Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

kbd512 · 2024-04-19 18:26:59

SpaceNut,

Every power generating system is an engineered solution. You can buy a photovoltaic panel or wind turbine, but you can't buy an "off the shelf" photovoltaic or wind turbine farm, because no such animal exists. Every site is unique. The requirement for steel and concrete will be unique to the firmness of the ground that equipment is mounted on. You decide whether or not you want power, you pay money to an engineering firm, and then they figure out what parts they can buy or design and fabricate themselves.

You know what part of an electric power grid is a bespoke solution?

All the step-up and step-down power transformers fit that description. I'm not talking about the ones you see on power lines, I'm talking about the ones you see at step-up or step-down stations, as well as the power inverters if on-panel inverters are not used. When you pay for a photovoltaic farm, the people purchasing the power pay for all the non-standard equipment unique to the massive power fluctuations produced by photovoltaics and wind turbines, so that power surges and drops don't crash the entire grid. All that equipment costs real money, none of it is an off the shelf solution, and all of it must be paid by the consumer for the privilege of having unreliable intermittent energy on the grid, because a reliable grid doesn't require such equipment. This is engineering reality vs glossy sales brochure fantasy.

These thermal engineering solutions are going to start providing more than just power. They're going to collect and supply CO2, Argon, Xenon, Neon, Krypton, Sulfur, and other saleable industrial products so that those products don't have to be produced from scratch by burning something like natural gas or coal, solely to obtain that industrial product. Neon is required to make microchips. Argon is required for welding. Sulfur is required to make Sulfuric acid. The multiple revenue streams mean that the electric power consumer doesn't have to pay for the full cost of the plant, and consumers of the industrial products don't have to pay for specialty plants that burn fuel just to produce something that would otherwise be a natural byproduct of burning fuel.

SpaceNut · 2024-04-19 19:11:03

The bespoke is the power plant custom designed to specifications that make it unique.

A solar panel and a battery are commercial off the shelf as it has known specification for use at a given voltage and current.

A battery is the same for its capabilities for use.

The home grid connection is commercial as its going to provide from the gauge wire to the home electrical panel just 2 single phases from the transformer on the pole rated to deliver the necessary power to the home.

The making of offshoots is done not by the company creating the power but by those using it and they create commercial off the shelf items.

kbd512 · 2024-04-19 20:06:51

SpaceNut,

I'm not sure what you're trying to point out here.

You can purchase a PT-6A engine right now from Pratt & Whitney if you have the money. It's an off the shelf item by that definition. If you think you can bolt it onto any existing plane and go flying, then you're mistaken. The mere fact that you can lay down cash and walk out with a product means very little. There's clearly a lot of engineering work that goes into making sure that the plane in question can use said engine, as-installed. Merely being able to purchase a PT-6A tells me very little about the suitability of the engine for the plane it's bolted to, nor what a plane with that engine installed might be able to do.

Calliban · 2024-04-22 09:02:55

World copper demand is now outstripping supply, leading to rising prices.
https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/c … rtage-here

Mines in Chile are struggling to maintain output due to declining ore grades. China is the world's largest consumer, but can longer maintain supply from its own reserves, leading to growing imports. This suggests to me that whatever ambitions we have for the future, they must make do with a copper supply that is lower, or at least no greater than, what we are mining today. There are solutions that would allow us to live that way. But they generally aren't the ones that those in power are pursuing or want to hear about.

Last edited by Calliban (2024-04-22 09:04:42)

Calliban · 2024-04-22 10:09:02

EVs may never achieve widespread adoption, due to inherently poor energy efficiency which damages their economics.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene … ption.html

tahanson43206 · 2024-04-22 13:47:59

For Calliban re #380

To save your (many) busy readers a dive into the article you linked, please summarize the argument in support of the rather surprising statement you've included ahead of the link. It seems to me the statement is ridiculous, but that's just a first impression. You wouldn't have written that text if you didn't believe it, so I assume there must be strong arguments in support.

(th)

Calliban · 2024-04-22 15:43:41

TH, the article isn't long and explains better than I could. But in summary:

1) The amount of embodied energy needed to build an EV and its battery are substantially greater than ICEV with comparable performance.

2) All else being equal, the amount of work energy needed to drive a car along a stretch of road will be the same regardless of how it is powered, because friction, air resistance and gravity losses are the same regardless of the vehicle energy source. So a ICE must raise comparable power to EV tackling the same stretch of road. But all else isn't equal, because most EVs are heavier than ICEs. So work energy requirements are greater.

3) At the point of use, one could argue that an EV is more energy efficient because its motors are 90% efficient, whereas an ICE is only 20-30% efficient. But this ignores the fact that most electricity is generated by burning fuels, which are transmitted to customers through extensive transmission systems. When powerplant efficiency, transmission losses and charging losses are factored into the calculation, real energy efficiency per unit work ends up being similar.

But the EV is heavier and requires more work to drive along the road. It also has huge embodied energy. So its aggregate energy costs will always be greater than an ICE per mile travelled. This is what G&R are talking about when they say it is less energy efficient.

Last edited by Calliban (2024-04-22 15:47:12)

kbd512 · 2024-04-22 21:01:13

Calliban,

I read the article. It's not telling you or I anything we don't already know. Electricity is not some magical way to cheat basic physics.

I noticed that they referenced low and high entropy energy machines. There's a reason I keeping calling photovoltaics, wind turbines, and electrochemical batteries "entropy machines". They require an inordinate entropy change to take highly disordered matter, by using enormous amounts of energy input to transform them into highly ordered matter. However superficially efficient they appear to the indoctrinated vs educated, they're factually the most highly ordered of all our machines, thus the most energy-intensive. Anything that requires inordinate quantities of polysilicon, composites, Lithium, and Copper to function at all, is definitionally energy-intensive. As of right now, almost none of that energy comes from other entropy machines, because entropy machines don't generate enough surplus energy to do that in an economical way. Unless almost all of the energy to make them and power them comes from CO2-free sources, and no matter how else indoctrinated or malevolent people try to obscure basic physics, they are in fact using more input energy to create and operate them. That is why they cost so much. Almost all of the money sunk into them represents money paid for energy to make and operate them, not repairing or recycling them, since that is almost impossible. Worse still, recycling them requires more energy than making a new entropy machine from scratch.

These entropy machines represent an energy treadmill. They're a losing proposition if we zoom out far enough to stop fixating on the end result and start focusing on all the inputs required. If you're going to predominantly use low energy density intermittent energy sources, then you need low embodied energy materials to construct machines that last a very long time, or eventually you run out of energy to sustain your way of life. The implications are that stark and the results won't be pretty.

There's no magic or "wonderment" in this for people who don't have emotional or ideological investment into what the end result looks like. It looks really bad from my perspective, because from an input energy and ecology standpoint, it is bad. While I wish that wasn't the case, I can't flippantly ignore reality and hope that it changes to suit my beliefs about how it should work. Maybe new inventions will come along to fix not-so-green energy's numerous and varied problems, but that's hoping for something that doesn't presently exist. Hoping for change is not a valid engineering strategy for winning this energy and ecology battle.

That's why I spent so much time and effort explaining this so many different ways, whilst repeating things I thought shouldn't require so much repetition, but it looks like it's mostly fallen on deaf ears. I want people to know why this strategy will fail before it finally does fail. It's my hope, though perhaps a vain one at this point, if people who have more than a passing interest in science and technology truly cannot understand it, so that the same mistakes aren't repeated during the next incarnation of whatever follows.

You and I have both spent lots of time pointing out various more practical ways forward for these green energy concepts, that at least have some chance of working to the degree and at the scale required. Perhaps some bright young person, much smarter than I'll ever be, will pick up what we're laying down, use what they know that we don't, and solve these problems in ways we never thought of. That is my only desire. I recognize that we have some significant and serious long-term issue with anthropogenic global warming, maybe more of one than we know, and that the problem requires real solutions that can be implemented in the hear and now, rather than some far off point in the future. We'll only start to appreciate the unique nature and depth of the problem after we recognize the scope and scale of trying to replace hydrocarbon energy with anything else. Our present dependence on it is starting to become a little scary. We need realistic alternatives, but thus far there's no serious effort to pursue them.

Enough people will independently figure this out in their own way, sooner or later. I just hope there's enough time left to pursue actual solutions after we're done mucking around with these non-solutions.

SpaceNut · 2024-04-25 19:51:09

Biden-Harris Administration Announces $7 Billion Solar for All Grants to Deliver Residential Solar, Saving Low-Income Americans $350 Million Annually and Advancing Environmental Justice Across America

NH did get some but the grant that they will receive is for community solar which are the same basic arrays that Eversource has been defeating.

selected grants

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/11/30/ … %20program.

It's a failure as Eversource deregulation controls the lines so all you get is to choose a portion of the usage of the supplier as the delivery you are unable to control it..

SpaceNut · 2024-06-01 10:50:29

One of nation's largest solar projects nears completion in old coal mining town — here's how it will usher in a new energy era

Xcel Energy's huge solar and energy-storage facility in Becker, Minnesota, is getting closer to completion — and it's set to start pumping out power this fall, Canary Media reported.
Like many exciting energy projects that have recently been finished or are in development, the Sherco facility is being built on the former site of a coal-powered power plant. Coal produces toxic, heat-trapping air pollution when burned, so many states are shutting down their coal plants.

Calliban · 2024-06-05 04:39:04

No more oil by 2040?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r79rxfOFJJY

According to this researcher, north sea oil is already net energy negative, i.e it takes more energy to extract it than it contains. The same problem is playing out at different stages across the globe. If correct, oil and gas product could be heading for a cliff-edge decline, rather than a gradual depletion. This could happen if the economic dislocation resulting from oil depletion prevents investment in areas that are still net energy positive, i.e a cascade effect. A very serious problem, if this man's interpretation is accurate. But he makes the point that available data is too poor in most places to draw firm conclusions.

SpaceNut · 2024-08-18 12:22:55

Clean Fuel Startups Were Supposed to Be the Next Big Thing. Now They Are Collapsing.

kbd512 · 2024-08-18 16:13:09

SpaceNut,

Democrats spent $392B of tax payer money on "Climate Change Action", which meant handing over money to their political campaign donors to pocket. We received the bill, but no new energy. Anyone who says we cannot build a decent energy system with $392B to spend is a bold-faced liar. We didn't even try. Democrats think they can throw money at a problem and a solution will simply materialize, because they're magical thinkers. Nobody who actually knows anything about energy, which necessarily excludes both Democrats and all other magical thinkers, was ever in charge of disbursing funds after a credible business plan was presented to Uncle Sam and a realistic implementation pathway was established.

The majority of these startups were involved in producing Hydrogen using electricity. So-called "green electricity" is incredibly expensive and unreliable. How was that supposed to work? Did anyone even ask that question?

kbd512 · 2024-08-22 10:44:24

For anyone who thinks a "cheap" Chinese EV (a not-so-great copy of a Porsche) is going to "solve" the EV cost problems:

Xiaomi EVs Criticized for Poor Quality, Using Aluminum Instead of Copper, 40% Cancellation Rate

They're all "beautiful trash". They merely "look pretty", but only for the briefest period of time. The seats are cracking within 6 weeks of purchase, the Aluminum wiring is causing fires, and the cars are leaking fluids from multiple different locations during test drives.

Has anyone ever seen a vehicle's entire rear suspension assembly completely separate from a brand new car?

Prior to Chinese EV trash, I know I haven't. I'm pretty sure you don't want that happening to your family while you're driving down the highway at 60mph.

There might be a reason why Chinese EVs are so cheap. They're deliberately made to be disposable trash, so cheaply made that they might not be able to drive off the car lot before they're broken.

To top this off, Xiaomi is losing money on every EV sold, in an attempt to gain market share over their rivals.

Americans complain about the paint peeling off of the Aluminum bodies of Ford and Stellantis trash. Somehow, they cannot figure out how to paint Aluminum. Cessna and Piper owners the world over are baffled, since the aviation industry has successfully painted Aluminum airplanes before WWII started, and some of the original paint has survived for longer than the original owners of those aircraft.

Edit:
For those who think command economies or state-owned enterprises are "the way of the future", Xiaomi is partially state-owned by China. If this is what a command economy is putting out, then I'm not buying it.

Last edited by kbd512 (2024-08-22 10:47:13)

kbd512 · 2024-08-22 22:40:10

Sadly, China's BYD EVs appear to be equally dangerous disposable trash:
Vehicle’s Main Beam Twists as Easily as Tofu! BYD’s Luxury SUVs Are Trash

Chinese EVs sent to overseas buyers are not subjected to Chinese censorship:
Why China Can’t Censor and is Panicking about this EV Disaster

You cannot twist the frame or suspension control arms of an American made SUV using a box wrench. Best of luck twisting the A-pillar or B-pillar without power tools. If you've ever become pissed off at the Ford or GM vehicle you're working on and hit the frame with a 10 pound sledge, then you know what I'm talking about. Some of the poorer tie rod designs on American vehicles can be bent with leverage and enough force. The Chinese are either using "burnt" steel in their vehicle's primary crash structure or steel with improper heat treatment and hardening. With modern manufacturing methods, there's simply no excuse which passes muster for these kinds of failure. Any kind of testing would catch such errors in a heartbeat. In many instances were these EVs have caught fire in China, the manufacturer requests that the Chinese government scrubs the data from the internet. Brand new BYDs are also experiencing total brake failures.

The Chinese have pumped almost $150B Yuan into their EV manufacturers. For the kind of money they're spending, they should be getting a much better result. Something clearly ain't right here.

There's a reason Chinese motor vehicles are so cheap. Their quality control is nonexistent. If this is something you were contemplating putting your family members into, then if you value their lives I'd strongly reconsider until such time as real quality control is enforced at every level of the manufacturing process, from raw material to finished product. If a 150 pound man can bend a control arm or subframe using an 8-inch long box wrench and one arm, then that overweight EV SUV is not suitable for on-road use, never mind off-road use.

Automotive manufacturers across the entire world are just slapping parts together with no regard for quality control or value to their customers. Hyundai and others have air bags deploying from faulty sensors and computer inputs while the vehicle is in motion.

We need to get back to the basics of how to properly design and manufacture vehicles, as well as real quality control, so that people don't die from this utterly pointless cheapening of what was previously thought of as durable goods. Good people will die unless engineers and craftsmen of good moral character tell the suits where to shove their nonsense.

Just to be crystal clear, this is not merely a Chinese problem, nor an American and European problem, it's a basic human problem at this point. It's as if everyone's brain fell out of their head during COVID. We need to start "caring again" about the quality of the products we're putting out into the world.

kbd512 · 2024-08-22 23:32:39

Has anyone here ever bent or broken a one inch diameter piece of rebar using their bare hands?

I've never seen such a thing. I think humanity is in deeper trouble than we know. We've forgotten how to take care of the basics.

Calliban · 2024-08-23 07:27:01

kbd512 wrote:

Has anyone here ever bent or broken a one inch diameter piece of rebar using their bare hands?
I've never seen such a thing. I think humanity is in deeper trouble than we know. We've forgotten how to take care of the basics.

Look at the shape at the end of the chassis break. I would suggest this is a weld quality control issue. If surfaces are contaminated during welding, the weld will be brittle. It is an amateur mistake. I wouldn't trust chinese steel to have good control over contaminants like phosphorus, sulphur or nitrogen, either. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

I ordered a piece of pattern welded steel from a Chinese producer to make a pruning knife for my son. It turned out to be a layer of pattern welded steel fusion welded over a mild steel core. It was cheap, but it turned out to be worth nothing. The same is true of a lot of the crap the comes out of China. If it doesn't do what it is supposed to do it is worth nothing. No matter how cheap the Chinese are able to make a car shaped piece of garbage it is still garbage. It is only better value for money if does the job its supposed to do.

Last edited by Calliban (2024-08-23 07:27:43)

Calliban · 2024-09-02 10:20:33

Exxon warns of a looming oil supply shortage due to underinvestment in new capacity. The average natural decline rate of the world's producers is now running at 15%, not the 8% usually assumed by the world's energy agencies. The later figure was applicable two decades ago when production was dominated by conventional super-giants. Those days are gone.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene … risis.html

It is gradually becoming more expensive to produce oil. Investments need to keep up. Electric vehicles will do little to reduce overall oil demand, as they only reduce gasoline consumption, which is but one product out of the fractionating column. Wouldn't it be ironic if we end up building gas turbines that burn gasoline to provide the power needed to charge EVs? That really is a credible scenario! It illustrates just how much of a clown world we are living in.

Oil & gas have been dramatically undervalued now for a decade, since prices dropped from >$100/barrel. Whilst depletion is a slow-burn problem, human folly is a more imminent problem. If we end up with a re-run or the great depression due to underinvestment in fossil fuels and over investment in intermittents, it will be one of the biggest own goals in history.
*******

Additional. The UK government, not content with building an oppressive police state, now seems intent on rushing the country into an economic depression as well. There are plans afoot to hike the windfall tax on north sea oil & gas producers.
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News … llion.html

This tax was brought in by the Tories and it was a disasterous idea from the start. The north sea is one of the most expensive oil and gas environments in the world and also the most depleted. Production is down to about 600,000 barrels a day, abot 15% of the >4million barrels at peak back in 1999. This is not the result of underinvestment. It is primarily due to depletion. The north sea now provides less than half of the UK's annual gas demand and around a third of its oil demand. Yet in times of economic difficulty, the UK government are determined to kill off the only golden goose they have left.

I would complain more publically. But they would probably arrest me, imprison me for posting 'anti-establishment information' and then get a muslim to rape me up the arse and then stab me to death in prison. I am not exagerating one bit. The British government: a boot stamping on a human face, forever. How I Iove to hate them. To all Americans: What we British are suffering is what you will suffer if you let the left take your guns. These evil people dream of controlling you.

Last edited by Calliban (2024-09-02 11:02:58)

kbd512 · 2024-09-02 15:53:11

We're not paying attention to the fundamentals of society because certain people within society are too infatuated with their idealistic vision of what it should look like, rather than how to go about achieving their stated end goals, agnostic of the technologies and methods used to achieve that vision. We have tribal factions and championing of ideas by "advocacy groups", rather than cold mathematical analysis of the results achieved per dollar spent.

We became fixated on generating electricity and producing electrical and electronic devices, rather than pursuing a holistic approach to reducing energy and materials consumption to levels approaching true sustainability.

The most pragmatic long-term "real solution" is to start synthesizing our own petroleum products, in addition to reducing consumption to the degree that we actually can. I don't foresee a world "beyond organic chemistry". That's what our "beyond oil" people are actually asserting, whether they know it or not. Similarly, I don't foresee a world "beyond electricity". There is no better way to generate massive quantities of usable light during hours of darkness, without excessive heat generation, than LEDs and electricity. Other methods of storing energy or producing light obviously exist, yet none of them provide better "bang-for-buck" when it comes to high continuous work output (combustion engines) or light output. There's nothing wrong with a continued pursuit of electro-chemistry, and I would continue to encourage it, but every electro-chemical energy storage device we presently know how to make provides 1 to 2 orders of magnitude less energy per unit weight than liquid hydrocarbon fuels. That inconvenient technological limitation imposes upper bounds on their practical application. That's why an airliner can be powered by kerosene in a practical way, but not batteries.

Using modern CFRP storage tank technology, compressed air has an energy density (when expanded through an air turbine using atmospheric heat injection) equivalent to the very best electro-chemical batteries. In terms of storage capacity over charge / discharge cycles, compressed air storage tanks provide undiminished energy storage capacity during each use, up to whatever number of cycles where the composite was engineered to withstand before it starts to crack from aging and environmental exposure. At the present time, CFRP compressed air storage tanks of the 700 to 1,000 bar variety have been repeatedly tested to withstand at least 25,000 (700 bar) to 15,000 (1,000bar) full charge / discharge cycles. Such performance is far in excess of what any electro-chemical battery can deliver with undiminished capacity over subsequent charge / discharge cycles. CFRP storage tank manufacturing requires far less equipment and tooling than making electro-chemical batteries. Cost is less than half that of electro-chemical batteries for the same energy storage. This "feature" of a compressed air energy storage and consumption system makes compressed air the most practical way to power short-range motor vehicles, and arguably the cheapest of all the alternatives to liquid hydrocarbon fuels. The input energy and therefore cost, which must be sunk into a CFRP storage tank, is dramatically lower than the energy sunk into electro-chemical batteries. Energy payback could be as high or higher than hydrocarbon fuels if the compressed air is provided by trompes and pipelines.

Current Carbon Fiber energy consumption per kg ranges between 148kWh/kg and 242kWh/kg.
Voith's 700 Bar Type IV CFRP H2 storage tank weighs 163kg.
Assume it's 60% fiber and 40 polymer, likely a polyester (50MJ/kg) or vinyl ester resin, because that is what's most common.
Tank Dimensions are 2,140mm Long by 555mm Diameter (0.52m^3 storage capacity per tank), so it stores 364m^3 of air at STP
Air compressed to 700bar is about 0.355MJ/L, so 0.52m^3 = 184.77kWh.
A good air turbine can recover about 70% of that energy, so that tank only stores about 129,339Wh of energy.

97.895kg of Carbon Fiber = 14,488kWh, (based upon a 2014 study on the energy intensity of producing Carbon Fiber; 148kWh/kg for onsite energy generation or 242,000 for offsite energy and onsite use of electrical energy from the grid)
65.105kg of plastic = 904kWh (based upon embodied energy in polyester resin)

All told, 15,392kWh of embodied enrgy for this 0.52m^3 700bar Type IV CFRP tank, therefore energy intensity is 119Wh per 1Wh of stored energy. Said tank can withstand 25,000 pressure cycles. Over it's entire rated service life, the 700bar CFRP Type IV compressed air tank can store 3,233,475,000Wh (25,000 cycles * 129,339Wh) of energy.

3,233,475,000Wh / 15,392,000Wh = 210Wh of stored energy per 1Wh of embodied energy in a 700bar Type IV CFRP compressed air storage tank
1kWh of Lithium-ion battery = about 1,125MJ or 312.5kWh of embodied energy
The following assumes 100% discharge for each cycle and no loss of cell capacity over time.
Let's say it lasts for 3,000 charge / discharge cycles:
3,000,000Wh / 312,500Wh = 9.6Wh of energy stored in a Lithium-ion battery per 1Wh of embodied energy
Let's say it lasts for 5,000 charge / discharge cycles:
5,000,000Wh / 312,500Wh = 16Wh of energy stored in a Lithium-ion battery per 1Wh of embodied energy

Why use something as complex as an internal combustion engine when compressed air will do?

Why use something even more complex than an internal combustion engine when it cannot replicate what a combustion engine does and likely consumes more scarce energy and materials to do it?

If all you need is steel to make a machine work to the degree that it must, then why bother with Aluminum and Copper?

You'd have to be a little crazy to think the result would be materially better. It's only better on the basis of some narrowly-defined metric. The entire reason we build skyscrapers using steel and concrete has everything to do with energy input and general utility as a large building. CFRP and other materials would undoubtedly be lighter, but both the energy input and our ability to recycle them would be drastically more limited. Any building's ability to remain upright will eventually end, but the materials consumed to make it can be repurposed into a brand new building far more easily with steel and concrete. We make things only as sophisticated as they need to be to get the job done, or we're wasting precious energy and time.

kbd512 · 2024-09-03 08:30:39

From Science Direct's website:

Exergy analysis is a technique that uses the conservation of mass and conservation of energy principles together with the second law of thermodynamics.

A very cursory analysis shows how poor the total energy storage capacity of Lithium-ion batteries are when compared to compressed air. I could be pretty far "off" with both sets of numbers, yet it's abundantly clear that all modern electro-chemical batteries are far worse than alternatives, such as compressed air, which are dramatically simpler to develop, manufacture, and implement at signficant scale. 700bar Type IV CFRP H2 storage tanks have existed for quite some time now, and the 350bar tanks which existed for many decades prior were certainly on-par with Lead-acid and Nickel-Cadmium batteries.

Did all of our research scientists honestly believe it would be more difficult to develop stronger and lighter CFRP tanks?

What was the reason for selecting the most impractical of all available options?

Why did all of our green energy research scientists instead choose to develop Lithium-ion batteries as part of our green energy solution?

Someone must have known this, but why didn't the mainstream of science and academia "know this", and propose more realistic alternatives that would still meet stated hydrocarbon fuel consumption reduction goals?

Did they truly not know this, were they hoping for miraculous battery technology advancements, or did they not care about the environmental effects associated with an implementation failure, because it was only another money-making proposition for them?

Grammar school math is all that's needed. I refuse to believe that PhD research scientists cannot add, subtract, multiply, and divide. I would think the incredible number of engineers and research scientists involved would've reached similar conclusions far faster than someone like me. That's why I want to know what the thought process was behind the blind pursuit of electro-chemical batteries and photovoltaics.

Is this yet another case of "there's no there there"?

How did we overlook such a simple energy technology that does 21X better on Energy Stored on Energy Invested (ESoEI) for equivalent weight as the latest battery tech produced at scale?

We've been using compressed air and air pumps since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. This is very far from new technology. Somebody should've been at least vaguely aware of how American Silver mines brought down the cost of Silver by NOT burning coal to generate electricity, specifically because it cost too much. There was a truly "green" natural energy solution which served its vital purpose in American and Canadian mining for over 100 years.

Why is there still no effort to "course correct" when it's beyond obvious that most people cannot afford the required electro-chemical batteries and photovoltaics to successfully complete an energy transition?

Lithium-ion batteries are useful and they have their place as part of a solution. They're clearly not "the solution".

It seems like we're wasting precious time here on things that don't work the way they need them to.

kbd512 · 2024-09-04 08:16:38

We really ought to pursue an answer as to why batteries are 21X worse than compressed air in terms of ESoEI. Current policy is pushing Lithium-ion batteries, yet they're so much worse from an environmental standpoint that it's not even funny. We really need to think through the implications of what we're doing BEFORE we commit to any specific course of action. It might turn out that heat stored in limestone or sand or salt is even better in terms of ESoEI. In order for some kind of energy transition to actually happen, ESoEI is every bit as critical for energy storage as ERoEI is for energy generation equipment such as photovoltaics vs solar thermal. Slowly but surely, we're proving using basic math why it is that we must invest in viable technologies.

Here's the research paper I used to determine the energy intensity of composite materials used in Type IV CFRP tanks:
US DoE - Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy - Advanced Manufacturing Office - Bandwidth Study on Energy Use and Potential Energy Saving Opportunities in U.S. Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Manufacturing

Calliban · 2024-09-05 04:40:48

The four reasons that compressed air has not been more widely used as a vehicle energy source:

1) CAES can end up being relatively inefficient unless coupled with thermal energy storage. This complicates its use in vehicles, though there are solutions.

2) People are frightened of it. A 700bar compressed air tank would release a great deal of energy if it fails. Probably enough to blow the car a couple of hundred feet into the air. Again, the reality is that compressed air probably isn't disproportionately more dangerous than flammable batteries or gasoline. But public perception is a problem.

3) Compressed air vehicles have the same range limitations as battery powered cars. Range anxiety is one of the issues limiting EV roll out. It will be no less a problem for compressed air vehicles.

4) Psychology. A lot of people, including car company board members and CEOs, are hooked on the elegant idea of an electric future. They employ perception filters that limit their vision of evidence that this is likely to be a disaster. With so much attention and industrial inertia invested in electrical solutions, car companies a reluctant to invest in competing technologies.

None the less, compressed air and synthetic hydrocarbons (or a hybrid vehicle using both) are the only practical, scalable long term options for automotive power. We have established that well enough now.
******

As an aside, this man has produced a video on a concept that I have toyed with in the past: storing energy in vacuum.
https://youtu.be/1D9LUaYYnrE?si=e1GzXyFQliO0mJPZ

This is a kind of inside out CAES system, with a maximum pressure difference of 1 bar. The resultant energy density of a vacuum vessel is limited to 100KJ per cubic metre. That is far too low to be useful as a vehicle energy source. But could have uses for home energy storage.

Vacuum tanks are vulnerable to buckling instability. So the best materials to use for their construction are things like concrete, stone or rammed earth. These are energy cheap, strong in compression, but weak in tension. Their low energy cost allows them to be made thick enough to resist buckling instability without becoming unaffordably costly. To store 1kWh, a vacuum tank would need a minimum volume of 36m3. Assuming a spherical tank, inner diameter would be 4.1m. That is about the size of a bedroom.

The thing that might make this worth doing is longevity of compressive structures. If this is part of a house and remains in use for a couple of centuries, it would provide excellent energy return on investment. But the amount of energy that can be stored in this way is limited to a few kWh. Otherwise your energy store starts to rivalnthe size of your house. A 1kWh store is none the less useful in buffering the output of a home PV or wind power system. My back of the envelope calcs tell me that energy payback time will be on the order of 5 years for this concept, assuming that the tank is made from concrete and is charged and emptied once a day. That is 5 years for ESoEI to exceed 1. Using rammed earth the time will be much shorter. The key to achieving high ESoEI is using low embodied energy masonry type materials and using the store intensively for long periods. I cannot see any mechanisms that would cause it to wear out.

Last edited by Calliban (2024-09-05 05:04:26)

tahanson43206 · 2024-09-05 06:44:15

For Calliban re #397

You have spoken of this energy storage mechanism before, and I appreciate the return to view here in the forum.

My observation is that no investor has pursued this idea in the Real Universe. However, you are approaching the fresh eyes and a willingness to put hour hard earned income to work to produce a return.

If you have time and the subject is of interest, please add a bit of detail to your vision:

1) The mechanism to evacuate the chamber must last for hundreds of years and achieve a near perfect vacuum every day.
2) The mechanism to recover energy by admitting air into the chamber must last for hundreds of years and recover every possible erg

The recovery mechanism will produce energy at a declining rate, so it would be interesting to see a graph showing the performance.

A typical pneumatic tool system uses a regulator to deliver the needed 7 psi (or so) to a tool. The reservoir is raised to a pressure of 175 psi (or thereabouts) before the tool draws pressure from the tank.

This system would start at an effective pressure of 15 psi, and it would seem productive until it reaches 7 psi.

The efficiency of the power recovery equipment will determine the energy delivery of the system.

An investor, such as yourself, will want to see a return on that investment within some reasonable number of years.

These observations are offered before I've watched the video, so there may very well be answers to some or all of the questions. However, regardless of whatever the YouTube creator may offer, it is ** your ** design that will receive ** your ** investment, and it is the finished product you will offer to buyers.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2024-09-05 07:03:50

Upon viewing the video without sound...

First, thanks for showing us this high quality work!

The efficiency figure of 73% shown in the concluding frames is better than I expected.

The mechanism used to charge the system and to recover energy is interesting.

We did not get to see the rate of recovery, which I would expect to drop as the pistons near the bottom, but (upon reflection) I recognize that this mechanism is different from an ordinary pneumatic tool, in that the vacuum at the bottom of the piston is not diminished as the volume decreases, and the pressure at the top of the piston remains constant as well.

Clever!

The belt might last a few hundred cycles.

So! What would your version of this system look like?

(th)

Calliban · 2024-09-05 07:12:52

I don't think this is something that can directly power air tools in any way. Air tools require a pressure of 5-10bar(g). Using vacuum, the pressure range is 0 to -1.0bar(g). So the power density is too low to be useful and there would be a risk of dust being drawn into the system.

I was thinking more about a water based system in which water is pumped out of the vacuum tank into a receipt tank at atmospheric pressure, leaving vacuum behind. Energy is recovered by passing water through a turbine connected to an electric generator as it passes back into the tank. One advantage that the system does have is that the water level in the receipt tank can be used to operate floating switches. Things like ice production for air conditioning, can be activated when the tank is 99% full and deactivated when level drops to 90%. Other things like water heating can be on a floating switch as well.

A positive displacement pump could be driven by mechanical power from a wind turbine or direct current from solar arrays. The generator will produce 110v AC to meet the power requirements of the house. By using the vacuum tank to provide a power smoothing function, a much better ESoEI is achieved. If the house uses 1kWe on average, then payback time to reach ESoEI of 1, declines to 2.5 months. Over a 50 year period, ESoEI would rise to 240.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#376 2024-04-19 18:26:59

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#377 2024-04-19 19:11:03

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#378 2024-04-19 20:06:51

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#379 2024-04-22 09:02:55

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#380 2024-04-22 10:09:02

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#381 2024-04-22 13:47:59

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#382 2024-04-22 15:43:41

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#383 2024-04-22 21:01:13

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#384 2024-04-25 19:51:09

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#385 2024-06-01 10:50:29

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#386 2024-06-05 04:39:04

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#387 2024-08-18 12:22:55

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#388 2024-08-18 16:13:09

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#389 2024-08-22 10:44:24

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#390 2024-08-22 22:40:10

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#391 2024-08-22 23:32:39

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#392 2024-08-23 07:27:01

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#393 2024-09-02 10:20:33

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#394 2024-09-02 15:53:11

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#395 2024-09-03 08:30:39

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#396 2024-09-04 08:16:38

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#397 2024-09-05 04:40:48

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#398 2024-09-05 06:44:15

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#399 2024-09-05 07:03:50

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#400 2024-09-05 07:12:52

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

Board footer