4 ms·

Might make sense for air travel and cross-ocean shipping. Time will tell if pure hydrogen or e-fuels are more economical. Also works as a backup of last resort

Might make sense for air travel and cross-ocean shipping. Time will tell if pure hydrogen or e-fuels are more economical. Also works as a backup of last resort for power systems through power to gas/x. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-X

mschuster91 4y ago
> Also works as a backup of last resort for power systems through power to gas/x. Yep. The current mode of operation to simply trim the output of solar and wind in case of oversupply is an utter waste when the power could be used in power-to-gas plants.
- gdudeman 4y ago
  Unfortunately, the cost of building proposed power-to-gas plants is high enough that it doesn’t make economical sense to run them just a few hours a day.
  - primis 4y ago
    Theoretically, if power-to-gas plants can be manufactured at scale, you could make gas generation plants further away from where energy is being consumed. We already have tons of infrastructure on this planet for moving gasoline around. You could also keep ICE engines in use without worrying about their carbon footprint. Excess renewable power turns into fuel to be used in cars, boats, trains (diesel electric freight cars), and airplanes. Using this tech for off peak leveling on the grid might not be cost effective, but it can certainly be used to support the existing infrastructure we have to allow for a more graceful transitional period.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    Will the cost stay high in a large scale production? I have never seen an estimate on that, or a plant design detailed enough for extrapolating it. Do you know how those plants are built?
gdudeman 4y ago
Ammonia - NH4 - is often proposed as a solution for shipping. Note there is no carbon in the chemical formula, thus there is no carbon dioxide resulting from burning it. Hydrogen will be made from renewables by 2030.
- prewett 4y ago
  There is an N in that formula, though, so burning ammonia is going to result in nitrous/nictric oxide. NOx is also a greenhouse gas (indirectly, apparently), and the hazy brown component of smog. One of the oxides is laughing gas. On the whole, I think pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is better than pumping smog and laughing gas.

mschuster91 4y ago

> Also works as a backup of last resort for power systems through power to gas/x. Yep. The current mode of operation to simply trim the output of solar and wind in case of oversupply is an utter waste when the power could be used in power-to-gas plants.

gdudeman 4y ago
Unfortunately, the cost of building proposed power-to-gas plants is high enough that it doesn’t make economical sense to run them just a few hours a day.
- primis 4y ago
  Theoretically, if power-to-gas plants can be manufactured at scale, you could make gas generation plants further away from where energy is being consumed. We already have tons of infrastructure on this planet for moving gasoline around. You could also keep ICE engines in use without worrying about their carbon footprint. Excess renewable power turns into fuel to be used in cars, boats, trains (diesel electric freight cars), and airplanes. Using this tech for off peak leveling on the grid might not be cost effective, but it can certainly be used to support the existing infrastructure we have to allow for a more graceful transitional period.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Will the cost stay high in a large scale production? I have never seen an estimate on that, or a plant design detailed enough for extrapolating it. Do you know how those plants are built?

gdudeman 4y ago

Ammonia - NH4 - is often proposed as a solution for shipping. Note there is no carbon in the chemical formula, thus there is no carbon dioxide resulting from burning it. Hydrogen will be made from renewables by 2030.

prewett 4y ago
There is an N in that formula, though, so burning ammonia is going to result in nitrous/nictric oxide. NOx is also a greenhouse gas (indirectly, apparently), and the hazy brown component of smog. One of the oxides is laughing gas. On the whole, I think pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is better than pumping smog and laughing gas.