WSJ Section on Alternative Energy — 11/30/2023

[4Q Basket Case]

There’s a whole section of today’s WSJ on Alternative Energy. I thought about putting this in the NSNPR board in the thread on interesting technology. But given today‘s world where having a cup of coffee can be interpreted politically, I decided the regular NS board would be safer.

The section’s front page story is on a topic we’ve discussed a lot here — EV range, charging availability, time to charge, and cost.

Also a debate, pro and con, of autonomous (a/k/a self-driving) cars. Uses reader letters as the primary source of points.

And a great story on one of my favorite topics — unintended and undesirable consequences of well-intended actions. The article is titled, “Environmentalists vs. Environmentalists,“ and examines how offshore wind farms adversely affect all sorts of marine life — whales, sea turtles, sea birds and commercial fisheries, among others.

Several other interesting articles as well.

If you don’t subscribe, today’s paper is well worth the $5 for this section alone.

 

[Padreruf]

Thanks...I'll have something to read this afternoon. The older I get the more I see the law of unintended consequences coming into play.

 

[mdb-tpet]

One of my favorite lessons from Thermodynamics at Alabama were the laws the Thermodynamics.
1. Conservation of energy: essentially energy doesn't go away, but heat can be converted to work etc.
2. Heat always flows from hotter to colder. Energy always degrades. Entropy always increases.

Here's a good lesson on Entropy, one of the most misunderstood/unknown concepts in science.

Inside of those laws is the realization that any moving system loses energy to heat and vibration (really also heat), or in other words Entropy always increases and the energy/order of any system always degrades to less usable states. (And therefore there's no such thing as free energy/perpetual motion).

Where I'm going with this, is humans generally don't understand that EVERYTHING we do increases the Entropy of the planet. Or there are no systems/processes/things that do not create MORE disorder overall. In layman's terms, everything we make, clean, create, build creates some larger amount of pollutions. Noise, air, water, heat, soil, chemicals, etc. pollution.

Finally, we're using up the stored chemical energy of the planet at an amazingly fast rate for our gratification, and at the same time we're increasing the planet's entropy without regard or understanding of what we're doing.

Alternative energy is a way of SLOWING the entropy increase in the planet/lessening pollution/creating less harmful pollution or entropy, but in the end there are no free lunches for electric power creation.

 

[catsbane]

Alternate energy/infinite energy. The right way.....
Bing Videos

 

[CrimsonJazz]

The political sabotage of nuclear power

Abundant, emissions-free energy was once the promise of a nuclear-powered future. What happened?

reason.com

The plant eventually closed in April 2021, but there was "a gulf between intentions and results," explains writer Eric Dawson, co-founder of Nuclear New York, a group fighting to protect the industry. The closure of Indian Point increased New York's carbon emissions. State utilities had to make up for the loss of energy by burning more natural gas, resulting in a 9 percent increase in energy-related CO2 emissions. At the same time, the state's energy prices also increased.

This outcome isn't unique to New York. Germany also opted to phase out nuclear power, betting on wind instead. Electricity from windmills increased, but so did the country's reliance on coal. In 2023, Germany emitted almost eight times the carbon per kilowatt-hour than neighboring France, which still gets the majority of its electricity from nuclear and less than 1 percent from coal.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Thanks...I'll have something to read this afternoon. The older I get the more I see the law of unintended consequences coming into play.

I saw a new buoy being developed that will anchor in shallow waters and develop power from the waves. The CGI image of a fleet of these just offshore from a major city reminded me of beautiful countryside areas that are now spoiled by solar and wind farms. So much beauty lost simply to provide our ever-growing thirst for power.

We're replacing one negative (burning fossil fuels) for another (hideous loss of natural beauty). Not saying they're equal, but I'm reminded there are no free lunches.

I do think nuclear is the closest thing we have to a 'free lunch', beating both the fossil fuels and renewables by a wide margin, but the fears associated with nuclear power seem to cloud people's judgement.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Here's why government should stop throwing money at green energy

In California, the cost of electricity increased three times faster than in the rest of the U.S.—and the state still doesn't even get reliable energy.

reason.com

I put panels on my house partly because of a tax credit.

But I don't delude myself by thinking that solar power will measurably reduce climate change or that wind power is especially green.

"Just to produce one turbine, we have to extract 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete, and 45 tons of non-renewable plastic," explains ecologist Merlin Tuttle. "Then we've got to transport that and burn fuel, getting it all carried across the world. None of these things that go into a turbine are renewable."

 

[Bamaro]

Here's why government should stop throwing money at green energy

In California, the cost of electricity increased three times faster than in the rest of the U.S.—and the state still doesn't even get reliable energy.

reason.com

Unfortunately we are currently faced by poor choices ('green' energy) and much worse choices (carbon based non renewable sorces)

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Unfortunately we are currently faced by poor choices ('green' energy) and much worse choices (carbon based non renewable sorces)

I'm still baffled by the fact that nuclear power is still not being seen as the only real choice for carbon-free energy. We have enough non-renewables to get us through the planning and construction phases of reactor building, but we need to move NOW.

 

[Bamaro]

I'm still baffled by the fact that nuclear power is still not being seen as the only real choice for carbon-free energy. We have enough non-renewables to get us through the planning and construction phases of reactor building, but we need to move NOW.

Yup, for now that's probably our best answer until fusion becomes an alternative.

 

[TexasBama]

There’s a whole section of today’s WSJ on Alternative Energy. I thought about putting this in the NSNPR board in the thread on interesting technology. But given today‘s world where having a cup of coffee can be interpreted politically, I decided the regular NS board would be safer.

The section’s front page story is on a topic we’ve discussed a lot here — EV range, charging availability, time to charge, and cost.

Also a debate, pro and con, of autonomous (a/k/a self-driving) cars. Uses reader letters as the primary source of points.

And a great story on one of my favorite topics — unintended and undesirable consequences of well-intended actions. The article is titled, “Environmentalists vs. Environmentalists,“ and examines how offshore wind farms adversely affect all sorts of marine life — whales, sea turtles, sea birds and commercial fisheries, among others.

Several other interesting articles as well.

If you don’t subscribe, today’s paper is well worth the $5 for this section alone.

I finally signed up. I'll have to forgo that once a month gas station coffee to pay for it. I read the srticle about EV range - good info, although they didn't mention weight (loading, towing) as a factor.