Antitoxic9087

joined 1 year ago
[–] Antitoxic9087@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 day ago

about a decade ago renewables reached grid parity with conventional sources in most of the world and experience exponential growth so far. I hope the same happen for plant based products.

[–] Antitoxic9087@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Although renewable + bess still wins according to most recent studies on that matter, cost comparison between nuke and renewable / Bess is not that useful. Assumptions on the longevity of nuke reactors, for example, helps little if the fleet of reactors end up constantly break down and require repairment as in France and Belgium. So lcoe of nuke over long time span is highly uncertain and contingent; even in construction phase nuclear projects already entails higher risk in time and budget overrun than renewables. Plus the positive feedback loop of learning curve, evident in renewable and Bess, is not so visible for nuclear.

What is more useful for sake of current policy discussion is deployment rate and scalability, which renewable plus batteries clearly wins.

[–] Antitoxic9087@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

and you don't seem to understand...

[–] Antitoxic9087@slrpnk.net 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

solar panels in a desert seems relative low impact infrastructure

[–] Antitoxic9087@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I looked into the gwp* thing and it is more appropriate for macroscopic / global analysis than for the carbon accounting of individuals. if one reduces 1 unit per year of emission of short live GHG now, can they claim the positive climate effects by comparing with the counterfactual baseline, where they continue to emit the GHG with the same rate forever? That is the equivalent of claiming an infinite amount of emission reduction.

in any case it is always possible to use a pulse response function to account for the gwp of any instantaneous emission increase/decrease, since gwp* is just the convolution of the pulse response over time.

[–] Antitoxic9087@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

just thinking: why stop at 2? I suppose a grid of heat towers with mirrors beneath would provide maximum utilization of the solar radiation

[–] Antitoxic9087@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 months ago

its the marginal cost of running existing plants, mainly from fuel cost.

[–] Antitoxic9087@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

since death star is capable of delivery a blast with high energy density, its core might be a nuclear fusion or anti matter power plant. maybe the mass there generates sufficient gravitational force.

[–] Antitoxic9087@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 months ago

The political context here is that the Australian conservatives (the liberal coalition I suppose), who have been vividly against climate policies and renewables, are now trying to propose nuke projects on coal power plant sites. Many of these coal power plants are soon to be phased out with renewables plus storage in the queue for the freed transmission capacity, so there isn't really any advantages these sites can offer for nuke projects decades from now.

Of course, any realistic realization of nukes in Australia would be no earlier than 2040 (some even suggest 2050), by then they could already get 100% renewable in energy system easily.

 

Due to work I need to use Microsoft outlook mail on a daily basis. What I would like to know is the privacy and security concerns of various options:

  1. Login and use outlook on a browser for general purposes
  2. Use a tailered third party client from flatpak such as https://flathub.org/en-GB/apps/io.github.mahmoudbahaa.outlook_for_linux
  3. Use thunderbird
  4. Any other possibilities
 

I have a LED lightbulb that starts to flicker. Is there anyway to fix it, or any parts of it that could be useful for other uses(i.e. diodes for use in electrical circuits)?

Correction: After checking the product serial number carefully it is a fluorescent lightbulb as many pointed out. Thanks for the correction and advice.

(PS I am renting a house now so the type of lightbulb is of my landlord's choice. Obviously were I to choose I would rather have a LED lightbulb)

 

In the very first days of Israel's most recent war against the Palestinian people, as I saw the news, I realized how many rooftop solar panels there were in Gaza. Not going to lie, it was a surprising and yet simultaneously encouraging scene to see, knowing that these solar infrastructures provide much needed electricity to the local population.

Unfortunately solar currently only supply 20% of electricity demand in Gaza. Palestinian thinktank cited cost and blockade as the main barriers for a more rapid deployment of solar.

Beyond costliness, the Israeli regime has sporadically restricted the entry of materials needed to install solar energy equipment over the past two decades. Moreover, its successive attacks on Gaza have destroyed necessary infrastructure for PV system installation, including residential buildings needed to house a rapidly expanding population, expected to reach 3.1 million in 2030. Combined with diminishing land and roof space, these realities render it extremely challenging for most Palestinians in Gaza to consider adopting PV technology.

Nevertheless, solar deployment in Gaza is still a remarkable achievement. Around a fifth of Gazans have installed solar power in their homes, which is about the same residential solar uptake percentage in Nederland (the EU state with highest solar installed per capita).

Similar to the case in Ukraine, the deployment and actual resiliency of renewable energy infrastructures in Gaza provides invaluable lessons for other people around the world, especially those who are or could at any moment be involved in a similar military conflict.

44
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Antitoxic9087@slrpnk.net to c/energy@slrpnk.net
 

Original comment paper: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic module toxicity and waste are slowing decarbonization

I read the paper. Behind paywall unfortunately, but the Cleantechnica article quote the paper well enough.

TLDR:

  1. Material waste from solar very small compared with other activities.
  2. Most common PVs contain almost none harmful materials. Trace amounts of lead in crystalline silicon modules and the cadmium in CdTe modules are the only potential harm IEA found. But Pb is being phased out, and CdTe compound is quite stable in CdTe modules. Both cadmium and tellurium are recycled into new modules.
  3. Module lifetime and reusability is increasing.

Treating decommissioned PV modules as a commodity and opportunity for material recovery, and not as hazardous waste would be environmentally and economically beneficial.

view more: next ›