4 ms·

You can make hydrogen and methane from electricity and use that to replenish the gas storage. Gas peaker plants are still required, yes. But they will need to

You can make hydrogen and methane from electricity and use that to replenish the gas storage. Gas peaker plants are still required, yes. But they will need to run much less frequently than today.

zabzonk 3y ago
> You can make hydrogen and methane from electricity and use that to replenish the gas storage. so, sort of like perpetual motion?
- signaturefish 3y ago
  No, but I see what you mean. Generating hydrogen and methane using electricity will probably never be that efficient, but if you have spare power then using it to get 60% of its energy back again in the form of future burnables may still be worth it (percentage guessed and probably optimistic).
- dmbche 3y ago
  No - what is being explained is that you need constant electricity, and wind and solar are not constant, so you need a way to skim the "extra" energy when it's made, and to being it back in the system when there's no wind/sun - by for example using the extra energy to make hydrogen gas and bringing that back in the system at night
  - pydry 3y ago
    People (nuclear advocates usually), like to pretend that the only way to deal with this is an unrealistic number of expensive lithium batteries or fossil fuels but there is also: * Smart meters that charge cars/turn on heat pump storage when electricity is plentiful. Already being done. German aluminum smelting (heavy electricity user) is dialed up and down depending on live electricity prices. * Pumped storage. Coire glass will built soon in the UK - pumping out a max of 1.5GW, snowy 2 in Australia will store 350GWh - at the dirt cheap price of $6 billion. 90% efficient. Published studies confirm that, unlike for dams, the geography for this is very plentiful (contrary to nuclear lobby propaganda which routinely and dishonestly argues the exact opposite). * Hydrogen/windgas - only about 50% efficient round trip but it's easy to store hundreds of GWhs for months, so will be useful to create seasonal storage when, one day (god willing) we get to the point where overbuilt wind and solar manages to supply 100% of current demand and large pumped storage/battery installations are full and we want seasonal storage for the unshiftable demand during the odd windless and dark weeks.
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      And the double irony is that all those things actively help make nuclear grids more efficient and so have been done for decades with nuclear power in France.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > People (nuclear advocates usually), like to pretend that When is this nonsensical tribalism going to end? Where are all the non-tribal people who are evaluating this stuff on facts and information alone? Why do we hear from the self-disqualifying tribalists? Rant over. You're right - if we all buy cars with giant lithium batteries in then we need to buy fewer non-car lithium batteries. And yes, pumped storage exists, and more will exist, but we have to decide how many point-solutions we need to replace consistent generation. > Hydrogen/windgas - only about 50% efficient round trip Moving electricity (at least in the UK) is only 90% [0] efficient on transmission alone. So, getting the power to the generation, which then becomes hydrogen at 50% capacity, to later burn at a certain efficiency and turn into electricity that gets transmitted at 90% efficiency, feels wrong. Unless your "round trip" figure includes the transmission losses, but then 50% feels too high to be doing that. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/550583/electricity-losses-in-transmission-uk https://www.statista.com/statistics/550583/electricity-losse...
      - pydry 3y ago
        >When is this nonsensical tribalism going to end? Where are all the non-tribal people who are evaluating this stuff on facts and information alone? Why do we hear from the self-disqualifying tribalists? Remember when anthropogenic global warming denial was mainstream? For MANY MANY years after the scientific evidence was completely undeniable. Appeals to moderation were everywhere. The media would routinely play deniers with the scientific credentials of a ferret against actual scientists to maintain the appearance of balance and neutrality and claim it was an even debate. Believers in global warming got filed into a tribe (still are, in many ways) hence they got "instant disqualification" from appeal-to-moderates like yourself who craved the fake balance the media served up. Those people were almost as bad as the denialists. They werent at all interested in the truth - just some kind of social "balance" or harmony.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- cinntaile 3y ago
  What's the link with perpetual motion? You would use the excess electricity that is available to do that.

You can make hydrogen and methane from electricity and use that to replenish the gas storage. Gas peaker plants are still required, yes. But they will need to run much less frequently than today.

zabzonk 3y ago

> You can make hydrogen and methane from electricity and use that to replenish the gas storage. so, sort of like perpetual motion?

signaturefish 3y ago
No, but I see what you mean. Generating hydrogen and methane using electricity will probably never be that efficient, but if you have spare power then using it to get 60% of its energy back again in the form of future burnables may still be worth it (percentage guessed and probably optimistic).
dmbche 3y ago
No - what is being explained is that you need constant electricity, and wind and solar are not constant, so you need a way to skim the "extra" energy when it's made, and to being it back in the system when there's no wind/sun - by for example using the extra energy to make hydrogen gas and bringing that back in the system at night
- pydry 3y ago
  People (nuclear advocates usually), like to pretend that the only way to deal with this is an unrealistic number of expensive lithium batteries or fossil fuels but there is also: * Smart meters that charge cars/turn on heat pump storage when electricity is plentiful. Already being done. German aluminum smelting (heavy electricity user) is dialed up and down depending on live electricity prices. * Pumped storage. Coire glass will built soon in the UK - pumping out a max of 1.5GW, snowy 2 in Australia will store 350GWh - at the dirt cheap price of $6 billion. 90% efficient. Published studies confirm that, unlike for dams, the geography for this is very plentiful (contrary to nuclear lobby propaganda which routinely and dishonestly argues the exact opposite). * Hydrogen/windgas - only about 50% efficient round trip but it's easy to store hundreds of GWhs for months, so will be useful to create seasonal storage when, one day (god willing) we get to the point where overbuilt wind and solar manages to supply 100% of current demand and large pumped storage/battery installations are full and we want seasonal storage for the unshiftable demand during the odd windless and dark weeks.
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    And the double irony is that all those things actively help make nuclear grids more efficient and so have been done for decades with nuclear power in France.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > People (nuclear advocates usually), like to pretend that When is this nonsensical tribalism going to end? Where are all the non-tribal people who are evaluating this stuff on facts and information alone? Why do we hear from the self-disqualifying tribalists? Rant over. You're right - if we all buy cars with giant lithium batteries in then we need to buy fewer non-car lithium batteries. And yes, pumped storage exists, and more will exist, but we have to decide how many point-solutions we need to replace consistent generation. > Hydrogen/windgas - only about 50% efficient round trip Moving electricity (at least in the UK) is only 90% [0] efficient on transmission alone. So, getting the power to the generation, which then becomes hydrogen at 50% capacity, to later burn at a certain efficiency and turn into electricity that gets transmitted at 90% efficiency, feels wrong. Unless your "round trip" figure includes the transmission losses, but then 50% feels too high to be doing that. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/550583/electricity-losses-in-transmission-uk https://www.statista.com/statistics/550583/electricity-losse...
    - pydry 3y ago
      >When is this nonsensical tribalism going to end? Where are all the non-tribal people who are evaluating this stuff on facts and information alone? Why do we hear from the self-disqualifying tribalists? Remember when anthropogenic global warming denial was mainstream? For MANY MANY years after the scientific evidence was completely undeniable. Appeals to moderation were everywhere. The media would routinely play deniers with the scientific credentials of a ferret against actual scientists to maintain the appearance of balance and neutrality and claim it was an even debate. Believers in global warming got filed into a tribe (still are, in many ways) hence they got "instant disqualification" from appeal-to-moderates like yourself who craved the fake balance the media served up. Those people were almost as bad as the denialists. They werent at all interested in the truth - just some kind of social "balance" or harmony.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cinntaile 3y ago
What's the link with perpetual motion? You would use the excess electricity that is available to do that.