I can’t wait until they makes these no cost, low-maintenance, and self-replacing. Oh man, just think of how easy it would be to fix our climate issues!

  • Lightfire228@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 days 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

    • exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days 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.

    • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days 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.

      • Lightfire228@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days 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

        I never said solar and wind cannot be added to the grid

        • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days 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.