4 ms·
That's an exceptionally inefficient way to do it, and it comes with the risk of methane leaks (which would then have a climate warming effect). Hydrogen can be
by hannob 5y ago
That's an exceptionally inefficient way to do it, and it comes with the risk of methane leaks (which would then have a climate warming effect).
Hydrogen can be used directly, which skips one conversion step and doesn't need air capture for the CO2. These days no gas plant should be build that can't be converted to 100% hydrogen in the future.
- adrianN 5y agoYes that's true. But Methane is easier to store than Hydrogen. Most countries already have infrastructure in place to store months worth of Methane. And who knows, maybe we figure out some cheap redox-flow batteries or something so that neither option is the cheapest solution. In any case, there is no need for coal or fossil gas as backup, and nuclear is probably out for economical reasons (unless we have some breakthrough in reactor design in the next five years or so)
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago"nuclear is probably out for economical reasons (unless we have some breakthrough in reactor design in the next five years or so)" We are discussing artificial fossil fuel production with terrible efficiency, in that context nuclear is very viable.
- adrianN 5y agoI'm not convinced. Solar is cheaper than nuclear and making Methane can be done when production exceeds demand. Why do you think that nuclear would be better suited for the task?
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoIts cheaper, but you are converting it to methane and back to electricity at abyssimal 15% efficiency, and paying for all that extra conversion infrastructure, so your costs are like 10x.
- fulafel 5y agoBy the time your now started nuclear project is finished, renewable energy will be less than 1/10 the cost if current trends hold even remotely.