/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #10675036

207KiB, 1166x547, Screen-Shot-2018-12-24-at-9.15.49-AM.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Easiest, cheapest, road to energy carbon neutrality

Anonymous Sun 26 May 20:03:42 2019 No.10675036 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>10675045 >>10675567

Easiest, cheapest, road to energy carbon neutrality is to just build an overcapacity of solar and wind and then use less efficient but cheap energy storage like thermal storage in molten salt.
Convince me otherwise.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO succ.jpg, 265KiB, 1434x1076

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 20:07:38 No.10675045 Report

Quoted By: >>10675337 >>10675406 >>10675542

>>10675036
1. Suck CO2 out of air, turn it into hydrocarbons, very little input is required after the solvents are made for the first time as they can be reused
2. Crack and sip as your duck curve gets BTFO by the permanent form of energy storage known as chemical bonds and little to no infrastructure change is necessary

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 22:22:19 No.10675337 Report

Quoted By: >>10675346 >>10675398

>>10675045
Dumb for a variety of reasons. One being the massive inefficiency and another being that energy can be stored without losing energy over time by driving a train up a hill and parking it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 22:26:17 No.10675346 Report

Quoted By: >>10675351

>>10675337
Yes it is inefficient but efficiency is not what truly matters. What truly matters is cost in $$. It is cheaper to over build capacity and store it inefficiently like this than pretty much any alternative we have.

Gravitational potential systems are much more expensive to build.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 22:27:51 No.10675351 Report

Quoted By: >>10675357

>>10675346
>Dirt and rails are more expensive than the energy lost to inefficiencies
You have to be 18 to post here

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 22:32:30 No.10675357 Report

Quoted By: >>10675365

>>10675351
I'm way older than you and you fundamentally misunderstand my point.

Energy efficiency is typically a proxy for lifetime cost, but in this case it is not and you fail to realize that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 22:37:09 No.10675365 Report

Quoted By: >>10675372

>>10675357
>Imagine being this retarded
You will undoubtedly lose more money in energy costs turning CO2 into methanol, or methane, or whatever route you think is prettiest, compared to the installation and maintenance costs of a railway energy storage system which operates around 85% efficiency

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 22:45:35 No.10675372 Report

Quoted By: >>10675449

>>10675365
Where are you going to build your railways?
And gravity based systems aren't that great because you need a metric fuck ton of mass to make it work. Hydroworks but hydro dams are fucking massive.
Your railway will store an absolute pitiful amount of energy.

Also just for the record, your shit idea never got any funding. Whereas what I'm talking about is an actual product being developed and tested right this very minute.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 22:59:25 No.10675398 Report

Quoted By: >>10675400

>>10675337
It's still more efficient than thermal storage.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 23:01:19 No.10675400 Report

Quoted By:

>>10675398
The goal is not energy efficiency. Sick of repeating myself. My OP was clear enough already.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 23:02:56 No.10675406 Report

Quoted By: >>10675413

>>10675045
Have thermodynamics classes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 23:05:22 No.10675413 Report

Quoted By:

>>10675406
>replying to the obvious troll
WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 23:21:23 No.10675449 Report

Quoted By: >>10675462

>>10675372
>He doesn't know where to find hills
>He doesn't know how much dirt weights
I already said you have to be 18 to post here

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 23:26:14 No.10675462 Report

Quoted By: >>10675470

>>10675449
>all countries have easily accessible hills
>physics illiterate retard does not realize that energy storage is based on energy potential that is based on force which in the case of gravity is very weak, which is why you need massive amounts of mass to make it work
>fucking retard things that a coal train is at all comparable to a hydrodam

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 23:31:02 No.10675470 Report

Quoted By: >>10675484 >>10675504

>>10675462
>Doubling down on retardation
A single train car full of dirt weighs 17 metric tons. You would be able to calculate this if you were capable of highschool math. If you don't have access to a hill (everyone does) then just fucking build it. You'll still come out way ahead in terms of both cost and energy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 23:38:35 No.10675484 Report

Quoted By: >>10675495

>>10675470
Not the anon you were talking to but chemical energy storage is more efficient than gravitational potential energy storage. Plus you can continue to use combustion engines during the intermediate stages to switching to electric vehicles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 23:43:41 No.10675495 Report

Quoted By:

>>10675484
Its not. There are no processes that store 85% of the energy in their bonds and even if you could store 100% of that energy you'd lose at least 1/3 of it converting it back to usable energy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 23:51:18 No.10675504 Report

Quoted By: >>10675508

>>10675470
Which is fucking nothing.
17000kg * 10m2 * 1500m ~= 71kwh.
That's fucking nothing.
The average daily consumption of an American is 32kwh so cofuckinggrats, you have enough energy for two Americans for a day.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 May 2019 23:53:59 No.10675508 Report

Quoted By: >>10675520

>>10675504
>Trains only have one car
>Stations only have one train
>100% of energy consumed must be stored
Are you high?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 May 2019 00:00:38 No.10675520 Report

Quoted By: >>10675527

>>10675508
I misread but it still doesn't work. It only grows linearly...

Let's say 500 cars to be generous. So now it's 1000 Americans. Now let's say it's only needed at night. So now it's 2000 Americans.
That's still nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 May 2019 00:05:01 No.10675527 Report

Quoted By: >>10675528 >>10675531

>>10675520
>It only grows linearly...
Compared to a linear process that wastes several times more energy so that you can lose most of it to heat? This is a non-issue.

Where are you going to get all the extra energy to make your fuel?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 May 2019 00:05:31 No.10675528 Report

Quoted By: >>10675542 >>10675565

>>10675527
Thermal heat storage grows with volume, not linearly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 May 2019 00:06:32 No.10675531 Report

Quoted By: >>10675542 >>10675565

>>10675527
What fuel? We are talking about molten salt thermal heat storage.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 May 2019 00:09:21 No.10675542 Report

Quoted By: >>10675553 >>10675565

>>10675528
>>10675531
See
>>10675045

Also thermal storage has terrible efficiency for anything but thermal energy. If you aren't heating homes you're losing most of that energy to waste heat in your turbines

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 May 2019 00:12:14 No.10675553 Report

Quoted By: >>10675570

>>10675542
That is a troll. Ignore him.

>Also thermal storage has terrible efficiency for anything but thermal energy. If you aren't heating homes you're losing most of that energy to waste heat in your turbines
Yes, but my point is that you can make up for it, by building lots of capacity and it's all much cheaper to build than any other solution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 May 2019 00:15:54 No.10675565 Report

Quoted By:

>>10675528
>>10675531
>>10675542
Expanding on this. I like fluidized beds for thermal energy storage more than molten salt or other schemes. They're small, energy dense, and the energy can be accessed much more quickly than other forms of thermal storage

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 May 2019 00:19:20 No.10675567 Report

Quoted By:

>>10675036
Thermal physics is a meme epistemology.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 May 2019 00:22:15 No.10675570 Report

Quoted By:

>>10675553
I think the extra solar energy you would need for this to work would push the costs up compared to a more efficient storage method, but I haven't done the math to back that up.

Tangentially related: I like the idea of collecting heat from roads in the summer and pumping hot coolant from the turbines of energy companies through in the winter to melt snow and increase the efficiency of energy production

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches