patrick.net

I still find it hard to believe we are, even at nuke plants, still boiling water to make electricity. /sigh. Efficiencies of what, 40%??
Magnetohydrodynamics was a thing back in the day - direct plasma to electricity. But the materials tech still can't handle the temps easily.

And where's my "Mr. Fusion"?

It's always just 10-20 years away....

Or maybe piezoelectricity (pressing things to make electricity):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectricity

And where's my "Mr. Fusion"?

It's always just 10-20 years away....

Actually, it is 93 million miles away...

Depending on my party affiliation, should I like this or hate this? I'm a little unsure and would appreciate some partisan reassurance.

LastMan says

Depending on my party affiliation, should I like this or hate this? I'm a little unsure and would appreciate some partisan reassurance.

As a uniter and not a divider, I would say that all political stripes support solar power. Unless perhaps those solar farms cast too much shade and destroy the habitat of some locally and previously unknown but now endangered animal. Then the left wing catechism would require your disapproval. Similar to wind farms destroying birds.

Patrick says

They also estimate that the system would cost about half as much as pumped hydroelectric storage — the cheapest form of grid-scale energy storage to date.

I read an article a few months ago about storing pumped hydroelectricity at the Hoover dam. The cost was not much different than using batteries to store electricity at todays prices. I thought it was a silly project because the cost of batteries continues to plummet, while the cost of pumped hydroelectricity only goes higher. By the time they finish the project a few years from now, the cost differential would make it the most foolish decision ever.
But then, that's what governments are for......to make foolish decisions.

Strategist says

the cost of batteries continues to plummet, while the cost of pumped hydroelectricity only goes higher.

The sheer amount of energy that will be stored at the Hoover Dam probably justifies the project. One would need to build a lot of batteries to store that volume of energy -- battery raw material prices would skyrocket.

d6rB says

Strategist says

the cost of batteries continues to plummet, while the cost of pumped hydroelectricity only goes higher.

The sheer amount of energy that will be stored at the Hoover Dam probably justifies the project. One would need to build a lot of batteries to store that volume of energy -- battery raw material prices would skyrocket.

Actually, the cost of batteries goes down with volume, just like every other new technology.

Strategist says

Actually, the cost of batteries goes down with volume, just like every other new technology.

I meant that cost of raw materials (rare earth metals, etc) may go up if the volume is sufficiently high. Even though rare earths are not that rare, they are not easy and economical to extract. Supply of many elements is limited, or we have limited places where mining makes economical sense.

d6rB says

Strategist says

Actually, the cost of batteries goes down with volume, just like every other new technology.

I meant that cost of raw materials (rare earth metals, etc) may go up if the volume is sufficiently high. Even though rare earths are not that rare, they are not easy and economical to extract. Supply of many elements is limited, or we have limited places where mining makes economical sense.

That is true, and hopefully more rare earth material will be found. They still comprise very little of the total cost of batteries. The real value comes from the technology, and like all technology, their value will fall over time. There are also new battery technologies coming in the near future that don't rely on rare earth materials.

d6rB says

Strategist says

Actually, the cost of batteries goes down with volume, just like every other new technology.

I meant that cost of raw materials (rare earth metals, etc) may go up if the volume is sufficiently high. Even though rare earths are not that rare, they are not easy and economical to extract. Supply of many elements is limited, or we have limited places where mining makes economical sense.

Once nice thing about molten silicon is that silicon is one of the most abundant elements on earth. The supply is effectively infinite.

Once nice thing about molten silicon is that silicon is one of the most abundant elements on earth.

That is the right direction! Maybe we can also build carbon batteries with carbon extracted from CO2 in the air. But then, if we actually do develop carbon air extraction technology, the left will claim we are suffocating trees.........

Sure, but most breakthroughs start as research. Seems promising.

Patrick says

Sure, but most breakthroughs start as research. Seems promising.

Research on this is going on across the globe with $billions thrown at it.. Lots of breakthroughs in the lab, but commercializing them is a different animal. One or two will be successful and thats all we need.
Most of these scientific breakthroughs are evolutionary, while some are revolutionary like the internet and photovoltaic solar cells.

HeadSet says

we are suffocating trees

This is true. Photosynthetic life was running low on CO2 before we freed a lot of it up.

This is true. Photosynthetic life was running low on CO2 before we freed a lot of it up.

Yep. Venus and Mars have heavy concentrations of CO2 in their atmospheres, and likely Earth originally did also. A few hundred million years of photosynthesis pulled all that carbon out of the air and converted into plant material and eventually into oil, coal, etc. Of course animals came along and put some CO2 back in the air through breathing, but since CO2 is now a trace element, not sure that the animals are replenishing the CO2 as fast as it is being removed. Maybe in a few million years the CO2 levels would be too low for the current crop of plants. Also, it seems that adding CO2 to the air would trigger an equilibrium. That is, the extra CO2 would spur more and faster plant growth, which would absorb more CO2, especially if that extra CO2 warmed the planet and caused more frequent rain in the mean time. A greenhouse is great for plants.