Elerond
-
Posts
2620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Elerond
-
-
4 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:
Practical on a small scale yes. On a city wide scale that is a no. It is not realistic to expect to produce power in the order of megawatts from mass storage. Particularly since the inverter efficiency will never be better than 70.7%.
that is not to say the technology will not improve going into the future. But as it stands today solar energy production for a single home it’s not only practical it’s a good idea. More than that is a pipe dream.
Germans at least try to prove you wrong, or at least it feels like that Germany is full of solar panel fields like in above picture
-
4 minutes ago, BruceVC said:
For example Nokia already introduced process to reuse 100% of materials in lithium batteries in early 2000s. But battery recycling has seen some downturn after Nokia left cell phone making business. And of course larger batteries need larger processing systems than those which Nokia developed for cell phone batteries.
Also in case of soil and water pollution, coal mining, fracking and drilling oil also cause massive amount of that, so badly recycled lithium batteries aren't really adding amount of soil and water pollution (in comparison if same energy would be produced using either coal or oil) in world put moving it to different locations.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Skarpen said:
Guys, those are backups that can sustain essential systems in case of emergency. In no way those are reliable ways to keep up the energy on a scale that a country needs on regular basis as a part of power grid. Those are neither reliable nor they can store large amounts of energy as rjshae claims.
30.000 houses for 8 hours sounds nice, but when you have 1mil+ population cities with hospitals, factories and other heavy energy consumers it will last how long? Minutes? And after that how long for those backups to be repowered? And how much energy have to be put into this? Compared with solar and wind poor efficiency we will either hit a point where they will constantly be recharging the backups in a pointless cycle, or we would need to constantly increase the number of wind and solar plants ad infinite. And since the components for wind and solar plants are in no way degradable we will end up with half the world in wind and solar plants and the other half in wastage from those.
As always "green" solutions tend to be more of a burden ecologically than traditional solutions.
Some of those energy storages are used regular base to sustain load in electric grid and district heating here.
All the dam here have artificial lake, so that water flow can be controlled. (Hydropower makes 20% of Finland's total electric production)
Wind parks have batteries and hydrogen production plant in order to balance output to electric grid and store overproduction. (Wind parks make 10% of Finland's electric production)
Geothermal storages are used to store excess heat during summers to increase production capacity during winters. (geothermal heating, makes 33% of FInland's heat production)
But there is no point for example to first transform kinetic energy from wind to electricity and then transform it chemical or potential energy and then back to electricity unless it is excess energy that can't be fed in electric grid. Because there isn't way where you can transform electricity to another energy form with 100% efficiency (some of that energy always transforms in form that can't be stored )
-
5 minutes ago, Skarpen said:
Did I missed this tremendous development in science that allows to store electricity?
You store energy which can be used to produce electricity
Potential energy storages like artificial lakes have been used from beginning of hydropower
Batteries are also quite old invention.
Using electrolysis to split water to hydrogen and oxygen is also couple hundred years old invention
Geothermal storages are bit newer invention
Compressed air/steam/liquid can also be used store energy
NASA has experimented with FES/Flywheel energy storages in which energy is stored as rotational energy
By lifting solid masses to high can also used as potential energy storages
And there are quite lot other ways to store energy.
So storing energy/electricity isn't the problem. Problems are scale and poor efficiency, especially when form of energy transformed multiple times.
-
3
-
-
33 minutes ago, ComradeYellow said:
Eh, they are both really good and destroy other sources. The drawback of turbines is mostly space, whilst nuclear plants leave lots of room for more research into safer and more efficient ways. Lot's of potential here.
https://energypost.eu/15052-2/
Also Rosatom and China's CNNC are state owned, so that gives them a huge geopolitical advantage to strategically setup shop and influence as they see fit, as Americans are still way to obsessed with privatization.
https://hir.harvard.edu/rosatom-the-cnnc-and-the-nuclear-energy-arms-race/
Unless the U.S. pulls their head out of their backwards rear end this could really haunt them later on.
There are other drawbacks in turbines than space. Like for example it is more difficult to control how much electricity is produced and you need temporal storages, like batteries, hydrogen etc.. Also noise pollution and turbines killing birds are problems. Need to build in windy locations, which creates its own challenges for transmission. Also repair routes and recycling materials from the mills need to be taken in account.
Nuclear plants also take lots of space and they need much more additional infrastructure. Like for example hundreds of kilometres of tunnels to store the nuclear waste. Massive cooling systems (which of course can be utilized in district heating). Uranium mines, storages for uranium ore. Processing plants for uranium ore, urania/yellowcake, uranium hexafluoride,uranium oxide and nuclear fuel (uranium rods). Storage spaces for ore, intermediate products and fuel/rods. Transportation for ore, intermediate products and fuel/rods. Cooling storages for used rods. Transportation for nuclear waste. Also you need lots of work force and automation from start to end of the supply line. Also you need to have complex repair plans and workers with know how to repair such complex systems. And addition to that you need natural disaster and force major plans. Also transmitting so much energy quite lot infrastructure and controlling systems.
It isn't that easy for Rosatom and CNNC and they also need to work with lots of private companies and state owned actors in their projects.
-
Sorry for double post. Even though video is 30 minutes long I would recommend to watch it as it gives nice insight what industrial partnerships may cause
-
1 hour ago, ComradeYellow said:
The Russians are actually dabbling in clean nuclear power. Their state industry Rosatom in championing it.
20th century: Nuclear power means death, destruction, and environmental catastrophe.
21st century: Nuclear power means clean, efficient, and perfectly safe power generation.
Take that 20th century dinosaurs still lusting over vanquishing their adversaries with nuclear waste.
They are dabbling nuclear power, but it is far from clean. But much better than coal, especially old coal plants.
Rosatom's nuclear plant projects seem to face multiple problems.
- Currently their best reactor VVER-1200, is only capable to produce 1,198 MWe of power, which is 300-400 MWe less than its competitors reactors
- Single reactor plant still cost lot (Rosatom's estimate for their single VVER-1200 reactor plant in Finland is 7 billion euros [estimated building time 7 years after 11 years of project planning]), compared to Areva's 1600 MWe EPR reactor plant which was estimated to cost 3.2 billion euros, although it costs increased to ~10 billion euros because building it took 12 years more than Areva estimated.
- Financing Rosatom's plants is difficult thanks to sanctions put in by USA
So nuclear power gives cleaner and some what safe power generation, but it isn't that efficient as you can build much more power generation and faster with same money by building wind turbines.
Small modular rectors (SMRs) would be much better choice if you want efficiency, although they are best suited to heat generation instead of electricity. Because they don't need massive plants around them, which make it possible build them into cities. And because they can be in middle of city, it is much easier to connect them to city's district heating.
-
Coal question is interesting one.
Like for example here there are multiple coal powered heath plants even though coal is more expensive than alternatives, and we need to buy coal from other countries which strains our economy. Mentioned cheaper alternatives for coal are domestic and would create new jobs here. Our coal plants are already old and their constant repairs make using coal even more expensive.
But regardless of mentioned facts we have lots of politicians in city councils and in parliament who adamantly claim that coal is necessary and do their best to block any attempts to replace coal with domestic energy sources (wood, waste, peat and hydrogen burning plants, deep geothermal plants and nuclear powered heating plants).
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, BruceVC said:
So Elerond what is your view on " bending the knee " at the Olympics.....should it be allowed based on the official Olympic charter?
As long as Olympians are allowed publicly wear religious symbols and pray, I don't see how bending the knee, rising the fist or wearing black ribbon to show your world view is any different, but it isn't support for human rights movements which IOC has banned political symbolism with exception of some religious symbolism in the games even when that symbolism supports ideologies in Olympic Charter.
Of course IOC could have just banned political gestures that support movement that go against Olympic Charter, but that would be bad for the business. It is easier to sell 'ban of all politics in the games' than Olympic values of equality, peace etc..
-
1
-
-
At least all the Olympians had to take following politic free oath in order to participating in the games
Olympic Oath:
In the name of the athletes.
In the name of all judges.
In the name of all the coaches and officials.
The athletes' representative then completes the oath:We promise to take part in these Olympic Games, respecting and abiding by the rules and in the spirit of fair play. We all commit ourselves to sport without doping and cheating. We do this, for the glory of sport, for the honour of our teams and in respect for the Fundamental Principles of Olympism.
Fundamental Principles of Olympism
1. Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the
qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism
seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good
example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.
2. The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development
of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the
preservation of human dignity.
3. The Olympic Movement is the concerted, organised, universal and permanent action,
carried out under the supreme authority of the IOC, of all individuals and entities who
are inspired by the values of Olympism. It covers the five continents. It reaches its
peak with the bringing together of the world’s athletes at the great sports festival, the
Olympic Games. Its symbol is five interlaced rings.
4. The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of
practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which
requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.
5. Recognising that sport occurs within the framework of society, sports organisations
within the Olympic Movement shall apply political neutrality. They have the rights and
obligations of autonomy, which include freely establishing and controlling the rules of
sport, determining the structure and governance of their organisations, enjoying the
right of elections free from any outside influence and the responsibility for ensuring that
principles of good governance be applied.
6. The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Olympic Charter shall be
secured without discrimination of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or
other status.
7. Belonging to the Olympic Movement requires compliance with the Olympic Charter
and recognition by the IOC.https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document Library/OlympicOrg/General/EN-Olympic-Charter.pdf
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, BruceVC said:
So you suggesting if their are 5 corrupt cops in a station of 30 cops you must shut down the whole station and fire everyone or defund everyone. That makes no sense ?
"There is no place for the weak-willed or hesitant. Only by firm action and resolute faith will mankind survive. No sacrifice is too great. No treachery too small."
— Liber Doctrina Ordo Hereticus, Chapter XXVIII, "ExterminatusIf Warhammer 40k has taught us anything it is that corruption is worst of all the crimes and you can't go overboard when you try to prevent it
"Some may question your right to destroy ten billion people. Those who understand realise that you have no right to let them live."
— Exterminatus Extremis
-
1
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, ShadySands said:
It actually doesn't make much difference. The firing mechanism and general operation is exactly the same
E: Barrel length will actually make a difference but more in a target shooting way than in a mass shooting
I would say that barrel length makes some difference in mass shootings. As 20-25" barrel is quite bother in closed bases like schools, shopping centers and clubs, where 12-16" barrel is much easier to handle in such spaces.
-
8 hours ago, Zoraptor said:
Communist Party of Russia is still the 2nd largest voting bloc. And even in Russia people don't really like beating up grannies and veterans for their political views.
That is technically true, but current communist party isn't united behind singular ideology, but they are more like left wing alliance and even then it has only ~13% support and Marxists are minority in the party. Left-wing nationalist (who don't really care about communism or socialism, in their world view social struggle is between nations) and reformers (who are critical towards communism and USSR and want socialism that is quite close to Nordic socialism).
In my knowledge grannies and veterans aren't don't make any bigger sunk of members of communist party than they make of United Russia. I would not recommend to go shout Marxist slogans in Karelia for example, as there those grannies may beat you up.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, ComradeYellow said:
Am I wrong in saying that it's a conservative/reactionary stance to be pro Soviet in Russia and being more "progressive" means being either alt right or western centric? This is the impression I'm getting.
If you called yourself a marxist in the U.S. you would get branded as radical leftist and that is quite dangerous in many right wing circles here. All I'm trying to point out.
Russia: "I'm a Marxist!" Response: right wing nutjob!
U.S.A. "I'm a Marxist!" Response: Left Wing scum!
Yes,
Russia: "I'm a Marxist!" Response: you are loony or westerner idiot and in worst case you end in hospital because people bet you up.
-
2 hours ago, ComradeYellow said:
Personal experience has taught me a valuable lesson: You don't have to be rich and be right wing.
A lot of poor and right wing people just want a powerful hierarchal government that throws them gestures in return for loyalty.
Poor right wing people on Russia aren't ones who want union and old Russian Empire's areas back, because they don't want to lose their jobs for people in those areas. They are pretty much similar to poorer right wing people in EU who make big sunk of people that oppose its expansion.
Have you ever visited in Russia? As you seem to have very american view of it.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ComradeYellow said:
It still is in Russia. If you're pro-Soviet and want the Union back, you're considered a right wing reactionary. Everything is backwards in Russia. If Australia is upside down land, Russia is backwards land. Being Communist in the USA is considered "Radical left"
Right wing people who want union back in Russia don't want communism back, they like their money too much. Main thing they want back is USSR's role in world politics
-
2 hours ago, ComradeYellow said:
On a side note, I love how Communism can now be considered "old school", like it's a conservative ideology
It was conservative ideology in USSR, then new radical ideologies come from the west and pushed communism out
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Zoraptor said:
Australia went all in for AZ because it can be manufactured locally so is cheap and not subject to being blocked by the EU or US. So could Sputnik or one of the Chinese ones too, but I'd presume if they were going to still do local manufacturing away from AZ they'd license J&J for geopolitical reasons.
Ironically AZ is only vaccine which has been blocked by EU and US
-
1 minute ago, BruceVC said:
The CIA strategically intervened to help the Mujahideen as was normal in the proxy war nature of the Cold War
So we should generally always support this type of Western intervention because it all contributed towards the collapse of the USSR....lets be honest who wants to live in country controlled by old school Communism ?
I would guess that lots of people who have lived under Mujahideen's rule would be willing to try old school Soviet Communism
-
52 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:
That has no legal standing/ compulsion to act. Of course, for some reason, Belarus signing the exact same document always gets left out...
...perhaps, maybe, because the US and UK are using economic sanctions against Belarus and are thus themselves in breach of the memorandum?
At least that is official standing of US towards the agreements, but that seems to be their standing towards all international agreements that don't benefit them and even then only parts that benefit them are ones that have any legal standing. (Russia has not been any better on this front). So only compulsion to act on those agreements is the fear of losing power in international politics, but that has been quite weak motivator for our global 'peace keepers'
Technically agreements with Belarus and Kazakhstan are their own agreements but content in those agreements is identical with that agreement with Ukraine
-
1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:
Russia threatens Ukraine, China is preparing to invade Taiwan. Dangerous times. I wonder if we will ever see a US president have the courage to make a stand like this again:
Regarding Taiwan we actually do have a joint defense agreement with them. I don’t think we have any such with Ukraine. I cannot imagine the world standing by and watching China invade Taiwan. Too many business relationships with companies based in Taiwan. Russia invasding Ukraine however might not provoke the same kind of response
USA and Russia both promised to ensure Ukraine's independence if they give up their soviet era nuclear weapons, in Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine
QuoteThe United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,
Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,
Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.
Confirm the following:
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.
6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.
— Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
-
2
-
-
Portland and Chicago seem to be bit different levels
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/81203
https://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/19AR.pdf
https://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/1_PDFsam_CompStat-Public-2021-Week-13.pdf
-
Bill Gates is largest private farm owner in USA, so he would probably give big thanks to any rural area that stops selling food to democrat ran cities.
It would also be bit funny if those democrat run cities would block red states from selling their product to China
-
To prevent spreading full vaccination rate should be over 70% of population and even Israel which is closest to reach it, is still couple months away from reaching it. Also as majority of world population is not vaccinated and there is lots of talk about summer tourism, we probably will see multiple new waves all over the world until we reach point where we have seasonal vaccination in global scale to give us some sort of peace
-
1
-
The all things Political topic -In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie
in Way Off-Topic
Posted · Edited by Elerond
Best explanation how they have connected those solar fields is following
11.1 Transmission and distribution Most solar power systems in Germany are connected to the decentralized low-voltage grid (Figure 21) and generate solar power consumption. As a result, solar power is mainly fed in decentrally and hardly demands to expand the German national transmission grid. High PV system density in a low voltage grid section may cause the electricity production to exceed the power consumption in this section on sunny days¸ due to the high simultaneity factor. Transformers then feed power back into the medium-voltage grid. At very high plant densities, the transformer station can reach its power limit. An even distribution of PV installations over the network sections reduces the need for expansion.
PV power plants are decentralized and well distributed thereby accommodating the feedin and distribution of the existing electricity grid. Large PV power plants or a local accumulation of smaller plants in sparsely populated regions require that the distribution network and the transformer stations are reinforced at certain sites. The further expansion of PV should be geographically even more consumption-friendly, in order to simplify the distribution of solar electricity. For example, Brandenburg or Mecklenburg-Vorpommern have installed 3 to 4 times more PV power per inhabitant than the Saarland, NRW, Saxony or Hesse [AEE2].
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf
Page 31.