Comment

Comment on why is fossil fuel still used?

Because we don’t need to generate the energy, therefore it’s got a cost advantage, even though the true cost of it is that it contributes massively to climate problems.

That is: batteries must be charged, the plants to make biofuels must absorb solar energy for at least half a year to have energy present, the solar panels to power the grid must sit and soak up that energy, generators must be physically turned for hydro.

the only things that have pre-existing energy that we just “tap for free” are oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear.

the best track for us to go on is to go for 3rd or 4th gen nuclear, and sodium ion batteries, imo. Solar is a close second. Hydro would be up there, but it’s too disruptive ecologically.

source

Sort:hotnew top

blarghly@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
I wouldn’t attach myself to any particular battery tech - the field is innovating too rapidly.

Solar and nuclear can go hand in hand. Solar is great because the amout of potential harvestable power is massive - the trick is producing panels, connecting them to the grid, transmission, load balancing, and storage.

Wind is nice right now, as it is a relatively untapped resource. But we’ll run out of windy places far faster than sunny places.

Hydro is ecologically destructive, but has an even bigger problem, which is that we have already picked a lot of the low hanging fruit. Good locations for dams are difficult to find, and we’ve already found most of them and dammed many of them. We would rapidly face diminishing returns. Plus, silt is always a looming problem.

Though, the real solution is to simply tax carbon.

source
- bastion@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  Agreed all around, with one caveat.
  
  On chemistry - Sodium Ion is a pretty solid bet for many reasons - material availability, energy density by weight, longevity (for some chemistries - others are only comparable to lithium), low-temperature operation for charge and discharge, cost, power (charge and discharge speed)… Also, it’s ecologically sound, in comparison with any other battery tech out there currently, and it’s at the beginning of it’s innovation arc. Also, it’s a tech heavily invested in by China, which has already spurred competition in other countries.
  
  I’ll be attaching myself to that chemistry here in the next couple years to the tune of what I expect to be about ~$8k for about 50kwh of battery, as I’ll need a bank of them for my place soon that can handle quite a few days without sunlight while running a modest workshop and basic home needs. I might need to go larger than that, but… …energy storage isn’t cheap, and I can add to at at any time, unlike with lead acid storage.
  
  source
Talos@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
These are misconceptions, or rather a bit out of date.

Wind and solar are much cheaper than fossil fuels now. Significantly cheaper.

And is an old school investment bank presenting this information.

Even for running a car, using solar-produced electricity is a fraction of the cost of gasoline; gas is 3-5x more expensive.

And nuclear is not anywhere near as cheap as wind or solar unfortunately, although we haven’t put much effort into making it more efficient for a few decades now so that might change.

source
- bastion@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  Solar is, on a consumer level, possibly more cheap than gas for a car now, in many areas. But more is actually done with oil->gasoline framework, including plastics and chemicals which would all need to be developed into new processes. I don’t disagree that we need to replace these, but oil is literally free energy, and it’s a substance with a lot of uses.
  
  And that fact is one of the big reasons that oil is so hard to compete with - it is literally energy we do not have to generate. All other forms of energy we must actually capture the natural energy flow. In oil, it has already been captured - we’re burning biomatter from years long gone. That’s what makes it hard to compete with. Although, the competition is getting better, and that’s good.
  
  as far as the costs for a vehicle go - I actually live on solar, with a very cost effective system at $25k, 14kw.
  
  If I had an electric car and drove 15k miles per year, I’d need up that system by 11kw at least. That’s adding about $20k to that system.
  
  Where I am, gas is cheaper tha than $3/gallon, but let’s say it’s $3/gallon.
  
  at 30mpg gasoline, that’s about $1500. At 30mpge, with my lower-than-average system costs, that’s $2000. …and that’s not including maintenance and repair to that system.
  
  Sure, there are a ton of other factors to take into account, both for and against. But electric is no clear winner from a personal-benefit perspective - particularly when you take cold weather into account for lithium batteries, and the inability to resolve an out-of-fuel situation easily. Sure, there are services. …maybe. depending where you are. But, it’s far from ideal for a lot of people.
  
  anyways - no, nuclear is definitely not as cheap, but it provides baseline power, which is critical. only alternatives there are fossil fuels, geothermal, and hydro. But the main draw for 3rd and 4th gen nuclear is how low-impact and environmentally friendly it can be, while still providing base load power.
  
  source
  - bluemoon@piefed.social ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    fossil isn’t free if the profit is considered in climate not just currency. so fossil is like a no-go-zone until we/later generationd dip back down
    
    source
    bastion@feddit.nl ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    yes. this is why we’re all here discussing alternative energy and fossil fuels. But ignoring you’re enemies’ strengths is not exactly the smoothest move.
    
    source