[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca -5 points 1 day ago

They have no qualms about taunting a nuclear powered Russia. The return of a CIA puppet like Yeltsin is not likely, but just as Ukraine, there is not the slightest US concern for the welfare/benefit of people. Just destruction, hike price of oil, sell a lot of weapons, and buy the ruins for cheap.

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

10gwh is last report I have of CA utility battery storage.

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Seems credible that there is no threat to ROK. OP is suggesting a tiny role for ROK being discussed anyway.

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

NK has a bigger army, and sure to receive support from neighbours. US has logistical issues in providing support. DPRK blowing up bridges does mean not seeking to use them for their own invasion, so on that point, you are right.

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

There were national guard snipers deployed to, I think, an Indiana University protest.

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

I don't know about the practicality of rails as conductor, but it wouldn't have to be high voltage.

About the train “deploying tons a day”, where did you get that from?

article said special train could deploy 1000 panels per day.

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Biden joking how NATO expansion gave Russia only the option to submit to US/west. From 1997

https://x.com/Pilipmon/status/1849178209289691350

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

the cheapest battery chemistry, used in most affordable EVs, uses no nickel or cobalt. "Race"/premium EVs still want to use that type of battery, though

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

China's ultra cheap EVs are subcompacts that are extremely well suited to small batteries to keep them cheap, while having good range/mileage. Small batteries can work for EVs if there is good charging infrastructure. Europe, being densely populated, is suited to having good charging infrastructure on heavily used highways, and "drive through small towns" which have cafes and restaurants suited to recharging at EU life pace.

EU/French car history is ultra well suited to small cars, where cities have narrow streets, and affordability has always been popular.

EVs with small batteries, even in EU/US, can be built cheaper than ICE vehicles by domestic brands. Battery costs are falling everywhere, but licensing/importing Chinese tech to bringing battery costs down, is path to domestic EV industry success/growth. EU is especially vulnerable to geopolitical oil extortion, from both friends and foes.

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

I think the concern is more about brine that have heavy metals in them. Carbonated water is safe to drink, even if not safe for fish.

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The leaks can lead to heavy metal contamination and potentially lower pH levels, all of which can make drinking water undrinkable

Brine contamination, I know very little about, but if it stayed near bottom of lake, may not pose a fish or water source risk. Salt may dilute to rest of water, but heavy metals would not? Water becoming Perrier, or otherwise high co2 levels, may affect fish, if they don't move, but not a human drinking hazard.

What I do know about is CCS projects. The most successful CO2 capture project from a 100mw coal turbine cost $1B, and captured 65% of CO2. In Saskatchewan. These costs ($10/watt above the fossil plant) are comparable to power costs of on budget nuclear (not a cost/time effective climate solution). The CC process involves a giant building that replaces a chimney, and passes the flue through a liquid that will capture the CO2. Coal interests are avoiding all CCS projects because they are completely uneconomical. Other FF electricity use a similar process, though coal emits H2S (acid rain and smog problem) that needs to also be captured. Blue H2, has a problem of while the process gasses can be separated, the heat needed from the process is usually NG powered, and needs a chimney like electricity production.

A far cheaper way of reducing coal or other FF emissions by 65%, is to replace them with solar+4 hours batteries, and keep the FF plants as a backup peaker that will run far less than 35% of the year. Because land around a coal plant is extremely undesirable for any other purpose, it is often sufficient to produce the same energy as the coal plant from solar.

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

this would call for the use of phase changing material to absorb the heat from the back of the solar panels

There are quite a few "better" technologies for cooling solar panels, which happens to also improve their efficiency/production.

Thermoelectric devices would boost production a little, and keep production a bit past end of day. This might not yet be cost effective, but massive production scale could change that. Circulating water behind the panels, transfers the most heat, and hot water is useful to everyone. A simpler, leak proof, technology is to suck in air behind/under the panels that creates a flow that will cool them, and use that hotter air to feed a heat pump.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

humanspiral

joined 2 days ago
MODERATOR OF