Science Where does enviormental realism start and end?

[Bear Ribs]

Green energy has problems.

See this map?

If you live in the blue zone you live in a place where wind is a viable power source.
If you live in green you live in an area where solar makes sense.
Dark green solar and wind works, if you live in australia this is your chance to feel some pride your country is an ideal environemnt.

The problem for both sources of power is that its inconsistent, if battery technology wasn't so shit and that is what is holding back all of the cool shit then these two power sources would become more viable, but they would still not be a replacement. Solar helps, wind helps, but if you want to power modern civilization with minimal environmental impact.

You want nuclear, thankfully they are working on little mini nuclear power plants so instead of the big six year minimum model to build a nuclear powerplant we are reaching the ability to build small ones with ten years of juice for less cost, using less space and all of it costing less money.

There are workable solutions in sight we just have to be pragmatic about it.

I agree in principle but that map makes me deeply suspicious. From the wording, and the fact that somehow the area suitable for solar is mostly following the developed region around South Africa, it looks like they're going off of where solar is already installed, not where it could work. I find it difficult to believe that the majority of the Sahara Desert doesn't have enough sunlight to be suitable for solar, that just doesn't seem right.

 

[Bacle]

I agree in principle but that map makes me deeply suspicious. From the wording, and the fact that somehow the area suitable for solar is mostly following the developed region around South Africa, it looks like they're going off of where solar is already installed, not where it could work. I find it difficult to believe that the majority of the Sahara Desert doesn't have enough sunlight to be suitable for solar, that just doesn't seem right.

Sahara sand blowing around would render solar panels ineffective in short order, and building reliable transmissions lines through sand dunes is...a very challenging engineering problem.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Sahara sand blowing around would render solar panels ineffective in short order, and building reliable transmissions lines through sand dunes is...a very challenging engineering problem.

It's casually easy to make panels that wouldn't be harmed by blowing sand. Most panels aren't that tough because they're installed in areas it's not needed, not because it's a challenge to do. Transmission lines on the other hand are a challenge, but we've been able to run them through the dunes of the Mojave and Sonora deserts already. The Sahara is larger (and more significantly, few people live there so there's no particular reason we'd want to run power lines through it) but it's not some impassable issue.

If you look at the map's wording, it calls all areas that aren't near a major city "unsuitable" and it doesn't define what it's calling a major city. Needless to say this is going to make most of the earth "unsuitable" even if it's actually prime real estate for solar and wind. That's deceptive.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

The fun part for where I live is keeping the panels intact after a hail storm!

 

[Bacle]

It's casually easy to make panels that wouldn't be harmed by blowing sand. Most panels aren't that tough because they're installed in areas it's not needed, not because it's a challenge to do. Transmission lines on the other hand are a challenge, but we've been able to run them through the dunes of the Mojave and Sonora deserts already. The Sahara is larger (and more significantly, few people live there so there's no particular reason we'd want to run power lines through it) but it's not some impassable issue.

If you look at the map's wording, it calls all areas that aren't near a major city "unsuitable" and it doesn't define what it's calling a major city. Needless to say this is going to make most of the earth "unsuitable" even if it's actually prime real estate for solar and wind. That's deceptive.

It's not deceptive, it's taking into account energy loss over transmission lines vs what is realistically achievable for wind and solar.

Sticking a bunch of wind farms or solar farms in the middle of nowhere may sound like a great idea, but if you lose most of the power you generate to transmission line bleed before it gets to the places it's needed, it defeats the point.

Like, most of the Great Plains is good for wind, because there are enough small towns, farms, and missile silo's nearby to actually use the power close enough to the generator that transmission loss is negligible.

 

[Bear Ribs]

It's not deceptive, it's taking into account energy loss over transmission lines vs what is realistically achievable for wind and solar.

Sticking a bunch of wind farms or solar farms in the middle of nowhere may sound like a great idea, but if you lose most of the power you generate to transmission line bleed before it gets to the places it's needed, it defeats the point.

Like, most of the Great Plains is good for wind, because there are enough small towns, farms, and missile silo's nearby to actually use the power close enough to the generator that transmission loss is negligible.

So calling it Potential, while claiming that areas with sufficient wind and light aren't suitable isn't being deceptive? Those areas have Potential, they just aren't useful right now. Deceptive.

 

[Marduk]

The major cities are needed to place major power consumers to actually use the generation, preferably while it works, because otherwise you are dealing with energy storage and at large scale that's insanely expensive.

 

[Bacle]

So calling it Potential, while claiming that areas with sufficient wind and light aren't suitable isn't being deceptive? Those areas have Potential, they just aren't useful right now. Deceptive.

It's not being deceptive, it's acknowledging that the 'ideal' locations for solar and wind, based on environmental conditions, may not be as 'ideal' when accounting for transmission bleed to farther away energy users.

 

[Cherico]

It's not being deceptive, it's acknowledging that the 'ideal' locations for solar and wind, based on environmental conditions, may not be as 'ideal' when accounting for transmission bleed to farther away energy users.

One has to stop thinking of wind and solar as replacements. Their not their a very useful additive. You put in solar and you reduce some of your base time energy uses during the day that saves you money. But it is not a replacement for all other forms of power nor should it be.

Its something to put in your basket not a replacement.

 

[Bacle]

One has to stop thinking of wind and solar as replacements. Their not their a very useful additive. You put in solar and you reduce some of your base time energy uses during the day that saves you money. But it is not a replacement for all other forms of power nor should it be.

Its something to put in your basket not a replacement.

Absolutely true, and something few of what I will now call Vong-greens, do not like to admit.

Solar and wind are supplemental energy, usually best utilized at the household level, not as base load suppliers.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Solar and wind are supplemental energy, usually best utilized at the household level, not as base load suppliers.

I've been saying this forever. Best use of wind and solar (ie. most efficient) is to panel your roof and put a small wind generator nearby, add in a decent sized battery house (not in your home preferably), and you're in great shape. More often than not you'll be using very little energy off the grid, and sometimes you'll be adding excess power TO the grid. In times of crisis you'll have a solid energy reserve to power your house!

 

[Bassoe]

People are missing the point, yes, we absolutely need non-oil-based power infrastructure but not because of human-induced global warming, that's of secondary importance to the much greater threat that we've got a finite supply of oil and will eventually run out. And reducing everyone but the ruling classes to serfhood so they'll use less resources like the ruling class wants won't solve this, any usage of resources will eventually deplete a finite supply, the only actual solutions are thorium nuclear reactors, orbital solar and asteroid mining. As soon as possible, since once we run out of oil we won't be able to build any of those unless we've already got alternatives up and running.

 

[Simonbob]

As soon as possible, since once we run out of oil we won't be able to build any of those unless we've already got alternatives up and running.

True, although we don't know how much, or how long we have to think about it.

And why is it that we are putting billions, worldwide, into deadend tech like wind power, rather than, say fusion or thorium?



I find it very interesting that the Greens never seem to do anything that actually helps the enviroment, long or short term.

 

[Cherico]

True, although we don't know how much, or how long we have to think about it.

And why is it that we are putting billions, worldwide, into deadend tech like wind power, rather than, say fusion or thorium?



I find it very interesting that the Greens never seem to do anything that actually helps the enviroment, long or short term.

stupid cult shit, we know what will realistically solve the problem but the greens put their cult beliefs before results every single time.

 

[Bacle]

Another issue with solar, that is kinda out of left field: crows dropping rocks on them. Seems it's enough of an issue in Japan they had to bring in falconers to help drive the crows off.

 

[bintananth]

Another issue with solar, that is kinda out of left field: crows dropping rocks on them. Seems it's enough of an issue in Japan they had to bring in falconers to help drive the crows off.

Crows are pests wherever they go and equal-opportunity assholes. If they can mess with something belonging to humanity, they will.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

In my opinion, environmental realism starts with the understanding that nuclear power is the only answer to baseline energy needs. Hydroelectric is great but has a inherently finite supply that is mostly already tapped everywhere it can be done. Wind and solar can be a useful secondary power source for peak load and off-grid applications, but don't have the inherent reliability to fill a baseline role.

Support for nuclear power is a perfect shibboleth to distinguish between actual environmentalists, and the likes of Greenpeace.

 

[Bacle]

Another problem with large scale windmill; tornado's don't care how green you are, and engineering around a windmill to be tornado proof is not really possible, if you want it to be economically viable to mass produce.

 

[Mimas]

Another problem with large scale windmill; tornado's don't care how green you are, and engineering around a windmill to be tornado proof is not really possible, if you want it to be economically viable to mass produce.

I've never really considered this aspect, but it makes a lot of sense.

If you go by that map that Cherico posted the best place for wind power in the US is this large blue area... which pretty closely covers the area of tornado alley.

If electric windmills weren't such an investment of resources, you could still make an argument for using them. But we already have issues with their disposal at the end of their life, and if you have their lifespan being cut short by aggressively excessive winds, that makes their downsides more impactful.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

14mph...if the winds are faster than 14mph they have to turn off generation. Otherwise, the wind turbine will tear itself apart.