3 ms·

You could store the electricity through H2O electrolysis, directly burn for heat or reclaim through a fuel cell for electricity.

peregrine 10y ago
Could also use the Hydrogen and CO2 to make methane and utilize existing infrastructure.
jbpetersen 10y ago
Better yet, those fuel cells can be "charged" wherever energy is plentiful then shipped as needed. Sneakergrid anyone?
- jcoffland 10y ago
  This would of course be incredibly inefficient. Maybe you were joking.
  - kragen 10y ago
    Electrolysis is too inefficient for in-place energy storage, but economies of scale could in fact make this acceptably efficient for long-distance energy transport; available solar resource varies by more than a factor of three even within the contiguous US. LNG tankers are already a worldwide business, and LNG equipment can be used to transport hydrogen, albeit at much lower energy density. (Generating methane or ammonia from the hydrogen to improve its transportability might be worthwhile.) Transmission losses in the electric power grid are around 6.5%, but that's because the energy is typically only transmitted a few hundred kilometers; about 4000 km is the longest cost-effective distance for AC power transmission. LNG tankers can travel further than that.
- ssmoot 10y ago
  Is there an alternative to platinum yet? Fuel cells sound really neat, and I had no idea you could actually by your own until a couple days ago. But the estimate of a small continuous use unit needing to have the catalyst replaced up to annually seems to make them a novelty for now (the existing units that is). Interested in knowing more if you keep up with it though.
thinkcontext 10y ago
Electrolysis is only about 60% efficient. This is why a lot of effort is being put into Concentrating Solar Power which stores heat in molten salt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficien...
- astrodust 10y ago
  If solar becomes 3x cheaper than coal, a 40% loss isn't going to matter.

peregrine 10y ago

Could also use the Hydrogen and CO2 to make methane and utilize existing infrastructure.

jbpetersen 10y ago

Better yet, those fuel cells can be "charged" wherever energy is plentiful then shipped as needed. Sneakergrid anyone?

jcoffland 10y ago
This would of course be incredibly inefficient. Maybe you were joking.
- kragen 10y ago
  Electrolysis is too inefficient for in-place energy storage, but economies of scale could in fact make this acceptably efficient for long-distance energy transport; available solar resource varies by more than a factor of three even within the contiguous US. LNG tankers are already a worldwide business, and LNG equipment can be used to transport hydrogen, albeit at much lower energy density. (Generating methane or ammonia from the hydrogen to improve its transportability might be worthwhile.) Transmission losses in the electric power grid are around 6.5%, but that's because the energy is typically only transmitted a few hundred kilometers; about 4000 km is the longest cost-effective distance for AC power transmission. LNG tankers can travel further than that.
ssmoot 10y ago
Is there an alternative to platinum yet? Fuel cells sound really neat, and I had no idea you could actually by your own until a couple days ago. But the estimate of a small continuous use unit needing to have the catalyst replaced up to annually seems to make them a novelty for now (the existing units that is). Interested in knowing more if you keep up with it though.

thinkcontext 10y ago

Electrolysis is only about 60% efficient. This is why a lot of effort is being put into Concentrating Solar Power which stores heat in molten salt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficien...

astrodust 10y ago
If solar becomes 3x cheaper than coal, a 40% loss isn't going to matter.