933
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by inari@piefed.zip to c/climate@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 days ago

We can't transport the solar power from Texas to Michigan the same way we can truck gas across state lines.

Batteries?

[-] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago

Also this is goofy. Panels aren't centralized. You could have tons of panels and wind in Michigan. You wouldn't transmit Texas power that far unless you really had to, and there's still ways to do it if you needed

[-] MerryJaneDoe@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I had Google help me out with this one. For illustrative purposes, let's take the Tesla Semi (an electric commercial truck) battery. You could transport about 4 MWh worth of electricity. That's about 4 months worth of electricity for an average American household. Here's the details:

A single Tesla Semi utilizes an estimated 850 kWh to 1,000 kWh battery pack, which weighs approximately 10,000 to 12,000 lbs. If a trailer were filled strictly with these large, fully integrated packs rather than smaller, individual battery cells, only about 4 to 6 of these high-capacity, 1-megawatt-hour systems could physically fit within the weight limits of a standard trailer.

Battery Capacity & Weight: The Semi uses roughly 1 MWh, which consists of four, high-capacity, smaller packs.

Total Weight: A full 1 MWh pack weighs between 10,000 lbs (4,570 kg) and 12,000 lbs.

Capacity Limit: Due to weight restrictions of 80,000 lbs for a loaded semi (with a 2,000 lb increase for EVs), you cannot simply load 80,000 lbs of batteries into a trailer.

Physical Space: While the trailer has massive volume, the 10,000+ lb per pack weight means the trailer would reach its weight limit long before it is full of, say, Model S packs (if that was the method).

[-] HerrVincling@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Now compare that to high voltage power lines if you're interested. "HVDC transmission losses are quoted at 3.5% per 1,000 km (620 mi)" (Wikipedia)

[-] GreenShimada@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

So, driving batteries around the country? Really?

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 days ago

I mean no, because it probably wouldn't ever need to be done.

But I'm not sure why it would be any worse than trucks full of oil.

[-] stickly@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

It wouldn't be done because the energy density of a battery is atrocious compared to oil, something like 100x worse. Half of the input spent in burning oil comes for free in the air around us, so batteries will never likely beat it.

[-] budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago

it probably wouldn’t ever need to be done.

As the parent commenter said, the energy itself wouldn't need to be delivered. You just deliver the panels once.

[-] GreenShimada@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Why be just as bad as the old system? And while I'm not sure, I would expect it would be hugely more inefficient in terms of energy produced compared to energy delivered to the end user.

[-] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Bud, we drive gas around the country. Thats even stupider.

Lot of propaganda from oil companies is working, I see.

[-] GreenShimada@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

Yeah, I know. That's why driving electrons around the country isn't any better.

[-] budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago

You don't need to drive electrons around constantly - just drive the panels there once and you have power there for 20 years.

[-] GreenShimada@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Michigan is cloudy or overcast most of the winter. It's a lake-effect thing, it starts once you get over the border from Indiana. Why use panels 4 or 5 months out of the year?

this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026
933 points (98.2% liked)

Climate

8436 readers
385 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS