Congratulations Earthlings! Carbon dioxide reaches record high over millions of years.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,650
26,749
136
So worried neighbors are extremist? Did you even read the article? These are just normal everyday residents who live near the site.

And the report about the solar plant is true how can facts be extremist?

Here in mayland Dan mountain in W MD is covered with wind turbines despite the article. And more are going up all over appalachia. You site a few examples and act as if its a major problem as if there is no alternative energy growth in the US while wind supases coal in jobs. Your last sentence is laughable as if there is a huge problem, there is not.

Glenn just has to be that guy about everything. How anyone can be so relentlessly negative is beyond me.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
And the best way to remove it from the air is more plants, but we keep cutting down the forests and putting in parking lots. We are screwed.
The earth has "greened" extensively with the increase in carbon dioxide. The working theory is that plants do not need to open their breathing pores as much to get CO2 and they don't lose as much water. It's probably the main reason we've been able to produce enough food to feed humanity as the population increases.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

https://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening/
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
At this point bringing the cost down on storage and adding more transmission is what's needed. Renewable power has hit cost parity (and then some) with fossil energy. Battery costs continue falling and utility scale storage is already eating at the gas peaking market.

I'm not sure why so many people are caught up on utility-scale energy storage at this point. The VAST majority of electricity is used during the day and there is nothing wrong, at this point, for meeting our daytime needs with solar and using far fewer nat gas generators at night. Storage technology will eventually catch up but there is no reason I can see to hold off on implementing solar where it makes sense to do so right now while we wait for energy storage to catch up.

I do agree that our aging grid needs some serious work.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
I’m also guessing that unlike here they don’t cater to the extreme environmentalists who actually stop these projects. Then NIMBY or BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) would hold up for decades any projects here on any contrived grounds they would come up with. In Saudi those folks would probably be imprisoned.

The NIMBY and environmental folk have been vocal on a few high profile cases, most of them only high profile because they were vocal, but by in large those are a very very small portion of solar projects. I can't speak to other forms of renewables although I'd wager that wind has seen very little of that as well when you look at the entire industry.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
The earth has "greened" extensively with the increase in carbon dioxide. The working theory is that plants do not need to open their breathing pores as much to get CO2 and they don't lose as much water. It's probably the main reason we've been able to produce enough food to feed humanity as the population increases.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

https://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening/

I skipped the first few minutes, like I always do in videos like that, and by minute 3 I learned that guy is a journalist. Why the fuck would I listen to a journalist over almost all of the worlds relevant scientists? Would you bring a 6 month old Mercedes to your local McDonalds if it was having engine problems, would you even bring a 10 year old Civic?
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
The earth has "greened" extensively with the increase in carbon dioxide. The working theory is that plants do not need to open their breathing pores as much to get CO2 and they don't lose as much water. It's probably the main reason we've been able to produce enough food to feed humanity as the population increases.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

https://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening/

The reason we’ve been able to feed the increasing population is due to the improvements in farming since the green revolution.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
I skipped the first few minutes, like I always do in videos like that, and by minute 3 I learned that guy is a journalist. Why the fuck would I listen to a journalist over almost all of the worlds relevant scientists? Would you bring a 6 month old Mercedes to your local McDonalds if it was having engine problems, would you even bring a 10 year old Civic?
Sometimes scientists write stuff.

Sometimes.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
I was thinging of something I heard on the radio years ago, an unbelievable argument being made that nuclear disarmorment would be bad for the economy because of the jobs that would be lost. This was for me a real wake up call as to how far gone the brain dead can be. I often forget to use some sort of tell, like quotes, when I’m channeling the voices of idiots perhaps because I’m rather indifferent to being thought of one regardless of what I say.
It goes to show you that not all at the top of the economic foodchain thinks and acts according to your formula. With SpaceXs missionstatement as is, to my mind its one of the most patriotic endeavours I can think of, and Bill Gates is pouring his fortune back into the world as well.

About your nuclear analogy, that is about the same crowd that will try to convince you that HFT is a good thing for the market cause it introduces volatility thus everybody wins. Money for nothing right?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,087
37,282
136
I'm not sure why so many people are caught up on utility-scale energy storage at this point. The VAST majority of electricity is used during the day and there is nothing wrong, at this point, for meeting our daytime needs with solar and using far fewer nat gas generators at night. Storage technology will eventually catch up but there is no reason I can see to hold off on implementing solar where it makes sense to do so right now while we wait for energy storage to catch up.

I do agree that our aging grid needs some serious work.

You run into the duck curve problem of over generating solar during the day with nowhere to use it, often other utilities have to be paid to take it. Storage solves the problem by absorbing that overage and negating the need to fire expensive peaking plants in the late afternoon/early evening as solar output falls and demand peaks. I broadly used "utility scale" here but the issue could also be addressed by more distributed technologies like home storage or vehicle to grid solutions. Either way cheaper and more energy dense batteries will cause the collapse of the fossil fuel industry which, IMO, can't come soon enough.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
I'm not sure why so many people are caught up on utility-scale energy storage at this point. The VAST majority of electricity is used during the day and there is nothing wrong, at this point, for meeting our daytime needs with solar and using far fewer nat gas generators at night. Storage technology will eventually catch up but there is no reason I can see to hold off on implementing solar where it makes sense to do so right now while we wait for energy storage to catch up.

I do agree that our aging grid needs some serious work.

The grid is an obsolete construct which was necessary because all power was centralized and a need for redundancy obvious. The newer technologies allow for greater resistance to catastrophic failure whether natural or by intent as with terrorism or attacks to other nations. Redundancy can be had by smaller clusters where no attack on it can bring down the generating capacity of a nation or large area for that matter. Solar isn't susceptible to EMP and just the controlling units would need to be shielded.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,087
37,282
136
The grid is an obsolete construct which was necessary because all power was centralized and a need for redundancy obvious. The newer technologies allow for greater resistance to catastrophic failure whether natural or by intent as with terrorism or attacks to other nations. Redundancy can be had by smaller clusters where no attack on it can bring down the generating capacity of a nation or large area for that matter. Solar isn't susceptible to EMP and just the controlling units would need to be shielded.

These things aren't mutually exclusive IMO. HVDC transmission can cost effectively move huge amounts of power over great distance so we don't have to build a lot or overcapacity or curtail generation as often. At the same time the ability of local grids and microgrids to island in a disaster (manmade or otherwise) can be built out as well as storage is deployed locally either at homes/commercial properties or at utility sites.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
These things aren't mutually exclusive IMO. HVDC transmission can cost effectively move huge amounts of power over great distance so we don't have to build a lot or overcapacity or curtail generation as often. At the same time the ability of local grids and microgrids to island in a disaster (manmade or otherwise) can be built out as well as storage is deployed locally either at homes/commercial properties or at utility sites.

That is true, but would the power generation paradigm of renewables require what you suggest? In one way I can see a mini-grid as making sense to connect more conventional, high energy density production for industries and other extreme energy-hungry applications. In the case of natural gas turbines or something similar, sure, connecting several locations together. Perhaps that's what you are referring to?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,087
37,282
136
That is true, but would the power generation paradigm of renewables require what you suggest? In one way I can see a mini-grid as making sense to connect more conventional, high energy density production for industries and other extreme energy-hungry applications. In the case of natural gas turbines or something similar, sure, connecting several locations together. Perhaps that's what you are referring to?

A mini or micro grid can be as small/large as you want with the right technology implementation. It's unlikely in many cases that local generation will be able to fully meet demand reliably (especially for large urban areas) so you're going to at least need the ability to import power. Say it's cloudy in CA for a week which depresses solar output, CA could buy extra wind power from the Great Plains or hydro power from Canada. Or a cold snap hits the NE and demand spikes they could import CA solar, central US wind, or Canadian hydro. It adds a lot of flexibility at less cost than trying to build in local overcapacity.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
A mini or micro grid can be as small/large as you want with the right technology implementation. It's unlikely in many cases that local generation will be able to fully meet demand reliably (especially for large urban areas) so you're going to at least need the ability to import power. Say it's cloudy in CA for a week which depresses solar output, CA could buy extra wind power from the Great Plains or hydro power from Canada. Or a cold snap hits the NE and demand spikes they could import CA solar, central US wind, or Canadian hydro. It adds a lot of flexibility at less cost than trying to build in local overcapacity.

I understand what you are saying. Current grids getting more complicated in response is IMO a disaster waiting to happen and completely wrong for large scale application of small scale generation. Might be a good idea to invest in energy as much as bombs right now. Humans don't plan well and are inflexible to adopt changes as prudent. We need to cut that crap out. I wonder where we would be right now if Carter was adopted a a model more than Ron R. Half a century of R&D would likely change the world. Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, none of them would be dictating future history by energy blackmail.

It was painfully obvious after the Oil Embargo. Nope.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,087
37,282
136
I understand what you are saying. Current grids getting more complicated in response is IMO a disaster waiting to happen and completely wrong for large scale application of small scale generation. Might be a good idea to invest in energy as much as bombs right now. Humans don't plan well and are inflexible to adopt changes as prudent. We need to cut that crap out. I wonder where we would be right now if Carter was adopted a a model more than Ron R. Half a century of R&D would likely change the world. Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, none of them would be dictating future history by energy blackmail.

It was painfully obvious after the Oil Embargo. Nope.

Decoupling the US from the oil markets using electrification has a lot of political and economic upside. Before anybody argues that we need it for industrial purposes (chemicals) yes but we have waaaaay more than enough domestically to meet those needs for the foreseeable future.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Decoupling the US from the oil markets using electrification has a lot of political and economic upside. Before anybody argues that we need it for industrial purposes (chemicals) yes but we have waaaaay more than enough domestically to meet those needs for the foreseeable future.

That's an argument for not using petroleum products for power. It's a source of needed raw material. Ideally an efficient high energy density product produced by biological means might replace natural gas be entirely carbon neutral. We'll see in another fifty years or so (grrrr).
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
The grid is an obsolete construct which was necessary because all power was centralized and a need for redundancy obvious. The newer technologies allow for greater resistance to catastrophic failure whether natural or by intent as with terrorism or attacks to other nations. Redundancy can be had by smaller clusters where no attack on it can bring down the generating capacity of a nation or large area for that matter. Solar isn't susceptible to EMP and just the controlling units would need to be shielded.

Beyond that the backbone of our grid was mostly designed in the 50's, we would still need to massively update it without those threats. I personally like a more interconnected grid with high voltage DC transmission lines but I can see the appeal and benefits of "islands" or clusters.

You run into the duck curve problem of over generating solar during the day with nowhere to use it, often other utilities have to be paid to take it. Storage solves the problem by absorbing that overage and negating the need to fire expensive peaking plants in the late afternoon/early evening as solar output falls and demand peaks. I broadly used "utility scale" here but the issue could also be addressed by more distributed technologies like home storage or vehicle to grid solutions. Either way cheaper and more energy dense batteries will cause the collapse of the fossil fuel industry which, IMO, can't come soon enough.

Which is where a modern grid would come in. Using high voltage DC lines to connect more of our nations grid together much more efficiently would solve a ton of those problems. We would easily be able to send excess power from one part of the country to another as needed. While there are some really cool things in battery tech in development it seems like we have been waiting for battery tech to improve for quite a while and I haven't seen anything that will be production ready on the horizon. OTOH we do have the technology to modernize the grid that would get us 80% of the way and we need to do it anyway so it's a win/win.

With that said, I couldn't agree more with your last sentence.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,087
37,282
136
While there are some really cool things in battery tech in development it seems like we have been waiting for battery tech to improve for quite a while and I haven't seen anything that will be production ready on the horizon.

Average lithium ion battery pack cost has gone from $1000 per kWh to less than $200 in under 10 years while energy density has risen dramatically. That is indeed tangible progress.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
Can you give an example where "extremist" have stopped "these" projects?

And I had to look up nimby, Banana I have no clue, why not just go with the explanation.
Off shore wind off cape cod is a perfect example of NIMBY.

There is currently a big project in Oklahoma that people are fighting due to ROW for the transmission line. People are claiming they will hurt their cows or the emi will give kids cancer.
 
Last edited:

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
Thank you.

What’s interesting about several of the greenhouse gasses is they have similar molecular structures.
  • CO2
  • H2O
  • N2O
Notice they are all a central atom with 2 atoms sticking out to each side. That geometry happens to let photons at visible light frequencies from the sun pass by but photons at infrared wavelengths are absorbed and re-radiated. The re-radiated photon can be released in any direction including back into the ground or other greenhouse gas molecule. Each time depositing some energy and warming them a little more until the photon gets a clear view of space or the wavelength changes enough to pass through the atmosphere.

Notice that the bulk of the atmosphere:
  • Nitrogen - N2
  • Oxygen - O2
Are made of two joined atoms and those happen to be transparent to both visible and infrared wavelengths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69 and Zorba