4 ms·

Assuming you are getting the CO2 from capture and the methane from synthesis. Meaning you would have to make sure all companies from all the countries in the w

Assuming you are getting the CO2 from capture and the methane from synthesis. Meaning you would have to make sure all companies from all the countries in the world won't try to make money by using a cheaper and easier to access source of methane once there is a huge market for it. Unlikely.

konschubert 4y ago
That’s what carbon taxes are for. I mean, of course you have to track where the methane came from but that’s pretty easy. There are also ways ways to make hydrogen that emit lots of co2. So either way you have to track and tax.
- BiteCode_dev 4y ago
  The carbon taxes haven't worked so well until now. There is no reason to believe they will in the future. And again, you need all the countries in the world to behave. The USA, China, India, Russia...
  - konschubert 4y ago
    You have the same problem with clean hydrogen. Carbon taxes work extremely well, btw, but i agree they have to be combined with an equivalent carbon import duty.
    - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
      The USA are not the world. Even if suddenly they managed to taxe all the carbon in their economy, and all imports coming into their countries, you cannot force the world to follow. China, Russia and India exchange massively between them, with Europe, Africa, and internally. Those product would be cheaper, since no carbon tax, so no incentive. It's a hard problem to solve. If we get a big hydrogen market, the problem never needs to be solved.
      - konschubert 4y ago
        That's why you do carbon import taxes as well. Plus, Europe has a carbon tax already, so there is already a chance to set up a transatlantic cooperation.
        BiteCode_dev 4y ago
        Banking on all politicians in the USA and Europe to vote and maintain forever a carbon import tax is a big bet. And it won't affect exchanges of goods between Asia, Russia, South America and Africa, or internally in each country lika China or India. Internally use goods will not be taxed, and be cheap, so they will import less, use more internal good, and pollute more.
      - sgift 4y ago
        > If we get a big hydrogen market, the problem never needs to be solved. And you force China, Russia and India into that big hydrogen market how exactly? I like hydrogen, but your argument is incoherent.
jjk166 4y ago
Well considering current hydrogen is produced from methane and release CO2, you need to solve that problem either way.
- BiteCode_dev 4y ago
  It's like saying don't build solar panels because we use petrol for them. It's a chicken an egg problem. We are using methane to produce h2 because synthesizing fuel (any fuel) is incredibly energetically inefficient. Otherwise we would be using electrolysis for h2. Either you decide it's a problem, and you don't synthesize any fuel, or you will, and you'll oversize the energy grid and improve the synthesis process efficiency. This thread assumes we decided we should synthesize fuel (I'm not sold, but I'm debating in that context). If we do, then synthesis will never beat sourcing in efficiency for methane, since it's a direct process. But if there is a huge market for h2, there will be a incentive for over-sizing the grid and improving on electrolysis to the point that it can be competitive against sourcing methane + synthesize from that, which are 2 steps instead of one. However, there is no way we can find a way to compete against sourcing methane (and no more step) alone. No good incentive to create.
  - jjk166 4y ago
    Synthesizing h2 from methane is also done by electrolysis, it's just cheaper to electrolyze methane than water. This is fundamental - it takes less energy to release hydrogen from methane than from water, to such a degree that even though water is free it's still not economical. If you are concerned about people using fossil instead of synthetic methane to cut costs, you should be concerned about people using methane instead of water to cut costs. Either you can get people to comply with regulations or you can't.
    - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
      Fair point. I guess I underestimate how cheap sourcing methane is if it as no change of offsetting the difference in electrolysis efficiency in the future.

konschubert 4y ago

That’s what carbon taxes are for. I mean, of course you have to track where the methane came from but that’s pretty easy. There are also ways ways to make hydrogen that emit lots of co2. So either way you have to track and tax.

BiteCode_dev 4y ago
The carbon taxes haven't worked so well until now. There is no reason to believe they will in the future. And again, you need all the countries in the world to behave. The USA, China, India, Russia...
- konschubert 4y ago
  You have the same problem with clean hydrogen. Carbon taxes work extremely well, btw, but i agree they have to be combined with an equivalent carbon import duty.
  - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
    The USA are not the world. Even if suddenly they managed to taxe all the carbon in their economy, and all imports coming into their countries, you cannot force the world to follow. China, Russia and India exchange massively between them, with Europe, Africa, and internally. Those product would be cheaper, since no carbon tax, so no incentive. It's a hard problem to solve. If we get a big hydrogen market, the problem never needs to be solved.
    - konschubert 4y ago
      That's why you do carbon import taxes as well. Plus, Europe has a carbon tax already, so there is already a chance to set up a transatlantic cooperation.
      - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
        Banking on all politicians in the USA and Europe to vote and maintain forever a carbon import tax is a big bet. And it won't affect exchanges of goods between Asia, Russia, South America and Africa, or internally in each country lika China or India. Internally use goods will not be taxed, and be cheap, so they will import less, use more internal good, and pollute more.
    - sgift 4y ago
      > If we get a big hydrogen market, the problem never needs to be solved. And you force China, Russia and India into that big hydrogen market how exactly? I like hydrogen, but your argument is incoherent.

jjk166 4y ago

Well considering current hydrogen is produced from methane and release CO2, you need to solve that problem either way.

BiteCode_dev 4y ago
It's like saying don't build solar panels because we use petrol for them. It's a chicken an egg problem. We are using methane to produce h2 because synthesizing fuel (any fuel) is incredibly energetically inefficient. Otherwise we would be using electrolysis for h2. Either you decide it's a problem, and you don't synthesize any fuel, or you will, and you'll oversize the energy grid and improve the synthesis process efficiency. This thread assumes we decided we should synthesize fuel (I'm not sold, but I'm debating in that context). If we do, then synthesis will never beat sourcing in efficiency for methane, since it's a direct process. But if there is a huge market for h2, there will be a incentive for over-sizing the grid and improving on electrolysis to the point that it can be competitive against sourcing methane + synthesize from that, which are 2 steps instead of one. However, there is no way we can find a way to compete against sourcing methane (and no more step) alone. No good incentive to create.
- jjk166 4y ago
  Synthesizing h2 from methane is also done by electrolysis, it's just cheaper to electrolyze methane than water. This is fundamental - it takes less energy to release hydrogen from methane than from water, to such a degree that even though water is free it's still not economical. If you are concerned about people using fossil instead of synthetic methane to cut costs, you should be concerned about people using methane instead of water to cut costs. Either you can get people to comply with regulations or you can't.
  - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
    Fair point. I guess I underestimate how cheap sourcing methane is if it as no change of offsetting the difference in electrolysis efficiency in the future.