4 ms·
There are ships that move over one billion kWh of LNG around at a time. At $100 to store a kWh of electrical energy, along with approximately ten times the cos
by yodelshady 3y ago
There are ships that move over one billion kWh of LNG around at a time.
At $100 to store a kWh of electrical energy, along with approximately ten times the cost to account for structures that can support and move the extra weight (that's AFTER allowing for less energy demanded in total)... shall I leave this as exercise to the reader?
- maerF0x0 3y agoOk, so here you're referring to moving a lot of energy w/o wires/transmission lines? Is that a commonly needed thing?
- Danieru 3y agoSouth Korea, Japan, China say hello. Much of the world by population and gdp is a ship ride away from their major energy suppliers. Japan imports about half their LNG from Australia. Next largest is Qatar. There are no power lines between Australia and Japan.
- maerF0x0 3y agoRight, but why rely on LNG when Nuclear sources could provide so much more energy and geo-political stability, and promising investment in other avenues (eg Thorium based) could make it even moreso?
- bryanlarsen 3y agoNuclear is better in many ways. It's a shame it costs an order of magnitude more than alternatives.
- maerF0x0 3y agoInteresting point, A quick google suggests both possibilities that solar and nuclear are each cheaper depending on how big of a picture you're looking. (Capital, construction, storage for solar cause nuclear can run at night, storage for 25000 years for the waste etc). Still, if moving a lot of (potential) heat energy from point to point is the goal, Uranium still seems to be the move compared to so many tankers of LNG -- just to burn it. Nuclear plants put off a ton of waste heat energy, and it can be at a very high temperature too (if designed and desired).
- logtempo 3y agocheck climate town last video on youtube.