Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread (Read 147530 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 31 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #615 –
@Mav, generalising the case whether the debate is economic, technical or scientific isn't valid. There is no one answer to suit all cases, some may imagine there is, but that is the problem it's imagination not reality.

The case for fossil fuel sourced hydrogen as a foundational source for a hydrogen economy is a prime example. Many want to paint it as the one and only path forward, and so assert that is a good enough reason not to pursue hydrogen in total as a solution. It's a flawed argument, based on a false premise, a conspiracy wanted to justify a political position. I don't know anybody in the industry making such assertions, in fact pretty much everyone I talk to claims the exact opposite, that the plan is to migrate to clean hydrogen sources as rapidly as possible. This makes the papers you list a bit ludicrous, the figures might be accurate but they are creatively twisted for political purposes.

Whether you like it or not, hydrogen economy is here to stay, it's one of only a handful of viable energy storage and transport solutions for a large sector of the modern economy. Given you are wealthy enough you can install a converter / generator at home right now and be free of the grid, recharge your EV and also heat your home, with power reserves far beyond those economically achievable by the best cost equivalent batteries or other alternatives. Flow batteries might one day become available, but at this time there is no available option although they are being worked on.

Hydrogen makes up about 75.2% of the matter in the visible known universe, it will never run out, it's also the ultimate source of the light harvested by SolarPV! :o

PS; Repeating, hydrogen from methane is already done at scale, with minimal greenhouse emissions, the fact that it isn't been done on a wider scale is the real environmental crime. If it was subsidised like SolarPV and given the same political will it would proliferate rapidly.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #616 –
Again, the fossil fuel industry is very keen to avoid becoming a fossil itself. If it can generate new markets by catalysing methane and win positive coverage for doing so while neutralising a major criticism, it will. The industry can subsidise such efforts itself as it has deep pockets. The fact that it isn’t being done speaks for itself.

Quote from: LP – on
PS; Repeating, hydrogen from methane is already done at scale, with minimal greenhouse emissions, the fact that it isn't been done on a wider scale is the real environmental crime.
If that’s true, that would be significant. Can you please provide details so I can look into it?

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #617 –
Quote from: Mav – on
If that’s true, that would be significant. Can you please provide details so I can look into it?
Most commonly, pretty much any major smelter or steel mill does this already, where did you think all the knowledge about steam reformation comes from?

Large scale agriculture gets onboard as well but from what I can tell not here in Australia, by large scale I mean of Elder's IXL scale not just the local big dairy farmer, corporations that are held accountable for emissions implement this as almost a first step. I can't tell you how many or who but I'll be gobsmacked if some aren't using part of  the emissions captured to generate electricity and earning feed in tariffs as part of the process.

For example, despite the Australian parent company folding back in 2018, CFCL's fuel cell technology (a CSIRO Invention) continues on in Europe and has become a major player in turning captured emissions into heat and power in northern European locations. Locally there was a whole pilot suburb developed using the technology, I can't tell you what happened to it, I believe it was out west of Melbourne somewhere to take advantage of captured emissions from Melbourne Water. In total there were about 300 homes.

Scale is not a problem, political and corporate will is the biggest issue. For CFCL the biggest potential investor was the energy industry, but in the absence of legislation how do you get them to invest in a technology that removes customers from the grid. They get to sell the single consumer a gadget that costs about the price of a small car, and they are basically gone from the grid forever powered by what is currently classified as waste. If CFCL was still about, they would be as big of a player in southern regions outside of metropolitan areas as wind energy. But they aren't and they probably won't ever be because the IP is now privately held. So should we abandon a technology locally because Australia is big and it's not valid for the tropical end?

Just an aside, a single CFCL Device was about the size of a fridge, and if installed in something like a dairy farm could generate enough power and heat from captured emissions to power the whole farming operation and perhaps even still have surplus to sell back to the grid. But unlike solar, there was no legislation so no feed in tariff, the energy you made but did not use was returned to the grid for free! The energy providers would not buy in because they lose a customer, and the customers would not buy in because there was no requirement and no return, then solar and wind turns up with legislation that requires profit-sharing.

I know the people in CFCL were left stunned, it was like being beaten to death with a velvet sledgehammer, people were the puzzle they could not solve, the technology was dead easy!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #618 –
So, none that involve blue hydrogen producers or oil and gas producers. That says it all, doesn’t it? Again, why doesn’t the fossil fuel industry lead the way by showing how profitable and clean it is to make things out of their methane byproduct? Are they hanging out for more government subsidies?

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #619 –
Quote from: Mav – on
So, none that involve blue hydrogen producers or oil and gas producers. That says it all, doesn’t it? Again, why doesn’t the fossil fuel industry lead the way by showing how profitable and clean it is to make things out of their methane byproduct? Are they hanging out for more government subsidies?
They are corporates and they want certainty, to do this stuff at scale costs money, and you need long term certainty to make the figures work for a ROI.

When a mill, smelter or dairy farm goes down this path, including the licensing and compliance, they do so at a level that services their own interest, but perhaps the issue is more about percentages. There is a lot of argy bargy about how many tonnes of methane gets discarded or accidentally spilled, but what is it as a percentage of the bigger production figure. Which was the point I was getting to earlier about effects, longevity and relative ratios. Maybe if you are coal mining for your power plant the methane emissions aren't even on the right scale to register on the graph!

Even if at scale it's a blip on the graph, it might be a significant resource for other markets. I bet those that continue to operate generating methane do something once a market for the end product is established and it has some intrinsic value to them, I suppose that comes about when demand exceeds the amount we produce. They won't want to do what Redcycle did and develop massive amount of product without a customer to sell it to!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #620 –
That final point is the one I’ve been making repeatedly. You say there’s a market for catalysed byproducts of methane and that the market will absorb any amount produced. But that is exactly the Redcycle problem. Once you divorce production levels from market demand for byproducts, you’ll have a Redcycle oversupply which can’t be sustained.

You also sing from the fossil fuel industry’s songbook: give us ironclad long-term contracts and subsidies to clean up coal, gas and oil and we’ll do it. They realise that investors will be looking at how they’ll compete against alternatives 5, 10, 20 years down the track and they know they won’t like what the future holds.

You moan over CFCL’s demise. But it shut up shop in Australia because the government wouldn’t compel energy companies to buy the product. At best, it was a transitional solution. It converted natural gas into energy. The draw card was that it would emit much less than coal-fired plants running on brown coal. But that’s like saying Carlton would do better than me on the list than Zac Williams in the coming year. Both involve setting a very low bar. And we can do better than “we’re better than the crappiest product”.

If that technology was a winner, wouldn’t it now be a major player? Oh yes, I forgot: the Deep State and powerful lobbyists have strangled it at birth.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #621 –
Quote from: Mav – on
That final point is the one I’ve been making repeatedly. You say there’s a market for catalysed byproducts of methane and that the market will absorb any amount produced. But that is exactly the Redcycle problem. Once you divorce production levels from market demand for byproducts, you’ll have a Redcycle oversupply which can’t be sustained.
You're assuming no change in the market, Redcycle's problem is that it ploughed ahead too fast, before there was a market to sell to or infrastructure to handle the product. They collected 300x the waste they could convert, they became a patsy waste repository for all the green councils to dump the unwanted rubbish at and get a pat on the back for recycling, another con! Now the same councils and politicians are trying to blame Redcycle for failing, I bet they bury the lot or a good portion of it and blame Redcycle for that as well! ;)

You ponder why they aren't doing it already, it's a chicken and egg question, at the moment there are no hydrogen consuming resources to sell to, we already produce more hydrogen than we can store or use so it just floats out of the atmosphere. At the moment it's considered a waste just like some of the methane from certain mining operations, and that designation is a crime. It can be fertilizer, it can be pharmaceuticals, in fact it will be because if we ban / close much of the natural gas mining then those industries will be forced to look for the methane they use now from other sources.

Many of the leaks are coming from capped wells, not capped because they want to stop it leaching in the environment, capped because it has an intrinsic value, the capped mines are storage units not the waste repositories, it's a future resource and they know it. Another crime is that they are not required to do anything with it, they get richer everyday it stays in the ground, they get richer for doing nothing!

Hydrogen won't be a by-product, it'll be "the product."

CFCL wasn't just about natural gas, that is the marketing blurb, they had already developed stacks that used methane and hydrogen, when they folded they were developing a stack to capture and convert some harmful toxic gases. Natural gas was just the thing investors could understand, the place residential houses could get energy from by pipeline or bottle. A large chunk of the northern hemisphere industrial installations of the technology run on methane by-product from the dairy industry, as I have already mentioned. There were several sites using captured methane from geothermal processes, but I know that has a longevity issue due to sulphurous contaminants so they might no longer be running.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"
 

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #622 –
Interesting to read some debate around micro-nuclear, these are sub-100MW reactors being developed by several countries, designed to power a suburb not a city. R&D is happening in the USA, Japan, UK, France and Sth Korea, it may well be under way in China as well somewhere. These are the systems some refer to as "nuclear batteries", they can be small enough to be transported by crane or plane and fit on a suburban block or in a building basement, and delivery energies like 9MW at that scale, that's on average enough to feed 3ooo homes.

One of the big arguments against this micro-nuclear was the rising costs, the opponents claim the increased costs of materials has pushed the unit energy cost from $50 to $80 per Megawatt. The primary factor was the rising cost of copper, which up about 40% at the moment, and even higher increases in Europe. The they go on to claim SolarPV and Wind is getting cheaper, the price per Megawatt falling all the time! :o

What I'm really interested in is this, what are those magic and cheap materials that SolarPV and Wind have found to replace copper so they can achieve this fall in costs while competitor energy sources suffer increases?

As far as I know, Wind is the energy industries biggest user of copper, those turbines are basically 300T of CP(Commercially Pure) copper on a 80m high stick. Even the cables and cooling system use specially formulated copper alloys to get the energy out with minimal loss.

Even SolarPV uses a lot of copper, SolarPV generates DC not AC, the high voltage DC has to be converted to AC. High voltage DC needs heavier cables than AC, the invertor process uses copper, etc., etc., there is even copper in the heat stinks and panels!

So if you haven't worked it out yet, the claims that rising costs (primarily copper) are driving up the unit energy cost of micro-nuclear making it not viable versus SolarPV or Wind are bogus!

If they are going to oppose something then oppose it, it's all good that is how things get better by being challenged, but don't make up bullsh1t just to justify a political position.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #623 –
The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries Zero and Low Emission Report 2022 appeared in my inbox and it has some interesting facts and statistics that may confuse or amuse depending on your take.
Petrol and Diesel sales make up 86% of the market which in total cars sold numbers was 1,081,429.....for those still discussing the merits of hydrogen the Aus public decided 15 Hydrogen powered cars was all they could muster so I think its going to be a very long time if at all before Hydrogen powered vehicles gain any traction in the land down under.
Of course there has to be infrastructure to make it happen but with no sales its a bit of a what comes first in terms of the chicken and the egg scenario. With only three filling stations based in the ACT, Sydney and Melbourne its going to be difficult to get people interested and you have to wonder how green that hydrogen they are supplying is as well, probably from a 3rd party steam/methane dirty variety source..
The EV vehicle market is owned by Tesla Model 3 and Model Y...other manufacturers sales are off a cliff in comparison to Elon Musk's offerings, next best are BYD Atto and Polestar so you are buying an experiment if you buy one of those new brands...

Toyota own the Hybrid market.......its a no contest approx 76k for Toyota and the next best being Lexus(Toyota) with about 3k.
I wonder what affect these fuel saving Atkinson effect engines which usually come with these Hybrids is having on overall total fuel savings?
Plug in Hybrid sales are poor, seems no one wants to know about them even though they would be my preferred option.

One interesting stat is the Governments takeup of EV's....which includes Federal, State and local....488 Fully EV vehicles only bought by those in charge who want the public to Green up but dont seem that interested themselves...thats a pathetic amount considering the pressure on the average joe to do his bit for the environment as well as corporates.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #624 –
@ElwoodBlues1‍ it's all about infrastructure.

For the moment EVs are being purchase by the green elite and / or casual road users, the problem is recharge times. Most only have single phase at home so a fast charger is not an option unless you they out $20k for a big battery and have access to a large area for north facing solar. They are OK if you potter about each day and can slow charge overnight, never approaching the range limit. Of course some do not care about recovering the costs so they do it as a community benefit project, but a lot of people cannot afford that option.

If you are lucky you might have an employer who has setup charging in the carpark, but they are few and far between.

Public slow charging is available but still in trivial quantities. When I attended a conference in the CBD a couple of weeks back and made note of the charging options, they had 34 chargers available, when you look at a wall of these things it seems a lot but the carpark has just under 2000 spots. If each car charges in 30mins you can only charge 68 per day, maybe they charge in 20mins so that's 102!

I've a mate in the UK who was an early adopter of the Tesla, he raved on and one about it, and how he'd recharge for free at the supercharge station while getting a coffee, they have them on the freeways. But just last week he was complaining that it's getting harder to get the free fast charge, many of the popular / convenient sites now require you to book a time slot. and at some in peak hour you now have to pay a peak demand fee like the way Uber apply surcharges! As an early adopter he paid nearly $250K for the Tesla 100D and is eligible for free for life recharging, but the free part is becoming untenable, he feels conned and is seriously thinking of going back to a hybrid!

My mate joked with me about a Green politician in the UK that is pushing for EV Ambulance, when they did the sums it's would only reach 27% duty cycle due to the constant need for recharging ( The average is about 60% but don't ask me how this is measured ). They worked out that fast charging helped, but that slashes the battery life and the fancy battery is many times the cost of one used in a car.

In the short term I doubt hydrogen is a viable option for cars, at least not until residential hydrogen generation becomes available but it's still in it's development phase. However, hydrogen is a very serious option for commercial or public transport, perhaps even agriculture, where you can have your own depo / refilling stations.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #625 –
EB, I think that will turn as the dinosaurs move through the political/public service system.
Government has a duty to provide practical support.
Let’s go BIG !

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #626 –
Hopefully one day somebody will be able to explain to me this little curiosity.

If EVs are about saving the environment, and in EV land efficiency and range is king, why the feck do they cover these things in LEDs like they are a mobile Christmas tree?

They are so glitter they are almost as offensive as Liberace on viagra overload, not a pretty sight!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #627 –
Quite a nice rant, built on an error, a bit lengthy, bit verbose, but well worth a listen if you are interested in the reality of the CO2 emissions scenario.

He covers the vehicle operation and part of the origination, but doesn't include emissions for solar panels or home batteries. And he doesn't account for the early demise of the combustion vehicle well before it's origination overhead is exhausted.

I screwed up about EVs - big time | Auto Expert John Cadogan - YouTube

We need nuclear now, in fact we needed nuclear yesterday, but everyday we delay things get worse.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #628 –
Germany have closed their last nuclear reactor and essentially have gone back to coal to fill the energy gap.
Wonder if Greta will pay them a visit...?

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #629 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
Germany have closed their last nuclear reactor and essentially have gone back to coal to fill the energy gap.
Wonder if Greta will pay them a visit...?
This is a tragedy happening before our eyes, although you might note that Germany takes a big chunk of it's energy off France, France is basically 100% nuclear. However, the war has made for slim pickings in the energy market and the capacity is being stretched to the limit, there are serious possibilities of people freezing to death in the next European winter.

So much for the affluent west!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"