It's a logistical problem basically most people don't live at the equator and that's the good spot for solar where it's three times as effective. We could plaster a quarter of all the land with solar panels and then yeah you have enough. Except you still wouldn't have a dependable energy inputs because sometimes the weather is shitty for a week. So you would still need the massive transition cables to pipe it in from somewhere else that the sun currently is shining. So basically you are going to need to cover massive amounts of land with solar panels. We would need to invest in massive transfer cables. I honestly think that would be a great idea to implement full coverage of solar panels in our cities and cover all things with them. However, do not think that's a viable solution to meet our total energy needs. I do think solar is a viable way to help meet those goals. But it needs to be part of a team, not a solo. Lone Wolf . https://youtu.be/7OpM_zKGE4o?si=2_TW0JeYeA2htQm1
I asked you if you had anything to back that up. The answer is no.
Fuck it! Here's a hypothetical a magic genie. Just granted My wish and gave us enough solar to actually power everything we need. Now one six of every country on Earth is covered in solar panels. Here's the catch though you need to Learn more about how electrical grids work then come back to me once you realized we would have to rebuild an even bigger worldwide connected grid to make solar and a battery powered society actually functional and that we currently have no way to make battery storage equitable and affordable enough to store the amount of energy we would need to store everyday to power our societies through the night.
You're still doing it. Your run on paragraphs aren't worth much, if you want me to take you seriously, please provide links to valid sources to back up your argument.
Solar gets cheaper everyday. Battery storage is not nearly equitable enough at this point in time. Small modular reactors are much more cost effective at the current price point than battery will be for the next 15 to 20 years.
Here comes the airplane say aaah
No need to act like a bitch just because I asked you to do the bare minimum and provide sources.
Your first link is about HVDC lines, which already exist and work well, what is your point?
your second link is about battery storage. You're just posting links without giving any context to how they support whatever argument you're trying to make here.
Battery storage is not nearly equitable enough at this point in time.
What does this mean?
“findings suggest that the cost per kilowatt (KW) for utility-scale solar is less than $1,000, while the comparable cost per KW for nuclear power is between $6,500 and $12,250. At present estimates, the Vogtle nuclear plant will cost about $10,300 per KW, near the top of Lazard’s range. This means nuclear power is nearly 10 times more expensive to build than utility-scale solar on a cost per KW basis.”
Small modular reactors are much more cost effective at the current price point than battery will be for the next 15 to 20 years.
They literally don't exist as a means of grid generation. You're just writing pro-nuclear fanfic and expecting us to treat it as if it has any basis in reality. Are you getting paid to peddle this horseshit?
You should be.
We could use solar (or other renewables/nuclear) to power hydrogen fuel cells, then take the energy where it's needed.
Hydrogen transport is also a mass of pain in the ass because hydrogen being the noblest of gases and only a single hydrogen molecule likes to seep out of every container we've ever made and there's no way to permanently contain it.
Hydrogen transport is also a mass of pain in the ass because hydrogen being the noblest of gases and only a single hydrogen molecule likes to seep out of every container we’ve ever made and there’s no way to permanently contain it.
This statement you've made here is mostly accurate and informative. Hydrogen isn't a noble gas, its brother Helium is. Hydrogen is highly reactive. However, your points about Hydrogen storage and transport are spot on. You're not insulting nor condescending in this post. Nearly every other response you've made in this whole post is the opposite.
You are clearly capable of civil and informative responses, but because you have so few you've lost the audience you want to inform/persuade a long time ago. Are you aware of that?
This is /c/shitpost im not debating civilly as the arguments I get aren't in good faith 9 times out of 10. I'm not here to be a school teacher. More of a doomsday preacher
Yeah agreed, but still it seems better than what we're doing now.
Most hydrogen tech is going to be generated from fossil fuels....
Seems like a big assumption. It could be generated in a remote area by a nuclear reactor or a renewable source.
It won't be. You'd be expecting to eat like 30% losses if you were to generate hydrogen from electrolysis, then that's combined with 40 to 60% efficiency in fuel cells, then that's combined with a pretty low energy density, even if it has a relatively high specific energy. You're also dealing with hydrogen tending to make everything it touches pretty brittle, since it's reactive, and liking to leak out because it has such a small particle size, in combination with your tanks all having to be like multiple times the size of a propane tank to offset the losses. Either way, the sheer tank size tends to offset the gains in practice, and piping that shit would fucking blow, maybe literally.
Right, but that's all current conditions, and the field is changing quickly. Legislation, technology, and increased market efficiency will resolve some of those problems.
I doubt many experts in the late 19th century would have predicted our current energy infrastructure, and they werent dealing with an urgent global need to reverse environmental damage.
The cost of inaction is very high, and humanity will be forced off of fossil fuels eventually anyway. Maybe we'll use batteries for most portable electricity, but hydrogen will have a role.
I mean I kind of doubt that most of those problems are really surmountable in the longer term, unless maybe cryo cooling and storage becomes way cheaper in terms of price, they're not really things that you can just like, really market innovate your way out of. Not in the same way as batteries, which we might see gain a lot in the next decade or so from solid state. Everyone banks on future technology to solve current problems to court venture capital, but we can already solve most of the problems that we'd need hydrogen for right now. We have trains, we know how to build way more, we don't really need it for cars, and if you're not getting your hydrogen from a "free" source like natural gas, there's not really a reason to produce it in large quantities.
Fair enough, I appreciate the informed perspective. Regardless of how, I hope we can revolutionize our energy systems soon.
It's a logistical problem basically most people don't live at the equator and that's the good spot for solar where it's three times as effective. We could plaster a quarter of all the land with solar panels and then yeah you have enough. Except you still wouldn't have a dependable energy inputs because sometimes the weather is shitty for a week. So you would still need the massive transition cables to pipe it in from somewhere else that the sun currently is shining. So basically you are going to need to cover massive amounts of land with solar panels. We would need to invest in massive transfer cables. I honestly think that would be a great idea to implement full coverage of solar panels in our cities and cover all things with them. However, do not think that's a viable solution to meet our total energy needs. I do think solar is a viable way to help meet those goals. But it needs to be part of a team, not a solo. Lone Wolf . https://youtu.be/7OpM_zKGE4o?si=2_TW0JeYeA2htQm1
I asked you if you had anything to back that up. The answer is no.
Fuck it! Here's a hypothetical a magic genie. Just granted My wish and gave us enough solar to actually power everything we need. Now one six of every country on Earth is covered in solar panels. Here's the catch though you need to Learn more about how electrical grids work then come back to me once you realized we would have to rebuild an even bigger worldwide connected grid to make solar and a battery powered society actually functional and that we currently have no way to make battery storage equitable and affordable enough to store the amount of energy we would need to store everyday to power our societies through the night.
You're still doing it. Your run on paragraphs aren't worth much, if you want me to take you seriously, please provide links to valid sources to back up your argument.
Here comes the airplane say aaah
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36393#:~:text=The%20per%2Dmile%20cost%20of,proposals%20and%20relevant%20regulatory%20filings
https://howtostoreelectricity.com/costs-of-1-mw-battery/#:~:text=Given%20the%20range%20of%20factors,on%20the%20factors%20mentioned%20above.
Solar gets cheaper everyday. Battery storage is not nearly equitable enough at this point in time. Small modular reactors are much more cost effective at the current price point than battery will be for the next 15 to 20 years.
No need to act like a bitch just because I asked you to do the bare minimum and provide sources.
Your first link is about HVDC lines, which already exist and work well, what is your point?
your second link is about battery storage. You're just posting links without giving any context to how they support whatever argument you're trying to make here.
What does this mean?
“findings suggest that the cost per kilowatt (KW) for utility-scale solar is less than $1,000, while the comparable cost per KW for nuclear power is between $6,500 and $12,250. At present estimates, the Vogtle nuclear plant will cost about $10,300 per KW, near the top of Lazard’s range. This means nuclear power is nearly 10 times more expensive to build than utility-scale solar on a cost per KW basis.”
https://www.energysage.com/about-clean-energy/nuclear-energy/solar-vs-nuclear/
Tell me again about what's equitable.
They literally don't exist as a means of grid generation. You're just writing pro-nuclear fanfic and expecting us to treat it as if it has any basis in reality. Are you getting paid to peddle this horseshit?
You should be.
We could use solar (or other renewables/nuclear) to power hydrogen fuel cells, then take the energy where it's needed.
Hydrogen transport is also a mass of pain in the ass because hydrogen being the noblest of gases and only a single hydrogen molecule likes to seep out of every container we've ever made and there's no way to permanently contain it.
This statement you've made here is mostly accurate and informative. Hydrogen isn't a noble gas, its brother Helium is. Hydrogen is highly reactive. However, your points about Hydrogen storage and transport are spot on. You're not insulting nor condescending in this post. Nearly every other response you've made in this whole post is the opposite.
You are clearly capable of civil and informative responses, but because you have so few you've lost the audience you want to inform/persuade a long time ago. Are you aware of that?
This is /c/shitpost im not debating civilly as the arguments I get aren't in good faith 9 times out of 10. I'm not here to be a school teacher. More of a doomsday preacher
Yeah agreed, but still it seems better than what we're doing now.
Most hydrogen tech is going to be generated from fossil fuels....
Greenwashing
https://www.irena.org/Energy-Transition/Technology/Hydrogen#:~:text=As%20at%20the%20end%20of,around%204%25%20comes%20from%20electrolysis.
Seems like a big assumption. It could be generated in a remote area by a nuclear reactor or a renewable source.
It won't be. You'd be expecting to eat like 30% losses if you were to generate hydrogen from electrolysis, then that's combined with 40 to 60% efficiency in fuel cells, then that's combined with a pretty low energy density, even if it has a relatively high specific energy. You're also dealing with hydrogen tending to make everything it touches pretty brittle, since it's reactive, and liking to leak out because it has such a small particle size, in combination with your tanks all having to be like multiple times the size of a propane tank to offset the losses. Either way, the sheer tank size tends to offset the gains in practice, and piping that shit would fucking blow, maybe literally.
Right, but that's all current conditions, and the field is changing quickly. Legislation, technology, and increased market efficiency will resolve some of those problems.
I doubt many experts in the late 19th century would have predicted our current energy infrastructure, and they werent dealing with an urgent global need to reverse environmental damage.
The cost of inaction is very high, and humanity will be forced off of fossil fuels eventually anyway. Maybe we'll use batteries for most portable electricity, but hydrogen will have a role.
I mean I kind of doubt that most of those problems are really surmountable in the longer term, unless maybe cryo cooling and storage becomes way cheaper in terms of price, they're not really things that you can just like, really market innovate your way out of. Not in the same way as batteries, which we might see gain a lot in the next decade or so from solid state. Everyone banks on future technology to solve current problems to court venture capital, but we can already solve most of the problems that we'd need hydrogen for right now. We have trains, we know how to build way more, we don't really need it for cars, and if you're not getting your hydrogen from a "free" source like natural gas, there's not really a reason to produce it in large quantities.
Fair enough, I appreciate the informed perspective. Regardless of how, I hope we can revolutionize our energy systems soon.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/7OpM_zKGE4o?si=2_TW0JeYeA2htQm1
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.