Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "Two Bit da Vinci"
channel.
-
5
-
3
-
3
-
@iareid8255 Have you seen how little wind has been generated this yera fo instamnce?
1590TWh this year worldwide or around 6% of the worlds electricity generation. This while wind in many places is not or barely being rolled out. 3/4th of the current wind production is in China, EU27 and the US and in these nations they are still rolling out wind too. Wind (and renewables in general) is only just starting to become a mainstream part of the grid overall.
Solar is the worst of all renewable generation, particularly the higher the latitude in which it is installed.
Solar is fine up untill maybe 55° latitude, ofcourse it is way more efficient in the lower latitudes. As for higher than that, wind is a great generation tool (it is used in the antarctic for example), Denmark already gets a lot of electricity from the wind (46% and 4% from solar) and can get a lot more. Norway gets almost all its electricity from hydro, Sweden for now gets 51% of their power from hydro and wind, Finland gets around 12% from wind currently (still growing every year) and 23% from hydro.
If really necessary these more northern countries can use nuclear reactors, or import energy from further south using HVDC lines.
It provides power for a limited time and often none when it is most required.
Which is why storage is needed. Also a shift in consumption can help, for example heating/cooling can be done mostly during the day when there is an overproduction of solar.
Therefor there has to be 100% capacity in alternative generation plant.
Not when there is enough storage, which is why it is so important for renewable generation.
Availabilty fcators for solar in teh U.K. is about 10%, pitifully low.
This only increases how many solar panels we need. And while northern Europe isn't well placed for solar, it is overall good for wind. European nations will go to a wind-energy electricity economy, with maybe here or there some nuclear power.
Also, technically it is asynchronous which means it is uncontrollable, a grid can only absorb so much and remain stable.
Again, storage is key.
battery storage has been overhyped. It is not an answer to intermittency as the capacity required is far too great to compensate.
This is completely untrue, even just Li-ion batteries could overtime suffice, ofcourse there are better options for gridstorage, like possibly the liquid metal from this video, or the redox flow batteries, or a number of other batteries being researched. Not to mention non-battery storage possibilities like LAES or hydrogen (bad efficiency though, so a last resort).
what is not readily appreciated is that storage requires extra generation capacity for it to work
10-20% depending on the battery type, absolute worst case 30%.
If you take an installation for a private dwelling and run it free of grid tie, I would expect that it would cost a lot more than drawing from the grid
This depends on location, things like solar efficiency, grid price, ... For example people in the lower part of the US or Australia are likely better of with a selfsufficient system, this not only costs less for them, but also makes them selfreliant. Here in Belgium it for example isn't worth, though maybe if grid prices were 10-15 cent/kWh higher, it might and with reducing battery costs (possibly halving by 2030) and solar panel costs, it might become a no brainer in the future, even here. In the south of Europe, I already could see it being interesting.
even at inflated prices due to renewables.
The inflated prices are actually limited and will overtime dissapear. These prices were higher because renewables were more expensive, currently solar and wind is equal or cheaper than most sources, the main problem being the cost of storage/management without enough storage.
It would need to be of sufficient capacity to run the elctrical needs of the dwelling for 365 days of the year and have the power needed available at all times.
In most places this is not a problem, only depends on cost, storage being the main factor. Solar for most houses under 55° north could probably already be sufficient with +-10kWp heating not included, more or less 10-15k euro, or around 10-15 years of ROI (while the panels are expected to last for 25-30 years or more). The necessary battery is likely something like 10-12kWh for 5-8k. Within 10 years the combination can be around 10-12k in total, more than low enough to earn back the investment
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mordokch
the reality is that when combining the power station emissions with the serious damage done in the manufacturing processes involved in ev battery production, plus the problems of disposal and subsequent toxification of the planet caused by said end of life battery disposal, there isn't much, if any benefit in over all real terms.
Completely wrong.
For one, these power stations can be those that emit much less pollutants than ice cars, like renewables and nuclear.
Secondly, while battery production is more polluting, it makes up for that in a few years.
Thirdly, once enough resources are in the battery life cycle, most batteries will be produced using recycled resources, seriously bringing down the impact of battery manufacturing.
Fourth, these batteries are almost completely recyclable, especially regarding the rarer minerals, that is precisely what this video is about. So no toxification of the planet at end of life (how can it toxicate the planet btw if we first get it out of the planet, I guess you mean environment rather than planet).
and when further coupled to the severe inconvenience of battery technology
That is your personal opinion. Many would find the ability to charge at home or in the future while going to the store quite convenient. Only during longer trips should you fast charge for 30 minutes or so (and this time will reduce overtime). As for the range, even now it is quite suited for most people, though many people look more at the occasional longer trips do decide how much range they want.
yes they explode and burn rather easily
Actually, no they don't, it is just that everytime this happens, it ends up in the news. In reality BEV experience less fires per mile than ice cars. Though it is true that fires from batteries are usually more intense and they require a different way of dealing with.
Anyone who could really be called an 'expert' in such matters knows that Hydrogen is the only viable way to go, but it's far less profitable so
So much wrong about this sentence. Hydrogen is not a good alternative for personal transport at all, it is way too costly and much more cumbersome than EV's. The reasons most automanufacturers have dropped it is simply because it doesn't have a future on the road except for maybe trucking or very niche applications. Also how is hydrogen less profitable according to you?
no charge time - just fill up and go
Except if the pumps need to repressurize, then you can wait some time. And ofcourse the station needs to be fueled up enough and work properly. And during daily driving you just charge you EV at home, for hydrogen you need to go to the actual station, losing yourself time (and no people won't just be able to do it on the way. Hydrogen stations are so expensive you'll see much less of them compared to gasoline stations or fast chargers.
The infrastructure already exists in the form of regular fuel stations, it is a relatively simple matter to install the necessary equipment to dispense hydrogen instead of petroleum, so that's just a non issue.
No, it doesn't exist yet. Except for the ground you can use almost nothing of a regular fueling station for a hydrogen station. You need different tanks, pumps, pressurisation equipment, ... Any fueling station that needs to be revamped to a hydrogen station needs a complete overhaul. This is actually one of the largest issues, a hydrogen fuel station is crazy expensive compared to fast charging points or even just regular fuel stations (around 3 times more expensive). This is exactly one of the reason hydrogen will have great difficulty getting mainstream (even if we ignore the other problems). People won't invest such a large amount of money in a hydrogen station without a guarantee it won't be wasted, ie. there already need to be enough hydrogen cars on the road. However people won't buy hydrogen cars at all unless there are enough hydrogen cars. So you have the chicken and the egg problem. This wasn't the case for EV's that could/can charge at many homes even if there isn't enough other infrastructure yet. The only ones investing in hydrogen fuel stations currently are car manufacturers that have already invested a lot in hydrogen cars, like Toyota.
Of course, hydrogen being literally the most common gas in the universe doesn't hurt it's prospects as an alternative fuel
It might be the most common in the universe, it isn't the most common on earth. All hydrogen we use, we need to produce from something else here using power.
look more closely at this battery recycling story being told in this vid - these people have been outed, and their claims well and truly debunked already
Except they haven't been debunked as of yet, despite receiving some attention. The way you look at is exactly the same way people thought that these wireless phones wouldn't amount to anything and were just a rich scam.
using solar to charge and use a car is only somewhat viable in places with a lot of sunlight, and I do mean a lot.
Not true at all. People don't use up their entire battery every day. Most people would only use maybe 10kW of power daily, possibly even less. Ofcourse you need the necessary solar panels, which not everyone can, but many do are able to get it. It depends on situation to situation obviously.
Of course most car usage occurs during the day when you would need to be charging them, so the only way is to store energy from solar until you need it, ie at night, ie in batteries - more batteries.
This I can understand, which is why using your own solar panels to charge your car can only happen with an extra house battery, working from home or during weekend days. In other words it is situational. However most cars or stationary for most of the days, thus if they are plugged in during that time they can charge during the day from the grid with power derived from solar panels.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@phylismaddox4880
Because Germany tried to appease competing segments of its green movement
This is the problem in your argumentation, the anti-nuclear movement is much more than the green movement. The political decision to close the nuclear plants was specifically to avoid non-green supporters/movement who are anti-nuclear from going to the green party just because of their anti-nuclear stance. If it were just the green movement, the green party would have dominated the last decade of German politics (or at least the elections at the time) regardless of the nuclear decision.
irrationality convinced that wind and solar could work at the grid scale
Except it can work, even today. However if you want to do it today it would become prohibitively expensive (100% renewable would be around double the cost of 100% nuclear). However within 10 years from now a pure renewable grid is a possibility. There are at this moment multiple types of grid storage coming up with test/prototype and first operational plants in many different countries around the world which promise to be in the right cost level. Even just Li-ion is expected to drop enough in price within the next 10 years to be viable (though not prefered due to better suited to other applications/limited amount).
Closing the reactors is a stupid decision regardless, I definitely agree on that. However whether they remained open or not, it wouldn't have changed the renewable roll-out most likely and it would definitely not have changed the amount of NG being used today. What would have happened is that they would have caused other baseload plants, ie. coal to be closed down instead (which would have been a good thing).
As it is now, NG in power production is around the same as it was 10 years ago, so the decision to close the powerplants didn't affect it, since it were the upcoming renewables that filled up the slack from the nuclear powerplants. After that NG use went down thanks to the growth of renewables, and then went back up as coal powerplants were getting closed (with NG being cleaner than coal and all that).
So the decision to close them was stupid because you couldn't close coal plants instead of it, however without renewables NG use would have remained the same or even increased, so choosing renewables was a great decision.
To close, if I am correct, power production only accounts for 10% of Germany's NG use anyway. Most of it is used in industry and households (for heating/cooking). If I am wrong, please correct me.
1
-
1