing all this because it’s going to make a significant difference in the human caused global warming (although that’s a nice side benefit). I’m doing it because for me it makes financial sense.
It’s worth looking into if you can afford the significant initial cash outlay.