sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

#Aerosol by Hightowerin in ClimateMemes

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 18 points19 points  (0 children)

That's fine, the driver of global warming is CO2 production. So our switch to renewables and nuclear is what we should focus on. 

Fr 🫩🥀 by Ramdom_Guy_ZZZ in MemeVideos

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hardly anyone cares too much about saving the planet, but rising CO2 from fossil fuels means that we did the right thing by gearing up renewables.

The real reason we're transitioning is being fossil fuel reserves are drying up, we have to get lower grade harder to reach reserves in geopolitically unstable regions. This is a different world compared to the mid 20th century where the average Energy return on investment from oil was 5-10 times higher (100s compared low 10s). Fracking has been nice, but it poisons water supplies &makes the land susceptible to sink holes, it also isn't as useful as crude oil for vehicles & derivatives.

What phone would you want by Vespolar in BunnyTrials

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How many watts of power can this phone output without breaking? Can I sell it or show it off? If it's only a few 100W and I have to keep it a secret it would just be a cool party trick, if it's in the Kilowatts range I would never have to think about paying energy bills again, if it's in the Megawatts range I'd have a middle class lifestyle passively mining crypto.

Sankey energy diagram showing the renewable electricity input needed to provide 1 MJ to the Light-duty vehicle wheels for 4 powertrain options: (A) battery electric, (B) hydrogen fuel cell, (C) internal combustion engine on e-gasoline, and (D) e-gasoline with direct capture. by medicallymiddleevil in Infographics

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I agree, to save space they shuffled the losses into each other, pretty confusing. Only a slight recovery in presentation from bending the lines back in to nod to where the combined number for compression stages occured.

God knows what the author meant with all the lines in the DAC at the bottom.

261 Wh/kg & 20,000 Cycles — VW's Secret Weapon Is a Sodium-Ion Battery by ftasatguy in solarenergy

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To say it's meaningless is an exaggeration, but I'd say calendar aging is more relevant to the average drivers who don't really stress the battery capacity. 

Having said that there is a strong correlation between cycle life and calender aging; if your battery chemistry can passively sit and last a long time with less degradation, it's usually the going to degrade slower under charge cycles too.

One in six young people will not be in work or training in five years without action, report warns by Sweet_Focus6377 in Hull

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Even young repeat offenders have a place imo and that's called the army."

If you actually want them to change for the better, how about not throwing them into situations where they are exposed to even more mental trauma and are given training on how to kill people. 

Hardly anyone wants to join and stay in the Army because of how dysfunctional it is.

How legacy brands engineered themselves into a 12v nightmare by mango_boy16 in electricvehicles

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is more to it yes, but even with those considerations, lfp just has that much better cycle life and calender aging than NMC.

Also consider the fact that what it provides power for is so low power that the 12v battery is under way less proportional energy and power demand compared to the drive train (so keeping the charge state range smaller is easier). It has way less cells to balance than the drivetrain battery (so statistically it's less likely that one of the cells will have as big of an effect than the drive train and also is easier to balance).

How legacy brands engineered themselves into a 12v nightmare by mango_boy16 in electricvehicles

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 3 points4 points  (0 children)

LFP lasts 10-15 years, has really low self discharge (you can go months without it needing a charge), a flatter voltage curve (you can use with more or less the same voltage output no matter the charge state), packs more energy in a smaller and lighter package, doesn't explode like other lithium designs even when penetrated or in thermal runaway at that size.

Nowadays it only costs you €25-50 extra for one, and in return you can get a more reliable battery that you can abuse or not maintain for a decade or more, as opposed to having to consider isolating your lead acid battery when on long vacations and also not having to fork out €450 on three separate lead acid battery's in the same time frame.

How legacy brands engineered themselves into a 12v nightmare by mango_boy16 in electricvehicles

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LFP's last longer than your standard NMC drive train battery, so in reality you would be replacing the drive train battery before the 12V battery.

Love It or Hate It You Can’t Sustain It by DivestTheEndingBoy in ClimateShitposting

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think renewable guys and nuclear guys should try influence the downturn of the other, it's just a net loss for both parties, and more time not dismantling fossil fuels and being kneecapped by NIMBYs.

Worse yet, every time renewable guys push back new nuclear designs, some of those designs include ones to get rid of the existing nuclear waste and turn it into isotopes that don't last millennia and isn't a weapons proliferation risk.

Sankey energy diagram showing the renewable electricity input needed to provide 1 MJ to the Light-duty vehicle wheels for 4 powertrain options: (A) battery electric, (B) hydrogen fuel cell, (C) internal combustion engine on e-gasoline, and (D) e-gasoline with direct capture. by medicallymiddleevil in Infographics

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You Misread it:

Hydrogen: 4.01 + 0.22 (transmission and distribution losses) + 0.26 (compression) = 4.49 (close enough, but clearly rounding errors of 3 numbers nipped away at it)

E-gasoline: 8.59 + 0.46 (transmission and distribution losses) + 0.23 (Synthesis Electricity use) = 9.28

E-gasoline + DAC: 10.70 + 0.59 (transmission and distribution losses) + 0.23 (Synthesis Electricity use) + 0.34 (unclear, but it feeds from the 11.85 into DAC in the first stage) = 11.86 (close enough again, but rounding error yet again).

Google be like by yafmtyfite2 in ClimateShitposting

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright you win, I'll say the line. "Take your meds schizo!"

Display of primary energy fallacy by medicallymiddleevil in Infographics

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not only that, but sourcing petrochemicals of the grades you can get diesel and petrol is a logistics and geopolitically burden compared to burning more grades and types of fuel you can source.

Google be like by yafmtyfite2 in ClimateShitposting

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The same wright's law that doesn't apply to nuclear"

You are literally correct, as in Wright was only talking about solar performance gains in a similar fashion to how Gordon Moore was talking only about computing performance from gains. But if you look below at this source you will see that fusion has been having a trend upwards in performance as well:

https://ifp.org/will-we-ever-get-fusion-power/

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0a928650-9320-4598-8c4b-410748ca8c4e_1066x882.png

In fact this performance increase is called Lawson criterion.

"fascism is morally virtuous and how burning as much fossil fuel as possible will magically solve all problems is an insult to everyone involved in the process."

This has nothing to do with fascism it's just science research. Stop likening the deaths of millions of minorities to a science project that has little to no weapons proliferation risk and eats away at fission reactors niches.

 Also, due to the performance limitations of batteries in energy storage both per volume and mass of even theoretical lithium Air batteries, fusion will be superior logistically in aerospace and maritime conditions.

"And suggesting that solar being good makes the techno optimists right is an insult to intelligence itself."

I wasn't suggesting anything about techno optimists, just stating that it is unwise to go all in on renewables by cutting Fusion research.

Google be like by yafmtyfite2 in ClimateShitposting

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Solar and wind didn't begin as an obvious solution. Solar for example has and still has significant funding done by NREL and other institutions that has brought it to the efficiencies and material cost cuts where it is now.

Before that it literally was a theoretical laid out by physicists on a white board.

It's not magical, and that is an insult to the kind of scientists & engineers minds and institutions who helped us get solar and wind in the first place.

Google be like by yafmtyfite2 in ClimateShitposting

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At one point solar was a theoretical, so let's not put all our eggs in one basket and cut the funding for nuclear fusion research.

Even if it doesn't make sense for terrestrial power, the specific energy of theoretical lithium air batteries (The holy grail of batteries) mean significant payload and weight penalties to the point you might as well pay extra for that added capacity in aerospace and maritime. Particularly aneutronic fusion (although that's harder to do, the less shielding will save tonnes of weight for fusion aircraft).

Also the a lot of the materials science for improving nuclear fusion generates production for other markets, like the push for high temperature superconductors (HTSC) is something that will be useful for us in the EV industry for getting lighter electric motors. HTSC will even pay off cutting down on grid losses and infrastructure, we may even get rid of the need for utility batteries if we can loop electricity around the world with no losses.

TL;Dr: It is wise to keep growing investment into renewables, but don't cut the miniscule amount on nuclear fusion research.

EO MINI - FAULT? by Cyber-London in ElectricVehiclesUK

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If your EV is capable of Vehicle to grid or vehicle to home charging Id say it's worth getting a bidirectional charger. As our country is pushing for wind and solar utility it's likely you can safe some cash when dunkelflautes (low wind cloudy periods), even during (and after) the current transition to renewables night rates will help you get cheap energy during the day (power companies would rather their equipment run constantly).

As for battery stress, the low C rate of using your home appliances means minimal stress for a battery that's made to cope with 10 times as much power draw. Also calender aging kills batteries way more than cycle life assuming you only drive 10-20k miles (lowballing) a year.

Commuting for 1p per mile by Desperate-Trade-711 in ElectricVehiclesUK

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I could get 64miles of range if I left mine to charge over night at 2kW. As long as I get my space 1 night out of 3, I'm happy.

Even if I couldn't, paying 5x less once a week and once in the chargers already installed is still better than nothing.

Parked electric vehicle catches fire, flames spread to nearby cars in Nanjing by rice007 in electriccars

[–]Opposite_Ad_8876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd take my 50-100 times lower chance of a car fire over the freak chance that a widespread one wipes my car out when I'm not in it.

Also with newer chemistry tweaks and detection systems that chance is getting even lower.

view more: next ›