5 ms·

> Many crops benefit from partial shade, as do industrial-building roofs, and parking lots. So, claiming that land used for solar can't be used for anything els

> Many crops benefit from partial shade, as do industrial-building roofs, and parking lots. So, claiming that land used for solar can't be used for anything else, and must be new development displacing ecosystems, is not honest. Rooftop and parking lot solar are not nearly enough to meet our energy needs. 1,400 acres per GW! Are there fully-functional farms that can operate on 1,400 covered acres? Is there a functional gravity storage system on the market today that can store the output of a 1GW plant (besides existing dams, obviously)? Storing hydrogen is a nightmare, and neither Haber-Bosch, Sabatier, nor electrolysis are free. It's dishonest to hand-wave away the obvious flaws of a technology. It's useful, and we should use it. It's not a panacea.

runarberg 6y ago
> Storing hydrogen is a nightmare So is storing enriched uranium. Again this is not a point in favor of nuclear.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  Not really - water, concrete, and lead all absorb radiation fantastically. There is currently no solution for hydrogen leaking and embrittlement.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    If absorbing radiation were the problem to be solved, there would not be billions of dollars changing hands over the problem. But you knew that, and wrote what you did anyway. Ordinary aluminum contains hydrogen without incident. And, as noted on Wikipedia, "coal gas, 50% hydrogen, was carried in cast iron pipes for a half century without any embrittlement problems".
    - arrosenberg 6y ago
      The long-term problem is about politics and education, not engineering or technology. But you knew that, and wrote what you did anyways (the multiple accusations of bad faith are noted, and completely unwarranted by the way). Carried and stored are different things, tho I'm not an expert on either. I'm getting my info from the US Department of Energy, who reports "Durability of hydrogen storage systems is inadequate. Materials and components are needed that allow hydrogen storage systems with a lifetime of 1500 cycles.". I'm not saying there aren't situations where hydrogen is valuable, but you still haven't demonstrated that we can go carbon-free without nuclear. No one has, because the math doesn't add up, at least not so far. https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage-challenges#:~:text=Durability%20of%20hydrogen%20storage%20systems,Refueling%20times%20are%20too%20long https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage-chall....
      - ncmncm 6y ago
        You reveal yourself a little more starkly than you probably intend.
ncmncm 6y ago
> Are there fully-functional farms that can operate on 1,400 covered acres? "Benefit from partial shade" means exactly that. Any 2800-acre farm that welcomes 50% shade, or any four such 700-acre farms, can. But there has thus far been no demand for the technique, because there is in fact no shortage yet of land for 100% coverage. I have personally seen a large number of fully shaded parking lots; I daresay you have, too. Solar farms do not need 1400 connected acres. Fourteen 100-acre solar farms are more useful, producing a peak 71 MW each. In my immediate area, just recently, a decommissioned 20-acre landfill ("It’s not exactly a tourist area") was turned into a solar farm, producing useful power the very same year as it began construction. <https://highlandscurrent.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Sunlight-Beacon.jpg https://highlandscurrent.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Sunl...> Canals in India are being roofed over with solar panels, reducing evaporation loss. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_Solar_Power_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_Solar_Power_Project> Panels are being floated on hydroelectric dam reservoirs, all over the world, for the same benefit, with easy access to the power grid. Los Angeles could float 175 acres of panels over its municipal reservoir, replacing the black plastic balls it floats today to absorb sunlight that would produce bromates. <https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-s-really-going-on-with-those-black-balls-in-the-la-reservoir https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-s-really-going-on-w...> Railroad rights-of-way are similarly available. A large fraction of carbon-neutral power comes from wind turbines, which also have encountered no difficulty locating space to operate, already often shared with existing farms and ranches. Air compression is familiar tech. So, the only remaining question is which of the others will turn out to be cheaper than air. Hydrogen is essential feedstock in many industries, where storage and handling have long since been worked out, so synergy may push H2 over the line, particularly once it becomes the dominant aviation fuel. There is of course no difficulty with storing or using ammonia, and similar synergies apply. Modern catalytic methods are much more efficient than traditional Haber-Bosch, Sabatier, or electrolysis processes, so costs are plummeting, and the ultimate winner, if there is only one, is unpredictable. In other words, they are all viable, and getting better. In all cases the costs are still in free fall, so nukes, as already mature tech, fall progressively farther behind.
pfdietz 6y ago
> Storing hydrogen is a nightmare It's not. It can be stored underground. This is a demonstrated technology, little different from how natural gas is stored.

runarberg 6y ago

> Storing hydrogen is a nightmare So is storing enriched uranium. Again this is not a point in favor of nuclear.

arrosenberg 6y ago
Not really - water, concrete, and lead all absorb radiation fantastically. There is currently no solution for hydrogen leaking and embrittlement.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  If absorbing radiation were the problem to be solved, there would not be billions of dollars changing hands over the problem. But you knew that, and wrote what you did anyway. Ordinary aluminum contains hydrogen without incident. And, as noted on Wikipedia, "coal gas, 50% hydrogen, was carried in cast iron pipes for a half century without any embrittlement problems".
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    The long-term problem is about politics and education, not engineering or technology. But you knew that, and wrote what you did anyways (the multiple accusations of bad faith are noted, and completely unwarranted by the way). Carried and stored are different things, tho I'm not an expert on either. I'm getting my info from the US Department of Energy, who reports "Durability of hydrogen storage systems is inadequate. Materials and components are needed that allow hydrogen storage systems with a lifetime of 1500 cycles.". I'm not saying there aren't situations where hydrogen is valuable, but you still haven't demonstrated that we can go carbon-free without nuclear. No one has, because the math doesn't add up, at least not so far. https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage-challenges#:~:text=Durability%20of%20hydrogen%20storage%20systems,Refueling%20times%20are%20too%20long https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage-chall....
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      You reveal yourself a little more starkly than you probably intend.

ncmncm 6y ago

> Are there fully-functional farms that can operate on 1,400 covered acres? "Benefit from partial shade" means exactly that. Any 2800-acre farm that welcomes 50% shade, or any four such 700-acre farms, can. But there has thus far been no demand for the technique, because there is in fact no shortage yet of land for 100% coverage. I have personally seen a large number of fully shaded parking lots; I daresay you have, too. Solar farms do not need 1400 connected acres. Fourteen 100-acre solar farms are more useful, producing a peak 71 MW each. In my immediate area, just recently, a decommissioned 20-acre landfill ("It’s not exactly a tourist area") was turned into a solar farm, producing useful power the very same year as it began construction. <https://highlandscurrent.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Sunlight-Beacon.jpg https://highlandscurrent.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Sunl...> Canals in India are being roofed over with solar panels, reducing evaporation loss. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_Solar_Power_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_Solar_Power_Project> Panels are being floated on hydroelectric dam reservoirs, all over the world, for the same benefit, with easy access to the power grid. Los Angeles could float 175 acres of panels over its municipal reservoir, replacing the black plastic balls it floats today to absorb sunlight that would produce bromates. <https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-s-really-going-on-with-those-black-balls-in-the-la-reservoir https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-s-really-going-on-w...> Railroad rights-of-way are similarly available. A large fraction of carbon-neutral power comes from wind turbines, which also have encountered no difficulty locating space to operate, already often shared with existing farms and ranches. Air compression is familiar tech. So, the only remaining question is which of the others will turn out to be cheaper than air. Hydrogen is essential feedstock in many industries, where storage and handling have long since been worked out, so synergy may push H2 over the line, particularly once it becomes the dominant aviation fuel. There is of course no difficulty with storing or using ammonia, and similar synergies apply. Modern catalytic methods are much more efficient than traditional Haber-Bosch, Sabatier, or electrolysis processes, so costs are plummeting, and the ultimate winner, if there is only one, is unpredictable. In other words, they are all viable, and getting better. In all cases the costs are still in free fall, so nukes, as already mature tech, fall progressively farther behind.

pfdietz 6y ago

> Storing hydrogen is a nightmare It's not. It can be stored underground. This is a demonstrated technology, little different from how natural gas is stored.