Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PicardTangoAlpha t1_itzrwg0 wrote

Reply to comment by OKengineeringNerd in World facing 'first truly global energy crisis', report says by zsreport

Hard to say. So far no, capex has not responded. Would you risk investing if the potential reward was negative oil prices?

12

Rock-swarm t1_iu00weq wrote

On the other hand, it remains confusing why energy companies aren't taking greater advantage of the wind/solar subsidies currently available.

16

PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu03qdl wrote

Investment is investment. Could it be that the economics simply blow?

The trend in energy has always been towards more concentrated , intense energy sources. Nuclear, and fusion continue that trend. Wind and solar do not. They are dilute, weak, distributed.

−20

Danne660 t1_iu0ow6g wrote

No the economics for wind and solar is vastly superior to nuclear. The only thing nuclear has over them is it provides a stable base power.

7

PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu0pmw3 wrote

>wind and solar is vastly superior to nuclear.

Doubtful, and the hubristic language doesn't help. Solar panels decay, lose capacity every year. 3%? 5? In 20-25 years, they're useless and have to be replaced.

One wind turbine costs a million Euros and has hundreds of pounds of rare earth metals. Someone has to mine that. So far, the west has downloaded that environmental damage on to China, who has sacrificed their rivers to make sales to us.

Yes I know, downvote. Downvote your bitter little hearts because reality does not conform to your expectations.

−13

assail t1_iu13y8s wrote

Just got a quote for panels - 8% degradation over 25 year life span.

That means they'll be producing at 92% of their initial production.

Significantly less than you are implying.

10

NoPajamasNoService t1_iu2yn1w wrote

Yep. And they're great, unless you live somewhere like Minnesota where you don't get shit for sun half the year. We do have wind like crazy here in the great plains but not very many wind turbines. There's like 3 where I live that don't seem to work and that's literally it within a 100 mile radius. Minnesota is pretty progressive too so I wouldn't think it's an issue outside of wind turbines being vastly inferior.

0

Danne660 t1_iu0vfov wrote

If you are worried about you solar becoming useless after 25 years then just replace them every 10 years. It is still cheaper then nuclear even if you replace it that often.

And bitch more about downvotes just because reality don't conform to your will.

9

PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu0w2kd wrote

So.......correct or no? Is this your way of agreeing?

−12

TrainOfThought6 t1_iu1hfbm wrote

Not correct. As the other fellow said and you're conveniently ignoring, you're grossly overestimating the degradation. We're regularly designing utility scale solar with a 35 year life.

Energy storage is trickier, as degradation is much more pronounced, but there are so many levers you can pull to make money off a battery that it still works.

12

PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu1u3r3 wrote

I said 25 years, you said 35. That's not grossly overestimating the degradation.

And when they're useless, they're not recyclable. Glass doped with rare earth metals. How the hell do you recycle this?

−2

TrainOfThought6 t1_iu4m1by wrote

You said they degrade at 3-5% per year, when it's more like 8-10% over the full 25 years. Yes that's a huge difference.

You realize designing for a 25 year life does not mean we aim for the panels to hit zero output at the end, right?

2

Draker-X t1_iu2n40k wrote

Wind and solar don't create waste that will be injuring and killing living things on this planet long after humanity is gone from the Earth.

Also, we've seen the fun that nuclear power plants be when A. under the control of an incompetent, corrupt government or B. in a war zone (which I don:t believe there are going to be a shortage of on this planet anytime soon).

2

PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu37ajt wrote

China has sacrificed its environmental quality to satisfy Western demand for the rare earth metals, lithium and cobalt needed to drive tie so called green energy revolution. This us refereed to as “greenwishing” and is pure hypocrisy.

0

dontneedaknow t1_iu3ynbh wrote

Distributed, production is a good thing...

Why concentrate all production in a single place rather than not evenly distributed to offset issues with a power generation station having to go offline for whatever reason.

Nuclear, along with Solar, and tidal energy, are all valid, safe, and desperately needed forms of production.

Debating energy production is not a dick measuring contest. like for my sanity I'm pretending you are satire and I'm currently satirically explaining the joke to you..

Like... I cannot gauge anyone else's ability level in self awareness... But you exemplify a absolute lack of it in your rhetoric, if I can imagine what an example of it looks liek.

3

PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu4c5gh wrote

Why would I be satire. Why do I have to embrace solar like a religion? Your insults sound like a bot. Claiming I endanger your sanity is so emotionally over the top. Seek help.

0

dontneedaknow t1_iu4cmtc wrote

Dogg. You have no counter argument but to jump between claiming my reasoning of a multi-layered energy system is somehow religious in nature, to somehow that also involving mental health issues.

Which tells me you basically have the thought capability of a jellyfish...

3

PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu4dqsz wrote

Why does my non-support bother you so much it threatens your "sanity"?

"Distributed production is a good thing".....omg.....it's the opposite of efficiency. Why am I arguing with a twenty-something...

Europe has jumped with both feet into wind and solar, they've spent trillions. Yet they're in an energy crisis. I thought these technologies were better. You said they are. So Britain shouldn't be paying what they are paying for electricity.

Unless it's all a giant fucking scam and a lie. Which I think it is.

0

dontneedaknow t1_iu4g3aa wrote

It wasnt your non support its this weird aggrandizing your present your argument with.

You sound like a pompous king but thats obviously not the case. You're just some random dude woth a big ego and imagined self importance.

2

PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu4gngu wrote

You're right and I'm wrong. Europe isn't in an energy crisis at all, power is dirt cheap and the Pound is going gangbusters.

You are also a random dude with a lot of ignorance to work over.

I don't have to please you. At all.

1

dontneedaknow t1_iu4h21p wrote

Europe is in that situation because they hedged their bets on the globalized system continuing to work out as ot had for the previous 70 years...

Then Putin invaded Ukraine and the excuse for decoupling presented itself.

We are watching 70 years globalization be unwound in as controlled a manner as possible.

But sure...

Blame wind energy and blame peoples mental health for them thinking outside your little box.

1

PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu4hikh wrote

How do you know the root causes of Europe's energy woes? You're talking in generalities, "hedged their bets on the globalized system" hurr durr.

You obviously never read any news or newspaper websites.

1

dontneedaknow t1_iu4hsnq wrote

Because i fucking trade energy securities you dolt.

All you got is to ask me how do i know things.

If all you have os to question my ability to know things. Then that tells me you really do know nothing.

1

PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu4i35z wrote

I'm not going to get into what I do. It's none of your concern. You don't trade securities.

1

dontneedaknow t1_iu4inp3 wrote

Now you're telling me what i do. Haha..

You do have big ass head on those shoulders.

1

PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu4jawu wrote

Securities traders don’t speak about energy with such am amateurish tone.

1

dontneedaknow t1_iu4k6yu wrote

You don't know shit. We've already established that.

Not sure what your trying here.

Take care tho...

I hope you learn to not weigh your own personal value on energy production being reliant on single source type systems.

Like not only would that be stupid to have ONLY nuclear energy and nothing else.

It's not what were doing right now, and no rational civilization would ever "Just use nuclear energy alone." Or any other "Only use one single system of energy production."

This is why you are satire.

You're fuckong arguing marbles for shits n giggles lol.

1