Every time I head anti-electrification arguments around EVs, heat pumps, etc. it's usually a complaint about grid capacity. I always shake my head, because building more power lines is relatively easy on the scale of climate tech we need to kick all carbon emissions.
Let's brainstorm how to decarbonize fertilizer, or concrete.
That being said I am really glad to see more grid buildup! Especially as more renewables hit the grid. While locally intermittent, on the scale of the entire country they're fairly reliable and predictable.
Indeed, it is an annoying argument that boils down to
"What will we do!? Current supply doesn't meet future demand!"
>That being said I am really glad to see more grid buildup! Especially as more renewables hit the grid. While locally intermittent, on the scale of the entire country they're fairly reliable and predictable.
Here's what's coming that makes people uncomfortable and they don't expect or understand:
Oversupply.
Seasonally, during good weather, during certain times of day, there's just going to be more electricity produced by solar/wind than anybody needs. You don't need to store it or use every bit of it, the grid is going to say no and because they're just solar panels, they are perfectly fine. Solar electricity is so cheap that it just doesn't matter. What customers will end up paying for is capacity instead of usage. Maybe there will be instantaneous pricing that will drop to zero-ish intermittently and consumers and industry will find ways of profiting from that.
But a whole lot of "problems" people complain about with solar are very much reduced if you just have "too many" solar panels. And they're cheap so who cares?
Like what would California do with way too much solar power? Boil water in the cheapest possible infrastructure for desalination, an enormous still. Very energy inefficient, but who cares if you just have the amps to spare?
There are a lot of industrial processes where energy efficiency is a problem and so simple processes are replaced by more efficient complex ones... but if you have free energy building out that simple infrastructure to only run when energy is cheap suddenly makes a lot more sense.
The "annoying" thing that the naysayers are pointing out is that we are not building enough power generation to support universally switching to electric vehicles. Unfortunately this "annoyance" happens to be true.
Also, California struggles to get new desalination plants through environmental approval. And most industrial processes need continuous power, not just power whenever the weather looks good.
I have solar panels myself. But let's be honest about what the technology can and cannot do.
Solar only makes energy while the sun is shining. Most people want to charge their electric cars at night, unless their employer has a charging station ready for them to use at work. (Many employers have a small number of charging stations for this purpose, but none of them that I'm aware of have enough charging stations for everyone.)
Despite the rapid growth in solar deployments, time-of-use charges for power are generally still lowest in the middle of the night. Unless or until that inverts, I don't think this is a problem.
You already presented the solution. There is no breakthrough technology to be made here, just make charging ports available everywhere so that people can charge during the day. This will make peak consumption happen during the day and PV viable. During the night, you can exploit CSP with salt batteries. Balance your electric usage and you aren now 100% fully electric. The possible differences can be arbitraged with lithium batteries.
I’d think direct thermal solar would be cheaper for boiling water. Feed the steam to electric generators; the condensate is then your desalinated water.
You are missing the point. I’m talking about sinks for surplus electricity, and doing it cheaply with dead simple distillation setups. You’re talking about generating more electricity when it is needed least.
Not particularly, the mining hardware depreciates fast, essentially being quite expensive to leave idle waiting for low energy prices, and the whole thing is kind of a gamble.
> because building more power lines is relatively easy on the scale of climate tech we need to kick all carbon emissions.
Then why have the rates changed so much recently? More importantly if EVs are going to be the thing then home solar should be the way it get the majority of it's power. Why even build the lines? Isn't that just a subsidy?
> Let's brainstorm how to decarbonize fertilizer, or concrete.
I don't think you can. I think you should worry more about how concrete and fertilizer get _distributed_. This is essentially the same dynamic as the home solar problem above.
> on the scale of the entire country they're fairly reliable and predictable.
That's due to the way the grid itself is structure not how any one power source performs. No source of power is particularly reliable and unexpected maintenance intervals always occur. Point here being, if you try to switch a grid that's based on a mix of sources, over to a grid that isn't, you're probably going to end up with a surprising result or two during that misguided process.
>> Let's brainstorm how to decarbonize fertilizer, or concrete.
> I don't think you can. I think you should worry more about how concrete and fertilizer get _distributed_. This is essentially the same dynamic as the home solar problem above.
Isn't the primary source of CO2 from fertilizer production a byproduct of producing hydrogen gas via steam methane reforming?
We can make hydrogen without starting from methane (namely: via electrolysis), but it's not economical in comparison, at this time. (Or clearly able to scale to quite the same degree, for that matter.) But I reject the claim that it's not possible (or, for that matter, that we don't know how to do it). The issue is that the negative externalities from CO2 emissions are not priced in such a way to render existing processes less cost-effective than carbon-free alternatives.
That said, I share some of your skepticism regarding how much we can conceivably decarbonize concrete production.
Aren't those cost factors based upon the type of load curves we currently see? Isn't there some reason to suspect that the efficiency rating will drop if we experience much greater offsets between time of generation and time of demand with the types of peaks that EV charging might bring? Wouldn't it be nice to have all this without having to engage with the daunting prospect that is the "smart grid?"
There's a common misconception that thinks of electricity like a fluid or supply chain. If you generate more of it locally, it reduces the load on the grid and you need to spend proportionally less on distribution. This is false: the actual electrons in AC move a small fraction of a millimeter, electrical potential travels at a speed that is effectively the speed of light, electric conductivity is all-or-nothing, and if you need the grid at all, you need the full expense of building and maintaining that segment of grid. You probably need some form of grid if only to even out load spikes (running your clothes dryer often takes 20x the power as all the lights and electronics in your house, but not everybody runs their clothes dryer at once) and manage seasonal variations (solar power, particularly in northern latitudes, can be 5x higher in summer than winter, which is not a problem when you're powering southerly residents' air conditioning but is when your cold house doesn't need A/C).
The load curve over time only matters to the extent that you can entirely remove remote consumption. You can use batteries to smooth out night and day. You can reduce the use of batteries by sponsoring V2H EVs and workplace charging, so that you charge your EV when solar is abundant in the day, and then drive it home to power the rest of your house. But this does nothing for summer vs. winter, it does nothing for wanting to run a clothes dryer or space heater (many of which actually exceed the max power draw of a whole-home battery), it does nothing for wanting to charge your EV up to full before a long road trip.
I am in favor of microgrids, but this is more a statement that we should rationalize our distribution infrastructure rather than that get rid of the grid entirely. When power plants were large centralized industrial buildings that needed a steady supply of fossil fuels delivered by road or rail, it made sense to just build a few of them and then have a huge grid that distributed the electricity everywhere. When you can put solar on every rooftop, it might make more sense to have the smaller remote communities all invest in rooftop or community solar, wire them up in a microgrid of ~1000 homes, put in a big utility-scale battery, but otherwise disconnect them from the main grid so that power lines don't go through tinder forests. And then the big cities draw from big utility-scale solar and wind farms in the desert, connected by conventional power lines along major transportation arteries. But there's still some grid there, it's just a smaller, cheaper grid where you make the connections that are easy to maintain and distribute generation to the remote communities that can run their own self-sufficient grid.
> Aren't those cost factors based upon the type of load curves we currently see?
No, that would effect the price the electricity would fetch, not the cost to buy panels and put them on the grid. Home rooftop panels are so much more expensive because of economies of scale.
And it still costs well below what my utility charges me. If the real cost of a thing is supposed to weigh into my incentives, I need to be able to buy it for that price.
The 30% federal tax credit is not a good deal for taxpayers. You probably also benefit from net metering and the utility probably doesn't recover infrastructure costs from you due to your reduced usage. That's a bad deal for ratepayers.
Home solar/battery would provide a level of independence for each home and would lessen the load on the grid for air conditioning alone (almost 20% of grid utilization).
At 3x the price it's not a good deal for taxpayers or ratepayers. If homeowners want to do it for independence that's fine but the cost should be on them. I'm fine with giving them a credit for reduced ghg emissions.
Sure, let them pay for it. Perhaps a low interest loan to help incentivize it but theoretically it pays off in 6-9 years and then free power and less grid load, and the loan is paid back.
Even if you have rooftop solar, you still need a grid capable of supplying 100% the power because there are cloudy days and long sequences of cloudy days
Yes but EVs have batteries and people don't drive them to depletion every single day. I should have been more clear, I didn't mean the whole house, I meant the just the EVs specifically, for now. It would completely alleviate their impact on the grid as a consumer power source.
Even then, there are huge efficiencies of scale favoring industrial solar over rooftop.
The cost per KWH is at least 10x lower, and getting better.
This is more than enough to counter the distribution costs.
The same is true for industrial storage.
All told, the only upside to rooftop is avoiding grid operators, Which will just raise their price to counteract any savings on the part of homeowners. everyone is still stuck with them unless they go to municipal operators
The 800,000 American homes that added solar to their roofs last year cover 100% of the electric used by every EV that's ever been sold in the US. They cover the electric usage by the EVs purchased last year by multiples. At this rate, you can do nothing and residential solar will already add much more capacity to the grid than EVs are taking from it.
Potentially FROM 2035 only electric vehicles would be for sale on new car lots. Most gas cars already on the road will still be there for 10-20 years after that.
By then, Edison Electric Institute (a trade-group for utility companies) predicts 70-80 million EVs on the road in the US.
By 2030, 15% of US homes are forecast to have solar on the roof, which would continue covering 100% of the electric use of the nation's electric vehicles.
The average residential solar installation generates enough energy to cover a 14,000-mile-per-year vehicle's charging 3.5-4.5 times over. Each house with solar panels generates enough energy for its cars and some of the neighbors' cars that don't have solar.
I put solar on my roof two years ago. It's the average system size, taking up 2/3rds of the south-facing side of my roof. It cost 1/3rd the price of my car to get installed, it completely covers my fuel use for two cars, and it covers 100% of my home electric and heating bill 9 months out of the year.
EV electric use isn't a problem utilities need to solve so much as a solution to a lot of utilities' problems. 70 million EVs are many gigawatt-hours of battery storage that will be connected to the grid bidirectionally in the not-distant future. They can store renewable energy during the day and feed it back to the grid at night, they can power houses and businesses during peak load events so peaker plants don't need to be spun up, and lots of other things that will make the grid more resilient and cheaper to operate without significant capital expense to the utilities.
the grid capacity that people refer to is distribution grid capacity. The wires running to your home have finite capacity and almost always, not enough for all people to use EVs and heat pumps.
"Schöfbänker has also cross-haired with his equipment the "KH-11 Kennen" electro-optical satellites that were first introduced in 1976. "They are somewhat similar to the Hubble Space Telescope, but optimized to look down to Earth, instead of studying space," he said."
It's fairly well documented that the Hubble was effectively a US spy satellite pointing towards space, not the other way around. Or at least, it used all of the infrastructure in place to manufacture spy satellites.
Same maximum mirror size, same set of contractors/facilities, etc. It had a very different set of sensors, data systems, and focal range, but more or less demonstrated the US's spy satellite capabilities at the time.
The size being the same was not because of design reuse, but because that's the size limits imposed by the Space Shuttle payload bay. (1) Many of the contractors were the same, but that's because they won a competitive bidding process with a CCD design against a different set of contractors vidicon tube technology. Now, their experience with CCD's did come from the KH-11 process, but their bid did have competition.
1: Speculation but reasonably informed: in 1970 when the USAF was asked to set the size of the payload bay (in exchange for USAF political support on a program that had just survived by one vote, their parameters became the design guidelines for the STS) they basically went with their latest design at the time, the KH-10 Manned Orbiting Laboratory, which had already been canceled but was the latest thing anyone had. If the people at NRO who provided the specs had known how the future was going to go, they would have probably wanted a shorter but wider payload bay, so you could put bigger main mirrors into space. But, and this is total speculation, in 1970 when they are committing to this the KH-11 is far enough in the future that they don't have a good understanding of what it should be like. The KH-11 was designed to be carried into space by the STS, but the STS was delayed so its first flights were on unmanned rockets, and then after Challenger the NRO tried to get all of their satellites off the STS and go fully unmanned. A couple of satellites were far enough along that they were committed to the Shuttle after Return to Flight, but no more were committed after that point.
I think also part of the KY-11 were the two telescopes the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) donated to NASA in 2012. I forget the details I read, but as I remember they were roughly equivalent to Hubble, but obselete for the NRO.
There's a hard physical limit (the Rayleigh criterion) on the resolution of an optical system by how big the open end is. You won't get "super zoom" capabilities without a satellite the size of a stadium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_KENNEN#Resolution_and_gr...
The alignment has to be better than half a wavelength. That's doable for RF, but for optical telescopes you're talking nanometers. That's not possible (currently or in the foreseeable future) for a spacecraft constellation.
You could imagine a deep-infrared mission (longer wavelength, to soften the alignment requirements) launched into deep space (Jupiter+) where both the solar wind density is lower (reducing space weather perturbations) and reduced solar flux would reduce heat loads on the structure, (objects in Jupiter orbit get 3.6% as much light as in Earth orbits) making cooling easier. An interferometer design would also improve resolution. A not-widely advertised feature of the JWST is that, due to the same Rayleigh limits, its far infrared modes have dramatically lower resolution than its near infrared camera. A problem with a 6 meter mirror, less of a problem with a kilometer mirror.
Cool to see Clifford Stoll mentioned there, he was also the one detecting one of the first international state-sponsored hacking attacks on the US and wrote a book about it, The Cuckoo's Egg.
Trump famously tweeted images from an Iranian launch facility that had exploded. They were incredibly revealing of US satellite capabilities, even though that was probably not as zoomed-in as they could go.
No no, he is actually correct and I misspoke. He definitely tweeted on purpose (haha) but did he intend to declassify the image or just didn't realize?
According to NBC[1], attempts were made to explain the ramifications to him. At that point, he knew he was declassifying the photo and knew he was revealing what his experts told him shouldn't be revealed. He simply didn't care.
Yes he quite possibly unintentionally revealed US spy satellite capabilities with an otherwise purposeful tweet. I say the not out of niceness to give him the benefit of the doubt, but because he's probably too stupid to understand the implications of what he was doing.
A great deal of Google Map imagery over urban areas is from relatively low level aerial survey aircraft that run lines over cities in summer.
The resolution is better and stitched together often provides a better bang for the buck than satellite imagery.
That said, Trump's image may have been from a sat or from a high altitude spy plane - they'd have ballpark optics but the aircraft would be closer in and more maneuverable .. I'd personally discount whatever Trump had to say about the source and want to hear from a third party military reconnaissance expert.
Yeah, I’m referring to Google Maps satellite imagery, not the super-saturated and detailed urban area coverage. I mean, check out the satellite view here [1]. It’s not perfect, but you can make out building-sized objects and cars just as well as you can in the Trump image.
The craziest thing is that that single external display can be up to 6k/60hz! Surely for those 21.2 million pixels you could run 2 4k displays at 8.2 million pixels each.
You get back ports, but those base model M3 MBPs only support a single external display. You get HDMI and 3 40gbps thunderbolt ports, but can only use one of them at a time for screens.
You need to bump up to the M3 pro models to get multiple external display support.
Agriculture is currently massively carbon intensive and is one of the hardest modern technologies to decarbonize. It relies on fertilizer production that is currently completely reliant on fossil fuels. If this can decarbonize agriculture, that's a massive win for our chances to reach net zero carbon emissions on time.
If I recall correctly, the prius ICE and EV systems are totally isolated and only connected by the road in between the front and rear tires. The ICE runs the front tires and the EV system is hooked up to the rear tires. You mostly charge the battery up by slowing the car down with the rear tires, so you'd need to modify the car with some belts or linkage between the front and rear drives.
In Toyota's hybrid synergy drive, the electric motor system is inputting to the same transmission as the ICE engine, and is an integral part of the casing. You can see a cutaway of it here to get an idea of what it looks like in practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle_drivetrain#/med... What you're describing is indeed how the E-Four system works for the rear wheels on the AWD versions of the Prius
A lot of those sensors average the reading over quite some time to avoid false positives. It's possible that the last few miles of road have just enough average slope or contain just enough curves that the sensor averages "low" right at that spot with the speed of traffic.
Read up on the upcoming FAA Remote ID regulations. They were scheduled to go online last Saturday, but were postponed 6 months. They would effectively make it illegal to fly at any altitude without a transponder broadcasting the precise location of the aircraft.
The RC community has been pushing back on the regulations as it ads a lot of weight, expense, and complexity to drones and RC aircraft. There hasn't been any justification given by the FAA as to why these regulations are needed, adding to the confusion. Normally restrictions are put in place after an accident or some incident.
Wing/plane drones are substantially quieter than quadcopter drones. I'm out flying RC with folks all the time and it's genuinely hard to hear an RC plane from more than 100 feet away, and these are handbuilt planes flying for fun.
Yea but I don't want to see or hear them at home. There's enough noise pollution as it is with people revving motorcycles and the like or whatever other peacocking people waste time doing.
Let's brainstorm how to decarbonize fertilizer, or concrete.
That being said I am really glad to see more grid buildup! Especially as more renewables hit the grid. While locally intermittent, on the scale of the entire country they're fairly reliable and predictable.