3 ms·

Yes electricity is more easily transmitted than fuel. Compare: pipeline vs electric line. And no I'm not speaking of Li-ion. Sorry but I was speaking about Li-

Yes electricity is more easily transmitted than fuel. Compare: pipeline vs electric line. And no I'm not speaking of Li-ion. Sorry but I was speaking about Li-metal, a still immature technology. So that weakens my argument. On the other hand, that shows that the path to improvement is huge, and could why not surprise us by becoming better density than fuel.

jabl 6y ago
> Yes electricity is more easily transmitted than fuel. Compare: pipeline vs electric line. Lets do that. High voltage electricity transmission has losses about 4% per 1000 km (HVDC somewhat less, but is a point-to-point system so less flexible than the common AC transmission). By comparison the pumping power required for transporting liquid hydrocarbons is less than 1/10th of that. Also, a high voltage transmission line is an eyesore requiring about 50m wide right of way, whereas a pipeline of equivalent capacity needs a much narrower corridor. I'm not saying we shouldn't go for electricity, but we need to be frank about the upsides and downsides. (Most experts seem to agree that in order to decarbonize our societies the basic recipe is to 1) Clean up electricity generation. 2) Electrify everything.) I used Li-ion for the battery comparison, since that is the best rechargeable battery technology that actually exists. I'm highly skeptical that a new battery technology with two orders of magnitude better energy density is possible. It's very hard to get anywhere close to the energy density stored in the chemical bonds in fuels. Or, well, yes we do know of fuels with better energy density than chemical fuels, namely nuclear fuels.
- henearkr 6y ago
  I could be wrong, but seems like a pipeline is extremely hard to build, with lots of volume of material, concrete or steel. It seems lighter and easier to build an HV electric line. I see HV lines everywhere, but very few pipelines. Also, pipeline operations (leakage etc) seem a PITA. That was my idea behind thinking electricity is easier. However, the sheer ratio {transport energy} / {transported energy} is indeed in favor of pipeline, as you mentionned. -- I found that you can bury HV lines: https://retasite.wordpress.com/burying-high-voltage-lines/ https://retasite.wordpress.com/burying-high-voltage-lines/ I found that it costs between $2.9 million and $13 million per mile to build a new pipeline, whereas it costs $285,000 per mile for a HV line and $1.5 million per mile if you build it underground.

jabl 6y ago

> Yes electricity is more easily transmitted than fuel. Compare: pipeline vs electric line. Lets do that. High voltage electricity transmission has losses about 4% per 1000 km (HVDC somewhat less, but is a point-to-point system so less flexible than the common AC transmission). By comparison the pumping power required for transporting liquid hydrocarbons is less than 1/10th of that. Also, a high voltage transmission line is an eyesore requiring about 50m wide right of way, whereas a pipeline of equivalent capacity needs a much narrower corridor. I'm not saying we shouldn't go for electricity, but we need to be frank about the upsides and downsides. (Most experts seem to agree that in order to decarbonize our societies the basic recipe is to 1) Clean up electricity generation. 2) Electrify everything.) I used Li-ion for the battery comparison, since that is the best rechargeable battery technology that actually exists. I'm highly skeptical that a new battery technology with two orders of magnitude better energy density is possible. It's very hard to get anywhere close to the energy density stored in the chemical bonds in fuels. Or, well, yes we do know of fuels with better energy density than chemical fuels, namely nuclear fuels.

henearkr 6y ago
I could be wrong, but seems like a pipeline is extremely hard to build, with lots of volume of material, concrete or steel. It seems lighter and easier to build an HV electric line. I see HV lines everywhere, but very few pipelines. Also, pipeline operations (leakage etc) seem a PITA. That was my idea behind thinking electricity is easier. However, the sheer ratio {transport energy} / {transported energy} is indeed in favor of pipeline, as you mentionned. -- I found that you can bury HV lines: https://retasite.wordpress.com/burying-high-voltage-lines/ https://retasite.wordpress.com/burying-high-voltage-lines/ I found that it costs between $2.9 million and $13 million per mile to build a new pipeline, whereas it costs $285,000 per mile for a HV line and $1.5 million per mile if you build it underground.