OP has never heard of batteries
OP has never heard of batteries
The best approach is a combination of all 3 - hydro, wind, solar. When there's a shortage of one you've got the other two to help provide the shortfall.
Also, you second point is plain wrong. Maybe that was the look she was giving you. While wind energy density is lower, it by far exceeds the potential in hydro.
GreatDane1 wrote:
The best approach is a combination of all 3 - hydro, wind, solar. When there's a shortage of one you've got the other two to help provide the shortfall.
You would need high amounts of hydro capacity to run a grid on just hydro, wind, and solar. Wind and solar are not capable to balance the grid and chase the load demand. Only hydro can load chase. So, in order to have ONLY these resources and be entirely dependent of the weather you would need loads of hydro capacity in case of a drought tail event. Check out Norway's energy mix. Otherwise you would require a quick peaking units like natural gas turbines to respond to quick changes in demand.
I would love to get everyone on this thread to gather in a room and teach them what is required to maintain an electrical grid.
GreatDane1 wrote:
The best approach is a combination of all 3 - hydro, wind, solar. When there's a shortage of one you've got the other two to help provide the shortfall.
lol how is that possible. hydro is not that flexible and hydro and wind depend on factors out of your control. you need something like gas which is more flexible. hear you see the liberal leftist knownothing ideology at work.
Excess capacity, plus energy storage. This is not about political ideology.
I think the real solution has to also come with shrinking population and reducing demand, smaller homes and vehicles.
This post sounds like something from r/iamverysmart
In 2015 the maximum potential output of hydroelectric generating stations in the US was 78,956 megawatts, while wind power reached 82,183 megawatts - this is the first year the maximum potential of wind surpassed that of hydroelectric in the US. Of note, this is the maximum potential output and neither method generally ever reaches that on an average day - this is due to a variety of reasons ranging from inefficiencies in the system itself, maintenance shutdowns, etc. On average in 2015, hydroelectric ran at 35.8% of maximum capacity and wind was at 32.2% - not a massive decline, but notable for hydro (Source:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/business/energy-environment/wind-energy-renewable.html
).
For reference, you told this individual that Washington would need to increase its wind power by 600% to match that of hydroelectric. Yeah sure, but that is because WA produces THE MOST hydroelectric power in the US. Choose a state like Kansas which is one of the lowest producers of hydroelectric power in the US, and wind power probably makes a whole lot more sense (Source for 2020 data:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/where-hydropower-is-generated.php
).
Everything has its pros and cons. Use energy sources where they will be most effective and also can minimize local/environmental downsides.
OP, how are you defining "better"? New wind capacity is certainly much cheaper than new hydro, but doesn't do much for security of supply or system operability. Hard to imagine a scenario where it would be economic to replace existing hydro with new wind.
Really? Especially woman?
Quant Bio wrote:
I am in graduate school for something that might be called mathematical biology... Was recently talking with a female Civil Engineering PhD student about dams and power in our region (the PNW), and she was adamant that all the dams should be removed and replaced by wind power because it's a better power source at this point. When I explained to her that water flows 24/7 and wind does not blow 24/7, it was like this had never crossed her mind before... I also had to explain to her that all the wind energy produced in the entire state of Washington equals only a small fraction of what the dams in WA produce, so removing all the dams and replacing them with wind would require increasing wind power by over 600% from its current levels. She was completely ignorant of this also...
I left the conversation pretty confused first because I was surprised someone in civil engineering would be so ignorant and frankly pretty stupid, but especially secondly that they would be so extremely sure of themselves despite having apparently never looked into any actual data or numbers at all. Is this sort of thing common?
You are generally wrong here. Sorry. Battery tech is getting close as well. Once storage is not an issue then everything will be wind and solar.
OP, you're an a**hole. Both of you have correct and incorrect points, you just seem to love to mansplain and think you are right.
Furthermore, why should she have any deeper knowledge about this than you? She is a civil engineer, and is likely dealing with buildings or bridges. This isn't her area of expertise (nor is it yours).
Quant Bio wrote:
you must be single wrote:
Imagine some bro cornering a woman on a topic she's not qualified to give professional advice. Then he comes to a forum to humblebrag about further denigrating her.
1) She asked me out to coffee.
2) She was the one who was spewing all kinds of ignorance. That was my point. I don't fault anyone for not knowing things, but to talk out our arse, repeatedly, confidently, even after being made aware you don't really know what you're talking about, is pretty bad. I called her stupid because this is pretty basic critical thinking and logic... Even if she has a reasonably high IQ, her thinking is very unsophisticated and undeveloped, very badly so.
Funny someone else commented on engineers being this way... I've had this experience with a number of engineers. There's definitely a high ego involved. The pattern I find is that engineers TEND to be very intelligent very engineery type things (math, etc), and average to damn near mentally handicapped in just about everything else. This causes a lot of them to overestimate their intelligence and knowledge in general because they're far above average in things like math. They don't really know what to do when they meet someone whose intelligence is both high and applied across domains. They also tend to not expect anyone in biology to be equal to or above them, which might explain some of my encounters.
FWIW, I have several friends with PhDs in different engineering fields, and they all say that I'm the smartest of the group. I have spent enough time working with and around MDs and PhDs in different fields to know where I stand.
All of your friends praise you that you’re the smartest? Haha, they’re being nice to you so you will just shut up.
You sound like a guy who would always one up someone in conversations. I can see you talking, “well, actually…”
God, you’re pathetic. Your issue here is that you live in a bubble assuming that somehow if someone is at a grad school, they are automatically smart. This is why you put someone getting a degree in civil engineering is somehow smart with everything. Or, you think so highly of your self stating that all of your friends think you’re the smartest.
Actually, it shows you’re kind of dumb financially. You spend so much time in schooling instead of working. Some guy who started out his or her career in sales could already be pretty high up in a company by the time you’re done schooling and could be lapping you financially.
Seriously, get out of your bubble of academia and realize that people who are man childs in academia are just have too much ego but emotionally still a child.
I never said live like ewoks lol.
If the learning curve with batteries continues they will become so cheap and high capacity and fast charging and everything else that this debate will be moot in a decade or so.
whoops wrote:
This post sounds like something from r/iamverysmart
In 2015 the maximum potential output of hydroelectric generating stations in the US was 78,956 megawatts, while wind power reached 82,183 megawatts - this is the first year the maximum potential of wind surpassed that of hydroelectric in the US. Of note, this is the maximum potential output and neither method generally ever reaches that on an average day - this is due to a variety of reasons ranging from inefficiencies in the system itself, maintenance shutdowns, etc. On average in 2015, hydroelectric ran at 35.8% of maximum capacity and wind was at 32.2% - not a massive decline, but notable for hydro (Source:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/business/energy-environment/wind-energy-renewable.html).
For reference, you told this individual that Washington would need to increase its wind power by 600% to match that of hydroelectric. Yeah sure, but that is because WA produces THE MOST hydroelectric power in the US. Choose a state like Kansas which is one of the lowest producers of hydroelectric power in the US, and wind power probably makes a whole lot more sense (Source for 2020 data:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/where-hydropower-is-generated.php).
Everything has its pros and cons. Use energy sources where they will be most effective and also can minimize local/environmental downsides.
I talked about Washington because that's where we live, and she was talking about the dams in Washington.
Everything DOES have pros and cons. That was my whole point. There are tradeoffs. It's very strange to me when people can't understand something so simple and straightforward, especially when they are supposedly "smart." Too many people let their political beliefs and emotions dictate their thinking on this stuff without ever doing more than scratching the surface of actual facts. Again, THAT was my point. This person is 27, has a BS and MS in engineering, is in an engineering PhD program, and still can't think critically, logically, systematically on things as simple as understanding different energy sources come with pros and cons or that running exclusively on wind power isn't feasible (duh). I was just pretty astounded at the ignorance and lack of thinking. I've talked to plenty of blue collar people who probably have IQs in the 90-110 range who understand this. It's not hard. For whatever reason, I have a tough time getting over encounters like this where the other person acts like a brainless idiot incapable of thought. It's isolating and depressing.
Also, someone else accused me of using different handles. I have not. I modified my handle slightly in this post because I'm on a different computer, but I've only posted here under Quant Bio.
you are not fun to be wrote:
Quant Bio wrote:
1) She asked me out to coffee.
2) She was the one who was spewing all kinds of ignorance. That was my point. I don't fault anyone for not knowing things, but to talk out our arse, repeatedly, confidently, even after being made aware you don't really know what you're talking about, is pretty bad. I called her stupid because this is pretty basic critical thinking and logic... Even if she has a reasonably high IQ, her thinking is very unsophisticated and undeveloped, very badly so.
Funny someone else commented on engineers being this way... I've had this experience with a number of engineers. There's definitely a high ego involved. The pattern I find is that engineers TEND to be very intelligent very engineery type things (math, etc), and average to damn near mentally handicapped in just about everything else. This causes a lot of them to overestimate their intelligence and knowledge in general because they're far above average in things like math. They don't really know what to do when they meet someone whose intelligence is both high and applied across domains. They also tend to not expect anyone in biology to be equal to or above them, which might explain some of my encounters.
FWIW, I have several friends with PhDs in different engineering fields, and they all say that I'm the smartest of the group. I have spent enough time working with and around MDs and PhDs in different fields to know where I stand.
All of your friends praise you that you’re the smartest? Haha, they’re being nice to you so you will just shut up.
You sound like a guy who would always one up someone in conversations. I can see you talking, “well, actually…”
God, you’re pathetic. Your issue here is that you live in a bubble assuming that somehow if someone is at a grad school, they are automatically smart. This is why you put someone getting a degree in civil engineering is somehow smart with everything. Or, you think so highly of your self stating that all of your friends think you’re the smartest.
Actually, it shows you’re kind of dumb financially. You spend so much time in schooling instead of working. Some guy who started out his or her career in sales could already be pretty high up in a company by the time you’re done schooling and could be lapping you financially.
Seriously, get out of your bubble of academia and realize that people who are man childs in academia are just have too much ego but emotionally still a child.
They don't regularly praise me. They have just all said it once. We're all brainy and work around other brains, so it's normal to kind of compare yourself to others in that way. I have known people smarter than me. That's not hard.
Average IQ in the US is about 100. Average with HS diploma is about 105, college degree 115, PhD/MD about 125, engineering BS about 128, math 130. There is a correlation.
I have a job on top of going to graduate school and have a net worth that puts me at about the 87th percentile for my age, and the jobs I will be able to get when I'm done with my degree pay 90-130k dollars/year. School costs me roughly $15k/year.
I agree with you that many people in academia are very undeveloped or underdeveloped and that it concentrates narcs and adult-children. That's part of why I don't plan on becoming a professor and is part of why I chose to keep my job outside academia instead of TAing or something, that and my job pays more than what full-time post-docs make.
Very thoughtful post. Good job.
Harambe wrote:
If the learning curve with batteries continues they will become so cheap and high capacity and fast charging and everything else that this debate will be moot in a decade or so.
Let's hope so. Widespread nuclear power plus electric cars with efficient batteries would be hugely beneficial and better than what we have now. We're not there yet though.
Quant Bio_ wrote:
you are not fun to be wrote:
All of your friends praise you that you’re the smartest? Haha, they’re being nice to you so you will just shut up.
You sound like a guy who would always one up someone in conversations. I can see you talking, “well, actually…”
God, you’re pathetic. Your issue here is that you live in a bubble assuming that somehow if someone is at a grad school, they are automatically smart. This is why you put someone getting a degree in civil engineering is somehow smart with everything. Or, you think so highly of your self stating that all of your friends think you’re the smartest.
Actually, it shows you’re kind of dumb financially. You spend so much time in schooling instead of working. Some guy who started out his or her career in sales could already be pretty high up in a company by the time you’re done schooling and could be lapping you financially.
Seriously, get out of your bubble of academia and realize that people who are man childs in academia are just have too much ego but emotionally still a child.
They don't regularly praise me. They have just all said it once. We're all brainy and work around other brains, so it's normal to kind of compare yourself to others in that way. I have known people smarter than me. That's not hard.
Average IQ in the US is about 100. Average with HS diploma is about 105, college degree 115, PhD/MD about 125, engineering BS about 128, math 130. There is a correlation.
I have a job on top of going to graduate school and have a net worth that puts me at about the 87th percentile for my age, and the jobs I will be able to get when I'm done with my degree pay 90-130k dollars/year. School costs me roughly $15k/year.
I agree with you that many people in academia are very undeveloped or underdeveloped and that it concentrates narcs and adult-children. That's part of why I don't plan on becoming a professor and is part of why I chose to keep my job outside academia instead of TAing or something, that and my job pays more than what full-time post-docs make.
Very thoughtful post. Good job.
Haha, of course you bring up IQ to measure how smart someone is. Then, you criticize your peer about her thought process. Is IQ the best measure to determine how smart someone is? Also, what determines if someone is smart? There are so many ways to determine this. Lastly, who actually takes IQ tests for you to get these averages? I only know one person who has taken actually taken an IQ test and somehow he is part of Mensa. He’s definitely average, but I guess he can feel good about himself bc he’s so smart!
You’re in your mid 20s or so? Your net worth being at 87th percentile means jack. Haha. Does that mean you have like $75k in net worth or something? Wtf. You ain’t wealthy at all and net worth at your age doesn’t mean anything. But you’re a smart guy and know where you stand. Lol
Yea, getting paid $90k-$130k after grad school or PhD is not that impressive at all. I’ve been way over that with my BS degree after about 5 years of working and it’s pretty common if you’re not diddling around.
Anyways, for you to really answer what I criticized you with straight answers show how much of a man child you are yourself. Go ahead and continue to feel superior compared to others with your “smartness.”
A 600% increase is not out of range at all.
"U.S. wind capacity increased by 203.5% between 2010 and 2020, a 12% average annual increase. Global wind capacity increased by 14% annually, on average, from 2010 to 2020, reaching 743 GW in 2020. U.S. average turbine size was 2.55 MW in 2019, up 5% from 2.43 MW in 2018."
you are not fun to be wrote:
Haha, of course you bring up IQ to measure how smart someone is. Then, you criticize your peer about her thought process. Is IQ the best measure to determine how smart someone is? Also, what determines if someone is smart? There are so many ways to determine this. Lastly, who actually takes IQ tests for you to get these averages? I only know one person who has taken actually taken an IQ test and somehow he is part of Mensa. He’s definitely average, but I guess he can feel good about himself bc he’s so smart!
You’re in your mid 20s or so? Your net worth being at 87th percentile means jack. Haha. Does that mean you have like $75k in net worth or something? Wtf. You ain’t wealthy at all and net worth at your age doesn’t mean anything. But you’re a smart guy and know where you stand. Lol
Yea, getting paid $90k-$130k after grad school or PhD is not that impressive at all. I’ve been way over that with my BS degree after about 5 years of working and it’s pretty common if you’re not diddling around.
Anyways, for you to really answer what I criticized you with straight answers show how much of a man child you are yourself. Go ahead and continue to feel superior compared to others with your “smartness.”
I'm in my 30s and have more than $200,000. I'm also familiar with the research on general intelligence, g, and other psychometrics. You clearly are not.
I also have better things to do than repeatedly troll letsrun. I'm sure your life is really great though.