Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dragdeler]

-

[Maximum Spin]

The real issue with hydrogen though, is that you can't safely contain it under pressure.  It is so GODDAMN SMALL, that it wiggles its way through the molecules of any container!!   Metal container? Hydrogen embrittlement-- the hydrogen wiggles through the teeny tiny gaps in the crystal boundaries of the metal, and it slowly gets forced apart, until BOOM.  Hydrocarbon based container? The gaps between the tangled mess of polymer chains is "EFFING HUGE" compared to a hydrogen atom, and it just slowly diffuses its way out of the container.  Etc.

Obviously, you need to store them in a container made of metallic hydrogen, solving all problems.

I'm sorry I was angrydrunk again so I kind of leapt to the strawy conclusion, that "of course we are debating seriously wether it's a good idea to make even more nuclear waste than usual, I bet if we debated a sensible energy model, something cyclical like hydrogen or methane there would be no shortage of economic models cited that dismiss it out of hand... And suddenly we'd be very concerned with safety of the capricious capricious hydrogen killer molecule."

Probably unfair but I might just have kicked the door to hell open.

TBF at some point I came to admit the flaws with all the different ways to handle hydrogen, and the associated energy losses of that but also those of processing it into methane... But it's not impossible either and nobody seems to be willing to admit that a system that can sustain itself indefinitly might be worth a premium.

Can you be more clear about what kind of system you're proposing? There are no power sources "that can sustain [themselves] indefinitely", because of thermodynamics.

[Rolan7]

Obviously, you need to store them in a container made of metallic hydrogen, solving all problems.

Cool!

[dragdeler]

-

[Maximum Spin]

I'm talking about doing fuel ourselves instead of using fossil ones. It sustains itself in the way that you can't run out as long you keep producing, and it doesn't mess with the atmosphere if you only burn stuff you took out of the atmosphere.

Ah, I see, you mean like synthfuels and electrolysed hydrogen cells, yes? I assume you know that the problem is that the energy input required to produce fuels in the amounts that would be necessary to sustain our current usage levels would be massively above anything we can currently produce with anything but fossil fuels, meaning that this doesn't actually save us from the hassle of having to kill ~7 billion people.

Still, the private transport fleet is nothing, from a big picture scale. It's just not the problem, and even if we mothballed every vehicle in the world it wouldn't really fix anything. It's a pointless exercise.

[dragdeler]

-

[Maximum Spin]

I don't believe that. I am convinced the vast majority of buildings offers enough space for solar and wind to sustain itself

I am sorry but this is just categorically, provably untrue.

Let me provide an example in the form of heating. Resistive (electrical) heating has an efficiency of essentially unity: every joule of energy used yields a joule of heat. Conveniently, the radiant heating (by absorption of sunlight) of low-albedo surfaces approaches the same efficiency. Therefore, IF a building received enough sunlight to fully supply its own heating energy needs with solar electricity, THEN it would be more efficient to heat that building by painting it black with a cheap pigment like carbon black so it absorbs the energy as heat directly. The additional concerns like ventilation to distribute the heat evenly through the building are the same either way.

[dragdeler]

-

[Uthimienure]

Who has any "small random questions" for this thread?
This discussion of energy could be split off into a new "energy discussion" thread.

Here's a "small random question"... 

Why is mowing the lawn so enjoyable to you, or do you hate it?

[dragdeler]

-

[Uthimienure]

For me, mowing is fun and is an opportunity to be creative in trying different mowing patterns. Don't worry, there is plenty for all the wild animals to eat, and clover for the bees too.

I like how dragonflies will dart around in front of the tractor, catching bugs that have been stirred up by the approaching noise & vibrations.  Barn swallows will also have a great time feeding off these bugs, and they land on fence posts to rest between feedings.

It's also interesting how whitetail deer will watch the tractor rather than run away as they would if I were on foot. They are less afraid of noisy machines than a quiet walking person (predator).

[Yoink]

The act itself isn't unpleasant, but with the neighbours potentially watching it becomes a rather traumatic experience as I hurry to finish before I am observed.   

[wierd]

I am like a morlock-- I despise being in direct, intense sunlight.  As such, I hate mowing.  It's a repetitive, sunburn causing, pollution generating, monoculture promoting, and generally performed only for aesthetic reasons, bullshit activity.

Now, give me a broken machine to repair, and I am happy as hell. (as long as it's fixable.)


Thankfully, I only just joke about eating small children.  So, not a true morlock yet.

[Maximum Spin]

I think that's an oversimplification, could one not in theory isolate a room so well that it tends towards one's body temperature?

Nope, in fact, if you tried that (assuming all other obstacles are wished away) the temperature would increase unbounded until you die, because you are a heat source and only maintain body temperature by transmitting it away. To do that, however, you'd also have to eat enough food to supply the same amount of energy required to heat the entire room (otherwise it would be you who tends toward the room's temperature, also causing you to die), and our food production system is also hugely fossil-energy-dependent!

[wierd]

Staying in a room that is 98.6 degrees F would be horribly unpleasant.  It would not immediately kill you, (assuming humidity is not 100% anyway, because evaporation would still whick heat away from your body, at least until humidity in the room reaches 100%, and then you will broil in your own juices), but it would be very unpleasant.

The big issue is that the "Green revolution" that "!!Solved!!" the Malthusian catastrophe, is almost exclusively sustained by nitrogen from fossil fuel use.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2935130/


So, all those billions more people that "SCIENCE!" enables?  Yeah-- From fossil fuels.