Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    17874
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. I don't believe combustion of hydrocarbons specifically is needed, but I understand your point. Combustion is a part of the normal carbon cycle of the planet. Your second point makes some intuitive sense, but I don't think is a meaningful driver of global warming. The heat itself from burning hydrocarbons is a statistical rounding error compared to the overall change driven by increased greenhouse gases. More critically, I'm pretty sure heat from combustion on its own would be radiated into space rather than drive meaningful climate change. The extent to which it remains captured by the planet would, I believe, mostly depend on increasing greenhouse levels preventing its release to space.
  2. Why are you posting an article from 2018?
  3. I think @Captainant may be over estimating the energy use. I'm not sure I believe that the rig would be going near all out at 500w 24/7. But also you have to keep in mind that the required energy use per bitcoin has gone up over time because of the design of the system. There is also an increase in efficiency with the more GPU cores you have available.
  4. I don't think you're doing that math correctly. It looks like you're just using the energy charge. You have to include the power supply adjustment, regulatory charge, and community benefit charge. Even at the lowest energy charge tier of $.04106 per kWh, after accounting for everything else you're total cost per kwh is $.107 per kWh. That would total $1,416 for 13,140 kWh. But that would also be an impossible rate because there is no way that person isn't exceeding 300 kWh per month. I think the minimum realistic cost is probably the tier 3 energy charge of $.07525 per kWh. All in that is $.14197 per kWh and would total $1,865.48 for 13,140 kWh.
  5. This also works for dogs. Basically, do all the dog things.
  6. Unfortunately, I think any purge is going to have to be a violent one.
  7. We are doing a great job proving that.
  8. Yes. A big part of the reason for the US security blanket is not only did in bring most of the world under our sphere of influence, but it discouraged nuclear proliferation because anyone allied with us wouldn't need them (and we told them not to develop them).
  9. No. They'll be killing us when we commit troops to help Russia. It is only a matter of time at this point. We are the bad guys.
  10. The rest of your post is good and I agree with it generally. This part I think deserves a separate response and represents a misunderstanding of the earth's carbon cycle. 1). Carbon and CO2 is needed for life. That is correct. But... 2). The additional releases from carbon stored in hydrocarbons are not necessary to sustain existing life. The carbon in current plants (and potatoes) re-enters the environment as part of the lifecycle of the plants. There is no need for additional extraneous carbon for the carbon cycle to continue. The second part above is about releases of carbon from when the Earth's climate was warmer hundreds of millions of years ago. That carbon was essentially removed from the planetary carbon cycle and not only isn't required to sustain our current ecosystem, but is in fact detrimental to it, especially when released over a geologically short time span without giving the ecosystem time to to reach a new equilibrium.
  11. Unfortunately, the external enemy we are giving them is us.
  12. Nailed @Laxtonto. Trump is totally playing hardball with Russia now. Really solid foresight and analysis. Or just complete fucking garbage. Whatever.
  13. Dahobbs

    LBGTQ

    That is amazing. There is a not insignificant possibility that some DOJ lawyers may get disbarred or suspended based on the arguments they are having to make.
  14. And that is a fair point. I think the fair way to say it is that primary energy consumption has been flat since 1995. Electric generation was flat from 2006 until recently, but the rise of crypto-currency and AI is changing that over the last couple of years. Worldwide trends are bit more difficult to deal with because you have decreases or flattening in the countries with the highest share of energy consumption and increases in countries with historically lower shares of energy consumption (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita). If the US population had been flat or decreasing like other Western and developed nations, our total energy usage would have decreased significantly. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php
  15. I don't think you were necessarily in the wrong thread. That balance is an important topic in a thread concerned about the climate. But I do think it can become difficult to manage when both sides (truly in this case) get defensive about certain slights. I apologize for my post upthread where you got caught in the cross-fire with another poster than I felt was being dismissing/obtuse.
  16. The problem is also mixing up energy return on investment for monetary return on investment. These aren't the same thing. Energy return on investment just tells me how much energy out I get for a given amount of energy in. Whether it costs more or less to get than energy or whether that energy causes downstream economic costs are all irrelevant to that metric.
  17. It is more complicated than that, but they could all be the same. For instance, any generator is free to sell on the ERCOT real time market. If they do so, they get whatever price is posted by ERCOT. If my solar panels at home generate power to the grid in the middle of August when prices are $.50 per kwh, I'd get the same $.50 per kwh as a 500MW combined cycle turbine power plant. But most power plants sell some or almost all of their generation based upon longer term contracts with averaged pricing. A combined cycle powerplant usually is going to get a better long term contract price because its energy is dispatchable and can fill needs at anytime. Dispatchable powerplants may get lower longer term contract prices if they primarily generate electricity when real time prices are lower. typo that I didn't catch in time.
  18. No. EROEI does not attempt to account for externalities like climate change. It isn't part of the formula at all. Energy in, Energy out. That's what matters to it. Lifecycle costs analysis may or may not include costs from climate change in the model depending upon who is doing the analysis. Some analysis is done to model the economic viability of a particular project, so it only cares about those costs that may actually impact the project (i.e., captured costs). That sort of analysis will by design not account for externalities because, by definition, those will not impact the project. What the fuck are you talking about? He responded to a very specific insult ("Gretas") with a very specific answer that was totally appropriate in a fucking thread titled "Climate Change" not "Rex ignores basic science and how it impacts everyone." Who do you think he was implying are the psuedo-scientists here? Because I can promise you Rex wasn't intending to dismiss the few phony scientists that dismiss human driven climate change. The vast majority of climate scientists understand how releasing carbon into the atmosphere changes the planet's climate. EROI is a moving target. EROI of solar is higher as non-dispatchable renewables become a larger percentage of the grid due to the need for additional storage. But, up to 50% or so renewable, modern utility solar would have an EROI competitive with natural gas. There are a lot of different calculations out there for EROI with a lot of different assumptions.
  19. I think you know that I'm not a Greta. We've gone back and fourth and these issues many times. You've latched onto EROI for some reason, but it simply isn't the problem you think it is. EROI of solar in particular has been increasing with more efficient panels and manufacturing techniques. EROI of fossil fuels has been decreasing as the easy to get at sources are used up. Some older studies have very low EROI for solar and other renewables. But there are contradicting studies that not only have higher EROI for renewables, but EROI exceeding current fossil fuels. EROI also isn't a single number for a given energy source, but rather a movable target depending on a number of factors (including percentage of the grid). Reducing energy consumption has been happening on a per capita basis in developed countries for quite some time. This is largely due to increases in efficiency. That's why US energy consumption has basically been flat for 30 years despite a substantial increase in population.
  20. That's going to vary by regions and market. I'm not aware of specific laws capping prices by generation type (although I'm sure some are coming or have passed recently). Usually, price is just what the market will bear. Non-dispatchable generation will often have lower priced contracts, but not always. And at least some portion of generation just sells on the real time market as opposed to longer term contracts. National wholesale average is between 3 and 4 cents over the last couple of years. Covid also distorted prices for quite some time by lowering demand.
  21. I'm aware of your general background. The fact that some projects had shorter payout estimates doesn't mean that other projects with longer time tables don't exist. Capital intensive projects with multidecade life spans often have break even points of 10 years or even more. The cost per installed MW you provided for wind turbines aren't that far out of line with the cost for a combined cycle power plant (i.e., 1,000,000 per MW). Your own estimates would have that same combined cycle plant paying off in the 8-10 year range, and that is completely ignoring operating and fueling costs. Just going to the general point of a 10-year+ breakeven point not being a strange concept for private industry, a 30-year mortgage at 5.5% doesn't break even until year ~14. You'd need an interest rate north of 9% to get to a 10-year breakeven point or better.
  22. You misspelled ever.
  23. Most large projects (renewable or otherwise) have government support via direct and indirect subsidies. And certain tax breaks exist and will be taken advantage of. That isn't a sign that the projects wouldn't exist sans subsidies. It is a sign that people don't throw away free money as a general rule. I'm also unclear why we are assuming 2 cents per kwh. Nationally, wholesale prices have averaged between 3 and 4 cents per kwh. Texas is at the low end, but still well above 2 cents per kwh. Also, per below, gas turbine powerplants are at a 9-17 year payback: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957178721001417
  24. He is wrong. EROI is a useful metric, but not the end all and be all that he attributes to it. EROI needs to be above 1. After that, other things matter more in determining what is economical and what isn't. If EROi were truly a driving economical metric, Nuclear power would be by far the most economical energy resource we have. But it is the opposite.
  25. Metric for life? On the other hand, after being fired twice is exactly when you need drugs.
×
×
  • Create New...