5 ms·

Both carbon-capture and mass energy-storage are already fairly cheap if the energy is free and you don't care about efficiency. The problem is that free energy

Both carbon-capture and mass energy-storage are already fairly cheap if the energy is free and you don't care about efficiency. The problem is that free energy is a fantasy for the foreseeable future and thus an energy-inefficient process is a nearly useless process.

ForgedEngine 3y ago
Biomass is practically free (minus harvesting costs).
upsuper 3y ago
Free energy is not necessarily a fantasy. In Australia, the wholesale electricity price regularly goes into negative, usually many hours in an average day, reaching as low as -70c/kWh occasionally (more commonly -5c/kWh). There is just no enough energy sink to absorb all the power we generate from solar in the day time. If we can store some of this energy in a stable form, that would be a good win.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  That's not unlimited it's solar generating more power than the grid needs at a given point in time. If that power could be used during that negative event something could storage that power. How often it goes negative, for how long vs how much time is required to start the storage process and costs to run will determine if the idea is appliable
- thelastgallon 3y ago
  Electric cars are the best energy storage for this supply. Cars are parked 23 hours/day, can be charged when price is negative. I'm certain at least some people would like to be paid for charging their cars.
- specialist 3y ago
  Yes and: Colocating carbon capture with energy sources awaiting grid connections would uncork the backlog of new construction. In the USA, there's something like a terawatt of proposed projects stuck in the interconnection queue. We simply cannot wait for the queue to catch up with the financing of these shovel ready projects. ETFuels is one example of this strategy. Build next to cheap electricity, pump out e-fuels like methanol and ammonia. Today. And then H2 in the future, when the green hydrogen infrastructure is built out. https://www.volts.wtf/p/making-shipping-fuel-with-off-grid#details https://www.volts.wtf/p/making-shipping-fuel-with-off-grid#d...
  - AtlasBarfed 3y ago
    "when the green hydrogen infrastructure is built out." You mean in like 20 years if we invest a trillion dollars today? By then batteries may be three times as dense and 1/3 the cost. H2 cars are a dead end and a trojan horse for fossil fuels derived H2 and a political policy disruption strategy to delay EVs and alt energy. A business strategy that involves a new infrastructure build while waiting for ... Other infrastructure to complete seems stupid. I can already see it. The H2 transport vehicles get built, but shockingly doing green H2 gen is never cheaper than methane sourcing, so the green part of the infrastructure just becomes a very small scoped show pony. H2 is a bad energy carrier. I do support research and startups, but the H2 proponents pump wayyyyy too much FUD against grid storage and EVs, which is a tell as to who is pulling the strings behind the H2 industry
    - specialist 3y ago
      Green H2 is needed to replace fossil carbon for carbohydrates and ammonia, for industry and agriculture. Not every use case for energy can be electrified. Transportation is just 1/4 of our carbon emissions. There's also (categorically) industry, agriculture, and buildings. > but the H2 proponents pump wayyyyy too much FUD against grid storage and EVs I can't speak to that. There is no either-or. We need it all. Every battery (lithium, sodium, thermal, pumped hydro, etc). Every transmission (grids, pipes). Every source (e-fuels, wind, district heating, solar, nukes, advanced thermal, waves, whatever). Arguing about the details is a harmful distraction. The time for pearl clutching, food fights, and concern trolling has passed. Build, build, build.
      - AtlasBarfed 3y ago
        That implies unlimited switchover investment dollars are available. H2 is trying to steal a slice of the pie from (now proven) alternative energy / decarbonization techs. Yes, there is potential for grid storage and other nice stuff from H2 research and expensive infrastructure. But you and I know where the value of decarbonization dollars are maximized in the next ten years: EVs, wind, solar, and probably battery grid storage. You are technically right that H2 has the potential to address decarbonization in areas that EVs/solar/wind can't immediately deal with. We'll need this at some point. But... like H2 proponents, it always seems to boil down to FUD in the end.

ForgedEngine 3y ago

Biomass is practically free (minus harvesting costs).

upsuper 3y ago

Free energy is not necessarily a fantasy. In Australia, the wholesale electricity price regularly goes into negative, usually many hours in an average day, reaching as low as -70c/kWh occasionally (more commonly -5c/kWh). There is just no enough energy sink to absorb all the power we generate from solar in the day time. If we can store some of this energy in a stable form, that would be a good win.

ipaddr 3y ago
That's not unlimited it's solar generating more power than the grid needs at a given point in time. If that power could be used during that negative event something could storage that power. How often it goes negative, for how long vs how much time is required to start the storage process and costs to run will determine if the idea is appliable
thelastgallon 3y ago
Electric cars are the best energy storage for this supply. Cars are parked 23 hours/day, can be charged when price is negative. I'm certain at least some people would like to be paid for charging their cars.
specialist 3y ago
Yes and: Colocating carbon capture with energy sources awaiting grid connections would uncork the backlog of new construction. In the USA, there's something like a terawatt of proposed projects stuck in the interconnection queue. We simply cannot wait for the queue to catch up with the financing of these shovel ready projects. ETFuels is one example of this strategy. Build next to cheap electricity, pump out e-fuels like methanol and ammonia. Today. And then H2 in the future, when the green hydrogen infrastructure is built out. https://www.volts.wtf/p/making-shipping-fuel-with-off-grid#details https://www.volts.wtf/p/making-shipping-fuel-with-off-grid#d...
- AtlasBarfed 3y ago
  "when the green hydrogen infrastructure is built out." You mean in like 20 years if we invest a trillion dollars today? By then batteries may be three times as dense and 1/3 the cost. H2 cars are a dead end and a trojan horse for fossil fuels derived H2 and a political policy disruption strategy to delay EVs and alt energy. A business strategy that involves a new infrastructure build while waiting for ... Other infrastructure to complete seems stupid. I can already see it. The H2 transport vehicles get built, but shockingly doing green H2 gen is never cheaper than methane sourcing, so the green part of the infrastructure just becomes a very small scoped show pony. H2 is a bad energy carrier. I do support research and startups, but the H2 proponents pump wayyyyy too much FUD against grid storage and EVs, which is a tell as to who is pulling the strings behind the H2 industry
  - specialist 3y ago
    Green H2 is needed to replace fossil carbon for carbohydrates and ammonia, for industry and agriculture. Not every use case for energy can be electrified. Transportation is just 1/4 of our carbon emissions. There's also (categorically) industry, agriculture, and buildings. > but the H2 proponents pump wayyyyy too much FUD against grid storage and EVs I can't speak to that. There is no either-or. We need it all. Every battery (lithium, sodium, thermal, pumped hydro, etc). Every transmission (grids, pipes). Every source (e-fuels, wind, district heating, solar, nukes, advanced thermal, waves, whatever). Arguing about the details is a harmful distraction. The time for pearl clutching, food fights, and concern trolling has passed. Build, build, build.
    - AtlasBarfed 3y ago
      That implies unlimited switchover investment dollars are available. H2 is trying to steal a slice of the pie from (now proven) alternative energy / decarbonization techs. Yes, there is potential for grid storage and other nice stuff from H2 research and expensive infrastructure. But you and I know where the value of decarbonization dollars are maximized in the next ten years: EVs, wind, solar, and probably battery grid storage. You are technically right that H2 has the potential to address decarbonization in areas that EVs/solar/wind can't immediately deal with. We'll need this at some point. But... like H2 proponents, it always seems to boil down to FUD in the end.