End of an Era?

[Wombat + 1,028]

5 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I agree about nuclear being expensive but am surprised you think coal is expensive. There are many ways of using it through chemical processes also. It is inherently dirty though. 

Most emerging markets only burn coal thanks to huge subsidies from govt, international organisations. If u gave same subsidies to solar/wind and batteries, they win hands down.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

7 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Why only 3%? Is it normally compressed under higher pressure than natgas?

Hydrogen gas, when burned, yields significantly less energy per mole than methane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess's_law

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/combustion/Enth_Formation.html

Edited August 29, 2020 by Enthalpic

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Why only 3%? Is it normally compressed under higher pressure than natgas?

Hydrogen at ATM has a much lower calorific content than Methane. When its blended with Methane its compressed to the same pressure as Methane. 

I can't see a 100% H2 gas network happening. The infrastructure costs would be huge and our countries are broke. A more practical option is to blend a percentage into the natural gas supply without having to modify the network. 

This means that H2 electrolysers can use surplus renewable electricity and convert it into Hydrogen for storage in the network . The UK for example could store about 30 Twh of H2 in the gas network annually. 

It lowers the carbon footprint of the gas supply  moderately

It allows intermittent renewables to work hand in hand with the gas / H2 network

For major gas importers, particularly those with a lot of renewable resources it allows for diversification of supply. 

However if H2 gets cheap enough to produce from renewables the first use should to use for the production of nitrogen fertilisers and displace gas / oil / coal there. 

[NickW + 2,714]

16 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

Macquarie Capital and a handful of other development sponsors announced they have successfully closed financing for the C$1.5 billion ($1.2 billion U.S.) Cascade Power Project, a 900-MW combined cycle natural gas-fired generating plant near Edson, Alberta.

The new facility (Figure 1), expected to meet more than 8% of the province’s average demand for power, will feature two single-shaft Siemens SCC6-8000H power trains (Figure 2), the developers said in announcing details of the project on August 28. The SCC6-8000H is designed to have a combined-cycle efficiency rating greater than 60%, along with high operational flexibility. Siemens also will provide maintenance support under a long-term service agreement.

https://www.powermag.co

16 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

Macquarie Capital and a handful of other development sponsors announced they have successfully closed financing for the C$1.5 billion ($1.2 billion U.S.) Cascade Power Project, a 900-MW combined cycle natural gas-fired generating plant near Edson, Alberta.

The new facility (Figure 1), expected to meet more than 8% of the province’s average demand for power, will feature two single-shaft Siemens SCC6-8000H power trains (Figure 2), the developers said in announcing details of the project on August 28. The SCC6-8000H is designed to have a combined-cycle efficiency rating greater than 60%, along with high operational flexibility. Siemens also will provide maintenance support under a long-term service agreement.

https://www.powermag.com/construction-begins-on-new-gas-plant-in-alberta/

Finnish date is 2023. @ronwagn can you break down 900MW to kwh or however solar is sold. TIA

900MW is the plants maximum output by the second. If the plants capacity factor is 50% over the course of a year then it will produce just short of 4 billion kwh. 

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

11 hours ago, Wombat said:

Most emerging markets only burn coal thanks to huge subsidies from govt, international organisations. If u gave same subsidies to solar/wind and batteries, they win hands down.

Promoting coal with government money seems very strange due to the pollution, but China and India burn the most and China is very competitive with it. 

Edited August 29, 2020 by ronwagn

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

Hydrogen at ATM has a much lower calorific content than Methane. When its blended with Methane its compressed to the same pressure as Methane. 

I can't see a 100% H2 gas network happening. The infrastructure costs would be huge and our countries are broke. A more practical option is to blend a percentage into the natural gas supply without having to modify the network. 

This means that H2 electrolysers can use surplus renewable electricity and convert it into Hydrogen for storage in the network . The UK for example could store about 30 Twh of H2 in the gas network annually. 

It lowers the carbon footprint of the gas supply  moderately

It allows intermittent renewables to work hand in hand with the gas / H2 network

For major gas importers, particularly those with a lot of renewable resources it allows for diversification of supply. 

However if H2 gets cheap enough to produce from renewables the first use should to use for the production of nitrogen fertilisers and displace gas / oil / coal there. 

Yep, "green" H2 will first displace H2 made from CH4 and piped to factories, because the H2-consuming infrastructure is already in place. Then, it will displace the H2 made from CH4 on-site in factories, because the required on-site electrolyzers are cost-effective. The question is what happens next. As you say, you can mix a certain amount of H2 into the NG system. But after that, if wind and solar keep getting cheaper, then what? Instead of building a vast expensive new H2 infrastructure, you can convert H2 to CH4. Consuming this CH4 is carbon-neutral, since the carbon is extracted from CO2 in the air when the H2 is converted to CH4. This is only cost-effective when the electricity is basically free because it would otherwise be excess.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

However if H2 gets cheap enough to produce from renewables the first use should to use for the production of nitrogen fertilisers and displace gas / oil / coal there. 

The other nice things about this use of H2: For on-site generation of H2 from electricity, the users will not use electricity during peak hours. They will make an store their H2 using only the cheapest electricity.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

14 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

It's out there for all to see, merely Google Bloomberg financed the blue wave. Google Bloomberg spends 500 million on PRESIDENTAL bid. 

Google Bloomberg financial ties with China

One may notice Bloomberg does not have any issues with IP, or assets being nationalized by China.

On the coast right now enjoying the air, no computer's allowed. Fourtantley cell phones are not under quarantine..have you ever tried to cut and paste with a phone? 

Asking for a friend.

Oops a tidbit here..Bloomberg spent 90 days in his bid for nomination...The numbers are evolving...it is now 1 billion.

His message defeat Trump...

There are many ways around campaign contributions regulation ..just running your own is quite liberating..

It seems there are many big holes in our laws prohibiting foreign money finding its way into our political campaigns. The money is primarily funneled into left wing candidate's campaigns and other such groups. It may also be intentionally overlooked.

[NickW + 2,714]

37 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Yep, "green" H2 will first displace H2 made from CH4 and piped to factories, because the H2-consuming infrastructure is already in place. Then, it will displace the H2 made from CH4 on-site in factories, because the required on-site electrolyzers are cost-effective. The question is what happens next. As you say, you can mix a certain amount of H2 into the NG system. But after that, if wind and solar keep getting cheaper, then what? Instead of building a vast expensive new H2 infrastructure, you can convert H2 to CH4. Consuming this CH4 is carbon-neutral, since the carbon is extracted from CO2 in the air when the H2 is converted to CH4. This is only cost-effective when the electricity is basically free because it would otherwise be excess.

The problem with conversion to Methane is you lose half the H2 as water in the process. Conversion to ethylene is more efficient as far as H2 consumption goes. 

Edited August 29, 2020 by NickW

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

The problem with conversion to Methane is you lose half the H2 as water in the process. Conversion to ethylene is more efficient as far as H2 consumption goes. 

Absolutely. The only justification for converting to CH4 is that no additional infrastructure is needed. You "waste" half the H2 in order to avoid the need to build out infrastructure. Conversion to ethanol is probably better up until you saturate the market for ethanol. I'll drink to that.

[specinho + 467]

On 8/29/2020 at 12:51 AM, JoMack said:

Reading the comments, I believe ethanol uses more energy to produce.

Biomass.  I believe wood is shown to be the main component for use of biomass in creating energy, but how much energy does it take to produce it.  Can you capture the CO2 when using wood for energy use.   

So, it's great to hope we have no emissions by 2050?  But, you have to wonder what the consequences will be. 

1. I did a small scale lab experiment "from waste to biofuel". Nowadays, experimenting homemade wine (ethanol) from all kinds of fruit, whichever is in excessive....... The general deduction is : the conversion usually happens passively under natural condition. Shall in large scale, I believe the ratio of energy used vs energy produced might still be small...... if one knows how.....

2. wood might not be the only biomass converted into energy. There are waste like remnant of sugarcane industry, rice field, coconut husk and shell etc.... These byproducts usually do not count as using energy to be produced except pellet forms of those mentioned, awaiting to be exported or traded.

3. You have mentioned something worth the attention. To support your statement, here is something for our consideration........

Although burning is like the ice above, blamed as a culprit of all damages associated with industries, households, vehicles fossil fuel burning, natural calamities etc, and i personally endorsed the claim (burning activities of mankind are the reasons for climate change.....) in a presentation created to promote ozonator....... I have a slightly different view as I aged........ How much of those boozes taken in might be the key, is it not??

I vaguely recall that i have made a comment somewhere that there might be no need to compete and ousted one over another between fossil fuel and renewable. The reasons are roughly:

a) it is believed that there is an under represented figure on how much renewable is being implemented. The general believed of 10-30% might be referring to solar and wind, which are restricted by the costs, geographical location and may be space, or aesthetic perspective....... Hydroelectricity is also a renewable source of energy. It is commonly acknowledged as a popularly adopted method throughout the world. It could represent as high as 90% of a country's energy output in a few places..... But it seems to have been taken out of the average calculation....... to produce may be 60% of renewable energy used?

b) when technology permits, the duo (fossil fuel and renewable) could probably co-exist........ A full electrically automated system or house could be dangerous in time of no electricity or short circuit. Someone could be locked in without sufficient back up power and waiting for ages to be rescued.........

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

The problem with conversion to Methane is you lose half the H2 as water in the process. Conversion to ethylene is more efficient as far as H2 consumption goes. 

The reaction is exothermic so you get a little energy at least from the hydrogen that ends up as water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 minutes ago, specinho said:

 I did a small scale lab experiment "from waste to biofuel". 

"It mostly involved me lighting my farts on fire."

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Enthalpic

[specinho + 467]

4 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

"It mostly involved me lighting my farts on fire."

 

did you burn your back side or hand with that?

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Just now, specinho said:

did you burn your back side or hand with that?

Pro Tip: leave your underwear on.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

16 minutes ago, specinho said:

 

2. wood might not be the only biomass converted into energy. There are waste like remnant of sugarcane industry, rice field, coconut husk and shell etc.... These byproducts usually do not count as using energy to be produced except pellet forms

If you can figure out a cheap way to break down cellulose fibres into fermentable sugars you will become very rich.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Yoshiro Kamamura + 274]

23 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

You mock people about intelligence without adding to the equation.  If you want to be helpful prove that the math is wrong or correct.  Also if you noticed I asked for the conversion to how solar systems are sold and referenced in the math per hour. So I don't  know what your mocking. Hope you feel superior now.

Oh, my... the formula is containted in the units themselves!

Joule (a unit of energy) is equivalent to wh, kwh or mwh (whatever is convenient), that means Power (measured in Watts) multiplied by time (measured in hours, minutes or seconds - the proper SI unit is second). 

Therefore - Energy (Joules or Watts*Seconds) = (equals) Power (Watts) * (multiplied by) Time (seconds)

Okay? When you are buying energy, you are ALWAYS buying joules, because it's a unit of energy. Similarly, if you buy milk, you are always buying it in liters (a unit of volume), and not, for examples in Newtons (a unit of Force, although it would make a kind of sense, provided that the gravitational acceleration is constant, which it is on the earth. Scales (devices) measure weight of objects, and not their mass directly). 

Similarly, acceleration is measured in m/s^2 (meters divided by seconds squared), ergo a (acceleration) = d (distance travelled) / t^2 (time squared). Et cetera. 

Please tell me that you understand that. 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Yoshiro Kamamura

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 8/29/2020 at 9:34 AM, ronwagn said:

I agree about nuclear being expensive but am surprised you think coal is expensive. There are many ways of using it through chemical processes also. It is inherently dirty though. 

Coal may be convenient Ron, but not as cheap as you think. Australia and Indonesia are the 2 largest coal exporters on the planet (about 500m tonnes/annum each), but at current prices, coal mining not profitable. Australian coal has much higher heat content than Indonesian coal but Indonesian currency far weaker than ours. However, Indonesia has over 300m people, and are therefore starting to use their coal themselves, same with their oil and gas. Coal is still cheaper than LNG, but not as cheap as renewables plus batteries anymore. If u google "NEP India", it should give u some idea where they heading.

[Wombat + 1,028]

Just now, Wombat said:

Coal may be convenient Ron, but not as cheap as you think. Australia and Indonesia are the 2 largest coal exporters on the planet (about 500m tonnes/annum each), but at current prices, coal mining not profitable. Australian coal has much higher heat content than Indonesian coal but Indonesian currency far weaker than ours. However, Indonesia has over 300m people, and are therefore starting to use their coal themselves, same with their oil and gas. Coal is still cheaper than LNG, but not as cheap as renewables plus batteries anymore. If u google "NEP India", it should give u some idea where they heading.

Sorry, NEP = "National Education Policy"! I was looking for National Electricity Policy! I know they want more coal, and a bit of LNG, but they really pushing renewables too. I will see what I can find and get back 2u

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_India

https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Indias-Renewable-Energy-Policy-Headwinds_February-2020.pdf

https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/renewable/indias-renewable-energy-sector-should-move-to-next-stage-of-investment-manufacturing-rbi-governor/77211191

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

Going back to the fundamental topic question

End of an Era?

I believe that it is worth looking at "Why Big Oil Conquered the World?" - (Transcripts with sources in show notes)

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 8/28/2020 at 4:14 PM, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Energy is of course billed and sold in Joules (kwhs). 

 

No you twit, energy is not billed and sold in Joules. 

A Joule is a convenient term for energy, while a Watt is a convenient term for power. We don't purchase "energy" from the Power Company, we purchase power. One watt is one Joule (of energy) per second. That's by design fool, not the other way around.

You need to go back to CCP indoctrination camp and learn some science. Hint, political science is no such thing, there's no science to politics, that's just effete snobbery by people too stupid to pass STEM majors. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 8/29/2020 at 1:00 PM, specinho said:

did you burn your back side or hand with that?

He burned his eyebrows lighting his farts. He pulled his head that far out of his ass to watch the fireworks. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

On 8/30/2020 at 3:00 AM, specinho said:

did you burn your back side or hand with that?

He burned his eyebrows lighting his farts. He pulled his head that far out of his ass to watch the fireworks. 

You make a good point.  Butt I think it is actually because his a-hole is just under his nose.

[specinho + 467]

6 hours ago, Tom Nolan said:

I believe that it is worth looking at "Why Big Oil Conquered the World?" - (Transcripts with sources in show notes)

Thank you for the wonderful video. It is very informative. However, there are things that could probably be viewed from different perspectives.......

1. Eugenic and birth control -

Birth control mentioned in the early 30s or 50s, if we look around the globe, we might call that foresight from another perspective, instead of eugenic gene control, is it not?

From hereditary, to being at the right place, at the right time, capitalism and essential of cronism/ nepotism have not changed much. If we were to start the world over, and we are given limited quota on what kind of people we want to keep.......... we would be expecting something better to be produced after the makeover, won't we? Otherwise, we might not even be bothered, or no? If we were to make things better, choosing all the right characteristics/ attitude would be an absolute, is it not? Therefore, in order to set the social order right again, in order to reduce problems and costs caused by the social issues created by people with the wrong ethics, we need to get the right things done, again, all the time and always. 

We have been numbed by routine life for long enough time; we have grown indifferent for long enough time; we have disintegrated humanity, spirituality, self actualization for long enough time. Shall we start from one small right thing daily, together, we will make big changes some times ahead..... or no? There are lives worth changing, outside or within our reach. We have done what we could, always. But, the initial kind intention has dwindled in its meaning and efficiency over time....... It's time, we think again, what we are so used to.......

2. technocrat, carbon tax and etc

When the first announcement was made that the resources are finishing with a definite dates, common sense dictates, we will try to find alternatives to support, prolong or substitute them.

In the old days, people were so free and so simple minded that they usually were looking for solutions genuinely...... Hence, the older generations prevailed in most aspects because they have been sincere and passionate in whatever interests them.........

Nowadays, speed is the key. In addition, wherever the money is, there will be crowd...... Nobody really knows how to do, what to do any more, because, the hearts are not there........ Nor the mind....... Nor the time. Nor the quality. People are always rushing somewhere or for something. Worse, they create problems and then offer tentative solutions.......

Until we discover someone to our likeness, in old days or old fashion manners, and we gather to clear the fields for new, functional perspectives, we are likely to go in a circle, a repertoire of questions - halfhearted copied solutions - problems - countless useless or half useful meetings -  re rinsed.......

If I could offer something refreshing and worthy of the attention........ who is to reach me? and how soon??

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by specinho