4 ms·

The missing piece is renewable fuels. Having some kind of hydrogen or ammonia, biodiesel etc. from solar and wind and available to supplement real-time generati

by ilaksh 3y ago

The missing piece is renewable fuels. Having some kind of hydrogen or ammonia, biodiesel etc. from solar and wind and available to supplement real-time generation when needed would make it much more feasible to drop fossil fuels.

jacquesm 3y ago
Those would require a massive surplus of Solar, Wind and Hydro which we currently do not have. It may come to that but right now the surplus happens at best during a few minutes to 10's of minutes at peak solar in the summer, the rest of the day (and the rest of the year) we are running at a substantial deficit that is still made up from fossil fuels or nuclear.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  Is that specific to the UK? Here in California we have all-day-long surpluses of photovoltaic power from January to June.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Fortunately we're talking about the future, not the present.
Tams80 3y ago
The issue there is that there are a few very vocal renewable energy proponents who just don't get that at all. Merely mention 'hydrogen' and they go into a tirade. Though really, the biggest issue is apathy.
rcxdude 3y ago
The efficiency is pretty awful, though. It's quite hard to make the economics of it work (even if the electricity is free) with current fuel prices, which is why it's not really happening. Either the tech needs to get a lot better or the fuel needs to get a lot more expensive (which I don't imagine would be a popular option).
- pfdietz 3y ago
  It's much easier to make the economics work than it would be to make the economics of batteries work for seasonal storage or rare event backup. If you look at cost optimized solutions to providing steady electrical output from solar + wind in high latitudes, hydrogen is strongly featured. It becomes much more expensive to use just short term storage like batteries. Hydrogen is often useless, but it's sometimes essential. Hydrogen critics bleat about efficiency without understanding the limits of that argument.

by ilaksh 3y ago

jacquesm 3y ago

Those would require a massive surplus of Solar, Wind and Hydro which we currently do not have. It may come to that but right now the surplus happens at best during a few minutes to 10's of minutes at peak solar in the summer, the rest of the day (and the rest of the year) we are running at a substantial deficit that is still made up from fossil fuels or nuclear.

jeffbee 3y ago
Is that specific to the UK? Here in California we have all-day-long surpluses of photovoltaic power from January to June.
pfdietz 3y ago
Fortunately we're talking about the future, not the present.

Tams80 3y ago

The issue there is that there are a few very vocal renewable energy proponents who just don't get that at all. Merely mention 'hydrogen' and they go into a tirade. Though really, the biggest issue is apathy.

rcxdude 3y ago

The efficiency is pretty awful, though. It's quite hard to make the economics of it work (even if the electricity is free) with current fuel prices, which is why it's not really happening. Either the tech needs to get a lot better or the fuel needs to get a lot more expensive (which I don't imagine would be a popular option).

pfdietz 3y ago
It's much easier to make the economics work than it would be to make the economics of batteries work for seasonal storage or rare event backup. If you look at cost optimized solutions to providing steady electrical output from solar + wind in high latitudes, hydrogen is strongly featured. It becomes much more expensive to use just short term storage like batteries. Hydrogen is often useless, but it's sometimes essential. Hydrogen critics bleat about efficiency without understanding the limits of that argument.