Are internal combustion engines, dare I say it, finished and bankrupt?

Are internal combustion engines, dare I say it, finished and bankrupt?

qz.com/1136533/a-radical-startup-has-invented-the-worlds-first-zero-emissions-fossil-fuel-power-plant/

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery
youtu.be/8RbwOhM6PUk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

That shit is so complex. Just solar panels and batteries. Done. No carbon capture, no carbon dioxide. Just done.

>Just solar panels and batteries.
*lives above 40th parallel north*

wind, hydro, geothermal

wait Im not on /o/

Battery has shit energy density.

>burn fuel
>collect the output
is this not what we already do?

...

No
>burn fuel
>collect 0.01% of it because "ITS SAO EXPENSIVE GOYIM"

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery

Also Lithium is approaching gasoline.

funny thing is that electric cars in particular are not a new concept. but of course greedy fuckers had to go for petrol instead to choke in money.

It wasn't greed. Gasoline had major advantages to electric back in those days. Mainly like double the horsepower or more. The electric motors of the past were bulky, heavy, and inefficient. The batteries were also bad with poor range.

If you think the companies that own the oil arent greedy, you have been living under a rock. The oil companies are prolly the greediest out of like all industries put together.

isnt it more like 4%?

It was more the car companies that shut down the electric car and some public transport programs read a book nigga

youtu.be/8RbwOhM6PUk

Geothermal isn't viable in most areas of the world, wind is actually quite destructive to the environment basically no matter how we do it (low frequency noise produced by them is quite bad for most animals, including humans). Hydro is both destructive to the environment in many cases and also has viability issues anywhere that is flat or has no water.

Solar is good, but the problem is that solar is not reliable. If an industrial energy consumer wants to fire up a big-ass smelter and its a cloudy day, that's not going to work out well.

The thing is that fossil fuels are cheap. Dirt fucking cheap. So anyone who wants energy and has no money is going to burn fossil fuels. Most of the world happens to be poor. So you can sit on your high horse and preach the Green Gospel all you want, but they're going to set shit on fire to generate electricity anyway. The best thing we can do is create technology like this that either offset or completely mitigate the carbon output of our generators.

Seems nice, let's see how well it works in production.

But if you want to get started in a nation, I think it's best insulate homes first & install warm water solar with a decent pump to circulate the water. Pass emissions limits for industry and combustion engine cars and the like at the same time.

Very predictable outcomes, and highly effective.

This is /og/, because cars are tech.

In the world of electricity production yes. Automotive, maybe in 30 years.

As long as F1 tech (direct injection, regenerative braking, etc) keeps making it to consumer vehicles we'll keep using fossil fuels. Unless we figure out cold fusion or some insane battery technology

>use turbines made by Toshiba
>"invented "

>high-pressure steam turbines, same as 150 years ago
>"radical"

>emits CO2 that gets buried underground
>"zero emissions"

It is a smaller, more efficient power plant. That is a very good thing, but the title makes it seems like the second coming, which it is not.

N U C L E A R
U C L E A R
C L E A R
L E A R
E A R
A R
R

not really

Does this mean Sup Forums can stop denying global warming?

You don't seem to understand that carbon capture is currently inefficient and very expensive. SaskPower in Canada has spent over 1.5 billion CAD to retrofit their largest thermal station with carbon capture. It captured 50% at best and broke too much at that capacity, so now they only capture enough CO2 so that they can resell it to cover the penalties the Canadian government charges for their emissions.and that's not even to mention the reduced power generation.

So yes, it's actually kind of a big deal this this thing runs at the same efficiency as a conventional turbine but captures all the CO2. You can do whatever you want with it. Bottle it and dump it in the ocean for all I care, but at least it's not going to atmosphere.

> low frequency noise produced by them is quite bad for most animals
This one is pretty much certainly BS.

> Hydro is destructive to the environment
Essentially as destructive as any river or lake. Install fish migration channels or whatever if necessary to account for the marginal difference between that and natural water.

> solar is not reliable
It's pretty reliable overall.

> If an industrial energy consumer wants to fire up a big-ass smelter and its a cloudy day, that's not going to work out well.
While I'm sure it's not a perfect solution everywhere, companies and the like will for the most part rapidly adapt. Not much sun? Small smelter is running. Lots of sun? Large smelter. Or they move where more power is.

> So anyone who wants energy and has no money is going to burn fossil fuels
This is mainly true if you have easily reachable sources of said fossil fuel or ports and don't care about foreign dependency (which honestly, most poor countries do care about since their currency and such is volatile and they'll suffer interruptions all the time if they rely too heavily on foreign raw materials).

Otherwise, the difference is pretty small. Apart from that, coal power plants and the like are bigger single chunk investments than a wind turbine or solar panels on x houses or something, so the smaller muncipalities will actually quite likely naturally chose smaller hydro / wind / solar generators.

> The best thing we can do is create technology like this that either offset or completely mitigate the carbon output of our generators.
No, the best thing that can be done is reducing emissions as first world country and paving the way for poorer countries -tech wise- to do more, too. Everything else is a pretty sad excuse where you go "poor people can't do the same as me, so let me do nothing either", which is really fucking lazy.

>low frequency noise produced by them is quite bad for most animals, including humans
lol stop this hippy shit

>cars aren't tech

First off I didn't refer to a scam. Second off that first part of that video is misleading. Yes Lithium has lots less energy than gasoline, but you can extract almost all of it. With gasoline you are lucky to get 10 percent. Engines get hot as hell because they are wasting energy.

The can deny the truth all they want.

they arent

Offshore wind farms have altered the migratory patterns of fish and whales. People living around wind farms have reported a cacophony of symptoms, some surely psychosomatic, but others measurable in the ear and CNS.

As for hydro, what you don't know is that it almost always causes massive flooding to the area it's built-- at least if it's any significant capacity. It might have been better than thermal in the past, but the interesting thing is that if you're using a 100% carbon capture system, thermal is actually one of the least environmentally impactful methods of generation, especially if you're using natural gas.

Solar is not reliable enough to power industry. If the generation capacity massive outclassed demand, that could work, but as it stands, solar is nowhere close to being at that stage, so we will need something like thermal or nuclear to provide base load power.

>industry will reduce their production
Yeah and get ruined by their competitor that buys power from a nuclear plant or CCS thermal plant? Not a chance.

>poor countries won't burn fossil fuels!
... that's exactly what's happening in India. You can't cherry pick the poor countries that aren't industrialized. As they industrialized, they WILL burn fossil fuels.

>criticizing wind turbines
>hippy shit

You know what? When I walk past the energy research lab tomorrow I'll ask the guy who took down all the turbines in the area why he did that again and maybe if I call him a hippy he'll change his answer.

oh boy so they're passing a mixture of hot supercritical CO2 and water through a turbine. That's almost certainly going to be corrosive. It's still less of a scam than clean coal though. It's pretty neat that it only produces water as an emission and no NOx.

...

I suspect that's why they had a chemical engineer design it.

They, in fact, are.

Stop making shit threads

>Offshore wind farms have altered the migratory patterns of fish and whales.
They'll learn how to deal with these new pillars in the water soon. Or this is actually them dealing with them, IDK.

> People living around wind farms have reported a cacophony of symptoms, some surely psychosomatic, but others measurable in the ear and CNS.
People claim the same BS about street lights, mobile phone antennas, ...

Low credibility for the most part, and even if, the health effects are nowhere as bad as having coal power plants and the like (which tend to be cheap only if you don't sequester, filter etc.) spill all that shit in the air.

> Solar is not reliable enough to power industry.
It's part of a power mix. I guess the smelter is only on when households etc. use their hydro etc. power during the day if it's very sunny and cheap power is available for industry.

> Yeah and get ruined by their competitor that buys power from a nuclear plant or CCS thermal plant?
These may or may not be fine depending on impact an national policy.

If they're somehow environmentally unacceptable, governments can tax products from these or subsidize products from known good power sources.

> ... that's exactly what's happening in India
That's what they were primarily going with until now, but like China the local pollution made other power forms popular.

Renewables-wise:
- India has installed 57GW and aims for 175GW by 2022
- China had pic related as its energy mix in 2016 and the rate at which they're expanding renewables is ~the same as fossil fuels already. Solar installations went from 43GW to 77GW between 2015 & 2016; the projected amount at the end of the decade should be around 200GW for solar alone

Look, you may not get these less wealthy nations to 100% renewable any time soon, but getting 50% or more will be immense already.

> You can't cherry pick the poor countries that aren't industrialized.
As you see, I don't need to.

IC ingine is never done until we can make proper batteries

I'd be cool to have an EV with a drop-in add-on ICE range extender for long trips. But I guess It could only be implemented in a SUV

>faggot with hair implants will replace years of combustion engineering and car culture because retarded l*berals think so

The sounds from cargo ships already cause whales to sodoku themselves. What do you think the impact of a field of wind turbines will do?

Probably nothing much, it's not underwater propellers out in the sea. The coast line wave action and such probably causes far more noise.

If the whales sudoku themselves because of something as hard-to-sudoku-yourself-with like wind turbines too, that's natural selection I guess. The super soft environmental pressure equivalent to a bunch of pillars along the coast somewhere shouldn't fuck you as a whale.

Just a shitton of pollution from manufacturing those solar panels and batteries that need to be replaced every 5 years.

>India is building more solar because of pollolution
OK, so you really don't have any idea what the situation on the ground is. Do yourself a favour and do more research into why India suddenly decided they're going to build all this solar. Start by watching Al Gore's new documentary, since you clearly haven't even done that.

There is plenty of information about converting a $500 geo metro into an electric car getting 300MPG, this is not a new concept at all and you're a fag OP stop reading Forbes.

>muh government subsidies

Yeah real easy to seem hip and new and revolutionary when you're getting tons of funding.

> OK, so you really don't have any idea what the situation on the ground is.
I can't visit all nations and check out how much renewable energy they actually deployed, no.

> Do yourself a favour and do more research into why India suddenly decided they're going to build all this solar.
Maybe I will, but if I was (partly - I definitely heard local pollution being mentioned) wrong about the reason I presumably still wouldn't care too much as long as they do it.

And for China pollution is definitely one of the more pressing issues in national and regional policy. Let's just go with: Maybe you shouldn't suck more than China at renewables (+ maybe very low impact non-renewables) in terms of fraction of your energy production.

Still a lot less than using fossil fuels

Theranos 2.0

He's not talking about whales you moron.

It's a fucking analogy.

works great half of the year, when you need it less.