scroll_lock's recent activity
-
Comment on Hanford Viaduct - California High-Speed Rail construction progress in ~transport
-
Hanford Viaduct - California High-Speed Rail construction progress
8 votes -
US FDA to pull common but ineffective cold medicine, phenylephrine, from market
31 votes -
Comment on World’s largest 2 GW geothermal project approved in US, to power two million homes in ~enviro
scroll_lock Comment box Scope: summary, information, speculative analysis Tone: neutral, excited Opinion: yes, more so at the end Sarcasm/humor: none Geothermal energy has traditionally been considered...Comment box
- Scope: summary, information, speculative analysis
- Tone: neutral, excited
- Opinion: yes, more so at the end
- Sarcasm/humor: none
Geothermal energy has traditionally been considered unfeasible outside of seismically active regions like Iceland. However, modern geothermal techniques (which somewhat resemble fracking) could significantly enhance its feasibility in any location.
The Department announced that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has approved the Fervo Cape Geothermal Power Project in Beaver County, Utah. This project will use innovative technology to generate up to 2 gigawatts (GW) of baseload power, enough to supply over 2 million homes.
The Fervo Cape Geothermal Power Project generates energy by injecting water into hot subsurface rock formations.
It then extracts the heated water to produce electricity, rather than relying on naturally occurring underground hot water like traditional geothermal systems.
If fully developed, the project will cover approximately 631 acres, including 148 acres on public lands, and produce up to 2 gigawatts of clean energy.
The project involves developing approximately 23 well pads for drilling and completing observation, production, and injection wells.
It will also include constructing up to 20 geothermal power plants, associated access roads, and a power distribution network comprising sub-transmission lines.
For reference, the US currently has about 4 GW of geothermal power in total, so this would be a 50% increase if constructed. In total, the US has a electrical nameplate capacity of 1.19 TW, or about 1190 GW. So 2 GW isn't a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, but this technology looks promising and could conceivably take off beyond this particular project.
The climate crisis will not be solved by one "silver bullet." It will be solved by the confluence of many different solutions in different niches. This is one of them.
The US government believes that geothermal energy could account for a meaningful portion of the energy mix in the future. In addition to being much more green than burning fossil fuels, geothermal power isn't subject to price swings from oil producers or geopolitical battles over natural gas production. It can be produced at home all day, every day. There's an energy security component to geothermal that makes it attractive even to politicians who aren't keen on solar and wind. Additionally, because modern geothermal techniques work basically anywhere, there would be somewhat less need to expand grid infrastructure to support it. You could just build it relatively near population centers.
Geothermal doesn't have to make up an enormous portion of the energy mix in order to make a difference. It could help replace natural gas in order to provide power around the clock, in times of day/year that solar and wind have lower generating output. Along with an array of battery technologies, which are constantly innovating, and an increase in nuclear energy (which has recently gotten much attention in both the private and public sectors), it could feasibly ease the energy transition in a cost-effective way.
Let's invent some numbers. As of 2022, electricity nameplate capacity in the US for gas+coal was 771.4 GW. We have to replace all of this with electricity generation. (I am not talking about total energy, but thankfully the amount of total fossil fuel energy we have to replace is not as high as you think.)
- In a place like California, as of April 2024, solar can cover just about 100% of electricity needs from 11am to 4pm; renewables in general from about 8am to about 6pm. For most of the rest of the day, renewables can cover about 50% of demand.
- So if we can increase battery storage capacity (electrical, pumped hydro, sand, etc.) to about 25% of demand in the near future, that leaves about 25% needed from some other system. We're not so far off from this much battery storage, according to that chart in Scientific American—let's fudge it and say that mostly covers things until midnight, since the batteries would be in use after solar overproduction.
- I think a combination of greater wind production, greater geothermal production, novel technology like tidal production, and passive improvements to energy efficiency like slowly more effective home insulation techniques (what most power is being wasted on at night) could make up pretty much all of that difference. Geothermal would be a small part, but it's there. If we say wind manages 15% of that, geothermal 10%, and a combination of other novel stuff and energy efficiency improvements take the last 5%, we're pretty much covered. This is extremely optimistic and I'm sure climate scientists reading this are tearing their hair out, but I feel like there is opportunity for more-than-linear geothermal growth once a big plant like this is built.
- Obviously in the winter, more renewables would be needed. In practice I think this will work out to having more batteries. And in a less sunny place, more geothermal, wind, etc. would be needed to get to a fully renewable state. However, lots of less sunny places (like Pennsylvania) have a long history of fracking and would probably welcome the new technology.
It's not all-or-nothing though. Even if we can only consistently generate 75% of our electricity from renewable sources, that's a big step ahead of where we are now and would be a great absolute reduction in carbon emissions. We are totally on the way to a renewable future. I think batteries are going to be a much bigger part of this than geothermal, but it will all fit together.
-
World’s largest 2 GW geothermal project approved in US, to power two million homes
12 votes -
Making farming better for bees: can we breed crops that produce more nectar and pollen?
4 votes -
Comment on US voters greenlight over $25 billion in public transportation ballot measures in 2024 in ~transport
scroll_lock Comment box Scope: information, personal takeaway Tone: neutral, pleased Opinion: layered in there Sarcasm/humor: none Public transportation is extremely popular. In 2024 alone, voters approved...Comment box
- Scope: information, personal takeaway
- Tone: neutral, pleased
- Opinion: layered in there
- Sarcasm/humor: none
Public transportation is extremely popular.
In 2024 alone, voters approved dozens of ballot measures across many states to provide funding for public transportation services. Successful ballot measures occurred in all sorts of places, including states that voted for both presidential candidates. This year, 87% of public transportation-related ballot measures proposed were passed by voters; 70% passed this election cycle. We perceive our country to be extremely divided, and in some ways it is, but this is an obvious indication of support for something good.
Projects funded by ballot measure include:
- Columbus, OH: $6.2 billion for bus rapid transit lines, funded by a 0.5% sales tax increase
- Nashville, TN: $2.3 billion for an expanded bus system as well as more sidewalks and bike lanes, funded by a half-cent sales tax increase
- Denver, CO: $1.8 billion in revenue now permitted to be retained by transit agencies to improve and expand services
- Richland County, SC: $990 million to fund community and countywide transportation projects, including a large portion to the Central Midlands Regional Transit Authority, funded by a 1% sales tax
- San Francisco, CA: $750 million for Muni (Municipal Railway) to improve service and access, funded by a business tax on ride-hail companies
That's a diverse smattering of states you don't often see listed together. It goes to show how important it is to people that they live in places with adequate public transportation. You'll also notice that most of the places with public transit ballot measures are not gigantic cities. New York, LA, and Chicago aren't even on the list. Public transit is for everyone, and that includes small cities and counties.
This funding is in addition to billions of dollars allocated to states and local transit agencies by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) of 2021, which passed the Senate 69–30: a supermajority, and the House 228–206, a small but stable majority. (For reference, the partisan split in the Senate in the 117th Congress was 50–50: they managed 19 opposition votes! In the Senate, it was 220–213, so they managed 8 opposition votes.) I mention this to emphasize that it was truly a bipartisan piece of legislation, especially in the Senate. For this reason, I find it unlikely to be overturned even with a change of government; the Senate makeup is largely similar.
-
US voters greenlight over $25 billion in public transportation ballot measures in 2024
38 votes -
Comment on Subsea pumped storage tech secures funding from US, German governments in ~enviro
scroll_lock Comment box Scope: information, personal perspective Tone: neutral, intrigued Opinion: not really Sarcasm/humor: none Pumped hydro storage is a way to store potential energy using the Earth's...Comment box
- Scope: information, personal perspective
- Tone: neutral, intrigued
- Opinion: not really
- Sarcasm/humor: none
Pumped hydro storage is a way to store potential energy using the Earth's gravity and a couple bodies of water. When you have excess energy, pump water high up; when you need energy, use gravity to drop the water to a lower elevation and spin a turbine, like a typical hydro plant. This is a simple and fairly cheap alternative to electrical batteries.
Normally pumped hydro storage is accomplished in mountainous areas on land, but this novel approach does it underwater.
Deep sea pumped hydro storage is a novel approach towards the realization of an offshore pumped hydro energy storage system (PHES), which uses the pressure in deep water to store energy in hollow concrete spheres. The spheres are installed at the bottom of the sea in water depths of 600 m to 800 m.
An empty sphere corresponds to a fully charged storage unit. Opening the controllable valve enables water to flow through the technical unit into the sphere. The inflowing water drives a turbine and a generator that feeds electricity into the grid. This represents the discharging phase of the storage system. Recharging is achieved by pumping the water out of the sphere against the surrounding water pressure using energy from the grid.
The techno-economic assessment showed that the StEnSea system is cost competitive with conventional pumped hydro energy storage (PHES). While the exploitation of PHES often raises environmental issues due to land demand and its impact on the water regime, there are no major restrictions expected for the StEnSea technology. Another advantage is the modular set up that is achieved by combining several StEnSea units to a plant. This increases the flexibility of the plant and therefore the range of possible applications.
The news here is that the technology has gotten funding from governments. It seems like it is pretty feasible if it's actually cost-competitive with pumped hydro storage.
US-based Sperra has been awarded a $4 million grant by the from the US Department of Energy Water Power technologies Office to advance innovation in pumped storage hydropower technologies.
The US funding unlocks a parallel grant on the opposite side of the Atlantic from the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK) amounting to $3.7 million (EUR 3.4 million).
The collaborative work aims to develop a low-cost, long-duration, subsea energy storage technology that supports electrical grid decarbonization. The partners are aiming for the system off Long Beach near Los Angeles to be put into operation by the end of 2026 at the latest.
According to Sperra, the US is the largest market for marine-pumped hydroelectric storage with over 7.5 TW/75 TWh of net technical potential in the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico, which is more than two times the US closed-loop pumped storage hydropower technical potential onshore (3.5 TW and 3,500 TWh).
For reference, the US currently has something like 1.1 TW of nameplate electricity generating capacity. As we electrify further, that will increase, but we don't need as much as you think. We do not need that much battery storage, but we will need a lot. As long as this solution is cost-competitive, it seems like there is plenty of potential.
I legitimately had not considered using pumped storage entirely underwater. If it works, it works. Seems like an innovative solution with relatively minimal environmental impact. I would be curious to see if this can be deployed in 2026 as intended and whether it can scale up to support more grid energy storage as part of the switch to renewable energy.
-
Subsea pumped storage tech secures funding from US, German governments
10 votes -
Comment on California EV maker Aptera unveils solar car with 64 km of daily, charge-free range in ~transport
scroll_lock Comment box Scope: information, personal perspective Tone: neutral, curious Opinion: not really Sarcasm/humor: none In February, I shared some analysis about Aptera's solar-powered car. My...Comment box
- Scope: information, personal perspective
- Tone: neutral, curious
- Opinion: not really
- Sarcasm/humor: none
In February, I shared some analysis about Aptera's solar-powered car. My impression was skeptical but positive. This latest article includes a video demonstrating progress since then: successful test drives of a "production-intent vehicle," i.e. the car that will be tested for final production. If it tests well, I think they can start mass-producing it.
The idea behind this futuristic-looking car is to offer a fully electric two-seat vehicle meant for daily driving, covered in lightweight solar panels to provide a bit of extra range. The car supposedly has a 400-mile range, 40 miles of which is solar-powered. 93% of daily car trips are under 30 miles, so this would actually cover quite a lot of trips. The solar range by itself is similar to a PHEV's electric range, but the difference is that the entire car is electric. The solar could somewhat reduce the need to rely on charging stations and therefore cost. I guess it is a cool gadget too. The starting model looks to be around $30k.
The reason the solar panels can offer this much range is because the car is super lightweight. You'll notice its unique shape. I would consider it a bit of a novelty, but it is a real vehicle. Lots of people drive trikes in my city. I'm not sure exactly what kind of solar panels they're using, but recent advances in perovskite cells make it more feasible than ever to utilize ultra-light solar power.
I'm not a car person. I don't know that much about the way cars are certified for safety and so forth. I think this still has a considerable way to go in development. However, the car is driving. You can read more from Aptera's press release. The release date isn't clear to me, but investor presentations suggest as early as 2025. An interesting design to watch out for I suppose.
I'm interested to see if they can get this to work. If so, it paves the way for more efficient solar-powered cars as solar cell technology continues to improve in energy-efficiency and space/weight efficiency.
-
California EV maker Aptera unveils solar car with 64 km of daily, charge-free range
18 votes -
Comment on Pennsylvania should not determine the outcome of the election in ~talk
scroll_lock Comment box Scope: comment response Tone: appreciative Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Thank you. That is one of the kindest things I have ever been told. I will listen for more harmonies. I...Comment box
- Scope: comment response
- Tone: appreciative
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
Thank you. That is one of the kindest things I have ever been told.
I will listen for more harmonies. I believe they're there.
-
Comment on Pennsylvania should not determine the outcome of the election in ~talk
scroll_lock (edited )Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response, explanation/clarification Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none In parliamentary and semi-presidential republics, there are two executive leaders,...Comment box
- Scope: comment response, explanation/clarification
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
In parliamentary and semi-presidential republics, there are two executive leaders, usually a president and a prime minister, with varying levels of independent operation. In the US, the president is both the head of state and the head of government. I am not interested in particulars of nomenclature. However, I see value in a role distinction.
- The current job description of the US president is vast. There are few people who have sufficient subject matter expertise to make consistently informed decisions about every single issue. You have advisors for this reason, but that's imperfect. It's a mentally draining role, affecting the executive's ability to make reasonable decisions, and should be reduced.
- I find that voters also have wildly diverging perspectives on domestic and international policy and in many cases would prefer different candidates for each role. For example, managing international alliances is a different process than implementing a law about medicine.
- The current system in the US just places too much authority in one person. It is too monarchical to me. Seeing a certain person in office for four years demonstrated to me how much risk there is to this fragile system in its current state.
- The concept of an executive office is valuable in some capacity. I don't think every implementation decision should be made by the legislature or else nothing would get done. So I wouldn't necessarily want to replace the office of the president with a large committee.
- I think electing two executives in alternating cycles would encourage more voter turnout in what are currently called "midterms," or at least reduce the difference between turnout in on-years and off-years. I find broader representation to be a good thing for government.
I have also mused that a slightly stronger head of state and a slightly weaker head of government would be a better arrangement than what I am aware of in most governments currently. For example in the UK, the head of state is the king, which is a ceremonial position and in my opinion mostly unnecessary. My idea was that legislation pertinent to domestic affairs would go to the head of government, and legislation pertinent to international affairs would go to the head of state; the head of state would also remain the commander of armed forces. They would operate independently, so you wouldn't need two signatures to sign a bill. Bills would just be on different "tracks." I believe France has something similar to this (at least in terms of the domestic/international split), but I am not proposing that exact system.
Some system would have to be devised to control the manner in which legislation is sorted, but that is a procedural matter. In the best case, there is a stronger separation of powers and less capacity for a foolish executive to completely destroy the government. In the worst case, a given piece of legislation mistakenly goes to the wrong executive, but if they are elected in the same way as each other this isn't really a problem. Some of the executive's checks on the legislature and judiciary (like appointing judges) could be split across the two executives, but I don't know exactly how.
The Romans had two consuls on purpose. I simply don't think it's prudent to vest this much executive authority in one person.
-
Pennsylvania should not determine the outcome of the election
Comment box Scope: venting Tone: sad, irritated, upset Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none I currently reside in Pennsylvania. The election season has been vitriolic, hateful and stressful. Even in...
Comment box
- Scope: venting
- Tone: sad, irritated, upset
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
I currently reside in Pennsylvania. The election season has been vitriolic, hateful and stressful. Even in church they are angry. They are going to fizzle out they are so mad. Even the ones who are kind are interminably irritable. I may sometimes be a partisan, utilitarian to the core, but I do not talk about politics in God's house. I will speak on justice and righteousness, but not in such terms as are popular. I would rather take that one moment in the week to see my neighbors for who they are and not the tribe they belong to. Somehow that is gone. Service on Sunday was not pleasant. You could feel the tension even as people sat listening. Even the children could feel it.
There is an election sign, or several, on every block. Every building zoned for electric screens has rotating ads (for both candidates) on it. It's all that is spoken about. One cannot escape it. It swallows you whole, spits you out again having transformed you for the worse. Have you voted? Did you hear what he said? Oh, keep quiet, that couple at the next table looks like they voted for the wrong one. Did you hear the vice president is coming to town? Horrible traffic, oh just so terrible. All the out-of-towners, coming in, you know who they support. Despicable. Do you have an election day plan? I voted early this year. That's nice. There was a sign in the next yard over. I just wanted to run it over with my car. Don't look at that man, sweetie, he is wearing boots only the wrong people would wear. The neighborhood watch got a report today. Vandalism, keys. Looking to do some election volunteering. Ballots are on fire. Did you hear? Have to go into that neighborhood, and make sure they don't vote for the wrong person. It would be so bad for them. Oh, they don't understand. Honey, bring your pepper spray, you're not safe there. You'll be shot, knifed. It's the crime, you know who they voted for. Do you know where your polling place is? I voted by mail this year. Did you hear what she said? Well, she didn't say it, but he said she said it. Let's get out of here, sweetheart, you know they voted for the wrong one, just look at the cars they drive, they don't care. Real Americans vote for the right one. All these people voting for the wrong one, so poor, so uneducated. I hate the rich. Let's get out of this bar. Go home. Back where it's safe. We can watch partisan election predictions and not be disturbed.
Nothing else has made me want to leave this state more than its unyielding power in the election. It is not democratic for six or seven states to effectively determine the winner of an election. And it is not a good experience as a resident to be given that much attention. It turns you against each other. It turns your civic and neighborly lifestyle into a caricature. It is worse that it is so all-or-nothing. The stakes are so high. Our 19 electoral votes are worth more than gold, because they only come in a package.
The Lord says
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
It is bad for many reasons. But it is only this bad because of the way our electoral system is set up pits us against each other. It does not have to be this way.
Here are my suggestions. If you are a Senator, please tell your colleagues that scroll_lock has issued a decree and make it happen. Perfection is the domain of nerds, I am simply concerned about minimizing the dominance of the two-party system and improving basic human decency.
- State Constitutional amendments mandating some variety of ranked-choice voting. I'm sure there is some mathematically optimal method. I don't care a whole lot which, as long as it is not first-past-the-post. I am less interested in the most "virtuous" system and rather the most useful one in effectively increasing the number of political parties present in an elected body.
- Federal Constitutional amendment forbidding the first-past-the-post method in elections for any federal or state office. (The states can decide how to implement the alternative. I'm not convinced there is any single best option.)
- Adoption of the National Interstate Popular Vote Compact.
- When it is inevitably ruled unconstitutional: a national Constitutional amendment requiring the allocation of electoral votes in a given state proportionally to the votes of the electorate, rather than a "winner-take-all" system.
- OR, maybe this is better done at the state level. Not important to me. The legal nerds can battle out the specifics.
- Federal Constitutional amendment not only forbidding faithless electors but invalidating the votes of any faithless elector. In other words, that "real" vote for the president in December should become a formality only.
- May as well get rid of this silly meeting while we're at it.
- Federal Constitutional amendment separating the office of president into two equal offices within the executive branch, to be elected in a staggered configuration following the same system of presidential terms we currently have, just offset:
- President 1: head of state
- President 2: head of government
- Federal Constitutional amendment forbidding so-called "independent expenditure-only committees" from collecting annually more than an amount to be designated by Congress for political purposes, from any particular entity.
- Federal law forbidding the spending of campaign funds on public political advertising more than 3 months ahead of the election.
- Federal law forbidding the spending of PAC or equivalent funds on political advertising in support of a particular candidate more than 1 month ahead of the election.
And there we go. Not going to solve every problem, but that is the worst part done with.
Godforsaken land. I am buying extra food tomorrow. Let's hope it is over and done with by the end of the week.
53 votes -
Comment on Amtrak Wolverine (MI), Southwest Chief (AZ) services to see design advancements, right-of-way acquisition with $126 million in grants in ~transport
scroll_lock (edited )Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response, information, personal perspective Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none In my opinion the best thing Amtrak could do outside the Northeast Corridor is...Comment box
- Scope: comment response, information, personal perspective
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
I hope this will eventually lead to better service outside the East Coast too.
In my opinion the best thing Amtrak could do outside the Northeast Corridor is a high-speed rail connection between Chicago and anywhere on the NEC. Heavy reinvestment into the Midwestern rail network would have an enormous positive impact on the region. Its adjacency to the East Coast would boost its stability, but the Midwest is a sizable market by itself and could totally support more service. The infrastructure just has to get there. A truly amazing network would cost a couple hundred billion dollars, which is a lot, but not dramatically more than we spend on highways on a recurring basis.
Amtrak actually owns the rail line between Philadelphia and Harrisburg. If they could acquire a right-of-way to Pittsburgh, and blast through the mountains to build a 220 mph (or even 150 mph) track, it's a straight shot to Chicago by way of Cleveland. Detroit isn't far off, nor is Columbus, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis. Weirdly, the fastest way to get between Philadelphia and Chicago right now goes to DC and then up to Pittsburgh. Indirect.
The recent 110 mph Springfield to St Louis upgrades are a big deal. I hope to see further upgrades to those tracks. The Chicago Hub Improvement Program is similarly important because it revitalizes the central hub of the Midwestern rail network, Chicago. Much of the design and construction work is happening next year.
Out west, I think Brightline West (supposedly to be completed before the 2028 LA Olympics) will do a lot to spur interest in more rail construction. California High-Speed Rail's Initial Operating Segment will be just around the corner at that point (early 2030s). The SF to LA connection is the most important one, but requires the most funding.
What routes would you want to see better/more service along?
-
Comment on The EU got 52% of its electricity from renewables in second quarter of 2024 in ~enviro
scroll_lock Comment box Scope: summary, information Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none Thanks for the correction. I'm aware of the distinction but miswrote it at the beginning of that paragraph....- Exemplary
Comment box
- Scope: summary, information
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: none
- Sarcasm/humor: none
Thanks for the correction. I'm aware of the distinction but miswrote it at the beginning of that paragraph. This story does indeed refer to electricity generation and not total power consumption.
The story is notable merely in that it refers to electricity generation. The data indicates that burning coal and natural gas to generate electricity is going away (the former faster than the latter, but both are happening), being replaced by renewables. No reason not to be optimistic about that.
With respect to total power consumption, it doesn't change my outlook. There is not actually a great way to directly compare total electricity generation/usage and total power usage. When you read fact sheets like this one from the Energy Institute showing the entire primary energy consumption mix in a single chart, it looks pretty depressing. But it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. I have seen some people refer to this as the primary energy fallacy.
The primary energy fallacy is the assumption that all primary energy from burning coal, oil and gas needs to be replaced by renewables. It doesn’t. What needs to be replaced is the energy that provides us with the energy services.
Climate Club: We need to talk about the Primary Energy Fallacy is the only researched video I have found that attempts to explain the issue, which is one of measurement and data presentation. In brief, fossil fuels are so inefficient at doing most of the things we want them to do that they necessarily dwarf renewable electricity generation in absolute terms. The two ways of understanding energy as envisioned in this video are:
- Primary energy (total energy before transformation), which contains a vast amount of "energy" which technically exists but is not actually used because the process of transformation wastes (rejects) it.
- Useful energy (total energy after transformation), which refers to the amount of energy that can be utilized by "energy services" and the machines that we actually need power for.
It's typical to present the total energy mix in terms of primary energy ("direct conversion method"). It is therefore natural to consider that we must translate 100% of that energy into renewable form. But renewables don't have the same waste/rejection problem during transformation that fossil fuels have, so as far as such charts are concerned, the amount of energy we need to replace is just the amount of useful energy we will actually use. This is about 1/3 of total primary energy. Other conversion methods ("substitution method") attempt, but fail, to accurately compare total primary energy use by applying a diminishing factor to fossil fuel, accounting for waste heat; this is insufficient because it neglects other inefficiencies and can ironically lead to other fallacies. Other methods likewise tend to overrepresent certain energy types.
Limitations in power capacity for particular sources are real. This is the main reason we are not completely on renewables: the sun doesn't shine at night, etc you know the drill. This doesn't actually change the fact that we just have to replace useful energy from fossil fuels with useful energy from renewables. But it does materially change the execution of that process. This is more of a problem with transmission and storage than our understanding of actual generation.
The exaggerated image people have in their heads about how much "energy" must be generated to run the world is mostly a function of being exposed to charts tuned to fossil fuels rather than renewables.
-
Comment on The EU got 52% of its electricity from renewables in second quarter of 2024 in ~enviro
scroll_lock (edited )LinkComment box Scope: summary, personal response Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none I object to the pessimism of the modern psyche with respect to climate. Here is another story within a...Comment box
- Scope: summary, personal response
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
I object to the pessimism of the modern psyche with respect to climate. Here is another story within a positive narrative, which is that many parts of the world are consistently and substantially increasing the proportion of electricity they generate via renewable sources rather than fossil fuels.
In the EU, 52% of
powerelectricity was generated from renewable sources in Q2 2024. This is up from 46% at the same time last year. If you include nuclear, the renewable portion was 76% of electricity generation (fossil fuels only made up 24%).That's a big deal. The EU still has to increase renewable and grid capacity/storage significantly to support the transition, but so far it's in an extraordinarily good position.
Offshore wind output surged 37% year on year, hydropower generation grew 21%, solar was up 20%, and onshore wind 6%. On the other hand, coal-fired generation fell 7% and gas output dropped 24%
Europe’s rapid energy transition is partly thanks to the effectiveness of its carbon market system, which places a price on pollution. Carbon prices averaged €69 per tonne of emissions in the second quarter, a 21% decline from a year before, per the European Commission.
We are very close to a coal-free Europe and not so far off from a gas-free Europe either. European coal consumption has decreased from 12.31 exajoules in 1998 to 5.48 in 2023, a 55% decrease even as the population has risen, energy demand has surged, and and economic productivity has increased.
European natural gas consumption rose in the 2000s but has since been dropping. You can expect that decline to hasten as renewable technology becomes increasingly cost-competitive.
-
The EU got 52% of its electricity from renewables in second quarter of 2024
31 votes -
Comment on Gridlock: why it can take eleven years to connect solar farms to the UK network in ~enviro
scroll_lock Comment box Scope: summary, information Tone: neutral Opinion: at the end Sarcasm/humor: none The United Kingdom seeks to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in order to reduce the negative...Comment box
- Scope: summary, information
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: at the end
- Sarcasm/humor: none
The United Kingdom seeks to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in order to reduce the negative impacts of climate change.
It cannot do this without building more renewable energy. However, bureaucratic government procedures are delaying viable renewable projects by more than a decade. Reform for the system is desperately needed if the UK is to decarbonize on schedule.
Stellantis is one of many manufacturers to have been told that it faces a lengthy delay to connect its onsite renewable energy to the local power grid, with a connection not likely until 2035.
The delay risks raising the cost of meeting its target to halve its carbon emissions by 2030 and to be net zero globally by 2038.
This grid queue – which keeps growing – has raised fears over the government’s goal to double onshore wind, triple solar power and quadruple offshore wind by 2030.
Today, the queue has passed 700 gigawatts of new power projects – 10 times Britain’s current power capacity – and with more projects joining, the wait is heading towards 800GW, Slye said. Many of these are understood to be speculative, un-financed plans, or so-called zombie projects, which stand in the way of viable investments. In some cases, the developers do not even own the land on which they hope to build their renewable power projects. “Today it is first come, first served and that effectively is the problem,” Slye said.
The delays are forcing some companies to reassess their clean energy targets, he added. “They’re realising that their targets are unachievable, and some are starting to withdraw from planned schemes.”
To me, the solution is pretty simple: allow fully funded projects to "jump the queue" at least some of the time. The government needs to develop frameworks to evaluate that fairly, but in general, a utilitarian solution to the existential crisis of climate change is more important than the "unfairness" of some projects figuratively jumping ahead in line. It is essential to decarbonize sooner rather than later.
Comment box
California High-Speed Rail is a large transportation project in the US state of California. It ultimately seeks to link the populous metropolitan areas of San Francisco and Los Angeles in its first phase of construction. Pretty much the entire route has been environmentally approved (by far the most arduous bureaucratic hurdle for linear transportation projects), so all that remains is funding and construction. You can see a map of the route here.
Currently, the CAHSR Authority is overseeing the construction of the "Initial Operating Segment" (IOS), between the Central Valley cities of Merced in the north and Bakersfield in the south with stops in Madera, Fresno, and Tulare/Kings Counties. The high-speed track does not yet connect with the SF and LA rail networks, although it will in the future, as long as it receives funding. The IOS is scheduled for completion in ~2027, with trainsets arriving the following year. After testing, which could take another year or two, passenger service will begin around 2030. (It's almost 2025: not so far off!)
This video shows the Hanford Viaduct in the Central Valley, a grade separation project to ensure that there are no conflicts between CAHSR, freight rail, and highway traffic. These enormous structures are essential to the operation of high-speed trains for logistical, safety, and legal reasons. There are hundreds of them along the route, and their construction is one reason why megaprojects like this take a long time. It's like building a hundred horizontal skyscrapers while contending with active traffic around your whole site. In many cases, they also have to relocate canals and utilities before constructing the guideway.
CAHSR is often the target of derision in an endlessly negative media landscape, but seeing actual construction helps demonstrate the real-world progress being made here. And contrary to media narrative, the project is not a "railroad to nowhere"; the fast-growing Central Valley cities mentioned are home to over 1.1 million people. They are an important part of the route from SF to LA and will support its ridership.
For CAHSR to succeed beyond the Central Valley, it requires significant funding from the state of California and, in an ideal world, the federal government. The latter may be unlikely for the next four years, but that's probably okay because they're still finishing up the IOS. The next step after the IOS is most likely going to be the "Valley to Valley" line, an extension from Madera/Merced to San Jose and San Francisco. This is because the Caltrain line in the Bay Area has already been electrified with funding from CAHSR. After that, the Authority will have to connect the track in Bakersfield to the city of Palmdale and beyond to Los Angeles. Future phases of CAHSR are intended to reach Sacramento and San Diego, but there isn't a timeline for any of that.
In theory, all of this could happen concurrently. It pretty much just needs funding. Since basically all of Phase 1 is environmentally cleared, there are no particular barriers to construction otherwise.