4 ms·

> Not only is 48 / 4 not 4, Sorry it is late here. > but serious proposals like this one https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z https://www.nature

by evilos 4y ago

> Not only is 48 / 4 not 4, Sorry it is late here. > but serious proposals like this one https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z don't involve trying to replace the last 20% of electrical generation in the few areas without PHES resources before tackling the much larger and more cheaply solved emissions involved in currently non-electrified industries. That's your example? That paper is about electricity demand and they don't even manage to meet that. We're talking about global primary energy here. Surely you can do better.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
You see, the thing about energy that needs to be available in chemical form is that it can be stored in chemical form. And the bizarre thing about low grade heat is it can be stored as low or high grade heat. And the absolutly wild thing about energy that needs to be stored in a vehicle for an average of a week is it's stored in a vehicle for an average of a week. Weird twist, huh? The next thing that would shock you if you were arguing in good faith and not just trying to spread FUD to delay the death of coal is that provisioning 5x electricity to meet those dispatchable loads reduces the storage required for the electricity even further. If renewables can meet 95% of the goal with just the previously industrially deployed technogy stack and have proven but not deployed technology for the remaining 5%; then it makes no sense to stop deploying them and instead switch to a technogy that can meet 40% at much higher cost and has no answer even in the demonstration stage to the remaining 60%. Just because the 5% is contained in the 40% doesn't make it a sane strategy. Especially when in most of the world that 5% already has preexisting hydro that can serve it with a simple turbine upgrade.

by evilos 4y ago

Schroedingersat 4y ago

You see, the thing about energy that needs to be available in chemical form is that it can be stored in chemical form. And the bizarre thing about low grade heat is it can be stored as low or high grade heat. And the absolutly wild thing about energy that needs to be stored in a vehicle for an average of a week is it's stored in a vehicle for an average of a week. Weird twist, huh? The next thing that would shock you if you were arguing in good faith and not just trying to spread FUD to delay the death of coal is that provisioning 5x electricity to meet those dispatchable loads reduces the storage required for the electricity even further. If renewables can meet 95% of the goal with just the previously industrially deployed technogy stack and have proven but not deployed technology for the remaining 5%; then it makes no sense to stop deploying them and instead switch to a technogy that can meet 40% at much higher cost and has no answer even in the demonstration stage to the remaining 60%. Just because the 5% is contained in the 40% doesn't make it a sane strategy. Especially when in most of the world that 5% already has preexisting hydro that can serve it with a simple turbine upgrade.