19

Disclaimer: this video is sponsored by Toyota.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] greengnu@slrpnk.net 4 points 10 months ago

storage is only a problem if the global distribution grid is not created. The sun is always shining somewhere, especially if you realize we can leverage space to extend our collection.

cranes are just stupid energy storage (the F=ma bit basically makes this a non-starter) . Water in pumped storage only works out in huge scale (where you have mountains to provide a massive storage pool).

compressed air storage misses the point, use just a little more energy and you can use that energy to thermally separate CO2 from air. (This is a productive use of energy but bad efficiency for storage)

hydrogen production from water is a productive use if we want to remove hydrocarbons from some chemical processes but it is not an efficient battery.

Thermal storage of energy is very inefficient and not a good idea unless you are willing to waste a good deal of available energy.

And flywheels are not even mentioned and very wrong information about Tesla power walls.

[-] souperk@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago

Is a global distribution grid even possible? Isn't distance a huge problem when transporting energy?

[-] greengnu@slrpnk.net 5 points 10 months ago

Depends on what you mean by a huge problem.

If you are referring to energy loses due to the large distances and the electrical resistance of the wires carrying that power; you'll discover those loses are directed related to current and that you can trade current for voltage and trade voltage for current; so we can avoid losses by upping the voltage.

If you are referring to the fact that the Earth's crust is moving, we can have geologists do some work; estimate the distances spaces where we will be running our wires and put in sufficient slack to cover the time period until the next maintenance window.

If you are referring to weather event induced disruptions in the grid (wind/tornadoes/etc taking out power lines) then you build alternate paths to route around damage.

If you are referring to solar storms and coronal mass ejections, then you need standards in your equipment to deal with out of spec distribution lines.

All of which are technical problems and easy to solve.

If you are referring to the bureaucratic hellscape that is international coordination and cooperation, then yes that is the only huge problem preventing such a solution, despite its numerous global economic and environmental advantages.

[-] souperk@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I cannot upvote enough, I just heard distance is a problem and I needed a kind stranger (like you) to explain why that's not a problem.

Got any references for me to read? I would like to learn more

PS fuck capitalism

[-] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's not a problem insofar as it costs more than what we are doing now.

It may not happen because renewables and batteries are on such aggressive cost curves that it may be better to just store energy locally or produce more (and thus generate flexible high energy cost economic activity on top of the current energy demand that can happen whenever).

Transmission and distribution currently costs in the ballpark of 3-7c/kWh. Longer distances will drive this up. Overnight-scale storage will drive it down (allowing it to run 24 hours a day at x watts rather than 4 hours at 6x watts).

Solar energy is 1-6c/kWh. Overnight-scale battery is 2-7c/kWh. If you can rearrange your manufacturing so you do the energy intensive bit on a cheap machine on a sunny day and do the labour intensive bit on expensive machines in winter, you won't consider transmission. If you can't, you'll weigh transmission against moving your factory to western australia or morocco or texas. Many processes have a drying or a reduction (removing oxygen with electricity or chemicals made from fossil fuels/electricity) or heating step that fills the first profile.

End result is there will be a mix with countries that have less seasonal variation having an advantage in industries that are less flexible (because hitting the worst-case load will require less infrastructure), and countries with more seasonal variation having a huge advantage in flexible industries (as their winter heating bills will subsidize the free summer solar). Transmission will play a role too (but how kuch is uncertain).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
19 points (88.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

4664 readers
656 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS