3 ms·

Just need the ability to have one part of the world be able to power the rest of it at any given time... I've had similar conversations before this website. I

by _hypx 3y ago

Just need the ability to have one part of the world be able to power the rest of it at any given time... I've had similar conversations before this website. I know what I'm talking about here. What you're suggesting is the same story of massive overprovisioning. Just build making times more renewable energy than we need, and a ridiculously large supergrid to use it all. The problem ultimately is that it is incredibly expensive, and worse you will end up wasting the vast majority of your energy production. The alternative solution, of using hydrogen energy storage, eliminates this problem, and makes any hypothetical solution more efficient. And in the end, this is also a zero emissions solution. And works entirely with renewable energy. Like seriously, why do you oppose a solution that flat out works? Are you really that prideful that you cannot let go of your ideas?

ben_w 3y ago
> Just need the ability to have one part of the world be able to power the rest of it at any given time... which we do > I've had similar conversations before this website. The meme with Principal Skiner asking "am I out of touch? no it's everyone else who is wrong" comes to mind > I know what I'm talking about here. no you don't > What you're suggesting is the same story of massive overprovisioning. no i'm not > Just build making times more renewable energy than we need, and a ridiculously large supergrid to use it all. not ridiculous; probably politically unviable, but I've done the maths and it's fine from a simple engineering POV 0.5-2.2¢/kWh even if such a grid needs to be given a trillion dollar overhaul every decade, not that you have shown any capacity to integrate new information in this topic… > The problem ultimately is that it is incredibly expensive, and worse you will end up wasting the vast majority of your energy production. even a genuinely global (40,000 km) multi-TW grid is cheaper than nuclear, and even bog-standard current HVDC (where you'd be making it of thousands of different segments with combined cross section of 1-2 m^2 instead of a more efficient configuration) isn't a majority of the power being lost, it's at most half. Also, looking up the best-case efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells[1] and electrolysis[0], you get the same losses as for the dumbest possible HVDC solution, even if h2 transport is lossless (which it isn't). > The alternative solution, of using hydrogen energy storage, eliminates this problem, and makes any hypothetical solution more efficient. An alternative solution. One of many. > Like seriously, why do you oppose a solution that flat out works? Are you really that prideful that you cannot let go of your ideas? I'm not, you are. "Look in a mirror". [0] 84% last year, and higher numbers are misrepresentation https://www.sunfire.de/en/news/detail/worlds-largest-high-temperature-electrolyzer-achieves-record-efficiency#:~:text=%E2%80%9CFor%20the%20first%20time%2C%20the,one%20else%20has%20achieved%20before https://www.sunfire.de/en/news/detail/worlds-largest-high-te... [1] 85% when waste heat is captured for use in co-generation, but only 60% directly, which matters a lot for transport
- _hypx 3y ago
  Like I said elsewhere, what you’re proposing is geopolitically impossible. And the type of overprovisioning need to even come close to solving means you are wasting the vast majority of your power. Ironically, this gives you basically free energy for hydrogen production, rendering all of your counter arguments against it invalid. It’s just a doubling down of the same delusion idea you’ve been peddling for multiple posts now. It’s time to get real. Not to mention no one has ever built a ocean spanning HVDC line, nor have you seriously calculated how much resources it will take. The alternative is already proven to work and has no such problematic weaknesses. Your opposition to it is just stubbornness. Finally, as fuel cells are electrochemical systems, they will continue to reach higher efficiencies, eventually approaching 100%. Even now, SOFCs can exceed 70% and even higher if waste heat is used to power a gas turbine. By the time you get around to building the HVDC system of your dreams, the efficiency of the alternative will render it obsolete.

by _hypx 3y ago

ben_w 3y ago

> Just need the ability to have one part of the world be able to power the rest of it at any given time... which we do > I've had similar conversations before this website. The meme with Principal Skiner asking "am I out of touch? no it's everyone else who is wrong" comes to mind > I know what I'm talking about here. no you don't > What you're suggesting is the same story of massive overprovisioning. no i'm not > Just build making times more renewable energy than we need, and a ridiculously large supergrid to use it all. not ridiculous; probably politically unviable, but I've done the maths and it's fine from a simple engineering POV 0.5-2.2¢/kWh even if such a grid needs to be given a trillion dollar overhaul every decade, not that you have shown any capacity to integrate new information in this topic… > The problem ultimately is that it is incredibly expensive, and worse you will end up wasting the vast majority of your energy production. even a genuinely global (40,000 km) multi-TW grid is cheaper than nuclear, and even bog-standard current HVDC (where you'd be making it of thousands of different segments with combined cross section of 1-2 m^2 instead of a more efficient configuration) isn't a majority of the power being lost, it's at most half. Also, looking up the best-case efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells[1] and electrolysis[0], you get the same losses as for the dumbest possible HVDC solution, even if h2 transport is lossless (which it isn't). > The alternative solution, of using hydrogen energy storage, eliminates this problem, and makes any hypothetical solution more efficient. An alternative solution. One of many. > Like seriously, why do you oppose a solution that flat out works? Are you really that prideful that you cannot let go of your ideas? I'm not, you are. "Look in a mirror". [0] 84% last year, and higher numbers are misrepresentation https://www.sunfire.de/en/news/detail/worlds-largest-high-temperature-electrolyzer-achieves-record-efficiency#:~:text=%E2%80%9CFor%20the%20first%20time%2C%20the,one%20else%20has%20achieved%20before https://www.sunfire.de/en/news/detail/worlds-largest-high-te... [1] 85% when waste heat is captured for use in co-generation, but only 60% directly, which matters a lot for transport

_hypx 3y ago
Like I said elsewhere, what you’re proposing is geopolitically impossible. And the type of overprovisioning need to even come close to solving means you are wasting the vast majority of your power. Ironically, this gives you basically free energy for hydrogen production, rendering all of your counter arguments against it invalid. It’s just a doubling down of the same delusion idea you’ve been peddling for multiple posts now. It’s time to get real. Not to mention no one has ever built a ocean spanning HVDC line, nor have you seriously calculated how much resources it will take. The alternative is already proven to work and has no such problematic weaknesses. Your opposition to it is just stubbornness. Finally, as fuel cells are electrochemical systems, they will continue to reach higher efficiencies, eventually approaching 100%. Even now, SOFCs can exceed 70% and even higher if waste heat is used to power a gas turbine. By the time you get around to building the HVDC system of your dreams, the efficiency of the alternative will render it obsolete.