Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby JuanP » Thu 02 Jul 2020, 18:37:21

mousepad wrote:
kublikhan wrote:Not even $150 oil ushered in those changes.


yes. $150 I is still like free, considering how much utility I get from a gas chainsaw.


I totally agree with that. I used my 16" Stihl chainsaw yesterday morning to make about twenty 2" and about five 4" to 6" cuts on two live oaks and a strangler fig to clear some low hanging branches on the entrance road at the farm for the trucks delivering 21 loads of free fill. The whole thing took me less than 20 minutes, I definitely ran the saw for less than 10 minutes, most likely around 5, and used less than 100 ml of gas. Total cost of the gas used was less than a dime. The value of the 21 loads of free, clean fill, priceless. And, I will save all the oak wood to barbecue some steaks, which will taste amazing, too.

Gas would have to cost hundreds of times more for me to grab my Japanese Silky pole saw and do that using muscle power in Miami's Summer heat, with a heat index of around 105F.
Last edited by JuanP on Thu 02 Jul 2020, 20:31:46, edited 1 time in total.
"Only Americans can hurt America." Dwight D. Eisenhower
Free Meng Wanzhou! Tulsi Gabbard 2024!
JuanP
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sat 16 Aug 2014, 15:06:32

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 02 Jul 2020, 18:56:03

REALGreen,

It strikes me that Japan will be on the bleeding edge of degrowth. (iPhone does not recognize degrowth as a word, we have a looong way to go.)

Have you been paying any attention to Japan?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 16125
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby asg70 » Thu 02 Jul 2020, 20:07:52

mousepad wrote:If energy gets expensive the change comes automatically. If it stays cheap? Well then I guess we don't have to change.


If it stays cheap then population growth and global warming will converge to produce food shortages.

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
permanently banned
 
Posts: 4297
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby REAL Green » Thu 02 Jul 2020, 20:49:29

Newfie wrote:Have you been paying any attention to Japan?


Yea, demographically they are well advanced. If any people can do it the Japanese can lead the way. They are an extremely disciplined people, homogenous population and deep culture. We have a lot to learn from them.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 05:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby ralfy » Thu 02 Jul 2020, 22:30:35

Newfie wrote:Somehow I get the feeling the discussion is really about population. In order to feed 7.5 billion you need massive scale and those efficiencies. But no matter how good those efficiencies are we are still massively over using available resources; water, soil, fuel, CO2 absorption.

If you could bring the population down to about 1/3 of now and retain those efficiencies that would be good. But what happens when the population drops that much? Do those efficiencies go away? If they do then you are left only with local, and likely another population loss.

I don’t think any of us really know that answer, but it seems clear to me that a population defrosts or 2/3rds is the minimum required.


It's probably a combination of population, capitalism (i.e., competitive with light regulation) coupled with financial speculation, and others.

That is, large amounts of resources and energy are needed to provide for basic needs of a population that increased rapidly in only a few decades in order to minimize conflict. Hence, Bretton Woods, the petrodollar, the Green Revolution, the use of oil for manufacturing and mechanized agriculture, and so on.

One of the main sources of goods and services for basic needs is for-profit businesses. In competition with each other, they make their operations more efficient because they need to outsell competitors and make more profit, which should be the case as the main goal of for-profit businesses is maximization of profit for their owners.

The same owners may invest funds not only in businesses but in financial speculation, where they can bet on all sorts of things, from the weather to commodities. These increase their funds even more, but not necessarily through more productivity.

These, in turn, has also led to less localization as well as lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancy rates. In short, the population increase drives industrialization which drives population increase.

At some point, population increase lowers due to more prosperity, but that prosperity also involves increasing resource and energy use. Hence, high ecological footprints from the middle class and rich in contrast to the poor, who earn $10 or less a day. Around 70 pct of the human race are poor.

For profit-businesses competing with each other would like to meet their needs and to use more resources and energy because those will lead to more profits. They also want to avoid a population decrease, even regionally, as that would lead to lower sales, which in turn does not encourage becoming more efficient. Hence, immigration to negate population aging, etc.

The hope from the mainsteam then is that the world will have enough energy and material resources to make people so prosperous that the population will soon peak and then drop slowly. Efficiency will lead to technofixes that will derail limits to growth and even solve environmental damage.

I think the Limits to Growth group raised that plus other scenarios, where governments of the world would intervene and regulate heavily in terms of environmental protection or population control. But given what has been taking place the last few decades, these are probably not likely: the main driver for the global economy will still be capitalism with few regulations. Hence, the mainstream hope.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5210
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 03 Jul 2020, 06:45:50

Ralphy,

Yes I get that. It’s the old argument made by Pops and others the best way to decrease population is to raise women. But that becomes a race, do you achieve that goal before the resources run out? That answer seems to be a decisive “No.”. :cry:

So that is the scenario we seem to be living with. LTG BAU.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 16125
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 03 Jul 2020, 06:49:58

REAL Green wrote:
Newfie wrote:Have you been paying any attention to Japan?


Yea, demographically they are well advanced. If any people can do it the Japanese can lead the way. They are an extremely disciplined people, homogenous population and deep culture. We have a lot to learn from them.


My thought is that they will turn heavily to AI. AI has the capability to economically look like a growing labor force except that it does not consume.

Japan, with their tight immigration policies, would seem to be a natural for extensive AI deployment.

I assume this is the case but have no proof.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 16125
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby JuanP » Fri 03 Jul 2020, 07:11:21

ralfy wrote:For profit-businesses competing with each other would like to meet their needs and to use more resources and energy because those will lead to more profits. They also want to avoid a population decrease, even regionally, as that would lead to lower sales, which in turn does not encourage becoming more efficient. Hence, immigration to negate population aging, etc.


I mostly agree with your comment above, ralfy, but I have a different interpretation of the part I quoted. I agree that corporations want to avoid a population decrease because that would lead to reduced income and profits, but I don't believe that this would discourage becoming more efficient. Increased efficiency would still lead to a better relative position, even in a decreasing population and/or consumption environment. In fact, I believe increased efficiency would be even more important as corporations fight with each other to survive in a reduced income environment.

The main reason why corporations, governments, and economists are so obsessed with population and consumption growth is that our economic and financial systems are based on loaning money into existence which requires continued growth to be sustained. A long term population decline would lead to economic contraction, which would inevitably lead to a collapse and reset of the global economy, wiping out most debt, stock markets, etc.
"Only Americans can hurt America." Dwight D. Eisenhower
Free Meng Wanzhou! Tulsi Gabbard 2024!
JuanP
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sat 16 Aug 2014, 15:06:32

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby REAL Green » Fri 03 Jul 2020, 10:36:23

Newfie wrote:
REAL Green wrote:
Newfie wrote:Have you been paying any attention to Japan?


Yea, demographically they are well advanced. If any people can do it the Japanese can lead the way. They are an extremely disciplined people, homogenous population and deep culture. We have a lot to learn from them.


My thought is that they will turn heavily to AI. AI has the capability to economically look like a growing labor force except that it does not consume.


My opinion on AI is it is an expensive niche that will fit for high value applications in value chains but also some services. I see its ability to replace human labor stalling soon as affluence declines. It has been used in many cases dubiously to replace humans becuase they cost too much. Yet, if this human coast condition reverses what will be the need for AI? I see a need for it in highly technical applications that require repetitive precision and also dangerous work. I don't see the need for AI to be used as if it is the cure for all the modern manufacturing and service ills.

Japan is know for less complicated old tech that has been done for generations. This is also true with things they grow. They are one of the leaders in high tech but also low tech high quality things. It will be interesting to see how such a nation will navigate demographic decline along with human and planetary decline. I personally have a high opinion of the Japanese that they can show the rest of the world the way into the decline process. Italy is another nation I greatly admire. My wife is Italian and I have spent time in her Mountain village. They still hang on to the old ways and adapt to the modern as needed. Italy like Japan is in the forefront of demographic decline.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 05:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby asg70 » Fri 03 Jul 2020, 11:18:58

JuanP wrote:I mostly agree with your comment above, ralfy, but I have a different interpretation of the part I quoted. I agree that corporations want to avoid a population decrease because that would lead to reduced income and profits, but I don't believe that this would discourage becoming more efficient.


The biggest cost to a company's bottom line is labor. That's why so much of efficiency has centered around eliminating labor, creating this race between the benefits of improvements in technology vs. the economic displacements of putting people out of work.

The best outcome of the invisible hand of the free-market system is a kick-the-can approach which ultimately reaches a point of diminishing returns.

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
permanently banned
 
Posts: 4297
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 03 Jul 2020, 12:31:49

asg70 wrote:
JuanP wrote:I mostly agree with your comment above, ralfy, but I have a different interpretation of the part I quoted. I agree that corporations want to avoid a population decrease because that would lead to reduced income and profits, but I don't believe that this would discourage becoming more efficient.


The biggest cost to a company's bottom line is labor. That's why so much of efficiency has centered around eliminating labor, creating this race between the benefits of improvements in technology vs. the economic displacements of putting people out of work.

The best outcome of the invisible hand of the free-market system is a kick-the-can approach which ultimately reaches a point of diminishing returns.


The biggest problem is putting people out of work also cuts deeply into the tax base as fewer people contribute to income tax, medicare/medicaid/SSI funds and so on meaning the businesses get the increase profits from declining labor numbers by socializing the costs of having fewer employed workers across those who remain.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16248
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 03 Jul 2020, 15:23:59

Tanada,
True, some form of tax reform is required no matter the state of development. Moving from humans to robots and Automation kills taxes.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 16125
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby ralfy » Fri 03 Jul 2020, 19:07:06

JuanP wrote:
I mostly agree with your comment above, ralfy, but I have a different interpretation of the part I quoted. I agree that corporations want to avoid a population decrease because that would lead to reduced income and profits, but I don't believe that this would discourage becoming more efficient. Increased efficiency would still lead to a better relative position, even in a decreasing population and/or consumption environment. In fact, I believe increased efficiency would be even more important as corporations fight with each other to survive in a reduced income environment.

The main reason why corporations, governments, and economists are so obsessed with population and consumption growth is that our economic and financial systems are based on loaning money into existence which requires continued growth to be sustained. A long term population decline would lead to economic contraction, which would inevitably lead to a collapse and reset of the global economy, wiping out most debt, stock markets, etc.


For-profit businesses usually invest in efficiency because that leads to more productivity, from which they get more profits. But that also means more sales, which in turn involves consumers buying more goods or more consumers buying goods. The latter is inevitable, but it requires expanding markets, increasing population, or both.

What applies to the manufacture of goods also applies to financing, but only for the points I just mentioned. Otherwise, financial speculation takes place outside the need for sustaining growth, and that may ironically affect the latter as risks could lead to crashes.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5210
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby ralfy » Fri 03 Jul 2020, 19:13:41

Similar issues apply to automation: increased productivity, but how to get returns on investment in automation if not enough people buy due to population aging, if not workers displaced by the same?

Outside financial speculation, the capitalist can only earn if more people buy and people buy more, but that also means they have to borrow more, work more, and be paid more. And there has to be more of them each time.

And all that over what amounts to be numbers in hard drives which can't negate diminishing returns.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5210
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby REAL Green » Mon 06 Jul 2020, 05:27:11

“Europe's Leaked Hydrogen Strategy Is Very Ambitious”
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... tious.html

“In the panorama of renewable energy technologies, hydrogen’s potential is seen in several sectors. It is what the IEA calls an ‘integration’ technology. It promises to play a cross-sectoral role throughout the energy system, contributing simultaneously to decarbonization in various ways. It can make clean energy sources more efficient and increase overall system flexibility. What has increased its appeal, beyond the basic need to address climate change, is the remarkable decline in the cost of renewable energy, which makes the large-scale production of low-carbon hydrogen more feasible. These factors have motivated a growing number of plans and pilot projects throughout the world, reaching a high point of announcements for new projects last year. Now the outlines of how hydrogen will function in future energy systems, and the pathways to get there, are beginning to appear. One region of particular importance is northern Europe…North European nexus The shifting emphasis can be seen especially in Northern Europe, where large concentrations of projects are now found. Renewable energy will power electrolysers to produce hydrogen for industries in northern industrial centers. Other projects focus on power and heat for urban districts. Key applications include large-scale electrolysis, carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), and utilization of natural gas networks…Electrolysis: There are a number of planned projects for hydrogen electrolysers that would produce hydrogen from decarbonized electricity. German and French projects are leaders. In Germany, a power-to-gas project in Emsland in the Ruhr region has been called ‘Hybridge’ for its capacity to couple electric and gas networks. In a partnership of transmission system operator Amprion and gas net operator Open Grid Europe (OGE), electricity from renewable energy will be converted, by means of electrolysis, into hydrogen and methane…Industry: Most of the current demand for hydrogen is in oil refining, the chemical sector and steel manufacturing. Therefore the main near term opportunity to reduce emissions in the industrial sector is to displace fossil fuel hydrogen with electrolytic hydrogen produced from renewable sources (‘green’ hydrogen) or with CCUS (‘blue’ hydrogen). This is feasible in the production of chemicals such as ammonia and methanol and in oil refining. And electrolytic hydrogen is gaining momentum in steelmaking, with a large demonstration plant under construction in Sweden that is expected to be operational by 2025…Gas grid: According to the IEA, several projects around the world are already injecting hydrogen into existing natural gas grids. It is possible to blend up to 20% hydrogen on a volumetric basis into a gas grid with minimal or even no modifications to the infrastructure or end-user home appliances.”
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 05:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 06 Jul 2020, 09:12:57

Real green,

That strikes me as needing a LOT for f “decarbonized” electricity. Very ambitious indeed.

Reduce, reuse, recycle seems forgotten.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 16125
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby Ibon » Mon 06 Jul 2020, 10:41:36

Newfie wrote:Real green,

That strikes me as needing a LOT for f “decarbonized” electricity. Very ambitious indeed.

Reduce, reuse, recycle seems forgotten.



When you consider that over 50% of terrestrial natural ecosystems have been recycled into human beings and our slave crops and livestock then it is not hard to imagine why everyone wants to forget about the recycle part.

Ultimately we are not talking here about recycling plastic or tin cans. We are talking about recycling the biomass of several billion human beings back into the restored biomass as nature reclaims natural ecosystems as we die off and correct over population.

The ultimate recycling is truly not in the collective psyche of human beings at the moment even if they do stand before the unavoidable eventuality of it happening sometime maybe sooner rather than later.

That is the ultimate Green New Deal by the way.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9585
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby REAL Green » Mon 06 Jul 2020, 10:50:43

Newfie wrote:Real green, That strikes me as needing a LOT for f “decarbonized” electricity. Very ambitious indeed. Reduce, reuse, recycle seems forgotten.


Hydrogen as an energy vector for renewables is very important and Europe and Japan are leading the way. Japan with fuel cells and Europe with various methods. The important aspect of hydrogen is it will allow energy storage strategies for renewables especially the huge amount of offshore wind coming online in Northern Europe. I am very optimistic for hydrogen in these applications although less so for fuel cell transport. I don't feel hydrogen is going to save us but instead will offer some helpful strategies for the way down.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 05:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 06 Jul 2020, 12:04:35

Real,

Do you know what the energy conversion effiencies are?

Theoretical vs current?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 16125
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby REAL Green » Mon 06 Jul 2020, 12:37:58

Newfie wrote:Real, Do you know what the
energy conversion effiencies are? Theoretical vs current?


Newf, the conversion efficiency was once poor but there are many new methods. Here are the notes I have on hydrogen from various forums I visit. I apologize for the length but this is a very important topic worth a look:

1. Concerning the cost of electrolysis infrastructure. The most up to date cost estimate for electrolysis comes from the ‘International Journal of Hydrogen Energy’ and is titled: ‘Future cost and performance of water electrolysis: An expert elicitation study’.
The paper produces cost projection for three electrolysis technologies at full scale production.
Technology 1: Alkali Electrolysis Cells. Full scale unit cost averaged at $1400/kWe in 2015 and was projected to be $1100/kWe by 2030.
Technology 2: Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolysis Cells. Full scale unit cost averaged at $2100/kWe in 2015 and was projected to be $800/kWe by 2030.
Technology 3: Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cells. Full scale unit cost averaged at $5800/kWe in 2015 and was projected to be $1100/kWe by 2030.
Whilst it is difficult to predict exactly where these costs will be in 10 years’ time, these estimates suggest that Alkali electrolysis can already deliver capital cost of $1400/KWe and that a cost of $1000/kWe is a reasonable assumption for one of the three technologies considered. Is Cloggie’s estimate of $500/kWe possible? Yes –with greater than expected cost reductions and large economy of scale driving down stack costs. But I think this should be considered a stretch case, rather than something that is automatically expected. For the time being, I will work with $1000/kWe, because it is the value supported by peer reviewed study.
2. The estimated 2030 lifetime of electrolysis cells is 60,000-90,000 hours (AEC); 20,000-90,000 hours (PEMEC); 30,000-90,000 hours (SOEC). I am going to assume a median value of 75,000 hours for SOEC. This translates to non-stop lifetime of 8.6 years, or 28.5 years at 30% capacity factor, assuming that thermal cycling does not result in unexpected damage. I am going to assume an interest rate of 5% on borrowed money and a flat repayment rate of $68.5/kWe, which allows complete payoff of capital cost in 27 years.
3. Stack efficiency. This includes losses to things like pumps, heaters and water purification, so it is a whole system, rather than simple cell efficiency. For AEC: 50-75%; for PEMEC: 50-78%. Pumping losses and thermal losses will all be minimised in systems scaled to hundreds of MW, so I will assume efficiency of 70% in a large scale, well optimised system.
4. Stack capacity factor. This depends heavily upon the assumptions made for the driving power source. An electrolysis plant using solar power in the desert will be in darkness ~50% of the time and illumination will follow a sinusoidal pattern between sunrise and sunset. I am going to assume a capacity factor of 30% and further assume that the liquefaction plant can absorb peaks in power supply by storing thermal energy in an intermediate cold store.
Putting these figures and assumptions together, an estimate can be made for the capital repayment costs associated with the electrolysis unit. At 70% efficiency, to produce 1kW hydrogen would require 1.43kWe cell capacity. The repayment costs are $97.86/year. At 30% capacity factor, the 1.43kWe cell will generate some 2630kWh of hydrogen per year. So the marginal capital cost per unit of hydrogen energy is 3.72 Euro-cent per kWh.
If the capacity factor can be increased to 50%, say, by using a mixture of renewable energy sources to provide the driver current, then marginal capital cost drops to 2.23 Euro-cent per kWh hydrogen. At 90% capacity factor, driven by a nuclear reactor, marginal capital cost declines to 1.24 Euro-cent per kWh hydrogen.
Absent from this calculation is any consideration of operations costs, electricity cost or profit. And of course we have not considered the energy or operations cost of any liquefaction plant. Ignoring liquefaction and assuming operating costs to be about 1/3rd of capital costs, some estimates can be made.
Solar powered scenario: Lazard (2018) provides a low-end LCOE for thin-film solar at $40/MWh. Given that we will probably choose to locate a hydrogen plant where there is plentiful sunshine, this value will be assumed. Some 1.42kWh of electricity are needed to produce 1kWh of hydrogen. This puts the electricity cost of 1kWh of hydrogen at 5.68 Euro-cent. The final LCOE for 1kWh of hydrogen gas produced using thin film solar is therefore: 1.33 x 3.72 + 5.68 = 10.64 Euro-cent per kWh.
The costs associated with a liquefaction (or other chemical conversion) and / or storage facility, will be additive to this.
My guess is that imported liquid hydrogen will be used for large scale power production in combined cycle gas turbines, much as LNG is today. LNG has not caught on as a bulk vehicle fuel, although it is both cheaper and much easier to handle and distribute than liquid hydrogen. Why would we expect hydrogen to be used in this way when LNG is not? There are solid oxide fuel cells that burn methane quite efficiently.
For bulk applications like power production, the question for a European operator will be: why use more expensive liquid hydrogen, when I could use cheaper LNG? For a power plant operator, fuel cost subtracts directly from their bottom line.
“Hydrogen will only be used as a brief intermediary stage and almost immediately converted in another more convenient storage medium: NaBH4, CH4, NH3, metal powder”
Methanol is another promising option that you have mentioned before and is probably better than any of the others on the list, due to its excellent properties. It is reasonably energy dense (about half as energy dense as diesel), is storable as liquid at room temperature at atmospheric pressure; will not freeze until -97C and is compatible with carbon steel. All winning combinations that make it very useful for end use applications.
There are fuel cells that can use methanol directly, that can be scaled to power tiny individual devices, like laptops. It can be used in spark ignition and compression ignition engines and would work well in the hybrid vehicles of the future. It could also be stored easily long-term in steel or concrete tanks for back-up powerplants; things like open-cycle gas turbines, which need to cover occasional periods of peak demand, or where renewable energy and short-term pumped storage occasionally fails to meet grid demand. In the home, a direct methanol fuel cell or small gas turbine could provide combined heat and power.
If you have cheap hydrogen from renewable energy, then any carbon containing material could be decomposed to produce the carbon monoxide needed to synthesise methanol. This might include low grade fossil fuels, like lignite or kerogen; wastes that would otherwise go to land fill; biomass; sewage, animal wastes, marine sediment, etc. Or it might include the carbon dioxide waste from a concrete kiln.
Using limestone as feedstock is an interesting option. The calcium hydroxide that comes out the other end could have uses of its own, as lime for building or for neutralising acid soil. Or it could be released into the ocean in areas suffering from ocean acidification (it is a base afterall). As it neutralises carbonic acid in the ocean, it will precipitate to the bottom as a carbonate. Limestone derived methanol would therefore be carbon neutral, or even carbon negative, if some of the liberated carbon is fixed into products like plastics.
Boron would appear to be a workable option for long-term hydrogen storage. It has a few disadvantages. Boron is relatively rare and expensive – it must be collected after use and transported back to the hydrogen plant for recycling; sodium borohydride requires a chain of chemical processes in its manufacture (each of which consume energy); and so far as I know it is solid and cannot be pumped. Iron has similar issues. It also needs to be burned in a large boiler. Anhydrous ammonia is a carbon free fuel; nitrogen is available everywhere from the atmosphere and is storable as liquid under modest vapour pressure. But it is smelly, irritant and toxic, which will complicate its use as a fuel.

I have a copy of Olah’s book – Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy. It is one of the better alternative energy books out there in my opinion. In the past, the high cost of electrolytic hydrogen was an obstacle that prevented the realisation of a methanol economy. Not so much today.
Another thing paving the way towards a methanol economy is an often forgotten by-product of electrolysis: pure oxygen. During electrolysis, a steady stream of compressed pure oxygen forms at the anode of the cell. In an oxidation reactor, this will break down any organic material at very high temperatures, far more effectively than ordinary air. Even wet biomass can be converted into synthesis gas by reacting it with pure oxygen and steam – something that would be difficult to achieve using air. The hydrogen from the cathode will add to the hydrogen already produced by oxidation and steam reforming and can simply be added to the synthesis gas passing into the methanol reactor. Given that carbon dioxide can be reduced back to CO by reacting it with hydrogen, close to 100% of the carbon within biomass can be captured in liquid methanol.
“Add to that electrolysis at 0.6 cent/kWh, that is 3 cent. Add 1 cent for 80% electrolysis efficiency and you have 4 cent or €1,32 for a kilo of hydrogen.”
This is not realistic, even with dirt cheap solar power, which may not be sustainable. My previous analysis was based upon projected efficiency and cost improvements for 2030. It calculated that with solar electricity costing €0.03/kWh; hydrogen gas at the cathode of the electrolysis cell would cost €0.11/kWh. That is about 3-4 times the cost of diesel before tax.
By the way, 80% electrolysis stack efficiency is not realistic. This is the cell efficiency, before other losses associated with heaters and pumps within the stack are taken into account. When these are accounted for, efficiency is 60-70%, maybe 75% by 2030; time will tell. Here is my previous analysis; I have posted it here before.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 05:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests