3 ms·

The overall solution to our energy problems is not singular. From what I'm seeing no single technology can replace our current energy infrastructure. It must be

The overall solution to our energy problems is not singular. From what I'm seeing no single technology can replace our current energy infrastructure. It must be a multi-pronged approach with different technologies supporting each other. I envision iron to be one component of a complicated green energy future if such a future even possible as many sources day it's too late.

ncmncm 5y ago
We will end up with a few best-favored systems, after a wide variety are tried. Odds-on favorites include hydrogen synthesis, ammonia synthesis, pumped hydro (up hills and up out of underground cavities), liquified air, and various battery technologies. But there will without doubt be some surprise break-outs, and maybe surprise duds.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  Doubtful. Every system will have huge downsides. And thus all systems will have to be utilized in conjunction and even then none of it will beat the convenience of cheap oil. Unless a few miracle technologies like fusion make it out of the speculation stage, the future is not just a patchwork of all kinds of energy scavenging green technology, but a future of energy conservation where people are reluctant to drive a car because it eats into their life savings.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    The only "huge downside" of any tech listed is low-ish round-trip efficiency, somewhat limited material resource for some battery chemistries, or somewhat limited geographical placement for some tech. But round-trip efficiency doesn't matter much, given top-line electrical abundance from epochally cheap solar, wind, and maybe geothermal generation. Geographical placement doesn't matter much, given grid distribution. Battery technologies will yield to better ones. Cost for every kind of storage will only ever decline, and efficiency at every stage will only ever improve. So, it will come down to cost and value: i.e., what do the batteries or the synthesis and draw-down equipment cost (tankage is always cheap), and what is the industrial value of excess synthetic output after local tankage is full? Cost for every energy use will be substantially lower than today, as each provider competes to deliver from unlimited energy sources more cheaply than the others. Nukes and fossil fuel have already been priced out of the market.
    - deltaonefour 5y ago
      Not true. At all. Fossil fuels represents the accumulation of green energy reserves over millions of years. We cannot beat that with the green energy of just today or tomorrow. Whatever green future awaits us, it will be much less convenient then the days of the past.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Is that you, Exxon? It is a public fact that renewables cost less than fossil fuels. They cost less than anything in history, no matter how you measure. Clearly you wish this were not so. But reality does not tailor itself to what you wish.
        deltaonefour 5y ago
        No I'm not exxon. Why would you accuse me of that just because I have a different opinion? Are you a complete ass hole of a human being? Renewables don't deliver the energy density of fossil fuels. When you factor in storage and density renewables costs more. A good way to illustrate the extremes is air planes which basically can't run on renewables. When I say the future is bleak I don't mean that we should continue to burn oil. I think we have to stop burning oil. What I'm saying is that we have to stop, and the result of stopping is a future that is much less convenient then it is now but way better then the future of continuing to burn. The problem with you and your ass hole comment about Exxon, is that you view it as a team based thing. You're on team environment so anyone else not on your side is team Exxon. Why don't you take a step back and look at is dispassionately. I'm not on ANYONES side so I'm not fucking blind to the fact that oil is a critical part of our civilizations infrastructure and removing it completely will change many things, including your ability to fly to another country. You have to be next level stupid if you can't see the downsides of green energy. Stop playing teams.
        ncmncm 5y ago
        Except, renewables+storage also cost less; and cost is still in free fall. Soon, synthetic hydrocarbons will be cheaper than most mined/refined/shipped, where that stuff is still needed at all. Aircraft using LH2 will drive kerosene-driven out of all high-profit routes as quickly as they can be built and fielded, because besides being the cheaper fuel, per joule, LH2's extreme mass-energy density leaves much more of rated lifting capacity for paying cargo. I.e., the LH2 craft will drive prices below the base operating cost of kerosene craft. Retrofitted and new NH3-tanked shipping will similarly drive out the still bunker-oil driven as NH3 price falls, accelerated by dockage for polluting craft becoming increasingly restricted. Plastics might still be made from the cheapest of pumped oil, but that is not certain.
zardo 5y ago
It's certainly true that different energy storage technologies have different strengths and weaknesses. An electric car is very different from a grid battery for hour-scale cycles, which is very different from a grid battery for day cycles, week cycles, or seasonal cycles. The question for any specific technology is: Is there a specific application where it is a better choice than any alternative?

ncmncm 5y ago

We will end up with a few best-favored systems, after a wide variety are tried. Odds-on favorites include hydrogen synthesis, ammonia synthesis, pumped hydro (up hills and up out of underground cavities), liquified air, and various battery technologies. But there will without doubt be some surprise break-outs, and maybe surprise duds.

deltaonefour 5y ago
Doubtful. Every system will have huge downsides. And thus all systems will have to be utilized in conjunction and even then none of it will beat the convenience of cheap oil. Unless a few miracle technologies like fusion make it out of the speculation stage, the future is not just a patchwork of all kinds of energy scavenging green technology, but a future of energy conservation where people are reluctant to drive a car because it eats into their life savings.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  The only "huge downside" of any tech listed is low-ish round-trip efficiency, somewhat limited material resource for some battery chemistries, or somewhat limited geographical placement for some tech. But round-trip efficiency doesn't matter much, given top-line electrical abundance from epochally cheap solar, wind, and maybe geothermal generation. Geographical placement doesn't matter much, given grid distribution. Battery technologies will yield to better ones. Cost for every kind of storage will only ever decline, and efficiency at every stage will only ever improve. So, it will come down to cost and value: i.e., what do the batteries or the synthesis and draw-down equipment cost (tankage is always cheap), and what is the industrial value of excess synthetic output after local tankage is full? Cost for every energy use will be substantially lower than today, as each provider competes to deliver from unlimited energy sources more cheaply than the others. Nukes and fossil fuel have already been priced out of the market.
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    Not true. At all. Fossil fuels represents the accumulation of green energy reserves over millions of years. We cannot beat that with the green energy of just today or tomorrow. Whatever green future awaits us, it will be much less convenient then the days of the past.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Is that you, Exxon? It is a public fact that renewables cost less than fossil fuels. They cost less than anything in history, no matter how you measure. Clearly you wish this were not so. But reality does not tailor itself to what you wish.
      - deltaonefour 5y ago
        No I'm not exxon. Why would you accuse me of that just because I have a different opinion? Are you a complete ass hole of a human being? Renewables don't deliver the energy density of fossil fuels. When you factor in storage and density renewables costs more. A good way to illustrate the extremes is air planes which basically can't run on renewables. When I say the future is bleak I don't mean that we should continue to burn oil. I think we have to stop burning oil. What I'm saying is that we have to stop, and the result of stopping is a future that is much less convenient then it is now but way better then the future of continuing to burn. The problem with you and your ass hole comment about Exxon, is that you view it as a team based thing. You're on team environment so anyone else not on your side is team Exxon. Why don't you take a step back and look at is dispassionately. I'm not on ANYONES side so I'm not fucking blind to the fact that oil is a critical part of our civilizations infrastructure and removing it completely will change many things, including your ability to fly to another country. You have to be next level stupid if you can't see the downsides of green energy. Stop playing teams.
        ncmncm 5y ago
        Except, renewables+storage also cost less; and cost is still in free fall. Soon, synthetic hydrocarbons will be cheaper than most mined/refined/shipped, where that stuff is still needed at all. Aircraft using LH2 will drive kerosene-driven out of all high-profit routes as quickly as they can be built and fielded, because besides being the cheaper fuel, per joule, LH2's extreme mass-energy density leaves much more of rated lifting capacity for paying cargo. I.e., the LH2 craft will drive prices below the base operating cost of kerosene craft. Retrofitted and new NH3-tanked shipping will similarly drive out the still bunker-oil driven as NH3 price falls, accelerated by dockage for polluting craft becoming increasingly restricted. Plastics might still be made from the cheapest of pumped oil, but that is not certain.

zardo 5y ago

It's certainly true that different energy storage technologies have different strengths and weaknesses. An electric car is very different from a grid battery for hour-scale cycles, which is very different from a grid battery for day cycles, week cycles, or seasonal cycles. The question for any specific technology is: Is there a specific application where it is a better choice than any alternative?