The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[bigfield]

I wondered why energy companies were interested in hydrogen instead of making other synthetic fuels that are easier to store, and this provides some explanation: making carbon-based fuels is expensive, even more expensive than making hydrogen.

However, hydrogen is (1) necessary as a feedstock for other synfuels, and (2) usable much like natural gas, so getting hydrogen going is a step on the way to more easily stored synfuels.

It doesn't seem like it's being treated as a step towards anything, though, and burning hydrogen like natural gas, to drive steam turbines, still emits greenhouse gases.

Where will we get carbon in large scale quantities to sustain our future synfuel demand? Are we going to plant huge amounts of fuel crops or hope that some technology emerges in the next decade that allows us to suck huge carbon out of the air?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I wondered why energy companies were interested in hydrogen instead of making other synthetic fuels that are easier to store, and this provides some explanation: making carbon-based fuels is expensive, even more expensive than making hydrogen.

However, hydrogen is (1) necessary as a feedstock for other synfuels, and (2) usable much like natural gas, so getting hydrogen going is a step on the way to more easily stored synfuels.

It doesn't seem like it's being treated as a step towards anything, though, and burning hydrogen like natural gas, to drive steam turbines, still emits greenhouse gases.

Where will we get carbon in large scale quantities to sustain our future synfuel demand? Are we going to plant huge amounts of fuel crops or hope that some technology emerges in the next decade that allows us to suck huge carbon out of the air?

Burning hydrogen produces water. Not a greenhouse gas. The first green hydrogen fueled steel plants are now being built in Japan and Sweden.

 

[skepticalbip]

I wondered why energy companies were interested in hydrogen instead of making other synthetic fuels that are easier to store, and this provides some explanation: making carbon-based fuels is expensive, even more expensive than making hydrogen.

However, hydrogen is (1) necessary as a feedstock for other synfuels, and (2) usable much like natural gas, so getting hydrogen going is a step on the way to more easily stored synfuels.

It doesn't seem like it's being treated as a step towards anything, though, and burning hydrogen like natural gas, to drive steam turbines, still emits greenhouse gases.

Where will we get carbon in large scale quantities to sustain our future synfuel demand? Are we going to plant huge amounts of fuel crops or hope that some technology emerges in the next decade that allows us to suck huge carbon out of the air?

Burning hydrogen produces water. Not a greenhouse gas. The first green hydrogen fueled steel plants are now being built in Japan and Sweden.

Actually water vapor (humidity) is much more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. It is why in areas with high humidity, the day/night temperature differences are typically around 20F but in deserts where humidity is low the day/night temperature differences are 40F or more.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Wind and solar power are 'bailing out' Texas amid record heat and energy demand | CNN

Energy experts told CNN the Texas electric grid is holding up well this week in large part to strong performances from renewable energy.

www.cnn.com

Here in Texas we are in a record heat wave for this time of year. Record electricity demand. It seems wind and solar are saving our asses. Last year solar was 4% of total supply. This year 7%. And more solar energy than that is not available state wide due to lack of transmission capacity.

 

[bigfield]

I wondered why energy companies were interested in hydrogen instead of making other synthetic fuels that are easier to store, and this provides some explanation: making carbon-based fuels is expensive, even more expensive than making hydrogen.

However, hydrogen is (1) necessary as a feedstock for other synfuels, and (2) usable much like natural gas, so getting hydrogen going is a step on the way to more easily stored synfuels.

It doesn't seem like it's being treated as a step towards anything, though, and burning hydrogen like natural gas, to drive steam turbines, still emits greenhouse gases.

Where will we get carbon in large scale quantities to sustain our future synfuel demand? Are we going to plant huge amounts of fuel crops or hope that some technology emerges in the next decade that allows us to suck huge carbon out of the air?

Burning hydrogen produces water. Not a greenhouse gas. The first green hydrogen fueled steel plants are now being built in Japan and Sweden.

Water is a greenhouse gas, but I was actually referring to NOx. NOx is produced by gas-fried turbines because they subject air to high temperatures, and more NOx is produced when hydrogen is mixed into the fuel because the temperature needs to be higher.

I don't even know if this is a significant problem. nitrous oxide is a far more potent GHG than carbon dioxide, but the volumes emitted might be so low that it's not an impediment to reaching net zero.

 

[bilby]

Wind and solar power are 'bailing out' Texas amid record heat and energy demand | CNN

Energy experts told CNN the Texas electric grid is holding up well this week in large part to strong performances from renewable energy.

www.cnn.com

Here in Texas we are in a record heat wave for this time of year. Record electricity demand. It seems wind and solar are saving our asses. Last year solar was 4% of total supply. This year 7%. And more solar energy than that is not available state wide due to lack of transmission capacity.

Presumably the other 93% is doing nothing to save your asses?

I am also uncertain how the fact that solar energy requires a massive investment in transmission capacity, which hasn’t been met even at such low levels of market share, is supposed to be a point in its favour.

 

[bilby]

I wondered why energy companies were interested in hydrogen instead of making other synthetic fuels that are easier to store, and this provides some explanation: making carbon-based fuels is expensive, even more expensive than making hydrogen.

However, hydrogen is (1) necessary as a feedstock for other synfuels, and (2) usable much like natural gas, so getting hydrogen going is a step on the way to more easily stored synfuels.

It doesn't seem like it's being treated as a step towards anything, though, and burning hydrogen like natural gas, to drive steam turbines, still emits greenhouse gases.

Where will we get carbon in large scale quantities to sustain our future synfuel demand? Are we going to plant huge amounts of fuel crops or hope that some technology emerges in the next decade that allows us to suck huge carbon out of the air?

Burning hydrogen produces water. Not a greenhouse gas. The first green hydrogen fueled steel plants are now being built in Japan and Sweden.

Water is a greenhouse gas, but I was actually referring to NOx. NOx is produced by gas-fried turbines because they subject air to high temperatures, and more NOx is produced when hydrogen is mixed into the fuel because the temperature needs to be higher.

I don't even know if this is a significant problem. nitrous oxide is a far more potent GHG than carbon dioxide, but the volumes emitted might be so low that it's not an impediment to reaching net zero.

NO_x is fairly easy to eliminate by introducing an appropriate agent to the exhaust stream. Many diesel engines use urea injection systems (these spray urea solution, commonly known as AdBlue, into the hot exhaust ahead of the catalytic converter, where it breaks down to ammonia, which in turn reacts with NO_x to produce nitrogen and water) to achieve this, and if it were a problem for hydrogen engines, a similar arrangement could probably be used.

Natural Gas and Hydrogen turbines probably don’t reach the necessary pressures for NO_x to be a big issue though.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Nuclear and gas are maxxed out. Coal plants have been shut down. Solar and wind are holding up well and are picking up the slack. Oil is in short supply and very expensive.

No sign of any expansionof nuclear here inthe near future. But some big wind and solar projects are under way.

 

[Swammerdami]

Burning hydrogen produces water. Not a greenhouse gas. The first green hydrogen fueled steel plants are now being built in Japan and Sweden.

Actually water vapor (humidity) is much more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. It is why in areas with high humidity, the day/night temperature differences are typically around 20F but in deserts where humidity is low the day/night temperature differences are 40F or more.

Nitpicks:
(a) The total water in the atmosphere may contribute more directly to greenhouse at any time, but that's because there's more H2O than CO2 in the atmosphere. Greenhouse per gram of fuel is less for H2 than for carbon; greenhouse per joule of combustion energy much less.
(b) atmospheric water levels are controlled by feedback loops, not man's emissions.

 

[bilby]

Burning hydrogen produces water. Not a greenhouse gas. The first green hydrogen fueled steel plants are now being built in Japan and Sweden.

Actually water vapor (humidity) is much more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. It is why in areas with high humidity, the day/night temperature differences are typically around 20F but in deserts where humidity is low the day/night temperature differences are 40F or more.

Nitpicks:
(a) The total water in the atmosphere may contribute more directly to greenhouse at any time, but that's because there's more H2O than CO2 in the atmosphere. Greenhouse per gram of fuel is less for H2 than for carbon; greenhouse per joule of combustion energy much less.
(b) atmospheric water levels are controlled by feedback loops, not man's emissions.

Yeah, this.

If we started burning hydrogen on a vast scale, the total water vapour in the atmosphere wouldn’t change a lot; It would just rain more.

 

[Swammerdami]

France’s bet on nuclear energy, however, is an egregious miscalculation that will severely inhibit its decarbonization efforts. At a critical juncture in the battle against climate change, diverting any finances and losing time with nuclear power, which has been in decline worldwide for decades, will only set back the country’s climate efforts, perhaps dooming its chances to go carbon neutral by 2050. Indeed, this Hail Mary pass, taken out of desperation as France has fallen woefully behind on its climate targets, will most probably come to naught anyway as the era of nuclear power wanes further no matter France’s declarations. The simple explanation: Fully fledged renewables are faster, cheaper, and lower risk than nuclear power.--Emmanuel Macron Gets Nuclear Energy All Wrong: Nuclear power won’t help France meet its climate goals on budget or on time

I try to educate myself on this confusing topic, so I clicked the link. I was quite disappointed to see that the wrong-sounding claims in the above excerpt also sounded wrong in the full article. Note the claim that "nuclear power ... has been in decline worldwide." How does this prove that France is wrong and Germany and U.S.A. are correct? The article cannot resist mentioning Chernobyl, as though that level of incompetence is common-place; and anyway, as bilby has pointed out(!), even Chernobyl's impact is exaggerated compared with other risks.

The article states "The bill for the French taxpayers will start at $57 billion, according to the New York Times." As far as I can tell, the NY Times article doesn't mention taxpayers. I rather think some of the capital costs for electricity production will be recouped by — did you guess? — selling the electricity!

I'm going to have to give foreignpolicy.com a 'D' on that article. Make it a 'D+' for effort.

 

[No Robots]

The article states "The bill for the French taxpayers will start at $57 billion, according to the New York Times." As far as I can tell, the NY Times article doesn't mention taxpayers. I rather think some of the capital costs for electricity production will be recouped by — did you guess? — selling the electricity!

The linked NYT article is paywalled for me. However this one by the same reporter is from just a few days ago and goes into detail on the financial problems of the French nuclear programme.

The FP piece is certainly tendentious. I see it as a healthy counter to the breathless nuke boosterism that seems to predominate around here. My own position is nukes if necessary, but not necessarily nukes. I honestly do not see any problem with a global solar strategy. No problem, that is, other than the typical human hubris, ignorance and egoism. I'm sorry that buggy-whip makers, er, nuclear physicists may need to retrain. However, the speed with which the global solar system is growing clearly points to it as the best option. Regulatory and construction issues around nuclear expansion simply rule it out as a fast solution. The unresolvable issue of waste and the inherent danger of catastrophic failure make it completely beyond consideration for me. I'm alarmed and troubled by the ferocious advocacy that nuclear power gets from people who seem quite rational. The insistence that it is the only way to deal effectively with climate change has made me at least open to considering it. But I just have not seen a compelling case for it. It seems obvious that a truly global effort would make solar the predominant energy source on the planet. The downsides to a global solar energy system do not seem prohibitive to me.

 

[Bomb#20]

I wondered why energy companies were interested in hydrogen instead of making other synthetic fuels that are easier to store, and this provides some explanation: making carbon-based fuels is expensive, even more expensive than making hydrogen.

However, hydrogen is (1) necessary as a feedstock for other synfuels, and (2) usable much like natural gas, so getting hydrogen going is a step on the way to more easily stored synfuels.

But what are they going to do with all the left-over C after they extract their hydrogen from their CH₄?

 

[Bomb#20]

My own position is nukes if necessary, but not necessarily nukes.

How'd that work out for you with conscription?

 

[lpetrich]

But what are they going to do with all the left-over C after they extract their hydrogen from their CH₄?

Except that renewable-energy hydrogen production is with electrolysis:

2H2O + ️ -> 2H2 + O2

No carbon release anywhere in this process.

Furthermore, once one has one's hydrogen, one can make ammonia with the Haber-Bosch process:

N2 + 3H2 + -> 2NH3

One can make hydrocarbons and oxyhydrocarbons with the Fischer-Tropsch process:

x*CO2 + (2x+y/2-z)*H2+ -> CxHyOz + (2x-z)*H2O

These can then be used as fuels and chemical feedstocks, and even for carbon sequestration.

 

[Bomb#20]

But what are they going to do with all the left-over C after they extract their hydrogen from their CH₄?

Except that renewable-energy hydrogen production is with electrolysis:

2H2O + ️ -> 2H2 + O2

No carbon release anywhere in this process.

CH₄ + 2O₂ -> CO₂ + 2H₂O + ️
2H₂O + ️ -> 2H₂ + O₂
----------------------------------
CH₄ + 2O₂ -> CO₂ + 2H₂+ O₂

 

[bilby]

I wondered why energy companies were interested in hydrogen instead of making other synthetic fuels that are easier to store, and this provides some explanation: making carbon-based fuels is expensive, even more expensive than making hydrogen.

However, hydrogen is (1) necessary as a feedstock for other synfuels, and (2) usable much like natural gas, so getting hydrogen going is a step on the way to more easily stored synfuels.

But what are they going to do with all the left-over C after they extract their hydrogen from their CH₄?

Usable like natural gas, not with or from.

 

[Bomb#20]

However, hydrogen is (1) necessary as a feedstock for other synfuels, and (2) usable much like natural gas, so getting hydrogen going is a step on the way to more easily stored synfuels.

But what are they going to do with all the left-over C after they extract their hydrogen from their CH₄?

Usable like natural gas, not with or from.

I'm not concerned with Mr. Petrich's preposition. I'm concerned with reality.

"As of 2020, the majority of hydrogen (∼95%) is produced from fossil fuels by steam reforming of natural gas and other light hydrocarbons, partial oxidation of heavier hydrocarbons, and coal gasification."​

 

[bilby]

However, hydrogen is (1) necessary as a feedstock for other synfuels, and (2) usable much like natural gas, so getting hydrogen going is a step on the way to more easily stored synfuels.

But what are they going to do with all the left-over C after they extract their hydrogen from their CH₄?

Usable like natural gas, not with or from.

I'm not concerned with Mr. Petrich's preposition. I'm concerned with reality.

"As of 2020, the majority of hydrogen (∼95%) is produced from fossil fuels by steam reforming of natural gas and other light hydrocarbons, partial oxidation of heavier hydrocarbons, and coal gasification."​

Fair enough.

 

[lpetrich]

CH₄ + 2O₂ -> CO₂ + 2H₂O + ️
2H₂O + ️ -> 2H₂ + O₂
----------------------------------
CH₄ + 2O₂ -> CO₂ + 2H₂+ O₂

I get your point about using natural gas to generate electricity. But one would not do that -- one would get the electricity from renewable energy sources.

I'm not concerned with Mr. Petrich's preposition. I'm concerned with reality.

"As of 2020, the majority of hydrogen (∼95%) is produced from fossil fuels by steam reforming of natural gas and other light hydrocarbons, partial oxidation of heavier hydrocarbons, and coal gasification."​

So what? With enough electrolysis, we will see the end of those fossil-fuel sources.