Ships passing in the night..

[RichardBartlett]

Interesting thread on shipping coal, oil , gas and solar

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...149673913.html

Never really thought of this, apparently 50% of all cargo shipping worldwide is coal, gas or oil.

Every shipment of solar panels removes the need to ship fuels. The more solar the less mega ships needed, it's a self fulfilling prophecy which can only be good for the environment (I don't buy the climate change BS btw)

Cleaning the enviroment is a huge topic which governments are reluctant to tackle as they'd rather fly around the world to wine, dine and pontificate on an unknown unprovable somewhere over the horizon.
I agree it's not the only solution but those opposing 'greening' of energy should sit back and think outside their own garage..

Those who say "ah but think of all those poor kids mining lithium" etc. Well every battery in every hand held device has been using lithium so why suddenly get all emotional about that now?
Plus the battery industry is moving away from lithium as different materials are being utilized and getting more and more efficient so less and less materials are needed.


The overall 'end of the game' effect is a huge positive and whilst transition is always painful I truly believe it's a better idea than the carry on regardless approach. IMHO

[OG1982]

Originally Posted by RichardBartlett

Interesting thread on shipping coal, oil , gas and solar

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...149673913.html

Never really thought of this, apparently 50% of all cargo shipping worldwide is coal, gas or oil.

Every shipment of solar panels removes the need to ship fuels. The more solar the less mega ships needed, it's a self fulfilling prophecy which can only be good for the environment (I don't buy the climate change BS btw)

Cleaning the enviroment is a huge topic which governments are reluctant to tackle as they'd rather fly around the world to wine, dine and pontificate on an unknown unprovable somewhere over the horizon.
I agree it's not the only solution but those opposing 'greening' of energy should sit back and think outside their own garage..

Those who say "ah but think of all those poor kids mining lithium" etc. Well every battery in every hand held device has been using lithium so why suddenly get all emotional about that now?
Plus the battery industry is moving away from lithium as different materials are being utilized and getting more and more efficient so less and less materials are needed.


The overall 'end of the game' effect is a huge positive and whilst transition is always painful I truly believe it's a better idea than the carry on regardless approach. IMHO

Completely agree, we all need to move to a more sustainable energy source, and I work in oil and gas!

What I don't agree with is your climate change comment, the earth is getting warmer. I guess the cause of that can be argued, but global warming is happening, as has been for some time.

[Andad]

Richard.

The increase in the number of rockets more than makes up for the reduction in mega ships.

And this will only increase in the future.

[brandrea]

You lost me at climate change BS

[330ci]

Originally Posted by RichardBartlett

Interesting thread on shipping coal, oil , gas and solar

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...149673913.html

Never really thought of this, apparently 50% of all cargo shipping worldwide is coal, gas or oil.

Every shipment of solar panels removes the need to ship fuels. The more solar the less mega ships needed, it's a self fulfilling prophecy which can only be good for the environment (I don't buy the climate change BS btw)



Those who say "ah but think of all those poor kids mining lithium" etc. Well every battery in every hand held device has been using lithium so why suddenly get all emotional about that now?
Plus the battery industry is moving away from lithium as different materials are being utilized and getting more and more efficient so less and less materials are needed.


The overall 'end of the game' effect is a huge positive and whilst transition is always painful I truly believe it's a better idea than the carry on regardless approach. IMHO

You in the solar panel industry by chance?

I replace my phone as minimally as possible(just replaced my 5 yr old galaxy S9 to a refurbed iPhone.) a lithium car battery uses more lithium than all the lithium ion products I’d consume over a lifetime. If we go to household lithium cells that would exceed my lifetime usage as well.

Projects to improve transport costs have been sabotaged or shut down for various reasons(nordstream and keystone being the biggest) there are far better ways to transport crude and gas, Coal we could do away with, but there’s still a lot of coal miners out their supporting their families too.


Solar has its benefits, but it has its draws as well. Too much solar is bad for the environment as well. The earth is essentially a greenhouse and too many solar panels leads to overheating as they reflect off solar heat that is generally absorbed by the earth. This is why they don’t just fill the Sahara with solar panels.


Then there’s what happens to all the solar panels at the end of their life. Carbon fiber turbine blades are currently being buried whole in fields. Who are going to be the primary electronics recyclers of the future?


The kids statement is totally uncalled for; lithium sources are being identified all across the United States in order to become more independent of trade. But mining the stuff is nasty; involves a lot of water and here in Michigan has the potential to poison some of the worlds largest freshwater deposits so it’s definitely not a low risk game.

[RichardBartlett]

Originally Posted by 330ci

You in the solar panel industry by chance?

I replace my phone as minimally as possible(just replaced my 5 yr old galaxy S9 to a refurbed iPhone.) a lithium car battery uses more lithium than all the lithium ion products I’d consume over a lifetime. If we go to household lithium cells that would exceed my lifetime usage as well.

Projects to improve transport costs have been sabotaged or shut down for various reasons(nordstream and keystone being the biggest) there are far better ways to transport crude and gas, Coal we could do away with, but there’s still a lot of coal miners out their supporting their families too.


Solar has its benefits, but it has its draws as well. Too much solar is bad for the environment as well. The earth is essentially a greenhouse and too many solar panels leads to overheating as they reflect off solar heat that is generally absorbed by the earth. This is why they don’t just fill the Sahara with solar panels.


Then there’s what happens to all the solar panels at the end of their life. Carbon fiber turbine blades are currently being buried whole in fields. Who are going to be the primary electronics recyclers of the future?


The kids statement is totally uncalled for; lithium sources are being identified all across the United States in order to become more independent of trade. But mining the stuff is nasty; involves a lot of water and here in Michigan has the potential to poison some of the worlds largest freshwater deposits so it’s definitely not a low risk game.

To go through your points.
No, I'm a retired HVAC business owner without any solar panels. I looked at it but it doesn't work out for me.

As I said, Lithium is being phased out or at least replaced in car batteries. The demand for lithium is large of course will level out as sodium etc take over.

there are far better ways to transport fuels around the world. Its better to provide a one stop solution (solar) which ends repeat journeys . Coal is dying even China is looking at alternatives to coal. Its far too dirty as a long term solution. At the tun of the last centry there were thousands of ferriers, in a few short years that dropped to hundreds as cars replaced horses. Coal workers are in the same position. Job for life went out years ago. Harsh but any decent government should be there to support the transition.

The solar is heating up the earth remark makes no sense. I won't say you are wrong and I will research that statement but the earth absorbs the heat which goes directly into the Earth/Sea.
solar panels absorb roughly 25% of that heat (rising to 30%+ in the next few years) so it is actually taking that heat away from direct absorbtion. Of course no enegery is destroyed, it's just being deployed which has to be a good thing?
.
IIRC The reason they don't cover the Sahara with black panels is that it would alter the entire globes weather patterns.

As regards disposal. Great strides have been made in recycling. Blades are now or will be soon, broken up and recycled. Solar is mainly glass which can be crushed and the cells melted down.
Plus a lot of S/H panels (from the UK at least) are being shipped to Africa and fitted in small villages to power water pumps etc. Again without the solar industry that couldn't happen..



As i say Lithium may well not be used in anywhere near the quantities forecast IF a new breakthrough is found. Given the billions being spent and the Chinese have thousands of scientists working hard on solutions to problems we don't even know about.

Plus Elon is putting the full force of AI into this so I'd be surprised if a new unknown 'next best thing' doesn't happen

This is all relatively new and solutions are being thought up daily but as I said growing pains always happen. You simply cannot compare against legacy energy worse, the legacy energy was very complacient. Happy to pump out toxic waste in the chase of the dollar. IF it had cleaned up it's act decades ago maybe we wouldn't need a new solution or it wasn't worth persuing. But they didn't so others decieded enough was enough.

The 'electric' industry is relatively new, or at least been starved of serious funding ever since it was discovered. It was 'just a thing' now as I said money and brains are pouring in, it simply cannot or will not fail.

My 2012 Lexus hybrid apart from reliability is rubbish.Lumpy heavy old led acid batteries with 30km range. A new lexus is way way better. A Telsa or BYD is far beyond even that.

In a very short period EV's have improved in every metric beyond most people comprehension. Solar and 'green' energy can only do the same :-) IMHO.

[330ci]

Originally Posted by RichardBartlett

To go through your points.
No, I'm a retired HVAC business owner without any solar panels. I looked at it but it doesn't work out for me.

As I said, Lithium is being phased out or at least replaced in car batteries. The demand for lithium is large of course will level out as sodium etc take over.

The solar is heating up the earth remark makes no sense. I won't say you are wrong and I will research that statement but the earth absorbs the heat which goes directly into the Earth/Sea.
solar panels absorb roughly 25% of that heat (rising to 30%+ in the next few years) so it is actually taking that heat away from direct absorbtion.
.
IIRC The reason they don't cover the Sahara with black panels is that it would alter the entire globes weather patterns.

As regards disposal. Great strides have been made in recycling. Blades are now or will be soon, broken up and recycled.


Solar is mainly glass which can be crushed and the cells melted down.


As i say Lithium may well not be used in anywhere near the quantities forecast IF a new breakthrough is found. Given the billions being spent and the Chinese have thousands of scientists working hard on solutions to problems we don't even know about.



This is all relatively new and solutions are being thought up daily but as I said growing pains always happen. You simply cannot compare against legacy energy worse, the legacy energy was very complacient. Happy to pump out toxic waste in the chase of the dollar. IF it had cleaned up it's act decades ago maybe we wouldn't need a new solution or it wasn't worth persuing. But they didn't so others decieded enough was enough.

I’ve trimmed down your post a bit to keep focused on the facts here.

“Solar panels absorb 25% of heat so they actually take heat away*

That means they’re reflecting 75% of the heat back into the atmosphere.

“They don’t cover the Sahara because that would alter global weather patterns”

You mean like global warming which you acknowledge in your first post is BS?

“Blades are now, or will be soon broken down before disposal”

I am not aware of any active recycling programs for carbon blades or any near term projects that will be feasible at scale.


“As I say, lithium very well may not be used in the future.”


Then why go through the trial and error of destroying the environment and potentially poisoning our major freshwater deposits in the process instead of just finding a better alternative from the start? Most experts agree that lithium isn’t a long term solution to energy storage. Everyone has been talking about how far battery tech has come over the last 20 years, but it’s pretty much the same thing as early hybrids 25-30years ago. When they have something solid state that’s ready, let’s see it; we’ll get there doesn’t really cut it. There are a lot of issues that need to be sorted for green energy to work.



To finish your reasoning with the essence that “we’re going to have to cut some corners and destroy the environment in pursuit of better technology, that might have less detriment to society in the future” is the most insane logic I’ve ever come across and it’s ever present in just about every facet of society today.

Pipelines would be a far better way to reduce our carbon footprint while scientists research safe, scalable technologies.

Elon has even said the value in Tesla isn’t its vehicles, but the data derived from them. Grid issues in Texas and California have shown that we’re not prepared for a country full of electric cars if we really want to go down the reasons why we’re stuck with gas for another 20+ years.


Sometimes it’s best to stick with the devil you know as opposed to the devil you don’t. I’m all for the pursuit of science, better technology and a cleaner earth. But the concessions necessary to make your argument fallible are just too much. There’s a reason why every major auto company has abandoned their “all electric by 2030-2035” pledges.

All of these technologies are too inferior to scale at this point.

When it comes to c02 emissions planes blow away cars by a long shot anyways. And lord knows the FAA isn’t certifying any electric planes anytime soon, more are major airliners abandoning/demanding their producers go electric.

Realistically Nuclear and hydrogen energy are the only correct answers for the future. Turbine blades should be made from Titanium or other lightweight recyclable materials otherwise they should be banned. Hydro electric is okay in some circumstances but it really alters the environment far more than is acceptable.

[RichardBartlett]

I’ve trimmed down your post a bit to keep focused on the facts here.

“Solar panels absorb 25% of heat so they actually take heat away*

That means they’re reflecting 75% of the heat back into the atmosphere.

It doesn't affect anything, it's either heat absorbed into the earth or reflected.

“They don’t cover the Sahara because that would alter global weather patterns”

You mean like global warming which you acknowledge in your first post is BS?

No weather and climate are two admittedly connected but different things. You are conflating the two. .

“Blades are now, or will be soon broken down before disposal”

I am not aware of any active recycling programs for carbon blades or any near term projects that will be feasible at scale.

Again as I said 'green' is a new energy development. Same as the oil industry wasted billions of barrels in the early days as it was thought an unending source. Blades were buried traditionally for expediency, cost and a lack of technical ability. But technology has changed and blades are being made from recyclable materials.

"Today, around 85-90% of wind turbines' total mass can be recycled and have established recycling practices in place. But the legacy blades are challenging to recycle due to the composite materials used in their production."


“As I say, lithium very well may not be used in the future.”


Then why go through the trial and error of destroying the environment and potentially poisoning our major freshwater deposits in the process instead of just finding a better alternative from the start?

It's excessive to suggest lithium mining 'is destroying the environment.' without mentioning every other mining process..
Sure there is short term damage but that can be cleaned up. with the right will to do. Most things rarely start at their end game, everything develops as technical develops. Or would you prefer we all drove Model T fords? Its a strawman argument.

Most experts agree that lithium isn’t a long term solution to energy storage. Everyone has been talking about how far battery tech has come over the last 20 years, but it’s pretty much the same thing as early hybrids 25-30years ago. When they have something solid state that’s ready, let’s see it; we’ll get there doesn’t really cut it. There are a lot of issues that need to be sorted for green energy to work.

your whole argument seems based on "lets get to the end game first" Life just doesn't happen like that. Plus to suggest battery tech hasn't progressed is quite incredulous. It has advanced incredibly.

My 2012 Lexus has a battery energy density of around 50w/kg. There are after market replacements at over 300 w/kg. at 50% of the weight. They were Li tech they are now already moved onto S0-ion tech. advancing even further.
https://sodiumhybrid.com/products/pr...e6K8TYJlnHu0yr



To finish your reasoning with the essence that “we’re going to have to cut some corners and destroy the environment in pursuit of better technology, that might have less detriment to society in the future” is the most insane logic I’ve ever come across and it’s ever present in just about every facet of society today.

Again we won't 'destroy the enviorment by going green'. That's an over reaction.

Pipelines would be a far better way to reduce our carbon footprint while scientists research safe, scalable technologies.

Pipelines sending down fossel fuel doesn't 'solve ' the problem. It may reduce shipping but setting light to oil based fuels isn't totally smart.

Elon has even said the value in Tesla isn’t its vehicles, but the data derived from them. Grid issues in Texas and California have shown that we’re not prepared for a country full of electric cars if we really want to go down the reasons why we’re stuck with gas for another 20+ years.

texas for example is committed in installing more solar than the whole of the rest of the USA. they know life is changing. No one solution solves all problems but to dismiss solar because it can't is extremely short sighted and fails to see the potential.

Sometimes it’s best to stick with the devil you know as opposed to the devil you don’t. I’m all for the pursuit of science, better technology and a cleaner earth. But the concessions necessary to make your argument fallible are just too much. There’s a reason why every major auto company has abandoned their “all electric by 2030-2035” pledges.

Every major auto maker is in dire trouble because they failed to comprehend how far Tesla have and will move the game forward. legacy automakers have had their heads in the sand for too long. Poor development, lack of forward planning. Just same-o-same-o stuff. Tesla (and the Chinese) revolusionised design and production of cars. Mega casting is just one tech that Tesla shocked the others with. Their ability to 'think outside the box' has left Legacy nearing banckrupcy.
The Germans are totally Fooked.Closing plants and laying off staff. GM & Ford will follow. Toyota Honda etc are again all fooked . The reason they are trying to stop Ev's is because they missed the boat are are trying to hold back the sea King Canute style..

All of these technologies are too inferior to scale at this point.

No it just isn't, it's just in it's infancy and the future is far beyond our comprehension.

When it comes to c02 emissions planes blow away cars by a long shot anyways. And lord knows the FAA isn’t certifying any electric planes anytime soon, more are major airliners abandoning/demanding their producers go electric.

"And it's not just the FAA that's moving slowly. The Velis Electro is apparently still the only electric aircraft with EASA certification. A lot has been going on in the world in the last 4 years and continues to occur. Yet still technology moves much faster than regulations and as both continue to advance there will likely be more electric aircraft being certified. Not as soon as many would like, but with time the industry will grow." Jan 2024.


Realistically Nuclear and hydrogen energy are the only correct answers for the future. Turbine blades should be made from Titanium or other lightweight recyclable materials otherwise they should be banned. Hydro electric is okay in some circumstances but it really alters the environment far more than is acceptable.

As I have said , solar isn't a one shop stop solution BUT it will play a massive role in power generation. IMHO: For example, all outside car parks should be forced by law to be covered with solar. A simple idea and easy to impliment
In America this would mean a massive uplift in solar without destroying the enviroment. Plus is puts power straight where it needs it, not in some field or offshore..

Blades made now are 95% recyclable. Hydrogen costs more energy that it produces (unless the tech finds a solution)

Apart from the Western world going to sh*t though missmanagement by politicians of both sides and all parties ,but energy wise we are getting there

I guess we all want to get to the same place but just differ on how to get there

[330ci]

"It doesn't affect anything, it's either heat absorbed into the earth or reflected. "

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. if it doesn't go into the earth, or into the solar panel, the energy gets trapped into the atmosphere as heat.


"No weather and climate are two admittedly connected but different things. You are conflating the two. ."

Global warming and climate change are synonymous topics. The atmosphere would get hotter from the panels(climate), which would in turn alter the weather... trying to claim they're not directly correlated is a straw mans argument. there's plenty of science to back up too many solar panels is not good no matter how you want to frame it semantically.



"Again as I said 'green' is a new energy development. Same as the oil industry wasted billions of barrels in the early days as it was thought an unending source. Blades were buried traditionally for expediency, cost and a lack of technical ability. But technology has changed and blades are being made from recyclable materials.

"Today, around 85-90% of wind turbines' total mass can be recycled and have established recycling practices in place. But the legacy blades are challenging to recycle due to the composite materials used in their production.""


Blades being made from recycled materials, having the ability to recycle them and recycling them are all COMPLETELY different things. The statistic you cite is about the total components of a turbine, NOT JUST BLADES! this is the copper and metals used to create them which is the primary mass of the structure. virtually nobody is recycling blades, because they're damn near impossible to break down.

FACT:less than 1% of all current decommissioned turbine blades are being recycled

FACT: There are only proof of concept recycling techniques, with no mass scale recycling put into effect.

FACT: despite being 85-90% recyclable, the blades are not unless by a start up trying to prove a way to recycle them.

FACT:If legacy blades weren't allowed to be produced to begin with because of their environmental impact, Scientists and engineers would have had to come up with a better solution before this problem was created.

FACT:There will be 2.2Million Tons of Turbine blades decomissioned by 2050 with no current ability to process them

your statistics cited, don't add up. they either are doing these things, or they aren't. You speak alot about the abilities of the future, but you don't adress any of the present shortcomings with the technologies you seek to promote.


"It's excessive to suggest lithium mining 'is destroying the environment.' without mentioning every other mining process..
Sure there is short term damage but that can be cleaned up. with the right will to do. Most things rarely start at their end game, everything develops as technical develops. Or would you prefer we all drove Model T fords? Its a strawman argument. "

When Henry Ford was Developing the first automobile, he had prototypes made with hemp fueled engines, there were electric car competitors, Stanley made the steamer, we had every different industry fighting for dominance of this amazing new technology. and it isn't some conspiracy why gasoline won out. it was the best to scale. they knew about electricity, how to build motors, wet and dry cell batteries etc. nobody is reinventing the wheel here.

and realistically if Tesla was built the way Ford was built, i'd have alot less negativity towards the situation. America wouldn't exist as it does today without Ford, if Elon didn't exist, my life would hardly have been impacted with the exception of paypal payments.
Ford paid people record wages, revolutionized production, and was crucial to building the American Steel and Oil industry.

and if you go to Greenfield village, which was Fords pet project, you will see the workshops of some of Americas greatest inventors. And they all perfected their inventions before putting them out for production. back then they made stuff so well, they had to at some point come to a conclusion to build in planned obsolescence as things were built too well. If Ford had the production capabilities we do today with the tolerance thresholds we can produce, he probably would've perfected the car from the start. it was really loose tolerances and inadequate lubrication that was the downfall of early autos. Given they were building GT 40's in the 60's with dial calipers and feeler gauges, I can only imagine what they would do with the laser precision technology we have today.

People are still collecting and using original Edison lightbulbs today, because despite not being as bright and using more power. Those thick wicks don't burn out

the craziest thing about life today is if they had the production capabilities we have today, they likely would've solved all of the efficiency issues we presently face. but since nobody knows how to think outside of a computer generated model today, we are limited by the algorithms we've created and are going to soon be surpassed by AI in that aspect.

which when it comes down to letting a bunch of idiot human scientists out think the past 125 years of innovation, I have little faith in their efforts and would rather cope with fossil fuels until AI gets to a point where it can solve the issues humans cannot.




"[I] your whole argument seems based on "lets get to the end game first" Life just doesn't happen like that. Plus to suggest battery tech hasn't progressed is quite incredulous. It has advanced incredibly. "

uhhh.... yeah, that is what makes the most sense. Why am I subsidizing the worlds richest mans passion project? F*** that. Tesla provides 0 value to me. It's almost failed half a dozen times for good reason, and without the e vehicle tax subsidy it would have.

Ford has borrowed government money once and paid it back. which technically wasn't a loan, it was for electric vehicle development that they failed to fulfill and had to pay it back as a result.




"Again we won't 'destroy the enviorment by going green'. That's an over reaction. "


That isn't an overreaction, not only are we destroying the environment, we're enslaving children to do so which you joked about in your first post.




"Pipelines sending down fossel fuel doesn't 'solve ' the problem. It may reduce shipping but setting light to oil based fuels isn't totally smart."

well. it isn't as moronic as developing mining production across the country for a technological material that is only a stepping stone on the way to truly renewable energy whilst the vast majority of the planet still operates on fossil fuels in the meantime.



"texas for example is committed in installing more solar than the whole of the rest of the USA. they know life is changing. No one solution solves all problems but to dismiss solar because it can't is extremely short sighted and fails to see the potential."

Texas has a grid issue, if they were so smart they wouldn't need solar panels in the first place. but they aren't and peak pricing during outages has bankrupted many in the state.


[I]Every major auto maker is in dire trouble because they failed to comprehend how far Tesla have and will move the game forward. legacy automakers have had their heads in the sand for too long. Poor development, lack of forward planning. Just same-o-same-o stuff. Tesla (and the Chinese) revolusionised design and production of cars. Mega casting is just one tech that Tesla shocked the others with. Their ability to 'think outside the box' has left Legacy nearing banckrupcy.
The Germans are totally Fooked.Closing plants and laying off staff. GM & Ford will follow. Toyota Honda etc are again all fooked . The reason they are trying to stop Ev's is because they missed the boat are are trying to hold back the sea King Canute style..






Me:All of these technologies are too inferior to scale at this point.

"No it just isn't, it's just in it's infancy and the future is far beyond our comprehension."


that means that they are too inferior to scale. the exact definition. d

The future is not beyond anyones comprehension. In fact, it's so full of problems I'm telling you them point blank what they are and your blanket response is we'll figure it out in the future.

The present is full of problems because people like you who want to blatantly ignore the growing pains of an inferior technology. The future Fooked as a result of it.






"And it's not just the FAA that's moving slowly. The Velis Electro is apparently still the only electric aircraft with EASA certification. A lot has been going on in the world in the last 4 years and continues to occur. Yet still technology moves much faster than regulations and as both continue to advance there will likely be more electric aircraft being certified. Not as soon as many would like, but with time the industry will grow." Jan 2024.

will be absolutely hilarious watching firefighters trying to put out the first plane that spontaneously combusts. hopefully doesn't happen mid-air



"As I have said , solar isn't a one shop stop solution BUT it will play a massive role in power generation. IMHO: For example, all outside car parks should be forced by law to be covered with solar. A simple idea and easy to impliment
In America this would mean a massive uplift in solar without destroying the enviroment. Plus is puts power straight where it needs it, not in some field or offshore..
"
and statistically speaking that would alter the weather/climate.

"Blades made now are 95% recyclable. Hydrogen costs more energy that it produces (unless the tech finds a solution) "

shit, blades recyclability has gone up 10% since the beginning of this post. Technology is amazing. (which you're citing false statistics anyways, the blades are more or less unrecyclable, the rest of the turbines are.)

Electricity has more energy waste than fuel at this point, so by your logic we should hold off on electricity until it becomes more efficient as well

[Krash]

There is a company called Kairos Power that is developing and building mini nuclear reactors. No massive power plant is required and there is no possibility of a China Syndrome like meltdown. It’s really amazing technology.

Both Google and Amazon will begin using these to power their data centers. I expect to see these mini nuclear reactors to proliferate over the next several decades. You’ll literally be able to buy your own reactor for your home or business.

This could completely transform how electricity is generated and distributed.

Many folks will immediately dismiss this, but that’s a big mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Krash

There is a company called Kairos Power that is developing and building mini nuclear reactors. No massive power plant is required and there is no possibility of a China Syndrome like meltdown. It’s really amazing technology.

Both Google and Amazon will begin using these to power their data centers. I expect to see these mini nuclear reactors to proliferate over the next several decades. You’ll literally be able to buy your own reactor for your home or business.

This could completely transform how electricity is generated and distributed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We even have a plan

https://smractionplan.ca/

[OG1982]

Originally Posted by brandrea

We even have a plan

https://smractionplan.ca/

Sounds like a great idea. I just worry about all the Bond villains buying up all the small reactors to make a very big one!

I guess the big oil companies will have a lot to say about this and will be lobbying hard against it, but I believe it should be those companies pioneering this new tech with their vast fortunes, and in turn protecting their future revenues.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by OG1982

Sounds like a great idea. I just worry about all the Bond villains buying up all the small reactors to make a very big one!

I guess the big oil companies will have a lot to say about this and will be lobbying hard against it, but I believe it should be those companies pioneering this new tech with their vast fortunes, and in turn protecting their future revenues.

Big oil is invested in all these new technologies. They aren't oil companies, after all, they are energy companies. They follow the technology that turns the best profits. Oil is easy money now, but they are investing in their future as well.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Maleg

Big oil is invested in all these new technologies. They aren't oil companies, after all, they are energy companies. They follow the technology that turns the best profits. Oil is easy money now, but they are investing in their future as well.

This is true. Some of the largest integrated in the oil patch have ownership in wind and solar farms.

That said, the energy transition will take time. Fossil fuels won’t be going away any time soon

[RichardBartlett]

Originally Posted by Krash

There is a company called Kairos Power that is developing and building mini nuclear reactors. No massive power plant is required and there is no possibility of a China Syndrome like meltdown. It’s really amazing technology.

Both Google and Amazon will begin using these to power their data centers. I expect to see these mini nuclear reactors to proliferate over the next several decades. You’ll literally be able to buy your own reactor for your home or business.

This could completely transform how electricity is generated and distributed.

Many folks will immediately dismiss this, but that’s a big mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I said, solar isn't he only solution but maybe mini nuclear powered cargo ships and these mega cruise ships is the way forward. We've had nuclear subs for decades without issue AFAIK

[enjoythemusic]

Mini nuke plants, AI is going to need them.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Mini nuke plants, AI is going to need them.

The mini nukes solve lots of problems for us. I’m not totally against wind and solar, but they’ll just never generate the amount of electricity necessary for a modern society.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Krash

The mini nukes solve lots of problems for us. I’m not totally against wind and solar, but they’ll just never generate the amount of electricity necessary for a modern society.

+1 to hydro as well, and yup a combo of ways to 'feed' the system should be employed.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

+1 to hydro as well, and yup a combo of ways to 'feed' the system should be employed.

Traditional hydro destroys watersheds and fish stocks. It's hard to permit new dam systems. Alternative hydro systems are like wind and solar, limited capacity. Nuclear package plants offer the most point of use capacity.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Maleg

Traditional hydro destroys watersheds and fish stocks. It's hard to permit new dam systems. Alternative hydro systems are like wind and solar, limited capacity. Nuclear package plants offer the most point of use capacity.

i honestly did not know that. Old dog me, new tricks.

Agreed, lets go nuke, just to be sure.

[1William]

Interesting discussion and information being presented. Some folks are so locked into their positions that any one who offers a differing opinion are attacked. Reminds me of the discussion surrounding the Covid Vaccine. The world is a big place and what ever is going on in one place will impact others. Until you get some of the big polluters to participate, China/India/Pakistan just to name a few, you are just making noise. Trying to bring it around to watches because this is a watch forum, want to know what is happening, follow the money.

[BraveBold]

A crypto ban (or, more likely, crippling regulation and tax) would go a long way to freeing up energy vs overbuilding poorly conceived energy projects. Kill the ponzi scheme and you unlock energy right there.

As for AI, another problematic area that is poorly understood by most of its advocates (and developers)… well, we need a cleanse there too. The monkeys pushing that show (Musk et al) show their limited cognitive capabilities time and again… yet the sheep abide.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

A crypto ban (or, more likely, crippling regulation and tax) would go a long way to freeing up energy vs overbuilding poorly conceived energy projects. Kill the ponzi scheme and you unlock energy right there.

As for AI, another problematic area that is poorly understood by most of its advocates (and developers)… well, we need a cleanse there too. The monkeys pushing that show (Musk et al) show their limited cognitive capabilities time and again… yet the sheep abide.

Lots of hyperbole and vitriol in that post. Hopefully this thread won’t get locked because it’s an interesting topic discuss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Giovannibravo]

Originally Posted by RichardBartlett

Interesting thread on shipping coal, oil , gas and solar

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...149673913.html

Never really thought of this, apparently 50% of all cargo shipping worldwide is coal, gas or oil.

Every shipment of solar panels removes the need to ship fuels. The more solar the less mega ships needed, it's a self fulfilling prophecy which can only be good for the environment (I don't buy the climate change BS btw)

Cleaning the enviroment is a huge topic which governments are reluctant to tackle as they'd rather fly around the world to wine, dine and pontificate on an unknown unprovable somewhere over the horizon.
I agree it's not the only solution but those opposing 'greening' of energy should sit back and think outside their own garage..

Those who say "ah but think of all those poor kids mining lithium" etc. Well every battery in every hand held device has been using lithium so why suddenly get all emotional about that now?
Plus the battery industry is moving away from lithium as different materials are being utilized and getting more and more efficient so less and less materials are needed.


The overall 'end of the game' effect is a huge positive and whilst transition is always painful I truly believe it's a better idea than the carry on regardless approach. IMHO

Richard, I respectfully disagree with your comment on the climate change BS. This is the reason for the lack of regard and movement towards sustainable energy methods, which are mostly proven. Nuclear for instance. Also, the idea of pumped hydro is a form of energy storage, which can be easily implemented in many parts of the USA and Canada.

All I ask for is for people to trust experts. There is so much misinformation out there. I’ve been in rooms with plenty of executives in the oil and gas sector. They completely understand that their future includes profiting off of climate change solution.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Giovannibravo

Richard, I respectfully disagree with your comment on the climate change BS. This is the reason for the lack of regard and movement towards sustainable energy methods, which are mostly proven. Nuclear for instance. Also, the idea of pumped hydro is a form of energy storage, which can be easily implemented in many parts of the USA and Canada.

All I ask for is for people to trust experts. There is so much misinformation out there. I’ve been in rooms with plenty of executives in the oil and gas sector. They completely understand that their future includes profiting off of climate change solution.

There is a lot of misinformation both ways. There is no way of escaping the climate history of Earth over the last 4.5 billion years.

The most recent ice age was between 120,000 and 11,500 years ago.

232 million years ago, it rained everyday and everywhere for 2 million years straight.

Those are just two examples.

Bottom line: Lots of significantly more extreme climate change has occurred throughout history relative to what we’ve seen over the last 150 years.

Without question, we could see a far more significant, naturally occurring climate change event than a 1 degree warming over a couple hundred years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by Giovannibravo

Richard, I respectfully disagree with your comment on the climate change BS. This is the reason for the lack of regard and movement towards sustainable energy methods, which are mostly proven. Nuclear for instance. Also, the idea of pumped hydro is a form of energy storage, which can be easily implemented in many parts of the USA and Canada.

All I ask for is for people to trust experts. There is so much misinformation out there. I’ve been in rooms with plenty of executives in the oil and gas sector. They completely understand that their future includes profiting off of climate change solution.

I agree we should trust experts. The experts at the US NOAA have shown that we are currently in an interglacial warming period, which began some 20,000 years ago near the end of the last glacial maximum. Since then, the planet has been steadily warming on its own.

The disagreement in the science is not whether the planet is warming. Clearly it is. There are no longer glaciers covering Chicago and New York City. The disagreement is how much of the current warming trend can be attributed to human activity. This factor is hotly debated amongst experts. It is not settled science, though click bait popular media would have you believe it is. So, when you say "let's listen to the experts", you should caveat that the experts haven't solidified the science on the human contribution to mother nature's existing warming cycle.

[Giovannibravo]

Yes, we are in an interglacial warming period. However, if you look at the rate of warming now due to anthropogenic emissions, you can see we are warming much faster. The overarching notion that the earth has always been warming is critically flawed. In previous periods, we didn’t have people living in coastal communities being hit by severe hurricanes and typhoons at such a frequency. We didn’t have people living in the desert at severely high temperatures compared to just 50 years ago. We didn’t have as frequent droughts.

If it helps, I worked on software development for Carbon Capture and Storage and the oil/gas sector. I’m not biased because I profit regardless of my views. If you actually listen to the researchers, the evidence is quite clear. The climate is changing exponentially faster due to anthropomorphic emissions. Experts aren’t saying we need to abandon fossil fuels immediately. They are critical in the shift towards renewables.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Giovannibravo

Yes, we are in an interglacial warming period. However, if you look at the rate of warming now due to anthropogenic emissions, you can see we are warming much faster. The overarching notion that the earth has always been warming is critically flawed. In previous periods, we didn’t have people living in coastal communities being hit by severe hurricanes and typhoons at such a frequency. We didn’t have people living in the desert at severely high temperatures compared to just 50 years ago. We didn’t have as frequent droughts.

If it helps, I worked on software development for Carbon Capture and Storage and the oil/gas sector. I’m not biased because I profit regardless of my views. If you actually listen to the researchers, the evidence is quite clear. The climate is changing exponentially faster due to anthropomorphic emissions. Experts aren’t saying we need to abandon fossil fuels immediately. They are critical in the shift towards renewables.

We really don’t know how many hurricanes and how strong the hurricanes were in Florida 5,000 years ago. The only thing we know for sure is that 20 million people didn’t live there.

Also, I don’t think anyone said the earth has always been warming. Quite the contrary, we know Earth has had many ice ages throughout history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Giovannibravo]

Krash, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this topic. Geophysical science is based on forming reasonable explanations using data and known physical phenomena. It is well-established in the scientific community that rising global temperatures increase the amount of energy in these systems, making them stronger and more frequent.

All I am saying is for people to trust experts. Not politicians that have zero understanding on scientific research.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by Giovannibravo

Yes, we are in an interglacial warming period. However, if you look at the rate of warming now due to anthropogenic emissions, you can see we are warming much faster. The overarching notion that the earth has always been warming is critically flawed. In previous periods, we didn’t have people living in coastal communities being hit by severe hurricanes and typhoons at such a frequency. We didn’t have people living in the desert at severely high temperatures compared to just 50 years ago. We didn’t have as frequent droughts.

If it helps, I worked on software development for Carbon Capture and Storage and the oil/gas sector. I’m not biased because I profit regardless of my views. If you actually listen to the researchers, the evidence is quite clear. The climate is changing exponentially faster due to anthropomorphic emissions. Experts aren’t saying we need to abandon fossil fuels immediately. They are critical in the shift towards renewables.

You make apples to walnuts comparisons in the data. The methods used to measure global temperatures, CO2, and other parameters from 20,000 to 1,000,000 year old geological samples are dramatically less sensitive than the instruments I have in my garage that can measure changes in atmospheric gases at the ppm level near real time. The equipment that the government funded scientists use is quite a bit better than my feeble gear, yet my measurements are far more precise than anything that can be deduced from ancient geological samples. My point is that the rate of change inferred from the ancient record cannot be directly compared to real time data, especially in the very brief measurement window used to set the current rate.

It may be true that anthropmorphic influence induced a higher rate of change. But it may also be true that we are in a bubble in the geological scale of things that is consistent with normal ebb and flow of planetary patterns. It's hard to be definitive when comparing a 30 year data set to a 1,000,000 year timeline.

Your argument about people not living in deserts and coastal communities is false. People have always lived everywhere they could eek out an existance, except in much smaller numbers. Sea levels rose 400 feet in the first 10,000 years after the last glacial maximum. Do you think no human was impacted by that?

The impact of climate change isn't that it will be harmful to the planet. The planet has done much worse to itself, yet here we are. The impact is that the weather patterns that we built our civilizations around will change. Preparing for the change in weather patterns is far more fruitful than endeavoring to fix a planetary climate pattern that has marched on for over a million years.