this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2025
64 points (68.0% liked)

Technology

60602 readers
4454 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Yeah, I think massive chemical batteries for storing excess electricity to facilitate a contrived green energy market is a bad idea.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yggstyle 48 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

So uh. I guess those coal and natural gas power plants would fare better in a fire. Something seems wrong there but OP clearly wouldn't possibly post something on the Internet that was utterly detached from reality.

Energy storage is just that. Fire is frequently quite good at releasing said energy.

Lithium? poof.

Oil? yup.

Nat gas? mmhmm.

wood? yup.

Coal? dang.

Guess all we got left is water - I'm sure that doesn't have any specific regional requirements...

So tell us champ: what energy storage you got all figured out from that armchair?

[–] neclimdul 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nuclear though, never had a problem with excess heat at one of those. /s

[–] yggstyle 4 points 1 day ago

Was gonna list it but I figured our energy-tzar OP would just complain about radioactive minerals being like batteries with more steps.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nobody's ever died from a dam collapse.

[–] yggstyle 6 points 1 day ago

Hey! It puts out fires so it's like... better!