|
|
|
|
|
|
by thereallksnmnn
2399 days ago
|
|
|
There is a lot of research going on in this field. One solution I find rather interesting is to use the peak energy to generate gas using some bio-chemical reaction and then again burn it once you need to adapt to peaks [1]. You can also use the existing gas infrastructure to transport the gas from the wind-rich north to the industrial-rich south without having to build new electricity lines (which people are protesting against too). Imho, it's a purely political driven decission to prolong coal usage and I SHAME the corrupting lobby-culture for this, as it's not in the interest of the people and only in the interest of a few companies and their share holder's. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096014811... Edit: Spelling |
|
|
Furthermore, in order to convert co2 to ch4 you need a source of CO2. Extracting the small percentage of CO2 from the atmosphere is not feasible. You would have to somehow pump the exhaust of the gas plants into a containment vessel, but creating backpressure on a gas turbine interferes with the turbine.
Germany, as well as California, exemplify the problem with intermittent energy sources. Solar and wind are cheap to displace 30-40% of fossil fuels, but going beyond that involves solving extremely difficult engineering challenges.