Power to gas is the way forward for storage

SpaceNut · 2019-04-23 20:02:20

louis wrote:

So a likely scenario for a whole year might be:
Wind and solar - 80% at 2 cents per KwH for
Artificial methane - 7% at 20 cents per KwH
Other renewables - 9% at 8 cents per KwH
Continental grid - 4% at 6 cents per KwH
Average price would be 3.96 cents per KwH.

If I could get power from the low end of that cost page I would be happy but what did it cost the company to invest to be able to provide it for that cost?

Where is the Musk power wall in this, as its a better efficiency of energy in to energy out than all of the others being better than 90% where as the others as the artifical methane and other renewables.

Power creation is a different question as to is it saving us or costing in the end run as to whom can buy the very expensive items short of do it yourself projects which can impact the individuals cost for energy.

kbd512 · 2019-04-23 20:43:11

I'm unopposed to any practical solution, but every time I see how cheap wind and solar supposedly are, I notice that someone else besides the company who built the power plant is paying for a substantial portion of it. As long as the tax payers never run out of money, it's not a problem. Whenever we run out of other peoples' money, that's when the "investment" in wind and solar suddenly vanishes. If that's because it's not otherwise cost-effective, then that's why these schemes haven't already supplanted coal and gas and nuclear. It's not a big conspiracy to prevent people from having access to cheaper energy. The energy we have, irrespective of the source, is as cheap as we currently know how to make it. Any business, especially the commercial electric utility business, would use wind or solar or any other technology available to undercut their competitors in a New York Minute if they actually could.

louis · 2019-04-24 05:07:09

This is obviously just a brief conceptual overview.

I agree the Powerwall or similar in the future could be part of the solution. It's pretty expensive but the smaller Powerwall 1 (just over 6 KwHs peak) I could imagine being part of an overall solution. Grid operators might offer them as part of a contract package. They would certainly help grid operators get over the evening peak, when there is, in winter, no solar.

In order to deliver 100% renewables solution, the grid operators need to address a number of issues: diurnal generation cycles, seasonal generation cycles, weather patterns and demand cycles/patterns. The artificial methane solution is really designed to address weather pattern fluctuations.

Fortunately over much of the world there's quite a good match between wind (more energy in winter) and solar (more energy in summer) but the wind pattern isn't the same everywhere:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20112

The prices are somewhat conjectural based on expert predictions and recent contract prices.

One of the benefits of artificial methane is that we already in most of Europe and N America have a large methane infrastructure for storage and pipeline supply, so we don't have to invest from scratch.

The prices are meant to be levelised, so they cover all investment.

Europe's continental grid is already quite sophisticated, more so than N America I believe where California/SW USA are cut off from the rest of the USA. But maybe that's changed/changing?

SpaceNut wrote:

louis wrote:
So a likely scenario for a whole year might be:
Wind and solar - 80% at 2 cents per KwH for
Artificial methane - 7% at 20 cents per KwH
Other renewables - 9% at 8 cents per KwH
Continental grid - 4% at 6 cents per KwH
Average price would be 3.96 cents per KwH.
If I could get power from the low end of that cost page I would be happy but what did it cost the company to invest to be able to provide it for that cost?
Where is the Musk power wall in this, as its a better efficiency of energy in to energy out than all of the others being better than 90% where as the others as the artifical methane and other renewables.
Power creation is a different question as to is it saving us or costing in the end run as to whom can buy the very expensive items short of do it yourself projects which can impact the individuals cost for energy.

louis · 2019-04-24 05:40:34

This analysis of levelised (unsubsidised) costs shows that onshore wind and thin film PV utility are already below grid parity:

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/leve … rage-2018/

The graphs showing the fall in LCOE costs for both wind and solar suggests the trend is going to continue and not hit a brick wall. Most experts see continued huge scope for cost reduction. So within the next 10-20 years we might well see wind and solar becoming extremely cheap, to the extent that combined with storage they can provide a 100% solution. Getting the price of storage down is of course key. I rather like this proposed solution:

http://www.quidnetenergy.com/solution

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable … net-energy

Pumping water into underground reservoirs, to create pressure and then releasing to generate electricity. It's really another form of pumped storage. They're talking about $50million for a GwH capacity of storage. That's presumably the operating cost. If you could keep your facilities going for ten years on a daily cycle that would be about $13,600 per GwH of power each day or 1.3 cents per KwH. Obviously you would need to add on maintenance and operational costs but it sounds promising.

There are so many storage possibilities, that I feel we will at some point hit on the right formula which can get costs well below 20 cents per KwH which I think is a good benchmark for feasibility.

kbd512 wrote:

I'm unopposed to any practical solution, but every time I see how cheap wind and solar supposedly are, I notice that someone else besides the company who built the power plant is paying for a substantial portion of it. As long as the tax payers never run out of money, it's not a problem. Whenever we run out of other peoples' money, that's when the "investment" in wind and solar suddenly vanishes. If that's because it's not otherwise cost-effective, then that's why these schemes haven't already supplanted coal and gas and nuclear. It's not a big conspiracy to prevent people from having access to cheaper energy. The energy we have, irrespective of the source, is as cheap as we currently know how to make it. Any business, especially the commercial electric utility business, would use wind or solar or any other technology available to undercut their competitors in a New York Minute if they actually could.

tahanson43206 · 2019-04-24 07:46:43

For Louis ....

It was good to see kdb512 open a competing topic to cover the use of ammonia as an energy carrier for storage.

The topic you have opened here uses methane as the energy carrier, and there are situations (such as the existing infrastructure) that make methane very attractive. kdb512 seems to be missing the point that we (humans) do NOT want to use carbon stored underground, because we do NOT want to add to the burden carried by the atmosphere.

Your suggestion has the advantage that, like plants which pull carbon out of the atmosphere, your plan would pull carbon out of the atmosphere, so that the net balance of carbon in the atmosphere is maintained rather than increased.

However, in looking at ammonia over recent weeks, I have come to the conclusion that it has advantages over hydrocarbon energy carriers in a specific case, which is delivery of hydrogen to end user equipment that can use it efficiently and effectively.

What I am hoping you might do, if you have the time and energy, is to develop comparisons of the two competing energy carrier systems.

The two might even run alongside each other .... methane might be best for heating, for example, while ammonia might be best for electricity.

RobertDyck is considering the possibility of a community constructed on a steep hillside, on Earth in the near future, but elsewhere in time. I am wondering if an infrastructure for such a community might eliminate wires for electricity entirely, and provide methane for heating, and ammonia for a combination of:
1) Electricity via fuel cells
2) Water from the solution used for shipment of the ammonia
3) Water from combustion of hydrogen with air.

This approach to supply of consumables would eliminate municipal power plants entirely.

(th)

louis · 2019-04-24 08:16:43

Hi TA,

I'm not a flag waver for any particular storage method - I just want to see storage succeed as it is the key to a 100% green energy system which can greatly improve air quality, provide cheap energy, give all countries energy independence and raise living standards across the globe.

My understanding is that storage of hydrogen is currently cost-prohibitive. We need to crack the hydrogen storage problem before it makes sense to adopt hydrogn end use processes. Cracking hydrogen storage is a tall order, so I prefer to focus on methane at the moment but that doesn't mean ammonia/hydrogen might not be the way forward eventually.

tahanson43206 · 2019-04-24 08:41:31

For Louis ...

Thanks for your reply in #31 ...

Are you and kbd512 talking past each other?

Hydrogen storage using ammonia is a SOLVED problem. kbd512 has written extensively about the advantages of using ammonia to deliver hydrogen to fuel cells, and he has shown how competitive this energy storage method is for certain applications, such as aviation.

(th)

Void · 2019-04-24 10:57:36

tahanson43206 & others, I don't want to interrupt what is going on except to say that I enjoy it.

I would kept hands off, but I became very interested in the Ammonia conversation for something I want to propose for Martian Lava tubes. Louis, don't be concerned, I don't want to inhabit Lava Tubes so much as to use them. So, don't be surprised if I hijack the Ammonia notion.

And in passing I will leave this:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-bri … MCVzfZFzIU

That link does not work obviously. I have something more to learn.

If you are interested query for "Compressed Air in Underground Rocks Could Be the Next Batteries".

So they are planning to store power as compressed air in rocks under the North Sea.

That leaves me to wonder if you can compress Methane into the space instead. You would risk forming Clathrate, but maybe that will be good or bad.

Anyway please just take a note, and continue as you were. You are doing great I think.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-04-24 12:01:53)

louis · 2019-04-24 10:57:44

Think it comes down to (a) how much hydrogen you have to store and (b) whether the fact that ammonia is a poison, unlike methane, is an issue. It might well be.

I'm not a technical expert. Methane just feels right to me, not least because we have a methane-handling infrastructure in place.

tahanson43206 wrote:

For Louis ...
Thanks for your reply in #31 ...
Are you and kbd512 talking past each other?
Hydrogen storage using ammonia is a SOLVED problem. kbd512 has written extensively about the advantages of using ammonia to deliver hydrogen to fuel cells, and he has shown how competitive this energy storage method is for certain applications, such as aviation.
(th)

Last edited by louis (2019-04-24 10:58:09)

kbd512 · 2019-04-24 18:30:50

Louis,

If it actually works for any reasonable price, then great, let's do it.

US EIA uses the receipts and invoices they've collected from providers when it projects LCOE and LACE, not market speculation about what the future might bring. I have no clue what the Lazard firm used for its projections. I briefly read through the doc you posted looking for their sources.

Yes, ammonia is toxic. That's a fair point. You can't take a deep breath of Methane, either, or the result will be very similar. Actually, you might just be hospitalized with a serious respiratory condition if you took a deep breath of Methane, whereas if it was Ammonia you'd be dead.

tahanson43206,

It's a hell of a lot cheaper to capture CO2 before it leaves the smoke stack or tailpipe than it is to try to suck it out of the air or to never emit CO2 to begin with. Rather than use the CO2 for nominal economic gain activities- like making soda water or concrete additives or fracking (this is currently high-value-add because we need the power and have no other way to get it), very high value materials like CF and CNT can be manufactured using available CO2, whether you capture it at the tail end of the combustion process or suck it out of the air after combustion. Capture immediately after combustion consumes a lot less energy. That was my point. That has nothing to do with what I'd rather do, which is to not emit CO2 to begin with.

It doesn't take 3MW of input power to recapture 2MW worth of combustion products (CO2) when you capture it immediately after combustion. Please read up on "RamGen" to understand why Dresser-Rand created a supersonic CO2 compressor (the compressor's inlet velocity is faster than Mach 1, and as high as Mach 3, because they found a way to use the shock wave from the supersonic effluent captured from coal and gas burners to assist with compression rather than creating massive wave drag and to recover waste heat to reduce CO2 capture power requirements). The compesssor is driven with an electric motor powered by the power plant. Each stage is 10 to 1 to 12 to 1 compression instead of 2 to 1 for subsonic compressors. That radically decreases the size and total power requirements for CO2 capture, thus the cost. It's still expensive, just not completely unaffordable and therefore impractical.

Anyway, I've done what very little I can to try to convey some of the fundamental limitations of these technologies. Someone besides me will have to do some number crunching if they think I've misrepresented something. I try not to do that, but won't always be successful. I'm human, I don't have unlimited knowledge, and I can make mistakes just as easily as anyone else can.

SpaceNut · 2019-04-24 19:01:16

Methane is flamable while Ammonia is not.

Void, I fixed the link on the compressed cavern for later use storage as it can be any gaseous element. The only issues is water reaction to the stored gas, cracking of the chamber and at what pressure can the chamber take before failure when using the stored work value to run a turbine or other power generator system.

I agree kbd512 in capturing the co2 before it can exit the exhaust but how large can a storage tank be on a car or truck to make this work as you would be hauling around water to make a complete system.

kbd512 · 2019-04-24 19:16:38

SpaceNut,

If we only use Methane to make Ammonia and then transport and consume Ammonia in fuel cells or use PV and Lithium-ion for everything else, then we don't need to capture anything from vehicles. That way, the only place we must do CO2 capture is at the Haber-Bosch plant. The captured CO2 is then turned into useful precursor products- Carbon powders for aerospace materials or LCO2 for fracking to obtain more gas to feed into the Haber-Bosch plant. The petroleum distillate products can then be directed entirely towards producing all the polymers and rubbers and lubricants required to fabricate or lubricate "things that move". Existing metal production would then be sufficient to cover future uses, which will dwindle as high quality CF's and CNT's become available in mass quantities at relatively low cost, as compared to what it currently costs because we dig Carbon out of the ground. This is an "integrated fuel and fabrication" process. If we ever have lots of excess "power to burn", then we can make CH4 or NH3, dependent upon what we need the most of at the moment.

kbd512 · 2019-04-24 19:45:22

SpaceNut,

Think of it this way. If my Escalade was made from CNT and plastics instead of steel, it'd easily weigh half of what it does. Instead of a 420hp gasoline engine, it would work just as well with a 210hp electric motor and Lithium-ion battery or fuel cell. A 50 pound axial flux electric motor could supply the same 420hp as the original gasoline engine, but it wouldn't need anything that powerful. In fact, doubling the power-to-weight ratio would just be gross overkill, like the new Tesla roadster, and more likely to get people killed. I bought that SUV because it's a useful vehicle that can comfortably take 5 people with camping gear across the US in any weather- from snow in the Rockies to the deserts of New Mexico and Nevada, as it already has several times, not to "save the planet". I could care less what it's made from so long as it withstands crashes as well as the current model. Similarly, I don't care if it's powered by a battery or Ammonia or Methane or nuclear fusion for that matter, so long as I can always get "more power", wherever I happen to be.

CF, never mind CNT, is many times stronger than steel for equivalent weight, or just as strong and a lot lighter. Burt Rutan once remarked that after he crashed his CF airframe Boomerang during testing that a very substantial steel oleo strut in the landing gear was folded up like a pretzel from a hard landing but the CF composite structure it was attached to barely had a scuff on the paint. Boomerang was his aerodynamically symmetric, but asymmetric in shape- which caused quite a stir in the aviation community, personal twin for transport across the Rockies until FAA revoked his medical. I forget who owns Boomerang now, one of his engineers at Scaled Composites, but it was renovated (basically, the interior and avionics were modernized) and is still in service. IIRC, it first flew in 1996.

Take that same concept and apply it to a material multiple times stronger than CF for equivalent weight. That's what CNT fiber is. Anything that moves can be made much lighter than anything made from metal, thus less costly to operate because it consumes significantly less energy to move it from Point A to Point B. Airliners will greatly benefit from these new materials, for example, but so will motor vehicles, trains, ships, and anything else that moves or has to resist many tons of force, like bridge I-beams.

kbd512 · 2019-04-24 19:51:04

SpaceNut,

Last but certainly not least, I leave our readers with the "Potato to Power" concept.

Self-Driving Potato

We could have fleets of potatoes driving themselves to market.

Edit: This last one is a "real gas". Get it?

Last edited by kbd512 (2019-04-24 19:52:27)

tahanson43206 · 2019-04-24 22:12:12

For kbd512 re #38 ... CF - CNT advantages

Trying to drag you into RobertDyck's vision of terraced homes in hills near Vancouver ... Can you imagine these materials used for construction of homes in this configuration. The examples RobertDyck showed recently, of architecture designed for hillside or cliffside mounting, appeared to me to be using fairly traditional materials (concrete over metal?).

Is this a potential market opportunity to expand use of CF and CNT?

(th)

kbd512 · 2019-04-24 23:55:38

tahanson43206,

Whether we use P2G or P2A, I really don't care at this point, so long as we start capturing the Carbon to make useful products. In addition to aerospace composites, we need gigatons of CNT's to replace metals and enhance the strength of concrete, which means we need even more gigatons of CO2, some of which will obviously have to come from the atmosphere as liquid hydrocarbon stocks are depleted or we suck out all the CO2 that Haber-Bosch or CO2 capture provides:

EdenCrete - CNT Concrete Additive

* 59% increase in abrasion resistance
* 41% increase in compressive strength
* 46% increase in tensile strength

EdenCrete Case Study - Railcar Facility North Augusta, SC

CNT manufacturers make different grades of CNT products with longer strands or fewer metal oxide occlusions in their materials. The longer the individual strand and/or the higher the purity, the more expensive the product.

The step we're adding to the P2G or P2A process is to capture the CO2 and separate the C (for aerospace and automotive industries) from the O2 (for space launch service providers and chemical processing industries) in order to sell both products. The C is clearly the most lucrative product, but the O2 is an additional salable product. That negates the need to expend additional energy to make oxidizer.

The over-arching goal, with P2G or P2A is one stop shopping for fuels, oxidizers, aerospace composite fibers, and electrical conductors. In either case, I don't want to hijack this thread any further. Suffice to say that if either process works well enough, capturing the Carbon will be another technological windfall that facilitates an explosion of lucrative new products with superior mechanical and electrical properties.

There's already a pilot plant project being constructed in Europe as I write this for P2A. I'd be interested to know if there's a pilot plant for P2G. Absent practical alternatives, whatever works best is what we're going with. If batteries with chemical-fuel-like energy density make their way out of the lab, then we'll use that. As of right now, the batteries just aren't getting better fast enough. We've blown mad money on batteries and any reasonable person would take stock of where we're at and start pursuing alternatives, rather than hoping for a miracle battery to appear. If CH4 or NH3 fuel cells can bridge the energy density gap for machines that require more continuous power, then we should be thankful that feasible alternatives exist.

louis · 2019-04-25 06:45:12

If there is a proven link between carbon emissions and what becomes dangerous global warming then it seems inevitable we will be looking for schemes to extract carbon from the atmosphere and ammonia or methane energy systems would be a prime contender to receive subsidies direct from government or through carbon credits. That would obviously improve the economics.

kbd512 wrote:

tahanson43206,
Whether we use P2G or P2A, I really don't care at this point, so long as we start capturing the Carbon to make useful products. In addition to aerospace composites, we need gigatons of CNT's to replace metals and enhance the strength of concrete, which means we need even more gigatons of CO2, some of which will obviously have to come from the atmosphere as liquid hydrocarbon stocks are depleted or we suck out all the CO2 that Haber-Bosch or CO2 capture provides:
EdenCrete - CNT Concrete Additive
* 59% increase in abrasion resistance
* 41% increase in compressive strength
* 46% increase in tensile strength
EdenCrete Case Study - Railcar Facility North Augusta, SC
CNT manufacturers make different grades of CNT products with longer strands or fewer metal oxide occlusions in their materials. The longer the individual strand and/or the higher the purity, the more expensive the product.
The step we're adding to the P2G or P2A process is to capture the CO2 and separate the C (for aerospace and automotive industries) from the O2 (for space launch service providers and chemical processing industries) in order to sell both products. The C is clearly the most lucrative product, but the O2 is an additional salable product. That negates the need to expend additional energy to make oxidizer.
The over-arching goal, with P2G or P2A is one stop shopping for fuels, oxidizers, aerospace composite fibers, and electrical conductors. In either case, I don't want to hijack this thread any further. Suffice to say that if either process works well enough, capturing the Carbon will be another technological windfall that facilitates an explosion of lucrative new products with superior mechanical and electrical properties.
There's already a pilot plant project being constructed in Europe as I write this for P2A. I'd be interested to know if there's a pilot plant for P2G. Absent practical alternatives, whatever works best is what we're going with. If batteries with chemical-fuel-like energy density make their way out of the lab, then we'll use that. As of right now, the batteries just aren't getting better fast enough. We've blown mad money on batteries and any reasonable person would take stock of where we're at and start pursuing alternatives, rather than hoping for a miracle battery to appear. If CH4 or NH3 fuel cells can bridge the energy density gap for machines that require more continuous power, then we should be thankful that feasible alternatives exist.

tahanson43206 · 2019-04-25 11:28:55

For Louis ...

louis wrote:

If there is a proven link between carbon emissions and what becomes dangerous global warming then it seems inevitable we will be looking for schemes to extract carbon from the atmosphere and ammonia or methane energy systems would be a prime contender to receive subsidies direct from government or through carbon credits. That would obviously improve the economics.

As I understand the economics of capitalism, it is better to arrive at the party at just the right time.

You have shown the ability to recognize when it is too early.

Others have started working the problem decades ago, trying to find technology that will help the human race to deal with the problem caused by living too long off the stored reserves from the eons before we humans became a factor of any note.

What is not yet clear is whether you are waiting too long.

The ideal solution (from my point of view) is for a group to develop a set of solutions which are cost competitive with existing live-off-stored-fat solutions.

You've already identified signs of some success in development of wind and solar power solutions, but (for the most part) these have not yet achieved the ability to displace dig-up-stored-fat solutions.

There may be other signs you'll be able to recognize, and hopefully share them with the forum.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2019-04-25 20:05:01

The content of this topic and others are also plausible for mars use once we can and do get there as well.

The under ground storage post by void reminds me that on earth we dig wells and tunnels so we can on mars as current plans are to want to the heap regolith of mars soils onto what ever we creat on its surface so why not bore the large vertical wells and line them for leakage and pressurized use as if these are to be storage tanks for any gas that we would want to save for later under pressure or not.

These could be 3d printed liners and even be used once bored as homes within mars as well.

The way forward for the home use of ammonia on earth is just a few things away in terms of consumer buyable items to creat there own of grid power and transportation from doing it in a mobile manner.

louis · 2019-04-26 14:22:38

I think there are many teams across the globe looking for competitive solutions. This effort can only increase because now there is a real need - wind and solar can provide cheap energy but they can't supply the baseload...it's a problem that requires a solution to be found soon.

tahanson43206 wrote:

For Louis ...
louis wrote:
If there is a proven link between carbon emissions and what becomes dangerous global warming then it seems inevitable we will be looking for schemes to extract carbon from the atmosphere and ammonia or methane energy systems would be a prime contender to receive subsidies direct from government or through carbon credits. That would obviously improve the economics.
As I understand the economics of capitalism, it is better to arrive at the party at just the right time.
You have shown the ability to recognize when it is too early.
Others have started working the problem decades ago, trying to find technology that will help the human race to deal with the problem caused by living too long off the stored reserves from the eons before we humans became a factor of any note.
What is not yet clear is whether you are waiting too long.
The ideal solution (from my point of view) is for a group to develop a set of solutions which are cost competitive with existing live-off-stored-fat solutions.
You've already identified signs of some success in development of wind and solar power solutions, but (for the most part) these have not yet achieved the ability to displace dig-up-stored-fat solutions.
There may be other signs you'll be able to recognize, and hopefully share them with the forum.
(th)

tahanson43206 · 2019-05-05 20:56:32

For Louis ...

Today's news feed included an item which appears to connect directly to your vision ...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … ket-newtab

For RobertDyck and citizen0215 ... one of the contributors is a professor at the University of Toronto.

For all .. the article at the link above appears to describe a way that individuals could use solar power to make hydrogen at home.

My guess is that members of this forum have contributed posts which include all the elements which the proposal described at the link above bring together.

(th)

louis · 2019-05-06 18:27:13

Certainly a connection but I am not convinced. I don't think the economies of scale would be there and there would be lots of safety issue (just think of free runners who go roaming over building roofs). Each unit would need its own expensive health and safety regime. I really don't think it's a runner.

I will try and get some figures on how much it costs to make artificial methane. Have tried before - not a lot out there.

tahanson43206 wrote:

For Louis ...
Today's news feed included an item which appears to connect directly to your vision ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … ket-newtab
For RobertDyck and citizen0215 ... one of the contributors is a professor at the University of Toronto.
For all .. the article at the link above appears to describe a way that individuals could use solar power to make hydrogen at home.
My guess is that members of this forum have contributed posts which include all the elements which the proposal described at the link above bring together.
(th)

SpaceNut · 2019-05-06 20:13:37

The use solar thermal heat to generate power and in turn use the power for the air conditioners.The article was a bit misleading in the concept which was to use the circulating of air in the exchanger to push co2 into the obsorbant to be the first step in a process. While cooling the occupant of the room where its located.
The second way to get cooling from solar thermal and ammonia used to produce cooling.

http://www.cres.gr/trans-solar/download … zaklis.pdf

louis · 2019-05-07 16:43:05

This is an interesting article...

https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2 … on-economy

It's not referencing conversion of renewable energy power to methane gas, but to hydrogen gas. It suggests a figure of just over 5 cents per KwH is achievable in the near term. The article makes a v. similar case to the one I make:

- You use the solar and wind power to do the conversion work when it is in over-supply and is worth close to zero on the market (the energy produced would otherwise be earthed, there being no effective alternative method of storage).

- There are huge opportunities for reducing the capital cost of the gas production process.

I suspect the author is right that the cost of electrolysis will fall dramatically once it is absorbed into power production process.

My only caveat is that we already have a methane distribution and storage network in place, whereas we don't have that for hydrogen. So, it is likely we can make huge cost savings in terms of distribution and storage if we retain that network and combine hydrogen with carbon and oxygen to produce methane.

What is required is (for each country - because each country's profile is v. different) is a detailed cost-benefit analysis of power to gas.

SpaceNut · 2019-05-07 20:22:36

There is a distribution and storage network out there for hydrogen refueling capability. Sure its not a big or as wide spread but it is there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_station

https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_stations.html
https://www.hydrogenics.com/hydrogen-pr … -stations/

https://www.hygen.com/how-a-renewable-h … ion-works/

Hydrogen Refuelling Stations Worldwide

For me its about Hydrogen home stations come in different types.

A solar powered water electrolysing hydrogen home station, is made of solar cells, power converter, water purifier, electrolyzer, piping, hydrogen purifier, oxygen purifier, compressor, pressure vessels and a hydrogen outlet.
A more complete home station would combine the solar home system on the inlet with natural gas and a reformer and from the storage tank to a fuel cell microCHP system to produce heat and electricity for the house and the excess electricity to the grid to become part as a distributed generation resource.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2019-04-23 20:02:20

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#27 2019-04-23 20:43:11

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#28 2019-04-24 05:07:09

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#29 2019-04-24 05:40:34

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#30 2019-04-24 07:46:43

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#31 2019-04-24 08:16:43

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#32 2019-04-24 08:41:31

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#33 2019-04-24 10:57:36

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#34 2019-04-24 10:57:44

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#35 2019-04-24 18:30:50

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#36 2019-04-24 19:01:16

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#37 2019-04-24 19:16:38

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#38 2019-04-24 19:45:22

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#39 2019-04-24 19:51:04

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#40 2019-04-24 22:12:12

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#41 2019-04-24 23:55:38

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#42 2019-04-25 06:45:12

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#43 2019-04-25 11:28:55

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#44 2019-04-25 20:05:01

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#45 2019-04-26 14:22:38

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#46 2019-05-05 20:56:32

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#47 2019-05-06 18:27:13

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#48 2019-05-06 20:13:37

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#49 2019-05-07 16:43:05

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

#50 2019-05-07 20:22:36

Re: Power to gas is the way forward for storage

Board footer