• Forester@yiffit.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I’m not knocking solar. It’s a great technology. It’s just not feasible to scale to the point that we would need to scale it to sufficiently power our societies . We only recently developed the technology to make burning methane more feasible. They used to just light it off and burn it at the wells when they would tap it.

      • Forester@yiffit.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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

        • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          We could use solar (or other renewables/nuclear) to power hydrogen fuel cells, then take the energy where it’s needed.

          • Forester@yiffit.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            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.

                • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Seems like a big assumption. It could be generated in a remote area by a nuclear reactor or a renewable source.

                  • daltotron@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    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.

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              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?

              • Forester@yiffit.netOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                2 years ago

                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