Timeline for With current technology, what would be the best way to store energy for future generations?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 11:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jan 5, 2016 at 8:51 | comment | added | Jim2B | Solar panels degrade over time regardless of whether they're used or not. Typical life span is in the 10-20 year range, after which they must be replaced. So orbiting a bunch of solar power stations for future generation's power needs is not feasible with current tech - let alone storing the power of those stations. | |
| Aug 23, 2015 at 18:53 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Aug 23, 2015 at 20:28 | |||||
| Aug 23, 2015 at 18:49 | comment | added | DoubleDouble | @SerbanTanasa The point of the question is, "How do we store the energy" - not "How do we generate more"... Assuming we do this or any other method of generation, it doesn't answer the question of "How to store the energy" | |
| Aug 23, 2015 at 15:12 | comment | added | user3652621 | Suit yourself, buddy | |
| Aug 23, 2015 at 15:00 | comment | added | user8827 | This is a hard science tag question. You only quoted a few numbers for solar output and then put off the actual storage solution on sci-fi. I wasn't calling you out - but now I am. -1 for not being hard science. | |
| Aug 23, 2015 at 11:46 | history | edited | user3652621 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 125 characters in body
|
| Aug 23, 2015 at 11:31 | comment | added | user3652621 | @SeanBoddy the point of the answer was that we have this giant continuous energy source called the sun, and that it makes far more sense to focus on capturing as much of that much bigger pie, than it does to store crumbs of our thimble-sized pie. We have a few million years to figure out better storage. | |
| Aug 23, 2015 at 4:17 | comment | added | Peter Cordes | @Sean: ahhh, yeah if you consider the generating efficiency with current methods. IDK if there's much hope of more efficient antimatter creation, but Serban's unsubstantiated claim about "conversion-ratio-wise efficient" is totally bogus unless he's thinking about some potential sci-fi method that isn't in current use. (Either way, links needed for that in Serban's answer, because it's the biggest stumbling block.) | |
| Aug 23, 2015 at 4:05 | comment | added | user8827 | @Peter, totally correct. But it's a losing game because of the power cost of generation and storage. Hence the trampoline and hyperactive children. Really. | |
| Aug 23, 2015 at 4:01 | comment | added | Peter Cordes | @SeanBoddy: To get mechanical work out of antimatter, can't you react it with matter and capture the gamma rays as heat? Then you "just" need to build a heat engine that can heat the working fluid with gamma rays. And that doesn't do anything chemically nasty when the molecules of the working fluid have some of their atoms modified by annihilation of a proton here, an electron there... Nuke plants deal with this with heat exchangers to carry heat between the reactor core and the boiler, so annihilation can happen somewhere that's just hot all the time, and doesn't move. | |
| Aug 22, 2015 at 6:41 | comment | added | user8827 | For the sake of completeness, the best existing models for the use of anti-matter only work for propulsion in space, and are pretty cool. But as far as the generation of rotational mechanical work and electrical power, I could beat the efficiency of antimatter by feeding children candy and making them jump on a trampoline. It also doesn't meet the OP's ease of use criterion. | |
| Aug 22, 2015 at 0:36 | comment | added | DoubleDouble | I'd prefer to only focus on the energy storage if possible. The antimatter thing could be an answer, but how we go about creating the energy for storage(via space panels or hamster wheels) is off-topic | |
| Aug 22, 2015 at 0:25 | comment | added | DoubleDouble | Do you have a source for the claim "but it is the most volume- and conversion-ratio-wise efficient form of energy storage we know of"? The link you have just explains how scientists trap the created antimatter. | |
| Aug 22, 2015 at 0:17 | comment | added | yshavit | We have the technology to make solar panels, sure -- but not to create what you're proposing. That's a bit like saying that 9th century China had the ability to go to the moon, since gunpowder can make things go up and fast. Putting aside things like course corrections (which require fuel, which probably wouldn't last a few billion years), there's the small matter of being able to actually use the power. Beaming power from space is under research, but I don't think it's fair to say that it's current technology in any sort of production-ready sense. (I didn't downvote, btw.) | |
| Aug 21, 2015 at 22:51 | history | undeleted | user3652621 | ||
| Aug 21, 2015 at 22:51 | history | edited | user3652621 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2380 characters in body
|
| Aug 21, 2015 at 22:13 | history | deleted | user3652621 | via Vote | |
| Aug 21, 2015 at 22:07 | history | edited | user3652621 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 415 characters in body
|
| Aug 21, 2015 at 22:02 | history | answered | user3652621 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |