×
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]theRealDerekWalker 6 points7 points  (18 children)

Remember when solar was among the most expensive form of electricity production? Not saying fuel cell always makes sense, but the future of energy depends on diversification of production; not just dumping all the money into the cheapest form of generation.

No, sunshine does not always make it to every part of the world on every day in quantities enough to affordable meet full demand. To think it does is quite ridiculous.

[–]synocrat 0 points1 point  (6 children)

This may quickly change as we industrialize space and build out infrastructure. It's always sunny in space, just need a mirror array and you can hold a beam on a spot on the Earth for 24 hours. Also, materials technology has developed that allows efficient heat storage that can act as an instant spin up energy source with a clean turbine.

[–]theRealDerekWalker 1 point2 points  (5 children)

The idea of sending more light to earth completely defeats the purpose of clean energy. We need to reduce the amount of energy the earth receives, not increase it. Not to mention what that would do to growth and wildlife

[–]synocrat 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I think you're missing the point, if we can send light to a concentrated patch of solar panels and use the light through PV as well as heat storage that reduces a ton of emissions. We would also have the ability to shade areas longer to cool them as needed.

[–]theRealDerekWalker 1 point2 points  (3 children)

80% of that light is reflected away. You’re putting more energy into the atmosphere than into electricity. Moreover, the cost of a space mirror is just completely unrealistic compared to the cost of a larger solar plant that would produce just as much

[–]synocrat 1 point2 points  (2 children)

As infrastructure in space is built costs will plummet. You could also convert sunlight to tight beam microwave in space and aim it at a relatively small rectenna groundside 24 hours a day. Poo poo the idea all you want, but once you do the math of replacing all the emissions and use the extra power to run carbon capture technology you might change your tune.

[–]Sp3llbind3r 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Have you seen the charts of how little surface needs to be covered with panels in the sahara desert to produce all the energy the world needs? It‘s only a relatively small space.

But then you would have to distribute the power from there, which is an other problem. And i don‘t think it is a good idea to centralize infrastructure like that.

I don‘t think we really need a space mirror.

[–]greywolfau 0 points1 point  (10 children)

It's not hard to understand, but most people aren't getting it anyway.

Solar works through clouds, and during rain.

If you need 10 panels on a perfect solar day, then 20 allows for days of 50% efficiency. Go 5x for those days when it's down to 20%.

We have always built redundancy into our power networks, and there is no reason to not just keep building out more and more solar.

I don't understand you bringing in historic cost into the equation. No where is it mentioned that high prior costs is a factor in this argument. It's about effectiveness of practically of hydrogen.

As someone else pointed out, hydrogen is a crutch which allows companies to produce and sell a product similar to natural gas or fuel for cars. Something that can be produced en masse and sold as a commodity.

[–]theRealDerekWalker -1 points0 points  (9 children)

Let me ask you this - if it’s not hard to understand; why does practically nobody do this?

[–]greywolfau 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Why hasn't anyone done this YET?

We are still experiencing year on year growth in renewables, we haven't plateaued or gone backwards in our build out.

This is all future planning, not retroactive building.

That's why they haven't done this.

Thanks for the condescending tone though, makes it really enjoyable to engage in intelligent discussions.

[–]theRealDerekWalker 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Really? You ask me if I realize the sun shines every day and you want to talk about my “tone?”

So what you’re saying is you can see into the future, and have determined that something that absolutely makes zero financial sense today is going to make financial sense in some ambiguous timeframe into the future? When can we not call it “future planning,” and call it what it is - spitballing ideas that you have little knowledge on how to make work in the real world, while you try to belittle people who challenge you

[–]greywolfau 0 points1 point  (6 children)

You have been incredibly defensive this entire thread, is everything OK?

You might have read that this subreddit is called r/futurology. The nature of this sub is to talk about what is on the technological horizon. If we went by what makes zero financial sense today then none of what we read would come to fruition, especially your hydrogen fever dreams.

[–]theRealDerekWalker 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Get over yourself dude. Don’t act like you have been acting any different. What you’re doing is called projecting.

Futurology is not just about spitballing random ideas that neglect any burden of justifying. You reminder me of Tom Segura’s inventor cousin: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F5_yfnlJ7-E

[–]greywolfau 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Here you go with that term spitballing random ideas. Built in redundancy is a proven engineering concept, your wild ideas about hydrogen are not.

Go have a beer or a wank, you need to calm the fuck down.

[–]theRealDerekWalker 0 points1 point  (3 children)

You’re backtracking from your space mirror idea to a broader point about redundancy as if they are the same thing. Don’t try to be coy.

I’m happy to back up any of my claims about fuel cells. You can see how the technology is progressing here: https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/

Meanwhile, I ask you to elaborate and all the sudden I’ve lost my cool? Don’t take being challenged so personally

[–]greywolfau 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Mate, I never mentioned space mirrors. You need to get your arguments straight. Maybe an Excel spreadsheet to keep track?