3 ms·

Exactly. You’d probably be better off assuming no new grid connections tbh. You can effective force a distributed energy network. It just wouldn’t work for cit

Exactly. You’d probably be better off assuming no new grid connections tbh. You can effective force a distributed energy network. It just wouldn’t work for cities. I don’t think a lot of people outside of homesteaders or people working in energy understand. I can spend $25k for the solar I need for my house, but I’ll be spending another $50k for energy storage. And I’m in a more southern region… if you live somewhere in Europe, particularly the north, you’d need $50k solar and $50k storage. Btw that $50k only covers batteries for 36-48 hrs of usage. Have 10 days of heavily cloud cover, gotta pull out the diesel engine. I’ve looked at alternatives energy stores and nothing really has capacity we need. There’s ways to cut energy usage, there’s other forms of energy capture, but battery storage is basically it for single homes. Fly-wheels and what not might work to stabilize grids for 24-36hrs. But I highly doubt on a week of energy, for instance. So you still have the same issues as single homes. You need the ability to start up engines (so to speak).

pasttense01 4y ago
Of course there are alternative energy stores which have the capacity we need. What do you think we are using for energy storage now? Now we have huge piles of coal, natural gas stored in huge caverns, massive tank farms storing petroleum products. So the question is can we convert the electrical energy when wind and solar are at maximum output into gases, liquids, solids. The answer is yes. One obvious gas is hydrogen. And if the liquids and solids include carbon then to be carbon neutral we need to pull as much carbon out of the atmosphere as we will put back in (carbon capture technologies). So it can be done. The problem is the higher cost than fossil fuels.
- lettergram 4y ago
  “Can be done” typically means “can be practically done” I can fly to the moon, if I had a hundred billion dollars. That doesn’t mean “I” can fly to the moon. These theoretical cases mean nothing.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Funny that you mention a hundred billion dollars: > Australia's growing hydrogen sector has an investment pipeline of A$133–A$185 billion ($92-$128 billion), equating to 35% of the country's total non-renewable energy and mineral resource investment, state body Geoscience Australia said July 19.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  The answer is no, actually. Pulling carbon out of the atmosphere is way harder than you think is is. The carbon in the atmosphere is at a very low concentration. The Sabatier process is presently only done with concentrated carbon dioxide that comes from industrial byproducts. Pulling it from the atmosphere is not efficient enough to be viable. Even producing the hydrogen is a challenge. Almost all hydrogen is produced via steam reformation, which emits carbon dioxide. Producing it through electrolysis remains difficult because electrodes corrode and lead to high maintenance costs.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
    If we go the carbon-capture route, it'll almost certainly be via bioengineering, since lifeforms are able to scale themselves up. Something like giant GMO algae farms in the desert.

pasttense01 4y ago

Of course there are alternative energy stores which have the capacity we need. What do you think we are using for energy storage now? Now we have huge piles of coal, natural gas stored in huge caverns, massive tank farms storing petroleum products. So the question is can we convert the electrical energy when wind and solar are at maximum output into gases, liquids, solids. The answer is yes. One obvious gas is hydrogen. And if the liquids and solids include carbon then to be carbon neutral we need to pull as much carbon out of the atmosphere as we will put back in (carbon capture technologies). So it can be done. The problem is the higher cost than fossil fuels.

lettergram 4y ago
“Can be done” typically means “can be practically done” I can fly to the moon, if I had a hundred billion dollars. That doesn’t mean “I” can fly to the moon. These theoretical cases mean nothing.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Funny that you mention a hundred billion dollars: > Australia's growing hydrogen sector has an investment pipeline of A$133–A$185 billion ($92-$128 billion), equating to 35% of the country's total non-renewable energy and mineral resource investment, state body Geoscience Australia said July 19.
Manuel_D 4y ago
The answer is no, actually. Pulling carbon out of the atmosphere is way harder than you think is is. The carbon in the atmosphere is at a very low concentration. The Sabatier process is presently only done with concentrated carbon dioxide that comes from industrial byproducts. Pulling it from the atmosphere is not efficient enough to be viable. Even producing the hydrogen is a challenge. Almost all hydrogen is produced via steam reformation, which emits carbon dioxide. Producing it through electrolysis remains difficult because electrodes corrode and lead to high maintenance costs.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
  If we go the carbon-capture route, it'll almost certainly be via bioengineering, since lifeforms are able to scale themselves up. Something like giant GMO algae farms in the desert.