Antitoxic9087

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.

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

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

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.

my understanding is that Taiwan buys weapons from the us, so he is demanding something that is already a common practice

just a reminder if they put the orange diamonds for wind and solar it would probably lie somewhere near zero $/MWh

It is highly dependent of the local geological conditions. Convection-based geothermal plants (those with hot spring flowing around) probably have less constraints on heat extraction limit. Conduction-based geothermal plants will face more problems.

In some shallow geothermal use case the ground is used as seasonal heat storage so heat renewable rate is not an issue.

The moemorphic character shown in the picture is Archchan, created by ravimo. I wonder why show her in a discussion about Mint?

It's not a good analogy. A better analogy might be a community that promotes a Linux distro that runs exclusively on Chromebook and claims that that is the ONLY private and secure way to use a computer.

Some people are still using current primary energy supply share of renewables to bash wind and solar. Given the rapid adoption of these techs, such unfair metric will become more and more irrelevant. Once thermal electricity generation becomes the exception, electricity becomes the main primary energy carrier. Some forms of secondary energy carriers will still exist (in form of green chemical molecules) but overall efficiency of the energy system will no doubt improve.

Meanwhile the world still building wind solar battery faster than ever...

Why don't we store it and use it another time? Or we let other type of more meaning electricity demand do the load shifting?

Of course, if you are doing the computation for some vital services, it make sense to do VRE availability based demand side management as much as possible. But doing computation for some proof of work algorithm is basically computing for the sake of computing more, and I just cannot grasp the rationale behind it.

And this type of article reinforce the "too much renewable" myth. The problem is conventional power plants are still getting in the way and there is insufficient amount demand response and storage. The problem is not too much wind and solar.