Hugohase

joined 8 months ago
[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)
[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

The strategy is being implemented, infrastructure being build. Electrolysers and hydrogen ready NGs are planed and build. New NG infrastructure is hydrogen ready. What else are you expecting? Should things magically materialise?

[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 1 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Now you are getting away from arguments...

[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 1 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Well... It's the current strategy.

Also, the same could be said about NG [efficiency about 30%-55% and also a little bit flameable].

[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 1 points 1 month ago (10 children)

In the EU, hydrogen. Either by fuel cell or burnt in hydogen ready NG plants. Wouldn't be my first choice but thats whats gonna happen.

[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 4 points 1 month ago (12 children)

I can't but it's also not necessary. There are no conditions were no energy from renewables is produced. You have to cover peaks and shift electricity around a bit. The missing parts are interconnection and, dependend on price, overbuilding.

[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 6 points 1 month ago (14 children)

Pumped hydro, hydrogen, batteries. The solutions are readily deployable and economcally viable.

[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Comparing users to MAU seems disingenuous. The fediverse has ~12 million users, according to fedidb and around 1.1 million active ones.

Most of them on Mastodon.

[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 7 points 4 months ago (7 children)

I don't agree with you but either way that doesn't change the fact that nuclear is just slow, expensive and a bad idea in 2024.

[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 28 points 4 months ago (10 children)

There are just better/faster options...

[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 2 points 5 months ago

Maybe you can get something out of here

[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I always use a factor of 1200 as approximation e.g. 1GW produses 1.2 TWh per year but thats very very rough.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/16239452

IEA: Clean energy investment to reach $2 trillion in 2024

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), more money is being invested in solar power than in all other sources of electricity combined.

Global investment in clean energy will reach $2 trillion (€1.84 trillion) this year, twice the amount invested in fossil fuels, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

"For every dollar going to fossil fuels today, almost two dollars are invested in clean energy," said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol.

Clean technologies include renewables, electric vehicles, nuclear power, grids, storage, low-emissions fuels, efficiency improvements and heat pumps.

Meanwhile, total energy investment is expected to exceed $3 trillion for the first time in 2024, the agency said in its annual World Energy Investment report.

In 2023, combined investment in renewable electricity and grids surpassed the amount spent on fossil fuels for the first time.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/3086311

In the first five months of 2024, 87% of the electricity consumed in Portugal was green

This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/worldnews by /u/randolphquell on 2024-06-03 14:23:58+00:00.

 

cross-posted from: https://futurology.today/post/1609274

Future energy demand does not need new fossil fuels, study says

Energy groups did not need to develop any new oil, gas and coal projects to meet future demand, an academic paper says, at a time when rhetoric over the role of fossil fuel companies in addressing climate change is escalating.

Researchers from University College London and the International Institute for Sustainable Development studied projected future global demand for oil and gas production, and for coal- and gas-fired power generation, under a range of scenarios that limit warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

In all of the scenarios, which are all taken from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report, existing fossil fuel capacity is enough to meet the world’s energy demands, it concludes.

The study is the first peer-reviewed paper published in a scientific journal to argue that no more fossil fuel projects are needed as renewable energy sources take up the demand, and expands on the findings produced in 2021 by the International Energy Agency.

The IEA said energy groups must stop all new oil and gas exploration projects if the world was to reach net zero emissions by 2050, and limit global warming to 1.5C degrees.

Greg Muttitt, a senior associate at IISD, said the research drew on “a large range of scientific evidence . . . But its message to governments and fossil fuel companies is very simple: There is no room for new fossil fuel projects in a 1.5°C-aligned world.”

“Achieving the Paris Agreement goals means governments need to stop issuing permits for new fossil fuel exploration, production or power- generation projects,” said Muttitt.

Almost 200 countries agreed to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels as part of the Paris Agreement in 2015, with many countries setting targets to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

The oil and gas industry has repeatedly pushed back against the IEA, including its forecast that demand for fossil fuels will peak before 2030.

“I don’t think they’re remotely right,” the chief executive of oil producer Chevron told the Financial Times last October. “You can build scenarios, but we live in the real world, and have to allocate capital to meet real world demands.”

Last December, countries reached an agreement as part of the UN’s COP28 climate summit to transition away from fossil fuels in an attempt to reach global net zero emissions by 2050.

The text asks all countries to set “ambitious” emissions targets over the next two years that take into account their fossil fuel use, in an effort to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. The rise in temperature is at least 1.1C.

A cut in greenhouse gas emissions by about half by 2030 is required to limit warming, with the burning of fossils fuels being the biggest contributor. However, according to scientists at Nasa, emissions from fossil fuel are still rising. Emissions rose 1.1 per cent in 2023 compared with 2022.

47
Electricity Live Map (app.electricitymaps.com)
 

Nice tool to get an idea of different electricity markets.

view more: ‹ prev next ›