|
DrSunshine posted:Hi thread! I'm not an energy expert by any means, so I hope people won't jump down my throat for fault of mere ignorance - but as energy storage goes, I was wondering if anyone had ever proposed generating methane from atmospheric CO2 and reacting it with water, using excess capacity generated from renewables. So, for example, if it's a series of really sunny days in the Southwest, you could use that excess unneeded solar capacity to spin up a methane generating plant, create liquid methane by drawing down CO2 from the air, then storing it as a stockpile for natural gas plants to fire up at night or in peak demand times. Its possible, but lets be honest about "excess capacity" means, and why storage continues to probably be a boondoggle for a long time outside of pumped storage solutions. Assuming we want to decarbonize as fast as possible, there is no excess capacity, go back to the graphs I just posted a little while back showing EV charging requirements versus current grid capacity: There is no excess capacity in the way we'd need to do this conversion, which will be energy intensive.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its possible, but lets be honest about "excess capacity" means, and why storage continues to probably be a boondoggle for a long time outside of pumped storage solutions. Got it, ok. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 16:06
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Got it, ok. Thanks! That is not to say its not a good thing to do, there will always be something that needs liquid fuel/gas to operate, so the tech is still valid. But the problem is also that like a lot of Carbon Capture tech, its kind of a net neutral, kind of a net negative: Its never going to recover more energy from the air than we put out in emissions, at least not in the short term. So as long as we understand that, it has value in that we can create many different fuels from the air rather than fracking/drilling, its good tech.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
I'm still all in on carbonfiber flywheels. We can power them with gym equipment. Imagine a future where kinetic waste is illegal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That is not to say its not a good thing to do, there will always be something that needs liquid fuel/gas to operate, so the tech is still valid. But the problem is also that like a lot of Carbon Capture tech, its kind of a net neutral, kind of a net negative: Its never going to recover more energy from the air than we put out in emissions, at least not in the short term. Is it feasible to try to convert greenhouse gases outside of using them as fuel? For example, if methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas, could it be captured from the atmosphere and converted to CO2? Even if it's a net negative energy wise and generates extra atmospheric CO2, if the overall greenhouse effect of the CO2 released is less than the methane captured that seems like a potential mitigation for climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Is it feasible to try to convert greenhouse gases outside of using them as fuel? For example, if methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas, could it be captured from the atmosphere and converted to CO2? Even if it's a net negative energy wise and generates extra atmospheric CO2, if the overall greenhouse effect of the CO2 released is less than the methane captured that seems like a potential mitigation for climate change. Fastest way to convert it is to burn it. But honestly we need to decrease both Methane and CO2 emissions as much as possible, so kinda a robbing peter to pay paul scenario. Harold Fjord posted:I'm still all in on carbonfiber flywheels. We can power them with gym equipment. Imagine a future where kinetic waste is illegal. Flywheels may have uses, but oh man the physicist in me just cringes imagining the engineer in me when it inevitably fails due to poor maintenance and crashes through the walls.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Is it feasible to try to convert greenhouse gases outside of using them as fuel? For example, if methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas, could it be captured from the atmosphere and converted to CO2? Even if it's a net negative energy wise and generates extra atmospheric CO2, if the overall greenhouse effect of the CO2 released is less than the methane captured that seems like a potential mitigation for climate change. We could just reduce the amount of methane we make from agriculture, stop all new fracking, and fix the leaky pipelines that we already have. Methane mostly gets hydrolized by OH radicals in the atmosphere after 10 years anyway, so it doesn't stay long to contribute future warming as long as we just stop releasing so much of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 16:51
|
|
|
Kinetic energy is a terrible way to store large amounts of energy for all the obvious reasons
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Kinetic energy is a terrible way to store large amounts of energy for all the obvious reasons Having seen quite a few flywheels blow out of transmissions and escape the vehicle at race tracks.....fun times await us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 17:03
|
|
|
Has there been any advancement on using potential energy storage methods? How efficient is using renewables to lift a big weight into the air and then let it fall slowly to release the potential? I get that it is reliant on excess renewables but I am curious how it fares against things like hydro or pressurized holes in the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Has there been any advancement on using potential energy storage methods? It’s pretty efficient, although typically you’d use a hill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
pumped hydro is the simplest, most cost effective method of energy storage we have but only in places that are topologically conducive to it, like traditional hydro power lifting a big weight in the air is a drop in the bucket compared to pumping water up a hill between two large reservoirs (think Lake Mead, not a tank of water)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:pumped hydro is the simplest, most cost effective method of energy storage we have Its also usually best used where nature will help pump the storage sometimes, like TVA's dams in the Southeast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Diesels are very efficient, their own paper demonstrates that. Worth noting: The average thermodynamic efficiency for a nuclear plant is about 37-40%, Diesel ICE engines are about 40-50% efficient. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml Electric Grid to the wheel is 77% efficient. Battery to wheel is far higher, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:pumped hydro is the simplest, most cost effective method of energy storage we have I believe ARES is less expensive and quicker to install.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Hi thread! I'm not an energy expert by any means, so I hope people won't jump down my throat for fault of mere ignorance - but as energy storage goes, I was wondering if anyone had ever proposed generating methane from atmospheric CO2 and reacting it with water, using excess capacity generated from renewables. So, for example, if it's a series of really sunny days in the Southwest, you could use that excess unneeded solar capacity to spin up a methane generating plant, create liquid methane by drawing down CO2 from the air, then storing it as a stockpile for natural gas plants to fire up at night or in peak demand times. It's being explored in the context of academic and industrial research. As far as practical application is concerned, there is really no point to it currently. If renewables overcapacity is your concern, then it's cheaper, more efficient and environmentally more friendly to just improve transmission infrastructure and use the overcapacity where it's needed. And as far as emission reduction is concerned, there is a billion ways how to get more bang for your buck than green methane production. It should be very far on the list of investments. We will need some large scale energy storage solution at some point once we get to a really high rate of renewables usage but that's still many years away. Right now there is just no demand for it or at least only at a non-viable price point. I don't think anyone knows fire sure which storage technology will win out the ~storage wars~ of 2030. There is so much poo poo flying around nowadays. Apparently green methanol and methanol fuel cells are the latest hot poo poo sweeping the hype tracks and startup investment meeting
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml That is battery to wheel, it wasn't grid to battery to wheel, that was grid to the ground. The higher efficiency is from regenerative braking: quote:EVs are 60% to 73% efficient, depending upon drive cycle. However, if the energy recaptured from regenerative braking is counted (i.e., recounted when it is re-used), EVs are 77% to 100% efficient. From the same fueleconomy.gov site. That's not the battery efficiency. Again, I was in the ballpark of 70, I was not wrong. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Jun 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Ok now you are just splitting hairs. The distinction between energy and electricity is literally orders of magnitude. If you think that's splitting hairs, then your analysis is fundamentally impoverished.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 22:34
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:The distinction between energy and electricity is literally orders of magnitude. If you think that's splitting hairs, then your analysis is fundamentally impoverished. No, its really not, and yes you are splitting hairs. And besides, in this case, in this thread, the majority of the energy systems we're discussing are focused on Electrical Energy generation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 22:52
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Has there been any advancement on using potential energy storage methods? I don't know about "advancement" but someone came up with this loving thing: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/bagga_sid/status/1400170974129971205 Really goes to show that shutting down existing nuclear is an exceptionally bad idea if you care about carbon emissions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:https://twitter.com/bagga_sid/status/1400170974129971205 Yeah I posted that a couple pages back. Same thing is going to happen to Diablo Canyon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2021 00:23
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I don't know about "advancement" but someone came up with this loving thing: See this is what I'm talking about. Giant energy storing kinetic megastructures. I doubt they are feasible, but it would look cool. CommieGIR posted:Yeah I posted that a couple pages back. Same thing is going to happen to Diablo Canyon. Diablo Canyon is a travesty. The federal government should step in to prevent closures of nuclear plants as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2021 02:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, its really not, and yes you are splitting hairs. And besides, in this case, in this thread, the majority of the energy systems we're discussing are focused on Electrical Energy generation. Globally 160000TWh primary energy demand versus about 25000TWh electricity demand. Perhaps not orders of magnitude, but a dramatic difference. The thread literally has energy in the title. Your claim that the EV rollout will increase energy demand is wrong - if you'd said you meant electricity demand, you'd be right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2021 06:02
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Globally 160000TWh primary energy demand versus about 25000TWh electricity demand. Perhaps not orders of magnitude, but a dramatic difference. The thread literally has energy in the title. Your claim that the EV rollout will increase energy demand is wrong - if you'd said you meant electricity demand, you'd be right. Electricity is a form of energy, and you are entirely splitting hairs, maybe you need to revisit your argument especially when you openly admit I'm probably right and your entire argument hinges on pedantics about what YOU consider energy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2021 12:02
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Globally 160000TWh primary energy demand versus about 25000TWh electricity demand. Perhaps not orders of magnitude, but a dramatic difference. The thread literally has energy in the title. Your claim that the EV rollout will increase energy demand is wrong - if you'd said you meant electricity demand, you'd be right. quote:But it doesn't address what I was claiming, which is that increased demand from EVs being charged meaning increased need for supplied energy via the grid, joule for joule. He did indeed say the demand on the grid would be more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:The best way to protect yourself from Climate Change is going to be entering modern civilization - things like reliable electricity, clean running water, emergency services, etc. and then decarbonization. While renewables are finally beating traditional fossil fuels in that they're way more cost effective that is not uniform globally - yet. ... but so is the west! This "modernize first, then decarbonize" narrative sounds nice but it doesn't really describe what happens in the real world: in the US we're already well along this path of modernization you've proscribed yet we're still massively vulnerable to climate change, still burning massive quantities of fossil fuels, and still building natural gas plants (iirc ~20% of capacity from new plants is still coming from natural gas)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2021 04:54
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:See this is what I'm talking about. Giant energy storing kinetic megastructures. I doubt they are feasible, but it would look cool. The hotel I used to stay in, when I traveled to Tokyo in the late 1980's/1990's, the Akasaka Prince ... was demolished in a manner that generated electricity. quote:“In this demolition scheme, the building shrinks and disappears without you noticing,” said Hideki Ichihara, manager of Taisei Corporation, the construction firm running the project. https://www.thejournal.ie/japanese-skyscraper-torn-down-slowly-812070-Feb2013/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbzVfLWQNkA
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2021 05:34
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:... but so is the west! This "modernize first, then decarbonize" narrative sounds nice but it doesn't really describe what happens in the real world: in the US we're already well along this path of modernization you've proscribed yet we're still massively vulnerable to climate change, still burning massive quantities of fossil fuels, and still building natural gas plants (iirc ~20% of capacity from new plants is still coming from natural gas) As far I am aware, the US isn't building out much if any additional NG unless it's to replace Nuclear or  redundancy for the recent Texas outage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2021 07:24
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:As far I am aware, the US isn't building out much if any additional NG unless it's to replace Nuclear or According to the EIA's report in January, 40% of US electricity in 2020 came from natural gas and 16% of new capacity coming online in 2021 was to come from natural gas. That report came out before the Texas outage. Any natural gas capacity that replaces nuclear capacity only reinforces the point: decarbonization following modernization does not naturally occur on a timescale that is meaningful to the climate crisis. "Use carbon to modernize now, then decarbonize later" is propaganda propagated by petroleum profiteers
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2021 10:17
|
|
|
Don't forget places like California brining in Diesel Generators. Its almost like closing nuclear plants benefits the Oil/Gas industry exclusively...
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:According to the EIA's report in January, 40% of US electricity in 2020 came from natural gas and 16% of new capacity coming online in 2021 was to come from natural gas. That report came out before the Texas outage. I'm a little surprised but I'd want to know more and this could just be previous contracts to build out capacity or to complement renewables. QuarkJets posted:Any natural gas capacity that replaces nuclear capacity only reinforces the point: decarbonization following modernization does not naturally occur on a timescale that is meaningful to the climate crisis. "Use carbon to modernize now, then decarbonize later" is propaganda propagated by petroleum profiteers Meaningful? According to what? From an entirely international perspective you have to use fossil fuels to modernize because renewables simply aren't good enough yet for myriad of reasons from costs to keeping up with demand. California for example, is trying it's best to keep up demand with renewables but can't because everyone wants more electricity or dumb decisions like shutting down Nuclear Power Plants. That's no conspiracy by lovely companies just reality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
The oil and gas industry wants to sell as much oil and gas as possible. That's not a conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Don't forget places like California brining in Diesel Generators. Its almost like closing nuclear plants benefits the Oil/Gas industry exclusively... Breaking them isn’t good either. I’m looking at you PG&E/SDG&E.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
I thought the diesel generators being brought in for California were generally more for reliability to reduce the impact or prevent some of the need for public safety power shutoffs. I keep on hearing that building renewables + storage could reduce this via microgrids or similar, but my understanding is that something like a solar+battery build that can really operate 24/7 is prohibitively expensive right now. (Gas plant retirements being rolled back and even possibly new ones being built will definitely be a result of shutting down nuclear tho) The other things is that natural gas is the dominant heating fuel in SO MUCH of the country. In places switching to an electrification mandate for new construction is controversial; in so much of the country housing prices are already out of control and adding new standards in isolation will exacerbate the issue. I'm not even aware of any jurisdictions in the states that are seriously moving towards phasing out existing natural gas heating .
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:He did indeed say the demand on the grid would be more. This was his original point that I responded to, where he explicitly claims that overall energy demand will go up and refers to electricity seperately: CommieGIR posted:I mean, the article is 100% correct, and its also why Climate Change mitigation is going to mean MORE Energy needed. Not less. We have to replace hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Joules of Fossil fuel energy with electricity. Demand will only increase. And then he said this, where he implied you would need more energy in a decarbonised transit system than you would in the existing fossil fuel system: CommieGIR posted:I was mostly referring to transit, not household cooling/heating. Electrifying transit, which is one of the largest contributors of emissions, will be critical. And "more efficient" is kind of a misnomer, yes the MOTORS are better at converting such, but storing the energy is not as efficient as a liquid petrol/diesel storage. It was only after that point that he revisited his original claim to imply he meant energy from the grid, not overall energy demand. CommieGIR posted:Electricity is a form of energy, and you are entirely splitting hairs, maybe you need to revisit your argument especially when you openly admit I'm probably right and your entire argument hinges on pedantics about what YOU consider energy. My definition of energy is shared with the IEA and most major Governments. In a decarbonised energy system transit (specifically light vehicles and light rail where electrification is most relevant) will use less energy overall than in our current system, even if it consumes more electricity. If you agree with this, then I think we can put the issue to bed. I've taken a bit more of an aggressive tone on this debate than was strictly necessary, for which I apologise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2021 09:09
|
|
|
I keep reading that 90% ~ of new power generation is renewable. Is it just not true? https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1391993272055353346
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2021 11:24
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:This was his original point that I responded to, where he explicitly claims that overall energy demand will go up and refers to electricity seperately: Yeah I'm done discussing with you, you are the only one that believes this nitpicking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2021 11:52
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I keep reading that 90% ~ of new power generation is renewable. Is it just not true?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2021 11:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
And it's not enough. Despite the increase renewables adoption fossil fuel generating capacity continues to rise. The problem is despite renewables forecast to increase, their overall share of the generating capacity remains minimal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2021 12:03
|
|