• 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.

        • 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

            • 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.

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

                  Right, but that’s all current conditions, and the field is changing quickly. Legislation, technology, and increased market efficiency will resolve some of those problems.

                  I doubt many experts in the late 19th century would have predicted our current energy infrastructure, and they werent dealing with an urgent global need to reverse environmental damage.

                  The cost of inaction is very high, and humanity will be forced off of fossil fuels eventually anyway. Maybe we’ll use batteries for most portable electricity, but hydrogen will have a role.

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

                    I mean I kind of doubt that most of those problems are really surmountable in the longer term, unless maybe cryo cooling and storage becomes way cheaper in terms of price, they’re not really things that you can just like, really market innovate your way out of. Not in the same way as batteries, which we might see gain a lot in the next decade or so from solid state. Everyone banks on future technology to solve current problems to court venture capital, but we can already solve most of the problems that we’d need hydrogen for right now. We have trains, we know how to build way more, we don’t really need it for cars, and if you’re not getting your hydrogen from a “free” source like natural gas, there’s not really a reason to produce it in large quantities.