02-02-2023, 04:41 AM
As the article says, though, the inventors of the flow batteries were 20 years too early. The application for the patent was filed in 1986 and would have run out in 2001 before storage was much of an issue. Until solar panels and renewable energy became popular, supply was regular given coal-fired power plants. That’s the thing about renewable power. Developing the technology couldn’t be done in a linear planned fashion. Some parts of the system are developed before they can be used or before they can lead to an identifiable benefit.
An example of that is the electric vehicle market. When the electricity that would recharge them was generated by burning coal or gas, the argument was that there was no point electrifying cars as the pollution was merely shifted from 1 place to another. That led to minimal investment in creating electric vehicles and recharging stations. Now there is cleaner energy available, we’re playing catch up in those areas.
That’s why I’m not so persuaded by arguments based on existing technology. The developments cited in those 2 articles are merely 2 of many being evaluated now. What will be available in 2030 will be light years ahead of what currently exists. And we need to develop infrastructure to take advantage of it rather than saying, “There are issues with current technology, so let’s put it on the back burner until all those issues are resolved”. On the other hand, nuclear fission and fossil fuels are mature markets with much less scope for improvement. Clean coal is a joke and they should stop trying to make fetch happen. Nuclear fusion on the other hand is intriguing.
An example of that is the electric vehicle market. When the electricity that would recharge them was generated by burning coal or gas, the argument was that there was no point electrifying cars as the pollution was merely shifted from 1 place to another. That led to minimal investment in creating electric vehicles and recharging stations. Now there is cleaner energy available, we’re playing catch up in those areas.
That’s why I’m not so persuaded by arguments based on existing technology. The developments cited in those 2 articles are merely 2 of many being evaluated now. What will be available in 2030 will be light years ahead of what currently exists. And we need to develop infrastructure to take advantage of it rather than saying, “There are issues with current technology, so let’s put it on the back burner until all those issues are resolved”. On the other hand, nuclear fission and fossil fuels are mature markets with much less scope for improvement. Clean coal is a joke and they should stop trying to make fetch happen. Nuclear fusion on the other hand is intriguing.