Do people honestly delude themselves into thinking they'll ever get batteries with the same energy density as a...

do people honestly delude themselves into thinking they'll ever get batteries with the same energy density as a hydrocarbon?

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/23/moores-law-carbon-would-defeat-global-warming
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Apparently. I was cruising through the news today and noticed a headline sourced from UN pundits and talking heads who think we will be done with hydrocarbons by 2050 - muh saving the climate. In fact they are attempting to make laws to that effect. Endgame, control all hydrocarbons, it's life or death.

>Endgame
they are not chessplayers,
they have no endgame

Have you looked at comparative costs to energy production in the absences of oil subsidies?

Energy is more cheaply available from Nuclear, Geothermal, Wind and Hydro per kW than it is from Coal or Oil.

But oil subsidies artificially reduce the cost of oil and coal production, even though the infrastructure is impractical in the long term.

the storability of hydrocarbon fuels is a huge advantage

touche

But i think the cost to create such energy will reduce so much that storability will become increasingly less important, albeit likely not in our lifetime.


And creating infrastructure for something finite is generally less practical than for something (relatively) infinite.

clean energy subsidies when

The math has been skewed horribly. The article states some power companies are ready to start canceling subsidies for solar - net metering I presume.

The raw materials, modern infrastructure, slave labor, subsidies and fossil fuels that go into building this so called "alternative" or "green" industry are usually not factored in. Yes there are huge subsidies on both sides of the equation, energy is ridiculously under priced as will become painfully apparent over the coming years.

A top climate scientist suggests applying Moore's Law to the "energy" industry implying efficiency gains will match those of the computer industry, they actually want to mandate and legislate an exponential move over to alternatives and away from hydrocarbons. They don't really define "energy", they could be talking about electricity generation only. Even then, prepare for regular rolling blackouts.

Energy ignorance, the article.
theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/23/moores-law-carbon-would-defeat-global-warming
>However, Rapley cautioned against scientists being too prescriptive in the policies governments should adopt, which could make it easier for those opposed to climate action to dismiss the analysis
Too late, this "top climate scientist" is a complete fucking nutter and has obviously completely isolated themselves from reality. Either that or they think passing legislation that would destroy modern civilization is a good idea? It's getting hard to tell. A spooky third alternative is that fossil fuels will be severely depleted by 2050 to the point where legislation won't even be required but will at least give the appearance of a situation under control?

We could get off carbon completely in 5 years. It's not a problem of ability it's a problem of money. Imagine putting the entire population of the US not currently employed (about 40% of the population although we should reduce that by 10% for those unable to work) into building solar updraft towers.

If money were no object we could be off oil and coal in no time. The problem is it costs money and makes nobody rich.

Did you even read the article? The whole point of it is that we've left our response to AGW so incredibly late that anything less than an extremely rapid changeover is going to be too slow to hit the goals we've set (and those goals aren't nearly enough).

They're not saying we can magically assume that this will happen, they're laying out would we need to make happen.

holy shit the low IQ is overflowing from these posts.

OP is right. These people are morons. The advantage of hydrocarbons is pretty hard to beat in terms of energy density. The closest would be hydrogen fuel cells.

Electric cars can still replace internal combustion engines but not because of better energy density. The technology is still overall shit and anyone expecting or hoping a "changeover" happened 5 years ago is a complete fuckhead.

Your country would go broke and everyone starved to death if you tried to blindly transition.

I'm glad you guys know what's really up

>batteries with the same energy density as a hydrocarbon?

Who actually says this? (I'm not very familiar with the subject)

Basically this. I can see renewables supplying 50-80% of grid power in the very near-term, and I suppose electric cars may very well gain prevalence over ICE in a matter of decades as electrical energy storage improves (which will also permit the elimination of that last 20-50% of load-following fossil fuel power stations as well). And maybe North America will finally electrify its railways.
But there are several applications for which I just don't see hydrocarbon fuels disappearing anytime soon - aviation, shipping, military vehicles... I just don't see it happening, even with significant advances in battery technology.

I pretty much agree that there are roles where fossil fuels aren't going away any time soon, but I'm curious about the idea of electric shipping. I've not heard anyone mention it before, but I can't see any reason it wouldn't work.

Average US height is 5'6.
Average US weight is 182 LB.
Average US age is 38.

This is average BMI of ~29.4 roughly on the border of obesity/overweight. Bodyfat is roughly 33% with those numbers. Or roughly 60 LB of pure fat per person in US.

60 LB * 324 Million = 19.4 Billion LB of fat or around 8.8 Billion KG of fat.

Fat has about 37 MJ/Kg of energy density. Gas has about 46 for the record. That's 325 Petajoules of energy.

US is a walking gigantic battery if anything.

You found a solution for gender studies degrees.

/joke

>do people honestly delude themselves that they'll ever get material with stronger than bronze???
this is you 5000 years ago

You can't exactly turn hydrocarbons into electricity as easily

Harvesting melanin could do. There's an article out there about it's wondrous properties in batteries

Yeah, when graphene capacitors get developed they'll outclass hydrocarbons in both storability and ease of energy access.

Graphene and nanotubes willl solve a lot of our problems.

Fuel cells. With just the right hydrogen storage material and an efficient enough fuel cell we can obtain an energy density equivalent to gasoline.

I think it is being implied along with other ignorant assumptions regarding the move to so called renewables. These same people seem to think replacing a billion internal combustion engines with a billion battery powered engines is feasible.

I myself think alternatives and renewables fill a niche and will only ever supplement what is basically a hydrocarbon infrastructure. They will never replace hydrocarbons and in fact just act as another sink at the end of the day.
There are no plausible alternatives to hydrocarbons yet discovered without facing a drastic reduction in human life and living standards. Draconian government energy polices combined with climate alarmism will not manifest plausible alternatives by sheer willpower alone and it would be refreshing for these new age Mao wannabes to admit their policies imply mass destruction of living standards and human life. That will come sooner or later, what's the rush?

>think replacing a billion internal combustion engines with a billion battery powered engines is feasible.
They babble they "think" (sometimes), but they're either advertising their business or, worse, believers.
They mindlessly believe there is no pollution to build a new kind of common car by the hundreds of millions. Throwaway society.

>do people honestly delude themselves into thinking they'll ever get batteries with the same energy density as a hydrocarbon?
Most people have no clue what hydrocarbon technically means. Most people have no chemistry "at all."

Will liquid hydrogen ever be used as jet fuel?

Its not possible to store liquid hydrogen long enough in a jet. Its only good for rockets.

Nope, but it doesn't matter because we don't need to for batteries to still matter.

so how do they store it when it's on the ground?

Jets will be powered by lasers from the ground.

That would be rather difficult to do. Although I still don't know why any vessel above 150 meters in length is not already equipped with a nuclear reactor - Maersk's EEE class supercargos are some of the most efficient and powerful ships out there, but their conventional diesel engines only put out 64 MW of power, versus a Nimitz class carrier's 194 MW.

Too many people are stupidly afraid of nuclear energy. I think the servicing costs of a ship-based reactor would be the same, if not less, as those of a standard IC engine.

no, the fuckers went too far and stuck that stuff into rockets.

>Although I still don't know why any vessel above 150 meters in length is not already equipped with a nuclear reactor

Because they tried this once and it did end up leaking radiation all over the place. It doesn't matter how safe the designs are, once the accountants take over they will cut corners until something leaks.

>1492
>He didn't visit Angola in a 747 powered by a mini nuclear reactor.
Pleb

Very carefully.

I heard this years ago.....hows the work coming?

Depends on the method of transport. If copper wires were embedded into all roadways they could be operated as rectennas, meaning cars could get a power pickup (and nav aide) from a power plant, much like an electric train does. Such a thing was suggested by GM itself in Futurama, and is used in some theme park rides.

That said, U235 has over 100 times the energy density of hydrocarbons. Only issue is that it's radioactive.

American Class 1s would quickly electrify if Congress allowed freeways to be tolled, which is a thing Chao is considering (and giving the trucking industry a heart attack over). In which case not only would we see a huge shift back towards rail, but also rail becoming almost completely clean (an entire AC current rail line can be powered off a single dam).

But I digress as this is largely a policy issue independent of technology.

>lets put expensive wires or maybe even solar panels in our asphalt roads that break down all the time because they are subjected to brutal elements and abuse tehee so eco

we'll probably come up with a compact and powerful fuel source that can be produced easily with nuclear electricity, and which requires resources that are abundant and cheap. some sort of metallic fuel and generator engines that eat it.

Why are there so many /pol/ oil shills ITT?

Burning hydrocarbons is bad for health and bad for the environment

I advocate a full nuclear power grid (like France) and full electric vehicles

>I advocate a full nuclear power grid (like France) and full electric vehicles

Western countries: I advocate for my country to keep investing and researching nuclear technology.

The rest of the world: YES, GOOD JOB.

Iran: I advocate for my country to keep investing and researching nuclear technology.

The rest of the world: WOW, BAD! SAD! THIS IS SAD! BIGLY SAD! SAD! WRONG!

Give me one reason for why western nuke-cucks aren't rampant islamophobics?

It's almost like Iran is a violent Islamic shithole that shouldn't be allowed to have nukes

There is literally nothing wrong with islamophobia, its a reasonable and just.

>Every western country has been in 10 times more wars than middle eastern country

But yeah, they are the violent ones. Obviously!

Im not sure if this is bait, but youre wrong. Just because your favorite magic religion is there, doesnt mean that they are a normal functioning government.

Get the cocks out of your ears for one second.

constant production & active cooling

A naval nuke reactor might cost 500+ million dollars
Vs a ship that they build for 100-150 million

It only makes sense in the Navy because they don't engage in any sane cost practices

t. Mahmoud

in the past, warfare and violence was perpetual and nonstop, except in the west, where there were periods of peace.

now, the west is at peace and the backwaters and bushlands are still in perpetual violence.

anyways the other guys premise is wrong. it is not that we are concerned about violence. we're concerned about violence AGAINST US. it is OK for us to wage war against others. it is NOT ok for others to wage war against us.

as a sidenote, white people are 99.9999% gregarious. we're an orderly race that follows rules and act as part of a society that doesn't resort to violence with each other. but the arabs, violence is a part of daily life to them. if someone insults you or looks at some woman, they go and shoot them and then the families shoot at each other for years. on a personal level, whites are less impulsive and more pacific than equatorial races. we had to be. in the harsh northern climates, impulsiveness killed you very rapidly. in equatorial climates, impulsiveness was rewarded.

You're right, muslims have been waging one continous war since the inception of islam. Though I don't see how that makes you faggots the less violent ones.

The design of compact nuclear reactors is highly classified. It's unlikely they'd be available outside of military applications.

The west is not at peace
We just ignore the wars being waged against us

war has changed. it's all soft power and conniving now. nobody except savages actually wage conflicts against equals... we occasionally decide to shrek the fuck out of a bunch of savages, or, alternately, fight proxy wars which consist mainly of maneuvering funding and support for abstract supernational corporate interests.

my point is that formal war aside, westerners are simply a more peaceful sort that are less likely to attack you for insulting them or being of the wrong persuasion than the equatorial peoples. even in the poorest of white communities you aren't in much danger at all. whereareas the presence of 5% equatorials renders entire districts into fucking no-go zones.

You do realize that wind and solar subsidies, when counted independently, each exceed the combined subsidies of oil/coal/natural gas in the US, right?

Not capacitors but one of the professors at my school is working on using carbon nanotubes to make solid state Li-Ion batteries. Looking at a large increase in the energy density

>westerners are simply a more peaceful sort that are less likely to attack you for insulting them or being of the wrong persuasion than the equatorial peoples.
uhhh what?
This sort of peaceful state that the West is in, is incredibly modern.
Most of Europe has been an unending battlezone since our histories start.
The atomic bomb changed everything.

There's also all sorts of crimes perpetuated by whites (and other peoples. we're all assholes) since that time for having different skin color, looking sickly, having the wrong religion...
Personally I think the modern media and television kinda killed that sort of violence.