Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: D Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Remember "Bit-Slice" Chips ? Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 22:37:49 +0100 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <84e6c04a-9467-4dfe-24f4-5a8b2d085802@example.net> References: <56e44c18-2ec1-6181-ec48-9ab3819c77dc@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2086192"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="w/4CleFT0XZ6XfSuRJzIySLIA6ECskkHxKUAYDZM66M"; X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:62055 On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, Rich wrote: > D wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 8 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 12:12:47 +0100, D wrote: >>> >>>> Is the grid prepared for this working at scale? And it seems to me that >>>> all solar would "sell" at the same time, driving down the price to zero >>>> or even creating an excess, while all the ones in this system would need >>>> energy at the same time (night) driving the price up, therefore again, >>>> needing some kind of storage. >>> >>> I can't say with certainty but my impression from what I've read is the >>> idea is straight from Cloud Cuckoo Land as far as small residential >>> installations go. >>> >> >> I did some research and calculation of how much it would cost with >> hydrogen storage for a solar powered house in sweden, and 10 years ago, I >> found a pilot project in northern sweden, and the cost was about 1 million >> EUR (give or take). >> >> A couple of months ago I had a look around, and the cost as far as I could >> estimate, for storage, had dropped to about 500k EUR. >> >> If the decrease in cost continues, it would become feasible with solar in >> sweden in about 12-20 years time if you're doing it as a hobby. > > And therein lies the problem. Most of the "storage" systems are on an > exponential increase growth curve. But total energy usage per > country/worldwide is so large, that it will take twenty plus years of > "doublings" each year before the storage tech is on par with today's > level of consumption. Meanwhile, in twenty plus years, usage has > itself likely increased, so storage is still behind in total, just not > as far behind as it is today. > > Yet, if the 'climate folk' are to be believed, we need to achieve zero > carbon input into the atmosphere yesterday, not twenty plus years into > the future. > > So assuming the "no carbon" goal is required, we can't get /there/ from > /here/ without something like nuclear to handle what 'storage' claims > it will be able to do, in twenty plus years. > Amen!