Manfredo_1

13 ms·

61.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
Then what did you mean by, "The equipment required for storing either is similar" and "there is already a great deal of equipment for manipulating hydrogen"? Interpreting this as saying that natural gas infrastructure
62.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
Sure, that should refer to the lifetime cost, not per year. That's the cost when you cover the yearly cost over the span of the desired lifetime, which is what's relevant when you're comparing short lives systems vs. long liv
63.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
> Geological formations suitable for storage of hydrogen are quite widespread. They're basically identical to the formations that are already used to store natural gas. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24621709
64.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
$12 per kilowatt hour, per year . You then need to multiply by the number of years that this storage system needs to be online. Again, if we're comparing against the alternative of building a nuclear plant, this is 60 to 80 years. Neg
65.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
Price is a function of supply and demand. Demand for oil was largely flat for most of the period from 1900 to 1970. It took 15 years to double from 1925 to 1940 [1]. And then another 10 years to double by 1950. It increased by a factor of 5
66.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
Capital cost is the initial cost to build this system. The figure for comes from figure 14. The cost estimates are $3,000 with current technology. This works out to $500 per KWh 20 years system. To match the lifespan of a nuclear plant (typ
67.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
I've refuted each and every one of your claims about the feasibility of hydrogen storage. For the second time, you claim that my claims are invalid, without actually specifying what's invalid and why. You claim to have explained
68.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
> You will notice hardly anyone is building nuclear power plants If by "hardly anyone" you mean "most of the world" [1]. Most of the world by population lives in a country building nuclear power. This claim is through
69.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
Startups are also working on nuclear fusion. Carbon capture represents a potential solution, but a solution that doesn't currently exist. Sure if that potential is realized, it'd be great. But if we want to decarbonize the econo
70.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
Renewables are cheap when they make up a small percentage of total power generation. Solar is cheap when it's only providing supplemental power during the day, same with wind. Using them as a primary source of energy requires staggerin
71.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
You missed a huge part of my comment: it would take 20 (not 15) years of global battery production to get the United States to have enough storage to reach 80% renewables generation. As in, if we stopped manufacturing smart phones and el
72.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
History demonstrates otherwise. Not one country generates the majoirty of their power from solar or wind. By comparison, France and Belgium generate the majority of their electricity from nuclear power. Similarly the claim that nuclear is t
73.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
The only way to effectively offset energy demand is with a very large temperature range, which is not a comfortable temperature range. This is largely and unavoidable problem. It's a big part of why Germany mostly heats it's house
74.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
> There is already a great deal of equipment for manipulating hydrogen on an industrial scale If by "a great deal" you mean "a fraction of one percent of what is required". No, the issue I'm raising is not well s
75.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
Okay, so now I have to pick between dealing with excessive heat during the day, or cold at night because our infrastructure can't fulfill energy demand.
76.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
> But aside from that, where is this much greater complexity coming from? Did you read my post? Because I explain how it's permeability and corrosion make it challenging to build long lasting containers to store hydrogen. It's
77.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
Yup, the price of oil was a steady $20/barrel from 1880 through the 1960s. Now it's $100/barrel. Now imagine what is going to happen if the demand for batteries increases one thousand fold (which is what is necessary to make
78.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
Storing hydrogen is much more complicated than storing methane. Not to mention the challenge of moving hydrogen from the production location (probably close to a river), to the storage site. Hydrogen rapidly corrodes metals, turning them in
79.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
The price increased. And this increase occurred over the span of a century, not a decade.
80.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
2 EPRs built for $3.25B each: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taishan_Nuclear_Power_Plant
81.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
> please don't be swayed, he uses lots logical phallusese, in this thread for example: taking the US electric consumption at face value as being the power to be displaced 12 hours. Excellent point: The power that's going to be
82.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
You're making yourself perfectly clear, you're just wrong about the claim that smart grids will improve heating: * With my normal thermostat I set my home to be heated to 68 degrees Fahrenheit. When it falls below 68 degrees it g
83.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
Cherry-picking an individual plant doesn't change the fact that France produces electricity with much less carbon than most other countries, and often at an even cheaper cost.
84.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
The direct global thermal pollution for both solar panels and nuclear are negligible compared to the 100-200 petawatts of light hitting the earth constantly.
85.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
Sure, solar + natural gas is cheaper than nuclear. But that's not a solution to climate change. The amount of battery storage that some plants use is negligible compared to the 11.5 TWh that the US uses on average every day. The entire
86.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
In order to reach 80% renewables we'll need 12 hours of storage. In order to reach 100% renewables we'll need 3 weeks of storage: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora...
87.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
Because that's a terrible idea. what do you expect people to do when there's a cloudy winter day and the power company can't fulfill electricity demand? Freeze? When people are cold they're going to turn on their thermos
88.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
12 hours of capacity would still leave 20% of electricity to be fulfilled by fossil fuels. To get to 100% renewable we'd need 3 weeks of storage: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-sto
89.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
Australia has vast tracts of cheap land and very good solar potential (close to equator, little cloud cover). They also have energy usage patterns that are amenable to solar, with ACs run during the day and little need for heating at night.
90.
by Manfredo_1 6y ago
If you're using caverns to reduce the capital cost of storing hydrogen, then you're ignoring a substantial amount of the real cost. Caverns are a geographically dependent feature, you might as well just say that we should use hydr

More ›