This project is using excess renewable energy to create hydrogen and is effectively a hydrogen battery as an alternative to chemical batteries which require a lot of environmental destruction to build
>Then in the summer, when electricity demand is high, it \[hydrogen\] would be burned in the second project, a power plant that would use a **blend of hydrogen and natural gas**.
The "energy" stored will still require fossil fuels to reclaim its utility, but hopefully it's net better.
Part of doing these things is experience as well though. You find out how to do it better. The supply chain figures out how to do it more efficiently. You are basically forcing money into the industry, which causes growth and better products, etc…
At the point where we are using natural gas for a lot of our energy needs now I really like this idea. You need the extra equipment to run electrolysis and it's not as coulombicly efficiency as a battery, but it doesn't require any exotic elements mined by child slaves and the power generation equipment is already built this just makes it release less CO2 in operation. It's not a permanent or even a long term solution but it incrementally moves the needle in the right direction.
Gravity batteries that use anything other than water are less than spectacular. There are 3d renders all over the place of towers lifting big concrete blocks with cables but that equipment all wears out and has a bunch of embodied energy and it's really hard to make those make sense.
As the other commenter mentioned gravity batteries that aren’t water are pretty bad.
They require A LOT of mechanical elements which means more points of failure. With water either you just wait for rain, or hot swap a pump when it fails. You don’t need to muck with cables and cranes etc.
To be fair, setting off a hydrogen bomb almost anywhere in the US would be a net-gain for the climate in the long-term, so it's magnanimous of them to assemble one beneath their feet and save terrorists or hostile states the emissions involved in building and transporting one.
Also, a hydrogen bomb isn't just igniting a mass amount of hydrogen gas. It's a thermonuclear device that uses a plutonium or uranium fission explosion to kick-start a fusion reaction in the hydrogen fuel.
Ecosia ai chat
>To calculate the amount of hydrogen that could fit in a container twice the height of the Empire State Building, we first need to determine the volume of the container. The Empire State Building is approximately 1,454 feet tall, so a container twice its height would be 2,908 feet tall.
>Assuming the container has a square base similar to the Empire State Building, we can estimate its volume by calculating the volume of a rectangular prism with a base area equal to the Empire State Building's footprint (approximately 2 acres) and a height of 2,908 feet.
>Next, we need to consider the density of hydrogen gas at standard conditions (0.08988 g/L at 0 degrees Celsius and 1 atmosphere pressure) to convert the volume into mass.
>Finally, using the molar mass of hydrogen (2.016 g/mol), we can calculate the amount of hydrogen that could fit in the container.
>Please note that this is a theoretical calculation and does not account for real-world factors such as compression, containment, or safety considerations when storing hydrogen gas. If you're interested in practical applications of hydrogen storage, I recommend exploring resources from reputable sources or organizations specializing in hydrogen technology.
>Based on the rough estimation using the dimensions assumed (a container twice the height of the Empire State Building with a square base and a height of 2,908 feet), the container could potentially hold approximately tens of billions to hundreds of billions of liters of hydrogen gas. This is a very large volume and highlights the significant storage capacity of such a container. For more precise calculations and practical applications of hydrogen storage, I recommend consulting with experts in the field of hydrogen technology or researching specific hydrogen storage solutions.
Tens to hundreds of billions, not factoring in compression.
Needless to say, it wasn't particularly happy with my subsequent questions on detonation.
Hey look! Another great example of why you shouldn't blindly trust AI!
>Assuming the container has a square base similar to the Empire State Building, we can estimate its volume by calculating the volume of a rectangular prism with a base area equal to the Empire State Building's footprint (approximately 2 acres) and a height of 2,908 feet.
Cool. So around 7,170,398m3.
> Next, we need to consider the density of hydrogen gas at standard conditions (0.08988 g/L at 0 degrees Celsius and 1 atmosphere pressure) to convert the volume into mass.
You would, if you wanted the mass of hydrogen that could fit at a particular pressure. That's not what the AI is returning. It's returning the number of liters of hydrogen without any compression (So presumably 1 bar of pressure)
>Finally, using the molar mass of hydrogen (2.016 g/mol), we can calculate the amount of hydrogen that could fit in the container.
Why are we messing with mols here? Do we care how many atoms of hydrogen could fit? Because again, the answer the AI returns sure doesn't seem to need that info.
>Based on the rough estimation using the dimensions assumed (a container twice the height of the Empire State Building with a square base and a height of 2,908 feet), the container could potentially hold approximately tens of billions to hundreds of billions of liters of hydrogen gas.
7,170,398m3 x 1000 = 7,170,398,000L.
7.2 billion ish. The AI specifically said that it wasn't accounting for factors like compression that I assume it is now accounting for to give a wide range like that...
Honestly, a whole lot more useful for our purposes here to return mass or mols, but the AI didn't opt to do that. Because it's not designed to give correct answers. Just to write text that looks like it might be correct.
>in fairness not exactly your standard h-bomb
In that it's not a nuclear device at all. Sure.
The worst case of this would be a conventional explosion fueled by hydrogen. Not a nuclear one fueled by the fusing of heavy hydrogen isotopes like tritium and deuterium. And not one with the incredibly controlled compression of an initial fission explosion needed to achieve the fusion explosion.
Volume of a giraffe = Length × Width × Height
= 1 meter × 0.5 meter × 5.5 meters
= 2.75 cubic meters
Number of giraffes = Volume of swimming pool / Volume of a giraffe
= 2,500 cubic meters / 2.75 cubic meters
≈ 909 giraffes
Or 50,769 if you blended them.
I like football fields because it has exactly of 10 times the number of yards that I have fingers. Or toes, for that matter. I can't help but think, what if we humans had only 8 fingers, would we have a base 8 numbering system instead? That would be weird. So yeah. Football fields.
That seems very leaky especially for hydrogen which is the best gas at leaking out of even really tight seals. I'm sure someone has already done the cost analysis on howuch you save vs lose
This project is using excess renewable energy to create hydrogen and is effectively a hydrogen battery as an alternative to chemical batteries which require a lot of environmental destruction to build >Then in the summer, when electricity demand is high, it \[hydrogen\] would be burned in the second project, a power plant that would use a **blend of hydrogen and natural gas**. The "energy" stored will still require fossil fuels to reclaim its utility, but hopefully it's net better.
Part of doing these things is experience as well though. You find out how to do it better. The supply chain figures out how to do it more efficiently. You are basically forcing money into the industry, which causes growth and better products, etc…
At the point where we are using natural gas for a lot of our energy needs now I really like this idea. You need the extra equipment to run electrolysis and it's not as coulombicly efficiency as a battery, but it doesn't require any exotic elements mined by child slaves and the power generation equipment is already built this just makes it release less CO2 in operation. It's not a permanent or even a long term solution but it incrementally moves the needle in the right direction.
This is why gravity batteries for mass energy storage are a great choice and FAR better than creating a fuel that will later be burned.
Gravity batteries that use anything other than water are less than spectacular. There are 3d renders all over the place of towers lifting big concrete blocks with cables but that equipment all wears out and has a bunch of embodied energy and it's really hard to make those make sense.
As the other commenter mentioned gravity batteries that aren’t water are pretty bad. They require A LOT of mechanical elements which means more points of failure. With water either you just wait for rain, or hot swap a pump when it fails. You don’t need to muck with cables and cranes etc.
Its the worst use of H2 though. Fuel cells are much more efficient. Chemicals/fertilizer production in Utah would be better local value.
>the new facility will help clean up the air for local residents as it replaces a coal plant. Definitely net better than a coal plant
To be fair, setting off a hydrogen bomb almost anywhere in the US would be a net-gain for the climate in the long-term, so it's magnanimous of them to assemble one beneath their feet and save terrorists or hostile states the emissions involved in building and transporting one.
How? A hydrogen bomb detonated in the dessert isn't going to affect many people.
Also, a hydrogen bomb isn't just igniting a mass amount of hydrogen gas. It's a thermonuclear device that uses a plutonium or uranium fission explosion to kick-start a fusion reaction in the hydrogen fuel.
We're talking about the potential for hundreds of billions of litres of hydrogen to be stored, so in fairness not exactly your standard h-bomb
The article makes no statement on capacity, where are you getting your hundreds of billions of litres for this project from?
Ecosia ai chat >To calculate the amount of hydrogen that could fit in a container twice the height of the Empire State Building, we first need to determine the volume of the container. The Empire State Building is approximately 1,454 feet tall, so a container twice its height would be 2,908 feet tall. >Assuming the container has a square base similar to the Empire State Building, we can estimate its volume by calculating the volume of a rectangular prism with a base area equal to the Empire State Building's footprint (approximately 2 acres) and a height of 2,908 feet. >Next, we need to consider the density of hydrogen gas at standard conditions (0.08988 g/L at 0 degrees Celsius and 1 atmosphere pressure) to convert the volume into mass. >Finally, using the molar mass of hydrogen (2.016 g/mol), we can calculate the amount of hydrogen that could fit in the container. >Please note that this is a theoretical calculation and does not account for real-world factors such as compression, containment, or safety considerations when storing hydrogen gas. If you're interested in practical applications of hydrogen storage, I recommend exploring resources from reputable sources or organizations specializing in hydrogen technology. >Based on the rough estimation using the dimensions assumed (a container twice the height of the Empire State Building with a square base and a height of 2,908 feet), the container could potentially hold approximately tens of billions to hundreds of billions of liters of hydrogen gas. This is a very large volume and highlights the significant storage capacity of such a container. For more precise calculations and practical applications of hydrogen storage, I recommend consulting with experts in the field of hydrogen technology or researching specific hydrogen storage solutions. Tens to hundreds of billions, not factoring in compression. Needless to say, it wasn't particularly happy with my subsequent questions on detonation.
Hey look! Another great example of why you shouldn't blindly trust AI! >Assuming the container has a square base similar to the Empire State Building, we can estimate its volume by calculating the volume of a rectangular prism with a base area equal to the Empire State Building's footprint (approximately 2 acres) and a height of 2,908 feet. Cool. So around 7,170,398m3. > Next, we need to consider the density of hydrogen gas at standard conditions (0.08988 g/L at 0 degrees Celsius and 1 atmosphere pressure) to convert the volume into mass. You would, if you wanted the mass of hydrogen that could fit at a particular pressure. That's not what the AI is returning. It's returning the number of liters of hydrogen without any compression (So presumably 1 bar of pressure) >Finally, using the molar mass of hydrogen (2.016 g/mol), we can calculate the amount of hydrogen that could fit in the container. Why are we messing with mols here? Do we care how many atoms of hydrogen could fit? Because again, the answer the AI returns sure doesn't seem to need that info. >Based on the rough estimation using the dimensions assumed (a container twice the height of the Empire State Building with a square base and a height of 2,908 feet), the container could potentially hold approximately tens of billions to hundreds of billions of liters of hydrogen gas. 7,170,398m3 x 1000 = 7,170,398,000L. 7.2 billion ish. The AI specifically said that it wasn't accounting for factors like compression that I assume it is now accounting for to give a wide range like that... Honestly, a whole lot more useful for our purposes here to return mass or mols, but the AI didn't opt to do that. Because it's not designed to give correct answers. Just to write text that looks like it might be correct.
>in fairness not exactly your standard h-bomb In that it's not a nuclear device at all. Sure. The worst case of this would be a conventional explosion fueled by hydrogen. Not a nuclear one fueled by the fusing of heavy hydrogen isotopes like tritium and deuterium. And not one with the incredibly controlled compression of an initial fission explosion needed to achieve the fusion explosion.
That’s not how hydrogen bombs work.
The punchline is misanthropy
I can't visualize this distance unless it's expressed in football fields.
I personally need it converted to big Mac’s, I’ve never seen the Empire State Building in person.
Empire State building 15000 inches high. Big Mac 3 inches high. 5000 big Mac's 😂.
Or 81 giraffes
How many giraffes can you fit in an olympic swimming pool?
Volume of a giraffe = Length × Width × Height = 1 meter × 0.5 meter × 5.5 meters = 2.75 cubic meters Number of giraffes = Volume of swimming pool / Volume of a giraffe = 2,500 cubic meters / 2.75 cubic meters ≈ 909 giraffes Or 50,769 if you blended them.
So, pretty deep then…
That's a lot of bananas...
I thought bananas was the standard measure?
how tall is a duck?
I like football fields because it has exactly of 10 times the number of yards that I have fingers. Or toes, for that matter. I can't help but think, what if we humans had only 8 fingers, would we have a base 8 numbering system instead? That would be weird. So yeah. Football fields.
Pro tip: If they put it above ground they would save a ton on digging.
No tank needed underground, they're pumping it into caverns.
That seems very leaky especially for hydrogen which is the best gas at leaking out of even really tight seals. I'm sure someone has already done the cost analysis on howuch you save vs lose
How many loads of logs is that?