Energy - Fossil, Renewable, Nuclear

Reactions
2,385 684 24
Dude, telling Eriol to do that seems a bit too personal... pls dial it down.
It's true that I feel Eriol sometimes overlooks things I might consider obvious, or sometimes misinterprets what I say, but I doubt he read that and somehow thought I was saying ZOMG DRINK BLEACH LOLZ KTHX, just like I doubt he thought I was suggesting he go blow up a lake. At least, I hope he didn't.

--Patrick
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,019 1,476 27
Guess it depends on the situation you call "dangerous."

Carbon Dioxide is about as dangerous as water, in that yes, you can have too much of it and it can kill you, but it takes deliberate effort to achieve that wouldn't be considered normal circumstances.

That's very different from carbon monoxide, which is "too much" in just about any amount. Just because you can be smothered with a bed pillow doesn't mean it's in the same "danger" category as a ka-bar.
 
Reactions
2,385 684 24
carbon monoxide, which is "too much" in just about any amount.
Carbon monoxide combines with hemoglobin the same way oxygen does, which means your blood's ability to carry oxygen is impaired. Additionally, CO combines with hemoglobin hundreds of times more readily than oxygen, which means your treasonous blood cells will happily give up their ability to carry oxygen for hours, causing their overall oxygen-carrying capacity to drop. This can impair judgement and actively prevent you from moving somewhere safe. Your body is wired to respond to excessive CO2. If you stop breathing while asleep, you (usually) reflexively wake up enough to take a deeper breath (aka "sleep apnea"). But if you get too much CO while you're asleep, you just slip deeper into unconsciousness and die.

--Patrick
 
Reactions
656 87 11
Carbon Dioxide is about as dangerous as water, in that yes, you can have too much of it and it can kill you, but it takes deliberate effort to achieve that wouldn't be considered normal circumstances.
Yeah, that's the point, we really need to stop adding water in the room... and saying it's just water isn't a good argument against people saying we should stop.

Also, it's funny that you bring up water, since, you know, rising sea levels, bigger floods and all that...

but it takes deliberate effort to achieve that wouldn't be considered normal circumstances.
So you do admit global warming is man made after all... :p


That's very different from carbon monoxide, which is "too much" in just about any amount.
Well, no, haemoglobin isn't that rare in your blood that "any" amount will kill you.

It's just a whole lot less then CO2.
 
Reactions
656 87 11
It's true that I feel Eriol sometimes overlooks things I might consider obvious, or sometimes misinterprets what I say, but I doubt he read that and somehow thought I was saying ZOMG DRINK BLEACH LOLZ KTHX, just like I doubt he thought I was suggesting he go blow up a lake. At least, I hope he didn't.

--Patrick

Woosh?!
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,019 1,476 27
Yeah, that's the point, we really need to stop adding water in the room... and saying it's just water isn't a good argument against people saying we should stop.

Also, it's funny that you bring up water, since, you know, rising sea levels, bigger floods and all that...
You keep flip flopping between two arguments... are you saying that you thought that why running a car in a closed garage kills people was because it global warmed them to death?

Best just cut your losses before everyone here thinks you're a complete waste of time to talk to.

Oh wait.
 
Reactions
656 87 11
You keep flip flopping between two arguments... are you saying that you thought that why running a car in a closed garage kills people was because it global warmed them to death?
Analogies, how do they work? Truly a mystery for the ages...

Hint: the garage thing was about the claim that CO2 is safe... although, as pointed out, the better example would be putting a bag on your head... so it was literally a different argument then global warming itself.

Best just cut your losses before everyone here thinks you're a complete waste of time to talk to.

Oh wait.
Just because you don't (or refuse to) get an argument doesn't mean it's a bad one... see: anti-vaxxers & trump supporters etc.
 
Last edited:
Reactions
297 37 13
Also, it's funny that you bring up water, since, you know, rising sea levels, bigger floods and all that...
Ya about that: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/08/putting-the-brakes-on-acceleration/
(harder to find clean graphs that are newer, but 2011 is still fine)

Basically: it isn't accelerating. It hasn't since records have been kept. Somewhere between 1-2mm per YEAR, and it's been a remarkably constant increase. That's of course discounting local effects, which means we really only have satellite ones from recent decades, as the ground SINKING is the bigger problem in many many places.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,019 1,476 27
Hint: the garage thing was about the claim that CO2 is safe... although, as pointed out, the better example would be putting a bag on your head... so it was literally a different argument then global warming itself.
And yet you tried to use one argument to support the other. Kthxbye.
 
Reactions
656 87 11
And yet you tried to use one argument to support the other. Kthxbye.
And, as we all know, arguments all exist in their own vacuum dimension, and could never do that...

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!

I mean, who tries to disprove one piece of evidence someone else presents in support of their claim, and then try to pretend that makes the whole claim have less evidence?

ONLY CRAZY PEOPLE!!!

Basically: it isn't accelerating. It hasn't since records have been kept. Somewhere between 1-2mm per YEAR, and it's been a remarkably constant increase.
So is your argument that we're not drowning at an ever increasing rate, but a steady one?

And lets say you think they're overstating the problem... what exactly is the down side of having cleaner air, less garbage in the oceans and more plant life again?
 
Reactions
297 37 13
And lets say you think they're overstating the problem... what exactly is the down side of having cleaner air, less garbage in the oceans and more plant life again?
That the reduction of CO2 is an impediment to all of that is the downside. Cheap abundant energy enables being able to do those other things.

It's also anti-poverty, as carbon taxes are virtually ALWAYS regressive in nature as they increase the price of everything to a great degree. n addition, cheap energy also gets people in the 3rd world away from needing cookfires, which are HUGE causes of bad health. Mechanization of farming allows yields (and health) to skyrocket as well.

Do I need to go with all the benefits of having cheap energy? Since without HUGE subsidies, that all doesn't apply to renewables (except hydro, which is opposed by environmentalists as well). Natural gas, Oil, etc, are all GREAT for helping people out of poverty and bad health.



The one exception is Coal. Just from the distribution of Mercury into the atmosphere alone, its bad (and that's the primary thing for me why it's horrific). You won't see me arguing for that here, or anywhere.
 
Reactions
656 87 11
Do I need to go with all the benefits of having cheap energy? Since without HUGE subsidies, that all doesn't apply to renewables (except hydro, which is opposed by environmentalists as well). Natural gas, Oil, etc, are all GREAT for helping people out of poverty and bad health.
What year are you currently in? Coz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#Impact_of_fossil_fuel_subsidies

Also, there was always nuclear, so unless you're in pre-1950's, that was never true.

And why mention hydro just as something "the other ppl" are against? If it's better in your opinion, shouldn't you push for it?
 
Reactions
661 311 11
Uh, a good chunk of my electricity comes from hydro and solar - a lot more than most of the rest of the US and maybe Canada.
 
Reactions
681 255 4
Uh, a good chunk of my electricity comes from hydro and solar - a lot more than most of the rest of the US and maybe Canada.
It totally depends on the province.

Ontario gets most of its electricity from nuclear, with a fair chunk of hydro (Niagara Falls!), and using natural gas as the source to deal with the the fluctuations in demand throughout the day.

I think Quebec uses significantly more hydro.
 
Reactions
681 255 4
And looking it up . . . Yeah, Quebec is like 98% hydro.

Ontario's 55% nuclear, 25% hydro, 10% natural gas, and 10% "green"
 
Reactions
297 37 13
Whomever wrote that section has NO bias whatsoever, given the second sentence. Also, given that "subsidies" is often code for "They're not paying their "true" amount" (see Softwood Lumber dispute between Canada and the USA) I have never seen a good argument (including those links, which were mostly bullshit) that says it's true. Given that millions are paid for leases on Gulf of Mexico oil (recently) the definition of "subsidy" is usually fairly bogus in this context.
Also, there was always nuclear, so unless you're in pre-1950's, that was never true.
I can't tell which parts of my original argument you are conflating with nuclear. That it gets subsidies? Used to? What? They've been regulated into the ground (possibly legitimately, given the too-cavalier attitude of many operators in the past) but I didn't mention nuclear above. Overall I AM an advocate for Nuclear power, but more in things like LFTR or other safer alternatives to the Light-water reactor.
And why mention hydro just as something "the other ppl" are against? If it's better in your opinion, shouldn't you push for it?
Because in the early part of the 20th century in North America and Europe, just about everywhere that was practical to produce Hydro from was developed. Sure there's a number of sites that still aren't, but the majority of that capacity to generate electricity is tapped, and what little isn't is usually opposed on environmental grounds because it will destroy the upstream ecology (literally flooded out), and sometimes downstream as well (fish bypasses and such needed). So talking about "more hydro" is pretty much a "where?" question first. Hydro's great, but it's near its practical limit.

Oh and @Gruebeard be careful about "listed capacity" and "actually delivered" for solar/wind. Example graph for New Zealand for wind:

I haven't looked at whatever source you got for Ontario, but I'd suspect it's similar.
 
Reactions
681 255 4
Whomever wrote that section has NO bias whatsoever, given the second sentence. Also, given that "subsidies" is often code for "They're not paying their "true" amount" (see Softwood Lumber dispute between Canada and the USA) I have never seen a good argument (including those links, which were mostly bullshit) that says it's true. Given that millions are paid for leases on Gulf of Mexico oil (recently) the definition of "subsidy" is usually fairly bogus in this context.

I can't tell which parts of my original argument you are conflating with nuclear. That it gets subsidies? Used to? What? They've been regulated into the ground (possibly legitimately, given the too-cavalier attitude of many operators in the past) but I didn't mention nuclear above. Overall I AM an advocate for Nuclear power, but more in things like LFTR or other safer alternatives to the Light-water reactor.

Because in the early part of the 20th century in North America and Europe, just about everywhere that was practical to produce Hydro from was developed. Sure there's a number of sites that still aren't, but the majority of that capacity to generate electricity is tapped, and what little isn't is usually opposed on environmental grounds because it will destroy the upstream ecology (literally flooded out), and sometimes downstream as well (fish bypasses and such needed). So talking about "more hydro" is pretty much a "where?" question first. Hydro's great, but it's near its practical limit.

Oh and @Gruebeard be careful about "listed capacity" and "actually delivered" for solar/wind. Example graph for New Zealand for wind:

I haven't looked at whatever source you got for Ontario, but I'd suspect it's similar.
My source is Ontario, itself, giving actual usage stats for the year 2015

When it comes to capacity, not usage, my link says this:

Since the 2013 LTEP, the share of wind, solar and bioenergy capacity in our supply mix has grown from 9% to over 18%. At the end of June 2016, the 4,500 MW of installed wind capacity represents the largest source of our non-hydro renewable generation. Approximately 1,600 MW of additional wind capacity is under contract and under development
.
 
Reactions
661 311 11
Hm. Interesting. According to www.eia.gov/state/?sid=AZ, 32.9% of my electricity comes from Natural Gas sources, 32.7% from Nuclear (fun fact: Palo Verde is the largest nuclear power plant, largest net generator of electricity, and second-largest power plant by capacity of any kind in the nation), 25.7% from coal, and only 5.1% from Hyrdo. Non-hydro Renewables makes up 3.6%.
 
Reactions
297 37 13
Reactions
681 255 4
Hm. Interesting. According to www.eia.gov/state/?sid=AZ, 32.9% of my electricity comes from Natural Gas sources, 32.7% from Nuclear (fun fact: Palo Verde is the largest nuclear power plant, largest net generator of electricity, and second-largest power plant by capacity of any kind in the nation), 25.7% from coal, and only 5.1% from Hyrdo. Non-hydro Renewables makes up 3.6%.
It's always a bit of a blow when you get the facts from the source for the first time, eh?

(I was surprised that Hydro didn't account for more of Ontario's power back when I first started paying attention)
 
Reactions
681 255 4
Grue, that's the problem. Example: https://blog.ospe.on.ca/featured/on...-energy-in-2016-enough-to-power-760000-homes/

So your link doesn't say about "the plated capacity is X, it actually generated Y amount" of energy.

If you want a world-wide view on this, end of 2018, lots of graphs: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/21/another-look-at-the-fuel-mix/
Click on the link, read the first couple paragraphs, and then tell me doesn't say it actually generated Y amount of energy.

Err, the first couple paragraphs after the first couple charts.
 
Reactions
297 37 13
Click on the link, read the first couple paragraphs, and then tell me doesn't say it actually generated Y amount of energy.

Err, the first couple paragraphs after the first couple charts.
Grue, if you mean this:
Includes electricity produced to meet Ontario demand, including embedded generation (which brings the total to 143 TWh in 2015), and exports (17 TWh in 2015).

Nuclear generation provided the biggest share of Ontario’s electricity in 2015, producing 92.3 TWh of electricity. That was followed by the 37.3 TWh provided by hydroelectric generation, 15.9 TWh generated from natural gas, and non-hydro renewables such as wind, solar and bioenergy that provided 14.2 TWh.

While Ontario generated 160 TWh of electricity last year, it has the ability to produce more. The installed capacity of the province’s generating fleet totals 39,393 MW.

Since the 2013 LTEP, the share of wind, solar and bioenergy capacity in our supply mix has grown from 9% to over 18%. At the end of June 2016, the 4,500 MW of installed wind capacity represents the largest source of our non-hydro renewable generation. Approximately 1,600 MW of additional wind capacity is under contract and under development.
A few problems here:
1. They don't break out Wind, Solar, and Bioenergy from each other. i.e. if you burn wood to boil water, to turn a turbine, it's the same as wind in this calculation.
2. The link I provided above said "The province wasted a total of 7.6 terawatt-hours (TWh) of clean electricity". In the link they go more into how that was wasted and what I means, but combined with what your link says, it means that more than HALF of the "renewables" generated went to 100% waste. And that's not even considering the amount that got exported at a loss!

And even though that was what was generated, it doesn't do a nice "here's what the plate capacity of it is, and here's what percentage actually got generated by it." So let's do some math!

From here: http://www.aweo.org/windunits.html

1 MW × 0.25 × 365 days × 24 hours = 2,190 MWh
That's 25%. So 6 hours a day at full capacity. Times by 4 to get "full" usage: 8760MWh Your link from the government above claim 4,500MW of non-hydro renewables. So multiply the capacity by the 8760 (since it's for 1) and we get: 8760*4500=39,420,000MWh = 39.42TWh (1TW = 1,000,000 MW)

So now divide the 14.2 (which includes biomass, not just wind/solar) by that number: 14.2/39.42=36% or 8 hours a day of FULL wind. But of course if you took out biomass, it'd be even LESS, so the graph above from New Zealand is probably accurate! Less than a third (closer to 25%) of the plated capacity is what you actually have.

So you have a third of the capacity you say you do. Whereas the hydro, nuclear, and gas is 100% of the plated capacity. And it's not reliable to be there when you need it.


If you want real fun, start calculating the economics of wind/solar if you're required to have on-site storage capacity for a week of "non-functional" and how uneconomic it gets. You know, like a REAL power plant needs fuel on-site.


The way we're contracting wind/solar right now is insane. If you treated them like any other producer and required them to provide stable power, then they could be counted in the mix, but it's completely uneconomic to do so. So everybody gets hosed on higher power prices.
 
Reactions
681 255 4
Grue, if you mean this:

A few problems here:
1. They don't break out Wind, Solar, and Bioenergy from each other. i.e. if you burn wood to boil water, to turn a turbine, it's the same as wind in this calculation.
2. The link I provided above said "The province wasted a total of 7.6 terawatt-hours (TWh) of clean electricity". In the link they go more into how that was wasted and what I means, but combined with what your link says, it means that more than HALF of the "renewables" generated went to 100% waste. And that's not even considering the amount that got exported at a loss!

And even though that was what was generated, it doesn't do a nice "here's what the plate capacity of it is, and here's what percentage actually got generated by it." So let's do some math!

From here: http://www.aweo.org/windunits.html


That's 25%. So 6 hours a day at full capacity. Times by 4 to get "full" usage: 8760MWh Your link from the government above claim 4,500MW of non-hydro renewables. So multiply the capacity by the 8760 (since it's for 1) and we get: 8760*4500=39,420,000MWh = 39.42TWh (1TW = 1,000,000 MW)

So now divide the 14.2 (which includes biomass, not just wind/solar) by that number: 14.2/39.42=36% or 8 hours a day of FULL wind. But of course if you took out biomass, it'd be even LESS, so the graph above from New Zealand is probably accurate! Less than a third (closer to 25%) of the plated capacity is what you actually have.

So you have a third of the capacity you say you do. Whereas the hydro, nuclear, and gas is 100% of the plated capacity. And it's not reliable to be there when you need it.


If you want real fun, start calculating the economics of wind/solar if you're required to have on-site storage capacity for a week of "non-functional" and how uneconomic it gets. You know, like a REAL power plant needs fuel on-site.


The way we're contracting wind/solar right now is insane. If you treated them like any other producer and required them to provide stable power, then they could be counted in the mix, but it's completely uneconomic to do so. So everybody gets hosed on higher power prices.
Dude. You're arguing with me over a whole topic that was an afterthought.

You know, I started by saying that Ontario gets most of its electricity from nuclear and hydro, with a bit of natural gas thrown in. Then I figured I'd back that up with the most basic of stats - energy generated. I only even bothered mentioning "Green" sources so the percentages would hit 100. It was an afterthought.

Pretend I had originally said "Other (not coal)" instead of "Green" and leave me out of your Quixotic crusade.
 
Reactions
681 255 4
Same source says Wisconsin had 49% of its power come from coal.
I've said it before (probably in this thread), Toronto's air got so much cleaner after Ontario stopped burning coal. There used to be so many smog days throughout the summer, air advisory warnings, that endless brown haze on the skyline.

Best thing any large population can do is stop burning coal.
 
Reactions
2,385 684 24
Best thing any large population can do is stop burning coal.
Well, unless every RTS/4X ever has been lying to me, the best thing that any population can do as it climbs the tech tree is to abandon the less efficient, higher-pollution methods as more efficient and cleaner methods become available.

I suddenly have an idea for a new RTS/4X, one where as you climb the tech tree, every time you try to implement new technology, you have to fight against financial/political/regional pressures that work to keep you from scrapping your older, lower-tech facilities before you're allowed to put in the new ones, and even after you do, some of them will get sabotaged and have to be rebuilt. And all of this will still be happening from within even as the main aliens or whatever are trying to break through your front lines.

--Patrick
 
Reactions
297 37 13
Pretend I had originally said "Other (not coal)" instead of "Green" and leave me out of your Quixotic crusade.
Given I think that Wind Power is almost-always a HUGE waste of money, I give you credit for your far-beyond-appropriate Don Quixote reference.

/bow
 
Reactions
2,385 684 24
Wind Power is almost-always a HUGE waste of money
I don’t know the economics of the turbines, but just like boats, guns, engines, knives, and meal portions, bigger is not always better. Materials science says there are going to be limits.

—Patrick
 
Reactions
789 321 13
I don’t know the economics of the turbines, but just like boats, guns, engines, knives, and meal portions, bigger is not always better. Materials science says there are going to be limits.

—Patrick
Also just plain practicality. To the best of my knowledge, the blades are still either one or two pieces - I've never seen one in three or more. Produced right on the coast and moved by boat you can get pretty big, but if moved by trucks, there's a pretty stiff upper limit to how big a blade can be and still be transported around by road. I think the largest I've seen were about 100m per blade - and those were at sea. I don't see how you'd get longer parts than that moved around on land.
 
Reactions
661 311 11
...we have three-blade turbines all around this country. Hell, half of the Texas Panhandle is three-blade turbines.
 
Reactions
2,385 684 24
...we have three-blade turbines all around this country. Hell, half of the Texas Panhandle is three-blade turbines.
He means that each blade itself comes either as a single, monolithic blade, or as two pieces that must be joined to form one complete blade.

--Patrick
 
Top