Miscellaneous News

[Abominable]

Electrity is a carrier of energy not a source of energy.

By weight, oil burned optimally contain more energy than TNT explosives, no battery can ever match that.

Oil is both a source of energy and a storage thereof...therefore, "infinite solar" is useless without the storage requirement, batteries are heavy, and they dont get lighter as the fuel is used up, this is why you wont ever see Boeing 747s as EV, or even 18 wheeler semis for that matter, and you can forget about tanks, rockets, fighter jets, tankers, and so on and so forth. Oil doesnt have a storage or conversion issue to solve.

Oil has a positive net return of energy from day 1. You can immediately use it to generate net energy. Solar and wind takes years to have a positive energy return. This is important to note because energy trumps finance, money is useless without energy. You cannot borrow on credit from mother nature to build out the energy infrastructure that you magically assume to already exists when scaling out in mass. This is known as the Energy Trap, read it and understand the implications. Look no further than Europe and its current reaction to energy crunch to see real life example that politics and human nature will not be able to bootstrap to climb out of the Energy Trap hole to make the energy infrastructure transition... No one in society will want to make that sacrifice, thats why we find outselves at crossroads today.

And Renewables are really just replaceables...Just like the recycling hoax, renewables are not sustainable either... there arent enough raw materials, rare earths, to scale out the outlays needed to power global civilization at its current size, scale, and energy requirements much less to allow for the perpetual growth need to maintain current living standards.

Both Texas and California have told its citizens to refrain from charging EVs as its too taxing on existing infrastructure...

Diminishing EROEI means all the bubbles will start popping in an inverse cascading scale invariant fashion... this is a thermodynamic certainty.

In your arguments about EROEI where is nuclear power and geothermal?

Batteries aren't the only option to store energy. Energy can be stored in pumped water reservoirs, there's even the option of using renewable energy to create hydrocarbons.

It's not all doom and gloom as you keep pointing out.

 

[coolgod]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Step by step

 

[supercat]

Fuck the USA and Japan. I have noticed for 2-3 years now that every time their trade representatives meet and it looks like 80% of their time goes towards discussing how to destroy the Chinese economic model (''so called unfair non-market policies and practices'') to convert it more to their neo-liberal (Washington Concensus) vision. Allah Akbar neoliberalism and liberal democrazi. Bow to the global altar of the unipolar and universal post-1980 economic and political model of the global hegemon.

If this represents the ideology of neoliberalism in any shape or way, then China has nothing to fear:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1564743780338728960

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Note that Hydro and Nuclear have a typical 5-year construction period, so they don't really have an immediate energy payoff.
But the other advantages are very true.

In comparison, a solar farm can be put into operation within a year. Then it takes about 10 months for the energy payoff.

The amount of electricity generated after completion pays for the entire cost of construction within 3 months.

I'm not a SME on this, so I'll let the SMEs do the talking:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Energy payback time for nuclear is 3 months, and hydro has comparable EROEI (and thus payback time). Both are among the highest EROEI of any tech, even coal is worse. Solar is rock bottom EROEI and takes a substantial fraction of lifetime to pay back. The reason solar is popular is because individuals can own it, not because it is actually better than centralized power plants. Wind is interesting in that it can get EROEI as high as hydro and nuclear but isn't stable.

 

[AndrewS]

The amount of electricity generated after completion pays for the entire cost of construction within 3 months.

I'm not a SME on this, so I'll let the SMEs do the talking:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Energy payback time for nuclear is 3 months, and hydro has comparable EROEI (and thus payback time). Both are among the highest EROEI of any tech, even coal is worse. Solar is rock bottom EROEI and takes a substantial fraction of lifetime to pay back. The reason solar is popular is because individuals can own it, not because it is actually better than centralized power plants. Wind is interesting in that it can get EROEI as high as hydro and nuclear but isn't stable.

The report you posted is worthless. Look at the years they reference.

The oldest reference is 1975.
The newest reference with regard to solar is 2014.

Bloomberg BNEF estimate the cost of solar electricity in 2014 was 3x higher than today.
Now, that is the cost, not the EROEI. But you can reasonably expect the EROEI of solar to have increased by 3x from 2014->2022

Dud data = dud analysis

Source: Bloomberg
archive.ph/i7mKl

 

[AndrewS]

I concur, and of these two only nuclear is scalable. There are limited locations condusive to hydro with most of the low hanging fruit already tapped...

Andrew's fallacy is relying on and assuming the current predominantly high EROEI fossil fuel powered infrastructure will always be there to assists in the transforming away from fossil fuels even as he is doing the energy calculations under current status quo. Once wind and solar start hitting anywhere close to a sizeable fraction of current primary energy source it will become exponentially more expensive to continue further transitioning...

Say it takes a barrel of oil to create a unit of sonar panels.. but it would take 100 units of solar panels to create one/first/additional unit of a solar panel. But it would need 10000 panels to create the first 100 units. Getting the picture?? Without fossil fuels the so called transition simply doesnt happen, its entropically impossible. Yet its precisely global hydrocarbons that have now peaked and is trending towards terminal and permanent decline.

1. Global hydrocarbons peaking is FACTUALLY incorrect.

Whilst you can make the case that oil and gas have peaked, Coal reserves are still in plentiful supply.
If you look at the coal reserves available, there is enough for 133 years at current rates of consumption.

That alone gives you a baseload of cheap electricity to tide over the transition, because it is easy to mine coal and easy to build coal plants.
From what I can see, Chinese nuclear is comparable or a little more expensive than coal, so that is fine to add as baseload and that is what we are seeing.

---

2. And there are studies looking at what electricity storage costs have to be in order to displace coal, such as the IRENA or MIT reports.
If you have [current solar costs] and [lithium-type battery costs halving over the next decade], then this works out cheaper than coal.

Anyway, I think I've said everything there is to say.

 

[baykalov]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This week one of France’s largest gas suppliers, Engie, said that Gazprom would further reduce deliveries to the company due to a disagreement over the application of some contracts.

On Wednesday, the dispute escalated as the Russian company prepared to halt all deliveries to its French contractor from 1 September, citing missing payments.

Gazprom said the decision to suspend gas supplies to Engie was down to the French firm not paying in full for July deliveries of gas. It is understood Engie had deducted “compensation” for the fall in gas supplies in recent weeks from the payment.

 

[PiSigma]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Dumbasses think they can pay less for Russian gas. The supplier always wins, it's called not giving it to you. Lol

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

The report you posted is worthless. Look at the years they reference.

The oldest reference is 1975.
The newest reference with regard to solar is 2014.

Bloomberg BNEF estimate the cost of solar electricity in 2014 was 3x higher than today.
Now, that is the cost, not the EROEI. But you can reasonably expect the EROEI of solar to have increased by 3x from 2014->2022

Dud data = dud analysis

Source: Bloomberg
archive.ph/i7mKl

Cost doesn't correlate directly with EROEI because the cost of solar panels isn't entirely driven by energy or raw materials.

Subject matter experts at NREL have already analyzed this. Their estimated EROEI in this paper is 7-10 which matches the earlier source.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Bloomberg is not a subject matter expert on photovoltaics or semiconductor and has made willful mistakes like the Supermicro case. NREL is the premier renewable energy lab of the US Department of Energy.

 

[FriedButter]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Some of those poor Brits will be poorer when they realize their water pipes got frozen and then it bursted open lmao.