Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
I was doing some reading about these power generating ocean buoys, and it's interesting to see all the complaints that pop up any time someone tries to make a new way to capture energy. Suddenly, people really care about the environmental impact of these methods, but never ever in comparison with coal and oil.
I still hear naysayers about solar panels, despite the fact that GPS and the International Space Station has used them for decades.
They really care about the migration patterns of Ducks when we start talking about wind power, but get an Oopsie about a massive oil spill.
Loss of life is very important for alternative methods, but no discussion about the impact when it comes to oil drilling and coal mining.
The fact of the matter is even setting aside the environmental impact, coal and oil are finite resources. Of course, we should care about the impact of how we produce energy, but we have to stop falling for false equivalency. Everything will have a downside, but we can address those issues and still move forward.
In case, you had an interest in the kinds of things I was reading about:
Oh no - another science news site I have to read now! And it looks like it has all the best articles....
@RickiTarr
I'm reading about ways to scale down my power usage. My goal is to use as low as I can, therefore I'm looking into induction cooking at 24v so it could be easily (and safely) done with a couple of solar panels. I'm exited about trying that in a few years hopefully.
@Andres @RickiTarr that sounds like a welding machine with extra steps.
@Andres @RickiTarr low voltage and high amperage. That's a welder.
@RichiH @RickiTarr
Kind of... I'm looking for something like 350W max, there are some models out there that looks promising.
@Andres @RickiTarr ah, that makes sense! I assumed 1700-3500 Watt as is common for single stove plug-in units in Germany, sorry. (And ~half that for 110V countries come to think of it)
@RickiTarr
I love reading articles like this, too.
Looks like each buoy, when about 20000 of them are deployed, can provide energy at a cost of $33-$44 per megawatt-hour, almost as cheap as wind.
It's a hard article to read, as it continuously confuses power and energy.
I wonder what a typically deployed array of these things would do to the power spectrum of waves on a shore. There are paradoxical mechanical concerns for sessile life, and wave and surf action have consequences for water oxygenation:
https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-do-wave-dynamics-and-water-flows-affect-coral-reefs
@seachanged @RickiTarr
I’d guess these would act as a notch filter at the optimal resonant frequency of the buoys.
However I doubt it would affect the power spectrum much as the incoming wave sets have far more energy than is being subtracted by the buoys, and dispersion will tend to fill in the frequency notch as it shallows to shore.
Sure you’d want to be more careful around a reef as the reef top depth and barrier widths will be important interactions.
I think the projected power from a single unit is around a megawatt, and the power from waves is surprising diffuse (to me: I just checked and found this reputable-looking article).
"A wave with a height of 2 m and a wavelength of 14 m breaking along 2 km of coastline (surface area = 32,000 m2) has approximately 45 kWh of energy. "
https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/waves/wave-energy-and-wave-changes-depth
This kind of system would sure moot any NIMBY concerns about spoiled views off Martha's Vineyard, for example.
@seachanged @RickiTarr Thanks for providing such a clear example of the problem. What does an oil spill do to the wildlife you're worried about?
There's a difference between a bad-faith argument between a pro-oil paid shell, who knows that every kilowatt hour of solar panel installed is a hit to the bottom line of barrels of oil ..
.. and a technology huckster using the horror of an oil spill or a nuclear process accident to deflect due process environmental impact investigation.
A non-binary approach is usually the best, so you can see tradeoffs.
@RickiTarr The biggest factor in all of these things is that those with the money to invest, whether private or government, are interested in big projects that can produce the most profit.
As PV panels are ideal for each person producing their own power at home, they are the least looked at unless in a 'solar farm' type idea.
Almost any country in the world could become energy independent with a decentralized power grid by installing PV panels on every roof top.
Besides the lower cost
1/x
@RickiTarr of living for people, it would also be a huge national security boost once the few, large power producers were eliminated as targets.
But doing so would cause too many with money to lose their advantage.
Any of the alternative ideas for power generation that don't cause widespread, long term damage are preferable over fossil fuels or nuclear, but they all face the same road block that they are hard to monopolize.
2/2
@Tom @RickiTarr They are hard to prevent, too. If solar is cheaper and better people are going to use it. A lot of the world that has no proper power grid is never going to install one. People are going to buy EcoFlow type devices and solar power on their own. Much like mobile phones are common in places that never had a landline telephone system.
@Tom @RickiTarr
Solar is cheap enough to keep getting deployed at scale. We need other, uncorrelated generation (wind) + storage to get to 100% renewables.
@Tom @RickiTarr Biggest issue for solar is having sufficient battery storage for night time. For wave power the biggest issue is scaling up and reliability. https://www.mocean.energy/ have done a full scale deployment off Orkney, where a lot of good research is happening.
@RickiTarr 
.. 
…I’m probably going to get flamed for saying so, so much science has been funded by big oil as well, many of the datasets, mapping, tools, educations etc.
I’m in no way trying to greenwash what they have done for our planet.
There’s no redemption big enough for that I have seen
I’m just saying it becomes very difficult to separate the good vs bad sections.
There are so many frames of perspective involved. 
.
@RickiTarr Make those buoys double duty by hooking up wave-powered tubes that oxygenate the water.
Excellent points Ricki, I never thought about it that way.
More ammo for us against the deniers.
@RickiTarr The regressives in this country realized that their most effective strategy was to claim ANYTHING that progressive believe in is terrible.
As a result, they take completely untenable positions all the time. Solar power, wind power, electric cars: it's all the same.
Heck, it's even what drives them to HATE VACCINES and BAN MASKS.
"If a liberal is for it, we must oppose it, no matter how much it flies in the face of reason."
@danciruli @RickiTarr Can we harness this contrariness? “Do you know who is in favour of voting? LIBERALS!”
@michaelgemar @RickiTarr In a sense we have. Donald Trump spent three years railing against mail-in voting...but only one side was listening to his nonsense.
@danciruli @RickiTarr It’s kinda the same with vaccinations…
@danciruli @RickiTarr yes, hating vaccines is like campaigning for the return of TB and polio
@RickiTarr
We'd like to heal our planet
And save it for all living things
But sadly there's one little problem;
The fat cats who own everything
@RickiTarr the alternate energy sector is full of Not In My Back Yardisms and it's so annoying. When I read about people fighting against offshore wind turbines or whatever because it will ruin their view I want to smack them. I'd love to run my home off solar but it's so expensive it wouldn't be worth it, and that shouldn't be the case while we're starting to watch the world burn.
Imagine my shock when I learned that Wyoming's Republican governor was pushing wind farms. It's almost like he believes the science or something. I bet he's really lonely at the Republican governors conventions...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wyoming-mark-gordon-energy-agenda-60-minutes-transcript/
@mmiasma @RickiTarr Texas has a ton of wind power and without it they would be in much worse shape, though it seems the state GOP regularly trashes it.
Mrs Miasma's father lives just outside of Houston. The number of power outages he's been through would've been life-threatening if he needed anything like oxygen or refrigeration in his old age.
I'm actually surprised that power company executives in Texas don't travel with bodyguards.
Texans deserve way better than they're getting from their government.
I guess the spirit of Enron lives on.
It does, and solar, and fission, but alas it has a tonne and a half of fossil power. And rising.
Odd place, Texas. By American standards, even.
@mmiasma @RickiTarr if there’s something that Wyoming has it’s empty space already ruined by extractive industries.
So using it for wind turbines is honestly a sensible idea.
Sounds like you must've spent some time down around Casper or Gillette.
I can say with confidence that wind generators would do well in any part of the state, as would solar.
@mmiasma @RickiTarr drove through Wyoming once and after crossing the mountains on route 16 the thought that came to my mind was “this is where we film Cold Mad Max”
We're not a post-apocalyptic dystopia (yet), we just like a lot of distance between our neighborhoods.
@mmiasma @RickiTarr it’s a beautiful and harsh place and it obviously can’t support that many people. I’m hoping to go back there and road trip it properly.
I just wish less of the locals were so cranky and bent on messing up the place (further) for a few extra bucks.
@RickiTarr That's the big point, oil and coal are finite. Like, hello, we will run out of them in some point, remember??? Even if people don't care about the environment, this is a simple sure fact. How are they even questioning the need for alternatives is beyond me.
@mayaisloading @RickiTarr Population activists: We'll run out of food on <date>.
Scientists: Invent nitrogen fertilizer, pushing the problem into the future.
Capitalists: See, no problem! We can grow forever!
Peak oil activists: We'll run out of oil on <date>.
Scientists: Invent fracking, allowing extraction of previously unprofitable reserves, pushing the problem into the future.
Capitalists: See, no problem! We can use fossil fuels forever!
People just prefer to bury their head in the sand rather than accept a clear fact such as global warming. If they did, suddenly the contradictions come to light.
Wind turbines? Those kill the birds, let's keep igniting forest fires instead.
@RickiTarr Well put, thanks!
@RickiTarr my deal with the buoys in particular is that they I just don't grok them. But that's true for a lot of mechanical things. My brother-in-law, who started his career fixing mechanical cash registers - he'd get them intuitively. (His eldest is the same way, you just have to mention the idea for something like this & they'll instantly give you 6 ways it could work & 12 mistakes you could make in implementing it.)
@RickiTarr it's almost as if... There's a massive green washing campaign for fossil fuels against renewables
@RickiTarr All this talk about harnessing natural energy always makes me contemplate all the wasted energy in the world. I personally think we should be harnessing 22 year olds. Not so much for energy…just cause.
@RickiTarr Good points. I'd rather have a solar panel field or a wind turbine rather than a refinery or a nuclear power plant next to me. That's not the key environmental issue, thought for me. It's mining. That is, mining for the materials that are going to be needed for this massive so called green transition. Copper mining for instance is going to increase 500% to meet the need. Same with other minerals. And with that is going to increase fossil fuel consuming machines to mine, process and transport it. Americans may want a windmill in the park next them, but not a mine or processing plant. That is why the corporate moguls like Musk are so interested in foreign policy now. Those mines are going to be placed in Africa and Latin America, where rich resources and extractive capitalism is going to ramp up by orders of magnitude the devastation of the land and impoverished of the people, so we can have ICE and EV cars and electric gadgets. What is missing is the debate on our energy hunger itself.
@RickiTarr
Indeed.
The general strategy I like to suggest is to ask, "What is the cost of *not* doing this?”
Yes, putting up wind turbines may cause the deaths of migrant fowl, but increasing temperature, extreme weather, and pollution will kill a lot more.
Not making improvements is still an active choice.
(Aside: Specifically for wind turbines, the nay-sayers typically don't like it if you point out that cats kill orders of magnitude more birds.)
@RickiTarr Well-said.
Similar to the criticism of public transport, like MARTA in Atlanta. Republicans will say "it didn't make a profit."
It's not supposed to. It's a public utility.
@kimlockhartga @RickiTarr
It only needs a profit sufficient to fund its routine operations.
@72mz @kimlockhartga @RickiTarr Not even that. The economic benefits aren’t captured by simple financial accounting.
@pedrobizbikedu @kimlockhartga @RickiTarr
I agree but it depends on the public's appetite for subsidies.
@72mz @kimlockhartga @RickiTarr No argument there. When anything for the public good is derided as ‘communism', you know we have a long way to go.
@pedrobizbikedu @kimlockhartga @RickiTarr
Who mentioned communism? That's weird.
@RickiTarr You nailed it. Well said. And add lithium mining for electric car batteries to that list.
@RickiTarr the carbon industries pay them so make shit up to waste their money. Energy from the moons gravity as it circles the earth. It makes tides so there must a lot of energy in the system.
Energy from people walking. An insole that generates power from walking. It could be collected from shoes with charging mats in doorways like wireless phone charging. A collar attachment on dog collars to capture Energy from dogs running. Transfer generated Energy at the dog Park gates.