Comment on Inspiring. Innovating.

• StarMerchant938@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I started playing around with solar just for hobbyist/emergency preparedness type stuff and it’s actually crazy how good and cheap the tech is now. With blackrock getting into the power grid business and datacenters driving up prices I’m considering investing in enough panels/batteries to run most of my daily power usage so the price hikes don’t hit as hard later on.

  source

  • davidagain@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Sound plan. I wish I had done so a decade ago before the global price hikes by the oil industry.

    source
• Lightfire228@pawb.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  The reason i discount solar is that, (i’m assuming) carbon capture requires equivalent amounts of energy that was produced by burning the hydrocarbons

  This means, we would need to produce roughly double our current energy consumption (1x to continue current consumption, 1x to carbon capture at a rate comparable to historic carbon emissions)

  Also, solar and wind are intermittent, and therefore not ideal for dealing with real-time grid demand. However, that may make them ideal for passive carbon capture

  source

  • exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Also, solar and wind are intermittent, and therefore not ideal for dealing with real-time grid demand. However, that may make them ideal for passive carbon capture

    I think that’s a huge part of the long term solution: intentionally building overcapacity so that lower production days still produce enough energy to meet needs, but especially sunny or windy days have surplus that needs to be used. If the intermittent energy surplus meets a carbon-fixing method to consume that surplus energy, then we can have carbon capture without that energy use displacing a reduction of greenhouse emissions elsewhere.

    source
  • davidagain@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Yeah carbon capture is nonsense and we just have to stop burning the carbon, it’s the only sane option.

    Wind and solar is absolutely used note for grid, and increasingly. Whoever is telling you you can’t use them for grid is telling a bare faced lie. Onshore wind being the cheapest energy isn’t theoretical. It’s practical. It’s now.

    source

    • Lightfire228@pawb.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I said

      solar and wind are intermittent and therefore not ideal for dealing with real-time grid demand

      The grid has to meet demand in real time. You can’t make the wind start blowing within a few seconds to ramp up supply, and battery technology isn’t capable of storing enough juice to handle this either

      That’s why the grid uses different power sources, each with different response times, each serving a different purpose

      • Nuclear has slow reaction time, so is used to handle the bulk of daily power
      • Then natural gas and coal have faster reaction times, and can be used to fill in as demand varies minute to minute

      source

      • davidagain@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Australia installed battery farms made from of EV batteries to cope with the discrepancies between supply and demand.

        You can’t turn the wind on when it’s calm, but you can turn wind turbines off, and solar still generates power on dull days, just less.

        Oversupply of cheap clean green energy is the win. Right wingers can fuck right off with the coal firing.

        Anyway, you could have written something more balanced from the start instead of leading with the contextless FUD like some maga nut or petrochemical shill would.

        source