EPTThe LiquidLegends Lounge - Page 1373
| Forum Index > The Shopkeeper′s Inn |
|
Eppa!
Sweden4641 Posts
| ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
On July 28 2016 05:50 Requizen wrote: You're joking but I'm honestly probably gonna get a FOID card here before the year is out. This is just the next step in your journey to becoming more like Harry Dresden. My personal interpretation. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On July 28 2016 06:45 mordek wrote: This is just the next step in your journey to becoming more like Harry Dresden. My personal interpretation. I do have the duster for it. And a big ol revolver just feels right. | ||
|
iCanada
Canada10660 Posts
On July 28 2016 05:34 Slayer91 wrote: how is it not worth what fucking maintenance is there you build one it's metal and you wait 100 years and collect energy the migraines shit sounds like some bullshit some woman made up like oh i get migraines from people using wireless but maybe its science i dunno who the fuck lives next to wind turbines like how are you saying it doesn't ever pay for itself assuming they keep running you dont know that yet depends on wind too denmark and ireland are shit hot for wind we make well loads of power The maintenance on a wind turbine is unreal. You have a ridiculous number of moving parts and wearing electrical components. Look at all the parts in an electric motor; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor A wind turbine has all the same things, it is essentially the same thing. But you can't have parts will well controlled materials because of the state of materials engineering and the scale. So your components last less long because they don't have uniform chemical compositions and uniform microstructure from heat treatment. You probably need to shut it down and repaint em once every 2 years. You have safety components you need to tear out and replace. Think of the bearings made up of 120 steel cylnders with your height as their diameter! Due to scale everything has to be welded but can't be heat treated. Due to wind doing its own thing you see impact loads causing cracks that need to be examined for and replaced in advanced. I would rather maintain a nuclear plant than a wind farm. Forgetting about maintenence for a second, it is expensive to make. A single wind turbine costs about the same to manufacture as a coal gen plant but produces literally about 5% the power with nearly identical labour costs. It is a terrible investment. Finally; wind is unreliable. The power we use as a society has steady demand... wind does what it wants. Inevitably, sometimes you have wayyyy too much power, other times you have basically no power. In order to store this power you are either eating all of your operating profit, or you take it on the chin selling power for pennies on the dollar in January and buying it for dollars on the penny in February! It doesn't make sense fiscally. Solar is kind of the same way, but it requires significantly less maintenance. It still can't compete with coal / nat.gas / nuclear. Nuclear is the way to go. Less dangerous today than ever before. All the risks have been ironed out by boiler makers and improvements in control systems. | ||
|
killerdog
Denmark6522 Posts
On July 28 2016 06:25 Seuss wrote: The damage is done sure, but it's not the end of the world, humanity, or civilization, it's just the end of the climate being the one we grew up in, and the introduction of a host of new concerns for future generations and probably a lot more strife/war than we're accustomed to. It's going to suck for millions of people, but it's not going to end the world unless we go crazy with our nukes. Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere is currently impractical and we don't have an effective, efficient means of doing it, yet. But there are prizes being offered for such a solution explicitly because we can't solve everything by reducing emissions to zero now. The more climate change becomes a problem, the more effort will be spent looking in that direction, the sooner we'll find a solution. So I'm not worried about the end of the world. Yeah, shit's going to get real, but it's going to get real in predictable ways that may rewrite the map, not ways that mean game over. There are prizes being offered for working out how to teleport, or how to create localised artificial gravity, or how to cure cancer. That doesn't mean I'd wager the future on those prizes being claimed within the next few hundred years... I don't think you comprehend the scale of co2 released. :s And we're not talking millions, if things get to the point where we have weather conditions rendering areas inhabitable, like someone else said we're talking billions of refugess. And that's ignoring how quickly the human race is just increasing in number as well. This isn't something you can treat re-actively, the damage you do now will show it's effect in maybe 50 or 100 years. If we haven't massively cut down by then then we're just completely fucked lol. Nobodies saying the planet is going to die, that's just a shitty strawman used to drown out the actual concerns by climate "sceptics," but very few models don't have billions of people being displaced if things don't change. Maybe you're just one of the people hoping to yolo blaze it then die before the effects become noticeable, but for people who care about future generations having a billion people suddenly need food and land is kind of an issue. | ||
|
killerdog
Denmark6522 Posts
On July 28 2016 06:59 iCanada wrote: Finally; wind is unreliable. The power we use as a society has steady demand... wind does what it wants. Inevitably, sometimes you have wayyyy too much power, other times you have basically no power. In order to store this power you are either eating all of your operating profit, or you take it on the chin selling power for pennies on the dollar in January and buying it for dollars on the penny in February! It doesn't make sense fiscally. Solar is kind of the same way, but it requires significantly less maintenance. It still can't compete with coal / nat.gas / nuclear. Nuclear is the way to go. Less dangerous today than ever before. All the risks have been ironed out by boiler makers and improvements in control systems. Sure they take maintanence, but you're kinda blindly shitting on it... Wind is profitable if done properly. Claiming it won't work because "it creates energy when we don't need it so it goes to waste" as an end all argument is just ignorant. That's why european countries have energy trade networks, so if it's overly windy in denmark, the electricity gets sold on to germany or norway or sweden, and vice versa. It's not as cheap as coal at face value, but it's getting massively cheaper every year as technology improves, and coal has plenty of other shitty pollution externalities on top of just the global warming issues. Not to mention improvements in battery technology, helped in part by the new focus on electric cars, are another huge boon to less adaptable power sources like non-dam hydro, wind and solar. Nuclear isn't perfect either, or have you developed some foolproof technique for deactivating radioactive waste? | ||
|
phyvo
United States5635 Posts
Also, don't feel guilty about having kids, Wave. If no one or very few people had kids we'd just run into Japan's problem where we have a ton of elderly people without the economic power to take care of them. In any case, citizens in first world countries aren't having enough kids to replace themselves in general. The biggest gains to be had in the reducing-population-growth area are in developing countries where modernization and Q.O.L. increases can bring people out of the "I need a ton of kids to directly take care of me in my old age" state. Even stuff like TV helps by causing people to have less sex. Addendum: For the "energy when we don't need it" problem there's been some very encouraging, recent progress in terms of our storage capability. I forget the details on this story though. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
well not domed for all time screwed but there's not really a solution to fix it. | ||
|
Doctorbeat
Netherlands13241 Posts
On July 28 2016 07:35 killerdog wrote: Sure they take maintanence, but you're kinda blindly shitting on it... Wind is profitable if done properly. Claiming it won't work because "it creates energy when we don't need it so it goes to waste" as an end all argument is just ignorant. That's why european countries have energy trade networks, so if it's overly windy in denmark, the electricity gets sold on to germany or norway or sweden, and vice versa. It's not as cheap as coal at face value, but it's getting massively cheaper every year as technology improves, and coal has plenty of other shitty pollution externalities on top of just the global warming issues. Not to mention improvements in battery technology, helped in part by the new focus on electric cars, are another huge boon to less adaptable power sources like non-dam hydro, wind and solar. Nuclear isn't perfect either, or have you developed some foolproof technique for deactivating radioactive waste? Fusion is the holy grail, but until then we'll have to make do with fission/breeder reactors. There are few alternatives that can comply with our energy demands. If you want a nice curvy sinusoidal voltage at a constant 50 Hz you're gonna need to not have loads of unreliable energy coming into your network. You need a baseline from which to operate with. It's great that countries are adopting sustainable energy alternatives, but the only ones that can sort of provide constant power over time are geothermal/biomass/hydro. Solar and wind are nice but if you want your entire energy network to depend on them you better start investing in rare earth metals because we'll need it all to make enough batteries. And keep in mind that ~90% of energy demand is from industry/transportation/energy generation, not from commerce/residential demand. | ||
|
phyvo
United States5635 Posts
| ||
|
Holyflare
United Kingdom30775 Posts
On July 28 2016 07:37 phyvo wrote: Solar is making big waves right now because an increase in mining in China is bringing the costs way down. People within the industry are even talking about how the subsidies aren't necessary anymore and its popularity is causing legal spats in different parts of the U.S. between private owners who want to go off the grid and the companies that want to keep control. I'm pretty sure my parents had at least seventy billion company salespeople visit them in the past three years to try to work out a solar deal with them. I mean, the mineral materials for all the stuff we build are still non-replaceable, but if it can reduce emissions it's better than what we're doing now. Also, don't feel guilty about having kids, Wave. If no one or very few people had kids we'd just run into Japan's problem where we have a ton of elderly people without the economic power to take care of them. In any case, citizens in first world countries aren't having enough kids to replace themselves in general. The biggest gains to be had in the reducing-population-growth area are in developing countries where modernization and Q.O.L. increases can bring people out of the "I need a ton of kids to directly take care of me in my old age" state. Even stuff like TV helps by causing people to have less sex. Addendum: For the "energy when we don't need it" problem there's been some very encouraging, recent progress in terms of our storage capability. I forget the details on this story though. I have a TV and I have plenty of sex. Elon Musk will save us. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On July 28 2016 07:58 phyvo wrote: I think the problem with nuclear is that, aside from the waste and political problems it has, we don't actually have enough fission material to build all the reactors required to supply the world. nuclear only produces electricity isn't renewable and when you compare france to other countries in europe doesn't seem to reduce oil consumption that much. | ||
|
phyvo
United States5635 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On July 28 2016 08:12 phyvo wrote: They've actually measured the effect and it's been significant in places like India. So, anecdotes aside, it is a real thing. did not know that. the book I read only talked about France compared to other EU countries (or more specifically France oil consumption versus Germany.). guess it makes sense that it's better in developing countries. still not a long term solution or anything though. | ||
|
Eppa!
Sweden4641 Posts
On July 28 2016 06:59 iCanada wrote: The maintenance on a wind turbine is unreal. You have a ridiculous number of moving parts and wearing electrical components. Look at all the parts in an electric motor; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor A wind turbine has all the same things, it is essentially the same thing. But you can't have parts will well controlled materials because of the state of materials engineering and the scale. So your components last less long because they don't have uniform chemical compositions and uniform microstructure from heat treatment. You probably need to shut it down and repaint em once every 2 years. You have safety components you need to tear out and replace. Think of the bearings made up of 120 steel cylnders with your height as their diameter! Due to scale everything has to be welded but can't be heat treated. Due to wind doing its own thing you see impact loads causing cracks that need to be examined for and replaced in advanced. I would rather maintain a nuclear plant than a wind farm. Forgetting about maintenence for a second, it is expensive to make. A single wind turbine costs about the same to manufacture as a coal gen plant but produces literally about 5% the power with nearly identical labour costs. It is a terrible investment. Finally; wind is unreliable. The power we use as a society has steady demand... wind does what it wants. Inevitably, sometimes you have wayyyy too much power, other times you have basically no power. In order to store this power you are either eating all of your operating profit, or you take it on the chin selling power for pennies on the dollar in January and buying it for dollars on the penny in February! It doesn't make sense fiscally. Solar is kind of the same way, but it requires significantly less maintenance. It still can't compete with coal / nat.gas / nuclear. Nuclear is the way to go. Less dangerous today than ever before. All the risks have been ironed out by boiler makers and improvements in control systems. You do know that every single type of powerplant uses a turbine right? You know that every fucking powerplant needs maintenance? You know that in the US onshore wind is projected to be cheaper than coal by 2020? It's not reliable doesn't make sense either every country has a diverse amount of different sources of electricity so you think that will stop? | ||
|
iCanada
Canada10660 Posts
On July 28 2016 07:35 killerdog wrote: Sure they take maintanence, but you're kinda blindly shitting on it... Wind is profitable if done properly. Claiming it won't work because "it creates energy when we don't need it so it goes to waste" as an end all argument is just ignorant. That's why european countries have energy trade networks, so if it's overly windy in denmark, the electricity gets sold on to germany or norway or sweden, and vice versa. It's not as cheap as coal at face value, but it's getting massively cheaper every year as technology improves, and coal has plenty of other shitty pollution externalities on top of just the global warming issues. Not to mention improvements in battery technology, helped in part by the new focus on electric cars, are another huge boon to less adaptable power sources like non-dam hydro, wind and solar. Nuclear isn't perfect either, or have you developed some foolproof technique for deactivating radioactive waste? I don't think you quite understand the capital costs involved with Wind, and the huge hit to the chin you take buying and selling excess production. You buy at $1 value of energy for like a $1.40 from you neighbour who is boosting their non-renewable production to supply you! Then you sell the next month $1 of energy only gets you $0.70 when you sell it to your neighbour. Not everyone has a neighbour like Norway who is willing to throw huge heatsinks in the ocean and fuck over the ocean creatures instead. Not everyone has huuge disparities in land level like Scotland who abuses water and fluid mechanics to store energy, and most of the higher level land that would be useful for these purposes is protected wildlife preserves and national parks where stepping on a leaf carries a 300 dollar fine. Most of us end up losing 20% of the money we spend on energy to screwing around and trying to flatten the ginormous swings in production that wind causes! Considering that is the whole margin no one can sit down and make that choice. If you were a trillionare would you lose a dollar per MWH to make renewable energy? Why would you do that instead of making $6 per MWH? Let alone, how do you even stay in business at that point when everyone else making non-renewable energy undercuts you to the point that you are pushed out of the market? I was involved with at the Bidding, Design, and Fabrication of Wind Mills, Natural Gas Plants, and Cogen plants at the OEM level as a Mechanical Engineer for 4 years. The only reason energy companies are building Wind in Europe is because your government is paying hand over fist for it. 80% of the investment in Energy in Alberta for the last 10 years has been into Wind Energy The exact same companies in north america do not build wind mills. And the capacity of each is broken out here with accurate up to date numbers for capacity and yearly generation: http://www.energy.alberta.ca/electricity/682.asp Remember every dollar spend on 1 MW capacity for wind and for Nat gas / cogen ends up being about the same. Ignoring Hydro and other sources (which I think are largely better, but are ignored for other reasons... Re-only so many rivers, everyone is scared of Nuclear) about 10% of the dollars invested in energy generation in Alberta over the last 15 years has gone to wind power... Here is Alberta's current Supply and Demand survey for the power grid; http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/CSDReportServlet Oh wind is producing a whopping 0.5% of Alberta's total enegery grid right now! And now we have to buy energy from BC and SK at a cost. Well shit! Denmark has to pay a lot of money to keep all the old coal plants online for days with no wind. So now you have the same amount of power plants as before, but with a lower actual productivity despite the same required annual maintainence due to the PED ( https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/pressure-gas/pressure-equipment/directive_en ). Which equals higher cost. On top of that, you have to pay for the wind farms as well! Denmark always brag about wind farms share of production. Never share of electricity consumption. Reason is that you must export a significant amount of the electricity generated by wind farms at a loss to neighbor countries. Wind does not care if we need the power or not. Wind is wind. A quick googling shows in the last year you guys actually consumed approximately 14% of your generated wind power. Awesome! The rest you sold at a loss. Huh, no wonder Denmark spends $0.41US / kWh, and Canada only spends about $0.10. http://cleantechnica.com/2013/09/30/average-electricity-prices-around-world/ But you are right, Wind power is totally viable and I am talking out my ass dismissing something I know nothing about. On July 28 2016 09:47 Eppa! wrote: You do know that every single type of powerplant uses a turbine right? You know that every fucking powerplant needs maintenance? You know that in the US onshore wind is projected to be cheaper than coal by 2020? It's not reliable doesn't make sense either every country has a diverse amount of different sources of electricity so you think that will stop? Maintaining a turbine in a traditional plant is a lot easier than maintaining a turbine in a Wind mill. One is in a nicely designed area easy to access at ground level with readily available tools and another is some 300 ft in the air in the middle of no where. One you can schedule maintenance around production schedules, the other you have no idea how much you are going to produce ever. Honestly, I'd rather maintain a plant that a Wind Farm any day.... Logistically maintaining a wind farm is a complete and utter nightmare. | ||
|
GhandiEAGLE
United States20754 Posts
| ||
|
red_
United States8474 Posts
I think the real concern is more about finding alternatives to uranium/plutonium as they are not exactly the most common materials on the planet and running all of the world on nuclear power while we hope to even get proper fission, let alone sustainable fusion, is just not going to happen. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On July 28 2016 11:22 red_ wrote: I haven't gone hard on personally researching it but I've been reading a lot over the past few days (while Reddit is in an absolute frenzy over climate concerns) that radioactive waste from Nuclear plants is extremely exaggerated and things like chemo/radiation treatment contribute far more. I think the real concern is more about finding alternatives to uranium/plutonium as they are not exactly the most common materials on the planet and running all of the world on nuclear power while we hope to even get proper fission, let alone sustainable fusion, is just not going to happen. The thing that has always held nuclear power back is people that don't understand it and let themselves get scared shitless by the few absolute worst case scenarios. | ||
|
Sunaj
Canada2041 Posts
| ||
| ||
