3 ms·

I just don't get all of these different new mechanisms for storing energy when we can create methane at about 60% efficiency now (and already have infrastructur

I just don't get all of these different new mechanisms for storing energy when we can create methane at about 60% efficiency now (and already have infrastructure to be able to use methane). Can someone explain why if the issue is building up the renewables and will to do it why we don't just make a start on infrastructure (wind, solar, nuclear + gas generation for old power stations) for this now?

guerrilla 5y ago
I can't answer your question but like green hydrogen I'd guess there are practical reasons.. but my question is wouldn't that just contribute to greenhouse gasses?
- loudmax 5y ago
  If you're pulling carbon from the atmosphere, the process would theoretically be carbon neutral. I think this is one of the goals for SpaceX's Starship vehicle. In practice, I'd have reservations about widespread manufacture of methane. Existing methane infrastructure is often leaky and methane itself is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. That isn't to say that manufacturing methane shouldn't be considered, but it's extremely shortsighted to say that methane manufacture is the only storage technology that should be considered.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    You would like for carbon pulled from the atmosphere to be incorporated into something that would not immediately dump it back into the atmosphere again, such as carbon nanotubes to put in cement to strengthen concrete.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      In the short term yes, absolutely, but the other technology would be fine for the longer term.
- dibujante 5y ago
  If you create it out of atmospheric carbon then it's carbon-neutral. I don't know if that's what they're proposing, though.
jjoonathan 5y ago
How much does it cost to create methane at 60% efficiency? Have we fundamentally advanced beyond the Sabatier process?
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Cost, meaning what does the equipment cost to buy and operate? The cost of equipment will be coming down fast. It needs, anyway, a supply of hydrogen and carbon. As hydrogen gets more valuable for other processes, its price might even go up. Extracting carbon from the atmosphere costs a few hundred dollars a ton; that cost might go down. The oxygen has to be stripped off, which costs energy you will hope to get back.
tinybrotosaurus 5y ago
There is only a small number of good mechanisms (such as the one you pointed out) in the world. In today's world this is a problem. People and groups of people need to bring something different to the "table" in order to get or stay relevant. In essence, every now and then people have the worst of incentives to pump and hype some exotic technology in order to secure that good old government money.
pfdietz 5y ago
Where do you get the carbon to make the methane?
credit_guy 5y ago
> we can create methane at about 60% efficiency now Do you have a source for that? Also, where does the carbon for the methane come from? With iron/rust there is no carbon in the cycle.
ncmncm 5y ago
Methane synthesis needs a source of carbon. Generally, anhydrous ammonia is a more practical medium where pure hydrogen won't do. It just needs hydrogen and air as input.

guerrilla 5y ago

I can't answer your question but like green hydrogen I'd guess there are practical reasons.. but my question is wouldn't that just contribute to greenhouse gasses?

loudmax 5y ago
If you're pulling carbon from the atmosphere, the process would theoretically be carbon neutral. I think this is one of the goals for SpaceX's Starship vehicle. In practice, I'd have reservations about widespread manufacture of methane. Existing methane infrastructure is often leaky and methane itself is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. That isn't to say that manufacturing methane shouldn't be considered, but it's extremely shortsighted to say that methane manufacture is the only storage technology that should be considered.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  You would like for carbon pulled from the atmosphere to be incorporated into something that would not immediately dump it back into the atmosphere again, such as carbon nanotubes to put in cement to strengthen concrete.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    In the short term yes, absolutely, but the other technology would be fine for the longer term.
dibujante 5y ago
If you create it out of atmospheric carbon then it's carbon-neutral. I don't know if that's what they're proposing, though.

jjoonathan 5y ago

How much does it cost to create methane at 60% efficiency? Have we fundamentally advanced beyond the Sabatier process?

ncmncm 5y ago
Cost, meaning what does the equipment cost to buy and operate? The cost of equipment will be coming down fast. It needs, anyway, a supply of hydrogen and carbon. As hydrogen gets more valuable for other processes, its price might even go up. Extracting carbon from the atmosphere costs a few hundred dollars a ton; that cost might go down. The oxygen has to be stripped off, which costs energy you will hope to get back.

tinybrotosaurus 5y ago

There is only a small number of good mechanisms (such as the one you pointed out) in the world. In today's world this is a problem. People and groups of people need to bring something different to the "table" in order to get or stay relevant. In essence, every now and then people have the worst of incentives to pump and hype some exotic technology in order to secure that good old government money.

pfdietz 5y ago

Where do you get the carbon to make the methane?

credit_guy 5y ago

> we can create methane at about 60% efficiency now Do you have a source for that? Also, where does the carbon for the methane come from? With iron/rust there is no carbon in the cycle.

ncmncm 5y ago

Methane synthesis needs a source of carbon. Generally, anhydrous ammonia is a more practical medium where pure hydrogen won't do. It just needs hydrogen and air as input.