TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Sustainable Energy, USA and worldwide

Go To

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#976: Oct 17th 2021 at 9:59:12 AM

At least one went bust due to the natural gas shortage, so I’m not convinced they’re being honest.

I suspect that they may do swaps where they borrow dirty energy from other providers then repay that provider with clean energy, thus balancing themselves out. That or they engage in carbon offsetting for any dirty energy they produce.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#977: Oct 17th 2021 at 10:04:10 AM

Well, they specifically claimed electricity. IIRC, no such claim is made for supplying gas directly (obviously), though they did have a tariff where they'd plant trees for every X units of gas you used.

If the company(ies) that went bust (Avro was one of them, IIRC?) had a lot of people still on cheap, fixed tariffs...

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#978: Jan 4th 2022 at 11:21:20 AM

Crop production in partial shade of solar photovoltaic panels on trackers - some of 'em can be grown in the shade of photovoltaic panels, which makes the underlying land more usable.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#979: Jan 12th 2022 at 5:32:41 AM

LA Times: Newsletter: Everything you need to know about California’s plan to slash solar incentives

The California Public Utilities Commission is considering a proposed tax on residential solar installations of $8 per kilowatt per month. In other words, if you have a 5 kW system installed, you would be taxed $40/month. The proposal would change "net metering" rules to reduce payments to homeowners whose solar panels deliver energy to the grid. Rather than be paid retail rates, they would be paid at the much lower "avoided cost" rate. It would also change solar customers over to "time of use" rates for grid electricity.

The proposal would add a temporary credit for new solar installations to offset these changes in some areas, tapering off after four years. Finally, it would add rebates for users installing home battery storage systems and increase the maximum size of home solar systems. There are a few other provisions.

The move has caused outrage among solar and climate advocates, calling it a "giveaway to investor-owned utilities". The state's utility monopolies have suggested that it will "reduce the financial burden" on people who cannot afford home solar and end up "overpaying" people who can for their electricity. They want large, grid-scale solar installations instead.

Independent analysts looking at the data suggest that the CPUC plan would shift the time horizon for a solar system recouping its cost from the current five years out to 16-19 years, substantially overshooting the ten years claimed. A CPUC program manager said that the plan would encourage installation of batteries and reduce "inequities" in the current net metering system. A Berkeley economist said that California electricity rates are higher than they should be since energy customers subsidize a variety of utility expenses that should be paid for out of general taxation.

Tesla, a major home solar provider, has encouraged its customers to fight against the plan.


From memory, California faces a serious problem that is caused (ironically) by all the solar installations on people's homes. Its grid is oversupplied during peak solar hours and correspondingly undersupplied during peak usage hours. Thus, adding more solar may even be counterproductive if substantial investments are not also made in battery storage to help even out the load. By increasing the maximum allowed size of solar installations, CPUC hopes to encourage electric vehicle ownership, with EVs also acting as sinks of electricity from peak solar output.

California also faces serious challenges due to its antiquated electricity infrastructure in many areas, with damaged power lines leading to multiple fires over recent years. Getting the money to pay for the needed repairs and upgrades could be difficult if it's buying electricity from solar customers rather than selling it to them. Also, there are the aforementioned inequities, with wealthier people installing solar in order to earn money selling electricity, and poorer people paying for it.

Edited by Fighteer on Jan 12th 2022 at 9:37:07 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#980: Feb 2nd 2022 at 10:21:03 AM

Ars Technica: EU plans to label natural gas and nuclear power plants “sustainable”

Apparently the result of a compromise between member nations like Germany that are making large investments in natural gas and those like France that are into nuclear power, proposed EU rules would allow both to be labeled "sustainable" and thus part of its energy roadmap.

Nuclear is extremely low-carbon, on par with wind and solar, and is believed by many to be a necessary part of any sustainable energy plan as long as the waste can be dealt with. Natural gas is very much not low-carbon, despite being cleaner burning than coal, because methane is much more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas and leaks are a constant problem.

Of course, opposition to nuclear power is a big industry in the EU, so it's a bad situation all around.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#981: Feb 2nd 2022 at 10:29:44 AM

The idea of marking gas "sustainable" is ... well, words fail me. Quite aside from the carbon dioxide, there are methane leaks all over the place - according to some analyses, if you factor them in the greenhouse effect from gas is higher than that of coal.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#983: Feb 3rd 2022 at 8:06:18 AM

Nature doesn't care what political compromises you make.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#984: Feb 3rd 2022 at 3:31:29 PM

Is this really the price we’re gonna have to pay to get nuclear’s low-carbon nature recognised? Dilute the term sustainable so much that we might as well throw in ‘clean’ coal while we’re at it?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#985: Feb 3rd 2022 at 9:33:45 PM

Hey, coal's the one fossil fuel we're unlikely to run out of until well after we're all underwater.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#987: Feb 4th 2022 at 11:49:47 AM

Guess what just exploded and sank near Nigeria? If you guessed an oil tanker, you would be right.

Edited by Fighteer on Feb 4th 2022 at 2:49:55 PM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#988: Feb 21st 2022 at 11:43:19 AM

Ars Technica: Corn ethanol no better—and probably worse—than burning gasoline, study says

For over a decade, the US has blended ethanol with gasoline in an attempt to reduce the overall carbon pollution produced by fossil fuel-powered cars and trucks. But a new study says that the practice may not be achieving its goals. In fact, burning ethanol made from corn—the major source in the US—may be worse for the climate than just burning gasoline alone.

Corn drove demand for land and fertilizer far higher than previous assessments had estimated. Together, the additional land and fertilizer drove up ethanol’s carbon footprint to the point where the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions—from seed to tank—were higher than that of gasoline. Some researchers predicted this might happen, but the new paper provides a comprehensive and retrospective look at the real-world results of the policy.

Proponents have long argued that corn-based ethanol bolsters farm incomes while providing a domestic source of renewable liquid fuel, while critics have said that its status as a carbon-reducing gasoline additive relies on questionable accounting. Based on the new study, both sides may be right.

In a nutshell, despite requirements in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, net GHG production from corn ethanol has not decreased by 20%, but has increased, with land use increasing 8.7 percent and fertilizer use increasing between 3 and 8 percent. While there has certainly been a benefit to farmers, the overall effect has been increased emissions and environmental pollution.

This seems likely to be the standard for so-called "biofuels" — gasoline alternatives produced from supposedly renewable sources.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#989: Feb 22nd 2022 at 12:54:35 AM

Corn ethanol is a particularly dumb one (in part because it never had anything to do with the environment, it was a Bush-era subsidy to corn farmers).

Biodiesel has more promise, though it's still not really green due to the various drawbacks (particularly deforestation). What I'm more interested in is algae farms that can use desert land, but those are a ways off and fall under the "we can't focus on this because we need solutions now" priority.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#990: Feb 22nd 2022 at 4:18:15 AM

That, and it's fairly clear that "biofuels" in general are part of a strategy for oil and gas companies to remain relevant in a world of electrified transportation.

Edited by Fighteer on Feb 22nd 2022 at 7:18:28 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#991: Feb 22nd 2022 at 11:01:15 AM

They were originally floated in an attempt to make cars greener in a world where the internal combustion engine wasn't going anywhere and fossil fuels were still going to burn in power plants forever ("don't electrify your cars when your power grid runs on coal" is Green 101). It wasn't until The New '10s that electrification really picked up steam.

Please take off the conspiracy goggles for a minute. Biofuel wasn't a con (though, yes, the focus on ethanol was - seriously, fuck agriculture subsidies), it was an attempt to solve real problems that didn't work out in practice.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#992: Feb 22nd 2022 at 11:09:11 AM

Call a duck a duck. Energy companies had electrification at their fingertips for decades but refused because it would have sabotaged their core business models. We have their own words on this.

Edited by Fighteer on Feb 22nd 2022 at 2:09:33 PM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#993: Feb 22nd 2022 at 11:12:38 AM

Well, yeah. But (a) it's also the automakers, and (b) again, you shouldn't electrify before you switch to green energy.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#994: Feb 22nd 2022 at 11:22:16 AM

That is simply not true. The "coal is worse than gasoline" argument has been widely debunked but remains a popular myth even among environmentalists. Even in the dirtiest energy environment, running cars on electricity rather than petroleum has net environmental benefits. It's decisively proven at this point, yet contrary statements continue to be amplified by many parties.

Anyway, the point is that the energy companies knew that investment in renewables would be needed as well as in electric vehicles, so they decided to both fudge the science and advocate for "alternative" fuels that are not significantly cleaner but present a façade of being environmentally responsible, knowing that advocates would pick it up and help them kick the can down the road. This is a practice known as "greenwashing".

After all, if you have renewable electricity but most of your cars run on gasoline, you still have to convert them to electricity to see those benefits. If you have wide adoption of electric vehicles, then every step taken to make the grid cleaner also makes those cars cleaner.

Edited by Fighteer on Feb 22nd 2022 at 2:36:08 PM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#995: Mar 7th 2022 at 6:10:17 AM

Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the consequent international sanctions have led to a sharp rise in the price of oil, apparently driven by panic over supply concerns. Meanwhile, the assault on Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant threatens electricity supply.

The West is finding itself in a bind. Russia's oil is necessary to keep our economies running, but continuing to buy it makes us complicit in its invasion of Ukraine and perpetually subject to the threat of hydraulic despotism.

Meanwhile, renewables are growing fast (faster than any other energy source), but not quickly enough to fill the gap that would be left if we shut off Russian oil and gas.

Certain parties note  have suggested that we need to increase oil and gas extraction in the short term, and that Europe desperately needs to step up its nuclear game. As important as it is to clean up our energy supply in the long term, it does nobody any good to send the world into an energy crisis.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#996: Mar 7th 2022 at 7:42:32 AM

Well, Europe definitely does need to step up its nuclear game yesterday. Serious question, how quickly can a plant be built and made operational?

(Also, if Europe throws up some nuclear plants, maybe they can electrify their heating grid too and forget about gas? Though I understand that that'd be a much longer process.)

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#997: Mar 7th 2022 at 7:49:29 AM

It takes several years, assuming no delays which are common.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#998: Mar 7th 2022 at 7:59:48 AM

Fun (tm). Still need to do them, but it's going to be a rough transition.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#999: Mar 7th 2022 at 8:31:29 AM

Europe apparently has a number of nuclear plants that have been shut down but could be reactivated. This would save a lot of time over building new ones.

The most important question is how we overcome entrenched European opposition to those plants. Will it take their electricity prices going through the roof?

Edited by Fighteer on Mar 7th 2022 at 11:39:48 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
devak They call me.... Prophet Since: Jul, 2019 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
They call me.... Prophet
#1000: Mar 7th 2022 at 10:16:25 AM

I wouldn't be too confident in restarting old plants. in most cases these plants were shut down because they simply got too old.

Also, france is building new powerplants but this is mostly to replace old powerplants being shut down. It'll require a lot of powerplants just to keep the nuclear contribution where it is now.

>Serious question, how quickly can a plant be built and made operational?

On average, it takes about 7 years. Although various projects can take much longer, like the UK's Hinkley Point C.

Edited by devak on Mar 7th 2022 at 7:17:30 PM


Total posts: 1,200
Top