d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > How Much Closer Are They To Storing Lightning?
Prev123Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 13,222
Joined: Jan 2 2011
Gold: 17,400.00
May 1 2015 10:01am
Quote (EndlessSky @ May 1 2015 09:33am)
Our best bets are gasified biomass and nuclear energy. Solar is extremely expensive and making hydrogen with current processes also creates carbon dioxide.


thats why we gotta keep working on it the power is there from the sun just our methods of gathering it and storing it are inefficient. hydrogen again the power is there just need to better our methods,its hard to have combustion w/o co2 however the power generated would be exponentially greater compared to conventional means and pollution output would be much less so still a step forward. many parts of the world still powered by coal power plants which is messed considering the alternatives.
Member
Posts: 6,864
Joined: Jan 26 2008
Gold: 18,569.00
May 1 2015 04:50pm
Quote (EndlessSky @ May 1 2015 08:33am)
Our best bets are gasified biomass and nuclear energy. Solar is extremely expensive and making hydrogen with current processes also creates carbon dioxide.


Huh?

I had Photovoltic panels installed for FREE zero out of pocket no lease. Just agreed to buy power at .05 below my current providers cost "locked" for all the power the panels produce. how is this even remotely expensive? But I agree Nuclear is likely the best bet since solar is so shaky with clouds and Zero output at night. I spoke to a Physicist from Brookhaven labs and he said we need to better develop Fast neutron reactor design that has a tiny fraction of the risk of current models. He indicated the problem was the US navy chose the BWR design over the Fast neutron design due to the Liquid sodium used would react violently if exposed to water. Navy ships are in water....

But as far as hydrogen goes, it is a byproduct of Manufacturing Oxygen so I don't know if it would be true to rule it out due to Co2 produced in manufacturing. Realistically if Nuclear or Solar can be used to create the Hydrogen/oxygen then big Win no?

This post was edited by FullArcFG on May 1 2015 04:54pm
Member
Posts: 33,919
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
May 1 2015 11:21pm
Quote (FullArcFG @ May 1 2015 06:50pm)
Huh?

I had Photovoltic panels installed for FREE zero out of pocket no lease. Just agreed to buy power at .05 below my current providers cost "locked" for all the power the panels produce. how is this even remotely expensive? But I agree Nuclear is likely the best bet since solar is so shaky with clouds and Zero output at night. I spoke to a Physicist from Brookhaven labs and he said we need to better develop Fast neutron reactor design that has a tiny fraction of the risk of current models. He indicated the problem was the US navy chose the BWR design over the Fast neutron design due to the Liquid sodium used would react violently if exposed to water. Navy ships are in water....

But as far as hydrogen goes, it is a byproduct of Manufacturing Oxygen so I don't know if it would be true to rule it out due to Co2 produced in manufacturing. Realistically if Nuclear or Solar can be used to create the Hydrogen/oxygen then big Win no?


The solar is probably subsidized by taxes and america is currently under mountains of debt which is a bad long term cost. Solar panels also create co2 during construction. But its good to hear its becoming an option.

The cheapest way to make hydrogen currently is with the water gas shift reaction from coal-derived syngas. Hydrogen from electrolysis powered by renewable energy would be nice infrastructure but the cost per unit of h2 is very high and not very thermodynamically efficient.

Thats interesting about nuclear power though. I should look into it.
Member
Posts: 17,233
Joined: May 31 2007
Gold: 0.00
May 2 2015 12:39am
Kite and a key, son. All day.
Member
Posts: 7,721
Joined: Oct 11 2008
Gold: 304.00
May 2 2015 02:51am
Quote (FullArcFG @ May 1 2015 04:50pm)
...

Solar can be used to create the Hydrogen/oxygen then big Win no?


That's the holy grail of chemistry
Member
Posts: 1,503
Joined: Mar 12 2005
Gold: 13.30
May 2 2015 12:27pm
Quote (Blacjac91 @ 2 May 2015 01:39)
Kite and a key, son. All day.


kaboom
Member
Posts: 5,414
Joined: May 10 2006
Gold: 441.90
May 28 2015 04:24pm
I still think hydro is the surest thing. We should really harness that constant movement.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
May 29 2015 06:01am
Quote (saber_x3 @ May 2 2015 02:51am)
That's the holy grail of chemistry


No, the holy grail of renewable chemistry right now is solid hydrogen storage as metal hydrides as far as renewables is concerned. Making hydrogen from electricity is trivial, even from using photo oxidizing metals isn't that big of a deal.
Member
Posts: 7,721
Joined: Oct 11 2008
Gold: 304.00
May 29 2015 02:43pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ May 29 2015 06:01am)
No, the holy grail of renewable chemistry right now is solid hydrogen storage as metal hydrides as far as renewables is concerned. Making hydrogen from electricity is trivial, even from using photo oxidizing metals isn't that big of a deal.


Yes, it is fairly simple, but nowhere near efficient/cheap enough. I don't think the problem is hydrogen storage, but rather still hydrogen evolution.
Member
Posts: 30,432
Joined: Dec 28 2010
Gold: 134.69
May 29 2015 05:11pm
Quote (EndlessSky @ May 1 2015 08:33am)
Our best bets are gasified biomass and nuclear energy. Solar is extremely expensive and making hydrogen with current processes also creates carbon dioxide.


bill nye: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDdPk0-SDmI
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev123Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll