> Europe is not a particularly windy nor sunny place, so it’s not a very good place for renewables.

"Europe" is actually a fantastic place for wind energy. Solar is mixed, because 'europe' is a large area. Southern Europe has quite good Solar potential.

Overall Europe is a pretty good place for renewables.

That's only true for CO2.

Burning hydrogen does release other emissions. Especially NOx

>Burning H2 does not produce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. >That is good news for the climate.

>However, hydrogen combustion produces other air emissions. And that scientific fact is the untold story in this aggressive industry plan, one that could turn green H2 into ghastly H2.

>The bad news is that H2 combustion can produce dangerously high levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx). Two European studies have found that burning hydrogen-enriched natural gas in an industrial setting can lead to NOx emissions up to six times that of methane (the most common element in natural gas mixes).[17],[18] There are numerous other studies in the scientific literature about the difficulties of controlling NOx emissions from H2 combustion in various industrial applications.[19],[20]

>Even the Trump Administration’s Department of Energy “Hydrogen Program Plan” identifies H2 combustion as a significant problem. It states that additional research is needed on a host of emissions control issues around H2 combustion. The point DOE makes is that at very low levels of H2 blending, the NOx emissions levels might be controllable. But at higher levels, it is not only difficult to control NOx emissions, but the technologies that have been developed to attempt to control those higher NOx levels remain unproven.[21] That research is years off.

https://www.cleanegroup.org/hydrogen-hype-in-the-air/

> And when you burn it you get water not CO2.

But you do still get NOx emissions....

> Not sure how that translates to / relates to Huawei dominating in 8 or more years.

It doesn't. There is no reason for anyone to think that

It really depends on what use case you have and where you mount it.

But you're right that you're absolutely not getting nameplate capacity out of it very often.

There are some nice camping wind turbines that are big enough to fit that category

https://www.amazon.com/Wind-Turbine-Generator-Blade-Camping/dp/B09DL499QJ

> statecraft

I think you're mixing up international diplomacy vs domestic policy.

You don't need statecraft for policy, just the majority of votes.

Thanks I Hate it!

It's not like we're not way past the point of advertising saturation.

Sure companies will still pay for this nonsense, but does it really provide value when viewers just ignore it?

> One consequence of the subsidized pricing - Credit Suisse predicts that the United States could become a net exporter of solar modules to the global market.

That bears repeating!

Just in time for it to become the GOP Presidential candidate

Is that a MTG Chat? She's already in Congress

The efficiency of silicone manufacturing?

Sure, but like both WLTP ranges and the range mentioned in the original article. These 'ranges' should be taken with a grain of salt.

In reality they are significantly less than WLTP numbers.

Still no cars with actual ranges over 600km

> so I really don't see the problem

If you Buy and EQS, don't expect to get WLTP numbers.

Based on real world ranges, the EPA estimates are much close to reality.

> Thorium reactors and newer designs are incredibly efficient

not where is counts. They aren't economically efficient (Expensive)

>I love renewables, I'm ready for them, however can they handle peak loads?

when enough are deployed, absolutley. There are plenty of countries where they already do.

>Can they keep a stable output 24/7?

Again, yes they can. Have a google of Costa Rica or Portugal.

>We have to store excess power to help during peak loads

Sure, we have to do that now too. Nuclear also requires you to o store excess power to help during peak loads because you can't economically operate them in a flexible manner.

>what technoligies exist that's cost efficient and as good or better than just running a few nuclear plants in a region?

Literally all of them. Have a look at some actual recent numbers. Even Residential Solar is now the same price as nuclear.

>Electrcity transmission for a country is complex and daunting and there's more to it than just "Plop some more turbines and solar panels".

Sure, that's a nice red herring. Let me spice it up:

Electricity transmission for a country is complex and daunting and there's more to it than just "Plop in some more nuclear plants".

Yes WLTP and EPA aren't the same thing.

They are very different methodologies.

>To overcome this issue, the research team succeeded in developing an anode-free battery in a commonly-used carbonate-based liquid electrolyte by adding an ion conductive substrate. The substrate not only forms an anode protective layer but also helps minimize the bulk expansion of the anode.

So there IS an anode, just not the typical kind?

There is just a bare anode current collector without anode materials? But the substrate protects it?

WLTP is always higher. EPA says EQS gets 563 km. Which is probably much closer to reality

Except the point of renewables is to replace coal and gas power plants with something much greener to help keep a strong stable power in the transmission lines.

Maybe you could list the ways you think new nuclear can do any of that better?

> all of these articles have issues that could also pop up in cheaper power productions as well.

That's exactly the point. Nuclear also has these same issues and isn't really more reliable than cheaper power production.

So why would we pay more and wait longer to build it?

>All these stories aren't pointing at nuclear being unreliable,

Well that long list of nuclear plants in those links that are shut down currently can't be relied on to produce power at the moment. Call it what you will...

> What in particular are you talking about?

That nuclear is not necessarily more reliable to "keep the power on".

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20220825-france-prolongs-shutdown-of-nuclear-reactors-over-corrosion-amid-rising-energy-prices

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/two-belgian-nuclear-reactors-fail-in-a-week/

https://www.ft.com/content/bce753b9-2b82-4895-a651-01ce91df7627

What exactly are you trying to say? We should all pay more for nuclear even though it obviously also has reliability issues? What are we paying extra for exactly?

Hey rip van winkle!

try out our new internet machines and look at the current German government and their energy policies. Boy are you in for a surprise!

> It's critical to life and modern society that power stays on, and it's okay to pay a bit more for that.

Except when it doesn't stay on....

Google France, Belgium, japan etc for examples of the 'reliability'

EDIT: Downvoting doesn't make it any less true.

> dinosaurs

Not all fossil fuels are dinos, most aren't in fact.

> either we solve this problem or we very likely go extinct over the next couple hundred years.

Extinct is a big step.

reducing habitability of earth back down to 1 billion of less people is might more of a likely reality.