The Energy Transition and technologies

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Didn't see it on my device. My bad. Thought it was really cool as it's local in Gilbert AZ and is a really good sign for things to come. 95% recoverable!

Redwood minerals had been banging this drum for a while and had millions in funding. It's led by one of the original Tesla executives JB Straubel

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I question the bolded.

What about the ever increasing energy demand to:

1. Keep warm and keep cool due to temperature extremes

2. Do all the mining to make the components for the solar panels and wind generators

3. Build, repair, and recycle and/or dispose of the solar panels and wind generators

4. Do all the reconstruction for damage due to storms, fires, floods, earthquakes

5. Provide the energy to satisfy the advances in technology e.g. EVs, batteries, crypto mining

6. Feed, cloth and shelter the 75 million people added to our planet each year

7. Etc.

Adding to the great post above

Simple answer: The same question could've been asked about the transition from horses to vehicles. It was fine. As long as there's a demand, there'll be a supply.

Complex answer: The change in electrification will be bumpy and lead to uneven distribution of costs, but will likely lower overall costs. Only 20-30% of the energy in fossil fuels is actually used for what is intended. This isn't going to happen overnight. The other thing that's going to change is how we consume electricity. If we all have smart meters, we can have time of use rates. Charge your car overnight while the grid is underused and industries with flexible power use can get cheap power by ramping up or down depending on supply. Our future grid will certainly have to grow, but not in the same way it's always grown. Distributed generation and energy storage will change things in ways that are hard to see clearly yet. There's certainly edge cases that will be much more difficult, but the world can get 80-90% there with existing technology without increasing costs significantly. But it will be bumpy

[flamesfever]

nm

[Street Pharmacist]

Found a good chart that shows why hydrogen and e-fuels are just not going to work. We'd need to build out 3.5x as much electricity for hydrogen cars and even more for e-fuels

[Murph]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Adding to the great post above

Simple answer: The same question could've been asked about the transition from horses to vehicles. It was fine. As long as there's a demand, there'll be a supply.

Complex answer: The change in electrification will be bumpy and lead to uneven distribution of costs, but will likely lower overall costs. Only 20-30% of the energy in fossil fuels is actually used for what is intended. This isn't going to happen overnight. The other thing that's going to change is how we consume electricity. If we all have smart meters, we can have time of use rates. Charge your car overnight while the grid is underused and industries with flexible power use can get cheap power by ramping up or down depending on supply. Our future grid will certainly have to grow, but not in the same way it's always grown. Distributed generation and energy storage will change things in ways that are hard to see clearly yet. There's certainly edge cases that will be much more difficult, but the world can get 80-90% there with existing technology without increasing costs significantly. But it will be bumpy

Taking all these things in to account, utilities such as OPG are forecasting that they will have to double the size of their transmission systems to accommodate the coming electrification of everything.

[Murph]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Found a good chart that shows why hydrogen and e-fuels are just not going to work. We'd need to build out 3.5x as much electricity for hydrogen cars and even more for e-fuels

There are an enormous number of assumptions in this plot, not the least of which is proximity to user. What about jurisdictions like Europe where demand outstrips supply, where they will be forced to import energy over long distances from foreign jurisdictions?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Murph

There are an enormous number of assumptions in this plot, not the least of which is proximity to user. What about jurisdictions like Europe where demand outstrips supply, where they will be forced to import energy over long distances from foreign jurisdictions?

Hydrogen only gets worse the further you transport it...

[Murph]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Hydrogen only gets worse the further you transport it...

And electricity doesn’t?

Good luck transmitting renewable electricity from the Middle East or eastern Canada to Europe.

I’m not saying electric vehicles aren’t the way to go in jurisdictions where there are enough renewable resources.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Murph

There are an enormous number of assumptions in this plot, not the least of which is proximity to user. What about jurisdictions like Europe where demand outstrips supply, where they will be forced to import energy over long distances from foreign jurisdictions?

This is true for any form of consumption of basically anything.

What's your point?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Murph

And electricity doesn’t?



Good luck transmitting renewable electricity from the Middle East or eastern Canada to Europe.



I’m not saying electric vehicles aren’t the way to go in jurisdictions where there are enough renewable resources.

Hydrogen still isn't the answer.

Firstly, it's way less dense, so unit for unit of energy you need 2.4 times as many ships to transport it as you would LNG for example. That means even if all else were the same, it would be 2.4 times as expensive as LNG to ship. Then you have to look at what it takes to liquify and contain the two.

Then, you have to consider that to turn hydrogen into a liquid you need to cool it to -253°C and keep it there. It would use 30-40% of the energy you're storing as hydrogen just to liquify it, nevermind keeping it at that temperature.

Then there's the fact that hydrogen is the smallest molecule on the table of elements and is very tricky to keep tight. It escapes almost any container to some degree, so storing it just isn't easy.

None of this makes any sense. Making and shipping hydrogen long distances in large quantities is just not going to happen.


As for road vehicles, EV's will add between 5-20% increase depending on the scenario you're looking at, and that's manageable. Industrial electrification is a whole other story

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Hydrogen still isn't the answer.

Firstly, it's way less dense, so unit for unit of energy you need 2.4 times as many ships to transport it as you would LNG for example. That means even if all else were the same, it would be 2.4 times as expensive as LNG to ship. Then you have to look at what it takes to liquify and contain the two.

Then, you have to consider that to turn hydrogen into a liquid you need to cool it to -253°C and keep it there. It would use 30-40% of the energy you're storing as hydrogen just to liquify it, nevermind keeping it at that temperature.

Then there's the fact that hydrogen is the smallest molecule on the table of elements and is very tricky to keep tight. It escapes almost any container to some degree, so storing it just isn't easy.

None of this makes any sense. Making and shipping hydrogen long distances in large quantities is just not going to happen.


As for road vehicles, EV's will add between 5-20% increase depending on the scenario you're looking at, and that's manageable. Industrial electrification is a whole other story

Most are looking at Ammonia as the solution to the hydrogen transport issues for export markets. Will be interesting to keep an eye on that.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

Most are looking at Ammonia as the solution to the hydrogen transport issues for export markets. Will be interesting to keep an eye on that.

Ammonia and methanol are both options. Again though, if you're transporting NH3 with the goal of converting it to hydrogen for vehicle transport, it's still a non starter.

Think of it this way. You start with 1MWh of renewable energy. You then lose 10-20% by turning that into hydrogen. Then you turn that hydrogen into ammonia and lose another bunch. Then you have to burn some type of renewable made fuel to ship that ammonia. Then you need to spend energy pressurizing the Ammonia to ship it. Then you have to heat the ammonia to 500°C to convert it back to hydrogen losing a lot more energy. Then you need to pressurize and purify that hydrogen in order to use it in a fuel cell vehicle losing a good bunch more. Best case (with technology we don't have yet) is 0.19MWh to put in the car, which then loses about 20% of that in running the car. It's silly

Even as an energy carrier for electricity generation seems silly when you do the math. Absolute best case scenario is your left with 0.214kWh and a little industrial heat. That means you'd need 5 times the energy generation for the electricity demand. If the reason you're getting the renewable energy from Morocco instead of Germany is because their solar potential is double, using 5 times as much to do it makes zero sense

[Frequitude]

Do you have a link detailing those losses a bit more? Not because I don't believe you, I just want to nerd out.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Do you have a link detailing those losses a bit more? Not because I don't believe you, I just want to nerd out.

Here you go. There are far more pessimistic outlooks out there, but these guys dig a fair bit into the weeds

https://www.ammoniaenergy.org/articl...rtation-media/

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Ammonia and methanol are both options. Again though, if you're transporting NH3 with the goal of converting it to hydrogen for vehicle transport, it's still a non starter.

Think of it this way. You start with 1MWh of renewable energy. You then lose 10-20% by turning that into hydrogen. Then you turn that hydrogen into ammonia and lose another bunch. Then you have to burn some type of renewable made fuel to ship that ammonia. Then you need to spend energy pressurizing the Ammonia to ship it. Then you have to heat the ammonia to 500°C to convert it back to hydrogen losing a lot more energy. Then you need to pressurize and purify that hydrogen in order to use it in a fuel cell vehicle losing a good bunch more. Best case (with technology we don't have yet) is 0.19MWh to put in the car, which then loses about 20% of that in running the car. It's silly

Even as an energy carrier for electricity generation seems silly when you do the math. Absolute best case scenario is your left with 0.214kWh and a little industrial heat. That means you'd need 5 times the energy generation for the electricity demand. If the reason you're getting the renewable energy from Morocco instead of Germany is because their solar potential is double, using 5 times as much to do it makes zero sense

I realize I dropped in on the middle of a focus on EV. I agree fully with you that I think it’s not likely that we see hydrogen-ammonia-hydrogen type of chain for fueling a car. Just doesn’t make sense. The ammonia play is direct to power production though in places like Japan. Still a long shot but there are enough sophisticated players out there looking to make it work that it’s got a chance.

One worry I have is that it puts fertilizer and fuel even more intertwined together, and that could be an issue if we create a high demand global market for ammonia.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

I realize I dropped in on the middle of a focus on EV. I agree fully with you that I think it’s not likely that we see hydrogen-ammonia-hydrogen type of chain for fueling a car. Just doesn’t make sense. The ammonia play is direct to power production though in places like Japan. Still a long shot but there are enough sophisticated players out there looking to make it work that it’s got a chance.



One worry I have is that it puts fertilizer and fuel even more intertwined together, and that could be an issue if we create a high demand global market for ammonia.

It's the energy transition thread, so it's relevant. I agree there's a potential market but it'll be insanely expensive no matter what you do. Some countries may have no choice to get some, but I think it'll be a small market.

You hit the nail on the head with worrying about current fertilizer supply. No matter the scale or learning curve, it'll be difficult to replace the current fossil fuel based hydrogen/Ammonia feedstock for fertilizer and creating more competition for that will make it tougher, not easier.

The best way I've seen it put is that hydrogen is not a climate solution, it's a climate problem we still have to solve.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It's the energy transition thread, so it's relevant. I agree there's a potential market but it'll be insanely expensive no matter what you do. Some countries may have no choice to get some, but I think it'll be a small market.

You hit the nail on the head with worrying about current fertilizer supply. No matter the scale or learning curve, it'll be difficult to replace the current fossil fuel based hydrogen/Ammonia feedstock for fertilizer and creating more competition for that will make it tougher, not easier.

The best way I've seen it put is that hydrogen is not a climate solution, it's a climate problem we still have to solve.

Great point on the market being limited, but still probably worth chasing. I think the more time I spend looking at transition the more I realize it’s an and type of scenario. We will need x and y and z and a and B and c, etc. Fossil fuels were almost the perfect product, except for that pesky co2. The replacements will be geography and climate dependent and employed in different ways.

Unfortunately the next best thing, nuclear is off the table almost everywhere. It could solve a lot of the gap if the Will was there,

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Found a good chart that shows why hydrogen and e-fuels are just not going to work. We'd need to build out 3.5x as much electricity for hydrogen cars and even more for e-fuels

The only thing I find biased is the fact that batteries are much heavier than hydrogen or a fuel tank.

Sure you can get 95% energy to the car, but if you need twice as much energy as a similar car then you lose some as well.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Regorium

The only thing I find biased is the fact that batteries are much heavier than hydrogen or a fuel tank.

Sure you can get 95% energy to the car, but if you need twice as much energy as a similar car then you lose some as well.

The hydrogen cars are going to have some amount of batteries. Regenerative braking is such a huge efficiency gain that it's unlikely to not be ubiquitous in the near future.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Regorium

The only thing I find biased is the fact that batteries are much heavier than hydrogen or a fuel tank.



Sure you can get 95% energy to the car, but if you need twice as much energy as a similar car then you lose some as well.

That's pretty marginal. The efficiency of a vehicle is as much a function of wind resistance and speed as weight. Even if that was not the case, the at most 10% difference does not change the generation to power efficiency advantage for BEV