this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
878 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

59575 readers
3802 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 111 points 11 months ago (3 children)

It is cheaper to operate and that has been it's selling point for the last years.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 167 points 11 months ago (9 children)

In case you're ever wondering, this is an example of your tax dollars at work. Thirty years ago solar and wind generation had to be heavily subsidized with government grants to make them viable in the energy market. Now the technology of both has advanced to the point that it's undercutting all of the other forms of electricity generation, without subsidization.

Government subsidies work. They're effective for getting new technologies off the ground.

[–] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 46 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Good thing we still subsidize petroleum

Good for the oil companies and legislators they own, anyway

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They are great. As long as they don’t end up like corn.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 39 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Or oil and coal, propping up bad energy sources while the clean ones have to often fend for themselves and compete against the subsidies.

[–] F_Haxhausen@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Or oil and corn and meat and dairy.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

The four elements of power.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago (3 children)

It is now. But only after we invested in it.

This is a great example of investing in tech even when it’s not practical in the present day. It can pay off later down the line.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 53 points 10 months ago (16 children)

It's worth pointing out that the renewables break down as such (% of all electricity):

  • Solar: 6%
  • Hydro: 6%
  • Wind: 10%
  • Nuclear: 18%

Nuclear energy is providing more than any other individual source, making up 45% of all renewable electricity.

Next time you hear someone "concerned about global warming" also fearmonger about nuclear energy, it's worth considering where their allegiances lie. Most people are misguided, but when it comes to politicians, it says a lot about how much they actually care about sustainability.

[–] Thrashy@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

There have been studies (this one, for example) that suggest the total radioactivity-related health impacts from coal power exceed that of nuclear power by an order of magnitude. That's not all pollution-related deaths for coal -- just those associated with radon exposure inside of mines, and radioactive materials embedded in coal going out into the environment. For all the fear-mongering about nuclear, it's hard to find a less dangerous source of base load generation using present-day technologies. Maybe once grid-scale batteries are available at scale, they could replace nuke plants, but that's a solution ten years too late for an environmental problem we have to fix right now.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

i wonder where the world we be today if we didnt stop funding nuclear, if gen 4 designs actually had proper money pushing them forward.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] datendefekt@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

What is renewable about nuclear? It's not a fossil fuel, but uranium has to be mined and is a finite resource just like oil.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk 47 points 10 months ago (28 children)

This is economics now, not politics. US can go full crazy Trump, but the grid will just keep getting greener as greener is cheapest. He can rant and rave about global warming being a conspiracy or anything else, but it's unstoppable now.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The infuriating thing to me is, renewable energy is often extremely independent. It means no reliance on foreign oil. That SHOULD be the most American thing, especially for those in the GOP who claim to be anti-government.

Goes to remind you their main product is hypocrisy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Darkhoof@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No, the grid won't get greener if Trump is elected because he WILL go full dictator. And he will revert everything that is being done currently.

[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk 11 points 10 months ago (5 children)

He'll struggle to make states to buy more expensive energy. If he managed, he'd put the state at a global disadvantage. Even then, he'd have to outlaw solar to stop people installing it at home.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (26 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 46 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

The only thing that's keeping carbon-free power from growing faster is natural gas, which is the fastest-growing source of generation at the moment, going from 40 percent of the year-to-date total in 2022 to 43.3 percent this year. (It's actually slightly below that level in the October data.) The explosive growth of natural gas in the US has been a big environmental win, since it creates the least particulate pollution of all the fossil fuels, as well as the lowest carbon emissions per unit of electricity. But its use is going to need to start dropping soon if the US is to meet its climate goals, so it will be critical to see whether its growth flat lines over the next few years.

Uh... So, listen. I work in the Nat Gas sector. And while I'm happy to confirm that its far cleaner, easier/safer to transport, and more efficient than coal and liquid oil, I'm going to have to pump the breaks on the enthusiasm. We are definitely not "emissions-free". One of the larger investments we've made, in the last few years, has been in detecting gas leaks along our existing lines and plugging them. And we definitely still flare off excess and lose reserves during transit as circumstances dictate.

Way back in the 1970s a small upstart energy company known as Exxon had one of its engineering departments estimate the ecological impact of drilling into the East Natuna gas field off the coast of Indonesia. This was primarily a natural gas reserve, accessible without the modern fracking and cracking techniques used throughout the Permian and Delphi Basins.

Senior scientist of Exxon, James Black, authored a report estimating the impact of drilling and burning off the fuel in the East Natuna reserve, and concluded it would result in a significant increase in global temperatures. This lead Exxon to commission further studies, in the late 70s and early 80s, to estimate the full impact of their drilling and refining practices. The end result was a model of climate change that has mapped neatly to current climate trends

I say this because while natural gas is relatively cleaner, it is by no means clean. And with the increasing rate of energy consumption occurring globally, our reliance on natural gas is decidedly not contributing to an emissions free future.

[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't think anyone is under the illusion that natural gas is emissions-free.

6% Solar + 6% Hydro + 10% Wind + 18% Nuclear = 40% "emissions-free"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (5 children)

The article doesn't do a good job of explaining the 40%, you have to infer it. But when you do, it isn't natural gas, but solar + wind + hydro + nuclear.

This is actually fantastic news. 40% renewable, 40% natural gas, and 20% coal is a huge step in the right direction.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 41 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's a very cool article, I didn't know the US was actually making the change so quickly.

Weirdest part of the article is the included pie chart from the US Energy Information Agency showing the usage of different types of energy, but the entire pie is orange, like every slice of different energy is orange.

They need one art guy, just one.

[–] themoken@startrek.website 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I didn't mind the pie chart, the slices are labeled clearly, no need to use coloring like you have to read a legend.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ImmaculateTaste@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 25 points 11 months ago (14 children)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] crsu@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Great except the military pollutes more than 140 countries and there are several wars ongoing. If you really want the climate to stop changing we need to reel in the international shipping industry, the fashion industry, and also the global war machine.

[–] weeeeum@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (6 children)

You also have to admit that the US covers for most of the worlds military. Most of nato and many Asian allies have very low defense spending, because the US will cover them. Most of the time when there is a global crisis or localized crisis the US is involved in one way or another.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] SCB@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

we need to reel in the international shipping industry, the fashion industry, and also the global war machine

Believe you mean "modernize" and not "reel in," because ending international shipping would be catastrophic worldwide.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NekoKamiGuru@ttrpg.network 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This makes electric cars less polluting with every passing day as this percentage increases.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Car manufacturing is, itself, a messy process. And we'd all be better off (for a whole host of reasons) if we could move to a public transit system and away from the messy, overly-complex, extraordinarily expensive highways-and-byways personal vehicle system.

Electrified rail and Multi-family homes would dramatically reduce both energy consumption AND housing costs, if we were willing to invest in it at rates comparable to what we spend subsidizing new fossil fuel wells, road expansion/maintenance, and policing of the homeless.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] eya@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 11 months ago (8 children)
[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 10 points 11 months ago

There's a lot if you look for it, recent developments in tidal are incredibly positive and we're absolutely going to see a rapid uptake in marine electrification as existing technology progresses through the market. Most people never really think about the resources used and pollution caused by small boats but one of the big destructive forces at play is the infrastructure requirements - small boats need big boats to supply their fuel stations.

Transitioning away from this system and instead using costal tidal generators to charge electric ferries and barges could be a total game changer in many areas, especially many of the highly trafficked and polluted tidal basins like in north Brazil, Nigeria, or island clusters like in the Philippines. Also the intercoastal waterways around the US and other leisure spots.

We're making great progress in many areas and I really think it's important to acknowledge this and cheer it on least we get so caught in a false sense of doom that we just give up.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Eikov@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

That's very surprising, in a good way.

load more comments
view more: next ›