GlockAF t1_ja56or9 wrote

Samsung is taking the long view. Chinas working age population falls off the demographic cliff in just a few years, they are already suffering the effects now.

Too many old people, not enough young to support them. They’ll get ancient even faster than Japan did, but with the added dystopian malaise of a non-existent social safety net and a stock market that’s been fictional for decades.

Indias population, for better or worse (and generally it’s worse) is relentlessly growing.

The smart long-term manufacturing investment is NOT in China


GlockAF t1_j7jxqpr wrote

The US used ~4000 terawatt hours in 2021, about 900 of that (~20%) renewable.

Barring the discovery and miraculously quick deployment of a resource-effective & cheap energy storage technology, we are still gonna need a quick spooling backup of some sort.

Unless you have a plan to cut energy use by 80%


GlockAF t1_j7hzltp wrote

False, at current energy use levels.

Potentially possible, if we have massive crash-course investment in transmission, infrastructure and a corresponding (and profoundly improbable) society-wide massive decrease in the average per-capita energy consumption of western countries.

In other words, not possible


GlockAF t1_j7h1oob wrote

Post below asks “why nuclear all of a sudden? Partly because the technically well-informed have finally (inevitably )!come to the correct conclusion that there is no route to a decarbonized economy without nuclear power. Renewables are great, renewables are the future, but nuclear power absolutely is going to be part of the solution.

As far as their connection to space travel, nothing else can match the energy density of nuclear power. There’s just no getting around it, if we limit ourselves to chemical fuel the rest of the solar system is essentially off-limits to anything biological


GlockAF t1_iwn5xm1 wrote

You are underestimating the difficulty and especially the expense of dealing with cryogenic liquids, especially over the long term. Both the initial and ongoing maintenance costs of cryogenic pumps, seals, and pressure vessels is FAR more expensive than the very modest requirements for liquefying and storing CO2.

Just the fact that you can indefinitely store arbitrarily large quantities of liquefied CO2 in a room-temperature pressure vessel is a HUGE Advantage over dealing with cryogenic liquids. Bulk CO2 storage tanks and all the associated manifolds, valves, piping, and associated ancillary equipment don’t need to operate at high pressures or extreme temperatures, which means that they can be manufactured and maintained at far lower expense


GlockAF t1_iwn3wpf wrote

The most critical part of this design is that utilizing the CO2 phase change from liquid to gaseous form and back limits overall pressure on system components to about 1200 psi, probably averaging closer to 850-900.

This means that the tanks, piping, manifolds, etc. do not have to handle high pressure like they would with a compressed air system, and can be built much more cheaply while still maintaining good safety margins.