The Science of Climate Change

louis · 2019-01-12 19:57:04

Well there is certainly a "grid" ideology and a "homestead" ideology. With solar and storage you can go either way - stick with grid or work towards "home independence" (which actually makes your nation very strong in terms of energy security). You can use facts to argue for your ideology but you can't decide between two ideologies on the basis of facts.

SpaceNut wrote:

The ideology is price per kilowatt that you want to pay as a consumer or paying one price for the means to do it for as long as your device continues to work.

kbd512 · 2019-01-13 15:00:16

Louis,

louis wrote:

Post #74

I have been focusing on cost and basic math, but you've persisted with mathematically misleading or false statements about the actual cost of wind power and nuclear power. Your latest claim is that wind turbines can often beat natural gas on price, which is completely misleading when all wind farms built to date have been heavily subsidized and backed up by coal, gas, or nuclear power. The nameplate capacity figures on wind and solar farms are also utterly meaningless without capacity factor and daily output pattern taken into account. There's even a term now for the type of lies and misinformation that you and other "green energy" advocates have engaged in. It's called "green-washing". A little truth in advertising would be refreshing, but I honestly don't expect to ever get that from an ideologue.

You've also claimed that nuclear reactors in the UK employ 10,000 people, which was blatantly false. Sellafield employs that many people because they reprocess Uranium from all over Europe, but Sellafield is not a nuclear generating station and now they're shutting down reprocessing operations there. For whatever reason, the UK manages to employ at least 3 times as many people as the US employs in the nuclear power industry with far fewer reactors than the US has. I'm curious to know what all those extra employees are doing at your nuclear generating stations.

You've now claimed that Germany has excellent grid stability, which was true in past years due to their extensive use of coal and nuclear power and now because they're back to burning more imported coal and gas from Russia. Since there is no such thing as grid storage in Germany or anywhere else on planet Earth, Germany still imports electricity despite a 100% excess of over capacity from their wind and solar farms. If there was no ability to import coal and gas from Russia, then there would be no grid stability in Germany. CO2 emissions have not decreased at all from 1995 levels, despite spending $800B on "renewables" up through 2017. If they spent that same money on nuclear reactors, then there would already be no CO2 from electricity generation in Germany. Germans apparently suffer from having too many dreamers who dream of spending other peoples' money on "green energy" for little to no positive result. The only reason Germany is a net exporter of electricity is that it burns a lot of coal and gas from Russia. There's nowhere near enough installed renewables capacity from wind and solar to cover the exports they've made to other countries, which must mean that most of it comes from coal, gas, or nuclear. If the coal and gas imports are cut off, the world will watch their grid collapse in less than a week and they won't be exporting electricity to anyone. Furthermore, they've recently started making terroristic threats towards the countries they supply electricity to, threatening to cut off energy exports if they don't halt their nuclear programs and become reliant on coal and gas from Germany. Was there enough death from German militancy during WWI and WWII, or are you guys game for WWIII?

Every year the US government hands out subsidies for wind turbine projects, we see new wind turbine projects in areas that don't even have any increased demand. Every year the US government withholds subsidies, no new wind turbine projects are built. That's pretty strange, isn't it? One could almost conclude that the entire reason to build new wind farms was government subsidies, not profits from generating electricity. Oddly enough, Warren Buffett concluded precisely what I stated. His feelings on the matter haven't changed. If Uncle Sam is handing out free money to anyone who builds a wind farm, then he'll be on the take.

I think my arguments will always be "faulty" because they disagree with your ideology. It clearly doesn't have anything to do with economics, because business has already settled that argument in a very convincing way. Subsidies result in wind farms being built, even if they're not required. No subsidies result in little to no new installed capacity. Every time I "re-focus on cost", you want to move the goal posts or change the subject. The costs of nuclear have only increased as a result of lobbyists incessant attempts to regulate it out of existence. Since it's still producing power every day here in America, I guess more capable thinking has prevailed. Any Get IV nuclear reactor allowed to exist will beat all other forms of power generation in an unambiguous way. In all Gen IV reactors there's little to no refueling costs and no issues with loss of power creating a meltdown. That pretty much kills the major construction and operational costs. Advocates and investors associated with other forms of power are hoping they can stop all technological progress on better nuclear technology to prevent their favorite technology from gaining prominence. They're luddites, and evil ones at that.

Anyway, I'll keep countering any "green energy" nonsense posted here so that the green-washing brain disease that afflicts so many Europeans doesn't spread to America. If the people in the UK and the rest of Europe aren't intelligent enough to see through the obvious lies fed to them by their activist media and special interest groups inside and outside of government, then they deserve what they get. If the Europeans bankrupt themselves with poor decision making regarding these "green energy" scams, that's on them. I've posted factual information about energy costs and my assertions are backed with numbers and sources. People are free to ignore whatever doesn't agree with their ideology, but economics doesn't care about anyone's ideology.

louis · 2019-01-13 16:22:55

OK , you're right and all the expert energy analysts are wrong. Nuclear power is cheap. Wind energy never beats gas in open contract bids. Renewable energy plus storage is not continuing to fall in price. Happy?

Doesn't affect reality.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
louis wrote:
Post #74
I have been focusing on cost and basic math, but you've persisted with mathematically misleading or false statements about the actual cost of wind power and nuclear power. Your latest claim is that wind turbines can often beat natural gas on price, which is completely misleading when all wind farms built to date have been heavily subsidized and backed up by coal, gas, or nuclear power. The nameplate capacity figures on wind and solar farms are also utterly meaningless without capacity factor and daily output pattern taken into account. There's even a term now for the type of lies and misinformation that you and other "green energy" advocates have engaged in. It's called "green-washing". A little truth in advertising would be refreshing, but I honestly don't expect to ever get that from an ideologue.
.

Spurned long quoting post....

Last edited by SpaceNut (2019-01-13 16:48:43)

kbd512 · 2019-01-14 07:27:50

All who wish to partake in the mother of all Chinese fire drills, vis-a-vis "renewable energy" or "green energy", are welcome to do so. All I ask is that those of us who don't wish to partake are not forced to fund those fire drills with our tax dollars when it's self-evident that current wind and solar technology are incapable of providing a substantial fraction of humanity's energy requirements in a cost-effective manner at the present time. What I find appalling is that the fire drill participants actually believe they're reducing CO2 emissions while nothing of the sort ever happens. Thus far the only measurable effect has been a massive expenditure of tax payer wealth on the promise of lowering CO2 emissions at some point in the future when newer and better technology becomes available.

Since we already have an object lesson in fire drills in the form of Germany's "Energiewende", I propose that America invests more money in the development of aerospace-related wind technology solutions that actually have the potential to provide energy at prices that could beat solar and nuclear power while matching the reliability of nuclear power. America has a consistent track record of successful aerospace technology development, so these new wind power technologies play to our strengths. This new wind energy technology takes advantage of existing well-understood aerodynamic principles and combines them with modern lightweight materials and novel engineering approaches to produce consistent and reliable electrical power in an economical manner. The opinions of our most respected Captains of Industry seem to be rather consistent in their support for such technologies, even if they choose to involve themselves in other ventures such as advanced nuclear technology.

Why would people advocating for nuclear power advocate for better wind power?

For starters, the Neodymium and Dysprosium in permanent magnets in wind turbines generate millions of tons of Thorium that must be stored somewhere. It's a byproduct of rare Earth mining. That's why rare Earth mining in the US was all but halted. There's no issue with obtaining Neodymium, but every time we find Neodymium there's almost always lots of Thorium mixed in with it. US miners are not allowed to simply throw the Thorium in a pit, thus no US rare Earth mines. It's not economical. That's exactly what happens in China. They also throw the hydrofluoric acid and sulfuric acid in a lake behind the factory. It's poisoned the ground water for miles around. The children there are born with soft bones, their teeth fall out, and their hair turns white, not because of any radiation poisoning they receive from Thorium, but because that's just what hydrofluoric acid does. Cancer rates have gone up, too, but again, likely due to their exposure to the chemical cocktail. The US fleet of commercial nuclear reactors generates slightly less radioactive waste each year in terms of total tonnage, but it's also high level waste. China doesn't actually control 95% of the world's supply of rare Earth, we just won't allow our own miners to mine the stuff because we don't want to deal with the environmental effects. I'm not opposed to generating mass quantities of Thorium if we use breeder reactors to consume it.

If these people who think they're "saving the planet" by buying solar panels or wind turbines recant or reject this evil anti-humanist climate change religion presently being taught to and by people who are desperate for a replacement for "god", then all is forgiven. It's all based upon computer models concocted by anti-humanists who are no more capable of predicting the future than an elephant is capable of flying if it walks off a cliff. I won't fault the faithful for being led astray by charlatans masquerading as scientists, either. Is it that hard to just admit that we're still every bit as clueless about Earth's climate now as we ever were? Climate did not start 50 years ago. The Earth is billions of years old. Life first evolved on this planet when it was much warmer than it is now. A warmer and wetter world is not a death sentence, rather it's the conditions under which life flourished. With modern technology and increased crop yields, human life will continue to flourish.

Germany has spent $800B on wind and solar, but their CO2 emissions aren't going down. After they shut down their reactors, they'll either invest another $800B they don't have in a futile attempt to accomplish what wind and solar never have or they'll start burning more coal and gas. I'm betting on the latter. If the former, they'll keep throwing good money after bad on these unprofitable wind and solar projects until they bankrupt themselves or until the public revolts when they can no longer afford their energy bills, whichever comes first. The nuclear reactors clearly aren't needed to achieve this CO2 emissions free future. We just need trillions of dollars we don't have. All the experts and non-experts on the planet can choose to analyze that in whatever way they find most pleasing.

If Louis sees no value in the work his own countrymen at Kite Power Systems are doing, please send them over here because some of us think they're onto something. They've discovered a ridiculously cheap and efficient method to harness the power of the wind using low cost equipment and materials that can be mass manufactured and deployed to most places on our planet without so much pollution and waste.

SpaceNut · 2019-01-14 20:38:00

Ocean-warming-is-making-big-waves-more-powerful-730x410.jpg

This metric, called wave power, has been increasing in direct association with historical warming of the ocean surface. The upper ocean warming, measured as a rising trend in sea-surface temperatures, has influenced wind patterns globally, and this, in turn, is making ocean waves stronger. Ocean Warming is Making Waves Much More Powerful University of California researchers found wave power increased globally by 0.4% every year since 1948.

Global warming is fueling stronger ocean waves

louis · 2019-01-15 12:06:48

28% increase in wave power? That sounds counter intuitive. Even if it has increased 28%, it's had virtually no effect on the European coastline. Indeed parts of the mainland e.g. in the Netherlands have expanded since 1948.

SpaceNut wrote:

https://cff2.earth.com/uploads/2019/01/ … 30x410.jpg
This metric, called wave power, has been increasing in direct association with historical warming of the ocean surface. The upper ocean warming, measured as a rising trend in sea-surface temperatures, has influenced wind patterns globally, and this, in turn, is making ocean waves stronger. Ocean Warming is Making Waves Much More Powerful University of California researchers found wave power increased globally by 0.4% every year since 1948.
Global warming is fueling stronger ocean waves

kbd512 · 2019-01-15 15:26:37

Louis,

SpaceNut wrote:

Post #80 ... "Global warming is fueling stronger ocean waves" by Brooks Hays of UPI

Here's the link to the paper itself, rather than the article published from UPI:

A recent increase in global wave power as a consequence of oceanic warming

From the paper (in the section entitled "Introduction", which directly follows the section entitled "Abstract"):

...
However, a systematic, global and long-term signal of climate change in global wave behavior, similar to the global time series of sea level rise or temperature warming, remains currently undetermined.
...
Despite the changes detected in different wave parameters, a global and long-term time series of the effect of climate change in the global wave climate remains undetected.
...

From the UPI article:

"For the first time, we have identified a global signal of the effect of global warming in wave climate," Borja G. Reguero, researcher in the Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz

Why is researcher / co-author, Borja G. Reguero's quote directly contradicted in the introductory section of his own research paper?

Did UC Santa Cruz's Borja G. Reguero actually say that or did UPI's Brooks Hays just make something up and attribute it to him?

Did UPI publish a link to the wrong wrong paper?

Do the words written in the paper no longer mean what the dictionary defines them to mean?

The research paper / article says no link was determined to exist between global warming and global wave climate, but the paper's co-author says there's a link between global warming and global wave climate. The body of the paper then goes on to state that the wave effects in the model used displayed regional changes, as opposed to global changes, that were limited to high latitudes and more apparent during the winter than the summer. In someone's tortured definition of global, maybe that makes sense.

Most, if not all, of the data before 1992 was hindcast (they ran their model in reverse and assume it's a substitute for actual measurements) because it never existed to begin with. We have some data for 26 of the 70 years covered by the analysis from satellite altimeter or buoy measurement. A number of qualitative deficiencies were noted with the data they do have. There was no regular time series used at the time that the data collection started, spatial coverage of the buoy measurements were not uniform in nature, and most of it was from the northern hemisphere. I back-tracked from the paper UPI published to their global wave model's data source, which suffers from the issues noted above. From that, we have global wave climate change... Somehow.

I just want to know how much money we would need to actually measure something accurately because there doesn't seem to be a lot of that going on.

Anyway, people can either read the actual papers for themselves and do a little further investigation of what's being claimed and presented in the research paper versus published and construed in an article as evidence for something or simply take everything they're told at face value without cursory questioning because it agrees with their personal beliefs. That seems to be the new norm. Intellectual curiosity and personal integrity are irrelevant, provided that the desired outcome is achieved. I've had enough of it. Every misrepresentation, omission, or outright lie should mandate a little ray of sunshine beaming down on it.

louis · 2019-01-15 15:38:39

Of course wave power is one of the missing pieces in the jigsaw. Wave power was once seen in the UK as something that had more potential than wind energy but various schemes got nowhere. But we know the energy is there and is more consistent that local wind. However, currently it really isn't economic as far as anyone can tell.

SpaceNut · 2019-01-15 16:18:33

There is also the ice lose question that seems to be plagued by the same measuring issues...

Ice loss from Antarctica has sextupled since the 1970s

The Antarctic ice sheet is one of the two polar ice caps of the Earth. It covers about 98% of the Antarctic continent and is the largest single mass of ice on Earth. It covers an area of almost 14 million square kilometres and contains 26.5 million cubic kilometres of ice. A cubic kilometer of ice weighs approximately one metric gigaton, meaning that the ice sheet weighs 26,500,000 gigatons. Approximately 61 percent of all fresh water on the Earth is held in the Antarctic ice sheet, an amount equivalent to about 58 m of sea-level rise. In East Antarctica, the ice sheet rests on a major land mass, while in West Antarctica the bed can extend to more than 2,500 m below sea level.

louis · 2019-01-15 17:38:40

It's a very complex picture - climate science is complicated.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarc … ediate.htm

SpaceNut wrote:

There is also the ice lose question that seems to be plagued by the same measuring issues...
Ice loss from Antarctica has sextupled since the 1970s
The Antarctic ice sheet is one of the two polar ice caps of the Earth. It covers about 98% of the Antarctic continent and is the largest single mass of ice on Earth. It covers an area of almost 14 million square kilometres and contains 26.5 million cubic kilometres of ice. A cubic kilometer of ice weighs approximately one metric gigaton, meaning that the ice sheet weighs 26,500,000 gigatons. Approximately 61 percent of all fresh water on the Earth is held in the Antarctic ice sheet, an amount equivalent to about 58 m of sea-level rise. In East Antarctica, the ice sheet rests on a major land mass, while in West Antarctica the bed can extend to more than 2,500 m below sea level.

Last edited by louis (2019-01-15 17:39:37)

SpaceNut · 2019-01-15 17:45:06

New topic created for the business of wave energy Power of Earths Oceans

louis · 2019-01-15 18:35:28

Looks like we might have a technical solution to intermittency...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 … 171913.htm

I'm guessing that the way to produce complete energy security is to improve insulation so you can keep the superheated silicon liquid over several days. Wikipedia says of thermal energy storage that "With proper insulation of the tank the thermal energy can be usefully stored for up to a week".

They article indicates one unit could serve 100,000 people. That's about 3000 to serve all homes in the USA. Maybe double that for industry as well - 6000. But obviously fewer than that number would be required.

If you also remember that electric car batteries will also (with incentives) be available as storage for the grid, then I think we can see a way forward to a renewable energy world comprising solar, wind, energy from waste, hydro, wave power, geothermal, sea current, tidal power, bio fuels, methane (produced from solar and wind in times of over production) , transcontinental grids, thermal energy storage, chemical battery storage and pumped hydro storage. During times of low energy generation from wind and solar, there will be ramped up production from energy from waste, bio fuels and methane plus use of stored energy.

tahanson43206 · 2019-01-15 19:33:26

louis wrote:

Looks like we might have a technical solution to intermittency...
If you also remember that electric car batteries will also (with incentives) be available as storage for the grid, then I think we can see a way forward to a renewable energy world comprising solar, wind, energy from waste, hydro, wave power, geothermal, sea current, tidal power, bio fuels, methane (produced from solar and wind in times of over production) , transcontinental grids, thermal energy storage, chemical battery storage and pumped hydro storage. During times of low energy generation from wind and solar, there will be ramped up production from energy from waste, bio fuels and methane plus use of stored energy.

Louis, you have omitted ammonia from your list of energy storage methods. I am wondering if you have omitted it because kbd512 included it in one of his long messages (there may well have been more than one mention).

Ammonia has a number of advantages as an energy storage medium, not least of which is that it is already in long standing industrial scale use around the world.

I don't want to cause an argument. I just want (request that) you amend your original post to include ammonia.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2019-01-15 20:06:43

Its also on the list for mars as well as what do you do when you only need the oxygen from the water as we make fuel and break it down into its elelments?

Hydrogen is very hard to control but when its bound up with other elements its much easier to do.
One can also break the ammonia down to its elements which is also a good thing.

Its a win win once we have the nitrogen to make use of from the atmosphere and from the soil regolith as its locked up there as well.

louis · 2019-01-15 20:14:22

I've no problem with any basically safe technology that delivers cheap energy storage. If ammonia can do it, that's great.

tahanson43206 wrote:

louis wrote:
Looks like we might have a technical solution to intermittency...
If you also remember that electric car batteries will also (with incentives) be available as storage for the grid, then I think we can see a way forward to a renewable energy world comprising solar, wind, energy from waste, hydro, wave power, geothermal, sea current, tidal power, bio fuels, methane (produced from solar and wind in times of over production) , transcontinental grids, thermal energy storage, chemical battery storage and pumped hydro storage. During times of low energy generation from wind and solar, there will be ramped up production from energy from waste, bio fuels and methane plus use of stored energy.
Louis, you have omitted ammonia from your list of energy storage methods. I am wondering if you have omitted it because kbd512 included it in one of his long messages (there may well have been more than one mention).
Ammonia has a number of advantages as an energy storage medium, not least of which is that it is already in long standing industrial scale use around the world.
I don't want to cause an argument. I just want (request that) you amend your original post to include ammonia.
(th)

louis · 2019-01-15 20:15:52

Depends where we are. On Mars I don't think venting hydrogen is any sort of problem. On Earth there might be some health and safety issues - I don't know.

SpaceNut wrote:

Its also on the list for mars as well as what do you do when you only need the oxygen from the water as we make fuel and break it down into its elelments?
Hydrogen is very hard to control but when its bound up with other elements its much easier to do.
One can also break the ammonia down to its elements which is also a good thing.
Its a win win once we have the nitrogen to make use of from the atmosphere and from the soil regolith as its locked up there as well.

SpaceNut · 2019-01-15 20:50:32

Yes safety concerns for earth...

Solar winds are stripping mars of the lighter elements and that includes Hydrogen so we do not want to vent it on mars..but sequester it...

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Futur … h_999.html

Future_of_planet_cooling_tech_999.html

The ice is telling us where its to warm so cooling is required if we are going to stop the warming.

Given that a recent report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows that global warming will pass 1.5 C around 2040, MacMartin sees an urgent need to start making inroads in exploring geoengineering research. It could take up to 20 years before scientists can help policymakers make an informed decision about the effectiveness of the technology.

Reseach paper

http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1811022116

kbd512 · 2019-01-15 22:31:41

Someone needs to endurance test the molten Silicon concept. The Silicon is stored at temperatures well beyond the working temperatures of very high temperature nuclear reactors. Graphite is not cheap and many tons are required to store that much molten Silicon. If that works, then someone needs to prove the manufacturability of the entire solution at pilot plant scale. That'll get expensive pretty quick. Maybe NREL could fund it. It might work or it might prove to be impractical. Provided that the Graphite bill doesn't become astronomical, molten Silicon could be cheaper than molten salt. The major cost of either storage technology will still be the heliostats or wind turbines by a mile.

The molten salt technology operates at lower temperatures and we actually have operational plants licensed to produce commercial power. The use of SCO2 instead of steam would be substantially more efficient, less costly, and less maintenance intensive. SCO2 is being tested by NREL right now at a pilot plant.

Ammonia is very well established for farming and industry, along with the all-important supply chain and institutional knowledge of how to use it, at least here in America if nowhere else. If reverse fuel cells are perfected, then the Ammonia can be both fast and cheap to produce. The energy density of Ammonia in a fuel cell is substantial. No insane pressures or temperatures are required, although it will be pressurized if stored at room temperature. The fuel cells in question use low cost and common materials, rather than Platinum group metals. I think it'd make more sense to pair Ammonia with wind turbines. The fuel cells can turn on and off at a moment's notice, just like the wind. If you did that with turbo machinery, bad things would happen.

In the future, I can see coastal cities with offshore wind kites that store Ammonia produced from air and desalinated sea water. In deserts, solar thermal plants make a lot of sense. Rooftops can have photovoltaics to chop the peaks off the demand curves. Inland, places that don't have good solar or wind resources should use advanced nuclear to consume existing nuclear waste. If better batteries become available, then the first markets are consumer electronics, electric vehicles, and light aircraft. I don't foresee a near future where batteries are the preferred storage technology. They're just not practical at the scales involved. The cost of the control electronics, copper, thermal management, and maintenance / replacement schedule greatly exceed the cost of Ammonia fuel cells. There's probably a niche market for them, but grid storage isn't that market.

louis · 2019-01-16 06:09:21

Ammonia is a pollutant of course but I am presume the ammonia essentially stays in a sealed chamber.

kbd512 wrote:

Someone needs to endurance test the molten Silicon concept. The Silicon is stored at temperatures well beyond the working temperatures of very high temperature nuclear reactors. Graphite is not cheap and many tons are required to store that much molten Silicon. If that works, then someone needs to prove the manufacturability of the entire solution at pilot plant scale. That'll get expensive pretty quick. Maybe NREL could fund it. It might work or it might prove to be impractical. Provided that the Graphite bill doesn't become astronomical, molten Silicon could be cheaper than molten salt. The major cost of either storage technology will still be the heliostats or wind turbines by a mile.
The molten salt technology operates at lower temperatures and we actually have operational plants licensed to produce commercial power. The use of SCO2 instead of steam would be substantially more efficient, less costly, and less maintenance intensive. SCO2 is being tested by NREL right now at a pilot plant.
Ammonia is very well established for farming and industry, along with the all-important supply chain and institutional knowledge of how to use it, at least here in America if nowhere else. If reverse fuel cells are perfected, then the Ammonia can be both fast and cheap to produce. The energy density of Ammonia in a fuel cell is substantial. No insane pressures or temperatures are required, although it will be pressurized if stored at room temperature. The fuel cells in question use low cost and common materials, rather than Platinum group metals. I think it'd make more sense to pair Ammonia with wind turbines. The fuel cells can turn on and off at a moment's notice, just like the wind. If you did that with turbo machinery, bad things would happen.
In the future, I can see coastal cities with offshore wind kites that store Ammonia produced from air and desalinated sea water. In deserts, solar thermal plants make a lot of sense. Rooftops can have photovoltaics to chop the peaks off the demand curves. Inland, places that don't have good solar or wind resources should use advanced nuclear to consume existing nuclear waste. If better batteries become available, then the first markets are consumer electronics, electric vehicles, and light aircraft. I don't foresee a near future where batteries are the preferred storage technology. They're just not practical at the scales involved. The cost of the control electronics, copper, thermal management, and maintenance / replacement schedule greatly exceed the cost of Ammonia fuel cells. There's probably a niche market for them, but grid storage isn't that market.

tahanson43206 · 2019-01-16 08:00:55

For Louis ... thanks for noting the potential of ammonia as an energy storage medium. Just as with hydrocarbons, ammonia must be contained.

For kbd512 ... Thanks for your continued support of ammonia as an energy storage medium

Google came up with lots of citations for "global ammonia industry". However, the lead citation caught my eye:

https://ammoniaindustry.com/

In late 2018, JGC Corporation issued a press release to celebrate a "world's first" in ammonia energy, demonstrating at its pilot plant in Koriyama both "synthesis of ammonia with hydrogen produced through the electrolysis of water by renewable energy, and generation of electricity through gas turbines fueled by synthesized ammonia."
By demonstrating the feasibility of using ammonia on both sides of the renewable energy equation -- first, producing green ammonia from intermittent renewable electricity and, second, combusting this carbon-free fuel for power generation -- the project demonstrates the role of ammonia in the "establishment of an energy chain ... that does not emit CO2 (CO2-free) from production to power generation."

kbd512 wrote:

Ammonia is very well established for farming and industry, along with the all-important supply chain and institutional knowledge of how to use it, at least here in America if nowhere else. If reverse fuel cells are perfected, then the Ammonia can be both fast and cheap to produce. The energy density of Ammonia in a fuel cell is substantial. No insane pressures or temperatures are required, although it will be pressurized if stored at room temperature. The fuel cells in question use low cost and common materials, rather than Platinum group metals. I think it'd make more sense to pair Ammonia with wind turbines. The fuel cells can turn on and off at a moment's notice, just like the wind. If you did that with turbo machinery, bad things would happen.

(th)

elderflower · 2019-01-16 08:13:33

Burning ammonia in a heat engine is going to result in a lot of oxides of Nitrogen and probably deposits of Ammonium Nitrate (BANG!). It would make more sense to use it as a source of Hydrogen for a fuel cell system if a means of splitting it can be devised which doesn't make Hydrazine. The fuel cell would also give you a higher overall energy efficiency as it isn't subject to the Carnot efficiency limitation..

tahanson43206 · 2019-01-16 09:29:26

For Kdb512 ...

Your observation about the cost of graphite intrigued me, because (a) graphite is just a form of carbon, and (b) because miners of coal could use a new market for their courageous labor. I asked Mr. Google about the topic, and found this encouraging report:

From https://www.esi-africa.com/canadian-fir … -graphite/

Canadian-headquartered multinational organisation, CVMR, through research has been able to convert natural coal to graphite flakes, powders and graphite blocks at much lower cost than the current methods in use.
In addition, the firm has been able to produce graphene from methane gas, they said in a company statement.
According to Kamran M. Khozan, Chairman and CEO of CVMR Corporation and MPower Corporation, the graphite product has the ability to collect and store energy from the sun – ironic for a traditionally dirty fossil fuel product.
“Coal, like petroleum, has many other uses besides being simply burnt to generate energy. Unfortunately, coal has become synonymous with the grubby stuff that we burn and pollute the air, creating serious environmental problems," the CEO said in a statement.
He added: “As a result, this valuable commodity is wasted and is being sold too cheaply. But it could be treated as a precious commodity with many industrial uses, with more being discovered daily.”

A tip of the hat to RobertDyck, whose countrymen carried out this work.

kbd512 wrote:

Someone needs to endurance test the molten Silicon concept. The Silicon is stored at temperatures well beyond the working temperatures of very high temperature nuclear reactors. Graphite is not cheap and many tons are required to store that much molten Silicon. If that works, then someone needs to prove the manufacturability of the entire solution at pilot plant scale. That'll get expensive pretty quick. Maybe NREL could fund it. It might work or it might prove to be impractical. Provided that the Graphite bill doesn't become astronomical, molten Silicon could be cheaper than molten salt. The major cost of either storage technology will still be the heliostats or wind turbines by a mile.

SpaceNut · 2019-01-16 19:12:10

Its not that carbon of coal is bad its the means to the end that is part of the problem, human safety, debri contaminants are not controlled....

SpaceNut · 2019-01-17 19:39:44

Something we are taking for granted ands the axis that earth spin on wobbles and travels so much so that the magnetic north pole is heading to Siberia....

The place to which a compass needle points is shifting toward Siberia at a pace of 30 miles a year. Earth is overdue for another magnetic field reversal. The geologic record suggests these events happen three times every million years. The last was 780,000 years ago, around the time humans started to evolve.

Earth's Magnetic Pole Is Wandering, Lurching Toward Siberia

News of the magnetic north's meanderings isn't exactly new. Researchers figured out in the 1800s that magnetic north tended to drift. Then, in the mid-1990s, it began moving faster, from just over 9 miles (15 kilometers) a year to about 34 miles (55 km) annually, Nature reported. In 2018, magnetic north skipped over the International Date Line and entered the Eastern Hemisphere.

louis · 2019-01-17 19:48:20

Nuclear power economics just aren't working without huge, huge subsidies:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46900918

We need to move quickly (ie over the next 20 years) to a wind-solar-storage-methane gas-transcontinental grid solution (with potential add-ons like energy from waste, biofuels, geothermal, tidal, sea current, wave power and hydro). Each country will have a different configuration depending on local conditions.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2019-01-12 19:57:04

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#77 2019-01-13 15:00:16

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#78 2019-01-13 16:22:55

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#79 2019-01-14 07:27:50

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#80 2019-01-14 20:38:00

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#81 2019-01-15 12:06:48

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#82 2019-01-15 15:26:37

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#83 2019-01-15 15:38:39

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#84 2019-01-15 16:18:33

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#85 2019-01-15 17:38:40

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#86 2019-01-15 17:45:06

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#87 2019-01-15 18:35:28

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#88 2019-01-15 19:33:26

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#89 2019-01-15 20:06:43

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#90 2019-01-15 20:14:22

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#91 2019-01-15 20:15:52

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#92 2019-01-15 20:50:32

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#93 2019-01-15 22:31:41

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#94 2019-01-16 06:09:21

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#95 2019-01-16 08:00:55

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#96 2019-01-16 08:13:33

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#97 2019-01-16 09:29:26

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#98 2019-01-16 19:12:10

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#99 2019-01-17 19:39:44

Re: The Science of Climate Change

#100 2019-01-17 19:48:20

Re: The Science of Climate Change

Board footer