5 ms·

>Solar and wind still have no path to stability. There are several paths, they just need to be walked. Gas is a known method to spread heat and electricity, h

>Solar and wind still have no path to stability. There are several paths, they just need to be walked. Gas is a known method to spread heat and electricity, hydrogen is a gas that is entirely downside-free from a eco-fuel perspective. We can burn as much of it as we want 24/7 and we can make it from sunshine and seawater, returning the water in the process. A 6-lane highway to perfect stability right there.

palata 3y ago
That's naive. E.g. producing hydrogen requires energy. Renewables are very, very far from replacing fossil fuels (most likely they can't), so it's not like we have extra energy to lose to make hydrogen.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Here we learn that hydrogen cannot be used because it doesn't violate conservation of energy. The things one learns. What hydrogen does is provide a way to store energy for long periods of time much more cheaply than batteries. The cost of hydrogen storage capacity underground is maybe $1/kWh. Of course the round trip efficiency is much lower than batteries, but for long term storage (or when the input energy becomes very cheap) that doesn't matter as much.
  - palata 3y ago
    One problem we have with renewables is that they are not remotely replacing fossil fuels. Another problem is that we can't store their energy efficiently (which we need because unlike nuclear power, we can't control the production). The latter makes the former worse (because we lose some of that energy in the storage process). The truth is that we need a mix of nuclear, renewable, and a ton of sobriety because after fossil fuels we will just live in a world with a lot less energy. And I don't think we can afford ignoring nuclear power. BTW, just compare France and Germany. It seems pretty obvious that the french model (with nuclear power) works a lot better.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      Nuclear is not remotely replacing fossil fuels either. Basically, you're complaining that CO2 pollution isn't going away on its own, and that's the fault of anyone but the polluters. No, it's the fault of laws that allow the polluters to impose their negative externalities on everyone else. No, we don't need "a mix of nuclear, renewable". There doesn't appear to be any good place for nuclear in a future energy system of cheap renewables. There are all sorts of ludicrous energy sources we won't be using, and one cannot just presume nuclear is not also in that set.
      - palata 3y ago
        > Nuclear is not remotely replacing fossil fuels either. Of course it is not. But with nuclear + renewables, we are still heading towards a world without e.g. aviation because we won't have enough energy for all those planes we fly today. Everything will be more complicated, and we can't afford to be picky with the low-carbon energy sources. Going with nuclear and renewables is infinitely better than what we are doing now (which is... going towards a catastrophe).
        ben_w 3y ago
        Maximum solar potential, with 40% efficient cells, is about x2550 the total combined power output of every engine, vehicle, industrial and domestic heating system, and electrical power plant combined. Even assuming we want to increase the world average from the current (roughly) 2.3 kW to average consumption of the single most intense nation (Qatar, at roughly 23 kW) while also using 20% cells, this is still less than 1% of the surface of the planet — for comparison, about 4% of the US land area is "urban", and a further 21% is cropland, and 35% is pastures and ranges.
        palata 3y ago
        Not a single solar cell today has been produced (including extraction of the material, transport, everything) fully with renewable energy. We love to speak about "potential" and extrapolate given current numbers. But the fact is that we have never done anything like that at scale. We do not know if we are capable of replacing fossil fuels. It's not just a "potential", it's really an engineering problem. The devil is in the details. And when you start looking at what would need to change to run fully on electricity... you realize it won't fully replace fossil fuels. Not even remotely.

palata 3y ago

That's naive. E.g. producing hydrogen requires energy. Renewables are very, very far from replacing fossil fuels (most likely they can't), so it's not like we have extra energy to lose to make hydrogen.

pfdietz 3y ago
Here we learn that hydrogen cannot be used because it doesn't violate conservation of energy. The things one learns. What hydrogen does is provide a way to store energy for long periods of time much more cheaply than batteries. The cost of hydrogen storage capacity underground is maybe $1/kWh. Of course the round trip efficiency is much lower than batteries, but for long term storage (or when the input energy becomes very cheap) that doesn't matter as much.
- palata 3y ago
  One problem we have with renewables is that they are not remotely replacing fossil fuels. Another problem is that we can't store their energy efficiently (which we need because unlike nuclear power, we can't control the production). The latter makes the former worse (because we lose some of that energy in the storage process). The truth is that we need a mix of nuclear, renewable, and a ton of sobriety because after fossil fuels we will just live in a world with a lot less energy. And I don't think we can afford ignoring nuclear power. BTW, just compare France and Germany. It seems pretty obvious that the french model (with nuclear power) works a lot better.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Nuclear is not remotely replacing fossil fuels either. Basically, you're complaining that CO2 pollution isn't going away on its own, and that's the fault of anyone but the polluters. No, it's the fault of laws that allow the polluters to impose their negative externalities on everyone else. No, we don't need "a mix of nuclear, renewable". There doesn't appear to be any good place for nuclear in a future energy system of cheap renewables. There are all sorts of ludicrous energy sources we won't be using, and one cannot just presume nuclear is not also in that set.
    - palata 3y ago
      > Nuclear is not remotely replacing fossil fuels either. Of course it is not. But with nuclear + renewables, we are still heading towards a world without e.g. aviation because we won't have enough energy for all those planes we fly today. Everything will be more complicated, and we can't afford to be picky with the low-carbon energy sources. Going with nuclear and renewables is infinitely better than what we are doing now (which is... going towards a catastrophe).
      - ben_w 3y ago
        Maximum solar potential, with 40% efficient cells, is about x2550 the total combined power output of every engine, vehicle, industrial and domestic heating system, and electrical power plant combined. Even assuming we want to increase the world average from the current (roughly) 2.3 kW to average consumption of the single most intense nation (Qatar, at roughly 23 kW) while also using 20% cells, this is still less than 1% of the surface of the planet — for comparison, about 4% of the US land area is "urban", and a further 21% is cropland, and 35% is pastures and ranges.
        palata 3y ago
        Not a single solar cell today has been produced (including extraction of the material, transport, everything) fully with renewable energy. We love to speak about "potential" and extrapolate given current numbers. But the fact is that we have never done anything like that at scale. We do not know if we are capable of replacing fossil fuels. It's not just a "potential", it's really an engineering problem. The devil is in the details. And when you start looking at what would need to change to run fully on electricity... you realize it won't fully replace fossil fuels. Not even remotely.