MIT researchers list the energy storage technologies that could enable a 100 percent renewable grid
Another viable technology is flow batteries that would use abundant, low-cost chemicals to store energy in large tanks. But not all flow battery chemistries are inexpensive. One of the main types, vanadium redox flow batteries, have an estimated cost of $100/kWh, the researchers say, but more development could bring down costs.
Chiang is betting on sulfur batteries. He has recently developed an aqueous sulfur flow battery that could cost as little as $10/kWh. The technology has what it takes for long-duration, low-cost storage, and is now being developed by Form Energy, a company he co-founded in 2017 and that has recently gotten extensive financial backing.
There are other battery technologies to keep an eye on. High-temperature sodium-sulfur batteries cost $500/kWh, but with more development, their costs could fall by up to 75 percent by 2030, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency. Meanwhile, the cost of sodium nickel chloride batteries could fall from $315 to $490/kWh at present to $130 to $200/kWh by 2030.
Solar and wind generated power are ultimately the only sustainable sources. ALL the energy on this planet came/comes from the sun. We need to stop mining the stored solar energy and start using the solar energy that is dumped on the planet on a daily - sustainable - basis.
it's going to take a multifaceted approach
for example the poorest places on earth, the places where people need energy to lift them out of grinding extreme poverty
those just happen to be some of the sunniest places on the planet
currently for them the first logical step might be solar
the cost of pv energy conversion/generation is falling at a very rapid rate (see perskovite and swanson's law, etc.)
storage is definitely a challenge and relatively inefficient, but battery tech is progressing
the huge issue for solar is larger urban areas (the engineering presentation i saw used tokyo as an example)
short of some super breakthrough, there's no way solar is going to do the job in an area like that
dense population requires a dense on demand energy source
couple that with the trend of people moving or relocating to lager cities and we can get the idea
small mass produced nuclear (something like lftr) is clearly much better suited for such situations
the technology is fairly well understood and there's a lot of increasing activity in this area
for very obvious reasons we need a lot more inexpensive energy
Looked at the Nature article. Yeah, it has absolutely nothing to do with the formation of petroleum deposits. If people want to faff around with figuring out how you can form commercial deposits of long-chain hydrocarbons out of mantle material in areas least likely to have transport up from those depths, fine. Not to mention all other evidence like isotopes that this isn't the mechanism. But it is on their back to put forward a credible paradigm rather than merely taking pot-shots and expecting everyone else to take them seriously.
If on the other hand, you are just trying to save face. Sorry. not convinced.
Me ? No.
I truly believe that oil and other hydrocarbons can indeed be abiotic.
I offered support samples for my beliefs.
No minds were changed today. Like I said, no worries.
As a reminder, I was initially responding to this: . Red_Dragon wrote:
ALL the energy on this planet came/comes from the sun.
You questioned my reply to that statement, but not the statement itself. I simply questioned your inference that all hydrocarbons were a result of solar activity. We disagree. But at least we agree that the above quoted statement is not true ?
Kurster, you have a proclivity for taking strange scientific outliers and extrapolating from them to debunk what is, seeing that we are talking about sedimentary processes, as settled science. You are off chasing fake clouds again on this one. Sorry.
It is possible for more complex hydrocarbons to form at depth from methane. This is known and accepted. But the regimes where this happens are primarily subduction zones, i.e. those places where the crust is getting sucked down into the mantle (or pushed), take your pick and is exposed to heat from the mantle. It cannot and does not explain the vast seams of hydrocarbon deposits in crustal regimes miles away from subduction zones that were laid down in sediments and turned into coal and oil by overburden. This is amply proven by the very fossils in the host rock. No mantle heat anywhere near them. Just the heat and pressure of being buried by a ton of other crap. A lot of it organic. Where do you think dead plants and animals go?
I know a lot of geologists and not even the oil industry accepts the abiotic hypothesis. Why would they? It would make it a darned sight harder to find the next oil field.
If on the other hand, you are just trying to save face. Sorry. not convinced.
the regal type of crown or the dental ones?
