Power to gas - the next step

Calliban · 2020-07-17 04:11:06

Tahanson, I have read it. It sounds impressive, though technical details were short. I strongly suspect it will be defeated by thermodynamics. Compared to the simple production of hydrogen (which is already a net energy sink) you have additional energy consuming steps: (1) The extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere; (2) The breakdown of CO2 into CO; (3) Its reaction with hydrogen to produce heavier molecules. Each step consumes more energy, has it's own set of inefficiencies that eat into the cycle efficiency of the process.

I may be wrong of course, and it is always wise to keep and open mind, but I do suspect that this is over hyped. They certainly aren't the first people to have tried this.

tahanson43206 · 2020-07-17 04:37:39

For Calliban re #226

Thanks for taking a look at the Prometheus claims. I took a risk by asking for a bit more than your first response, but there are folks with much less technical knowledge who are trying to figure out if this enterprise is worth an investment. The capitalist system ** depends ** upon innovation, and financial support for that innovation in the face of the "old way of doing things". However, as you point out in your closing paragraph, there are more reasons to be skeptical than there are to be trusting.

The founder of the company has (apparently) secured some venture capital, so he is able to hire help and buy materials to try to achieve the objectives claimed. One thing to keep in mind (speaking generally) is that the value of a product or service is circumstance dependent. The claim (as I understood it) is that the process under development is capable of meeting the price point of existing dig-up-from-the-ground hydrocarbon extraction methods.

To me, in that circumstance, thermodynamics is working to the disadvantage of both competitive teams, and each tries to "win" against that head wind, using ** very ** different methods.

The dig-it-up teams are having to invest energy in the extraction process, and (typically) they invest part of the energy they have extracted to extract the next batch (barrel or volume in the case of gas). Years ago (and perhaps even today) producers of gas used to feed gas they had extracted directly into the combustion chambers of large piston driven machinery, in order to pump the gas on to the marketplace. There are several museums in the United States, and surely in England and other nations, dedicated to preserving the memory of those early machines.

The dig-it-up teams weren't much concerned with thermodynamics, and I'm guessing they aren't today either. What they were (and ARE) concerned about is the return on their investment.

In this instance, I ** think ** I am seeing the result of intense study of chemistry translating into highly efficient processes to try to beat the dig-it-up teams to the marketplace. For some competitors, it has been enough to be simply able to say that the carbon footprint of their process is net-zero. Customers (some customers) are willing to pay more for "clean" fuel than they would pay for fuel that contaminates the air, water and environment in general.

However, if I understand ** this ** undertaking correctly, the founder has convinced himself (and obviously the venture capitalists) that he can ** beat ** the dig-it-up teams ** without ** subsidy from the good will of those wanting to protect the environment.

For that reason, I am hoping additional insights into the potential of the claims of this entrepreneur may appear in this topic.

Thank you again for your contributions!

Edit#1: Here's another story about research toward use of a catalyst to improve efficiency of energy storage processes ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ships-could- … 00749.html

In this case, the application is conversion of CO2 found in sea water to CO for use as a feedstock.

The application of this concept to Mars seems reasonable to consider.

The paper cited dates to 2014. The article itself is from the online Popular Mechanics web site.

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2020-07-17 12:17:03)

SpaceNut · 2020-07-17 16:21:43

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon

https://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/car … ice-versa/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment … -pollution

kbd512 · 2020-07-17 18:00:12

tahanson43206,

For whatever it's worth to you, I've read a steady stream of claims over the years stating that some new process was just on the verge of becoming cost-competitive with the existing gas and liquid fuel extraction technologies. Precisely none of them were ever as cost-effective, nor able to be implemented at the scale required, hence they are not used at any scale beyond egregiously expensive laboratory experiments, thus why we continue to drill for oil and gas. That said, I went to their website where I learned nothing at all about the process they're using, except for their marketing claims. If they can actually do what they claim they can do, then my hats off to them, good on 'em for their hard work and ingenuity, and I hope they become rich. Could this new process be the silver bullet humanity need? Well... Let's see if we can implement it at scale. I wish them all the best, because humanity and America need a win.

Incidentally, Calliban's understanding of the efficiency of biological photosynthesis processes, as compared to all power-to-liquid processes I've ever read about, is inline with my own understanding of the relative efficiencies of the various different processes to produce liquid fuels. In point of fact, algae biofuels very nearly were cost-competitive with extracted liquid fuels a decade ago. They came in at a cost literally pennies above the cost of extracted liquid hydrocarbon, even at limited scale, but then the price of extraction radically decreased. Nothing is impossible, but I tend to be very skeptical of such fantastic claims. I do have faith that these new nanotechnology processes that use materials like CNT can radically alter what humanity is able to do.

Ultimately, there seem to be 3 practical solutions to reducing humanity's energy requirements to something remotely sustainable into perpetuity (both here on Earth and on Mars):

1. Improving the efficiency and longevity of our lighting, heating / cooling / ventilation, and motor vehicles. The fewer the number of these machines that require frequent replacement, the less waste which will be generated, the less recycling which must occur, and the less energy that must be expended to produce replacements from design engineering based upon "planned obsolescence".

2. Making the most energy dense fuels that we know how to use, primarily nuclear fission at this time. This is a very unpopular choice with some types of very ideologically-motivated people, but they may simply have to learn to accept engineering reality. It is simply not possible to reduce waste and energy expenditure by using the least dense types of energy sources. There is plenty of math and science behind this, but most people don't actually accept the math and science when it runs afoul of their religion or ideology.

3. Manufacturing of machines, however simple or complex, must be done with such a high degree of quality that the finished product will last for decades. To that point, "planned obsolescence" must come to an end and recycling of nearly everything must be industrialized at a planet-wide scale to preclude the need for ever greater quantities of raw materials. It's a lot harder than most people think to sell the idea of built-in quality and longevity because it costs more, but you either pay now or pay even more later on. Everyone says they want quality, but they don't actually want to pay for it. Well... You can't have it both ways.

Those three solutions really are the name of the game. They have profound implications and require incredible technology, but they're practical and achievable with current technology. The combination of rapid and inexpensive CNC machining, 3D printing, reliable computer-control, and nanotechnology provide the foundation for the technologies that are ultimately sustainable. Energy, the master resource, has been abundantly provided by the Earth in the form of fissile or fertile nuclear fuels. There will be no "running out" of these fuels for many centuries, by which time even more advanced nuclear fuels such as Deuterium / Tritium or Hydrogen / anti-Hydrogen should become available. Until then, we have something that works reliably when operated by well-educated and well-trained personnel. It's no accident that the US Navy has been able to operate dozens of mobile nuclear reactors without incident for longer than I've been alive. All irrational fear aside, the only explanation that carries water is that nuclear fission is fundamentally sound and works as advertised.

SpaceNut · 2020-07-17 18:44:27

Battery the uses co2 Carbon capture system turns CO2 into electricity and hydrogen fuel

This is also related in carbon dioxide gas into swimming pool water for PH control

tahanson43206 · 2020-07-17 19:30:03

For SpaceNut and kbd512 ... thank you for your posts in this topic!

Noting: SearchTerm:kbd512PowerToGas

I'll have to schedule time to read more carefully, and follow links as provided.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2020-07-20 13:20:10

For SpaceNut re topic ...

Here is an update on offshore (floating) wind farms. It is written for a skeptical reader like (I think of) Calliban, with identification of significant (ie, massive) hurdles to be overcome, but unlike a lot of articles I've seen, this one describes a variety of ways the hurdles might be overcome.

https://theconversation.com/floating-wi … ity-142847

(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-07-20 17:33:13

Green only in the sense of free energy and recycling of the absorbed carbon from the ocean. Other wise this is the false sense of doing no harm to the environment as you did not burn anything to get the initial power to make it work. This also holds true for solar power sources as well that are not being used.

These are custom built for industrial use and not a cots for the average consumer....

tahanson43206 · 2020-07-28 06:27:13

This is for Louis and all members from the British Isles region ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/488bb6a6-0 … -will.html

The UK’s offshore wind power could soon be so cheap it will pay money back to consumers, in the world’s first negative subsidies for the industry, new analysis has shown. Record-breaking low prices of around £40 per megawatt hour (MWh) were agreed last year in contracts for several new wind farms off Britain’s coast. Offshore wind companies are paid the difference by the Government if wholesale electricity prices go lower than that, but have to pay back any money above it. Expected electricity price rises mean that offshore wind providers will likely start passing on those gains to consumers in reduced energy bills by 2023 as they start to operate, according to analysis by Imperial College London and published in the journal Nature Energy. The development marks a new milestone in the success story of Britain’s offshore wind industry, which is the biggest in the world and generates around 10 per cent of the country’s electricity.

Nice to see what appears to be the possibility of an unexpected return on investment.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-08-09 17:55:51

Argonne National Laboratory uses new electrocatalyst to turn carbon dioxide into liquid fuel

new catalyst that can convert carbon dioxide and water into ethanol …

It breaks down carbon dioxide and water molecules and selectively converts them into ethanol using an external electric field. The electrocalytic selectivity or ferradic efficiency of the process is more than 90%, much higher than when using any other reported process.

tahanson43206 · 2020-08-09 19:17:15

For SpaceNut re #235

Thank you for providing the link to that encouraging report on research to improve the efficiency of conversion of CO2 to useful molecules.

90% efficiency is impressive, although (I gather) that is still happening at the scale of laboratory experiments. Still, that success should generate venture capital to scale up the process.

It seems clear (to me at least) that success in this undertaking on Earth would certainly improve efficiency on Mars, where energy inputs are constrained by distance.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-08-15 09:32:49

First post by

juliusbarry wrote:

Wow, thanks for the update. As for the collaboration, a very good move I must say.I came across this... https://www.primepowersolution.com/

British Designed & Manufactured Diesel Generators

Prime Power Solution has quickly emerged as one of the largest and fastest-growing UK diesel generator manufacturers and suppliers with a strong local footprint and exporting to over 30 countries.

Might be a future option once we are producing the fuels required to run them.

tahanson43206 · 2020-10-19 18:31:12

The article at the link below is about study of the use of existing natural gas pipelines for shipment of green hydrogen.

https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/e … wwse100286

A detail from the article that I thought might be interesting to the NewMars community is that shipment of hydrogen through a pipeline that was designed for natural gas has the same energy throughput, if the pumps are changed.

While the energy density of hydrogen (at the same pressure and temperature) is smaller than that of natural gas (about 1/3), by increasing the pressure in the pipeline the energy delivery is about the same.

Where I see this as of possible interest for Mars is the potential to ship hydrogen via pipeline to human settlements from locations where water is found, which otherwise may be unsuitable for settlement.

As I understand the article, shipment of energy by pipeline is on the order of 14 times more efficient than shipping the same energy by high energy electric lines.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-02 08:58:15

https://www.discovermagazine.com/enviro … ht-and-air

The article at the link above mentions climeworks.

The word climeworks has been used multiple times in the forum, in multiple topics.

The latest (most recent) reference I found was from 2019, so an update in 2021 might be in order ...

PLANET EARTH
ENVIRONMENT
The Other Solar Power: How Scientists Are Making Fuel From Sunlight and Air
Scientists find a way to use the sun’s energy to pull carbon dioxide from the air and turn it into fuel.
By Frank SwainJun 13, 2020 1:00 PM
Heliostat - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
On the roof of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, this heliostat array focuses sunlight on a reactor that can turn carbon dioxide from the air into fuel. (Credit: Allessandro Della Bella/ETH Zurich)
<snip>
This story appeared in the July/Aug 2020 issue as "The Other Solar Power." Subscribe to Discover magazine for more stories like this.
Few activities swell our carbon footprint quite like flying. A one-hour flight on a twin-engine jet aircraft burns almost 6,000 pounds of kerosene and adds almost 19,000 pounds of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The environmental impact of air travel is so stark that Swedes even have a term for it: flygskam, or flight shame. But what if flying could be made zero carbon?
“We have developed a solar technology that is able to produce liquid fuels using just two ingredients: solar energy and ambient air,” says Aldo Steinfeld, a renewable energy expert at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. “These hydrocarbon fuels release only as much carbon dioxide during combustion as was previously extracted from the air.”
It may seem like alchemy, but the solar refinery Steinfeld has helped build in Móstoles, on the outskirts of Madrid, follows some straightforward chemistry. An array of mirrors called a heliostat tracks the sun, boosting the sunlight’s intensity by a factor of 2,500 while reflecting it onto a 50-foot-high tower.
This dazzling beam of light heats a reactor with a core made of cerium oxide, an inexpensive compound often used to polish glass. At 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, oxygen is liberated from the cerium and removed, after which water and carbon dioxide captured from the air are injected into the reactor. As the reactor cools, the reduced cerium claws back oxygen molecules from the added material, leaving a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide called syngas. This is funneled into a second reactor, where the syngas is converted into kerosene molecules. In June 2019, the Móstoles refinery announced its first trickle of fuel.
<note added ... I gather that the cerium is reused, so an initial investment should last for an extended period>
But why turn solar energy into fuel at all? While road and rail transport are open to electrification, existing battery technology does not pack the punch needed to drive heavy industries such as sea freight and air travel. “There is no way around jet fuel for long-haul commercial aviation,” says Steinfeld. “Can you imagine a Boeing or Airbus flying trans-Atlantic on batteries? I think it violates the laws of physics.”
Solar kerosene has the potential to slot into existing global infrastructure for storing, transporting and using fossil fuels. But it still can’t compete with them for price: It would likely ring up around $9 per gallon if it’s sold to consumers. But that cost should fall as the technology improves in efficiency and grows in scale. Steinfeld believes that, with a modest boost in current efficiency, solar refineries could supply the entire world’s jet aviation fuel demand with a heliostat array the size of Indiana.
This revolution is underway. Last May, a major airport in the Netherlands announced it would host the world’s first plant turning atmospheric carbon dioxide into liquid fuel. Climeworks — a company spun out from Steinfeld’s lab in 2009 — is providing the modules that will capture carbon dioxide from the air.

I'm still looking for reports of manufacture of long chains (ie, gasoline).

(th)

louis · 2021-08-02 12:08:41

Surely you must recognise that the iron-air (Form Energy) battery is a a huge leap forward If that works as claimed (and there is good reason to think it does) then cheap and reliable energy is within reach for most nations on Earth. Energy infrastructure is expensive and takes time to replace but I feel this is a real game changer.

kbd512 wrote:

tahanson43206,
For whatever it's worth to you, I've read a steady stream of claims over the years stating that some new process was just on the verge of becoming cost-competitive with the existing gas and liquid fuel extraction technologies. Precisely none of them were ever as cost-effective, nor able to be implemented at the scale required, hence they are not used at any scale beyond egregiously expensive laboratory experiments, thus why we continue to drill for oil and gas. That said, I went to their website where I learned nothing at all about the process they're using, except for their marketing claims. If they can actually do what they claim they can do, then my hats off to them, good on 'em for their hard work and ingenuity, and I hope they become rich. Could this new process be the silver bullet humanity need? Well... Let's see if we can implement it at scale. I wish them all the best, because humanity and America need a win.
Incidentally, Calliban's understanding of the efficiency of biological photosynthesis processes, as compared to all power-to-liquid processes I've ever read about, is inline with my own understanding of the relative efficiencies of the various different processes to produce liquid fuels. In point of fact, algae biofuels very nearly were cost-competitive with extracted liquid fuels a decade ago. They came in at a cost literally pennies above the cost of extracted liquid hydrocarbon, even at limited scale, but then the price of extraction radically decreased. Nothing is impossible, but I tend to be very skeptical of such fantastic claims. I do have faith that these new nanotechnology processes that use materials like CNT can radically alter what humanity is able to do.
Ultimately, there seem to be 3 practical solutions to reducing humanity's energy requirements to something remotely sustainable into perpetuity (both here on Earth and on Mars):
1. Improving the efficiency and longevity of our lighting, heating / cooling / ventilation, and motor vehicles. The fewer the number of these machines that require frequent replacement, the less waste which will be generated, the less recycling which must occur, and the less energy that must be expended to produce replacements from design engineering based upon "planned obsolescence".
2. Making the most energy dense fuels that we know how to use, primarily nuclear fission at this time. This is a very unpopular choice with some types of very ideologically-motivated people, but they may simply have to learn to accept engineering reality. It is simply not possible to reduce waste and energy expenditure by using the least dense types of energy sources. There is plenty of math and science behind this, but most people don't actually accept the math and science when it runs afoul of their religion or ideology.
3. Manufacturing of machines, however simple or complex, must be done with such a high degree of quality that the finished product will last for decades. To that point, "planned obsolescence" must come to an end and recycling of nearly everything must be industrialized at a planet-wide scale to preclude the need for ever greater quantities of raw materials. It's a lot harder than most people think to sell the idea of built-in quality and longevity because it costs more, but you either pay now or pay even more later on. Everyone says they want quality, but they don't actually want to pay for it. Well... You can't have it both ways.
Those three solutions really are the name of the game. They have profound implications and require incredible technology, but they're practical and achievable with current technology. The combination of rapid and inexpensive CNC machining, 3D printing, reliable computer-control, and nanotechnology provide the foundation for the technologies that are ultimately sustainable. Energy, the master resource, has been abundantly provided by the Earth in the form of fissile or fertile nuclear fuels. There will be no "running out" of these fuels for many centuries, by which time even more advanced nuclear fuels such as Deuterium / Tritium or Hydrogen / anti-Hydrogen should become available. Until then, we have something that works reliably when operated by well-educated and well-trained personnel. It's no accident that the US Navy has been able to operate dozens of mobile nuclear reactors without incident for longer than I've been alive. All irrational fear aside, the only explanation that carries water is that nuclear fission is fundamentally sound and works as advertised.

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-06 21:16:15

Louis, your topic here appears to be about making gas from renewable sources, such as CO2 and water ....

Here is a report that suggests the practitioners of this art had better get a move on ...

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/finance … 00137.html

Anna Shiryaevskaya, Stephen Stapczynski and Ann Koh
Fri, August 6, 2021, 5:20 AM
(Bloomberg) -- The era of cheap natural gas is over, giving way to an age of far more costly energy that will create ripple effects across the global economy.
Natural gas, used to generate electricity and heat homes, was abundant and cheap during much of the last decade amid a boom in supply from the U.S. to Australia. That came crashing to a halt this year as demand drastically outpaced new supply. European gas rates reached a record this week, while deliveries of the liquefied fuel to Asia are near an all-time high for this time of year.
<snip>
Already, there are signs around the world that supplies will fall short:
Beyond a massive expansion in Qatar, few new LNG export projects have been cleared since the start of 2020.End-users have been less willing to take equity stakes in upstream projects or sign long-term supply deals due to uncertainty surrounding government-led efforts to reduce emissions.U.S. shale drillers aren’t immediately responding with additional production, as they’re under pressure from investors to curb spending and avoid creating another glut, while key pipeline projects struggle to move forward.
Mark Gyetvay, the deputy chief executive officer of Russian LNG exporter Novatek PJSC, warns that the green movement could disrupt the delivery of adequate and affordable supply to consumers.
“The lack of capital investments in future natural gas projects does not lead us to an energy transition, but instead leads us down an inevitable path toward an energy crisis,” said Gyetvay.

Forum member Calliban has been warning about energy contractions on the global stage.

I was not expecting to see them show up in natural gas, but here they appear to be.

(th)

kbd512 · 2021-08-06 22:36:33

Louis,

louis wrote:

Surely you must recognise that the iron-air (Form Energy) battery is a a huge leap forward If that works as claimed (and there is good reason to think it does) then cheap and reliable energy is within reach for most nations on Earth. Energy infrastructure is expensive and takes time to replace but I feel this is a real game changer.

When will you recognize the difference between someone making a claim that agrees with your ideology and an operational power generation or storage technology functioning at significant scale in the real world (the "real world" is the world outside of the research lab, where science has to be reduced to repeatable engineering practices)?

Take that same belief system you have about nuclear technology and apply it to all new battery technologies until evidence proves otherwise, because no battery technology has come within a country mile of supplanting coal / oil / gas / nuclear in terms of cost at a global scale, or merely providing an affordable energy storage solution for wind and solar. I don't personally consider tripling or quadrupling the cost of electricity to be affordable- merely a way to force the majority of people into energy poverty through increasing cost.

Demonstrate the new battery technology first so that all claims are evidence-based. I have no use for battery technology claims without operational performance data. Every day I read about a new battery technology that will "change the world" in 5 years. While the world certainly keeps changing, the battery technology seldom ever does. A new battery technology that works well enough to make it into production is nearly a once-in-a-lifetime event.

If Iron-Air succeeds at providing grid storage where everything else has failed thus far, then it's a minor miracle, it's inventors are worthy of high praise and admiration for their hard work, and I hope they become rich and successful beyond their wildest imagination.

If not, then at some point we cease to give any creedence to people making claims about their new technology without evidence, even if we really want to believe them, and we pursue alternative technologies that have worked well enough for at least as long as you've been alive.

SpaceNut · 2021-08-07 08:01:02

first post contained quotes on a thermal iron version

but I think this topic is drifting again from its original intent..

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-14 17:50:29

Hopefully this post will return the topic to it's original purpose:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/u-na … 00925.html

Among all countries, the U.S. moved into the lead for natural gas production in 2011, and has since substantially grown that lead. In 2020, U.S. production declined by 1.9% in response to the Covid-19 pandemic — which negatively impacted gas prices — but the U.S. retained a commanding 23.7% share of global production.
From table: US 99/3 Billion Cubic Feet per day - Global share 23.7%
To put U.S. production into perspective, the 88.3 billion cubic feet per day (BCF/d) the U.S. produced in 2020 was greater than all Middle East natural gas production (66.3 BCF/d). The Top 10 producers were the same as in 2019, except China leap-frogged Qatar on the back of a substantial 9% increase in its country’s production.

In another topic, I am pursuing the question of what it would take to replace fossil supplies of Natural Gas with output of facilities supplied with nuclear power.

There are one or two members of the forum who may (still) be interested in seeing if the Natural Gas from fossil sources can be supplied by Solar power, or a combination of Solar power and wind.

In either case, it would appear that the production target to reach is (on the order of) 88 billion cubic feet of Natural Gas.

Unless advised otherwise, I assume that the volume quoted is based upon standard pressure and temperature.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-16 21:38:30

The story quoted below is about "blue hydrogen" ....

The plant described was established to make synthetic natural gas ....

The owners have tried to compete in the marketplace but struggled ... the latest effort is to try to make hydrogen from natural gas.

I deduce that the bet here is that Hydrogen is more valuable than the natural gas that will be fed into the process.

BusinessAssociated Press
North Dakota gas plant to be redeveloped for clean energy

JAMES MacPHERSON
Mon, August 16, 2021 4:42 PM
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Bakken Energy and Mitsubishi Power Americas on Monday announced they are acquiring a financially troubled synthetic natural gas plant in western North Dakota and plan to redevelop it to produce renewable energy.
The companies said the deal to purchase the Great Plains Synfuels Plant from Dakota Gasification Co. is expected to be finalized by next April. Dakota Gasification is a subsidiary of Bismarck-based Basin Electric Power Cooperative. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.
The plant near Beulah is part of a proposed hub announced in June to produce clean hydrogen, which has a variety of uses including powering vehicles and energy generation. Republican Gov. Doug Burgum has hailed the project a key part of the state’s plan to become carbon neutral by 2030.
Officials said the hub consist of facilities that produce, store, transport and consume the carbon-free fuel. The hub will focus on the production of blue hydrogen, which is derived from natural gas with the carbon dioxide emissions captured, and sequestered underground or used for enhanced oil recovery.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-08-16 22:05:19

google got some more about what is being done.

“The redevelopment of the Synfuels Plant rapidly advances Mitsubishi Power’s strategic objective to deliver energy solutions that allow our customers to address climate change and advance human prosperity; delivering decarbonized hydrogen and ammonia solutions throughout the United States is central to this objective,”

The plant looks like its got a source of water...

The difference of the process to manufacture.

Blue hydrogen has been criticized recently by a study out from Cornell and Stanford University, which claims that blue hydrogen produces more greenhouse gases than simply burning natural gas would. However, the Beulah plant will be using a different process than steam methane reformation.
It will instead use advanced auto thermal reforming for hydrogen production, and intends to capture 95 percent of the carbon emissions.

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-18 18:53:07

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/chin … 30270.html

While Inner Mongolia has long been one of the leading coal mining regions in China, officials are positioning it as a potential renewable energy hub to export electricity and hydrogen to the rest of the country. The region gets about 3,100 hours of sunlight a year for solar generation, and is located on the main channel of Siberian wind that could power dozens of gigawatts of wind turbines, according to the hydrogen association.
(Updates with background on Chinese hydrogen industry in 6th paragraph. An earlier version corrected the amount of gasoline displaced in 3rd paragraph.)

This hydrogen will be the real ** green ** version, if the project succeeds.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-08-18 19:27:37

3100/365 = over 8 hours of sun shining on a solar panel a day... but thats not true unless the panels are tracking the sun over the course of the day to get maximum solar power from them.

cities of Ordos and Baotou that will use 1.85 gigawatts of solar and 370 megawatts of wind to produce 66,900 tons of green hydrogen a year
The project will, however, require at least 465 megawatts of electrolyzers to produce that much hydrogen

one can assume that the wattage is per year cycle as well which means just under 600,000,000 panels (1,850,000,000,000 / 3,100) but its more once you factor in the efficiency of panels…..

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-31 07:03:51

The article at the link below ** may ** report on a ? new ? Swiss initiative to capture CO2 from the air.

Because I start my day on an older computer, it cannot read beyond the quote ...

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/video/coc … 00000.html

Coca-Cola's and Microsoft's Latest Gamble: A Giant CO2 Vacuum Cleaner
Tue, August 31, 2021 5:33 AM
A Swiss startup has created a giant vacuum cleaner to capture carbon dioxide from the air, helping companies offset their emissions. WSJ visits the facility to see how it traps the gas for sale to clients like Coca-Cola, which uses it in fizzy drinks. Composite: Clément Bürge

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-09-26 12:04:51

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/faux-fuel-c … 00944.html

In 2012, Princeton University researchers projected that a complete transition to synfuels could eliminate up to 50 percent of vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions, but retrofitting U.S. refineries, according to the researchers, would cost more than $1 trillion and take 30 to 40 years.
Porsche is candid about the limitations of synthetic fuels. In announcing the plant, Porsche CEO Oliver Blume said: "Our goal is and remains electric mobility. This is the future. It must be emphasized that we do not see the use of e-fuels as an alternative, but as an addition to the all-electric drive."

Here's another look at the Porsche initiative in Chile.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2020-07-17 04:11:06

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#227 2020-07-17 04:37:39

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#228 2020-07-17 16:21:43

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#229 2020-07-17 18:00:12

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#230 2020-07-17 18:44:27

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#231 2020-07-17 19:30:03

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#232 2020-07-20 13:20:10

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#233 2020-07-20 17:33:13

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#234 2020-07-28 06:27:13

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#235 2020-08-09 17:55:51

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#236 2020-08-09 19:17:15

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#237 2020-08-15 09:32:49

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#238 2020-10-19 18:31:12

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#239 2021-08-02 08:58:15

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#240 2021-08-02 12:08:41

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#241 2021-08-06 21:16:15

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#242 2021-08-06 22:36:33

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#243 2021-08-07 08:01:02

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#244 2021-08-14 17:50:29

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#245 2021-08-16 21:38:30

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#246 2021-08-16 22:05:19

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#247 2021-08-18 18:53:07

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#248 2021-08-18 19:27:37

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#249 2021-08-31 07:03:51

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#250 2021-09-26 12:04:51

Re: Power to gas - the next step

Board footer