World, Writing, Wealth discussion
Wealth & Economics
>
Decarbonisation Pathways - What are the best options?
message 1:
by
Graeme
(new)
Sep 11, 2021 09:36PM
Hi all, here is a thread to discuss all options related to decarbonisation. I will provide some interesting visual format data below.
reply
|
flag
The current US mix of energy sources.image:
Full reference at https://www.visualcapitalist.com/road...
Battery technology in 5 parts.https://www.visualcapitalist.com/evol...
Vehicle Battery tech is getting cheaper...
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/elec...
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. aka SMRs.REF 1:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbrT3...
REF 2: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20...
Thanks for starting this thread Graeme.The visual of US consumption is very interesting e.g. lack of geo thermal in Hawaii compared to say another volcanic region Iceland at 65% and rising
The still small % of solar in sunny states e.g. Arizona at 5.5% whereas UK (Not known for sunshine) has 6%
UK energy - focused on sources and European reliance on imports
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/enviro...
Live consumption dashboard - this morning >60% from fossil fuels
https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live
Nuclear remains too small in generation % even if the reactors are getting smaller
Philip wrote: "Thanks for starting this thread Graeme.The visual of US consumption is very interesting e.g. lack of geo thermal in Hawaii compared to say another volcanic region Iceland at 65% and rising
The s..."
Re Hawaii geothermal:
Geothermal is a Red-Hot Topic
https://www.hawaiibusiness.com/geothe...
In the US, most solar power systems are rooftop systems on private homes. These systems are expensive enough that most people have to finance them, often through a home equity loan.
If you're a fast growing state like Arizona, a large portion of your residents are going to be either renters who don't do major home improvements and new homeowners who have no equity.
If you have home equity to spend, your biggest consideration should be the break even point. In other words, how long will it take for the system to pay for itself? This is where net metering comes in. Net metering allows you to sell surplus electricity to the utility from your grid tied system. Being able to create income from surplus production greatly shortens the break even point.
Merry Xmas 2016, Arizona!
Arizona regulators vote to stop net metering for solar
https://www.azcentral.com/story/money...
J. wrote: "Philip wrote: "Thanks for starting this thread Graeme.The visual of US consumption is very interesting e.g. lack of geo thermal in Hawaii compared to say another volcanic region Iceland at 65% an..."
J - I have a solar system on my roof in UK which we contribute to the UK grid any excess we have - surprising how much that is as well as reducing our own grid consumption. I thought ROI would be 6-8 years when we purchased - it was more like 3 and continues to return. The element for AZ is big solar plants as per Morocco set up - given brown outs and blackouts in Texas why haven't sunshine state power companies got going.
As a question to the illustrious panel what about carbon scrubbers for the atmosphere - anything moving on significant scale e.g. powered by renewable, geo, hydro or nuclear.I've seen a lot on carbon capture whether bio or at point of creation but not cleaning - (Clean all the other rubbish out at same time)
The problem with solar selling excess to the grid is it makes grid management very difficult once it reaches a certain percentage. Solar tends to be maximum around noon while maximum demand occurs at each end of the day. A thermal plant can take up to 8 hours to start up from cold, and if you run them continuously hot but venting steam or running excess cooling, you are simply increasing your costs. If half the state, say, uses solar and batteries there is the huge demand for batteries, and, since the grid operators have the same costs, the price of grid electricity to the poor has to increase dramatically. Managing a grid with renewables mainly makes sense if you have a good hydro capacity because it is one form of generation that you can turn on in minutes.For transport, I am an advocate for biofuel, provided it is made as a hydrocarbon equivalent. Your petrol and diesel can have much higher octane and cetane ratings, and you still have to power aircraft, even if you cut back on numbers. In the 1970s, I organised a survey of NZ municipal rubbish, and it would have been possible to make about 8 litres of hydrocarbons per week per person, so with efficient non-gas-guzzling vehicles, most families would generate most of their weekly use.
China will increase its coal consumption over the next ten years, but China is also about to commission the first molten salt thorium reactor.
Finally, the problem of whether there is enough lithium to power batteries may be solved. I see there is the possibility of a sodium/chlorine battery being commercial, and there is no shortage of sodium chloride.
Let's see how Norway solves the dilemma following the elections: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...It's one of the greenest countries on earth with 90% energy from renewable sources, while its incomes from export come mainly from oil & gas.
Oil exporters will have to reinvent themselves
In coastal NJ there has been a big discussion about wind turbine power. The state wants to hire a Danish company to put about 100 wind turbines offshore and they are getting a lot of push back from the coastal residents who cite some very realistic reasons why wind energy is not the way to go.Not long ago, Tucker Carlson interviewed a guy who wrote a book about the wind energy scam (I think his name was Schellenberger); the writer also recently came to NJ and MA to talk about the many problems with wind turbines.
One aspect that doesn't get talked about a lot is the problem of disposal - solar panels, their batteries and wind turbine parts do not last forever and not only is the landfill space for disposal limited, but there are toxic elements in the parts that could leak into the soil and groundwater.
There is a lot of arm-waving about recycling to save on disposal. Thus they say lithium-ion batteries could be recycled to save on disposal costs. However, there are at least five different technology variations at work with slightly different compositions but usually with toxic chemicals and the fire hazard of lithium, so they need different procedures. Now, the manufacturers do not mark the batteries to show clearly how they should be disposed of. They don't think of that - it can be someone else's problem.The argument is that recycling will come as the costs of the components go up and make it more worth while, but how many high-technology companies are interested? Very few, because it is invariably a very low-return venture.
Unless someone has made a dramatic discovery, "high temperature superconductor" still needs to be cooled with liquid nitrogen. I saw some of this a few years ago. The stuff is a ceramic, it looks like metal, and you can bend it like aluminium.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-en...50c days have doubled since 1980 - 14 to 29 and still the majority are in the same places; however, the number of places has also increased.
Back to tech - UK has made significant investment and continues to do so in offshore wind - still have the problem of still days as we did late August when coal had to be fired up to provide power. - Lack of nuclear and gas prices are through the roof.
Being becalmed in winter is bad for renewable energy. Maybe Russia will do well out of gas sales after all.
If anyone discovers how to convert Bougainvillea flowers into energy, that can be a bonanza, for they grow much faster than Iran enriches uranium :)
Nik wrote: "If anyone discovers how to convert Bougainvillea flowers into energy, that can be a bonanza, for they grow much faster than Iran enriches uranium :)"Fire. However there are much higher return on investment fuels than Bougainvillea flowers. Unfortunately, that's the problem.
Purdue record for the whitest paint appears in latest edition of 'Guinness World Records'https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/relea...
Paint everyone's roofs, parking lots, roads, anything. Raising the albedo would be a great move. OK, the actual area painted may be small but every little bit helps. Maybe.
It's an economical path for homeowners in areas with high AC usage to reduce their electric bill. And since much of that electricity is generated from burning fossil fuels, it can significantly lower our carbon footprint. Win, win.
Regarding grid-scale storage - fire is an issue.REF 1: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...
REF 2: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/08/0...
All technology has challenges...
Ian wrote: "Paint everyone's roofs, parking lots, roads, anything. Raising the albedo would be a great move. OK, the actual area painted may be small but every little bit helps. Maybe."I'm very wary of attempts to geo-engineer solutions.
Graeme wrote: "Ian wrote: "Paint everyone's roofs, parking lots, roads, anything. Raising the albedo would be a great move. OK, the actual area painted may be small but every little bit helps. Maybe."I'm very w..."
Graeme, like it or not we have embarked on geoengineering by burning so much fossil fuel.
In our paper today, it was reported that a whole lot of countries have promised to reduce their carbon emissions by 20%. However, when we include all countries, the emission will rise by 16% each year for at least a decade and probably two decades. We are like the frog in a pot - getting cooked and we think it is fine - so far.
If you want to do something to stop it, i am afraid geoengineering is all that is left. There are no workable alternatives. A few may be environmentally conscious (although the jet fuel burnt by environmentalists going to conferences to moan about everyone else leads me to question that) but overall the fires under the pot are being stoked with more fuel.
Graeme wrote: "Regarding grid-scale storage - fire is an issue.REF 1: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...
REF 2: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/0..."
Of course, How did anyone think batteries work? They involve oxidation/reduction reactions and to get sufficient energy stored, you use highly flammable materials. Toxic too. They just have to be contained, and containers are a problem. Metal is hardly optimal since it conducts electricity but most other thongs are either brittle or they degrade.
Ian wrote: "Graeme, like it or not we have embarked on geoengineering by burning so much fossil fuel...."And we believe we can predict the future of a nonlinear dynamic system with computer models... (Snort!)
Yes, I agree with the following point.
[1] Human consumption of coal, oil, and gas are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, from approx. 260 ppm pre-industrial to approx. 420 ppm today, with a current growth rate of approx. 2 to 3 ppm per year.
However, what climate we will have in 2050, or 2100 could be warmer or cooler than now. The idea that we can predict the future of non-linear chaotic systems such as climate with computers is beyond the outer limits of rationality.
But as a society, as a culture, we have imbibed deeply of the 'computer model,' cool-aid, whether it was 'value at risk,' models prior to the GFC predicting all would be well in the world stock markets in 2008, or Niall Ferguson's 'gazillions of Britons would die of Covid,' or the various attempts to model 'climate,' despite the non-linearity of the underlying systems we (humans that is) love the idea that we can know the future.
Climate models are the modern equivalent of a crystal ball, and just as reliable.
The fundamental problem is as follows.
[1] Humans love the idea that they are cosmically significant and important.
[2] Humans love the idea that they can know and predict the future because it allows them to feel safe.
(To tell humans otherwise is to tell them that they are not significant, not important, and not safe - how popular will that ever be???)
Climate models tell us all that we are important, significant, that we can tell the future, and that we can be safe (via intervention).
Climate models are a collective cultural security blanket and nothing more than that. As a culture and a society, we will pour money into our security blankets because it satisfies basic and common human psychological needs for relevance, significance and safety.
Real scientists reason from empirical data and bend over backwards to break their own hypothesis.
Richard Feynman nails it: REF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPap...
As for geo-engineering...My basic assumption is that all geo-engineering rests in ignorance of how that actual systems being impacted work, and that such efforts are fueled by massive un-adulterated hubris referencing basic human needs for relevance, significance and safety.
The net outcomes are as follows.
[1] [10% chance] We are lucky, and nothing catastrophically horrible happens. We simply waste money and people who are currently living in abject poverty die of starvation due to the misallocation of resources into collective stupidity.
[2] [89.9% chance] We are unlucky, and we manage to 'cool,' the environment tipping the world into the next glacial, with the net result that 1 km high sheets of ice cover the UK, most of Europe, Russia, Canada, and a substantial section of the US - precipitating global war and mass famine as the nuclear powers all move south in the hunt for viable real-estate.
[3] [0.1% chance] We actually do something constructive because 'accidental magic,' intervenes....
Ian wrote: "Of course, How did anyone think batteries work?..."I'm not a fan of grid storage.... why rebuild a perfectly operational grid when all you need to do is substitute coal-fired power stations with nuclear and we can decarbonise a major sector of the economy without kissing good buy to
Graeme, I too snort at computer models. They are only as good as the input assumptions, and as they say, garbage in, garbage out.However, a little thought on the physical chemistry will show the climate has to suffer from hysteresis. The temperature around melting ice remains constant, and if the heat power increases, you merely melt more ice. Until ice melting stops, and now the power heats the rest.
Of course nuclear power is better, but countries like Germany are switching such stations off. Even if we stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow, we are left with 420 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and that will give us a net power delivery to the oceans of about 0.7 W/m^2 for the next hundred years or so. And we are not going to stop emitting because market economies go for the cheapest and use their equipment until it has to be replaced.
The only good thing about this is I shall be dead before the really bad stuff hits. And what annoys me is my professional work earlier in my life offers a contribution to solving this, but nobody will be interested in funding the necessary development work
Interesting link. Unfortunately, it does not really give the chemistry so it is hard to know how good it will be. If it is simply an iron casing and ferric chloride it could be quite cheap to manufacture, but the statement it is about 2/3 the cost of a lithium ion battery suggests there is some addition issue there.
Their version is pumping the electrolytes through the stack. This means it is an industrial scale energy storage unit, on par with small flywheels. It looks like their particular mix is proprietary. I was able to find an article that goes a little more into the design.https://interestingengineering.com/ir...
The company is claiming a twenty year life expectancy with no loss of capacity. The pumps make me think that they will be sold with ongoing maintenance contracts.
To say it works by oxidation-reduction is a bit like saying spark ignition engines have spark plugs. It looks to me a little as if it is running like a fuel cell except it recharges. My guess is the oxidation is iron to ferric chloride and the reduction is chloride to hypochlorite.
Recommend looking at the new Earthshot prize - not for the messaging which some will dislike but for the competition entries. Small projects across the globe which if scaled up could seriously helpThese include biological plastic eating, human waste disposal, vertical and other high intensity farming amongst several others
https://earthshotprize.org/
On lithium recyclinghttps://www.theregister.com/2021/10/1...
Check out share prices of companies mentioned e.g. LICY on NYSE to see what the market thinks.
Recycling lithium ion batteries is not as simple as some people think. Besides the problem of collecting them, there are about 5 different technologies, they need different recycling methods, and it is not always easy to tell which sort they are before you start. You have to carefully dismantle them. If you crush them you have the possibility of a fire, and you can't put it out. The electrolyte solvent is flammable and toxic. If the battery was not fully discharged it can spark while dismantling and you get a fire. The lithium content is only a minor fraction of the battery, and not the most valuable. The cobalt is the really difficult element to replace, but it is embedded in a matrix with several others (which depend on which technology) so if they are mixed separation is quite difficult. In short, the batteries have been developed with competition and no thought is given to making them easier to recycle as that would significantly add to the costs.
Ian wrote: "To say it works by oxidation-reduction is a bit like saying spark ignition engines have spark plugs. It looks to me a little as if it is running like a fuel cell except it recharges. My guess is th..."One of the nice things about the internet is that you can find instructions and tutorials for just about anything. Case in point:
Open source all-iron battery for renewable energy storage
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...
It's looks like a simpler design, but very similar chemistry.
Looks like my guess was not bad. Sodium chloride should work as well as the potassium sulphate and it is actually cheaper but there may be other catches in the very detailed operational aspects. One problem is likely to be to stop gas forming.
I have a hybrid car. I was thinking yesterday about the new all-electric vehicles. With those big batteries, are they any better for the environment than gas vehicles? I don't know, but you guys probably do.
The digging of cobalt ore in the Congo by peasants that have a rather short life and the subsequent processing of cobalt, and the lithium, are probably the bad aspects. there is also the problem of what to do with the batteries whether life is over. They are very tricky to recycle.
Spoke to someone in the know (not Beau) yesterday who said many industry insiders think hydrogen-powered, rather than electric, cars will replace petrol and diesel.
Could electric cars be the new betamax video recorders?
Could electric cars be the new betamax video recorders?
My view is we will go through a transition period of several decades and we have yet to see what the final answer will be. I can't see lithium ion batteries prevailing because the requirements for elements like cobalt are too great, and recycling just doesn't work outside enthusiasts. Hydrogen would work best as a fuel for a fuel cell, but to get a decent range the container would take up far too much of the car. Buses and heavy transport are different. Liquid fuel combustion engines will probably remain, the fuel can be made from biomass and municipal rubbish (but I am biased on this, having worked in the area) and the reason is I think aircraft will always need fuel. Currently, aircraft store fuel in their wings but you can't really do that with hydrogen.So my answer is it is all unclear, and we shall have to wait and see, but there may be a few betamax equivalents.
So, bottom line, are electric cars better for the environment than gas-powered?
Jury still out because much of the data is hidden.
Pro electric cars - no other nasty emissions from exhausts and the climate cost of refining the fuel from drilling to distributionCon electric cars - infrastructures and power generation needed for charging and as Ian states Lithium battery production.
On Hydrogen I note Toyota (All their experience in electric hybrid) are not going down all electric route but focusing on fuel cell
Also seen a proposal for drop in and out cells (could be lithium or hydrogen) i.e. like changing batteries
Meanwhile the lobbyists have been trying to get the UN to drop certain requirementshttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-en...
Saudi, Australia etc don't want fossil fuel commitments.
Philip wrote: "On Hydrogen I note Toyota (All their experience in electric hybrid) are not going down all electric route but focusing on fuel cell
Also seen a proposal for drop in and out cells (could be lithium or hydrogen) i.e. like changing batteries"
Fascinating stuff. I think Ian's right about the transition period and the number of 'betamaxes' we'll see too.
I have actually had some dealings with the guys pushing hydrogen. They are a very committed and intelligent bunch of people. This story is not going to be a simple matter of replacing petrol and diesel with electric, like the MSM, celebrities and politicians would have us believe. To quote my virtual friend, 'it bears watching'.
Also seen a proposal for drop in and out cells (could be lithium or hydrogen) i.e. like changing batteries"
Fascinating stuff. I think Ian's right about the transition period and the number of 'betamaxes' we'll see too.
I have actually had some dealings with the guys pushing hydrogen. They are a very committed and intelligent bunch of people. This story is not going to be a simple matter of replacing petrol and diesel with electric, like the MSM, celebrities and politicians would have us believe. To quote my virtual friend, 'it bears watching'.
Hydrogen has its problems, but if you are going to use it, the fuel cell is by far the best option because it is hugely more efficient. Fuel cells can in theory even be better than 100% efficient (by using ambient heat as well) although in practice they are somewhat short of that. Hydrogen is also faster to refuel.For fuel cells there are other options, but unfortunately so far they have not been able to be made to work properly, possibly in part because nobody really wants to make the effort. Thus a methanol cell works well then starts to fail because carbon monoxide poisons an electrode. Im rather fancy an ammonia cell would be preferable, but little work has been done on that because ammonia is so difficult to make. However, I have seen recently that new catalysts are leading to quite efficient ways of making ammonia, so who knows?
