4 ms·

The specific factor for cars is not relevant. The factor of 3 is wildly optimistic for general energy use. The point is that even taking the factor of 3, it's s

by jules 5y ago

The specific factor for cars is not relevant. The factor of 3 is wildly optimistic for general energy use. The point is that even taking the factor of 3, it's still extremely expensive. Regarding the second paragraph: if you point is that it would be cheaper to duplicate a significant portion of our energy generation, one based on renewables and one based on fossil fuels for safety...that is perhaps true, but that only proves the original point, so I'm a bit confused why you phrase your replies in an antagonistic tone of voice when we seem to agree.

jhgb 5y ago
It was an example, since obviously different uses of energy will have different improvement factors - but major uses of energy have considerable improvement factors. In case of heating, for example, the factor is theoretically infinite because it's possible to build net-zero-energy buildings. And specifically in case of Germany, a very large portion of natural gas consumption goes into heating, so this is quite relevant here. > if you point is that it would be cheaper to duplicate a significant portion of our energy generation, one based on renewables and one based on fossil fuels for safety... I didn't say a word about basing something on fossil fuels. > that is perhaps true, but that only proves the original point, so I'm a bit confused why you phrase your replies in an antagonistic tone of voice when we seem to agree I don't see how we "seem to agree". The comment I initially responded to was proposing storing a WEEK's worth of PRIMARY energy in TODAY'S amounts in BATTERIES. Nobody would seriously consider such a contrived scenario; it would be completely pointless. So I can't possibly agree with those numbers.
- jules 5y ago
  I find it fascinating that you call me nonsensical for making the very reasonable assumption that energy consumption will stay the same for a back-of-the envelope calculation, and here you are talking about infinite improvement factors. > I didn't say a word about basing something on fossil fuels. You said: "Yes, but that doesn't imply you need the capacity to run the country 100% on batteries for a week. That's just not something anyone would ever do. For example, a gas turbine with a low duty cycle would definitely be cheaper than a battery after a certain period of time. So why would you use a battery for that?" > I don't see how we "seem to agree". The comment I initially responded to Note that I responded to that comment with a calculation showing that that plan is economically infeasible. The scenario is not all all contrived; what that person proposed we need is reasonable, and it would in fact be quite dangerous and insufficient to have only one week's worth. Years in which there is more than a week without wind and hardly any sun (due to winter) occur approximately every 10 years in Germany. Thus calling a week's worth of storage contrived is just wrong. If anything, it's contrived in the direction of not being enough.

by jules 5y ago

jhgb 5y ago

It was an example, since obviously different uses of energy will have different improvement factors - but major uses of energy have considerable improvement factors. In case of heating, for example, the factor is theoretically infinite because it's possible to build net-zero-energy buildings. And specifically in case of Germany, a very large portion of natural gas consumption goes into heating, so this is quite relevant here. > if you point is that it would be cheaper to duplicate a significant portion of our energy generation, one based on renewables and one based on fossil fuels for safety... I didn't say a word about basing something on fossil fuels. > that is perhaps true, but that only proves the original point, so I'm a bit confused why you phrase your replies in an antagonistic tone of voice when we seem to agree I don't see how we "seem to agree". The comment I initially responded to was proposing storing a WEEK's worth of PRIMARY energy in TODAY'S amounts in BATTERIES. Nobody would seriously consider such a contrived scenario; it would be completely pointless. So I can't possibly agree with those numbers.

jules 5y ago
I find it fascinating that you call me nonsensical for making the very reasonable assumption that energy consumption will stay the same for a back-of-the envelope calculation, and here you are talking about infinite improvement factors. > I didn't say a word about basing something on fossil fuels. You said: "Yes, but that doesn't imply you need the capacity to run the country 100% on batteries for a week. That's just not something anyone would ever do. For example, a gas turbine with a low duty cycle would definitely be cheaper than a battery after a certain period of time. So why would you use a battery for that?" > I don't see how we "seem to agree". The comment I initially responded to Note that I responded to that comment with a calculation showing that that plan is economically infeasible. The scenario is not all all contrived; what that person proposed we need is reasonable, and it would in fact be quite dangerous and insufficient to have only one week's worth. Years in which there is more than a week without wind and hardly any sun (due to winter) occur approximately every 10 years in Germany. Thus calling a week's worth of storage contrived is just wrong. If anything, it's contrived in the direction of not being enough.