Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

KeaboUltra t1_ir5h1t6 wrote

We got this humanity. let's just try not to nuke each other and maybe we can endure climate change.

136

jc236 t1_ir4r52t wrote

Wow that is uplifting. Thank you for sharing.

84

snoandsk88 t1_ir5ruce wrote

IMO we need to keep accelerating our ability to produce clean energy. The next big problem will be water and the only source I can think of is the ocean. So we need enough surplus energy to run desalination plants.

82

rptrxub t1_ir5xx8o wrote

There is a guy supplying some areas like flint michigan with condensers that pull humidity out of the air and turn it into drinking water. It's cheaper than desalination but I don't know if it'd have negative effects on the surrounding environment at a large scale.

24

SwankySozhak t1_ir6w5zi wrote

Dehumidifier water is incredibly energy inefficient and unsafe for human consumption, not to mention they don't work well when the air isn't humid.

As far as energy cost and environmental impact is concerned, you are legitimately far better off shipping freshwater to Flint than trying to use dehumidifiers.

Edit: I should clarify that I am in no ways anti-technology, but it needs to actually work and I dislike how many times snake-oil startups have peddled this idea. Please, instead of pulling water from air, ideas towards purifying already existing water will benefit us much more.

11

rptrxub t1_iragt6m wrote

what makes then unsafe for human consumption? I'm all for abandoning half baked ideas if they're impractical.

2

SwankySozhak t1_irakpnt wrote

Short answer: Condensation, unlike evaporation or distillation, does not remove contaminants.

2

snoandsk88 t1_ir5ykss wrote

Isn’t that basically what mountains and rain water do?

Glad to hear there are alternatives!

10

DooDooSlinger t1_ir66uee wrote

The lucky thing here is that water usually is an issue in regions which also have a huge solar power potential, which has itself become dirt cheap to produce.

23

AnonymousWritings t1_ir8qiaz wrote

Fortunately solar panel production capacity just keeps accelerating. Capacity for 300GW/year right now, and factories underway to increase that to 900GW a year well before the end of the decade.

May not all run at full capacity, but chances are even more gets built. We currently have just over 1 TW of total solar installed worldwide, and I wouldn't be surprised if we are installing 1 TW/year by a decade from now.

5

Listerine_MrClean t1_ir5xilt wrote

But we need to meet 100% of the demand annually not 50%.

11

SparklyYakDust t1_ir6plq2 wrote

Yes, that's the goal. Making the immediate target so high doesn't speed up the process, though. This is good progress and we should celebrate it while continuing to work towards the end goal!

13

LordBoxington t1_ir7mcui wrote

True - but you can't get to 100% without hitting 1%-99% first.

7

Narethii t1_ir63924 wrote

They are now cheap (not even relatively cheap, most renewables are in par with fossil fuel power generation in terms of life cycle cost), and can be paired with a lot of different energy storage solutions that are relatively safe and easy to maintain.

Even without the new energy crisis it just doesn't make economic sense to add new fossil fuel generation to meet an energy gap

11

AutoModerator t1_ir4oh1r wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

ZeroXTML1 t1_ir76ufb wrote

Can’t wait for some business site to find a negative way to spin this universally good news

1

FollowKick t1_irnh02l wrote

Do keep in mind wind and hydro produces more power in the first half of the year.

Renewables made up 24% of the US electricity consumption in the first 6 months of 2022, but will make up 20% in the last 6 months, giving us 22% renewables consumption for the entire year.

1

badscott4 t1_ir7vp8w wrote

2nd half gonna be a different story

0

boomchuga t1_ir8upcp wrote

Tell that to the energy restrictions in CA

0

Kneecap71 t1_ir8j4bq wrote

Buulshit!

−3

matt7810 t1_ir8p5gr wrote

I don't think it's that surprising. As long as nat gas prices are this high, I think renewables will outcompete fossil fuels/nuclear in many parts of the world. Also many governments are pushing for the shutdown of other types of plants such as coal and subsidizing renewables at the same time.

4

Foosnaggle t1_ir4sn4u wrote

What about California? They were shitting off power in some places.

−21

benanderson89 t1_ir558g3 wrote

The troubles with California's grid come from wildfires in both the state itself and neighbouring Oregon. It damaged a lot of infrastructure.

32

Foosnaggle t1_ir55qbs wrote

Their problem is not just from this year. And if they are having this type of problem now, it will only be worse later.

−16

anusthrasher96 t1_ir5c8l2 wrote

Why would it be worse later? The more clean energy we install, the more decentralized it all is, making the grid resilient against local natural disasters. It's going to get better. AND if we hold the companies responsible, they'll start doing their damn jobs

22

Narethii t1_ir642io wrote

Building a bunch of small power generation stations using renewables is way way more efficient as local power generation suffers fewer transmission losses, and way more resilient than 1 mega facility supplied by a single fuel line.

I really hope that future generations don't continue to suffer the same brain damage so many pro-fossil fuels people do now and simply look at this time of brain rot with derision.

5

matt7810 t1_ir8nxjv wrote

I have to disagree. Of course it depends on many factors, but you have to remember that power schedules are created by a separate entity than the utilities and cover a large area. Adding complexity to their job doesn't necessarily increase resilience. Also replacing plants that can provide spinning reserves (frequency stability) and ramping of generation with renewables doesn't necessarily provide resilience. Finally, transmission losses are relatively small compared to other efficiency losses. Rooftop solar is less efficient economically than utility scale, even though rooftop solar is attached to the house using most of the electricity.

Renewables and distributed grids are great for many other reasons, but there are many factors and I disagree with both your efficiency and resilience statements.

1

matt7810 t1_ir8ojh4 wrote

Honest question, how does a decentralized grid make the grid more resilient?

IMO It's more resilient if a single power source is knocked offline, but I would think that clean energy usually comes with unpredictability and a lack of spinning reserves. Also, even distributed resources have correlated outages if an area is hit with a natural disaster that would knock out a larger power source.

2

DillDeer t1_ir6xnyq wrote

Actually, our grid was 100% running on renewables for a few moments over the summer.

However, rolling blackouts happened because of a heatwave, or when there’s high risk of fires. Blackouts are not a common thing.

9