@Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Ardubal @Sodis

One #nuclear power station will buy about a million #electric cars. Most #EVs have a 300km range but most days go <30km.

So the mean available #energy capacity of all these cars would run the #UK for 24 hours using #V2G (Vehicle to grid)

This could be a massive #car share scheme with a couple of EVs on every street

Or #electricbuses

All the energy could come from #wind or #solar and the #battery fills the gaps when there is no wind

#climate

@MattMastodon @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

A few points to factor in:

- A nuclear power station has a much longer lifetime than batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines.

- You need not only the batteries, but also the panels/turbines to fill them.

- Conversion and storage losses are significant. Attached is a rough overview for H₂.

- Transmission infrastructure costs to/from individual cars are significant.

- 24 h is not enough by far to balance out usual fluctuations.

@MattMastodon @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

Batteries are great for short term storage (Hours to Days), but the further you are from the equator, the more you need seasonal storage.

Hydrogen possibly fits part of that, if it is produced by electrolysis when wind / solar are in surplus.

Problems are:
how to store it, it leaks through most storage containers, requires vast amounts of energy to liquify and
The round trip from Electricity via H2 to Electricity is very inefficient.

@MattMastodon @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

A thought,
I wouldn’t completely write methane, LPG , or any other petrochemical, off yet, as a seasonal storage medium.

They are a lot easier to store and transport than H2.
They can be produced from green H2 + captured CO2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanation

We have a lot of existing infrastructure which can use them.

That is of course If we can produce enough surplus Solar / Wind to make them.

https://www.power-technology.com/features/eth-zurich-fuel-air-and-sunlight/

the cynic in me is wondering if this is just an excuse to rebrand fossil fuels

That’s exactly what it is. Hydrogen power plants are just trojan horses for methane. Since they can burn one as well as the other, but CH4 is much more economically convenient.

@MattMastodon @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

Without klicking anything, 61 million € is practically nothing, so I do not expect this to be a big, impactful project. It might be a nice little extra income from surplus hydro power (Norway is almost completely running on hydro).

Then looking into the links, this supports just a small fleet of up to 40 ships. Which is good.

I think it can be a good way for this niche, and it might be one little thing less to worry about.

@MattMastodon @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

Yes, shipping in general, especially long-distance, is a huge issue. But it is only solvable through economics. A solution must be at least as effective and efficient (from a business perspective) as the current dirty oil burning, /and/ significantly better at something to overcome inertia.

My bet would be #nuclear power for that: already being done for decades (mostly military though), and the environment seems ideal (no cooling issues).

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

How dependent is France on Niger's uranium?(www.lemonde.fr)

Europe

!europe@feddit.de

Rules

Community stats

Community moderators