Comment on Grid-Scale Bubble Batteries Will Soon Be Everywhere
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 1 day agoThats not what this is regardless of what you’d personally like it to be.
Comment on Grid-Scale Bubble Batteries Will Soon Be Everywhere
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 1 day agoThats not what this is regardless of what you’d personally like it to be.
amino@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
As per Energy Dome
these people are straight-up lying, how can CO2 be “eco-friendly” when all its industrial extraction processes involve fossil fuels as a source? notice how they didn’t mention who their gas supplier is? that’s because it would out them and their lies.
it’s impossible to buy gas turbines without ultimately funding the fossil fuel giants. also let’s not ignore the environmental catastrophe that would happen if these were deployed en masse and a corruption scandal like the Beirut port explosion happened.
it’s also not lost on me that this company is willing to contract with Xinjiang companies, despite the genocide that China is comitting there.
it’s concerning whenever Google gets excited about a new energy solution because we all know how they treat the environment around their data centers. if deployed, they’d use the hot breath bubbles to excuse their seemingly infinite energy consumption increase in order to keep the AI bubble from popping. this is carbon credits all over again, they’ll use the CO2 to deploy more methane gas turbines because these would “cancel them out”.
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You understand this isnt about a new way to generate electricity right? This is about a new way to store it. The CO2 is in a CLOSED LOOP system meaning its not going to be leaching into the atmosphere. The issue with many renewables is they can’t operate well in swings. Thats why electricity price is constantly fluctuating, because the demand is. So a sustainable way to store renewable generated energy will be able to accommodate those swings in demand in a way plain solar panels/wind/hydro alone can’t. The CO2 is likely harvested directly from the atmosphere. Once the battery has X amount of CO2 it no longer needs more because again, its a closed loop.
lightnsfw@reddthat.com 1 day ago
What makes you think that? I just did a little googling and didn’t find a source that commercial co2 comes from the air. The best case scenario I found was it being a byproduct of other processes. Although I’m doing this on my phone so maybe I missed something.
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 1 day ago
A process called DAC (Direct Air Capture) is currently used on medium scale to do this. Other instances in which they obtain CO2 is by capturing byproduct of industrial processes or power plants. Again though, and I dont think this is sinking in, it is a closed loop system. So, once enough CO2 is captured, thats all that battery will ever need. Its not using new fuel to create more co2 it’s taking a specific amount from currently available, filling the battery ONCE then process over. You didn’t adress anything else I said.
amino@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
yeah, sure thing buddy. the CO2 will be in a closed loop until it won’t. just like Fukushima and Chernobyl were supposed to be closed loop systems, until they weren’t. disasters happen, no matter how much the techbro mindset insists that they’re impossible.
LMAO, the audacity of telling me I don’t know how electricity generation works when you don’t even know how to read. they’re using industrial CO2 derived from fossil fuels
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
So you concern is the ecological impact should this bubble fail and the entirety of the CO2 is released to the atmosphere as pollution? Did you even read the article? They discuss that.
First, a full on failure would be rare. Then, a full on failure of 100% loss of the closed loop CO2 is equivalent to 15 round trip flights of a jet flying from New York to London. To put it in perspective there about 250+ flights of this length per day from London, with many being much much farther.
So you’re comparing the impacts of a once in a lifetime nuclear power plant failure to the impacts of another source 1/16th of something that already happens every in one airport. Your logic is why out of whack on this if this is your concern with the bubble.
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 1 day ago
So you’re against nuclear power too?
XeroxCool@lemmy.world 1 day ago
What’s your plan that doesn’t utilize the existing fossil fuel industry at all to go cold turkey on oil and full throttle on renewable?
amino@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
subsidize energy storage solutions that aren’t as economically profitable as fossil fuels. like thermal batteries, pumped hydro, etc.
most people don’t need that much energy during the night, so that is a red herring from the energy companies. the reason why we need this much storage in the first place is because of the infinite growth mindset instead of making industrialists pay for their own shit when they’re consuming energy in a race to the bottom. if we banned all the slop products from being made, energy demand would go down exponentially.
in a worst case scenario, we could 100% only rely on renewables and deal with the fact that we’ll have power outages during sleeping hours. that pill would be much easier to swallow if everyone is sharing the same burden, like during the lockdowns. and for the disabled people that need electricity to stay alive, give them refurbished EV batteries for free, there’s already more of them on the market than we could use in a lifetime. same thing for hospitals and essential institutions
XeroxCool@lemmy.world 1 day ago
OK, so you don’t have fossil-fuel-free solutions, either, and you don’t have a reasonable plan to handle night time energy needs. You specifically said that utilizing fossil fuels at all was an issue, including for production of renewable, with the claim about not being able to source a turbine without fossil fuel use. It sounds like you don’t understand that “night” happens during normal human waking hours, that there are actual activities and demand for energy specifically at night, and that there is no direct path to a fossil-fuel-free energy solution. I have no idea how subsidizing alternates erases fossil fuels for your idea.
Its the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere and I have 8.5 hours of daylight today. That’s about 4 hours of decent solar production without clouds, since the sun is so low. I guess I’ll just try sleeping, without electric heat (since CNG is a fossil and solar is dormant), for 14 hours tonight from dusk to dawn (5pm-7am). Wait, solar panels are still using fossil fuels for production, so those are out. Is a wood stove OK? It’s renewable, but it’s a major CO2 burden, much worse than CNG. Can’t mine lithium or nuclear material with the existing industry, all runs on petroleum. I’m not sure if life is worth living, as every waking hour has been spent at work, using the small time frame to try to support myself financially.
This also means no activity can occur at night. No manufacturing? Triple the facility sizes to allow the “night time” morning shift and the “night time” late night shift to operate with the daytime shift. Can’t go anywhere, can’t entertain myself, can’t eat, can’t enjoy anything other than lying in the dark, waiting for the sun to come back. That’s weird, putting all the overnight demand in the daytime is causing brownouts because we couldn’t triple our energy production. But hey, the burden is being shared and we’re all miserable for 5 straight months. But the summer will be rad with only demanding 8 hours of dormancy.
Look at the project. It’s not a continuous production of CO2. It says this one contains 2,000 tonnes of CO2 and produces 200MWh/day. A CNG power plant is somewhere in the range of 0.5kg CO2/kWh. That’s 10,000kg CO2 from CNG for 20MWh, or 10 tonnes. In just 200 days, a CNG plant of the same capacity will produce as much CO2 as this entire facility contains.
Bashing innovative projects like this for being anything less than a time machine to go pure nuclear actively hurts progress. Is that your goal? To maintain the status quo?
Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Oh, I understand now, you live in a pretend world of idealistic ignorance. Thats not now ebs and flows of energy demand work. You shouldn’t participate in a conversation if you 1. Don’t understand realisticly how the subject works 2. Are so biased against the reality of the situation you make completely insane attempts to justify your ideas.
acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 day ago
good luck with that in winter.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Nuclear, in the 1970s. We should have had molten salt reactors worldwide by the 1990s, but the US just sat on the tech, because of permit issues. If I could, I would take all the research that was done on MSRs by the end of the 1970s to then Captain Rickover in 1950.