phasing out of fossil fuels - programme

[Dr Bob]

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

 

If the power station is alongside the wind turbine, what have you achieved in converting electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity (other than wasting 2/3 of the energy)? If the power station is remote from the wind turbine why not connect the two locations with an electricity cable?

 

 

You are storing power when it is cheap and using it when it isnt. I agree though that hydrogen is no good as there are better options.

 

1 hour ago, Jackofalltrades said:

What some may find interesting is that there are currently two companies (that I know of) that take cheap/plentiful renewable electricity (solar/wind/hydro/bio) from the national grid, store it in batteries and then sell it back to the national grid when power demand is high (+ several other reasons such as helping to stabilise the required 50Hz frequency). The supplied electricity is still classed as renewable, even at night when there's no wind.

This is exactly what we need to do.

Current pricing of electric see us paying 16p a unit (ie a kWh of electricity) for us to get power from the grid. The prices that supply companies charge the network vary considerably. Therefore at 2am in the morning when the UK sleeps and demand is down, the network will pay say 15p a unit as there is a surfit of suppliers. At 7pm later that day when the world and his wife want that electricity, the network can be paying as much as £3 (YES, £3 ) per unit for the 'extra' capacity they need to get to meet demand. These companies are set up to utilise that price difference.

Tesla have installed inverters in all their Model 3 so that when there are enough of them, Tesla can switch them on and supply the grid from batteries charged at low price but available when the network is desperate. Likely to happen in future years and Tesla will make a fortune. Hopefully they will give the car owners a small slice of this profit!

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

You are storing power when it is cheap and using it when it isnt. I agree though that hydrogen is no good as there are better options.

 

This is exactly what we need to do.

Current pricing of electric see us paying 16p a unit (ie a kWh of electricity) for us to get power from the grid. The prices that supply companies charge the network vary considerably. Therefore at 2am in the morning when the UK sleeps and demand is down, the network will pay say 15p a unit as there is a surfit of suppliers. At 7pm later that day when the world and his wife want that electricity, the network can be paying as much as £3 (YES, £3 ) per unit for the 'extra' capacity they need to get to meet demand. These companies are set up to utilise that price difference.

Tesla have installed inverters in all their Model 3 so that when there are enough of them, Tesla can switch them on and supply the grid from batteries charged at low price but available when the network is desperate. Likely to happen in future years and Tesla will make a fortune. Hopefully they will give the car owners a small slice of this profit!

Unless they gave. E a share they wouldn't be using my batteries!

[jetzi]

  

  

6 hours ago, peterboat said:

You have achieved paying the wind turbines companies for turning them off! The hydrogen is clean so clean electricity is the end result 

I think the idea is to use the hydrogen as a battery - you store the energy in times of low demand and high production by converting the energy to hydrogen, then you convert the hydrogen to electricity in times of high demand and low production.

 

There are other ideas for storing power, like pumping water to an upper reservoir at low demand and driving a hydroelectric generator at high demand.

 

Another alternative is to just build enough of the renewable source to cover the peak demand, which might work out cheaper/easier.

 

4 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

Tesla have installed inverters in all their Model 3 so that when there are enough of them, Tesla can switch them on and supply the grid from batteries charged at low price but available when the network is desperate.

That's a pretty clever idea! Once electric cars have properly taken over, there's a network of batteries all over the country.

 

12 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

The waste of power in electrolysis is frightening.

.......and hydrogen is bl**dy dangerous.

Fuel cells based on methanol are a far better idea.

What would they make the methanol out of? Assuming not fossil fuels.. which would make it a type of biofuel right?

 

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Not only the diesel the service boats USE, each windy-generator- thing has a diesel generator on board and the service boats have to top up the generators on a regular basis.

Sometimes you have to spend energy to make energy. Presumably it's still worth it.

[Dr Bob]

20 minutes ago, jetzi said:

  

  

 

 

What would they make the methanol out of? Assuming not fossil fuels.. which would make it a type of biofuel right?

 

You make methanol out of methane. It is done today with the gas coming out of Trinidad and taken to the US in tankers. Whilst methane is a fossil fuel, it is much lower in carbon emissions than diesel/gasoline etc as it contains so much hydrogen. Methanol is a very safe way of transporting hydrogen.

[ditchcrawler]

6 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

 

  Methanol is a very safe way of transporting hydrogen.

I would say safer, we use to use methanol to dissolve hydrates or prevent them forming.

[peterboat]

46 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

 

You make methanol out of methane. It is done today with the gas coming out of Trinidad and taken to the US in tankers. Whilst methane is a fossil fuel, it is much lower in carbon emissions than diesel/gasoline etc as it contains so much hydrogen. Methanol is a very safe way of transporting hydrogen.

I thought that ammonia was a safe way of transporting hydrogen?

[Dr Bob]

8 hours ago, peterboat said:

I thought that ammonia was a safe way of transporting hydrogen?

Yes it is as well. Chemically they are CH4 and NH3 and CH3OH. Methane is the best was to transport hydrogen to plants where you can then generate the hydrogen from the methane molecule. Ammonia and methanol are both ways to store hydrogen but it is a bit of a faff to get the hydrogen back. Methanol though works very well in fuel cells. But hydrogen is a very dangerous gas. 

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

Yes it is as well. Chemically they are CH4 and NH3 and CH3OH. Methane is the best was to transport hydrogen to plants where you can then generate the hydrogen from the methane molecule. Ammonia and methanol are both ways to store hydrogen but it is a bit of a faff to get the hydrogen back. Methanol though works very well in fuel cells. But hydrogen is a very dangerous gas. 

Cheers Bob its was puzzling me as ammonia is one of the fuels being proposed for big ships and safe transportation of Hydrogen for vehicles, when in reality it sounds like a con by the hydrogen lobby. Charly the daughter works at a Uni and has been involved in it, she thinks its all a non starter after doing research on it for the mad professors. She is a research assistant and ends up reading the stuff she does to help them 

[Machpoint005]

19 hours ago, Jackofalltrades said:

>>I now know that if demand if low the windfarms are paid to stop producing energy. Seems crazy but there you go.<<

 

Not crazy at all. Wind turbines get "paused" because the response is effectively instant. It takes a lot longer to shut down, then later restart, a thermal power station.

 

The craziness is in the privatisation of electricity generation and how demand is managed as a result.

[Machpoint005]

13 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

 

You make methanol out of methane. It is done today with the gas coming out of Trinidad and taken to the US in tankers. Whilst methane is a fossil fuel, it is much lower in carbon emissions than diesel/gasoline etc as it contains so much hydrogen. Methanol is a very safe way of transporting hydrogen.

 

Methane is particularly nasty if it escapes to atmosphere. (I'm thinking destruction of the ozone layer, and consequent greenhouse effect - ISTR that it's 80 times more destructive than CO2 in that respect).

 

 

14 hours ago, jetzi said:

Sometimes you have to spend energy to make energy. Presumably it's still worth it.

 

LIke manufacturing and building a wind turbine, then running it for 25 years, you mean?

[IanD]

13 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

 

You make methanol out of methane. It is done today with the gas coming out of Trinidad and taken to the US in tankers. Whilst methane is a fossil fuel, it is much lower in carbon emissions than diesel/gasoline etc as it contains so much hydrogen. Methanol is a very safe way of transporting hydrogen.

Yes, but as a way of transporting or storing energy to fill in the generation/use gaps of renewable electricity  it's stupendously inefficient, even worse than hydrogen.

 

The only energy storage methods likely to see mass take-up are ones which don't throw away most of the energy in the process, meaning no chemical process or electrolysis because breaking chemical bonds takes a lot of energy (except in rechargeable batteries where the process is reversible and *very* efficient).

 

So hydrogen and methane and methanol and aluminium-air primary cells are out, batteries and gravity storage and pumped storage are in. There will be exceptions where high energy density or long range is essential (planes, some ships) but for everything else energy efficiency and cost are paramount.

[peterboat]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

Yes, but as a way of transporting or storing energy to fill in the generation/use gaps of renewable electricity  it's stupendously inefficient, even worse than hydrogen.

 

The only energy storage methods likely to see mass take-up are ones which don't throw away most of the energy in the process, meaning no chemical process or electrolysis because breaking chemical bonds takes a lot of energy (except in rechargeable batteries where the process is reversible and *very* efficient).

 

So hydrogen and methane and methanol and aluminium-air primary cells are out, batteries and gravity storage and pumped storage are in. There will be exceptions where high energy density or long range is essential (planes, some ships) but for everything else energy efficiency and cost are paramount.

I think it has a use using spare energy from wind turbines to power power stations, but definitely for planes and ships

[ditchcrawler]

Just been talking to the chap next door, He has been digging holes down at the old gas works where they are planning to install smallish gas powered generators to feed into the grid for almost instant power to hold the grid up at peak demand.

It seams there will be quite a few of these being installed around the country on low value brown sites

 

Edit to add link https://publicaccess.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=QG0ZMIQXLZ500&activeTab=summary

 

Discription http://publicaccessdocuments.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/01586684.pdf 

Edited January 31, 2021 by ditchcrawler

[TheBiscuits]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Yes, but as a way of transporting or storing energy to fill in the generation/use gaps of renewable electricity  it's stupendously inefficient, even worse than hydrogen.

 

Methanol is slightly more efficient than liquid hydrogen, but does emit carbon dioxide at point of use. 

 

Ammonia is better, but it's main advantage is it can be directly used as a liquid fuel which is why the marine sector are interested in it.  That loses a bit more in total round-trip efficiency but  massively simplifies transportation and storage of the fuel.

 

A comparison can be found here:

https://www.ammoniaenergy.org/articles/round-trip-efficiency-of-ammonia-as-a-renewable-energy-transportation-media/

 

Also of interest:

https://www.ammoniaenergy.org/articles/man-ammonia-engine-update/

 

Regarding energy density, if a conventional fuel tank (HFO) has a volume of 1,000 m2, an ammonia fuel tank would require 2,755 m2 to deliver the same power. This might make ammonia look infeasible if it weren’t for the apples-to-apples comparison against other carbon-free options: liquid hydrogen (at -253 °C) needing 4,117 m2, a Tesla model 3 battery requiring 14,000 m2, or the Corvus battery pack (the marine battery market leader) requiring 106,060 m2. Even carbon-based methanol offers no great advantage, requiring 2,333 m2.

 

Direct electrification (batteries) will always present the most energy efficient technology for providing power from renewables, and for short, quick journeys, battery-powered vessels will be ideal. For the long-haul, ocean-going freight, however, ammonia fuel offers an order of magnitude improvement on energy density, minimizing lost cargo space.

 

Edit to add: I assume they meant m3 not m2!

Edited January 31, 2021 by TheBiscuits

[peterboat]

2 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Methanol is slightly more efficient than liquid hydrogen, but does emit carbon dioxide at point of use. 

 

Ammonia is better, but it's main advantage is it can be directly used as a liquid fuel which is why the marine sector are interested in it.  That loses a bit more in total round-trip efficiency but  massively simplifies transportation and storage of the fuel.

 

A comparison can be found here:

https://www.ammoniaenergy.org/articles/round-trip-efficiency-of-ammonia-as-a-renewable-energy-transportation-media/

 

Also of interest:

https://www.ammoniaenergy.org/articles/man-ammonia-engine-update/

 

Regarding energy density, if a conventional fuel tank (HFO) has a volume of 1,000 m2, an ammonia fuel tank would require 2,755 m2 to deliver the same power. This might make ammonia look infeasible if it weren’t for the apples-to-apples comparison against other carbon-free options: liquid hydrogen (at -253 °C) needing 4,117 m2, a Tesla model 3 battery requiring 14,000 m2, or the Corvus battery pack (the marine battery market leader) requiring 106,060 m2. Even carbon-based methanol offers no great advantage, requiring 2,333 m2.

So ammonia it is for size, ease of use and storage 

[Mike Todd]

On 13/11/2020 at 11:35, roland elsdon said:

Surely most boats are convertible already.

My 1936 boat has plenty of room in the engine room for batteries especially with the big tanks removed, and even the modern stuff has  room.

What will be an issue is continuous residential use without a hook up.

The only problem would be if I I carried on getting the dumb questions about what I am carrying I would have answer “it’s an ion boat” 

Am I going to convert my boat no. But a converted electric butty would be a fine thing.

Now that's a thought: we will all have to have something like the Jam Butty towed along behind just carrying batteries which will be charged up once a month . . . 

[jetzi]

22 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

 

You make methanol out of methane. It is done today with the gas coming out of Trinidad and taken to the US in tankers. Whilst methane is a fossil fuel, it is much lower in carbon emissions than diesel/gasoline etc as it contains so much hydrogen. Methanol is a very safe way of transporting hydrogen.

 

Why not just use the natural gas?

 

It bothers me that you would be pro carbon-generating fossil fuel in this case and against carbon-neutral biofuel. But I guess I'll have to get over it!

 

I believe some kind of energy-dense liquid or gas fuel is going to be needed in the carbon-neutral medium term, for planes, off-grid machinery and maybe boating. First prize would be if this fuel could be made with electricity (like hydrogen) but relatively more efficient and safe. But I'd take another carbon neutral alternative if this isn't forthcoming.

[Mike Todd]

12 hours ago, jetzi said:

 

Why not just use the natural gas?

 

It bothers me that you would be pro carbon-generating fossil fuel in this case and against carbon-neutral biofuel. But I guess I'll have to get over it!

 

I believe some kind of energy-dense liquid or gas fuel is going to be needed in the carbon-neutral medium term, for planes, off-grid machinery and maybe boating. First prize would be if this fuel could be made with electricity (like hydrogen) but relatively more efficient and safe. But I'd take another carbon neutral alternative if this isn't forthcoming.

But electricity is not a primary source - it has to be made from something.

[IanD]

45 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

But electricity is not a primary source - it has to be made from something.

Wind, sun, geothermal, tidal -- that's why I said all these ideas (hydrogen/methane/methanol/magic juice...) won't work as we switch away from fossil fuel to renewable energy sources, except for cases (the minority of the energy market) where energy density matters so much more that there's no choice...

 

The point that Scania made (hydrogen leads to 3x the energy use compared to batteries) is true everywhere -- and this is not coming from a tiny green woo-woo company, it's a big established one which actually builds trucks and has tried making hydrogen work for them but failed...

Edited February 1, 2021 by IanD

[Dr Bob]

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

The point that Scania made (hydrogen leads to 3x the energy use compared to batteries) is true everywhere -- and this is not coming from a tiny green woo-woo company, it's a big established one which actually builds trucks and has tried making hydrogen work for them but failed...

As I have said numerous times here before, BP have spent an enormous amount of money on hydrogen fuel cell research over the last 40 years and every time they get a new break, the economics of it fall well below what is needed. Even with 'green credits', the technology is far from economic and will fail if there are other solutions.

The new green sources will prevail in time (20-30years) with natural gas being used as bridge till fully established - all speeded up of course when we work out how to do fusion. Oil and oil based energy/feedstocks will reduce over time and hopefully by 2050 will be no more. Coal as a domestic fuel needs to be phased out quicker......eeeek!

[peterboat]

5 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

As I have said numerous times here before, BP have spent an enormous amount of money on hydrogen fuel cell research over the last 40 years and every time they get a new break, the economics of it fall well below what is needed. Even with 'green credits', the technology is far from economic and will fail if there are other solutions.

The new green sources will prevail in time (20-30years) with natural gas being used as bridge till fully established - all speeded up of course when we work out how to do fusion. Oil and oil based energy/feedstocks will reduce over time and hopefully by 2050 will be no more. Coal as a domestic fuel needs to be phased out quicker......eeeek!

What about that deep coal mine just approved? Is it just for boaters and steam trains? 

[Dr Bob]

3 minutes ago, peterboat said:

What about that deep coal mine just approved? Is it just for boaters and steam trains? 

I really cannot understand how the UK can justify approving a new coal mine. Is there something special about this that we dont know?

[IanD]

27 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

I really cannot understand how the UK can justify approving a new coal mine. Is there something special about this that we dont know?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/02/first-new-deep-coalmine-in-uk-for-30-years-gets-green-light

 

"West Cumbria Mining (WCM) said it plans to mine under the seabed to extract around 2.7m tonnes of metallurgical coal annually, which is solely for use within industry and not for power stations. Steel and chemical factories in Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire and Port Talbot are expected to burn the coal’s output, with the company arguing that the coal will replace imports and will not increase emissions because it will not be shipped over from the US."

 

Yeah, right...

[Murflynn]

interesting link:

 

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/it-possible-make-steel-without-fossil-fuels

[Dr Bob]

34 minutes ago, IanD said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/02/first-new-deep-coalmine-in-uk-for-30-years-gets-green-light

 

"West Cumbria Mining (WCM) said it plans to mine under the seabed to extract around 2.7m tonnes of metallurgical coal annually, which is solely for use within industry and not for power stations. Steel and chemical factories in Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire and Port Talbot are expected to burn the coal’s output, with the company arguing that the coal will replace imports and will not increase emissions because it will not be shipped over from the US."

 

Yeah, right...

Spot on!

The displaced imports will be buried back in the ground by the US so they are not burnt producing CO2.

Edited February 1, 2021 by Dr Bob