Regardless of the method, carbon capture is not going to work fast enough to make meaningfully change. The only realistic solution to keep earth from going runaway warming and becoming perhaps even another Venus, is to radically increase earth’s albedo to a point where the energy balans goes from +2W/m² to -2W/m², using brightening agents like sea salt for instance. In the mean time more realistic methods to manage CO2 en especially also methane levels in the atmosphere can be devised for the longer term.
I’m a fan of Lagrange Point solar shades that double as solar power collectors. Decrease sunlight and shitloads of solar energy that can be microwave-beamed to dirtside collection arrays.
I’m also a fan of science fiction-like solutions but only in the “oh that would be so cool!” sense, not as a viable solution to the current problem of what could be a runaway greenhouse heating cycle that turns earth into “Venus the 2nd”. Keep dreaming, though because what seemed like science fiction just decades ago is becoming reality today and as a future method to regulate earths temperature it seems at least worth a look.
As solar becomes increasingly widespread and electricity prices plummet in the middle of the day when the sun is brightest, some see a risk that the incentive to deploy solar power also decreases, said Esparrago.
That makes grid improvements and the rapid rollout of storage technologies like batteries crucial, experts argue. But the EU is still lagging behind in that area.
I wonder however how far we are from that? There is probably a lot of incentivising that can be done to get people and industry to use this ‘surplus’ daytime energy up surely. Its weird because its usually the opposite with cheap night rates - I know many people who intentionally consume energy overnight instead of the day because its cheaper. Flip that on its head maybe that isn’t as pressing an issue?
The issue isn’t really comparing high noon to midnight. The issue is comparing prices at either high noon (when supply is large) or midnight (when demand is small) to the space in between, especially dinnertime (when demand peaks just as solar supply finishes tailing off). There are ways to move some of that peak into noon (e.g: if homes are well insulated, they can be cooled or heated while solar is still up and used as a thermal battery to at least bridge over to the nighttime hours), but some of the peak is much harder to shift around. If everybody starts cooking and turns on the television around dinnertime, the only way to distribute that is to stagger dinnertime, which is easier said than done for a lot of people’s schedules. Having power storage to bridge that gap (wouldn’t it be nice if everyone that has an electric car got home and used whatever range they had leftover in their battery to absorb their extra demand and then start charging again at nighttime rather than immediately start charging at the worst time of day. Or having solar plants that store excess daytime power in thermal, hydro, or chemical batteries to discharge and increase supply later) is likely easier than convincing enough people to work odd shifts or delay their after work leisure activities
If that’s the case or becomes the case, isn’t it easily solvable since the batteries only need to store the energy for a few hours? Maybe some spinning wheel thing?
It is a very solvable problem, and mechanical or thermal batteries are likely to be at least part of the solution. Of the three kinds of gaps/shortfalls that grid storage would have to cover, the milliseconds-long and hours-long gaps are probably the easiest to solve. The days-long gaps (stretches of cloudy days, low winds for extended periods) is probably the most expensive to solve, but even those are not really that difficult (hydro storage is a tested technology that works well and HVDC transmission linking regions together can allow local shortfalls to be covered by remote surpluses). It’s all more a matter of building capacity than needing new technology to solve an unsolvable problem, from what I understand
Longevity is the big problem. Every practical method of energy storage I can think of is negatively impacted by frequent charge discharge cycles. Even a flywheel like you suggest would eventually need new bearings, need rebalancing, etc…
It would not be nice to power my house with my car. It’s extra wear on the battery, which is basically half the cost of an electric car. It opens me up to potential issues if I need to leave in the evening, my car now has reduced range.
Powering a couple appliances for a few hours is nothing for a car battery, those things are huge and powerful because cars are so inefficient. That’s not to say that V2G or V2X will work perfectly for everybody, but with the average commute around 25 miles and plenty of EVs out there over 200 mile range (which equates to mutliple days of typical electrical usage), there’s certainly some extra capacity. If you were compensated for the power you sold back at peak times, it could help justify paying for and lugging around the kind of battery capacity that is specced for your weekend/holiday road trips just to make your likely shorter daily commute. I’m using you generically, I don’t know your specific situation, so you certainly could be someone who would not feel a need to engage in that kind of scheme
Low power cycling (and powering a house is miniscule draw for a car) below 80% SOC cannot induce enough wear on a car battery to show up at all before calendar aging makes the battery unusable (which is about 10 years after the rest of the car has worn out on average). And the range it reduces is about 10% for an evening of powering a house, leaving more range than the typical ICE has when it is parked with the tank less than half full.
As to the investment. A tesla 3 is $40k and has an 86kWh battery in it (82kWh usable). Modern LFP batteries are rated for 8000 cycles at 0.1C (8kW or about what you can squeeze through a reasonable-sized wire at 240V ). If you somehow manage to wear it out and got 8c/kWh, you’ve made a profit. At 30c/kWh spread that some people pay, that’s tripling your investment.
You can only 50% drain your battery during peak 5-9pm consumption though so this will take 22 years of going full-tilt every day. The other 1.5 cars in each average household won’t get a turn, nor will several of your neighbors because peak electricity consumption is under 8kW per capita pretty much everywhere.
If you are lucky enough to wear out your battery this way, it will pay somewhere between 50% and 300% of the TCO of your car depending on where you live. 5% isn’t a great investment, but it also comes with a free car (and currently up to $8k ofnsubsidies not counted above).
A long way away I would guess. People will need more air conditioning during the day. Pretty much need solar on every rooftop to even begin to cover that. By making rates cheaper during the day it means demand will also go up as people run their appliances and charge their cars when rates are cheap.
Pumped hydro takes really specific geography and destroys an ecosystem to build. You really need a lake, as a river is going to have significant changes in flow from the operation. If you want a green solution pumped hydro isn’t really in the mix.
You don’t need a lake, just a hill or a hole. And the only places without a vast excess of pumped hydro resources have amazing solar and wind resource so don’t need it.
A renewable system with PHES for storage is both viable pretty much everywhere, and significantly cheaper than thermal generation. They likely won’t get built because it’s not really competitive vs batteries for short duration storage, takes a lot of time/coordination, and storage requirements are about an order of magnitude less than the fossil fuel shills are claiming.
Batteries will hit break-even with the split on peak vs off-peak electricity starting in a year or two.
Current retail consumer batteries (installation consisting of screw it to a wall and plug in three wires if you have a compatible inverter) are at around $280/kWh or 75c per kWh if you use it daily to load shift for one year. About 15c over 5 years. Halve that and anyone buying on peak electricity in a high-price area is going to be very interested in a battery rather than paying the next two quarters’ electricity bills. Quarter it (which is conceivable once sodium ion scales enough to meet utility demand) and average-price areas are looking at it real hard
EVs are hitting $1000/kWh pre-subsidy in the west or $300/kWh in china for the entire car. V2L or V2G becomes very appealing for anyone not using their car during the day.
Are you trying to tell me that easily manipulated mindless clowns flock to fringe conspiracies and bullshit pseudo-science filled snake-oil wellness programs?
I don't think she meant to mention you. OP is a mastodon user, and it automatically mentions the OP plus the person you are replying to when creating a response.
The article threw out a lot of potential reasons but the unsaid part about all of them was that they wouldn't be an issue if so many people weren't so goddamn stupid.
Isolation?
Mistrust of the government?
Poor treatment of women's health?
In all cases, it takes two parts to drive someone to conspiracy theories. A catalyst like one of the above, plus fuel of pure goddamn stupidity.
It is probably best addressed by strictly enforcing immigration laws in red states so we can see what happens. Red states rely on undocumented workers even more than blue states.
I’m sure they’re hoping it cleans the air of people telling them to “do something” about “climate change” and let them get back to giving huge giveaways to oil companies.
Seriously, I might be wrong but last I knew carbon capture tech wasn’t anywhere near good enough. How long would this thing have to run to do much as break even on the emissions building it caused?
Except that’s not what the article actually says. It says the carbon either goes to make concrete or gets pumped and stored underground. It does not get burned for energy.
There’s a lot of corporate shills in the comments, geez. I sincerely hope half of you are at least trolling in a half-assed matter, but if you’re seriously backing corporate interests, then you’ve not been in the shoes of people who’ve provided you the shit you’ve taken advantage of them over through their work. And here you are, demonizing and lecturing them over it.
they are not shill or bootlicker. they’re not backing up anybody but themselves. “if i was paid one time for my job why would they get more” the same mentality with “homeless people should just get a job” and “why would i pay for others Healthcare”. typical selfish american.
Well duh, the lower your incomr is compared to others the less of life’s pleasures their able to afford. If everyone else starts doing better then costs increase as demand rises and now I can’t afford shit.
No, it’s just ridiculous that these well-off Hollywood writers are demanding special treatment. Practically every other profession works on a salaried basis, in practically every corner of the world.
They aren’t demanding that their colleagues who work behind the scenes like the set crews, editors and support staff get residuals.
No, their motive is entirely selfish and they come off extremely entitled when they place themselves above the rest of the people who are responsible for creating a product.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.