Alternatives to Russian Energy Reserves

[Emperor Tippy]

Oh? This is the first time I've heard of it. I'm not one of those climate change/global warming freaks who thinks oil/electricity/car smog is going to bring about the doom of mankind, but you're telling me that this destroys the environment?

Depending on where it is built, yes. In most of Europe, for example, the total environmental cost of manufacturing, shipping, and installing those solar panels exceeds the expected carbon reduction from their lifespan compared to fossil fuels (although I'm not positive about coal specifically, I know NatGas is cleaner total life cycle than most EU solar).

When you factor in all of the ancillary costs, the situation gets even more pro fossil fuel.

I mean electric cars? They are, net, dirtier than modern internal combustion cars. That one is somewhat a side effect of the fact that auto ICE's are incredibly clean and efficient while most grid electric generation is actually less environmentally friendly.

Solar and Wind are also strongly environment dependent, which means you need an alternative energy source so that the grid has consistent, reliable, power. Storing electricity directly at scale is horrifically inefficient. But what this means is that in addition to the environmental cost of the solar panels you also need to include the environmental cost of all the additional ancillary infrastructure needed to make it a viable power source.

In some places Solar and Wind make a great deal of sense (Texas for example, likely to be the first state to really go green for its power generation), in other places (most of Europe for example) Solar & Wind are farcical and it would be better for the environment to just burn the trillions in cash spent trying to make Europe green.

EDIT: And we always forget geothermal, which is kinda sad because that really is an area that should see a ton more investment. Consistent, reliable, safe, clean, power. Of course, the viable geographies are relatively limited. And no one wants to pour tons of money into trying to make geo more cost effective/more broadly viable for some inane reason that I've never figured out beyond "it's not as sexy".

 

[posh-goofiness]

In some places Solar and Wind make a great deal of sense (Texas for example, likely to be the first state to really go green for its power generation), in other places (most of Europe for example) Solar & Wind are farcical and it would be better for the environment to just burn the trillions in cash spent trying to make Europe green.

EDIT: And we always forget geothermal, which is kinda sad because that really is an area that should see a ton more investment. Consistent, reliable, safe, clean, power. Of course, the viable geographies are relatively limited. And no one wants to pour tons of money into trying to make geo more cost effective/more broadly viable for some inane reason that I've never figured out beyond "it's not as sexy".

Because the environmentalist movement is not about solving the problem. It's about manufacturing crises. We've had the solution to the climate change problem for 50 years but, curiously, we never seem to get any closer to implementing it and the hysteria around the issue just gets higher and higher.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Because the environmentalist movement is not about solving the problem. It's about manufacturing crises. We've had the solution to the climate change problem for 50 years but, curiously, we never seem to get any closer to implementing it and the hysteria around the issue just gets higher and higher.

Why do you think I'm not an environmentalist?

If you want to actually solve global warming (crediting for the sake of argument that it is occurring and in a problem at the scale that the environmentalists claim), you need radical solutions. As in you either need to build thousands of nuclear reactors, you need to make fusion work, you need to go big on beamed solar power, or you need to put a massive sun shade up in space between the Earth and the Sun. Nothing else could credibly provide both the energy the world needs to maintain civilization and have the environmental impact that is supposedly needed.

Solar and Wind have their place in the energy mix, but trying to make them globally the primary source is so far beyond merely farcical that it makes anyone sane laugh.

 

[Floridaman]

Oh? This is the first time I've heard of it. I'm not one of those climate change/global warming freaks who thinks oil/electricity/car smog is going to bring about the doom of mankind, but you're telling me that this destroys the environment?

yes, the windmills kill tons of birds, the solar panels are literally made of toxic materials strip mined in Africa, typically by slave labor from conflict zones, both have short life spans, and solar panels can’t even be recycled well due to how toxic they are

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Wind: people I've talked to that actually work on them say they've got to replace the transmission on the turbines about every 6 months or so because they take so much abuse. NO wind project has ever proven itself a viable production method. EVERY one requires massive government subsidies in order for it to be profitable, and even then they aren't profitable for at LEAST 10-20 years.

 

[posh-goofiness]

Why do you think I'm not an environmentalist?

If you want to actually solve global warming (crediting for the sake of argument that it is occurring and in a problem at the scale that the environmentalists claim), you need radical solutions. As in you either need to build thousands of nuclear reactors, you need to make fusion work, you need to go big on beamed solar power, or you need to put a massive sun shade up in space between the Earth and the Sun. Nothing else could credibly provide both the energy the world needs to maintain civilization and have the environmental impact that is supposedly needed.

Solar and Wind have their place in the energy mix, but trying to make them globally the primary source is so far beyond merely farcical that it makes anyone sane laugh.

I'm not sure where you got that I think you are or are not an environmentalist. For the record, I don't know or care which you are.

That said, I agree with everything you wrote. All of these are viable solutions to the problem. My point is that for some reason we never get any closer to implementing them. Instead we go to biomass, or constrict current energy supply, or institute more taxes, or outsource production to other countries with less environmental controls. None of these will do anything to solve the issue, they only make the situation worse on the economic front while shifting around problems abroad where the net effect on any alleged human forced climate change is unchanged or exacerbated.

 

[Bacle]

Israel's oil/gas industry is about to go into overdrive to help give Europe an alternative to Russian petro-chems.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Man...I wonder what Israel could accomplish with that pipeline as an incentive to good relations with the other ME countries.

 

[Floridaman]

Israel's oil/gas industry is about to go into overdrive to help give Europe an alternative to Russian petro-chems.

Last I heard Israel doesn’t produce much if any crude, they might be able to refine stuff from the region but most of the refining can be done by the Arab states already
edit yeah Israel makes 5000 barrels a day a few million short of what is needed.

 

[Arch Dornan]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/opec-chief-says-theres-no-124238149.html

Biden: Pretty plz pump more oil to fix my fuckups.

OPEC:

 

[bintananth]

We need to reabilitate coal and build more nuclear power plants.

The three biggest problems coal has from a public perception standpoint are smog, soot, and ash. The smog and soot can be mostly eliminated with proper emission control systems and picking the right type of coal. That's easier when burning a high-quality anthracite instead of a low-quality lignite.

Ash is still going to be an issue no matter what grade is used. However, the higher the quality, the less ash there is.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

Question: are there any places in Europe where they have already started to toy with geothermal energy? I would have thought that places with either dormant or active volcanoes would’ve been a perfect place for building a geothermal plant.

 

[bintananth]

Iceland, Italy, and Turkey have a decent number of geothermal powerstations. There might be a few elsewhere in Europe.

Most of Europe doesn't have many subterranean hotspots close enough to the surface for it to be an economical source of electricity.

 

[Bacle]

Iceland, Italy, and Turkey have a decent number of geothermal powerstations. There might be a few elsewhere in Europe.

Most of Europe doesn't have many subterranean hotspots close enough to the surface for it to be an economical source of electricity.

That will be changing in the future; there is a large magma body underneath that upper Rhine Valley that seismologists have detected new magma moving into that is part of the previously assumed extinct Lake Laach/Laacher See supervolcano.

Volcano in Germany recharging with new magma – DW – 02/06/2019

Above, a pristine blue lake filled with boaters and swimmers. Below, magma bubbles and swells. What sounds like a Hollywood plot is in fact based on new research by geophysicists in Germany.

www.dw.com

 

[PsihoKekec]

Last I heard Israel doesn’t produce much if any crude, they might be able to refine stuff from the region but most of the refining can be done by the Arab states already
edit yeah Israel makes 5000 barrels a day a few million short of what is needed.

They are referring to offshore gas deposits that they are starting to exploit. Of course the key word is ''starting'', they still need to build all the drilling and pumping infrastructure to cover their own needs, then drilling and pumping infrastructure to create a surplus and build the pipeline. So it's very much an ''anytime now, but not anytime soon'' kind of thing, so politicians can claim there are immediate alternatives.

 

[Captain X]

Would tapping into a supervolcano help relieve pressure there and potentially reduce the risk of it erupting?

 

[PsihoKekec]

In theory it could be done. In practice you could get an eruption instead or the magma would cool too soon and clog the shaft, leaving you with expensive failure, I reckon the window of success in such project would be very narrow

 

[Agent23]

Israel's oil/gas industry is about to go into overdrive to help give Europe an alternative to Russian petro-chems.

Considering how successful the west is with permitting and building pipelines, I will not be holding my breath.

 

[Scottty]

I thought coal was also basically a base load fuel, or if you try to use it dynamically it incurs horrendous inefficiencies. Not so?

For peak output, use hydro.

If you want to go all-nuclear, then don't mess around with changing the level of the nuclear pile itself. Leave that running 100%, and use a system of valves to control how much of the steam goes to the turbines, and how much just goes in a loop.

Or use all the excess to run a pumped-storage system - water gets pumped uphill during the low-demand hours, then comes down through turbines in the evening.

Dunno about that,but those windmills are made from plastic - which practically never dissolve.Bad thing for enviromement.

Those ones might be plastic, but humans have been making windmills long before plastic was invented. The blades could be wood, or metal, or ceramic, or some combo thereof.
Could even have Orky-looking wind-turbines made from animal bones and leather, if you really wanted to...
If it looks stupid but it works...

Oh, and the real problem with most plastics is that they actually do dissolve - sort of. They break down into smaller and smaller particles, which become biologically significant. Also they slowly leak out some bad chemicals.

I'm not sure where you got that I think you are or are not an environmentalist. For the record, I don't know or care which you are.

That said, I agree with everything you wrote. All of these are viable solutions to the problem. My point is that for some reason we never get any closer to implementing them. Instead we go to biomass, or constrict current energy supply, or institute more taxes, or outsource production to other countries with less environmental controls. None of these will do anything to solve the issue, they only make the situation worse on the economic front while shifting around problems abroad where the net effect on any alleged human forced climate change is unchanged or exacerbated.

Because the clowns making all the noise about it do not actually want to solve the problem. At least, not in terms that everyone else would find acceptable.
They want to compete for personal status in making noise about the problem.

Man...I wonder what Israel could accomplish with that pipeline as an incentive to good relations with the other ME countries.

"Hey look Ahmed, the Jews are now competing with us in selling oil! That makes me feel sooo friendly towards them!"

 

[The Whispering Monk]

For peak output, use hydro.

If you want to go all-nuclear, then don't mess around with changing the level of the nuclear pile itself. Leave that running 100%, and use a system of valves to control how much of the steam goes to the turbines, and how much just goes in a loop.

Or use all the excess to run a pumped-storage system - water gets pumped uphill during the low-demand hours, then comes down through turbines in the evening.



Those ones might be plastic, but humans have been making windmills long before plastic was invented. The blades could be wood, or metal, or ceramic, or some combo thereof.
Could even have Orky-looking wind-turbines made from animal bones and leather, if you really wanted to...
If it looks stupid but it works...

Oh, and the real problem with most plastics is that they actually do dissolve - sort of. They break down into smaller and smaller particles, which become biologically significant. Also they slowly leak out some bad chemicals.



Because the clowns making all the noise about it do not actually want to solve the problem. At least, not in terms that everyone else would find acceptable.
They want to compete for personal status in making noise about the problem.



"Hey look Ahmed, the Jews are now competing with us in selling oil! That makes me feel sooo friendly towards them!"

I was more thinking about Israel trading access to their pipeline for other countries oil to hit the European Market as another method of forming stable relations with their ME neighbors.