4 ms·

This, to me, sounds like a pipe dream. We can become carbon neutral with the tech we have _right now_ whereas I fail to imagine how these necessarily exponentia

This, to me, sounds like a pipe dream. We can become carbon neutral with the tech we have _right now_ whereas I fail to imagine how these necessarily exponential improvements in storage capacity will happen. The _one_ thing that gives me hope for storage is maaaaybe synthetic fuels. But currently it's unproved.

ncmncm 4y ago
If you mean using nukes, nukes started today will ensure burning fossil fuel for at least ten more years while we wait for them to come online. Money (including cost overruns) spent on them will be unavailable to build out renewables that would displace fossil fuels immediately. Electric synthetic ammonia is mature tech. It just takes a long time to build the factories to produce the needed amount of synthesis equipment.
- Const-me 4y ago
  > Electric synthetic ammonia is mature tech I'd prefer a nuclear plant nearby, ammonia is toxic: https://abc13.com/ammonia-truck-disaster-houston/1332062/ https://abc13.com/ammonia-truck-disaster-houston/1332062/
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    One incident almost 50 years ago, with no long-term effect, is not a red warning. Ammonia as an energy storage medium grows an already very mature use. Millions of tons of ammonia are handled every year.
    - Const-me 4y ago
      > One incident almost 50 years ago Smaller incidents happen every year, example for Canada: https://www.technicalsafetybc.ca/case-study-ammonia-release-incidents-2007-2017 https://www.technicalsafetybc.ca/case-study-ammonia-release-... > Millions of tons of ammonia are handled every year. Fertilizers are handled in even larger quantities, generally safe most of the time, yet accidents do happen. This alone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Beirut_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Beirut_explosion killed comparable count of people to Chernobyl + Fukushima combined. I consider a nuclear power plant way safer than a facility which handles bulk quantities of toxic or explosive stuff.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Reaching.

ncmncm 4y ago

If you mean using nukes, nukes started today will ensure burning fossil fuel for at least ten more years while we wait for them to come online. Money (including cost overruns) spent on them will be unavailable to build out renewables that would displace fossil fuels immediately. Electric synthetic ammonia is mature tech. It just takes a long time to build the factories to produce the needed amount of synthesis equipment.

Const-me 4y ago
> Electric synthetic ammonia is mature tech I'd prefer a nuclear plant nearby, ammonia is toxic: https://abc13.com/ammonia-truck-disaster-houston/1332062/ https://abc13.com/ammonia-truck-disaster-houston/1332062/
- ncmncm 4y ago
  One incident almost 50 years ago, with no long-term effect, is not a red warning. Ammonia as an energy storage medium grows an already very mature use. Millions of tons of ammonia are handled every year.
  - Const-me 4y ago
    > One incident almost 50 years ago Smaller incidents happen every year, example for Canada: https://www.technicalsafetybc.ca/case-study-ammonia-release-incidents-2007-2017 https://www.technicalsafetybc.ca/case-study-ammonia-release-... > Millions of tons of ammonia are handled every year. Fertilizers are handled in even larger quantities, generally safe most of the time, yet accidents do happen. This alone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Beirut_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Beirut_explosion killed comparable count of people to Chernobyl + Fukushima combined. I consider a nuclear power plant way safer than a facility which handles bulk quantities of toxic or explosive stuff.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Reaching.