341–350 of 583 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Please stop accusing people of wishing for higher energy prices or being a troll. You have done it on a huge number of posts in this thread. If you want to convince anybody accusing them of wanting something bad is not the way to do it. In fact it makes you look like a troll.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter if it consumes resources what matters is that it's less than what it replaces a.k.a. better for the environment. I see this manipulative arguement used all the time with lithium mining.
How are going to mine resources that doesn’t exist? There is not enough of the metals needed to go full renewable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, I'll bite. What type of utility scale storage isn't a battery ? The answer is, of course: any energy storage setup is a battery[1]. A more generous interpretation of your comment is that you meant won't be chemical batteries . In which case, I'll bite: what then? 1. Energy storage is the capture of energy produced at one time for use at a later time[1] to reduce imbalances between energy demand and energy product…
Hydrogen. However electrolysis is still an immature technology and has massive energy losses in every step of the procedure. You can negate that somewhat if produce and store at the same location of the intended use, like providing electricity to a building with hydrogen tank, hydrogen that is generated by solar panels. However this is of course not enough to run industries with high electricity demand, what people t…
The remaining problem is building factories for electrolysis equipment. Building factories takes an appallingly long time. But the problem is only of time, not technical maturity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The decent answer is, simply, that storage will be built when there is enough renewable capacity to charge it from. Storage is technically trivial. Building it all will be a big civil engineering job, but we have plenty of civil engineers.
> The decent answer is, simply, that storage will be built when there is enough renewable capacity to charge it from. In your fantasy land a housing crisis is impossible! The decent answer is that housing will be built there are enough construction materials to build them from. So a housing shortage will never happen. What, Britain has housing shortage? Did they run out of clay to make bricks? Did they run out of buy…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are going to mine resources that doesn’t exist? There is not enough of the metals needed to go full renewable.
False. There is no shortage of any of the materials needed to go fully renewable.
https://www.gtk.fi/en/research/time-to-wake-up/
"No matter what minerals will be needed, we will need large quantities of them as the renewable power sources like wind and solar, require extensive mineral resources to manufacture the infrastructure for fossil-free energy.
And there is a challenge. Given the estimated required number of Electric Vehicles (EV’s) of different vehicle class, it is clear that there are not enough minerals in the currently reported global reserves to build just one generation of batteries for all EV’s and stationary power storage, in the global industrial ecosystem as it is today."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A county can’t subsidize it’s own power, it’s got to pay what it costs. Producers, distributors, and consumers of electricity within a county can receive subsides, but that runs into all the usual issues with planned economies. Arguing about how efficient subsides are vs other spending ignores the option to not spend the money and have consumers directly pay the bill. This normally results in greater efficiency becau…
> runs into all the usual issues with planned economies. Oh, and the war in Ukraine does not show the glaring weakness of 'Unplanned economy' and just choosing the cheapest supplier? Subsidies and incentives do not a planned economy make. Folks in the west seem to have taken the failure of hofhly corrupt planning system of USSR as an indication that they dont need to do any thinking or planning at all.
There are many different levels of panned economies. With say US food subsides and tariffs as a less extreme than Maoist China or the USSR, but they still have huge and well known problems. Messing with Food production has resulted in inefficiency, waste, pollution, corruption, etc but also overconsumption with it’s extremely negative health impacts.
It’s just really hard to improve on the feedback loops of market economies without running into diminishing returns.
The only green solution to our current energy problem is more nuclear power plants. We have to stop relying on coal, wood, oil, gas and the rest of the “dirty” materials.
Except nuclear is expensive and takes decades to build, runs on non renewable materials (a good percentage of which come from Russia), leaves waste that is deadly for 100.000s of years, and promising new technologies will need decades to reach maturity. Now why is it so great compared to, say, solar or geothermal?
Calder Hall was run for 50 years, well past its 20 year expected lifespan. they shut it down because they thought coal, oil and gas would be cheap forever.
the gen2 reactors were even better and more efficient.
gen2 reactors like the rbmk are still running today and producing economical and safe power.
why would nuclear power today be more expensive, take longer to build, and be less safe than technology from the 1960s?
someone's not telling the truth in this story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Pumped storage requires a nearby hill with a lake on top of it (otherwise earth and concrete has to be poured to form an artificial reservoir), and a nearby lower reservoir, and a nearby source of water. And if it isn't close to transportation infrastructure, building a facility becomes prohibitively expensive. As the optimal sites are developed, less and less suitable sites need to be developed. Why is New York buil…