6 ms·

It’s going to be interesting as wind and solar gets consistently cheaper than even the marginal fuel cost of gas. i.e. even if you already own a gas plant, it w

It’s going to be interesting as wind and solar gets consistently cheaper than even the marginal fuel cost of gas. i.e. even if you already own a gas plant, it would be cheaper to build a wind farm just to be able to reduce fuel use. We’re approaching a world where the primary energy drivers will be renewable, and fossil fuels will be competing with energy storage.

mavhc 7y ago
And that's without counting the $3 trillion/year of subsidies for fossil fuels
pjc50 7y ago
Gas plants more or less have to become "peaker" plants. They'll get paid more for the electricity but run for much fewer hours, plus a payment for being on standby. Effectively they'll be competing with storage, yes.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  This will shift any new gas plants away from combined cycle toward simple cycle. Minimizing capital cost will be more important. Steam turbines may be on their way to the technology museum.
achow 7y ago
> ..fossil fuels will be competing with energy storage Since fossil fuels are energy dense, it would be interesting if we come back full circle by producing hydrocarbon fuels for energy storage by recycling atmospheric carbon using cheap renewable electrical energy. Edit to clarify, there are more energy dense substance than hydrocarbons (ex. Hydrogen), but hydrocarbons would have advantage of having ability of being useful in existing infra (IC engines, gas pumps, storage containers, etc.)
- afarrell 7y ago
  Won't we have to do that anyway for air (and space) travel?
  - achow 7y ago
    (I just made a clarification edit without looking at this reply) Yes, but the point as mentioned in my edit is for usage of renewable energy without much modifying existing infra.
- the_duke 7y ago
  Also hydrogen is not a viable long term/large scale storage mechanism. It's complicated and expensive to store (pressure tanks or cooled liquid) and hard to contain (due to the small size it leaks out of everything).
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    Someone pointed me to a link where round trip efficiency was analyzed, with the claim that ammonia is better than hydrogen or methanol for energy storage. Apparently hydrogen compression takes a big hit, although I'm not clear if that's still the case if the hydrogen is burned in stationary turbines (that compressional energy could be recovered).
    - achow 7y ago
      Perhaps this.. Ammonia—a renewable fuel made from sun, air, and water—could power the globe without carbon https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/ammonia-renewable-fuel-made-sun-air-and-water-could-power-globe-without-carbon https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/ammonia-renewable-fu... Excerpt: Ammonia's energy density by volume is nearly double that of liquid hydrogen — its primary competitor as a green alternative fuel and it is easier to ship and distribute. "You can store it, ship it, burn it, and convert it back into hydrogen and nitrogen,". ..he shows off one of the devices, about the size of a hockey puck and clad in stainless steel. Two plastic tubes on its backside feed it nitrogen gas and water, and a power cord supplies electricity. Through a third tube on its front, it silently exhales gaseous ammonia, all without the heat, pressure, and carbon emissions normally needed to make the chemical. "This is breathing nitrogen in and breathing ammonia out,". Companies around the world already produce $60 billion worth of ammonia every year, primarily as fertilizer, and MacFarlane's gizmo may allow them to make it more efficiently and cleanly. But he has ambitions to do much more than help farmers. By converting renewable electricity into an energy-rich gas that can easily be cooled and squeezed into a liquid fuel, MacFarlane's fuel cell effectively bottles sunshine and wind, turning them into a commodity that can be shipped anywhere in the world and converted back into electricity or hydrogen gas to power fuel cell vehicles..
  - new_realist 7y ago
- adrianN 7y ago
  Unless you want to cover really significant amounts of land in solar panels wind farms, you shouldn't use synfuels unless absolutely necessary. Not only do you use half of the energy just making the fuel, all applications where you burn it have terrible efficiency compared to electric alternatives. ICEs have an efficiency of maybe 30%, heat pumps easily produce two or three Joules of heat for every joule of electricity.
  - taneq 7y ago
    Sure, but fuels are useful and if the power is effectively free, why not make them?
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    You're completely right. But it might (big might) be worthwhile for a transition period. ICEs are my pet peeve, mechanical engineers keep coming up with all those ways of improving efficiency, and to be fair, in the last 30yrs they got it to be "good" but the actual % numbers are awful regardless.
    - rfrey 7y ago
      Efficiencies might seem bad, but thermodynamics limits the efficiency of any heat engine (of which an ICE is one) according to the absolute temperature of the hot and cold side of an engine. This is called the "Carnot efficiency" and it's comparable to a no-friction mechanical system, or a no-resistance electrical circuit. For an ICE, assuming combustion temperatures of 550K and assuming the radiator can cool the system to 50C, the Carnot efficiency is (1 - Tc/Th) = (1 - 333K/550K) = about 40%. That's a hard theoretical limit that assumes all processes are reversible. Real engines have irreversible thermodynamic processes so the Carnot limit can never really be attained. In other words, your complaint isn't with the engineers, it's with thermodynamics. (note: ICE engines are modelled using the Otto cycle rather than the Carnot cycle, but that's a bit more complicated and leads to efficiencies that are even worse. The Carnot efficiency is an upper limit for all heat engines, including steam engines, Stirling engines, turbines, etc.)
      - 7y ago

mavhc 7y ago

And that's without counting the $3 trillion/year of subsidies for fossil fuels

pjc50 7y ago

Gas plants more or less have to become "peaker" plants. They'll get paid more for the electricity but run for much fewer hours, plus a payment for being on standby. Effectively they'll be competing with storage, yes.

pfdietz 7y ago
This will shift any new gas plants away from combined cycle toward simple cycle. Minimizing capital cost will be more important. Steam turbines may be on their way to the technology museum.

achow 7y ago

> ..fossil fuels will be competing with energy storage Since fossil fuels are energy dense, it would be interesting if we come back full circle by producing hydrocarbon fuels for energy storage by recycling atmospheric carbon using cheap renewable electrical energy. Edit to clarify, there are more energy dense substance than hydrocarbons (ex. Hydrogen), but hydrocarbons would have advantage of having ability of being useful in existing infra (IC engines, gas pumps, storage containers, etc.)

afarrell 7y ago
Won't we have to do that anyway for air (and space) travel?
- achow 7y ago
  (I just made a clarification edit without looking at this reply) Yes, but the point as mentioned in my edit is for usage of renewable energy without much modifying existing infra.
the_duke 7y ago
Also hydrogen is not a viable long term/large scale storage mechanism. It's complicated and expensive to store (pressure tanks or cooled liquid) and hard to contain (due to the small size it leaks out of everything).
- pfdietz 7y ago
  Someone pointed me to a link where round trip efficiency was analyzed, with the claim that ammonia is better than hydrogen or methanol for energy storage. Apparently hydrogen compression takes a big hit, although I'm not clear if that's still the case if the hydrogen is burned in stationary turbines (that compressional energy could be recovered).
  - achow 7y ago
    Perhaps this.. Ammonia—a renewable fuel made from sun, air, and water—could power the globe without carbon https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/ammonia-renewable-fuel-made-sun-air-and-water-could-power-globe-without-carbon https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/ammonia-renewable-fu... Excerpt: Ammonia's energy density by volume is nearly double that of liquid hydrogen — its primary competitor as a green alternative fuel and it is easier to ship and distribute. "You can store it, ship it, burn it, and convert it back into hydrogen and nitrogen,". ..he shows off one of the devices, about the size of a hockey puck and clad in stainless steel. Two plastic tubes on its backside feed it nitrogen gas and water, and a power cord supplies electricity. Through a third tube on its front, it silently exhales gaseous ammonia, all without the heat, pressure, and carbon emissions normally needed to make the chemical. "This is breathing nitrogen in and breathing ammonia out,". Companies around the world already produce $60 billion worth of ammonia every year, primarily as fertilizer, and MacFarlane's gizmo may allow them to make it more efficiently and cleanly. But he has ambitions to do much more than help farmers. By converting renewable electricity into an energy-rich gas that can easily be cooled and squeezed into a liquid fuel, MacFarlane's fuel cell effectively bottles sunshine and wind, turning them into a commodity that can be shipped anywhere in the world and converted back into electricity or hydrogen gas to power fuel cell vehicles..
- new_realist 7y ago
adrianN 7y ago
Unless you want to cover really significant amounts of land in solar panels wind farms, you shouldn't use synfuels unless absolutely necessary. Not only do you use half of the energy just making the fuel, all applications where you burn it have terrible efficiency compared to electric alternatives. ICEs have an efficiency of maybe 30%, heat pumps easily produce two or three Joules of heat for every joule of electricity.
- taneq 7y ago
  Sure, but fuels are useful and if the power is effectively free, why not make them?
- raverbashing 7y ago
  You're completely right. But it might (big might) be worthwhile for a transition period. ICEs are my pet peeve, mechanical engineers keep coming up with all those ways of improving efficiency, and to be fair, in the last 30yrs they got it to be "good" but the actual % numbers are awful regardless.
  - rfrey 7y ago
    Efficiencies might seem bad, but thermodynamics limits the efficiency of any heat engine (of which an ICE is one) according to the absolute temperature of the hot and cold side of an engine. This is called the "Carnot efficiency" and it's comparable to a no-friction mechanical system, or a no-resistance electrical circuit. For an ICE, assuming combustion temperatures of 550K and assuming the radiator can cool the system to 50C, the Carnot efficiency is (1 - Tc/Th) = (1 - 333K/550K) = about 40%. That's a hard theoretical limit that assumes all processes are reversible. Real engines have irreversible thermodynamic processes so the Carnot limit can never really be attained. In other words, your complaint isn't with the engineers, it's with thermodynamics. (note: ICE engines are modelled using the Otto cycle rather than the Carnot cycle, but that's a bit more complicated and leads to efficiencies that are even worse. The Carnot efficiency is an upper limit for all heat engines, including steam engines, Stirling engines, turbines, etc.)
    - 7y ago