My current concept on a more practical fuel than batteries is nuclear powered coal synfuel that I hear would have 30% less carbon than fossil gas
ChatGPT says coal gasification has about a $55 per barrel floor with these nuclear energy prices and fully synthetic Seafuel $100 per barrel. Both might be plausible options as many countries have indicated willingness to pay more by proposing electric mandates
Let's see 100 new nuclear plants delivering 3c/kWh being commissioned per year, then talk about other applications.
The global electricity markets are more than big enough to absorb huge amounts of new plants, and will hopefully grow as more countries find their ways out of poverty.
Robert Bryce called green hydrogen a thermodynamic obscenity. You have two. The second is worse that the first:
1) Creating hydrogen from water takes at least 1.5 times as much energy as the energy it will produce. The amount of energy is greater when the rate of production is increased.
2) Creation of hydrocarbons by catalytic hydrogenation of carbon molecules is at present a research project. The longest chain hydrocarbon that has been created by this process is butane. Creating octane (major component in gasoline) is still beyond our present technology. "The bonding of carbon to carbon requires heat and great pressure, making the process expensive and energy intensive."
3) Even if this was possible at scale, the rate of mixing of CO2 and the atmosphere proceeds very slowly. If a magic button was pushed and we all stopped using hydrocarbons today we are looking at around 70 years to see a measurable rection in atmospheric CO2.
Sorry, this looks like an IRA subsidies grab to me. You will be making the most expensive fuel in the world.
1) We need to distinguish units. Electricity is measured in kWh(electric), while hydrogen energy is measured in kWh(thermal), the heat generated by burning it. Heat is much less valuable. It typically takes 3 units (kWh(t)) of heat to make 1 unit (kWh(e)) of electricity. That 33% ratio can rise to 60% in a modern, combined cycle natural gas turbine generator with a supplemental steam turbine powered by the hot exhaust. The new atlas article you referred to is typical of the film-flam we read, claiming 95% efficiency. It's wrong. They get 0.95 kW(t) from burning hydrogen electrolyzed by 1.00 kWe) electricity.
2) We'll handle conversation to carbon chains in a future post, but please understand that there are commercial processes that do this. New Zealand ran on gasoline from methanol for 10 years. "1000x more efficiently" should trigger an alarm bell.
3) The Seafuel object is not to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, but to stop increasing it. Yes, what I'l propose in week 4 might indeed take 70 years. What's the lifetime of an existing petroleum based refinery?
1) I am not sure what you are getting at with your first point as we agree 100%. It takes 1.5 units of electrical energy to create enough hydrogen to produce one unit of energy. However, if that energy is used to generate power in a thermal power plant, only 42%-58% will be converted to electricity. The remaining "energy" is still there, it just goes up the smokestack as heat, so your figure of 3:1 is absolutely correct. I was sloppy in my referencing. I was looking for a more scientific reference, that I had read before and could not find. So, I went for the first reference I found that documented the 1.5:1.
2) You are correct that a methanol to gasoline (MTG) plant was built in New Zealand in 1985. There has been a very real fear in countries like New Zealand, which have minimal O&G deposits, that they would run out of oil. However, the plant never made money and was shut down in 1999.
3)You are not burning the H2 nor are you making gasoline from methanol. You are using H2 to hydrogenate CO2. That process will be far more energy intensive. Hydrogenation of CO2 is a very different task than MTG as Hydrogen atoms are already bonded to carbon in the methanol molecule. Hydrogenation of CO2 is therefore much harder and requires massive amounts of energy. And unlike MTG, we have not as yet been successful in converting CO2 to larger olefins than butane.
4) The snarky comment about the IRA subsidies was unprofessional and I apologize. I was going to remove it, but saw I was too late and that you had already commented. However, I do think you need to take a very close look at project economics, particularly if you have skin in the game.
As ocean and atmospheric carbon levels go down to prehistoric levels by 2050, as this is the plan for climate restoration, removing carbon from ocean water will become less efficient. Hydrocarbon fuel burning, currently primarily fossil fuel, creates toxins that currently cause the premature death of about 8 million people per year. For a planet healthy for life as we know it, the long term goal needs to be the elimination of burning hydrocarbon fuels for energy. If humans finally get serious about nuclear clean energy and climate restoration we can reach this long term goal by 2050. If we don't get serious and the AMOC stops, I don't know how to fix that.
I have thought of carbon capture as either crazy (from the atmosphere) or too little to be effective (from flue gas). This article has been an eye-opener for me, especially the speed (approx 1 year) that the ocean can pull CO2 from the atmosphere. Thank you for digging through the science literature on this and many other topics, and presenting information in a clear and compelling way that even non-technical readers can understand. Now, how do we get this information to the public, which doesn't read substack?
This is one of the few forums where both sides are welcome. Forums like this are the best way to change people's minds, just keep in mind, it is not the advocates you are trying to persuade, it is the people reading the discussion.
My current concept on a more practical fuel than batteries is nuclear powered coal synfuel that I hear would have 30% less carbon than fossil gas
ChatGPT says coal gasification has about a $55 per barrel floor with these nuclear energy prices and fully synthetic Seafuel $100 per barrel. Both might be plausible options as many countries have indicated willingness to pay more by proposing electric mandates
Let's see 100 new nuclear plants delivering 3c/kWh being commissioned per year, then talk about other applications.
The global electricity markets are more than big enough to absorb huge amounts of new plants, and will hopefully grow as more countries find their ways out of poverty.
Robert Bryce called green hydrogen a thermodynamic obscenity. You have two. The second is worse that the first:
1) Creating hydrogen from water takes at least 1.5 times as much energy as the energy it will produce. The amount of energy is greater when the rate of production is increased.
https://newatlas.com/energy/hysata-efficient-hydrogen-electrolysis/
2) Creation of hydrocarbons by catalytic hydrogenation of carbon molecules is at present a research project. The longest chain hydrocarbon that has been created by this process is butane. Creating octane (major component in gasoline) is still beyond our present technology. "The bonding of carbon to carbon requires heat and great pressure, making the process expensive and energy intensive."
https://energy.stanford.edu/news/stanford-engineers-create-catalyst-can-turn-carbon-dioxide-gasoline-1000-times-more
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemical-engineering/carbon-dioxide-hydrogenation
3) Even if this was possible at scale, the rate of mixing of CO2 and the atmosphere proceeds very slowly. If a magic button was pushed and we all stopped using hydrocarbons today we are looking at around 70 years to see a measurable rection in atmospheric CO2.
Sorry, this looks like an IRA subsidies grab to me. You will be making the most expensive fuel in the world.
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
1) We need to distinguish units. Electricity is measured in kWh(electric), while hydrogen energy is measured in kWh(thermal), the heat generated by burning it. Heat is much less valuable. It typically takes 3 units (kWh(t)) of heat to make 1 unit (kWh(e)) of electricity. That 33% ratio can rise to 60% in a modern, combined cycle natural gas turbine generator with a supplemental steam turbine powered by the hot exhaust. The new atlas article you referred to is typical of the film-flam we read, claiming 95% efficiency. It's wrong. They get 0.95 kW(t) from burning hydrogen electrolyzed by 1.00 kWe) electricity.
2) We'll handle conversation to carbon chains in a future post, but please understand that there are commercial processes that do this. New Zealand ran on gasoline from methanol for 10 years. "1000x more efficiently" should trigger an alarm bell.
3) The Seafuel object is not to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, but to stop increasing it. Yes, what I'l propose in week 4 might indeed take 70 years. What's the lifetime of an existing petroleum based refinery?
1) I am not sure what you are getting at with your first point as we agree 100%. It takes 1.5 units of electrical energy to create enough hydrogen to produce one unit of energy. However, if that energy is used to generate power in a thermal power plant, only 42%-58% will be converted to electricity. The remaining "energy" is still there, it just goes up the smokestack as heat, so your figure of 3:1 is absolutely correct. I was sloppy in my referencing. I was looking for a more scientific reference, that I had read before and could not find. So, I went for the first reference I found that documented the 1.5:1.
2) You are correct that a methanol to gasoline (MTG) plant was built in New Zealand in 1985. There has been a very real fear in countries like New Zealand, which have minimal O&G deposits, that they would run out of oil. However, the plant never made money and was shut down in 1999.
3)You are not burning the H2 nor are you making gasoline from methanol. You are using H2 to hydrogenate CO2. That process will be far more energy intensive. Hydrogenation of CO2 is a very different task than MTG as Hydrogen atoms are already bonded to carbon in the methanol molecule. Hydrogenation of CO2 is therefore much harder and requires massive amounts of energy. And unlike MTG, we have not as yet been successful in converting CO2 to larger olefins than butane.
4) The snarky comment about the IRA subsidies was unprofessional and I apologize. I was going to remove it, but saw I was too late and that you had already commented. However, I do think you need to take a very close look at project economics, particularly if you have skin in the game.
If you vcan make it work, more power to ya (pun)
Best
TC
Link to a brief article about the US Navy developing this technology in 2012. Very sad that it was ignored by the so-called climate movement.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0958211812702124
As ocean and atmospheric carbon levels go down to prehistoric levels by 2050, as this is the plan for climate restoration, removing carbon from ocean water will become less efficient. Hydrocarbon fuel burning, currently primarily fossil fuel, creates toxins that currently cause the premature death of about 8 million people per year. For a planet healthy for life as we know it, the long term goal needs to be the elimination of burning hydrocarbon fuels for energy. If humans finally get serious about nuclear clean energy and climate restoration we can reach this long term goal by 2050. If we don't get serious and the AMOC stops, I don't know how to fix that.
I have thought of carbon capture as either crazy (from the atmosphere) or too little to be effective (from flue gas). This article has been an eye-opener for me, especially the speed (approx 1 year) that the ocean can pull CO2 from the atmosphere. Thank you for digging through the science literature on this and many other topics, and presenting information in a clear and compelling way that even non-technical readers can understand. Now, how do we get this information to the public, which doesn't read substack?
I've started a discussion on the FaceBook forum Renewable vs Nuclear Debate.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2081763568746983/posts/3927105187546136/
This is one of the few forums where both sides are welcome. Forums like this are the best way to change people's minds, just keep in mind, it is not the advocates you are trying to persuade, it is the people reading the discussion.