A lot of great minds play Factorio.

[Dry Hairy Tree]

Hi all. I've noticed this game attracts a lot of engineers and other professionals. This leads me to thinking the Factorio community is an incredible resource for problem solving or simply discussion generating awareness and thoughts on specific topics.

We see it all the time in discussions on various game aspects, people coming from out of left field with brilliant ideas. We see it in the mods. We see it in the devs, with their innovation and their trailblazing such an inclusive team effort. We see it in the incredible designs and concepts arising in game play from the players themselves.

So I'm not really just thinking this is a pool of brilliant minds, I'm kinda convinced.

Reading over fluid discussion got me thinking. Here's the first problem I want to throw out there, should you wish to join in:

The biggest issue with renewables like solar is battery storage. And then there's the spent batteries to consider...

I'm thinking hydro dams store power for thousands of households.... So how much water storage (how big a header tank) would be required as a 'battery' for a singular household? How big a generator? How much flow/drop would be required to generate useful current for a household, a building of ten, 100, 1000 households?

Will a header tank work for household power storage? What are the issues you might come across?

I'm thinking this is a situational solution, as is more appropriate to humans, you know, actually assessing the situation rather than imposing ones will upon the populace. I don't know about other countries, but they hold you hostage in winter for heating round these parts.

Power for the people!

[WeirdConstructor]

The problem you state is already tackled by many institutes, scientists and engineers. There are lots of ways to store energy. The issue is not that humans don't have the technical means, but they are not making it a priority. And market economy is a bad mechanism that does not emphasize sustainability.

[Loewchen]

Look at this concept: https://heindl-energy.com/technical-con ... c-concept/
Sealing and centering a piston with 200m diameter at 70 atmospheres with no chance for failure will be the crux.

[Bauer]

The problem you state is already tackled by many institutes, scientists and engineers. There are lots of ways to store energy. The issue is not that humans don't have the technical means, but they are not making it a priority. And market economy is a bad mechanism that does not emphasize sustainability.

So true.
Sad thing (for a European) is that Asia is showing us how it's done.
Examples: Japan and Korea subsidize a hydrogen car with about 30.000 USD.
China produces a multiple of Germany's total electricity consumption with renewables.

Technical solutions are available (not all perfectly mature, but that will come once they are widely used - the Chinese will demonstrate).
Our European politicians are manipulated by our automotive and energy industries. Dinosaurs, waiting for the impact of the meteor.

There is enough wind power in the North Sea for all neighbouring countries (and certainly enough water to turn it into hydrogen). Distribution and storage is easy. We only need to decide to do it. Energy politics has never been a question of costs! We wanted stone coal in Germany and introduced the "Kohlepfennig". We wanted nuclear power in Europe and the society was ready to cover the cost of nuclear waste disposal and the costs associated with the radiation risks.

It's a question whether we want it or not. But we Europeans are dump enough to vote for right wing assholes instead...
(I still prefer to live in a democracy... but the concept can lead to frustrating results.)

[Nefrums]

There are lots of different ways to store energy. The main things to compare are efficiency, and cost per capacity.

Batteries have very good efficiency >95% , meaning that you can get back most of the energy that you put in. However the cost of batteries is high per amount of energy.

Hydrogen fuel cells, (where you split water into hydrogen an oxygen and then burn it back to water in a fuel cell) have lower cost per energy stored, but the efficiency is only about 25%, meaning that you only get 1W back for every 4Ws you put in.

Storing energy by pumping water back and fourth have higher cost and lower efficiency than fuel cells.


When talking about the environmental effects of different energy production methods, one thing that needs to be considered is how to handle the waste. Solar cells are difficult to recycle and are made in huge quantities. But as that will not become a problem for many years to come, so it is mostly ignored for now (solar cells have a life cycle of 30-40 years and mass production in the quantities we have now has not been happening for that long).
Sticking your head in the sand is always the preferred solution to environment problems.

[WeirdConstructor]

...

It's a question whether we want it or not. But we Europeans are dump enough to vote for right wing assholes instead...
(I still prefer to live in a democracy... but the concept can lead to frustrating results.)

Technology and industrialization have overtaken the humans since the beginning.
The internet did only accelerate that again. I strongly believe that humanity is incapable to solve the problems it
created by market economy driven technology and is steering right into a global disaster. I am talking about
timescales a magnitude bigger than a legislative period. And hopefully longer than my lifetime.

There needs to be a big change in the minds of most or all humans. It must not be about
personal benefit and self-fulfillment. It must be about living on this small planet with 7,642,711,598
other humans. About living on a planet with finite resources. Let me remind: topsoil is actually
a fossil natural resource that built up over millions of years. And it's "used up" by our industrial
agriculture. You can live without oil, but not without soil to grow food.

The strongest force to change peoples minds (for good and bad) is unfortunately: hunger.

[Nefrums]

Wishing for human nature to be different is futile, it is not gonna change.

Trying to prevent climate change if pointless if we base it on religious views on what is good and what is bad. Then we ignore the bad aspects of what is "good".
If we were serous about limiting climate change we would promote power generation that could replace more then half of fossil fule consumption and do it in the cheapest most effective way. (That does mean that focusing on solar and wind is not the solution) it is not cost effective and can never account for more than 50% of power generation anyway, (unless we talk about storing energy, but then we are way of on the cost effectiveness)

Fortunately some countries are doing it right, like France and China. They build cheep (compared to solar and wind) carbon emission free power plants. To bad that many people have religious like distrust of nuclear power.

But all that will not stop climate change. It will at best limit it somewhat. What we need to do is to plan for the effects.
Climate will change. Some areas of the planet will benefit and some will get worse. Basically areas close to the equator or coasts will become less habitable, but other areas large areas like northen canada, sibiria etc, will become more fertile and "more habitable".

This is not a problem in itself, but what is a problem is the tension this will cause between the people living in the now fertile areas and the now less fertile, sparsely inhabited, areas. Refugee floods several orders of magnitude larger then anything seen before, or even wars is what this inevitably will lead to.

[Bauer]

What you are saying is that we need a disruption?
-- Global warming induced migration (if not too slow like the forest dieback)
-- WW III when the US have to give the baton to the Chinese
-- Melt-down of a French/Belgian/British/Czech/... nuclear power plant
-- Major terrorist caused blackout (see: Blackout, Marc Elsberg)
-- Impact of a meteor
-- Appearance of the Yrr (see: The Swarm, Frank Schätzing)
-- Revolution (unlikely as long as everyone doesn't have hunger)

(In order of likeliness.)

[Bauer]

If we were serous about limiting climate change we would promote power generation that could replace more then half of fossil fule consumption and do it in the cheapest most effective way. (That does mean that focusing on solar and wind is not the solution) it is not cost effective and can never account for more than 50% of power generation anyway, (unless we talk about storing energy, but then we are way of on the cost effectiveness)

Fortunately some countries are doing it right, like France and China. They build cheep (compared to solar and wind) carbon emission free power plants. To bad that many people have religious like distrust of nuclear power.

Cost effectiveness is a question of what you put into the equation.

If we would make provisions to store nuclear waste for the next 10.000 years in Castor containers that need to be exchanged every 30 years, it would cost a fortune (selling the shit to Africa is not a solution). After Fukushima someone calculated how much an insurance of the risk of nuclear power in the EU would cost. I don't remember the number but it was impressive.
If you put the environmental cost of fossile fuels on the bill including costs of migration (not only in Euro but also polictial "costs"), weather disasters, real estate losses due to rise of sea level, etc. renewables appear to be pocket money (including storage in H2).

[Nefrums]

If we were serous about limiting climate change we would promote power generation that could replace more then half of fossil fule consumption and do it in the cheapest most effective way. (That does mean that focusing on solar and wind is not the solution) it is not cost effective and can never account for more than 50% of power generation anyway, (unless we talk about storing energy, but then we are way of on the cost effectiveness)

Fortunately some countries are doing it right, like France and China. They build cheep (compared to solar and wind) carbon emission free power plants. To bad that many people have religious like distrust of nuclear power.

Cost effectiveness is a question of what you put into the equation.

If we would make provisions to store nuclear waste for the next 10.000 years in Castor containers that need to be exchanged every 30 years, it would cost a fortune (selling the shit to Africa is not a solution). After Fukushima someone calculated how much an insurance of the risk of nuclear power in the EU would cost. I don't remember the number but it was impressive.
If you put the environmental cost of fossile fuels on the bill including costs of migration (not only in Euro but also polictial "costs"), weather disasters, real estate losses due to rise of sea level, etc. renewables appear to be pocket money (including storage in H2).

You overestimated the cost of handling nuclear waste alot, remember there is only very little of it that need to be stored for any prolonged period of time. All waste from the world's use of nuclear power for the last half century would take up the space of a football field.
And why would you need to replace the containers like ever? What is supposed to cause any wear on them?

The cost for haldeling waste from solar power is 4-5 orders of magnitude larger than from nuclear.

But I will not convince you, any more then I can convince a religus person that God do not exist.
And that is why we will not be able to stop climate change. There is simply no alternative that has a cost that we are willing to pay.


Do you know what power type that releases the most radiation? Like 1000 times more than any other power type?

[Bauer]

Do you know what power type that releases the most radiation? Like 1000 times more than any other power type?

The sun. Ask Ikarus about it!
Fortunately it's far enough away.

...

Implying that people you never met and of whom you have read 2 short posts on a forum only are religious-like fanatics, makes me pity you. I am sorry that you had no chance to meet many rational ppl then. I work in solar thermal and started to look into the H2 business (which is much bigger than I thought -- the H2 needed for electricity in automovite applications is nothing compared to what is being used in petro-chemistry, steel and fertilizer industries). Meeting many scientists and engineers who are working hard to solve the problems associated with renewable energies makes me forget how many narrow-mined people are out there. I am really sorry that you had to meet them. That can fuck-up you day.

BTW, I never said that today's PV will be the solution. Waste is one thing, ressources the other one. But does this mean that it's the wrong way? Of course not! Like every other technology, it needs improvements. And like everywhere else we need a healthy competition between different technologies and companies.

All this is different with nuclear. The waste is a hertitage for thousands of generations. And if Tihange melts down it will screw my day worst than narrow-minded ppl could ever do. So far we have seen events like Tschernobly and Fukushima every 30 years. Ok, n=2 is poor statistics. Even if it's only every 50 years that a nuclear power plant blows up, it's too much in my judgement. What is a big waste dump of old PV panels compared to that?

(Warning irony ahead)

PS: I always thought that I would prefer to Temelin to go down instead of Tihange, because of the general wind direction in Europe. But then I realized that this could end the factorio development. This world became way too small...

[Nefrums]

Do you know what power type that releases the most radiation? Like 1000 times more than any other power type?

The sun. Ask Ikarus about it!
Fortunately it's far enough away.

...

Implying that people you never met and of whom you have read 2 short posts on a forum only are religious-like fanatics, makes me pity you. I am sorry that you had no chance to meet many rational ppl then. I work in solar thermal and started to look into the H2 business (which is much bigger than I thought -- the H2 needed for electricity in automovite applications is nothing compared to what is being used in petro-chemistry, steel and fertilizer industries). Meeting many scientists and engineers who are working hard to solve the problems associated with renewable energies makes me forget how many narrow-mined people are out there. I am really sorry that you had to meet them. That can fuck-up you day.

BTW, I never said that today's PV will be the solution. Waste is one thing, ressources the other one. But does this mean that it's the wrong way? Of course not! Like every other technology, it needs improvements. And like everywhere else we need a healthy competition between different technologies and companies.

All this is different with nuclear. The waste is a hertitage for thousands of generations. And if Tihange melts down it will screw my day worst than narrow-minded ppl could ever do. So far we have seen events like Tschernobly and Fukushima every 30 years. Ok, n=2 is poor statistics. Even if it's only every 50 years that a nuclear power plant blows up, it's too much in my judgement. What is a big waste dump of old PV panels compared to that?

(Warning irony ahead)

PS: I always thought that I would prefer to Temelin to go down instead of Tihange, because of the general wind direction in Europe. But then I realized that this could end the factorio development. This world became way too small...

I'm sorry to call you a religious fanatic, that was based on your false comment that nuclear waste is a problem.
If U235 is only a problem if there is enough of it, We could just grind it up to dust and mix it with lots of other material and spread it out over the mountains where we dug it up in the first place. And everything would be restored to the same state as before we started.

Nuclear plants don't blow up, but they can melt. They are not filled with explosives.

I did not consider the sun a power plant, but you are right that thing gives of a lot of radiation.
What I wanted to highlight is that almost everything is radioactive, including C14. Hence coal plants release radiation, about 1000 times more than nuclear, and that is including the three meltdowns (you forgot about three mile island)

[WeirdConstructor]

Nuclear plants don't blow up, but they can melt. They are not filled with explosives.

They actually blow up pretty neat, most recently shown in Fukushima.
Of course it's not the nuclear material that blew up, but the Hydrogen that was unintentionally generated.

[Dry Hairy Tree]

It is just as I suspected, ecologically conscious souls (you gotta be stupid not to be these days) who love a good tree clearing in Factorio. I'm a soil microbiologist by trade and am working on carbon sequestration via the regeneration of topsoil. That's a whole lecture but dayum I'm getting there. I also dabble in biochar, was an aquaponics pioneer (it's out of the gate now), discovered meal worms eating polystyrene before anyone else did (which the university ignored at the time thinking I was talking out a hole), bred galaxiids in captivity 1st, and other mad ventures to 'save the world'. I freaking qualify as a member of Church Earth, religiously!

I totally agree that transitions this world direly needs are not occurring because of dinosaurs in suits. I also think much of our solutions are already on hand and are being thwarted by the same group of people. If you don't know who they are... they are big ag, big oil, big pharma, the military industrial complex, and bankers. Any CEO greenwashing their products for profit is likewise a planetary problem. Also, devs who nerf robots.

I agree transferring water about is not efficient. But in the context of using water as a battery, where solar power is being produced regardless of whether you have storage or not, is water a viable option to store - and then generate, that power. I think it's a bit greener than battery storage, is certainly more convenient, and is a practise (water storage) that needs to be rejuvenated in societies to take pressure off local authorities and consumers wallets. Also, Flint... Personal power, personal water, personal food, these big authorities sell you death and call it gravy.

Collapse by Jarred Diamond illustrates how sustainable societies lived alongside empires that rose and fell. To my mind we must generate pockets of sanity and spread the word. Here in NZ we finally (after 9 years of A-holes selling our renewable power companies), have a left wing Government planting a billion trees and banning further oil exploration. This is amazing, but the right wing mob aren't happy their hijacking of the real estate market (no capital gains tax, every pot bellied pig in town is a landlord) and public asset acquisitions have been stalled. So do we become a beacon of hope, or succumb to the hapless greedy shortsightedness the rich propagate perpetually. About 40% of us are short sighted and greedy and will energetically get out and vote in force to save their 'investments' (all the poor people's moldy shitty overpriced housing). I can't speak for other countries.

BTW, you know we've just rejuvenated a gene (an enzyme in algae - hydrogenase), so we can crack water? It'll be a while but unlimited power may now be an option. Of course, the big money will want to get it, patent it, hide it, and burn us all in our beds.

Sorry, went into rant mode there didn't I

A myriad of solutions according to specific situation is a great move forward. Why? Decentralisation. Too much power in any hands seems to be a problem for the planet and its occupants.

I agree nukes are a stupid play (in real life). The area of effect and half life are simply not acceptable collateral damage.

Tidal, hydro, geothermal, solar and now hydrogen... we have options. How good is a water (power) storage option? How bad is solar waste?

[Bauer]

@Dry Hairy Tree: Thanks for your post, I enjoyed reading it.
I like your concept of pockets of sanity. However, what is needed is that this "sanity" creeps into the heads of politics. That's awefully difficult since they are lobbied big game from the other side.

I strongly believe in diversity, not only when it comes to power generation. But as it happens, I'm trying to figure out if we, as a company, can make a contribution for fuel cells. Hence, I focus on the basic question: What power system will we see in the future (for automotive)? I tend to believe in a hybride solution (fuel-cell / battery). But am I biased because I wish for it?

However, I don't want to go too deep into this discussion, because I want to contribute a different aspect. I can actually see movement in a good direction in German politics. We have a conservative-socialist coalition. Important to mention that the Green party is not in. Even though the conservatives are in charge, they decided two tiny positiv things:

(1) We are subsidising hydrogen fuel stations. There is a roadmap (since a few years) to have 100 operative next year. This is first in the EU but still behind Japan and Korea.
(2) Companies are now allowed to build wind power parks in the North Sea without a connection to the grid. While it's technically easy to build a power line from north to south in Germany, the approval process makes it impossible. Nobody wants a power line close to his house. With the housing density of Germany this makes it impossible to find a route... Converting wind power to hydrogen makes energy transport much easier. Most parts of the distribution network are already existing. And there is more than enough wind power capacity on the North Sea to have enough for electricity and transportation (taking the conversion losses into account).

I live close to the city of Wuppertal (350.000). The city council decided to buy 10 hydrogn powered buses. Using elecric cars for city services makes a lot of sense (short milage, well serviced, clean, quite, etc.). The problem is, that we cannot buy fuel cell busses. You have to buy a regular bus and have it retrofitted in a garage. That makes it really expensive. Why isn't our praised automotve industry offering such vehicule "of-the-rack"?

The city of Shenzhen (12.5 Mio) decided to buy 16.000 e-buses.
(12.5 Mio / 350 k = 36 << 1,600)
This is just a simple example. Another example are the wind parks build in the west/north-west of China. This is their "North Sea". The power is needed along the big industrial areas at the coast. China will use electrolisation to transport the energy. We are talking about 2-3 times the total electricity demand of Germany.

Am I too impatient with the development in Europe or is Asia showing us how to shape the future?
(Yes, I know, they are also building coal plants like crazy...)

[Nefrums]

One problem with solar and wind is that it is not always sunny and/or windy.

Peek energy consumption (at least here in northern Europe where i live) tends to occur when there is a stable high pressure during winter. This causes low temperature combined with low winds, and as it is during the wither when solar is working at ~10% we get basically no power from wind or solar.
The common solution to this problem is to have coal power plants that you fire up when needed.

So even if you where to expand solar and wind to maximum, you would still rely on coal to provide ~50% of the power.

If we where to invest in energy storage to handle the night you could get this down to about 30% coal power. But that means that energy costs would be x4 instead of x2 (as with solar+wind without energy storage).

Storing energy from summer to winter is not feasible with today's technology.


Edit: Dont get me wrong here, I think solar is very good, I'm even planing to put solar panels on my house. But that relies on selling some of the produced energy to the grid, and then buying energy back when i need it.
It is just not practical to use solar for more than 20-25 % of our energy needs, and as much from wind.

The remaining 50% energy production has to come from other sources. And there are very few options. Hydro is the by far best in all respects, but it is kind of limited by that you need the right landscape for it. It is unlikely that hydro power can be expanded much more than it is today. Being the one of the cheapest and cleanest forms of power there is hydro is already expanded as much as it can in most places.

That leves us with two remaining options. Nuclear or fossil. My view is clear on what of those i prefer.
The point i try to make is that wishing that we had other options and rejecting nuclear is only leading to that we have to use fossil.

[Bauer]

You're right: The hydro energy potential is more or less explored already.

The mayor problem of the renewables isn't storage, neither daily/seasonal fluctuations, it's transport. In other parts of the world this is even worst compared to Germany. Once we accept that this can be achieved using hydrogen, storage is no problem any more. Yes, this will increase costs. Similar to when the Kohlepfennig was introduced to be independent from foreign coal/energy sources, this is the result of a strategic decision. Or how my last boss always said: It costs what it costs!

In companies we distinguish between cost-down and strategic projects. It is the energy lobby who wants to tell us that renewables have to be treated like cost-down projects. They even invented a word for it: Grid parity. Bull-shit. It's a strategic decision (with an unquestionalble majority in the population) to be taken because it will pay-off in the long run and not because of a pay-back in 2 years. It costs what it costs...

[epr]

The problem you state is already tackled by many institutes, scientists and engineers. There are lots of ways to store energy. The issue is not that humans don't have the technical means, but they are not making it a priority. And market economy is a bad mechanism that does not emphasize sustainability.

So true.
Sad thing (for a European) is that Asia is showing us how it's done.
Examples: Japan and Korea subsidize a hydrogen car with about 30.000 USD.
China produces a multiple of Germany's total electricity consumption with renewables.

Technical solutions are available (not all perfectly mature, but that will come once they are widely used - the Chinese will demonstrate).
Our European politicians are manipulated by our automotive and energy industries. Dinosaurs, waiting for the impact of the meteor.

There is enough wind power in the North Sea for all neighbouring countries (and certainly enough water to turn it into hydrogen). Distribution and storage is easy. We only need to decide to do it. Energy politics has never been a question of costs! We wanted stone coal in Germany and introduced the "Kohlepfennig". We wanted nuclear power in Europe and the society was ready to cover the cost of nuclear waste disposal and the costs associated with the radiation risks.

It's a question whether we want it or not. But we Europeans are dump enough to vote for right wing assholes instead...
(I still prefer to live in a democracy... but the concept can lead to frustrating results.)

[Moderated by Koub]

Anyway back to the topic at hand, storing energy and renewables is just a stupid idea, since they have the biggest impact on the environment and should only be considered locally.
Nulear power is the best large cale power solution we have for now and research should be focused on various fusion and fission reactors.

[Koub]

I've been watching this topic from beginning, and it has been close to derailing several times. It has, in my opinion, done so today, and I'd like everybody here to focus on the ideas, not on the people who don't share your point of view. No more personal attacks, and no more mocking the others please.

[Dry Hairy Tree]

Thanks Koub, hope it doesn't derail it's an important topic but it sure can get people fired up like a coal plant

I was driving one time and picked up a mad Hippy who had just spent a few days with a local inventor. He ranted for two hours about a 'Jinny', an almost perfect magnetic sphere inside magnetic housing that acted a a turbine. Years later I met the inventor and saw the invention. It was a small unit that could generate power from a stream of liquid or gas. It was a foot long, 4 inches wide, sleek, quiet. He'd machined a perfect third off a sphere to gain two-directional simultaneous rotation. It was a concept of Einsteins he'd worked on for years and the final solution came out in a dream. A switch from decimal to metric, then he found his perfect third.

The inventor got buried by lawyers. When they couldn't buy him out they went after his life, digging up dirt and making up dirt. They kept him in litigation for decades then undermined his business partners till he gave up. It all sounds like a folk story but I met the guy, I saw the device running, I saw the math he was struggling with, then the lawyers and charges arrive. I'd become a small shareholder, it was worth the loss for the lesson.

Take a look at a device called a Trompe. This is how Australia ran cars once. On pressurised air generated via a water drop. We get lied to so much 'everything is so difficult', so our options become nuclear or coal. I simply do not accept that. It's patronising nonsense. A myriad of solutions for a myriad of situations is called for, which big authorities hate, as it decentralises 'their' power.

Back in the 60's our Government was lobbied by oil and duped us all into thinking rail was non-competitive by acquiring rolling stock that was only allowed to travel at 40 mph. The engines could easily double that but the wagons determined that trucks looked the better option. There has been obfuscation and outright lies for fifty years that I can count, who's to bet half our ideas of how difficult transition is come from people who want no such thing.

Nobody has addressed the question of whether a tank (25 K litres, this is Factorio) full of water is sufficient storage for a house. I can go investigate but physics is my achilles heel... I am reading physics for dummies, it makes me feel dumber.