- Apr 2, 2007
- No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
- 11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
That too isn't supported by the data, we're net exporting electricity every year. For example, in 2018 we've net exported over 50 billion kWh (about one Switzerland, Greece, or Portugal) while generating about 650 billion kWh... the last time we were a net importer was in 2002 when we net imported 0.7 billion kWh. In fact, the last few years were the biggest in net exports as far back as I have data.Can't read German, is this chart only showing domestic German power production, or the source of German power consumption? I was under the impression the nuclear shutdown caused them to import greater amounts of power from surrounding countries that was indeed coal-generated.
For those still worried about nuclear waste, the total volume of nuclear waste produced since nuclear power was invented takes up a tiny fraction of the volume of coal that is mined annually. Yes, it may be radioactive for thousands if not millions of years, but are you trying to tell me there isn't a massively deep hole miles from anywhere that couldn't be repurposed for the completely safe storage of that material?
Enough energy hits this planet in the form of solar radiation for the whole world's energy needs. We just need to focus more on harnessing more of it, but in some cases, such as that of aircraft or large container ships, battery power just isn't viable. The nuclear option is certainly viable for shipping.
There is actually a massive amount of proof for that but that's beside the point. We can actually scrub CO2 from atmo and turn it into some useful shit so that's not a massive issue even with continued use of liquid fuels.still no concrete proof that this trend is caused in part or in full by the amount of CO2 that is entering the atmosphere.
If the idea is to be carbon neutral (leaving out other types of pollution for now) they can run on biodiesel just as well as the type that comes from the ground. I also remember seeing something about using massive sails to use less fuel.I'd love to hear from anyone on this forum or anywhere else for that matter who can present a realistic way to achieve that other than using nuclear propulsion like the US carrier fleet.
Unfortunately, yes. However, they have been heavily investing in clean renewables.I agree with your position, but didn't Germany have fully functioning nuclear plants they decided to shut down a few years ago for flimsy reasons? They're changing alright, just in the wrong direction.
Yes but with an expanding population you get into the food vs fuel conflict. We are already clearing too much forest to make way for agriculture when we should be planting more trees to help absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere.If the idea is to be carbon neutral (leaving out other types of pollution for now) they can run on biodiesel just as well as the type that comes from the ground. I also remember seeing something about using massive sails to use less fuel.
The actual project I had in mind because it's local: https://www.heiderefinery.com/en/press/press-detail/kerosyn100-taking-to-the-skies-with-green-fuel/Now that's the kind of news and idea that should be more widely shared. Got a link?
Sure, but we throw away a lot of energy. One could easily have a Nuclear plant generate hydrogen at off peak hours since Nuclear reactors don't have the response time to adjust their power output keep up with market demands. For renewables, it is often the case that a wind or solar farm might encounter an unforeseen wind current or sunny day, but if the grid isn't buy energy from said farms due to miscalculated weather patterns on their part, they could easily generate hydrogen and sell it later.Energy density means you don't have to carry as much fuel, but when you have to produce 200% of your actual energy use it doesn't play much of a role.
But then you are losing even more energy with all the conversions, what would really be the point? Might as well burn hydrocarbons directly.Hydrogen storage is solved by not storing hydrogen. See above (16:24Z) for a more detailed explanation, with a little more energy you can turn hydrogen and carbon into liquid hydrocarbons to transport and store like you transport and store petrol.
The point is that you're inserting electricity into the process at the beginning, not fossil fuels. That electricity could be nuclear, renewable, pedalbikists, whatever.But then you are losing even more energy with all the conversions, what would really be the point? Might as well burn hydrocarbons directly.