4 ms·

> Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever

> Solar gives lots of electricity in the summer. But you have light and warmth then. In the winter when you need the electricity, you get maybe 1/10 of whatever the solar array is capable of. The third phase of the energy transition will see massive overcapacity in the summer being turned into chemical energy, to be stored until winter. Hydrogen and synthetic methan will be burned, and the dissipating heat used for district heating. Efficiency is north of 70% for this. I don't see a fundamental problem.

brutusborn 4y ago
Do you have a source for north of 70%? I’m not implying it’s incorrect, but I haven’t seen any papers with this level of efficiency for similar proposals.
- nasmorn 4y ago
  The 70% is not for conversion into electricity but for total useable energy if the waste heat is used in district heating networks. It can reach up to 80% of the primary fuel used. While that seems worse then simply burning it at the end user you have to keep in mind that you also gain electricity which can be used to drive a heat pump. This is by far the best way to burn gas if heat is needed as a result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration
  - groestl 4y ago
    Yepp. The power plant in my area claims 83% efficiency for that pipeline already (natural gas to electricity & heat), using heat coupling (about 50% electricity). And they're working on powering that with hydrogen in the future.
- groestl 4y ago
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218320693?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... We're not there yet. Currently, this setup is non-sensical since a lot of other measures should be implemented first, but even currently existing tech is pretty efficient, all things considered. And it only gets better from here.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    That paper is awesome, thanks for posting. As well as efficiency, I'm also interested in life cycle analysis of these kind of tech if you know of any good papers.

brutusborn 4y ago

Do you have a source for north of 70%? I’m not implying it’s incorrect, but I haven’t seen any papers with this level of efficiency for similar proposals.

nasmorn 4y ago
The 70% is not for conversion into electricity but for total useable energy if the waste heat is used in district heating networks. It can reach up to 80% of the primary fuel used. While that seems worse then simply burning it at the end user you have to keep in mind that you also gain electricity which can be used to drive a heat pump. This is by far the best way to burn gas if heat is needed as a result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration
- groestl 4y ago
  Yepp. The power plant in my area claims 83% efficiency for that pipeline already (natural gas to electricity & heat), using heat coupling (about 50% electricity). And they're working on powering that with hydrogen in the future.
groestl 4y ago
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218320693?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... We're not there yet. Currently, this setup is non-sensical since a lot of other measures should be implemented first, but even currently existing tech is pretty efficient, all things considered. And it only gets better from here.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  That paper is awesome, thanks for posting. As well as efficiency, I'm also interested in life cycle analysis of these kind of tech if you know of any good papers.