Share
clock Created with Sketch.
05/10/24
10:38
Share
Originally posted by lucky 992:
↑
Agreed . I was trying to highlight the hidden losses involved in multiple stages of systems. Every time another step is added to as part of the existing system eg batteries with wind, the losses in the power being added to a battery and then removed from the battery need to subtracted from the efficiency of the wind system itself. This is why green hydrogen cant work with the current tech. There are too many energy sapping steps in the process to get to the end user point. It is as simple as that. You dont even need to know anything about these things to work it out, just count the steps in the process that require energy sapping inputs and generally speaking the one with the least steps wins, period. Wind is good in dingy's head (and gre enies) because there is not much in there.(head) the average person cant see past the first obvious step. If it was just wind (for free) make power and use it it would be fine, but how do you compensate for 18hrs out of a day without wind...you cant regain those losses. Add batteries which use power even when not being used plus the aforementioned losses and you are even further behind the eight ball. The footprint of the relevant system also comes into it. eg nuclear a square km or two for a massive plant output, as opposed to wind with thousands of square km of destruction of the eco system. with a (relatively) minimal output.
Expand
Germany shows the world what not to do. They did it with nuclear plants, Australia is doing it with coal. Blackout Bowen could do well to read the last sentence, however as we know he is an incompetent zealot.Study Quantifies Germany’s Disastrous Switch Away From Nuclear Power | RealClearScience