there is a very simple physical reason hydrogen for personal transport is not feasible: electrolyzer to fuel cell efficiency is much lower than charging a battery.
we simply don't have enough green energy to afford wasting it on use Cases were batteries are feasible, and this won't change for some time. the article acknowledges that btw, and that is coming from a company that has a vested interest in the contrary due to selling the Mirai.
sorry to disappoint, but this article glosses over a pretty significant constraint that prevents this from being long-term storage at all: storing the thermal energy from the compression process.
storing thermal energy over long periods of time is a pretty lossy process, and that 75% efficiency number will be out the window if one tried to use this system for seasonal storage. this system fills the same space as battery storage, which it is also marketed for (over night storage for solar power).
citing from this: "In Energy Dome’s system, carbon dioxide is compressed at a pressure of 60 bar which heats the gas to 300°C liquid. The heat is then extracted and stored in “bricks” made of steel shot and quartzite for later use, cooling down the CO2 to an ambient temperature. The gas is then condensed into liquid form and stored in carbon-steel tanks.
‘Our lithium-ion battery will have double the energy density of standard Li-ion for same price’
When electricity is required, the liquid CO2 is run through an evaporator to turn it back to a pressurised gas, which is then warmed up back to 290-300°C causing the stored heat."
The trade-off here is these seem to be substantially simpler and cheaper than batteries. No fancy metals, no wear cycles, no risk of spontaneous fire. In fact, the up-front environment impacts seem significantly less than that of battery storage. These are still a good solution when the power supply you're using is in excess - as is common with most natural sources (solar, wind, hydro, etc).
Lastly, it's worth remembering that not everything is competing against an "optimal" solution. This may be a _very_ viable system for infrastructure that simply sheds excess energy. Shedding of excess energy results in 0% efficiency gains. Additionally, this type of storage potentially offsets the need to run a secondary system for peak/off-cycle loads. That in itself can be a massive energy savings.
-----
Finally, it seems that power plants are actually terribly inefficient at converting an energy source to electric. Coal - 33%, gas - 42%, and combined cycle - 60%.
storing the thermal energy from the compression process.
They're not storing heat. They're dumping the heat, and store liquid CO2 near ambient air temperature. Here's some analysis of CO2 liquefaction cost, from an unrelated project.[1] You can have multiple stages of compression, with heat exchangers between them to get the temperature down. How to set this up is a good homework problem in thermodynamics.
It's not clear if this is profitable, but it's a lot better than some of the other ideas. Ones such as the crane and concrete block thing, or the electric trains full of rocks on a hill thing, or the giant rock cylinder with water underneath thing.
The crane and block thing, by Energy Vault, is an obvious investment scam, already displaced by an equally impractical "hi-rise condo for blocks, with elevators". Probably they will pivot again to something harder to conclusively demonstrate is stupid, such as one with an orbital component. E.g., "Loft mirrors to reflect and focus sunlight onto solar farms at night".
The mine shaft things are not obvious losers, but suffer by inability to re-use the expensive part for multiple mineshafts. There are undersea methods that do better, sharing the expensive, onshore equipment among as many simple undersea units as you like.
The scheme described in TFA has the advantage that the tankage needed for an unlimited amount of storage is cheap, with only the total wattage rate in and out limited by initial investment. Tankage underground (e.g. in salt domes) could store the CO2 and the heat in the same place, without losses; earth is excellent insulator. They specifically say in TFA they are storing the heat of compression by pumping it into iron.
The Chilean project storing energy in liquified nitrogen is similar. They also say they are banking heat, even though boiling the nitrogen with ambient air on the way out, in a "warming tower", seems to me more practical.
75% round-trip efficiency is absolutely fine. Pumped hydro is not better, that way.
There is an unfortunate habit in the energy sector of promoting ideas in absurdly expensive form, just because that makes it look more "hi-tech", to be taken more seriously by investors attuned to look for that. The form of each idea actually built and used by utilities will be whichever form is cheapest, which will seem too boring for the press to pay it any attention.
Even Energy Vault abandoned the moronic crane thing. It is very easy to show that it stores only a minuscule amount of energy, and does not operate at all anywhere there is wind.
Their hi-rise condo for blocks also stores only a tiny amount of energy, and is furthermore extremely expensive.
Likely they will pivot to something else as foolish, but might use their market cap to buy out something that works. Most likely they would then ruin that.
Anyplace where you mean to use gravity storage, and all the height you can muster is expensive stuff you have to build, will be a non-starter. Lots of other things can make a scheme impractical, but one is always enough.
Pumped hydro is practical because you need only a pipe between upper and lower reservoir, but mainly because in most current uses the lower and/or upper reservoir already existed, and often enough the turbines too.
The problem with any block system is that the weights are too expensive and the storage capacity doesn't scale very well. Concrete is already too expensive to be practical.
Then there is the engineering challenge of building a crane system.
if that were the case, how do you explain this sentence? "The heat is then extracted and stored in “bricks” made of steel shot and quartzite for later use,"?.
or did the source simply explain their process incorrectly?
But heat loss improves as the product is scaled up(heat loss is function of surface area, whereas total heat is a function of volume, which grows quicker than surface area), so at a certain point you could make this big enough to let you store energy efficiently on a seasonal basis?
Also the same reason elephants can't have metabolisms as fast as mice, or else they would spontaneously combust.
Batteries do, and will, provide grid scale power for short periods. Beyond that, they cost more than other methods. New battery chemistries might bring costs down, but it is hard to compete with tankage for cost per stored kWh.
A week or two is the longest almost anybody should need to bank energy. Mostly you just need a few hours of high-efficiency storage to maintain local resiliency. Beyond, say, the 4 hours' worth cycled every night, round trip efficiency matters little.
Beyond a week, burning liquified ammonia imported from tropical solar farms wins. Probably you keep a week's worth of that on hand to burn while you wait.
There is no need for storage (beyond use for load-leveling and peak shaving) until after renewable generating capacity is overbuilt enough to charge it from. (The alternative would be to recharge storage by burning NG: You would better burn that NG and deliver the power to users instead of drawing down and then recharging storage from it.) Until then, capital is better spent building more renewable generating capacity itself, displacing more coal, than on storage.
But building the factories that will build the storage that will someday be needed should happen now, because we will need a lot, and making automated factories takes a long time. And that is happening. Some of those may end up idle as cheaper methods replace theirs, but for at least a few decades, demand will be insatiable.
It depends how much you overbuild. If you build enough to supply half your needed energy for the worst case week and 3/4 for the worst case month, 4 weeks is probably enough.
You continue building out local generating capacity until its maintenance cost less income from grid and synthetic fuel sales exceeds the cost of imported grid power and synthetic fuel imported. All the costs will be changing continuously. Generally, more generating capacity than you have will be reliably better for a long time.
After things begin to stabilize, you might decommission older installations or devote an increasing fraction of capacity to carbon sequestration.
Aside from not delivering on the topic promised in the title, this article contains several inaccuracies and false claims that are unlikely to be accidental given the author is an industry professional. this looks like a cheap opinion piece promoting a cover story for the fossil fuel industry (CCS).
electricity in Germany does not cost 30 c/kWh, but roughly 7 c/kWh. the rest is taxes and fees for consumers, and the fact that the linked source makes this transparent indicates that it is deliberately mis-cited for drama.
the article severely understates the efficiency of power to gas processes and claims a maximum efficiency of 35%. however, even the 10 year old megawatt scale demonstrator in Falkenhagen Germany reaches roughly 50% efficiency [1]. modern research projects have achieved 76% efficiency in a shipping container sized prototype, and research is ongoing [2].
I've been seen exactly this link thrown at me multiple times when discussing synthetic methane, yet it comes with a fatal flaw: It doesn't consider the process to get the CO2 in the first place.
If this is supposed to produce (close to) climate neutral methane it needs to include Direct Air Capture to gather the CO2. It also needs almost perfect avoidance of methane leaks.
Luckily none of that matters very much: Most people agree that synthetic methane isn't very useful to begin with. We can do storage and many industry applications (like steel) simply with hydrogen and avoid the whole CO2 handling and the methane handling, and the few applications that absolutely need methane can be done with biogas.
As far as I can see the only practical widespread carbon capture process we have is plant growth (and pyrolisis). That might be possible for some fraction of global emissions (maybe 5-10%), but once you get above that you have to be cutting down quite significant amounts of forest.
It all seems like a lot more work than just not extracting the carbon from the ground in the first place.
Is hydrogen good enough for long term storage of massive energy?
(Winter summer cycle)?
I heard concerns about density, and also not being able to use conventional gas storage (e.g. German gas network with a capacity sufficient for 3 months energy supply for the whole country) with high hydrogen ratios.
According to them there's enough potential for geological storage, it's just that ideally one should start now to build it (or repurpose existing natural gas storage).
Also, though, the cost estimates I ended up with are lower at current energy prices than the ones being offered by companies like Climeworks. Thanks to your feedback, I've restructured the comment to be less intimidating.
Not OP, but you're wrong about cost. Nuclear is more than twice as expensive as photovoltaics [1], so it's not cheap at all. And that doesn't include dealing with risks like proliferation and extremely hazardous waste for hundreds of years.
the half trillion comment came from the original article, that stated an estimated cost of 440 billion.
Reading that link, levelized solar plus battery storage is twice the cost of nuclear. It is cheap to generate the electricity, but only when backed by natural gas or hydro.
This misses the point. You cannot compare solar and nuclear directly, because they serve different needs.
Without battery or natural gas, solar and wind are not useful. You have to have some sort of backup, sufficient to avoid brownouts or blackouts, and so you end up with the full capitalization and maintenance cost of not-solar anyway.
To properly compare solar with nuclear, you must add on the cost of battery and / or natural gas (or equivalent fast backup), at which point nuclear is cheaper.
your link does not include nuclear, it only includes an elusive "advanced nuclear". This is not for China, which I have the feeling has a different take on "advanced". In the US, existing plants have much lower costs, around the same as cheap coal and gas.
PV capacity costs about 1 dollars per Watt and achieves a 20-25% capacity factor. In the article they say less than 0.5 dollars per watt of nuclear. If they can achieve that, it's obviously cheaper to go nuclear than PV. Nuclear has higher operating costs, true, but also a 90% capacity factor, meaning you need 5 times less capacity installed than PV. 1200 GW of nuclear for 440 billions is the equivalent of 5000GW of PV for 5000 billions. This is just to produce the same amount of energy, at any time during the day/year, before considering the cost of storage or intermittent power on the grid.
I truly hope China can pull this off at the advertised price. Because of the sheer size of the initiative they might be able to just do it using the economy of scale. France did it in 10 years in the 70s-80s, no reason China can't do it today.
We need all the energy sources, being PV+wind+battery purists won't be enough.
Apparently France managed to build it's nuclear plants at a cost of 1 dollar per Watt. Going to 0.5 dollars today might be a challenge for China, even with economies of scale. The article estimated 2.5 per Watt.
Even at 2.5 USD per Watt installed, that would still be about the same price as PV installed. But you gain stability in the grid for a slighter higher operating cost.
That PV cost of $1/watt is the levelized cost. In other words, it already includes the cost of batteries and the capacity factor adjustment. So 1200GW of nuclear for $440B with a capacity factor of 0.9 is equivalent to 1080GW of levelized solar at $1T. But solar+batteries is halving in cost every 4 years or so, whereas economies of scale / learning effect doesn't appear to apply to nuclear, or at least it didn't for the French. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...)
You're confusing Watts, which is power, with levelised cost, which is price of energy over the lifetime of the plant.
It costs 1 dollar to install 1 W of solar PV with no batteries. To include a 2-4 hour battery it's double that. Long term storage for day to day or seasonal is much much more, and likely impossible to do with the current tech.
And in regards to France, compare France's electricity cost with Germany's, Nuclear clearly beats PV and wind on cost. People will say that wholesale prices are the same, and Germany pays such a huge price solely because of taxes. But the point is...those taxes are so high in order to support renewables subsidies.
This being China, all comparisons are moot. They can reduce costs significantly, like they showed with the PV modules. They are the ones that truly commoditized the modules.
It costs $20 to install 1 MWh of solar PV[1]. That's 18 cents per watt averaged over the 8760 hours per year. And since the sun doesn't shine at night, that's 18 cents for at least 2 watts, probably 3-5.
It costs $40/MWh to install solar with batteries[2]. That's 35 cents per watt.
Again, you're confusing MWh with MW. MWh is not something you can install, it's something you produce over time. Also, I don't know how but you end up with the ridiculous number of 18 cents per 2 Watts? That is crazy, the module alone is 20 cents per Watt.
I think you should understand first what MW and MWh mean. One costs 1 million dollars to install, and then will proceed to produce 8000 hours per year divided by the capacity factor. So about 2000 hours * 1 MW = 2000 MWh per year. At a price of 5 cents per KWh, you can sell that for 100k dollars.
I figured out my mistake, I was assuming that MWh is an annual figure.
MWh is a much better figure than W when comparing disparate technologies because it takes into account capacity factor, operating costs and disposal costs as well as installation costs. It also relates directly to the price consumer pays. It's also why all the links are pricing in MWh.
So 1 watt of PV with a capacity factor of 33% and 30 years of lifetime would generate 86.7KWh. $20/MWh is thus $1.80/W total for installation, operating and decomissioning costs.
If China can build 150 reactors for $500 billion when it costs the west over $20B to build a single one, then yes nuclear is cheaper than solar.
Currently the West has massively inflated prices because there is no economy of scale. A planned economy + economies of scale might just pull it off. Especially if they're going to build the nuclear plants in factories, like the west is trying to do now. We'll see.
I'm personally rooting for all the technologies, except coal. Even gas is good as a temporary measure - it allows us to get off coal faster.
My main objection against nuclear is the time scale. I'll happily endorse any nuclear project that comes online before 2030. Even if solar/wind is more expensive than nuclear (and I don't believe they are unless the 150 plants for $500B number is achievable), it's still better simply because they can come online quickly.
People significantly overestimate the amount of batteries that a solar+battery project requires. All you need is enough batteries to handle a single night (and demand is low at night), and enough overcapacity to handle a moderately cloudy day. That'll get you above nuclear's 90% capacity factor.
China's economics on solar might also be a lot different, but given that it doesn't publish these numbers all we have to reason about are the US and maybe Europe.
Btw, ask France about cost of nuclear, I've heard their new reactors are absolutely in time and budget ;)
Most of them work in the security industry and do:
* malware analysis (how does this malware work, how can it be detected, can we somehow decrypt data affected by this ransomware, are there any leads to who wrote this malware, etc)
* vulnerability research (finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in closed source software)
* assessment of closed source software (how secure is it, how does it work, does it have undocumented apis and how can those be used, etc.)
there is likely also a small market for analysis of competitor software, but I haven't seen this openly advertised yet.
I am a fan of nuclear energy for various reasons, and it's obvious that the safety and waste problems can be solved with new technology like small modular reactors with inherently safe designs.
However, even I realize that nuclear energy is not viable to significantly combat climate change due to the following reasons:
* The technology is not there yet. There are a lot of promising companies that are trying to solve the safety problem, and there is a lot of research on how to better deal with the waste, but due to the inherent dangers it will take decades to prove these designs are safe, work as intended and can be produced at a significant scale at the promised cost. Sadly, we don't have decades, we need to start replacing coal right now.
* nuclear energy is way to expensive. Wind and solar are much cheaper. current numbers are roughly 50% cheaper for renewables, and while lots of companies promise cheaper nuclear design, these claims are unproven and the renewables are also still significantly improving in cost. The nuclear cost models I've seen also ignore most of the storage and security cost for handling the waste for millenia. There are cheaper alternatives with existing and proven technology. Power to gas for example has an efficiency of roughly 50%. which funny enough corresponds to its cost advantage over nuclear. simply building a lot more wind and solar capacity and using power to gas to fill existing gas storage systems with excess energy from renewables has roughly the same cost as nuclear, without the safety and proliferation headache, and the added advantage of long term storage.
* proliferation. even if we could solve the problem of safeguarding thousands of SMR in developed countries, you can't just export them to every country on earth. however, that's a requirement for replacing coal, as those countries need to reduce emissions, too.
So yeah, I'd love molten salt SMR to be a thing, and they probably will be in some applications in developed countries in 10-20 years, but the value of this to combat climate change is minimal and people who think otherwise are ignoring the previously mentioned facts.
> I am a fan of nuclear energy for various reasons, and it's obvious that the safety and waste problems can be solved
No you don't from your arguments.
> The technology is not there yet. There are a lot of promising companies that are trying to solve the safety problem.[...], we don't have decades, we need to start replacing coal right now.
That's bullshit. Even nuclear reactors designs from the 70s are statistically safer than coal. And kill a lot less than coal.
> * nuclear energy is way to expensive.
France had one of the cheapest electricity in Europe for 3 decades. Cheaper than anything produced by renewable right now. Nuclear is cheap but at the condition of government loans at very low interest rate and for multiple decades. That's has been analysed and reported many times already.
> Power to gas for example has an efficiency of roughly 50%.
There is today not a single installation world wide existing of power to gas to the scale it would be needed. And that would anhiliate any hypothetical cost of the renewable energy anyway.
One can be a fan of something without trying to blindly apply it to areas where it doesn't make sense.
> nuclear reactors designs from the 70s are statistically safer than coal. And kill a lot less than coal.
That's a strawman's argument, I'm not arguing for coal, I'm arguing for storage of renewables.
> France had one of the cheapest electricity in Europe for 3 decades [...] Nuclear is cheap [...]
That is simply false. The levelized cost of nuclear is about twice as high as that of solar or wind, see page 8 of the referenced EIA report [1].
> There is today not a single installation world wide existing of power to gas to the scale it would be needed
Again, strawman's argument. The discussion is about what should be built, not what has been built. There are already megawatt scale plants running for years without problems [2], and there are shipping container scale demonstrators for higher efficient versions [3]. So it's pretty obvious that the technology around power to gas is well understood, and ready for mass production and deployment.
> And that would anhiliate any hypothetical cost of the renewable energy anyway
Again, this is false. As explained above, nuclear energy is twice as expensive as renewables, and power to gas has an end to end loss of roughly 50%. So in reality, renewables + power to gas has roughly the same cost as nuclear, without the proliferation, safety, security, and waste problems. And as an added bonus every MWh you use while renewables are producing costs half of nuclear ;).
> One can be a fan of something without trying to blindly apply it to areas where it doesn't make sense.
Starting a discussion with a "I'm a huge fan" before spending the next 10 min to debunk the thing is not "being a fan of" but just a sign of being hypocritical, or manuipulative or both.
> That's a strawman's argument, I'm not arguing for coal, I'm arguing for storage of renewables.
Renewable alone (Without Coal or Gas) implies nationally to have close to 100% of the production capacity in storage alone (Battery, power2Gas or hydro storage) to compensate solar / wind intermittency. Which no country on Earth is able to do right now: not even close to, not even as a minor part of their production. That is the real straw-man argument.
Climate emergency need actions and solutions now, Nuclear is one of them. Dreams scenario where storage does everything renewable cannot do is not realist with the current technology available excepted in powerpoint bullshit slides.
And it will not for the next 20 years even with a Colosseum size investment.
> The levelized cost of nuclear is about twice as high as that of solar or wind, see page 8 of the referenced EIA report [1].
Solar and winds are currently highly subsidized and are still intermittent. With storage cost considered, any of their hypothetical advances goes into vapor.
At the opposite, France was producing electricity cheaper than its neighbours for around 30 years before photovoltaic and Wind power even became a thing.
> Again, strawman's argument. The discussion is about what should be built, not what has been built.
The discussion is about what can be and should be done now to reduce CO2 emission as fast as possible if we do not want get toasted in 20 years. Bcause in 20 years, it is already too late.
And the easy answer is built damn nuclear power plants and at the world scale. Not take 20 years to play with techs that are still on the design board: Power2Gas is one of them. And everything else is not scalable in term of storage.
> and power to gas has an end to end loss of roughly 50%
I do see power to gas as the last desperate attempt of the oil and gas industry to stay relevant in the next decade. Nothing more. For the rest it's a joke. It is a joke in term of investment, it is a joke in term of efficiency, it is a joke in term of economical viability. Hydrogen has its usage, but not as backbone of the power grid.
I'm not debunking nuclear, I'm simply stating that just because you have a hammer climate change doesn't magically become a nail. Nuclear is great, but for the reasons I mentioned it is not suitable to combat climate change right now. I'm not advocating against nuclear, I'm simply saying that it's expensive, has problems other energy sources don't have, and relying on the building of new, safe, and cheap, designs will take way too long.
> Renewable alone (Without Coal or Gas) implies nationally to have close to 100% of the production capacity in storage alone (Battery, power2Gas or hydro storage) to compensate solar / wind intermittency. Which no country on Earth is able to do right now
again, straw man's argument. No country is close to 100% nuclear power either. France is pretty far, and they are sitting at less than 70%. and the reactors they are trying to build to increase this number are plagued by budget and timescale overruns of massive proportions. See the new safer EPR designs they have been trying to build since 2005, which are still not finished and have already consumed more than 300% of the initial projected cost [1]. it is delusional to believe we can somehow quickly scale nuclear power to the capacity needed to combat climate change.
cursing and claiming that things are a joke that have already been successfully demonstrated is not going to help make your point...
If everybody in the room agrees on the benefits, why not spend most of the discussion debating the drawbacks and the contentious points? That’s a very common situation in my professional life.
Usually the reason for this behaviour is that at least one of the parties is not interested in resolving any contentious points, but merely in "winning" the debate by focusing on arguments where they can exploit a weakness in the reasoning of their counterpart.
Usually it's best to not waste time on these people and simply ignore them, up until now I wasn't sure this was really the case, though.
Things like power to gas would work economically because you buy cheap and sell high. The efficiency figure becomes less important if renewables are cheap and gas is expensive.
> * nuclear energy is way to expensive. Wind and solar are much cheaper. current numbers are roughly 50% cheaper for renewables, and while lots of companies promise cheaper nuclear design, these claims are unproven and the renewables are also still significantly improving in cost. The nuclear cost models I've seen also ignore most of the storage and security cost for handling the waste for millenia. There are cheaper alternatives with existing and proven technology. Power to gas for example has an efficiency of roughly 50%. which funny enough corresponds to its cost advantage over nuclear. simply building a lot more wind and solar capacity and using power to gas to fill existing gas storage systems with excess energy from renewables has roughly the same cost as nuclear, without the safety and proliferation headache, and the added advantage of long term storage.
Wind and solar aren't that much cheaper (or actually usually much more expensive), when you include the batteries that are required for them to operate as the entire grid. Right now they can only displace SOME not ALL of the energy generation of a country (unless you have huge natural resources of hydro or geothermal energy that can act as that base load). Nuclear is needed for that baseload, or tons and tons of batteries. Taken in that respect Nuclear is cheaper than solar and wind, for that purpose. Grids will eventually need to go somewhere around 80% solar/wind and 20% nuclear/geothermal/hydro (+/- 15%).
You do realize that batteries are not the only method of energy storage? In fact, there are lots of better ways to store excess energy from renewables over longer periods of time, but power to gas was mentioned as an example that works everywhere, and can use abundant existing storage and distribution systems.
Lets add a reference to get some actual numbers to play with: The US Energy Information Administration has published a report reasoning about the levelized cost of electricity (LCOS) for new power plants of different energy sources [1]. According to page 8 of this report, the LCOS of one megawatt hour of nuclear energy is around 69 USD, while solar is around 33 USD and onshore wind is 37 USD.
If you factor in a 50% loss in converting the renewable energy to gas and back to electricity you end up in the same ball park as nuclear, but without the proliferation, safety, and waste problems.
Something I’ve never understood about the anti-proliferation arguments of small reactors.
Ostensibly the reason why bad actors (“terrorists” etc [0]) don’t have nukes today is because it’s hard to enrich the fuel.
Because small reactors with safer designs often have a side effect of creating enriched fuel as intermediary product. (Meaning such designs would make it easier to enrich fuel than building thousands of centrifuges.)
So, we decide not to build them.
But, what’s stopping the bad actors from building the smaller reactors themselves, as an “easier than building thousands of centrifuges” method of enriching fuel?
In other words, why would preventing the bad guys from using such tech, be a reason for the good guys to avoid building such tech? If it really does make enriching fuel easier, couldn’t the bad guys just build the reactors themselves?
If we were serious about non-proliferation, and the breeder/thorium/molten-salt/etc designs make enriching fuel easier… wouldn’t the idea of a reactors be the thing we want to protect? Rather than just the physical reactors themselves?
[0] Substitute “bad guys” and “good guys” with whatever group you want, the point is the same.
1. Developed countries want to keep the developing country poor, by setting the narrative and keep nuclear: the cheapest/most efficient energy out of competitor's hand so they can stay poor.
2. Nuclear bomb ready country want to shut out every possibility for others to get a hands on them. Most nuclear warhead program started by using nuclear powerplant as disguise.
The environment problem is unsolvable because no one with the power want to solve them
Great class, thanks for sharing the materials. Would you consider also making the code for the exercises available? I'm working through the slides but the exercises are hard to follow without the provided source code.
we simply don't have enough green energy to afford wasting it on use Cases were batteries are feasible, and this won't change for some time. the article acknowledges that btw, and that is coming from a company that has a vested interest in the contrary due to selling the Mirai.