Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Dischordance t1_iwk5ed0 wrote

To my understanding, the benefits from co2 come from being able to compress it into a liquid at room temperature leading to an efficiency advantage, and simpler, probably cheaper systems to build.

But moreover, I don't see any reason why both couldn't be viable in different situations, with liquid air near sources of waste thermal energy, etc.


DukeLukeivi t1_iwk6hma wrote

Their projected round trip efficiency is worse at the low end and break even at the high end. They share the same cheap industrial construction components.

Is just seems less valuable overall, especially as its not carbon negative. Like yeah hybrid cars help, but less valuable than full electric


Dischordance t1_iwk7mh2 wrote

The startup cost difference isn't negligible, and it could easily be used with a carbon capture project.

And I'll wait for third party tests on either's efficiency before I believe the real world numbers.

And, as someone who enjoys going offroad/off grid for longer than an electric will allow, I absolutely see the use case for hybrids.


DukeLukeivi t1_iwl3olb wrote

You don't have any numbers showing a lower start up cost, but blindly assert it must be better, while "waiting for numbers", wherein numbers projected are worse for your case - yep.

"Using it with carbon capture" is less efficient than the system which does both since much of the power your saving is then earmarked for capture, not going back to the grid.

Try another analogy: peaker planets are incandescent bulbs, your compact florescence are better to be sure but led have no mercury and last longer and use less power still.

Why are you so defensive about finding out there are even better options available?


Dischordance t1_iwltoze wrote

Because I doubt that a more complex system that requires extreme cold, and excess thermal energy and the storage of both will have both efficiency and cost advantages over a similar, less complex system that can function at ambient temperatures.

As this is a battery, it would be a one time carbon capture energy price, and then would be a form of sequestering it. It wouldn't be a constant input.

And until both are proven in the real world, where both are currently in the process of doing so. I don't think claiming one is so much better that the other has no use is warranted.

That is a better analogy than hybrids. Still don't think it's very applicable based on what I've seen.