Saw this video today.



Reminded me of this thread in old Politics

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/4...ht=grizy+solar

SenorKeed's OP

Can a mod quote properly with vids?

Base delivery is an overlooked aspect in everyday discussion, and it is true that nuclear power plants can be a fix to that problem while maintaining zero emissions. But it does stretch to a bit more problems than "image issues and some problems with waste disposal". The safety record is pretty good all things considered and modern reactors are far safer than old reactors, but the potential for large scale catastrophe is still present and can not be denied. I'd agree that nuclear power is a good fit to ensure a high enough base load and to keep the grid stable in those moments of the day with especially high loads, but it should be done with open eyes towards the risks involved.

Since this is a politics forum, this is a fitting time for the anecdote about the time Jimmy Carter (yes, that Jimmy Carter) led a team into a nuclear power plant with a melted down reactor to prevent disaster.

There also other potential solutions of course, like using some kind of means to store excess energy produced by more unstable sources (like the video points out). From batteries, lifting something, heating something up etc.

Some great ideas in that video - love the demand response strategies.

GM pledges to go all-electric by 2035

The world's biggest diesel engine factory (PSA) is switching to electric motors

With the current US administration poised to make climate change a national security issue, it seems we're seeing some good signs of green shift. Which I think is needed if the west is not to fall behind China in green tech.

As the Reuters article points out, the above two stories are not without issues. Electric car manufacture is a lot less complicated (simple engines, less moving parts, less complicated drivetrains) and will require far less workers. Accelerating these developments will mean you can't rely on natural turnover / retirement.

TLDR: availability of air conditioning (and by implication, cheap energy in US) created fookton of buildings with zero regard to climate, making US spend a ridiculous amount of energy on heating.

FYP.

There is a bit about heating, but they're mostly talking about cooling. Either way, interesting video. We're seeing more energy efficient designs all the time, and while they make good points about open floor plans, I think they can get pretty efficient even with modern design.

Yeah, sorry, cooling. It's just lack of trying. My building is something something certified and it's mostly open floor plans with floor to ceiling windows so I know you can get really efficient even with modern floor plans.

Agreed. I think that's changing for the better, but not as quickly as it needs to - hopefully that starts gaining momentum.

A lot of it is just a disconnect between costs consumers experience and the true costs (including environmental). Some carbon taxes (lol getting that through) on air conditioning/electricity will get people to worry about energy efficiency of their homes really fast.

I don't know if I want to end up where Italy and Spain are where a lot of people just don't turn AC on and think it's normal to drink hot coffee when it's 90 degrees outside and 80 degrees where they are sitting (with natural cooling) but if we do end up there, I am sure I'll be just fine.

Cheap energy has definitely not encouraged good habits.

When we travelled around a few summers ago, air conditioning was pretty important for my AirBnB searches in Italy and Spain. I think every place we stayed in had individual wall mounted units in each room. I wouldn't think they'd be nearly as efficient as a central unit just on an energy used/square foot basis, but I imagine that if you simply used them as you needed them in each room, it might be a lot better. And then as you say, not turning them on a lot of the time. Kind of goes back to your original point with the video - smaller units wouldn't work well with open floor plans.

Right, when I was in Southern Europe something that struck me was just how normal it was to just not turn the AC on, which obviously is even better than efficient ACs.

Our reluctance to even try living without ACs at home may be part of the problem. Maybe things will change post-Covid but I've always thought it's more socially efficient to get people to congregate in places with AC if they really needed it rather than letting everyone individually cool his/her home.

Those that want individual cooling anyway should pay for it.

Used oils are left unplugged by companies that went under. The unused wells are spewing an incredible amount of methane (which is way worse than CO2 as a GHG).

In Montana, the government is supposed to get deposits and spend those deposits to plug the wells in cases where the companies go under but apparently really sucks at it.

Complementary article
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063430105

Conventional wells 40-50k to close. (nothing)
Shale wells 300k, and can run up over a million (actually a lot in places like Texas where they are building what's called "stripper" wells that are squeezing every drop out of reserves with almost no regard for environmental costs)

Bigger and more productive oil wells wouldn't even blink at a million or two to close the well. Misaligned incentives and all.

Texas is currently suffering an unprecedented winter storm that's left its unprepared power grid woefully unable to provide residents with power they need to heat their homes. Let's see what conservative politicians think the takeaway is here:





The state agriculture commissioner:



The governor:



Yeahhhhh about that:

Crenshaw eventually admits this, but zooms right on past it to ultimately blame renewable energy:





The funny thing about this is, wind turbines can work in winter. Natural gas can work in winter. But in order for that to happen you have to prepare for cold weather, which Texas did not. They are in the cluster**** because they did not plan for it, but Dan Crenshaw and his merry band of idiots would have you blame renewable energy. They're not interested in fixing the actual problem. Texans should be furious at these people, but most of them are probably clutching their flags for warmth and blaming Obama or something

Oh, and who can forget that uniquely Texan streak of independence

Why Does Texas Have Its Own Power Grid?

Basically, Texas has its own grid to avoid dealing with — you guessed it — the feds.

Genius move, boys, thank god you have a nonexistent Green New Deal to blame people's deaths on

Here is a great thread on what happened.

https://twitter.com/i/events/1361767999200317440

There are wind turbines operating in the Antarctic and fossil fuel plants within the Arctic circle.

So blaming the technology itself seems silly.

So the patriots don't want to pitch in and be a part of the team--but don't mind asking for help when their selfish decisions end up affecting them. Sounds about right

All of the technologies failed in Texas. None of them produced what they were expected. Wind turbines in cold climates have cold weather packages installed, but the ones in Texas do not.

The problem in Texas seems to be that the usage was 2x the forecasted worst case scenario.

As long as we know that these technologies can operate in the coldest climates on our planet, then it would be this specific application of technology that failed.

I live in a country that routinely has this kind of weather, and as long as one builds with that in mind this is not a problem. The question then becomes if this should have been done in Texas.

True but you do not order a block heater for your car in Texas as well while its standard issue here in Canada.
Question is once it warms up do they go back to working as normal?

It's complete incompetence stemming from poor risk assessment/management. The same thing happened in 2011 and 2014 on smaller scales- this was not some once in a lifetime weather event.

Yes but then the onus is on those in charge to explain that.

If the decision is 'it is too expensive to build the equipment (solar, wind and gas) to withstand these once a year events and we deem the cost not worth the benefit, ... that is fine.

But what then is the contingency plan for those once a year events?

You're looking at it.

Shame on anyone who thought the GOP might rethink their principles in light of their fanatical worship of deregulation actually killing citizens of Texas, lol

lozen in light of our other discussion about your position that seemed to equate (both sides) media bias, have you seen how Fox and other 'right' leaning networks are covering this Texas disaster int heir news and opinion shows with non-stop blame of the Green New Deal and AOC in an attempt to deflect blame from the GOP Governor and the Oil and Gas sector?

Do you think CNN and MSNBC would do something similar with a disaster in a Dem run State?

Again the point is not that both have biases but i think the right has near monopoly in shameless baseless propaganda unhinged from any semblance of reality dominating what their viewers see on both news and opinion.