Battery storage is still very expensive, and large scale storage is likely better grid connected rather tan localised to the consumer. Centrica recently obtained permission for a 100MW facility in Kilkenny. A more novel approach I've seen recently is re-purposing disused mine shafts. Very low response time, low complexity and long life span are big pluses. Combine Solutions like those will be required at grid scale to store surplus renewable energy and then release it to meet demand peaks.
C02 of one beef dinner in comparison to a flight.
- Thread starter joe sod
- Start date
Battery storage is still very expensive, and large scale storage is likely better grid connected rather tan localised to the consumer. Centrica recently obtained permission for a 100MW facility in Kilkenny. A more novel approach I've seen recently is re-purposing disused mine shafts. Very low response time, low complexity and long life span are big pluses. Combine Solutions like those will be required at grid scale to store surplus renewable energy and then release it to meet demand peaks.
Trouble with these is that they are serving global customers, so peak demand on the data centre does not necessarily equate with peak demand on the National Grid. I always had an issue with the proposed Apple DC in Athenry, it was being sold to the public as some great technological revenue and job creator when in reality is was going to suck power whilst a security guard manned the gates and a dozen technicians made sure everything was working.
I know I started this off with a jokey comment but there is a bigger point to this in that there is far more to reversing climate change then eating fewer big macs and driving a hybrid.
But sure that's a good thing, means that less that the time proportionate part of the 4% isn't hitting peak demand hours.
I would have thought the local nature of the issue would make it more feasible for battery type solutions - they have techies on the one site to manage it. Other storage solutions are the "pump water up the hill at night type", but they are definitely more grid than local.
Thats the thing about statistics they are misleading, if you drive a big diesel car 30 miles alone then yes for those 30 miles you have used more carbon than a passenger in an aircraft. However by taking a flight you would be travelling many miles possibly 1000s in a few hours therefore a huge carbon output. It would be many weeks before you would have driven enough to emit that same amount of carbon as that 2 hour flight.
Therefore there is no getting away from it ,flying is the worst thing in terms of carbon output, it has to be by simple logic, to put an aircraft weighing a 100 tons a km into the air and sending it a couple of thousand kms requires enormous amounts of energy. It needs brute force and only petroleum does that
Greta Thornburg left the US a week ago, she is in the middle of the Atlantic somewhere on a yacht, there is a lot of wind power in the Atlantic an awful lot still it will take a couple of weeks at best for her to get across, that more than anything shows you the extreme limitations of wind. Yet an aircraft will fly across it in 6 hours using petroleum and expending an awful lot of energy stored in that petroleum, that shows you more than anything the limitations of renewable energy and why we have yet to find a replacement for petroleum.
Crews for that yacht have actually been flown to get to where they need to be to rendezvous with the yacht. The whole thing is a stunt.
Stop showing off.
Sure, but cycling or public transport can replace many commutes. Flying is the only real option when it comes to long distance travel.
The biggest problem with aircraft pollution is where it pollutes; in the upper atmosphere.
We aren't going to stop flying so the solution is electric passenger planes.
That could bring range anxiety to a whole new level!!!
The right solution is enough battery to get you to space, sure once you're there one boost and away we go (no friction) - on re-entry tis flaps more than engines you need.
All jokes aside, the future might be the likes of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvRTC5ISYgQ Airships!!, yes yes they crash and burn, or is it burn and crash, but that was 80 years ago. They don't need lift, just propulsion. So they're a bit like a 'sky ferry', which means they probably could lift the battery weight needed to run them on electric. Yes it might be slower but something's gotta give. I'll check the link about to electric passenger planes but I have my doubts on whether the battery weight and getting all that grunt up in the air would make them viable.
All jokes aside, the future might be the likes of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvRTC5ISYgQ Airships!!, yes yes they crash and burn, or is it burn and crash, but that was 80 years ago. They don't need lift, just propulsion. So they're a bit like a 'sky ferry', which means they probably could lift the battery weight needed to run them on electric. Yes it might be slower but something's gotta give. I'll check the link about to electric passenger planes but I have my doubts on whether the battery weight and getting all that grunt up in the air would make them viable.
I can't see the battery and engine/motor weight being heavier than the engine and fuel weight on a jet plane, even relative to power output. I'd say we are still 10-15 years away from the engineering capability and 20 years at least away from the regulatory approval and commercialisation of electric powered planes replacing jets but they are coming. In the meantime it is worth remembering that modern aircraft are 80% more fuel efficient than those from the 1960's and new innovations such as the Double Bubble D8 design should see a further reduction of over 60% from current levels in the next 20 years.
Another key factor in this debate (and a controversial one at that!) concerns the growth in population. There are twice as many people living today across the world compared to 1970. Not to get too Malthusian about it, but surely there's just too many of us?
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate
Malthuse has been shown to be wrong (many rich countries have declining populations if you exclude immigration) and the world population is forecasted to peek at around 11 billion in the early 22nd century.
That's 50% more people going their thang than today though!
Yes but maybe he will be proven right in this era of globalisation and mass communication, the speed of population growth in the developing world is far higher than the decline in the western world. So far advancements in technology result in increased use of resources. If advancement in technology was resulting in reduced resource exploitation then I would be in agreement. We in Ireland today use far more resources per capita than we did in the 1980s, nobody then was flying to Europe for stag and hen parties, drinking bottled water and buying disposable coffee. the cars today, even if they are electric are far more resource intensive than the cars of the 1980s, they are bigger , heavier, with far more plastic, metals and rare earth metals.
Last edited:
1. Yes
2. Excessive burning of fossil fuels
3. Yes
For China to stop burning vast amounts of coal.
1 800 km Menghua coal railway opens
Photo: Xinhua/DW News The north-south Menghua coal corridor opened on September 28. CHINA: The 1 813 km Menghua heavy haul coal railway opened to traffic on September 28 when an inaugural train left Haolebaoji at the northern end of the line. Now renamed in Chinese as the ...
www.railwaygazette.com
Climate clarity
johnhcochrane.blogspot.com
There's already 7.7 billion of us so we are just passed that stage.