4 ms·

So how do you think that we should solve energy storage? Both batteries and dams are dangerous and can lead to disasters. Dams failing have killed way more peo

by jeltz 4y ago

So how do you think that we should solve energy storage? Both batteries and dams are dangerous and can lead to disasters. Dams failing have killed way more people than nuclear ever has.

freemint 4y ago
Batteries are dangerous? What do you mean by that? > Dams failing have killed way more people than nuclear ever has. And this solely due to one incident under communism where damn was not maintained.
- justforthisandn 4y ago
- reddog 4y ago
  Well the 2900 people who died in the Johnstown dam failure immediatly come to mind. But its much, much worse than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure If had the same risk management mindset for dams as we do for nuclear, we would also be banning hydroelectic.
smaudet 4y ago
Well first of all energy storage, is not production, but as you asked: 1) Reduced need for energy storage. Right to repair for everything, write code that is efficient and lower power, distributed systems which don't require complex centralized systems to run. Taxes on unused compute cycles to help create incentives for this, perhaps. 2) For actual energy storage, something like the sand heat system recently put into use in Scandinavia, or the mechanical earth dams (store energy in potential energy mass, less dangerous than an actual water dam, a lot easier to build). For immediate electric storage at scale you can do e.g. saline water storage tanks which hold mild electric charge, who knows maybe there is some inert chemistry which could be devised for a safer transportable version of a lithium ion battery... 3) For energy production, I am a long time advocate of geothermal. There's no real downside, besides digging holes and I guess maybe a well collapse, but you're limited to loss of whatever is in the whole/immediate surrounding in the case of a cave in, there are no engineering problems to solve except pumping water around, which is a well known task. Solar/wind for ships, airplanes, space vehicles, electric/hydrogen for storage/consumption scenarios where the grid is not accessible (remote locations e.g. the poles, alaska, siberia, African/Asian planes)
- tlonny 4y ago
  > write code that is efficient and lower power, distributed systems which don't require complex centralized systems to run. huh?
  - smaudet 4y ago
    It's marginal compared to the other power expenses to be sure, but computing is another rising power cost. Besides my AC, and cooking, I don't have any regular power expenditures other than digital devices, so it seems reasonable to me to want to optimize power expenditure there. Regarding the distributed vs centralized, the reasoning is large data centers are inefficient and could be replaced mostly with local, low power systems which are barely on at all, versus constant-on, constant-ready server rack systems.
  - dfjklseldklk 4y ago
    This is a really lazy response, but given the possibility that you genuinely don't understand the gp: Writing better software and reducing the (currently massive) waste of energy on enterprise bullshit and cryptomining would have a meaningful impact on international energy usage, and so help climate change.
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  > mechanical earth dams (store energy in potential energy mass, less dangerous than an actual water dam, a lot easier to build) a lot easier to build? This claim seems wrong, given that pumped-storage hydroelectricity is in actual use, when this is purely theoretical. "mechanical earth dams" gives info about water dams - is it existing even as a theoretic design?
  - smaudet 4y ago
    https://www.energyvault.com/gravity https://www.energyvault.com/gravity Its a company with as I understand it proven designs. Besides, the concept is trivial and applicable and replicable by almost anyone. I don't understand why there is so much skepticism around these things...

by jeltz 4y ago

So how do you think that we should solve energy storage? Both batteries and dams are dangerous and can lead to disasters. Dams failing have killed way more people than nuclear ever has.

freemint 4y ago

Batteries are dangerous? What do you mean by that? > Dams failing have killed way more people than nuclear ever has. And this solely due to one incident under communism where damn was not maintained.

justforthisandn 4y ago
reddog 4y ago
Well the 2900 people who died in the Johnstown dam failure immediatly come to mind. But its much, much worse than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure If had the same risk management mindset for dams as we do for nuclear, we would also be banning hydroelectic.

smaudet 4y ago

Well first of all energy storage, is not production, but as you asked: 1) Reduced need for energy storage. Right to repair for everything, write code that is efficient and lower power, distributed systems which don't require complex centralized systems to run. Taxes on unused compute cycles to help create incentives for this, perhaps. 2) For actual energy storage, something like the sand heat system recently put into use in Scandinavia, or the mechanical earth dams (store energy in potential energy mass, less dangerous than an actual water dam, a lot easier to build). For immediate electric storage at scale you can do e.g. saline water storage tanks which hold mild electric charge, who knows maybe there is some inert chemistry which could be devised for a safer transportable version of a lithium ion battery... 3) For energy production, I am a long time advocate of geothermal. There's no real downside, besides digging holes and I guess maybe a well collapse, but you're limited to loss of whatever is in the whole/immediate surrounding in the case of a cave in, there are no engineering problems to solve except pumping water around, which is a well known task. Solar/wind for ships, airplanes, space vehicles, electric/hydrogen for storage/consumption scenarios where the grid is not accessible (remote locations e.g. the poles, alaska, siberia, African/Asian planes)

tlonny 4y ago
> write code that is efficient and lower power, distributed systems which don't require complex centralized systems to run. huh?
- smaudet 4y ago
  It's marginal compared to the other power expenses to be sure, but computing is another rising power cost. Besides my AC, and cooking, I don't have any regular power expenditures other than digital devices, so it seems reasonable to me to want to optimize power expenditure there. Regarding the distributed vs centralized, the reasoning is large data centers are inefficient and could be replaced mostly with local, low power systems which are barely on at all, versus constant-on, constant-ready server rack systems.
- dfjklseldklk 4y ago
  This is a really lazy response, but given the possibility that you genuinely don't understand the gp: Writing better software and reducing the (currently massive) waste of energy on enterprise bullshit and cryptomining would have a meaningful impact on international energy usage, and so help climate change.
matkoniecz 4y ago
> mechanical earth dams (store energy in potential energy mass, less dangerous than an actual water dam, a lot easier to build) a lot easier to build? This claim seems wrong, given that pumped-storage hydroelectricity is in actual use, when this is purely theoretical. "mechanical earth dams" gives info about water dams - is it existing even as a theoretic design?
- smaudet 4y ago
  https://www.energyvault.com/gravity https://www.energyvault.com/gravity Its a company with as I understand it proven designs. Besides, the concept is trivial and applicable and replicable by almost anyone. I don't understand why there is so much skepticism around these things...