Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread (Read 140648 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #465 –
Quote from: Mav – on
Vanadium redox flow batteries can provide cheap, large-scale grid energy storage. Here's how they work, abc.net.au.

A New ‘Glue’ Could Make Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling Cheaper—And Less Toxic, Forbes.
Good links.

It's not lost on me and it's quite bizarre that it takes a foreign investor to gain any traction on an Australia invention, I see it happen over and over again, locals get zero interest from the Feds or local Venture Capitalists, so the ideas get sold off to foreigners who commercialise it making a killing.

Flow batteries are a very serious option for buildings and homes, and should be receiving far more attention than Elon Musks rare element highly marketed and expensive(read profitable) alternatives. I read a while back that the basic installation hardware is everlasting in a flow battery and doesn't wear out, and you can change the electrodes and electrolyte as easy as Fish'n'Chip shop changes oil.

(Personally, I think LAVO is the way to go for homes and domestic vehicle charging, anyone old enough to remember The Heater man knows why!)

The lithium battery glue although a great idea is a trivial issue, the big problem for lithium ion isn't breaking the batteries down physically, it's reprocessing the ingredients that have become oxides or carbides. FWIW, the very same is now being done for cellphone assemblies, the glue can be "programmed to fall apart" under the right conditions. But let's not get too excited about the glue, and using sodium hydroxide to trigger the laminate to crumble isn't really an environmentally sweet solution to the problem, but it'll be easier and cheaper because it's basically paint stripper something that is already mass produced very very cheaply, but not so easy to dispose of in bulk!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #466 –
As the article says, though, the inventors of the flow batteries were 20 years too early. The application for the patent was filed in 1986 and would have run out in 2001 before storage was much of an issue. Until solar panels and renewable energy became popular, supply was regular given coal-fired power plants. That’s the thing about renewable power. Developing the technology couldn’t be done in a linear planned fashion. Some parts of the system are developed before they can be used or before they can lead to an identifiable benefit.

An example of that is the electric vehicle market. When the electricity that would recharge them was generated by burning coal or gas, the argument was that there was no point electrifying cars as the pollution was merely shifted from 1 place to another. That led to minimal investment in creating electric vehicles and recharging stations. Now there is cleaner energy available, we’re playing catch up in those areas.

That’s why I’m not so persuaded by arguments based on existing technology. The developments cited in those 2 articles are merely 2 of many being evaluated now. What will be available in 2030 will be light years ahead of what currently exists. And we need to develop infrastructure to take advantage of it rather than saying, “There are issues with current technology, so let’s put it on the back burner until all those issues are resolved”. On the other hand, nuclear fission and fossil fuels are mature markets with much less scope for improvement. Clean coal is a joke and they should stop trying to make fetch happen. Nuclear fusion on the other hand is intriguing.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #467 –
The big recent advances in flow batteries are related to the electrolyte, the fundamental technology hasn't changed much but the electrolyte in the original days was a problem as it deteriorated quickly, a few dozens of recharges and it had to be replaced. The modern electrolytes can potentially last decades. Also the anodes and cathodes have improved, but not as much as the electrolyte.

Hydrogen fuel cells, even combined with Fusion or Fission not just renewables, are a real zero carbon winner. You produce the hydrogen when there is heaps of energy to spare, and regenerate electricity on demand when needed. You can distribute hydrogen through existing channels, pipelines, bulk carriers, gas bottles, etc., etc., or you can even make it onsite from local renewables and let it charge your car overnight or even refill a hydrogen car directly from the reserve. It fits with Fusion or Fission because both technologies need base load, you can make hydrogen 24x7 even when there is no grid demand, in much the same way fission plants get paired up with desalination plants.

(It's really a no brainer for Oz as the driest continent on the planet, and one of the richest in uranium, to use fission for base load, we can make all the fresh water we need and all the relatively cheap electricity, it's that simple! Eventually we will replace the fission with fusion, but we will still need to pair fusion with a base load probably  desalination plant, because most of the current fusion projects get the fuel from seawater, as a by-product of desalination.)
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #468 –
The recent frantic search for the tiny capsule of radioactive material lost during transport fills me with great confidence over nuclear fission.  :o

And until hydrogen is generated using renewables rather than burning coal and making vague promises that there’ll be effective carbon capture at some stage this century, I’ll have my concerns.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #469 –
Quote from: Mav – on
The recent frantic search for the tiny capsule of radioactive material lost during transport fills me with great confidence over nuclear fission.  :o

A drop in the ocean
vs
Continual, consistent deterioration of air quality, ozone layer and a potentially (if not already) irreversable runaway greenhouse scenario.

Its like the frog in the pan. Turn it up slow enough and it will stay there until its cooked!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #470 –
Actually, that thing about frogs in a pan is frog$hit. Unless they’re anaesthetised, of course.

Maybe it would make more sense if you substituted a climate change denialist for the frog. You’d just have to find a pan big enough to fit Craig Kelly.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #471 –
Quote from: Mav – on
And until hydrogen is generated using renewables rather than burning coal and making vague promises that there’ll be effective carbon capture at some stage this century, I’ll have my concerns.
So hydrogen isn't allowed to be developed using the very same energy source that was used to develop solar panels and wind turbines. ::)

There are directions other than left in this world!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #472 –
Quote from: Mav – on
Actually, that thing about frogs in a pan is frog$hit. Unless they’re anaesthetised, of course.

Maybe it would make more sense if you substituted a climate change denialist for the frog. You’d just have to find a pan big enough to fit Craig Kelly.
I know its BS, but its an analogy.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #473 –
Aren’t we talking about the continual burning of fossil fuels to drive the electrolysis that separates the hydrogen and oxygen? Maybe you might be able to tell us whether there will be any real reduction in greenhouse gases produced in that way compared to the continued use of petrol in cars and the like.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #474 –
Maybe the frogs could hoist themselves out of the water by their own bootstraps?

Not sure saying it’s an analogy works any better than Michael Palin saying, “It was a pun!”

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #475 –
Quote from: Mav – on
Aren’t we talking about the continual burning of fossil fuels to drive the electrolysis that separates the hydrogen and oxygen? Maybe you might be able to tell us whether there will be any real reduction in greenhouse gases produced in that way compared to the continued use of petrol in cars and the like.
Just as solar panels were developed for over three decades using the base load supply at the time which was fossil fuel, hydrogen production will be developed using whatever base load supply is currently available.

Only mindless renewable advocates and the battery industry pump that hydrogen producing base load supply up as being purely sourced from coal or gas. Even a cursory examination exposes the bullcrap that hydrogen is only produced by burning coal. I don't blame them, it's about money, and lots and lots of it, maybe even your superannuation depends on some renewables performing well and continuing to receive subsidies!

At this stage, over the full battery lifecycle, even using the very latest available technologies including big flow batteries, hydrogen is a better option than batteries for storing excess solar PV or Wind generate power.

A genuine problem is that the best performing hydrogen fuel cells are patented, but I suspect eventually the global governments will work around that much as they have with vaccines. But that's not a technical argument, although opponents will paint it as the old world profiteering in an attempt to steer investors away, it again is all about money and the smeller is as bad as the fella!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #476 –
As always, the devil’s in the details. The production of hydrogen in the Latrobe Valley uses coal gassification:

Quote from: HESC
Hydrogen was extracted from Latrobe Valley coal and a mixture of biomass at a newly constructed plant located at AGL’s Loy Yang Complex in the Latrobe Valley through gasification and refining. Carbon offsets were purchased to mitigate emissions from the pilot. In the commercial phase, carbon dioxide would be captured during this process and stored deep underground in a process known as carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Even if totally green electricity were available to the producers, the gassification process releases copious greenhouse gases. That required carbon offsets in the pilot phase and would need carbon capture to work in the commercial phase. Carbon capture at the level needed is pie in the sky stuff. Has it even worked successfully at an experimental level? Green hydrogen via electrolysis would be a less risky proposition when it comes to combatting climate change but only if the vast amount of electricity required comes from renewable sources.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #477 –
im wary of carbon offset.

To me its throwing money at pretending to be environmentally friendly.  Sure, its supposed to go to green initiatives but does it actually or does it fuel profits?
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #478 –
Yep. In principle, it might work but it’s easy to scam.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/23/australias-carbon-credit-scheme-largely-a-sham-says-whistleblower-who-tried-to-rein-it-in

I was amazed that in the EU shifting from coal-fired to wood-fired power generation has been seen as part of their contribution to fighting climate change, simply because it’s a renewable power source. I guess it’s all about the definitions you use.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #479 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
im wary of carbon offset.

To me its throwing money at pretending to be environmentally friendly.  Sure, its supposed to go to green initiatives but does it actually or does it fuel profits?

100%.

Money can get you far in life.

To steal a large chunk of cynicism from LP.
Businesses are better of paying for carbon offsets rather than change anything they are doing.
I'd hazard a guess that not only is it cheaper to handover cash than to change the way they do things (machinery, factory setups, transportation etc etc etc) but it would probably give them a nice tax break in the process by reducing their profit margins, as well as 'donating' to the environment....which in turn gives them a nice gold star with investors and what not.

There is very little incentive for them to move away from what they are actually doing. Its potentially more beneficial to keep the status quo.
Propaganda!