4 ms·

These few legitimate use cases should not be dismissed though, from the perspective of sizing an energy grid: for example reducing iron ore with hydrogen rather

by Xixi 4y ago

These few legitimate use cases should not be dismissed though, from the perspective of sizing an energy grid: for example reducing iron ore with hydrogen rather than coal works out to about one nuclear reactor for one furnace. No idea for chemical feedstock, but it's likely to also be huge. I don't think anyone pushing for hydrogen in cars in Japan has done even a back-of-the-envelope calculation of how many nuclear reactors/wind turbines/solar panels Japan would need to migrate their fleet... So the plan is likely to make it from natural gas, import it, or -more likely- there is no serious plan at all, only subsidies being collected. Note that in I have a very similar feeling with regard to wind turbines in Europe (at least in Germany and France): behind each wind turbine field there is a very real gas turbine or lignite power plant, and a lot of hand-waving regarding storage... Heard jokes (pre invasion of Ukraine) about Gazprom being behind every wind turbine sale. The situation is different in Northern Europe though, with lots of wind turbines in Denmark, and pumped storage in Norway.

runarberg 4y ago
There is a double standard here because any back of the envelope calculation for migrating the entire fleet of any sizeable country with battery electric cars will also turn out to be an impossible task with current technology and industrial manufacturing capabilities. If your standard of passing as a technology is that it has to replace the current one in its entirety, you’ll always find it lacking, even with battery electric cars. No, to stop fossil fuel pollution we need many technologies to come together, a lot of infrastructure and some societal change to happen gradually while not to slowly. Indeed all the current battery electric cars (even adding every one that will be produced this year) are only providing a tiny relief for the climate disaster relatively speaking (if any). I bet that you don’t have to add together many bus and metro lines in Mexico and Brazil to sum up to all the electric cars in terms of climate relief.
widdershins 4y ago
> behind each wind turbine field there is a very real gas turbine or lignite power plant But isn't it still better to be using wind turbines 75% of the time when it's windy, and gas/coal only 25% of the time when it's not? Surely even without adequate battery storage that's an improvement?
- Xixi 4y ago
  It’s not replacing gas/coal but nuclear, so CO2 wise it is a major step back… Germany first replaced nuclear by lignite, then lignite by wind + lignite/gas, so if you only look at the second step it doesn’t look so bad. But if you look at the whole picture it doesn’t look so good. France is coming from 75% nuclear and 25% hydro, and has no business adding and firing up gas turbines. Of course I’m painting things in broad strokes… reality is always a little bit more subtle.

by Xixi 4y ago

runarberg 4y ago

There is a double standard here because any back of the envelope calculation for migrating the entire fleet of any sizeable country with battery electric cars will also turn out to be an impossible task with current technology and industrial manufacturing capabilities. If your standard of passing as a technology is that it has to replace the current one in its entirety, you’ll always find it lacking, even with battery electric cars. No, to stop fossil fuel pollution we need many technologies to come together, a lot of infrastructure and some societal change to happen gradually while not to slowly. Indeed all the current battery electric cars (even adding every one that will be produced this year) are only providing a tiny relief for the climate disaster relatively speaking (if any). I bet that you don’t have to add together many bus and metro lines in Mexico and Brazil to sum up to all the electric cars in terms of climate relief.

widdershins 4y ago

> behind each wind turbine field there is a very real gas turbine or lignite power plant But isn't it still better to be using wind turbines 75% of the time when it's windy, and gas/coal only 25% of the time when it's not? Surely even without adequate battery storage that's an improvement?

Xixi 4y ago
It’s not replacing gas/coal but nuclear, so CO2 wise it is a major step back… Germany first replaced nuclear by lignite, then lignite by wind + lignite/gas, so if you only look at the second step it doesn’t look so bad. But if you look at the whole picture it doesn’t look so good. France is coming from 75% nuclear and 25% hydro, and has no business adding and firing up gas turbines. Of course I’m painting things in broad strokes… reality is always a little bit more subtle.