Quote (Knoppie @ 15 Nov 2019 23:13)

Different resources, demand different approaches. The main reason apart from the moral one of not destroying our habitat for Europe to have a need to move towards renewables: is that Europe simply doesn't have the fossil resources like the US and Canada. The ones we have are rapidly depleting, notably the Dutch gas resource in Groniningen, making us as rich as we are today, without the future benefits of depleting Norway's oil resources. Fossil independence means lowering fossil needs below local possible/desire-able production, now we might be moving too slow, but don't bump your head against a windmill, they are there (as a strawman). When coal plants are closing and house heating is moving from oil towards gas, just for a "short" term reduction of emissions (gas > coal). Then, yes, it doesn't look great as a stat talking about gas/fossil dependency. But is fracking and shale even a valid option for Europe? I'd love to explore the option but are inclined to expect a low gain from our land at a higher risk of earthquakes in populated areas. On the long term money better spend on an energy wende.

Ow... I don't really buy the "needing stability" for a well greased cheap oil supply. Within the world wide power struggle for cheap resources from any perspective: you need turmoil to demand a reliability of selling their resources cheap and connect it towards the ability to survive/stay in power for bilateral advantages. This is why Trump stayed in Syria. Not giving he Kurdish oil resource to either Turkey or Russia (for a part commendable in supporting kurdish supplies), most likely greatly benefiting from extremely cheap prices by given protection... Needing stability is only propaganda from those benefiting from bilateral trade deals ensuring power. World wide cheap energy is created by destroying oil producing economies.

Or by reducing the need.. coming back to the EU stratergy that should be supported at higher costs for faster change.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 15 2019 11:27pm)

Of course fracking and shale oil production are no real options in Europe. When it comes to our resources, the picture looks a whole lot different if we consider Russia to be a part of Europe.

The thing with a pivot to renewables is that renewables cannot provide reliable base power in our energy networks. Solar power only produces very marginal amounts of energy when the sun doesnt shine on a cloudy day, and none at night; wind power is only available when the wind blows (duh). But we will need a reliable source of energy even when the sun doesnt shine and there's no wind. And note that storage from daytime to nighttime wont be enough - due to our dark, dim winters, we would require the ability to store an excess of renewable solar power from the summer for the winter.

The current technology of renewables cant solve this problem, and mere scale and efficiency improvements also wont solve the issue of the required inter-seasonal storage. So barring a true technological breakthrough, renewables as we know them today just cannot keep up our power supply on their own, they will need some fossils or nuclear energy being mixed in. Calls for "100% renewables now" are nothing but a pipedream. That approach can perhaps work in Northern Africa or in Arizona, but not in Europe.

Quote (Knoppie @ 16 Nov 2019 00:29)

The're already so many proposed energy buffers that we just need an increased implementations. Car charging stations at work (day time), refrigerators storing energy during the day. House hold second hand batteries for electricity storage during the day, led lighting during the night. <- all on a day and night perspective.
On the seasonal perspective you have heat ex-changers for buildings, put heat in the ground during the summer, get it out during the winter.. H2 storage facilities for winters being fueled by solar/wind in the summer, use it in the winter. Nuclear being consistent, both during winter and summer. Those options am are not cheap for now, but will reduce quite a few emissions.
For Europe right now. "energy independence" is possible. Further securing local energy consumption for at a low price will, for quite some some time, require fossil imports, if we don't step up the pace or if fossil won't be priced according to its polluting contribution.

It's a matter of price ppl want to pay for the speed of change. Similar revolutions have happened in the past and we have the investment options within our current economies to make it happen right now. but only if our politicians can think beyond their terms, great futures are possible ;)

Quote (fender @ Nov 7 2019 05:06pm)

i'd support establishing an EU military alliance and collectively withdraw from NATO. no more mandatory spending to feed the military industrial complex, no 'defending' of our allies who provoked wars to further their economic interests, realistic threat assessment and provisioning of equipment relevant to the alliance's tasks. that'd be great...


inb4 the inevitable 'b-b-but russia would just invade you if america didn't protect you - we are paying for your security' bullshit

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 15 2019 05:37pm)

I think power-to-gas and power-to-hydrogen have the greatest potential, since these could use the storage and distribution infrastructure that already exists for oil and gas. But right now, the efficiency of these methods is still pitiful. So the efficiency would either have to increase drastically, or the excess capacity of solar and wind power would have to go up hugely.

Quote (Thor123422 @ 19 Nov 2019 18:42)

Efficiency both in distribution and in collection of solar power is going to boom very soon. I was driving through rural Missouri last week and found a small town that gets its day power from solar. They cleared a patch of farmland and set up several acres of solar panels. Pretty awesome. And as the demand increases competition and research funding is set to explode.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 19 2019 12:22pm)

Sure sure, but what about cloudy winter days? That solar power is awesome on sunny summer days is obvious. The big problem is getting to a point where renewables can provide security of supply/base load/whatever it's called in english.

As I said, solar power is definitely the future for places like Arizona or SoCal. But not so much for places like New York or Michigan.

Quote (thesnipa @ 19 Nov 2019 19:25)

that's not taking into account a few factors. 1, future storage tech. 2, future collections tech.

it could be in 10 years that a panel and battery setup can get a days worth of power from only an hour of sunlight. so a full sunny day could bank a weeks worth of power or more. and especially if it's done on a govt wide scale where power is collected and stored. hte biggest struggle for solar now is individuals have to bank and store the power in batteries that simple aren't efficient enough.

but that could change drastically. look at what we've done in cell phones for battery. the Iphone 1 ran dead in like an hour of web surfing with a low res low light screen. phones today can run for 10+ hours with bright light high res content.

it could happen, not saying it's a lock but it could happen.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 19 2019 12:43pm)

I think you're underestimating the amount of storage capacity this would require. And how the global supplies in rare earths needed for the production of batteries (cobalt, lithium) might not be sufficient, at least not for storage capacities of this magnitude.

Also, the largest improvements are typically made when a technology is still fresh. We're currently in the phase of big gains in battery technology because of the increased demand and funding, but the current growth in capacity cant be taken for granted or projected to continue far into the future.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 16 2019 12:37am)

I think power-to-gas and power-to-hydrogen have the greatest potential, since these could use the storage and distribution infrastructure that already exists for oil and gas. But right now, the efficiency of these methods is still pitiful. So the efficiency would either have to increase drastically, or the excess capacity of solar and wind power would have to go up hugely.