|
Evil_Greven posted:OOOC interpreted it correctly. There are many sources of ammonia, such as those examples. The hard part is getting hydrogen, though it can be done rather efficiently from natural gas.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
twodot posted:So someone brought up that ammonia is commonly made from fossil fuels, and you, knowing that there are many sources of ammonia, on purpose, mentioned an implausible way to generate ammonia, when your plan all along was to make ammonia from fossil fuels in such a way that carbon emissions are easy to recapture? Like if you want that to be your story, fine, but you still haven't answered the question of "What are the energy losses of mine fossil fuels -> steam reform them for their hydrogen -> capture carbon emissions -> generate ammonia -> extract hydrogen from ammonia -> run hydrogen through a fuel cell?" I feel like you trying to make a long line of arrows then saying "too complicated, just use a battery" implies you don't know batteries also contain chemistry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I feel like you trying to make a long line of arrows then saying "too complicated, just use a battery" implies you don't know batteries also contain chemistry. Chemistry is everywhere, it can not be contained.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I feel like you trying to make a long line of arrows then saying "too complicated, just use a battery" implies you don't know batteries also contain chemistry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
quote:and you are dodging the question of "What metrics does Owlofcreamcheese think are good for evaluating policy given Owlofcreamcheese has rejected cost efficiency as a metric?" Because I don't really understand what you are trying to do with treating this like some big gotcha. If you are king of the earth and can implement policy universally forever and have only one goal to deal with of course you should just pick the paperclip machine type solution. In any context other than that you can't do that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:this TED talk is only a couple of weeks old so its a good fresh-recap of the state of direct air capture negative emissions: this is more important than these idiots trying to debate which super hero can punch stronger so i'm reposting for a new page
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:loving low countries bike reactionaries, we do not have your specific combo of weather and geography enough places for your trite well-actually to matter Your infrastructure, I'm assuming you're from the USA, has been deliberately made hostile to bike traffic and public transport. I'm saying you need to fix your infrastructure to allow for other forms of transportation, how's that trite? And lol if you want people to move into apartments but cycling in hot or cold weather is somehow too hard??? Wear shorts or bundle up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
twodot posted:So someone brought up that ammonia is commonly made from fossil fuels, and you, knowing that there are many sources of ammonia, on purpose, mentioned an implausible way to generate ammonia, when your plan all along was to make ammonia from fossil fuels in such a way that carbon emissions are easy to recapture? Like if you want that to be your story, fine, but you still haven't answered the question of "What are the energy losses of mine fossil fuels -> steam reform them for their hydrogen -> capture carbon emissions -> generate ammonia -> extract hydrogen from ammonia -> run hydrogen through a fuel cell?" Read the flow again. It wasn't even a disagreement, and I don't really understand the hangup. We generated ammonia (NH3) in the past, and still do, generate some hydrogen from those sources. Natural gas (CH4) is vastly the primary, yet not sole, source. Gasifying coal is a significant source as well. The source for ammonia is largely irrelevant; nitrogen is generally from the atmosphere, so you could even electrolyze seawater to get the hydrogen. The immediate problem is carbon emissions; losses in energy that aren't carbon emissions are basically irrelevant. Carbon emissions are easily captured from steam reforming - vastly cheaper than any carbon capture solution for fossil fuel plants. This is already done, and the CO2 is sold for beverages, air guns, etc. Your 30% loss guesstimate (70% efficiency) is wildly inaccurate, and the net efficiency is comparable to internal combustion engines. The difference with hydrogen is that it can be used for internal combustion engines or electric motors via fuel cell. Let's look at it this way, favorably to batteries: #1: Fuel {33% natural gas, 30% coal, 2% biomass} --generator * 33%--> (0.33) electricity --transmission * 94%--> (0.310) home --AC to DC * 80%--> (0.248) battery --motor * 75%--> (0.186) efficiency. #2: Fuel {20% nuclear}, similar to #1, though doesn't directly produce CO2 emissions. #3: Fuel {7% hydro} similar to #2 with up to 95% generator efficiency. #4: Fuel {6% wind}, similar to #2 with up to 50% generator efficiency. #5: Fuel {2% solar}, similar to #2. The source matters. Supposing we have a 50 kWh Tesla Model 3, you're looking at 269 kWh for a 220mi charge. Burning coal produces 0.000318366 tonnes CO2/kWh, so that produces 0.085640454 tonnes of CO2 via coal. Burning natural gas produces 0.0001810834 tonnes CO2/kWh, so that produces 0.0487114346 tonnes of CO2 via natural gas. Other sources are negligible. Supposing we have a Honda Civic getting 35 MPG; an equivalent distance will consume 6.2857 gallons. Gasoline is 87% carbon so each gallon is 2.4948kg, totaling 15.6813kg. Given that carbon is 27% the weight of CO2, this would be 0.0574981 tonnes of CO2. This is better than a coal source, worse than a natural gas source, and obviously far worse than other sources. Other externalities are not considered. Additionally, shifting gasoline to electric will mostly just be moving BTUs around; consider something like California, and what happens if you move the gasoline BTUs to some other bar. They aren't consuming much coal in-state... but they may be from out-of-state. It's pretty interesting to look at the various states on this site. Hydrogen alone requires approximately 55 kWh/kg with electrolysis. Ammonia using steam reforming is sold at about $0.47/kg; approximately 17% is hydrogen, so that should work out close to $2.78/kg for hydrogen from ammonia. Oh... and the reason it's talked about in kg is that a gallon of gasoline is approximately equal to a kg of hydrogen for a fuel cell vehicle. I don't know what the cost is for the metal membrane which can separate hydrogen from ammonia nor the efficiency of it. There are actually commercial vehicles that use hydrogen fuel cells such as the Toyota Mirai - but it's not exactly cheap. There are a few other vehicles as well. I've read that hydrogen fuel stations are charging up to $16/kg for hydrogen in the only U.S. place that really has them (California), which both seems excessive and puts the cost per mile to Hummer levels. Part of that is likely due to the issues with transporting and storing hydrogen. The Toyota Mirai gets 66 MPG-e with its 5kg tank, so 210mi would be 3.33...kg, or 183 kWh. Assuming it was retrofitted to use ammonia and this metal membrane, it would have a much larger tank (the current tank is heavy, reinforced, and compresses gaseous hydrogen to 10k psi to fit into that 5kg) - and it would take 19.6kg of ammonia. This seems like it would lose to Tesla if people generated their own hydrogen at home; however, steam reforming to extract hydrogen does not need much electricity. It is primarily a heat process (rather than heat powering a generator to then generate electricity), thus it is upwards of 80% efficient. For natural gas and coal systems, burning the fuel helps power the system. CO and CO2 are captured in this system and cycled elsewhere with H2O in the process or eventually exit the system as CO2 with greater than 66% emissions capture rate. This is nearly pure CO2 in a natural gas system, which is then sold. Again, I'm not particularly optimistic. It's just an interesting development.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
any day now i will give birth to our saviour
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
this broken hill posted:any day now i will give birth to our saviour Oh for god's sake... think about the saviour's potential carbon footprint, you environmental traitor. Adopt one instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
this broken hill posted:any day now i will give birth to our saviour John Connor?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 10:16
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Read the flow again. It wasn't even a disagreement, and I don't really understand the hangup. Unfortunately most steam/methane reformers (SMRs) are using pressure swing absorption now for the final H2 purification leaving mixed off-gas streams which are then recycled back into the combustion side of the furnace for their remaining BTUs. Older style SMRs with DEA scrubbers and associated high purity CO2 waste streams are going extinct. You're right that both styles of SMR are energy intensive due to the heat required for the reactions. Even if you had an old style SMR, the flue gas from the furnace is still a mixed CO2/N2 stream, no easier to capture and purify than any other smoke stack emission. I think H2 production via electrolysis has a better future simply became it is 100% electrically driven and can more easily be run on solar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 11:30
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Oh for god's sake... think about the saviour's potential carbon footprint, you environmental traitor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 12:12
|
|
|
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but after seeing other articles about the membrane other than the first one I posted here, it is to be used to convert hydrogen from the atmosphere into ammonia, and then back from ammonia into hydrogen at fuelling stations. Sounds like a winner to me, as long as we can get clean sources of electricity to power the conversions. I probably have to read something other than news snippets and with a more critical eye, to verify if I'm right though. Some time when I'm not on my phone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 12:44
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...m=.8df3e2932f40 I love this poo poo. Scientists for years take an anti-alarmist, conservative approach to publication of climate change scenarios/outcomes - people regard it as not-so-bad and ignore it. Climate change inaction continues while the impacts of climate change become more apparent; many models have underestimated impact, some effects are unexpected, concern grows. Seeing that poo poo is pretty loving bad scientists again go back to the tried and true approach of neutered, sober dialogue regarding climate change now with scarier numbers - people regard it as not-so-bad and ignore it. Worried about its deep and possibly existential consequences scientists begin to sound the alarm - people get discouraged by the inevitably of catastrophe and... ignore it. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 13:51
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:I love this poo poo. This sure seems like it's based on the idea that there is a bunch of tricky scientists lying all the time do you have any proof scientists changed their story about anything? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
Please stop arguing in bad faith you miserable pile. Christ. There is absolutely no requirement to lie in order to say the same thing in more than one way. And I'm not saying particular scientists are changing their method, and it's obvious I'm not saying that. Some scientists publish like this and some scientists publish like thiiiiiss. The point you're not-so-cleverly evading is that there is no apparent way to talk about climate change that does not end in inaction. Jerk off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:
But there has been action? Some initiatives have worked well and some have not worked well, in various places and different countries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
Alarmist types rightfully see those initiatives as incapable of addressing climate change on the scale necessary to avert catastrophe. It's like scientists are mine canaries, some are shrieking and some are gently twitting - it's nice that some people are making gas masks but everyone just needs to evacuate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
oocc you never answered why you think eliminating beef from our diets wouldn't meaningfully reduce carbon emissions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:The source for ammonia is largely irrelevant; nitrogen is generally from the atmosphere, so you could even electrolyze seawater to get the hydrogen. quote:The immediate problem is carbon emissions; losses in energy that aren't carbon emissions are basically irrelevant. quote:
quote:Your 30% loss guesstimate (70% efficiency) is wildly inaccurate quote:I don't know what the cost is for the metal membrane which can separate hydrogen from ammonia nor the efficiency of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
this broken hill posted:did i say it would be human? did i say that? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:oocc you never answered why you think eliminating beef from our diets wouldn't meaningfully reduce carbon emissions. Like, if a magic wizard could vanish all cows globally and replace them with nothing it'd have like 7-8% less global carbon and that is like, something. But like if some real world super intensive campaign got people to cut their beef and cheese consumption by half and replaced it with some other food that had half that is like, a 1.5% reduction? And again, every little bit counts or whatever but that seems like that would be a long and hard-fought war compared to what it'd gain. Compared to going after energy generation or transportation where you can make huge gains.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Today in "maybe we aren't all gonna die" climate change news: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611369/maybe-we-can-afford-to-suck-cosub2sub-out-of-the-sky-after-all/ Sucking CO2 out of the air might actually be economical and only cost $100-$200 a ton instead of so expensive that it's effectively impossible to do. quote:While avoiding the worst dangers of climate change will likely require sucking carbon dioxide out of the sky, prominent scientists have long dismissed such technologies as far too expensive. I've hesitated to post this here because it seems like this thread's consensus is "everyone is going to die and there is nothing we can do" and I cannot, for my own mental well-being endorse that view. 0 emissions is impossible in the time frame we need to do it (i.e. 10 years ago) because if it wasn't we'd already have done it. It's just too hard to accomplish politically in the time frame we need the world to adopt it by to avert catastrophe. Even if everything in the US changed overnight there's still the entire rest of the world to deal with. That leaves carbon capture from the air as the only thing humanity can do to stave off our impending doom. So for that reason, I very much want this article to be accurate because the alternative is we all die horribly and we can do nothing about it. I haven't thought/posted about/read about climate change in years because of all the doomsaying,  and "there is no way to fix this" that seems to follow every article makes it impossible to invest any energy without getting horrifically depressed and saying "why bother".
axeil fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Aug 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like, if a magic wizard could vanish all cows globally and replace them with nothing it'd have like 7-8% less global carbon and that is like, something. But like if some real world super intensive campaign got people to cut their beef and cheese consumption by half and replaced it with some other food that had half that is like, a 1.5% reduction? And again, every little bit counts or whatever but that seems like that would be a long and hard-fought war compared to what it'd gain. Compared to going after energy generation or transportation where you can make huge gains. Even "just" 1.5% is loving huge (and closer to 5% if you entirely replaced meat consumption cattle with poultry), and not mutually exclusive with any other measures to curb carbon emissions. But please, do break down your opinion on which battles would are worth fighting for, to the exclusion of all others, what would they entail, and reasoning for such determination (what kind of emissions reduction it'd result in).
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:But please, do break down your opinion on which battles would are worth fighting for, to the exclusion of all others, what would they entail, and reasoning for such determination (what kind of emissions reduction it'd result in). You can fight whatever you want, but you need to have some sort of clear picture of how that fight could get won, globally across the world forever. If you invent a new kind of electric car it's plausible you could phase that in and phase gas cars out over time if the electric car was better or as good. For pure behavior changes? that need to be implemented globally forever? no way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You can fight whatever you want, but you need to have some sort of clear picture of how that fight could get won, globally across the world forever. If you invent a new kind of electric car it's plausible you could phase that in and phase gas cars out over time if the electric car was better or as good. For pure behavior changes? that need to be implemented globally forever? no way. So you're saying the only possible solutions are technological, and forcing lifestyle changes is a no go?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
axeil posted:Today in "maybe we aren't all gonna die" climate change news: watch the loving ted talk here's the link again to save you even having to scroll up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY_lzonfE3I
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
I think we're going to just have to embrace and run with "alarmist" kinda like we did socialist. I'm an alarmist. The alarm is going off. I'm not pretending not to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
axeil posted:Today in "maybe we aren't all gonna die" climate change news: Carbon Engineering (mentioned in the article) is getting a lot of press lately based on their claim of an eventual ~$100-$200 / t CO2 sequestration cost. This is the point where large-scale negative emissions becomes marginally affordable if you squint hard enough, and it's a positive development if actually possible. However the way you framed this suggested you view it as an alternative to rapid decarbonization and this isn't really correct. Even in the most optimistic case negative emissions will only be able to sequester a small fraction of current carbon emissions. To stave off disaster at present both rapid decarbonization AND "cheap" negative emissions are required. There is no alternative to rapid decarbonization, and in this regard negative emission techs are a little dangerous as their existence might lead some to believe otherwise. It's worth pointing out that in the recently posted TED talk about carbon capture (it also mentioned Carbon Engineering!) the presenter felt she had to spend almost half of her very limited speaking time to emphasize that it was not a replacement for cutting emissions. She understood how susceptible her audience is to jumping on a tech-oriented solution. To put it another way, we will likely expend our 1.5C carbon budget in the next decade or so. This means that to stay under 1.5C average warming means every atom of carbon emitted after ~2030 will have to be scraped back out of the atmosphere. There are two conclusions: 1) the only way this is even close to affordable is if the global (not just US) decarbonizes rapidly right now, even with ~$100/tCO2 sequestration cost 2) staying under 1.5C is a fairy pipe-dream that died with the Paris conference, if not earlier edit: ^^^^^^^^^^what he said. That's the talk, it's good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:So you're saying the only possible solutions are technological, and forcing lifestyle changes is a no go? I think a really talented person could shape a message for a group in a time and place, but climate change is global and forever and there isn't really ways to shape people's behavior like that. At least not for something relatively marginal. Maybe if something was the one and only weird trick we needed to save the world from exploding or something you could mildly cut down on something. Thinking of "well if everyone would just do what I said it'd be easy!" type solutions then sitting on your hands and being in shock when that totally fails is way worse than like, researching a new type of cow that farts less or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:I think we're going to just have to embrace and run with "alarmist" kinda like we did socialist. The alarm has been going off since the industrial revolution when England had smog problems from burning coal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I think a really talented person could shape a message for a group in a time and place, but climate change is global and forever and there isn't really ways to shape people's behavior like that. At least not for something relatively marginal. Maybe if something was the one and only weird trick we needed to save the world from exploding or something you could mildly cut down on something. Have you perchance considered that collective lifestyle changes, temporary as they may be, can have a positive effect that gives time to find more permanent technological solutions, to the extent that said solutions are available?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
Like sure, giving up leisure air travel sucks, but have you considered it's perhaps the ethical choice for us alive now to make here, while we find the means to make air travel more ecologically friendly or else decarbonize to the extent that its impact is entirely negated, so that future generations may enjoy it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Have you perchance considered that collective lifestyle changes, temporary as they may be, can have a positive effect that gives time to find more permanent technological solutions, to the extent that said solutions are available? If you can implement it. Are you gonna go yell slogans or something? If you have a really good plan and it's impossible to implement what you have is a really bad plan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Carbon Engineering (mentioned in the article) is getting a lot of press lately based on their claim of an eventual ~$100-$200 / t CO2 sequestration cost. This is the point where large-scale negative emissions becomes marginally affordable if you squint hard enough, and it's a positive development if actually possible. Welp. I watched that video and now I feel hopeless again. I fundamentally don't think humans are able to cut emissions in any meaningful amount. We've had decades to try and do it and have failed miserably. It's impossible to tell people they have to lower their standard of living so that the world isn't a boiling lake of fire after they're dead. It's the final outcome of the continuing business focus on quarterly profits over long-run sustainability. Conspiratiorist posted:Like sure, giving up leisure air travel sucks, but have you considered it's perhaps the ethical choice for us alive now to make here, while we find the means to make air travel more ecologically friendly or else decarbonize to the extent that its impact is entirely negated, so that future generations may enjoy it? That is not how humans think and you are not going to motivate enough of the population with hypothetical benefits after their dead for pain/lowered standard of living today. People are inherently selfish and even if 20% of us are angels they won't be able to do enough to offset the other 70% who don't want to be inconvenienced and the 10% who want Mad Max to be real. axeil fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Aug 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If you can implement it. Are you gonna go yell slogans or something? If you have a really good plan and it's impossible to implement what you have is a really bad plan. First, I'm going to kill all the cats. Then,
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If you can implement it. There you go. That wasn't so hard, was it? Now when the thread discusses collective lifestyle changes as a climate change mitigation strategy that should be explored, we know you're fundamentally onboard with it as a good thing that would be effective is successful, but you're simply cynical about the available methods and success rate of implementing social change.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
axeil posted:I fundamentally don't think humans are able to cut emissions in any meaningful amount. We've had decades to try and do it and have failed miserably. I think this trend is actually working opposite. Our emissions intensity is falling, just not fast enough. You're right that we had decades to try and did not, but now we're actually trying and we're seeing changes even if they need to be massively accelerated. quote:It's impossible to tell people they have to lower their standard of living so that the world isn't a boiling lake of fire after they're dead. It's the final outcome of the continuing business focus on quarterly profits over long-run sustainability. I think we routinely tell some people to lower their standard of living because tough poo poo that's life. We can still raise the standard of living for massive amounts of humanity while shifting to a carbon negative economy if we choose. But it will require some marginal cuts from the wealthiest in the world like (e.g. Americans) like fewer trips, less exotic food, less meat, larger swings in temperature indoors, and more frequent power outages. I think that's a price that people might be convinced to pay if there is a believable payoff in the end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If you can implement it. Are you gonna go yell slogans or something? If you have a really good plan and it's impossible to implement what you have is a really bad plan.  axeil posted:Welp. I watched that video and now I feel hopeless again. Perry Mason Jar posted:First, I'm going to kill all the cats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 20:06
|
|