this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
1001 points (89.3% liked)
Political Memes
5087 readers
4042 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Until renewable energy inputs approach the base load, there's nothing to store.
After that, hydrogen is an awful storage medium because it's so permiable. Even if you're focused on long term energy storage needs, sodium and nickel batteries are proving far more efficient than hydrogen cells. We've known that since the 90s, but continue to invest wasted billion after wasted billion in a dead end technology.
You were also decrying them spending money on battery storage. Yes there will be batteries needed if you want to implement large scale renewables, which it seems is happening even without subsidies. We need batteries for battery electric trains and cars too. Hydrogen isn't necessarily good enough for grid storage, though maybe it could be one day. It seems it might be an option for vehicles in the cases where batteries don't work such as in cold weather or for vehicles that need to travel great distances. Batteries also aren't an option for planes yet and hydrogen could help here too.
You also complain about them spending money on advanced nuclear reactors. You need nuclear until you have sufficient grid storage. That's an unfortunate fact.
I am against them using money on carbon capture from fossil fuel plants. Direct air carbon capture could actually be useful technology though. If not today then someday in the future. We won't know if we don't put money towards it.
Batteries on trains are not really needed if the rail is electrified. In Europe we have them everywhere. And better public transport reduces the need for cars. And ebikes can be the solution for many uses. It only takes thinking outside the car box.
I don't even drive and even I know cars, lorries, tractors, and so on are all necessary in some parts of society. You can't use public transport if you are miles away from the next house or the nearest town. Rural areas need transport too.
I know the problem in rural zones. I live in one. But if they can reduce the car dependency in cities and to some extend in big towns that's a lot of car batteries that don't have to be build.
And just as a note, there are electric tractors. Still small but...
The point is there is still a point in funding battery technology. Not that you shouldn't try to use public transport where necessary. Things like buses will also need batteries in order to operate if we are getting rid of fossil fuels.
One bus is 30 to 60 cars not used at the same time🙂 I don't say "stop building batteries" but "enhance public transport".
I know all this.
That's exactly what this conversation was about. People said stop investing as much money in battery technology - which is ass backwards given we have needs for this in both the grid and in vehicles.
Electrified rail is expensive and has safety issues. It's the best option for long distances for sure, but here in the UK we are still trying to electrify the main rail lines, the branch lines and city lines aren't even in the cards. Being able to recharge trains at stations with rapid charging is the best option for branch and commuter rail services not already on electrified rail (most of them). If we can do that using something other than lithium batteries that would be great. Sodium seems promising. Also I am in Europe you muppet. It also doesn't solve grid scale storage, which is something we need. I am hoping iron oxide batteries work out for the grid scale storage tbh.
UK has a problem with rails since Thatcher (IIRC).I
PS: stop insulting people. Thank you.
Yeah thatcher caused issue when ahe privatized rail operators. She didn't privatize network rail though, which are the guys responsible for building and maintaining the track including electrification projects. So I don't think you can pin this one on her. Electrification is prohibitively expensive and incomplete in pretty much every country with older rail networks including the USA, UK, and parts of the EU.
Also if you don't want to get insulted maybe stop assuming where I live and what I know about. It's insulting when people go "In Europe we do x", like brah I live in Europe and I know about x. X isn't always the solution to every problem. This is becoming a hammer nail thing.
The post is about Biden and Trump. Sorry for assuming things. But that doesn't mean you have to call me muppet. "I'm British and I disagree" (or something like that) would be better.
If the transport companies don't require electric vehicles the infrastructure company won't builds it. I don't say that's the case but it could be. If everybody has only a bicycle you don't spend money on a highway.
That makes no sense. The government owns the railway, not the companies. They are the ones struggling to put in electric lines.
Also battery electric trains are a big step up from diesel. I don't get why you are complaining.
My bad. I was going to rant about the relation between train companies having to change the trains.
But I just remembered who is "governing" UK.
Yeah the conservative party is not great, you're not wrong there.
Relative to the volume spent on generation, yes.
Given the abject failure of Westinghouse to produce a reliable mass production model, it's an enormous waste of investment.
If nothing else, we'd be better of someone buying existing designs from Areva. But we don't do that, because we insist on "Buy American" legislation that doesn't get us any actual product.
Not relative to simply reducing the volume of carbon produced, by shifting the composition of the grid.
You understand that there are already too many greenhouse gases, right? By the time we do all of this there will be even more. It's not like the grid is the only (or even the majority) of greenhouse gases. How do you account for both all the past emmisions and all the future emissions plus emissions from other sources?
The main alternatives being French and Chinese reactor designs. I can understand why the USA doesn't want to use Chinese reactors, we in the UK made a similar decision and went with French designs instead if I am remembering correctly. I wouldn't be against the USA using French designs. The thing is though I can't see how more research could possibly be a bad thing, we have much work to do in both fission and fusion technologies. Putting all our bets in China or France might not be the best idea.
The rate at which we produce green house has exceeded the rate at which it is absorbed and fixed.
Carbon capture attempts to accelerate the rate of carbon fixing at a very high per-ton economic cost. Meanwhile, turning off fossil plants and replacing them with renewable energy reduces the rate of per-ton generation at a comparably low cost.
If you're on a sinking ship, there's little point in bailing when you haven't plugged the hole.
Pure reactionary xenophobia. Chinese thorium reactors are cutting edge, and we're adding degree points to the global average by not adopting it ASAP.
Putting money on Westinghouse has consistently cost us enormously.
We need to be doing both. Once the grid is fixed or close to it then we will need carbon capture to reverse the damage. It's either that or massive reforestation or using algae or something (liquid trees anyone?).
If they own the plant they could theoretically sabotage it. Would they in practice? No idea but so long as the USA believes they might they won't use Chinese technology.
Neither the USA or China are good regimes. To be honest I want to see them both either broken or re-formed.
Westinghouse aren't the only people in the USA doing nuclear research afaik. I believe the DOE national laboratory does research on fusion for example. There are private companies like NuScale also working on fission designs in the USA.
In proportion to their value add. Enormous investments in a low yield long shot against minor investment in a sure thing is a bad strategy
It's not a long shot though. We already know this technology works as it has been tested on small scales.
Factually inaccurate
Prove it.
Fuel Cells Are Not the Problem, the Hydrogen Fuel Is
If you were familiar with the technology, you'd understand why it has failed to come to market for so long. You need enormous subsidies to sell vehicles and even then you cannot efficiently produce "Green H~2~"
We were talking about direct carbon capture in this thread. Hydrogen was a separate topic.
Carbon Capture costs are far higher than reducing emissions with each ton of carbon costing between $230 and $540.
Halting emissions is the most efficient method of reducing total emissions. Capture is extraordinarily expensive and inefficient, particularly when you're still using carbon-based infrastructure to power compressors.
So just because it's expensive right now means we shouldn't do it or research it? Now you sound like the people advocating against renewables.
This isn't a "right now" issue. Its been an ongoing problem since the '90s. And yes, throwing 10x your investment in a working solution on a speculative technology for 35 years running is a bad idea.
The O&G industry has been the primary promoter of fuel cell technology. They never deliver and they've had far more money and time to work on this problem than the nascent solar and wind industries.
Why do you keep changing the topic to hydrogen?
Two different conversations.