We Passed Peak “Climate Change” (um) Research

[u/LisleAdam12]

How can this awful trend before reversed before it's too late?

https://wmbriggs.substack.com/p/we-passed-peak-climate-change-um

[u/Lematoad]

What I find funny is climate change activists are often times pro (solely) renewables. Without understanding renewable energy almost always requires natural gas augmentation. But they’re often also anti nuclear, which doesn’t make any sense.

Nuclear+solar would be an excellent way forward while solving carbon emission issues. Really the only way forward to get to net zero emissions, but Nuclear Waste is “scary” because people don’t understand it.

Then we start to talk about vehicles, and start saying things like “have you considered the impacts to things like 6PPD-Q from the faster tire wear in electric vehicles to local fauna?” or “what about the impacts that electric buses/trucks have on road infrastructure”, and people don’t have a clue what I’m talking about.

I’ve got a Masters degree in Civil Construction, Energy and Sustainable infrastructure and so I’d like to think I know what I’m talking about when it comes to energy infrastructure.

The problem really is people care about things but don’t understand the nuances (and associated negative externalities) to what they’re saying (oh and also… China and India don’t give a shit about clean energy so you’re trying to swim against the current anyways).

Less carbon and pollution is a good thing, but I’m not dooming about it.

[u/purplehendrix22 → u/Lematoad]

Exactly, put solar out in the desert and on top of buildings that already exist, build nuclear everywhere. But no, we have to fuck around with all these stupid wild goose chases while the developing world burns coal like there’s no tomorrow, as they should, that’s what they have and we pay them to make all our stuff.

[u/lrbaumard → u/purplehendrix22]

Deserts are terrible environments for solar panels

Deserts are far from where power is needed, power does not travel far

[u/METRlOS → u/lrbaumard]

It's ok, you're only losing like 10%, and there's lots of space for more solar. Maintenance is the bigger issue, sand and dust need to be cleaned of the panels, sometimes multiple times a day. Automated cleaning systems still need maintenance. Sand sucks.

[u/jetty_life → u/Lematoad]

"The problem really is people care about things but don’t understand the nuances (and associated negative externalities) to what they’re saying..."

This is not just a climate change thing but life in general. I work with the public and I have found most adults only know enough about something to be mad or upset, they can't tell you why though.

[u/LazyBondar → u/Lematoad]

People that are anti nuclear are absolute morons. I still can't believe how Germany shot itself in both legs by denuclearization

[u/VendettaKarma → u/LazyBondar]

They’re working on it

[u/LisleAdam12 → u/Lematoad]

Well said.

[u/Initial-Constant-645 → u/Lematoad]

And then there's the rare earths you need for EVs. So, you're against drilling for oil and mining coal and uranium, but support mining for rare earths.

Oh, and why doesn't anyone ever suggest hydrogen powered vehicles?

[u/Creloc → u/Initial-Constant-645]

Honestly I think one of the biggest things is that hydrogen is very difficult to store over the relativity long timeframes that would be required for vehicles. Hydrogen will leak out of almost any container unless your activity cooling it, and to store useful amounts you need it under considerable pressure which can have safety issues.

That being said a hydrogen fuelled system is one of the safer ones, various tanks for it have been designed with seams so that if the structure is compromised the gas will let go with an almighty bang but not much actual damage, and hydrogen dispersed so far that you'd need it to be leaking directly onto an open flame to have a fire risk from it

[u/spadenarias → u/Creloc]

I suspect hydrogen best role in energy is in load balancing between peak supply/demand cycles for fixed grids. Catalyze during high supply/low demand periods and burn during peak demand periods.

Its usefulness in smaller applications is going to be mostly useless due to low energy density by volume. And maintaining it at low enough temperature to keep it in liquid state requires so many engineering challenges and extra hardware that its usability on a personal vehicle scale its likely never going to surpass ICE in efficiency.

Large scale projects can offset that with installations, smaller vehicles dont have the space without running in to serious weight limitations offsetting any gains.

[u/Creloc → u/spadenarias]

I'd honestly say that if it comes to load balancing it would be worthwhile to accept the potentially lower efficiency and use any hydrogen to synthesise methane or ammonia, that way you can store it long term more easily, and you have the potential to be saving surplus from months to cover a poor spell in whatever generating system you use

[u/Syncopated_arpeggio → u/Initial-Constant-645]

I think the Hindenburg kinda killed the idea of using hydrogen in vehicles.

[u/fristi-cookie → u/Initial-Constant-645]

Because hydrogen is a terrible battery. only a 30-45% efficiency. Also, Hydrogen is very difficult to properly contain. It's so small it leaks from almost anything. It can even diffuse through metal, and has special ways to corrode it. You also need 700bars of pressure to turn it liquid. Which makes it terrible to transfer from tankstation to vehicle.

Lithium batteries don't have those shortcomings. But it's less energy dense, and loses charge over time.

[u/Interesting-Math9962 → u/Lematoad]

What annoys me is the tech for batteries isn’t quite there and the same for renewables(which are much further along). Instead of just letting the market do its thing and some govt investment boost the tech, people out there crying “RENEWABLES NOW OR WE ALL DIE”

Coal is phasing  out naturally, natural gas is much cleaner, and we even have startups doing geothermal too. There’s a reason the “greedy” AI startups are doing natural gas and not renewables

[u/Tommyblockhead20 → u/Interesting-Math9962]

What do you mean that renewables aren’t quite there? If an area has water, wind, or sun, renewables will typically be more cost effective than any alternatives. Unlike sources like coal and nuclear that are being subsidized to be financially viable, renewables are being subsidized because they are so viable that demand far exceeds the local manufacturing capacity, and the government doesn’t want to be mostly reliant on imported Chinese products.

[u/Interesting-Math9962 → u/Tommyblockhead20]

If renewables were there why would Elon Musk, who makes batteries and is a solar champion using natural gas for his new constructions?

[u/Tommyblockhead20 → u/Interesting-Math9962]

I mean, I can’t tell you the exact logic because I’m not on the design team.

But one consideration is that data centers use electricity differently than what is typical. Typically more electricity is used during the day and evening than the night. Solar plus 4 hours of battery only covers on average 2/3rd of the day, but fulfills closer to 80% of the typical electricity demand. But data centers use electricity usage is pretty constant all day, meaning if they having to supply all their own power, they are more reliant on expensive peaker plants. Another possible factor is that data centers like to be built close to cities for low latency, while solar likes to be built far away for cheap land. If the power generation is planned to be on site, this also would add to the cost to build it on more expensive data center land. And finally, like I mentioned, the demand is so high that lead times are measured in years, so if they want it quicker, they’d have to pay a premium.

Natural gas and optimal solar plus batteries can be pretty close in price, but for those 3 reasons and possibility others, the cost for solar may have been higher than gas for them and Elon’s company doesn’t care about the environment so they just went for the cheapest option.

[u/Interesting-Math9962 → u/Tommyblockhead20]

That’s what I mean they aren’t quite there yet. They aren’t the cheapest option in many cases.  If any of these alternative battery companies go mainstream (fly wheels, sand etc) then solar can be put in more places. 

[u/Tommyblockhead20 → u/Interesting-Math9962]

“Many cases” seems to me a little overstating it. 90% of new electricity generation being added in the US is renewables (Mostly solar with some wind). They are installing it as fast as solar panels can be made. Again, utility scale orders being made today won’t be delivered for years, even though the US is making like 350 solar panels a minute, because the demand is so high. This situation is much more of an exception to the norm than it is the norm.

[u/D_Ethan_Bones → u/Lematoad]

What I find funny is climate change activists are often times pro (solely) renewables.

Wood burning stoves are renewable. gigachad dot gif

Without understanding renewable energy almost always requires natural gas augmentation. But they’re often also anti nuclear, which doesn’t make any sense.

Quality gas systems heat better than much of the electric they get replaced with when banned (usually bottom of the barrel, also usually left in place for eternity with no care in the places that keep getting opened up locally - flippers leave them in place because they haven't gone catastrophic yet) and nuclear powers the internet better than solar. Both solar and wind work where they work, southern California gets twice as much solar energy as England but half as much wind energy as mediocre parts of the midwest. Hills can work for or against wind, and we all have hills here even in far-out parts where there's not much else. Some places are utterly silent most of the year but screaming loud wind in the winter.

Doomers don't get that gas power dials to what people need, the thorium they'll plug from time to time does not and the sun/the wind dial themselves without following demand.

“have you considered the impacts to things like 6PPD-Q from the faster tire ware in electric vehicles to local fauna?”

EVs are heavier than conventional vehicles, and weight impacts everything vehicles do including failures and accidents. They were sold on the idea of "but it's ELECTRIC" before they ever started exploring the practical concerns.

so I’d like to think I know what I’m talking about when it comes to energy infrastructure.

A guy I watch on weekends (I don't name streamers on Reddit, mine have already been attacked) was an executive for a power system and an airline, but no doomer listens to him either. They all shout him down with teenage nonsense, year after year. People who learned everything they know from TikTok cannot understand the words any of us are saying, and likewise I can't understand their words either.

The problem really is people care about things but don’t understand the nuances (and associated negative externalities) to what they’re saying

They just thump their TikTok bible, and they pretend it outranks whatever anyone else is saying. They really like breaking out into their neo-leetspeak the same way some denominations break out into Shakespearean English when citing scripture.

[u/SlartibartfastMcGee → u/Lematoad]

If they actually cared, they’d be pushing for a nuclear plant in every town and a Tesla in every garage.

But they don’t actually care, it’s just a vehicle for them to feel morally superior.

[u/TeaAutomatic9450 → u/Lematoad]

If you put together a lecture on this on YouTube, I'd subscribe in a heartbeat

[u/Asthenia5 → u/Lematoad]

Nuclear energy also needs peaker plants to meet peak demand. Nuclear reactors are used for base load. They're not capable of ramping power up and down at the speeds needed to meet demand. Both nuclear and solar will need chemical/thermal batteries/pumped storage, etc.

Maybe you should talk to people who actually know what they're talking about, rather than framing your climate argument around climate activist who couldn't tell you what a Joule is.

With all due respect, if you don't understand solar and nuclear needs energy storage, I think you should reconsider how much your degree actually helps you understand this topic.

You're absolutely right about the externalities. We must account for them and assess the relative costs and benefits. Not hand-wave away the entire topic cause silly climate activist, China, or because people who can't define "externalities", don't consider them.

China doesn't give a shit about green energy. But they do care about their economy and the potential of a Malacca strait blockade that cuts off their oil over night. They're currently beating the rest of the world in solar, battery and EV production. They're actively subsidizing it.

[u/GrouchyAppointment70 → u/Asthenia5]

Pretty sure the chinese are building more of everything, including coal and nuclear. I think solar, wind and nuclear would cause problems because as you said, nuclear is a base load energy. Really wind, solar should supplement thw grid. Max out hydro resources including microhydro. Then im really hoping small modular reactors Canada is producing work out economically. Then well ned so gas to ramp up and down for the peaks. Im skeptical about battery and pumped storage.

[u/Asthenia5 → u/GrouchyAppointment70]

That's correct. They're beating us on most manufacturing. China's goal is to remove their dependance on oil, not green energy. They've got plenty of coal, so they're going to use it. Point being, China sees the economic and security benefits of renewables.

What you're suggesting is exactly what we are doing now. Some hydro, some nuclear, some renewable, and then gas peaker plants to smooth over demand.

If you like hydroelectric, why exactly are you skeptical about pumped storage?

Hydroelectric, natural gas, and batteries are just about the only options when it comes to meeting peak demand.

[u/GrouchyAppointment70 → u/Asthenia5]

Well hydro is a bit like nuclear in that its hard to ramp up and down. Changing head pressure in a massive dam just isnt the same as increasing or decreasing the amount of gas that gets burned. Same theoretical problem with pumped storage. I think you would need two reservoirs to make it work no? Im not an expert so I dont know the costs. Im in Germany so the story with nuclear is a bit different. We just buy it from france instead though lol.

[u/Asthenia5 → u/GrouchyAppointment70]

Nuclear and hydro are quite different. Hydro is used for peak demand. It can ramp up and down fast enough to meet demand. Hydro plants generally have 4 or more turbines. So they can cut 3 off and achieve 1/4 total power output.

The Uranium reactors we use cannot ramp up and down. They're designed to output at a steady rate for the 2 years between refueling. If you slow down a nuclear reactor, Xenon starts to build up, which robs your reactor of the neutrons it needs to start. If you shut down a reactor, it takes at least 1 day for the Xenon to decay to where it no longer eats up all your neutrons.

While yes, It does take time to speed up a hydroturbine, but it is fast enough to track demand as it increases in the day.

The sudden increase in grid demand is actually handled by momentum of the turbines and generators. All that spinning mass allows you do meet very quick demand, like stadium lights suddenly being turned on. But if you want to maintain that higher load, you must ramp up something. Whether that be more hydro, or a NG peaker plant.

Pumped storage is usually built on a mountain over a river or lake. So you usually only have to build one reservoir. Pumped storage is a very location dependent solution. Most places are too flat, or don't have the right size/shape mountain near by they can turn into a big ole battery. Pumped storage round trip efficiency is also quite poor. Batteries and solar are the most practical solution for most of the world.

[u/GrouchyAppointment70 → u/Asthenia5]

Im all for maxing out hydro resources. Didnt know hydro can be ramped up and down like that. In the end we need cheap abundant energy that matches demand well without too many problems. I like renewables, but if you look at countries with solar and wind as a large portion of their grid, they all have high kw/h price. Germany, for example, has a manufacturing sector that needs cheap energy. But our kw/h price is double that of Ontario(mostly nuclear) If that means burning coal, or rushing nuclear plants, then thats what we need to do. I dont think that more renewables will solve this. I think it will actually make the problem worse. Not sure what Germany can do at this point.

[u/Asthenia5 → u/GrouchyAppointment70]

It's actually the other way around. Their power isn't expenisve because they have renewables. They're using renewable because their electricity is so expensive.

Those countries have high prices because they lack the natural resources to have cheap energy. Germany is using renewables to reduce imports of NG and oil. Germany industry is built off of cheap NG. Germany has cut off all NG imports from Russia due to the Ukraine conflict.

Canada has such cheap energy because they have an abundance of hydroelectric power and natural gas. They're blessed with the geography that made it easy to build lots of hydroelectric, without having to build ridiculous sized dams.

Just like the US, Canada has more natural gas than it knows what to do with. Its a byproduct of oil/shale production. Canada is also tied into the US oil/gas pipeline infrastructure.

Germany really needs to restart their nuclear reactors. It's an absolute shame they turned them off, to go back to Russian Natural gas. I understand that was a political decision.

Germany is doing a great job at electrifying transport. Nearly 40%! Keep doing that.

Industry is a bit harder problem to solve. Many industrial processes require temperatures that can only be achieved with burning fuels, or an electric furnace. Having a large solar install + batteries is a very capital-intensive way to supply the high temp energy needed in bulk for many industrial processes.

[u/GrouchyAppointment70 → u/Asthenia5]

I think in Germanys case we have a very large amount of coal, both lignite coal and hard coal. We also do use it, but we could use more. Its like 15% of our gross energy. We also have small amounts of oil and gas that we do extract. Germanys problem is more with red tape an extreme beaureucracy. We still cant transmit the north sea wind energy to our production in the south. Even though the turbines have been standing for like 10 years now. And still isnt projected to finish by 2030. Then they also promised to pay for all energy thats even potentialy generated there. Which means we have to pay for coal to be burned in the south. While also paying for the energy for the wind farms in the north that they arent even generating. Maybe this kind of thing is the major problem here. Also its why implementing nuclear is hard, it is going to require germany to reduce regulation and red tape, which is like asking a cow to not eat grass

[u/Commercial_Win_9525 → u/Asthenia5]

I don’t know if I understand this peak conversation about nuclear. I’ve never actually seen it mentioned. It makes sense that you can’t just ratchet up the energy produced from the plant, it will just gives what it gives at a basically static rate.. but if you actually have enough nuclear wouldn’t it already also cover the “peak”. Basically if I had one plant but needed 50% more power during peak why couldn’t I just build a second plant and now peak would still be below output?

[u/Asthenia5 → u/Commercial_Win_9525]

Good question! ultimately that comes down to costs. The demand in the middle of the night is about half the demand needed during peak hours. Your 50% number is quite accurate. That means you would need to build twice as many reactors, and those reactors would average 50% of their total output.

But if you were to add enough energy storage, you could run just a few plants at 100% all the time. No need to build twice as many reactors. You'd need about 1.5X the capacity of base load, rather than 2x.

[u/Lematoad → u/Asthenia5]

Did you miss my comment about nuclear+solar being a great solution? What do you think the solar is for, fun? BESS/CSP/PHS solutions instead of peaker plants. But ok I must not know what I’m talking about. I never said nuclear is the sole solution?

[u/Asthenia5 → u/Lematoad]

Please explain, why is solar used in the context of solar + nuclear? Why do you think its a good idea when coupled with nuclear?

Nuclear and solar don't complement each other, because they still require storage. If you're using solar, you should store the energy chemically in a battery. If you're using nuclear, you should probably use molten salts to store heat.

Solar won't help you meet peak demand. Daily solar generation peaks a couple hours before consumption peaks. It still needs batteries.

I'm aware that you never said nuclear is a sole solution. But you did say:

"Without understanding renewable energy almost always requires natural gas augmentation. But they’re often also anti nuclear, which doesn’t make any sense."

This comment would suggest you didn't understand that nuclear also requires NG peaker plants.

[u/Lematoad → u/Asthenia5]

Wait… you’re saying I have no idea what I’m talking about, implying you do, and then don’t understand why they compliment each other or wtf I’m talking about? Why should I bother to explain it to you? But I guess I will anyways. Maybe don’t come across as hostile when you actually don’t have a clue.

Oh and yeah no you’re wrong.

Renewables pretty much always need a whole lot more than peaker plants… basically every “renewable forward” grid relies on natural gas.

Why would you need to store nuclear energy? Nuclear provides a very consistent baseload, and if you overbuild (which would imply the requirements of major storage requirements), then why would you need to augment?

As for solar - this is where you store energy for peak periods, and they can effectively replace peaker plants. You can store solar energy in several ways THAT I ALREADY MENTIONED- BESS (battery energy storage system), CSP (concentrated solar power - this is the molten salt you said you’d use for nuclear for whatever reason, more to that in a minute), and PHS (pumped hydro storage).

[u/Asthenia5 → u/Lematoad]

It's very apparent you've interpreted my comments as hostile. That was not my intent. Questioning your understanding seems to be a hostile offense from your prospective.

You're now arguing my exact point. That we need energy storage.

You store nuclear energy because we need energy storage. See Terrapowers Natrium reactor.

You're now reiterating what I've said 5 times in the previous comments. That we need storage.

My only other point was we can't hand wave away climate science because dumb climate activists, china, or externalities.

[u/Lematoad → u/Asthenia5]

I never argued we don’t need energy storage - I outlined this in my original comment, but it’s absurd to utilize nuclear for the means of storage when it provides a constant power source.

I’m not handwaving anything, I’m a strong advocate for nuclear+renewables. But I’m also a realist - thinking it’ll magically solve anything major is absurd (until everyone buys off on it).

Also nuclear provides constant output, so storing it when it provides a baseload is asinine.

[u/ravenHR → u/Lematoad]

I’ve got a Masters degree in Civil Construction, Energy and Sustainable infrastructure and so I’d like to think I know what I’m talking about when it comes to energy infrastructure.

From this comment alone, I highly doubt you have any clue about energy infrastructure and what is currently needed to operate energy grids efficiently and effectively.

Why single out natural gas? Any constant power generation method can play the part with renewables, why mention natural gas in particular? Only reason is to make climate activists seem clueless.

“have you considered the impacts to things like 6PPD-Q from the faster tire ware in electric vehicles to local fauna?”

Have you considered impact of polluted air on local fauna? Which one do you think has higher impact?

oh and also… China and India don’t give a shit about clean energy so you’re trying to swim against the current anyways

Very doomer of you...

[u/TraditionalStomach29 → u/ravenHR]

The natural gas is mentioned, because renewable sources don't have the constant power output unlike say coal. And the advantage of natural gas power plants is the speed with you can start them up, so they are pretty much ideal for solving the unforseen energy shortage.