4 ms·

The catch is that power-to-gas tech described in the article will allow you to store the power produced in summer. Produce excess methane gas in summer, store

The catch is that power-to-gas tech described in the article will allow you to store the power produced in summer. Produce excess methane gas in summer, store with existing infrastructure, burn it for baseload/winter.

m12k 4y ago
From the article: "Just as converting chemical energy in the form of fuel into electricity endures 45-75% thermodynamic losses, converting electricity back into chemical fuels loses 60-70% of the energy in the process. Converting solar power into natural gas only to burn it in a gas turbine power plant could help with long term seasonal energy storage but is so much less cost competitive than other ways to stabilize electricity supply that we should expect this usage modality in, at most, niche cases."
- jiggywiggy 4y ago
  It might be less cost effecient at the moment. But I kinda like the decentralized nature of it.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  If the chemical fuel can work in a fuel cell, then where it's relevant (high latitudes in winter), you can get 100% efficiency in the chemical->used energy step by using the fuel cell for heating. The electricity->fuel step struggles to heat 50%, which is not a deal breaker compared to other sources. The hard bit is storing hydrogen.
JohnHaugeland 4y ago
> The catch is that power-to-gas tech described in the article isn't real
- cinntaile 4y ago
  The Sabatier reaction has been known since 1897. The Wiki article also gives some examples of Power-to-gas systems that were built, so I don't know why you claim it's not real. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    Ah, yes, a reaction. Can you show me this actually in use literally anywhere on earth for this job, 125 years later? Where would I go to buy some atmosphere derived gasoline? You're confusing that something could theoretically be done with that it's a real thing that can be relied on today at scale to save the planet If this was a real, practical thing, it would be in use. We fight wars over this stuff. If the thing you want to use to save the world hasn't been done at scale, you probably can't get it there in the ten years we have left. In all of history, only one of these has ever been made at the megawatt scale. Audi built one in 2013. They took it down three years later because it didn't actually work. It was supposed to provide fuel for 1300 cars, but it couldn't produce 1/10 of what it was supposed to Yes, I see that you can find things in search engines No: this is not a real option for saving us from climate change
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      What are you going to do with the atmosphere derived gasoline that you couldn't do better, cheaper and cleaner with cheap electricity? That's why no one is making it at scale. We're rapidly expanding renewable production at an amazing pace, as the article discusses, but we are very much still in the "stop burning fuels and directly electrify processes instead" stage, because that is currently cheaper even without including long term externalities, so even in lawless or suicidal nations self-interest makes it happen. But the relatively small markets that fossil fuels will retreat to as electrification takes hold will soon be under threat too, for purely economic reasons adding extra impetus for change to happen. Most of those will just use hydrogen directly, further reducing the market for gasoline, but again even gasoline will be replaced with renewable derived fuels for whatever obscure uses we still have for it, because it will be cheaper.
      - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
        I just want to make sure that I'm understanding correctly. You're saying that yes, we can economically make gasoline from the air today, and that the reason we don't is all the renewable production we're ramping up? That everyone just decided not to sell carbon negative cheap gasoline? I guess it's silly to ask why you believe that we can do this, based on no plant ever having been built with tens of billions of incentives available, huh? Probably can't get any evidence? I don't think we're going to be able to see eye to eye on this. Thanks for the conversation
belorn 4y ago
The whole article is basically about the question if solar power will continue to drop in price and if power-to-gas tech can have a similar drop in price. If those two are true then power-to-gas will become economical viable to the point where people could use it to store power produced in the summer to be burned for baseload/winter. It will also mean that pure hydrogen and pure oxygen, in compressed storage, will be is expected to reach a point where they are too cheap the meter. Of course we are not there now. 2030 maybe? 2040?

m12k 4y ago

From the article: "Just as converting chemical energy in the form of fuel into electricity endures 45-75% thermodynamic losses, converting electricity back into chemical fuels loses 60-70% of the energy in the process. Converting solar power into natural gas only to burn it in a gas turbine power plant could help with long term seasonal energy storage but is so much less cost competitive than other ways to stabilize electricity supply that we should expect this usage modality in, at most, niche cases."

jiggywiggy 4y ago
It might be less cost effecient at the moment. But I kinda like the decentralized nature of it.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
If the chemical fuel can work in a fuel cell, then where it's relevant (high latitudes in winter), you can get 100% efficiency in the chemical->used energy step by using the fuel cell for heating. The electricity->fuel step struggles to heat 50%, which is not a deal breaker compared to other sources. The hard bit is storing hydrogen.

JohnHaugeland 4y ago

> The catch is that power-to-gas tech described in the article isn't real

cinntaile 4y ago
The Sabatier reaction has been known since 1897. The Wiki article also gives some examples of Power-to-gas systems that were built, so I don't know why you claim it's not real. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  Ah, yes, a reaction. Can you show me this actually in use literally anywhere on earth for this job, 125 years later? Where would I go to buy some atmosphere derived gasoline? You're confusing that something could theoretically be done with that it's a real thing that can be relied on today at scale to save the planet If this was a real, practical thing, it would be in use. We fight wars over this stuff. If the thing you want to use to save the world hasn't been done at scale, you probably can't get it there in the ten years we have left. In all of history, only one of these has ever been made at the megawatt scale. Audi built one in 2013. They took it down three years later because it didn't actually work. It was supposed to provide fuel for 1300 cars, but it couldn't produce 1/10 of what it was supposed to Yes, I see that you can find things in search engines No: this is not a real option for saving us from climate change
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    What are you going to do with the atmosphere derived gasoline that you couldn't do better, cheaper and cleaner with cheap electricity? That's why no one is making it at scale. We're rapidly expanding renewable production at an amazing pace, as the article discusses, but we are very much still in the "stop burning fuels and directly electrify processes instead" stage, because that is currently cheaper even without including long term externalities, so even in lawless or suicidal nations self-interest makes it happen. But the relatively small markets that fossil fuels will retreat to as electrification takes hold will soon be under threat too, for purely economic reasons adding extra impetus for change to happen. Most of those will just use hydrogen directly, further reducing the market for gasoline, but again even gasoline will be replaced with renewable derived fuels for whatever obscure uses we still have for it, because it will be cheaper.
    - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
      I just want to make sure that I'm understanding correctly. You're saying that yes, we can economically make gasoline from the air today, and that the reason we don't is all the renewable production we're ramping up? That everyone just decided not to sell carbon negative cheap gasoline? I guess it's silly to ask why you believe that we can do this, based on no plant ever having been built with tens of billions of incentives available, huh? Probably can't get any evidence? I don't think we're going to be able to see eye to eye on this. Thanks for the conversation

belorn 4y ago

The whole article is basically about the question if solar power will continue to drop in price and if power-to-gas tech can have a similar drop in price. If those two are true then power-to-gas will become economical viable to the point where people could use it to store power produced in the summer to be burned for baseload/winter. It will also mean that pure hydrogen and pure oxygen, in compressed storage, will be is expected to reach a point where they are too cheap the meter. Of course we are not there now. 2030 maybe? 2040?