Submitted by Straight_Ad2258 t3_10qmzze in UpliftingNews
Comments
Winjin t1_j6sf72b wrote
It will work as a bonus for everyone with ICE in winters as you can install special heating elements (simplest ones are basically heated oil rod) as they keep the car engine warm and toasty.
Which means less wear, faster start, and less idling, which is already good for the environment, even if they can't/won't switch to EV or hybrids
Beltribeltran t1_j6t5ygp wrote
Is that a problemin underground parking? I guess it will be quite less necessary
Winjin t1_j6tiht1 wrote
Dang, missed the underground park. Yeah it's not a problem if your parking space is above freezing temp.
Cash907 t1_j6tnxbs wrote
The underground parking in my last place wasn’t heated, so possibly. Covered /= heated.
Beltribeltran t1_j6u6jjd wrote
But covered tends to mean less cold and less warm even more when underground.
Cash907 t1_j6vg2n3 wrote
You don’t live in Alaska, Canada or Minnesota, do you? Underground parking lots that aren’t heated can actually get colder than the ambient air of the outside. The only thing gained is not having to clear snow and ice from your vehicle in the morning. That’s it.
sofaking1958 t1_j6tu0ws wrote
You're referring to a block heater. I think those are relics at this point. Been in Minnesota 20+ years and never even heard it discussed.
zstandig t1_j6r3tov wrote
Don't tease us with a hyperdrive
Jacob_MacAbre t1_j6rm8b8 wrote
Well, they aren't teasing us. Renewables have, despite everything going on the world, being growing exponentially for the last 12 years. And it's only getting faster thanks to Putin trying to fuck with Ukraine.
It doesn't look like much because doubling of 0.0001% is nothing to be excited about. But, we are getting to the stage where renewables are now the preferred new power source because they're cheaper and have a higher rate of return investment.
Legacy systems (fossil fuel plants and some nuclear) are being deactivated rather quickly. Scotland, for example, closed and demolished it's last coal-fired power station a few years ago and we have such a surplus of energy we're actively helping keep the lights on in England.
I think there's room for some (cautious) optimism about our energy future. Same with food production in terms of artificial fermentation, 'vat grown' meat and vertical or indoor farming (hydroponics, aquaponics, agrivoltaics as well).
These things aren't going to be adopted because they're going to save the world (which is the morally right reason to do so) but because they're cheaper, more efficient and require less risk on the part of the people investing in them. Our main issues around renewables are reliable, long-term storage and sourcing the materials required to make them. Even then there's all kinds of cool progress in material science that's helping those things move along as well.
And sorry for this mini-TED talk of a reply :P
nataliepineapple t1_j6sn70h wrote
I think they were referring to a hyperdrive from science fiction, i.e. faster-than-light travel
FenrisGreyhame t1_j6su2u0 wrote
They were, but this was so wholesome to read that I don't mind.
Thausgt01 t1_j6t01ng wrote
I'm just counting down until 2086...
[deleted] t1_j6r7a30 wrote
[deleted]
rnargang t1_j6svag7 wrote
The eventual transition is a no brainer given the cost savings of renewables compared to fossil fuels. The Ukrainian war just accelerated it to reduce European reliance on Russian fossil fuels. It's a big upfront capital investment for Europe but they will be in an enviable position going forward when they don't have to rely as much on fossil fuels and their price volatility. I also wonder what it will mean for internal growth and investment. Rather than continually spending tens of billions of Euros in the international fossil fuel market, they will be keeping much of those expenditures and reinvesting it elsewhere. I'm curious to see the long term effect of that.
imhere4themcomments t1_j6usiry wrote
How much battery production does Europe have? Does Europe mine any raw material for batteries and solar panels or are they becoming completely reliant on China for those necessities?
rnargang t1_j6uzgf2 wrote
No idea. The article is referencing renewables for generating electricity. Batteries are for storage. China is currently a major supplier of battery technology because they decided to aggressively invest in the future while countries like the United States kept subsidizing fossil fuels. Lithium deposits are scattered around the globe. Countries and industries around the world are aggressively trying to diversify and create alternatives to a supply chain dominated by the Chinese. It will take time.
imhere4themcomments t1_j6v2jg2 wrote
Right. You’re saying it’s a no brainer to transition to renewables but I’m curious which renewables you see as a “no brainer” given that most require investment.
rnargang t1_j6ve2ir wrote
Everything requires an investment no matter where the power is coming from. Renewables continue to decrease in cost and can generate energy for less than fossil fuels - sometimes a lot less, hence it's a no brainer to build out renewable power sources. They also last for decades, produce much less greenhouse gases over their life cycle, and, in the case of Europe, less money is being sent to a country threatening you with nuclear war. Transitioning to renewables is inevitable. The war is accelerating it.
imhere4themcomments t1_j6vodo5 wrote
Which renewables are currently decreasing in cost? Inflation is driving prices way up and making the world dependent on China. It takes a half million pounds of mined earth to build one electric car battery. Most windmills take more resource than they actually produce in their life span. Solar panels require mining and a huge percentage are produced in regions of China that use forced labor. So which renewable source or sources are you saying are a “no brainer?”
rnargang t1_j6wuxsn wrote
Please do your research. The cost of wind and solar keep declining - solar at a much faster rate. I've never come across an article reporting something different. Carbon emissions are also much lower than fossil fuels over the life cycle.
As for materials, some are available around the world, others are not. Lithium deposits are in different countries and other sources are being developed. Some material, such as cobalt, is located primarily in one country - Congo. Lots of abuse of laborers in the extraction process, which doesn't make the news and seems to have been missed by you as a complaint. Researchers are looking for alternatives of hard to source materials or ways to more effectively recycle existing materials to reduce mining.
The widespread transition to renewables is still early in the process. We will learn and figure out ways to do things better. Technology will change. Alternatives to lithium are constantly being tested. Please don't attack something that you don't understand.
daOyster t1_j6rty8u wrote
Did anyone tell the article writers that the EU used the most coal it ever has in 2022?
delocx t1_j6s11oa wrote
Yes:
>To prepare for winter, the EU imported 51 per cent more thermal coal last year, at 65 million tonnes, up from 43 million tonnes in 2021. Russian coal imports were banned last August, resulting in an even larger pickup in coal imports from other countries such as Indonesia and Australia, which rose from a small base to 6 million tonnes each. The panic buying turned out to be unnecessary. Two-thirds of the extra coal imported by the EU remained unused.
>
>During winter, 26 coal units across seven countries (most of which were in Germany) were reactivated to provide a safety cushion, which in the end was not needed. These units added less than 1 per cent to the EU’s coal power generation.
VeronciaBDO t1_j6u0qav wrote
Used and bought are two different things though
delocx t1_j6u2e3b wrote
"Two-thirds of the extra coal imported by the EU remained unused."
Basically Europe panic bought coal earlier in the year, people looking at EU coal consumption assumed the significant increase in coal bought would lead to a correlated increase in consumption and thus created headlines based on that assumption, but in the end it did not, according to this article.
The last paragraph was included as it clarified that expanded coal generation contributed an increase of less than 1% of to the EU's total coal generation, essentially a non-story. The article states further on that it's likely EU coal imports this year will drop off substantially owing to all the extra coal purchased but unused this winter resulting in abundant stockpiles.
Translationerr0r t1_j6std16 wrote
Did you even read the article?
Straight_Ad2258 OP t1_j6ttaz1 wrote
>Did anyone tell the article writers that the EU used the most coal it ever has in 2022?
that is not even possible,since coal consumption peaked in 1990s in Europe and has dropped by 2/3 by 2021
what kind of lies have you read?
dramaking37 t1_j6utb1g wrote
"read" there is your first mistake, assuming they read it
everyothernamegone t1_j6t435y wrote
Necessity is the mother of all invention. Well done Vlad.
shredmaster3000 t1_j6u1s0p wrote
Real missed opportunity to title the article “Don’t Coal It A Comeback”, smh
mypostisbad t1_j6t3p2z wrote
In a Irony News, Putin may go down in history as the man who saved the planet.
Translationerr0r t1_j6w4ha7 wrote
3 times hoorah for Vladimir.
Affectionate-Winner7 t1_j6tv2pi wrote
Sans PAC (bribe) money gushing into our corrupt politicians our renewable energy and transportation electrification would be in hyperdrive by now.
Sad how American has lost its way and moral compass.
AdGeHa t1_j6se6nc wrote
It's sad that the US is so addicted to oil that they're behind.
garlicroastedpotato t1_j6snrxw wrote
America's not actually that far behind Europe. In 2022 Europe was using more fossil fuels than America due to the surge in coal use. Most countries are expected to reduce their fossil fuels in 2023 because there's an expectation of a bubble pop.
rebootyourbrainstem t1_j6tdjud wrote
Used, or bought? Apparently two thirds of the additional coal bought by Europe is sitting unused in stockpiles.
garlicroastedpotato t1_j6unhc8 wrote
This would be their energy mix, so used.
Affectionate-Winner7 t1_j6tvjcr wrote
Actually our politicians are addicted to PAC money that Citizens United.
dramaking37 t1_j6utmir wrote
There is a lot of fear mongering around EVs, solar, etc. In the US. At the end of the day, if that stuff pisses you off, focus on transitioning yourself. It is the oil and gas industry pushing these narratives and it feels oh so good to begin cutting ties with them. Fuck em.
mjfi4cp2 t1_j6t9oft wrote
I like to think that they’re letting us go first because we need to cut ties with Russia
ThreeNC t1_j6xl916 wrote
So much misinformation floating around and kept perpetuating on social media. I had a guy arguing with me on Nextdoor that solar and wind created more pollution than fossil fuels and another that both don't work in the cold.
generic-web-user t1_j6rwe88 wrote
I just hope my salary can keep up with energy costs
idontneedfame t1_j6s0r3s wrote
renewable energy is cheaper to produce so the free market will lead to lower costs for everyone unless the free market isn't actually free because companies are conspiring against consumers to siphon off their money. well, good luck
Onelinersandblues t1_j6t6v7d wrote
Oh yeah, the free market will fix it🤡
imhere4themcomments t1_j6ut38c wrote
What kind of renewable energy is cheapest to produce? Most require large up front investments and lots of mining for batteries (energy storage) and solar panels and things of that nature. Curious what you see as the cheapest easiest way to produce clean energy.
kms2547 t1_j6v75l3 wrote
>What kind of renewable energy is cheapest to produce? Most require large up front investments
Whereas you can cheaply put an oil refinery together with some duct tape and moxie!
imhere4themcomments t1_j6v7ef6 wrote
Ok don’t answer then.
idontneedfame t1_j6wcagc wrote
According to Wikipedia, it's onshore wind. The large up front investments are true and the amortization period is longer than for fossil fuels but compared to the societal and long term/eternal costs of using fossil fuels and nuclear energy, the costs are neglectable
WikiSummarizerBot t1_j6wcbfr wrote
>Different methods of electricity generation can incur a variety of different costs, which can be divided into three general categories: 1) wholesale costs, or all costs paid by utilities associated with acquiring and distributing electricity to consumers, 2) retail costs paid by consumers, and 3) external costs, or externalities, imposed on society. Wholesale costs include initial capital, operations & maintenance (O&M), transmission, and costs of decommissioning. Depending on the local regulatory environment, some or all wholesale costs may be passed through to consumers.
>In energy economics and ecological energetics, energy return on investment (EROI), also sometimes called energy returned on energy invested (ERoEI), is the ratio of the amount of usable energy (the exergy) delivered from a particular energy resource to the amount of exergy used to obtain that energy resource.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
imhere4themcomments t1_j6wkxgl wrote
“Costs are neglectable”. So will the bank forgive my loan on renewables? How silly are these comments?
idontneedfame t1_j6wng74 wrote
well, if you have a "loan on renewables", you won't be paying money towards electricity production so you could use the money you saved to pay off your bank.
Neglectable in this case means that your long-term cost of conventional energy consumption is (very roughly) the same (give or take a few hundred over your lifetime, there are calulators online) as the cost of installing your own pv system.
if you want go to all the way and calculate the total economic value (think energy independency, avoided CO2 emissions, cleaner air, a future for your kids etc) producing your own power will be a lot cheaper.
imhere4themcomments t1_j6woehz wrote
You’ll just be in debt your whole life often giving your home as collateral so you’ll be unable to move or pay for kids college or other necessities but I get what you’re saying. If you’re willing to go into debt and sacrifice other things for it (and you’re fortunate enough to get approved for a loan) then sure.
idontneedfame t1_j6wv8iu wrote
you're right, this is obviously only something for people privileged enough to have their own house, good credit etc.
zgembo1337 t1_j6tahof wrote
What do you do on windless nights?
And why the fuck is everyone so aftaid of nuclear?!
Virtus_Curiosa t1_j6th3p4 wrote
Renewable energy comes from more sources than just wind. Hydroelectric, solar panels, biomass, and geothermal to name a few.
Also a large part of the development of renewable energy sources is long term storage of that energy eg: batteries. So they charge up when the production peaks and get drained over time. ideally there would be a large enough buffer for the energy to remain consistent as the fluctuations in production ebb and flow.
Fukushima and Chernobyl. It's risk vs reward with nuclear energy. It's powerful and relatively clean energy, but when (not if) stuff goes wrong it can go REALLY wrong. Radiation is scary. People are completely right to be afraid of it. That said, you can be afraid of something and still realize it's usefulness and take appropriate precautions toward its use, learn from the mistakes made in the past and make a better system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
It's a big list.
SeeminglyBlue t1_j82x4f2 wrote
compare that to coal accidents. nuclear is some of the safest energy we have.. the only reason people get scared is because of a massive disinformation campaign on the part of coal (whose power stations release more than 100 times the radioactive material per year than nuclear). when you start to compare the amount of lives lost and habitat destruction from fossil fuels, you learn that nuclear is a teddy bear compared to them.
Inariameme t1_j6u9cha wrote
it's called stored energy and there are a lot of creative ways to go about it
blackdragonstory t1_j6ste0n wrote
You know damn well it's gonna be expensive. They might make it cheaper than gas just to get the point of being cheaper but there is no way they won't get rich out of this if it becomes the standard.
Purple-Country4271 t1_j6sb621 wrote
Always easy to make a"Transition" when you just export your pollution abroad 😶.
mjfi4cp2 t1_j6t9w4z wrote
Are you referring to the manufacturing of hardware like solar panels and wind turbines?
pdonchev t1_j6tcuov wrote
Not only. "Transitioning" countries in Europe don't have sufficient sources of electrical energy in the winter (also in summer, but winter is the bulk of the deficit) and happily import cheap dirty energy from other countries, while bragging about being a clean economy. And then you have the biggest bulshit of the 21th century so far, the gas-backed solar and wind. Where the gas sometimes is the bigger source. And then you have the wind turbines that not only have embedded a lot of dirty (and cheap) energy, but when installed they would not recuperate even this energy during their operating lifetime, but the economies work because you sell the smaller quantity of clean energy at a much bigger price.
To measure impact on the earth, the emissions for all exports should be subtracted from a country's pollution footprint, and added, together with the transportation emissions, to the footprint of the importing country. Then the charade will be clear - for now powerful (rich) governments mostly externalize emissions (in the process increasing them), while their countries continue to be the largest emitters by a large margin.
mjfi4cp2 t1_j6te78b wrote
[citation needed]
TendiesMeWant t1_j6tpja3 wrote
This has been debunked before
Libro_Artis t1_j6tc2ie wrote
Everything is going as planned.
AutoModerator t1_j6qy0y0 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.
Caterpillar89 t1_j6t0p9z wrote
Too bad at the moment its causing people to go broke. Need some short term relief for the poor and lower middle class.
aesemon t1_j6t5099 wrote
Current energy costs are not due to transition to a different source.
Slihsar t1_j6t47ia wrote
My only issue with buying an EV is the range loss in the winter.
Onelinersandblues t1_j6t6jb9 wrote
It doesn’t mean squat if the prices are not affordable. It’s not good news until then (for me at least).
johnn48 t1_j6t8pay wrote
This is a little left field, but as coal becomes less mainstream, what happens to the price of coal. Does a decreasing market, raise or lower prices per ton?
mjfi4cp2 t1_j6tblld wrote
It depends if anything distorts the market. If not, reduced demand should lead to temporarily reduced prices, then reduced supply and stabilisation of prices at a similar level. If demand keeps reducing, the same should happen, but the economies of scale are slowly lost, so the price goes up from its historical low.
Realistically, there will be some distortion, so it may be that the price paid for coal varies a lot in different parts of the world based on policy, lobbying and existing infrastructure. I think coal is clearly on its way out in Europe though. It’s already becoming an issue for things like preservation steam railways here, with alternatives being explored to deal with the effective death of coal.
pdonchev t1_j6taud5 wrote
That hyperdrive, however, must be running on lignite coal, because Germany has not only reopened gigawatts of coal power, but also sent several hundred policemen to beat the people protesting a small town being levelled with the ground in order to open a new lignite mine.
elglas t1_j6vikq8 wrote
So, the mud wizard won?
Rivera437 t1_j8h5kwy wrote
FEAM is powering a renewable energy revolution across Europe - offering the essential ingredient to transition from coal-based power sources. With boron mined in America, this innovative company has become an integral part of modernizing global energy systems.
doitpow t1_j6wdm6y wrote
DON'T CALL IT A COMEBACK,
​
because it's not
cruel_frames t1_j6sthtv wrote
It's not uplifting if it's fake news.
Pyrollusion t1_j6rqprm wrote
Meanwhile a small town in Germany gets demolished for coal. Hyperdrive....yeah. Send help.
IitzZOPaulo t1_j6rvj67 wrote
We still spend a huge amount on renewable energy. And the thing in Germany is more complex than "coal mining for energy". Coal is on it's way to dissappear in the "near" future, at least in Europe.
Poschta t1_j6s5tm4 wrote
Looks like it's the last town to go, though.
thatmurdergoose4u2 t1_j6r2lto wrote
Not in Germany.
netz_pirat t1_j6r7bew wrote
Let me guess, you have no clue about the situation in Germany?
The goal for wind energy installation this year is almost double the target from last year (and it was met).
For solar, wait times are beyond one year.
Germany was at 44.6% renewable electric energy last year about double of, say, usa.
(and if you insist : coal is on a downward trend in Germany since 2012)
marsnz t1_j6rmsq4 wrote
Come on now the dude read a headline that said “Germany bad” so he’s pretty read up on the whole situation
thatmurdergoose4u2 t1_j6shr49 wrote
And your just on a sub that only wants one-sided views. Not everything is uplifting and not every article on this sub is true
ZoulouGang t1_j6sbxe0 wrote
You are right, it is getting better. But i still dont understand what is the target energy mix in Germany. What will be thé drivable electricity source ? A 100% renewable 24/7 is not possible right ? So what will replace gaz / coal ?
netz_pirat t1_j6sm6uf wrote
Why would 100% renewable not be possible?
Target is exactly that. 100% renewable in 2035.
DeltaJesus t1_j6t1q8u wrote
> A 100% renewable 24/7 is not possible right
Not currently possible doesn't mean completely unattainable, once high volume energy storage has gotten good enough there's no reason we wouldn't be able to go 100% renewable basically everywhere.
mjfi4cp2 t1_j6tabj4 wrote
It’s doable with sufficient overbuilding of renewables and a bit of storage. I’m looking forward to seeing what ideas people come up with for the times when there’s significant excess energy available.
thatmurdergoose4u2 t1_j6shjak wrote
Germany litteraly just shut down nuclear power plants in favor of coal fueled ones. Please stop with the copium
netz_pirat t1_j6spzgh wrote
No, in favor of renewables. No new coal plant is being built.
Stop the bullshit.
SeeminglyBlue t1_j6vo15w wrote
it's still stupid, though. nuclear is the most efficient form of energy we currently have and shelling it in favor of something that doesn't even have 100% uptime (to say nothing of efficiency) is silly.
netz_pirat t1_j6vyrqa wrote
You may want to check the great uptime of nuclear power plants in France.
Or how cheap their new reactor is.
SeeminglyBlue t1_j82ybxp wrote
you're misunderstanding. what nuclear needs to be worldwide is a direct replacement for coal (as in, a "backup" energy source) and not renewables (which should power the majority of the grid). it's stupid because they're still using coal for that purpose and ditching the cleaner one until they go 100% renewable (which should have a backup because right now, it's not 100% uptime).
reactors are never cheap anywhere- i never said they were, and they're only gonna get cheaper if we eliminate the social stigma around them and embrace the new tech.
france's reactors are old. look at the gen IV reactors for a better example of what nuclear could (and should) be worldwide.
netz_pirat t1_j83p18w wrote
Unfortunately, nuclear does not fulfill this role from an economic perspective.
Cost of nuclear energy is mostly build cost and maintenance, fuel costs are pretty low. So if you have one, you want to keep it at nominal power for as much time as possible, if you just use it as backup, each kwh is insanely expensive.
For coal and gas, it's the other way round. Building them is cheap in comparison, so is maintenance. They only cost money if they run... So they are pretty good backup plants.
Also... You mean the brand new plant of the EPR Type in Flamanville? Construction was supposed to take 5 years, were now at 15 and counting and cost has gone up from 3.3 to 19(!) billion €
netz_pirat t1_j83p5e1 wrote
Unfortunately, nuclear does not fulfill this role from an economic perspective.
Cost of nuclear energy is mostly build cost and maintenance, fuel costs are pretty low. So if you have one, you want to keep it at nominal power for as much time as possible, if you just use it as backup, each kwh is insanely expensive.
For coal and gas, it's the other way round. Building them is cheap in comparison, so is maintenance. They only cost money if they run... So they are pretty good backup plants.
Also... You mean the brand new plant of the EPR Type in Flamanville? Construction was supposed to take 5 years, were now at 15 and counting and cost has gone up from 3.3 to 19(!) billion €
FullM3TaLJacK3T t1_j6rion5 wrote
This is great news!
I've always complained that owning an electric car is impossible for me because my underground parking doesn't have plugs to charge a car. And I'm not willing to have the limitation of being able to charge my car only at work.
I just found out today that the building management will be installing charging plugs at every parking lot! Great news! Only question now is when will it get done....