SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An article in CleanTechnica describes how we are in a carbon bubble. Renewable energy sources are expanding quickly at reduced cost, leading to a likely mass stranding of fossil-fuel related assets as fossil fuels become more expensive than renewable sources of energy.
The current push for natural gas (and with it the related push for hydrogen fuels) is the last gasp of the fossil fuel industry. Hydrogen as a fuel source can only economically be produced from fossil fuels and hence provides no net reduction in carbon emissions, but the fossil fuel lobby are trying to convince people that it is a viable alternative to electric cars.
When the carbon bubble does burst, the impact on asset valuations is likely to be huge, with consequent impact on the larger economy.
Where do you plan to be when the carbon bubble pops?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday January 17 2017, @07:04AM
I hope they're right, and that renewable energy finally does mature. There are still lots of critical problems, like energy storage, to be worked out. But we do seem to be getting there.
The article actually does provide some thoughtful criticism of current politics, but why does it have to start with the stereotypical "global warming, we're all gonna diiiieeeee" introduction? Is this a required mantra in the greenie world, sort of a membership badge?
However, when it comes to the technical content, why do Green publications get so caught up in their agenda that they start blathering idiocy? We have things like:
"Hydrogen as a fuel source can only economically be produced from fossil fuels"
Producing hydrogen by cracking water requires an energy input, either as electricity or as heat, both of which are easily provided by renewable sources. Hydrogen as a fuel (or storage medium) has a pile of problems, though, so methane would be far better. Methane can also be produced from CO2 and water, using whatever energy source you like to power the reaction. [sciencedirect.com]
But no, the article's author knows the answer. The answer is renewable electricity generation, plus batteries and pumped storage. This is all roses. The author never spends a thought on the realities: National scale pumped storage requires hundreds of dams, with their inevitable environmental consequences. You want batteries in every car, and those batteries just magically appear, produced with fairy dust from sustainable fairy farms.
tl;dr: An article that had potential, but the author destroyed it by being so completely biased...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday January 17 2017, @04:15PM
For pumped storage I can think of some huge areas that would work. It isn't like we haven't been digging [google.com] giant [google.com] fucking [google.com] holes [google.com] in the ground for years. Just use some of those giant holes for doing pumped storage.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @05:38PM
You know what property the holes we dig tend to share? They are below ground. Now to store energy, we need to pump water up. Do you notice something?
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday January 17 2017, @05:54PM
Yes we have half of the system in place as you need 2 reservoirs, a low one and a high one. So instead of trying to build a big tall one we just have a deep hole and at the rim have the high one with a dam around it to provide the necessary volume. Amazingly simple instead of trying to find a hill that we can build a reservoir at the bottom and top of that it tall enough and big enough to make a good pumped storage site.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone