Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Solarchaser

EVandPV said:

Just came across this, first I've heard about it even though it's only a few miles from us .....

Fife town will be first in world to heat and cook using zero carbon hydrogen

https://www.fifetoday.co.uk/business/fife-town-will-be-first-world-heat-and-cook-using-zero-carbon-hydrogen-3051735

I'm sure someone linked this a year or so ago, (perhaps just before you joined)  I want to say Coastalwatch,  but may be wrong.

It was so long ago that when I've seen the media coverage in the last few days I initially thought it was reporting on the ongoing project rather than just mentioning it was coming

EricMears

michaels said:

Another question - as well as using h2 as a storage medium, could it be used as a distribution medium to domestic fuel cells?  

I understood the idea was to mix a small proportion of hydrogen into mains gas supplies.  Doubt if a fuel cell would work very well on such a mixture.

Martyn1981

EricMears said:

michaels said:

Another question - as well as using h2 as a storage medium, could it be used as a distribution medium to domestic fuel cells?  

I understood the idea was to mix a small proportion of hydrogen into mains gas supplies.  Doubt if a fuel cell would work very well on such a mixture.

This is an old article I posted a long time back, but the UK company Ceres produces fuel cells that will run on pure methane, pure H2 and any mix of the two. I assume that the methane efficiency will be a bit lower than the H2 efficiency. I'm not sure but I think H2 is close(r) to 60%, whereas these methane fuel cells appear to be 50%.
The idea of these systems in a domestic install, is that they would produce leccy efficiently (50% at point of use, v's gas generation with grid losses) and can supplement the house heating with waste heat, at about 35% efficiency. I felt the advantages here, were that additional leccy could be produced, when needed, without additional load on the leccy grid.
I then took the idea one step further, and added in PV and batts. That would mean PV gen in the summer, and fuel cell gen in the winter when the waste heat is beneficial, and batts to balance supply and demand. Then I ran even further with it, and popped the leccy generation through a HP, so you get the 35% heat output of the fuel cell, and convert the 50% leccy into 50%-200% heat. Giving you between 85% and 235% efficiency from the mains gas ................... I think.

Ceres Power | Fully Charged

Ceres website

michaels

Martyn1981 said:

EricMears said:

michaels said:

Another question - as well as using h2 as a storage medium, could it be used as a distribution medium to domestic fuel cells?  

I understood the idea was to mix a small proportion of hydrogen into mains gas supplies.  Doubt if a fuel cell would work very well on such a mixture.

This is an old article I posted a long time back, but the UK company Ceres produces fuel cells that will run on pure methane, pure H2 and any mix of the two. I assume that the methane efficiency will be a bit lower than the H2 efficiency. I'm not sure but I think H2 is close(r) to 60%, whereas these methane fuel cells appear to be 50%.
The idea of these systems in a domestic install, is that they would produce leccy efficiently (50% at point of use, v's gas generation with grid losses) and can supplement the house heating with waste heat, at about 35% efficiency. I felt the advantages here, were that additional leccy could be produced, when needed, without additional load on the leccy grid.
I then took the idea one step further, and added in PV and batts. That would mean PV gen in the summer, and fuel cell gen in the winter when the waste heat is beneficial, and batts to balance supply and demand. Then I ran even further with it, and popped the leccy generation through a HP, so you get the 35% heat output of the fuel cell, and convert the 50% leccy into 50%-200% heat. Giving you between 85% and 235% efficiency from the mains gas ................... I think.

Ceres Power | Fully Charged

Ceres website

I really wanted to get a Viessmann Vitovalor boiler/fuel cell, we use loads of hot water year round so it would be an ideal fit for our house but the govt in their wisdom didn't include it in the green home grants scheme, the FIT was removed a couple of years ago and the only other grant going from the EU of course stopped being available when we left. [and prices without a grant are eyewatering], 15k compared to about 2.5k for an equivalent boiler and hot water tank from Viessmann.

Martyn1981

Here's a fun one, especially for anyone who read a recent question posted on here 'accidentally' implying that there may not be any reports suggesting RE is a cheaper option than nuclear, and that no reports/articles have been mentioned on here.
Not only is this an interesting article, but the author has commented with:

And no, there is no economic rational for adding nuclear to a clean grid. It just doesn't add anything that's necessary. 12 major studies, including Jacobson's and Diesendorf's, make it clear that an all renewable grid is just fine, reliable and cheap. No sense adding something that's more expensive, slower to build and less flexible to the mix. It would be like needing transportation for your family and buying a couple of electric bikes, a Tesla Model 3 and a gold-plated Hummer. One of these things does not belong.

US Nuclear Site Cleanup Underfunded By Up To $70 Billion

There are about 100 reactors in the United States. Assuming they collect the $320 million per reactor (they won’t, as reactors are closing prematurely), they would have a fund of $32 billion. But they need a fund of closer to $70 billion, and they are short regardless. So the US fleet cleanup is going to cost the taxpayer probably closer to an additional $40 billion, if it all goes according to the estimates.

Note that the UK and Slovakia examples show that it usually doesn’t, just as building new nuclear never seems to come in on time or budget. The reality is going to be closer to the European and Slovakian costs, so let’s assume a billion per reactor as a reasonable number.

The US will have maybe $30 billion. They’ll need $100 billion. Yeah, $70 billion is the more reasonable number.

michaels

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15060.full
Thanks, just been looking at the 2015 Jacobsen paper so far.  It is big on inter-seasonal heat (and being US focussed cold) storage.  I have seen about 1 example of this in the wild so far, is this because the economics currently don't make sense because natural gas is so cheap?

Pile_o_stone

Martyn1981 said:

Here's a fun one, especially for anyone who read a recent question posted on here 'accidentally' implying that there may not be any reports suggesting RE is a cheaper option than nuclear, and that no reports/articles have been mentioned on here.
Not only is this an interesting article, but the author has commented with:

And no, there is no economic rational for adding nuclear to a clean grid. It just doesn't add anything that's necessary. 12 major studies, including Jacobson's and Diesendorf's, make it clear that an all renewable grid is just fine, reliable and cheap. No sense adding something that's more expensive, slower to build and less flexible to the mix. It would be like needing transportation for your family and buying a couple of electric bikes, a Tesla Model 3 and a gold-plated Hummer. One of these things does not belong.

US Nuclear Site Cleanup Underfunded By Up To $70 Billion

There are about 100 reactors in the United States. Assuming they collect the $320 million per reactor (they won’t, as reactors are closing prematurely), they would have a fund of $32 billion. But they need a fund of closer to $70 billion, and they are short regardless. So the US fleet cleanup is going to cost the taxpayer probably closer to an additional $40 billion, if it all goes according to the estimates.

Note that the UK and Slovakia examples show that it usually doesn’t, just as building new nuclear never seems to come in on time or budget. The reality is going to be closer to the European and Slovakian costs, so let’s assume a billion per reactor as a reasonable number.

The US will have maybe $30 billion. They’ll need $100 billion. Yeah, $70 billion is the more reasonable number.

Once wind turbines and solar farms reach the end of their lives we are going to have a massive cleanup operation too.

1. Remove the turbines and masts / solar panels & frames.
2. Fill in the hole left behind.
3. Go home for your tea.

EVandPV

Pile_o_stone said:

Once wind turbines and solar farms reach the end of their lives we are going to have a massive cleanup operation too.

1. Remove the turbines and masts / solar panels & frames.

2. Fill in the hole left behind.

3. Go home for your tea.

Alternatively ......

1. Refurbish/replace the turbines and masts / solar panels & frames.

2. Go home for your tea.

Martyn1981

Here are a couple of articles looking at the potential shortfall of the UK to meet targets, and the revised plan from the Gov to meet the Paris Accord.
Whilst there is debate about whether we are planning to do enough, I found it interesting that it was all pretty positive, and costs seem to be being pushed as a positive (as green costs and job opportunities seem to be net positive now). There's a mention about worries about costs hitting consumers, but I assume that can be mitigated. So overall, we can act faster, lots of support, technology exists and is getting cheaper quickly.
As the second article points out, it's actions not promises that matter, but at least all the driving forces are now going in the right direction, just need to speed up a tad.

Radical reassessment needed to hit net zero emissions by 2050, says NAO

Boris Johnson’s commitment to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions in the UK by 2050 is a “colossal challenge” that can only be achieved with a radical reassessment of priorities, according to Whitehall’s spending watchdog.

The National Audit Office (NAO) has found that the UK is projected to fail to meet the government’s targets for the years 2023 to 2027 and 2028 to 2032, which were set to establish a trajectory for reducing emissions by 80% over the next 30 years.

If the government is to get to net zero by 2050, changes will be expected to the way electricity is generated, how people travel, how land is used and how buildings are heated, says an NAO report.

UK vows to outdo other economies with 68% emissions cuts by 2030

The UK will cut greenhouse gas emissions further and faster than any other major economy in the next decade, according to a new carbon target set out by the prime minister.
There will be a reduction of 68% in annual carbon emissions by 2030, compared with 1990 levels, a significant increase on the current target of about 57% reductions. The raising of ambition on tackling climate breakdown is intended to galvanise other countries to follow suit, as Boris Johnson prepares to co-host a virtual summit of world leaders on the climate next week.
The prime minister said on Thursday: “We have proven we can reduce our emissions and create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. We are taking the lead with an ambitious new target to reduce our emissions by 2030, faster than any major economy … The UK is urging world leaders to bring forward their own ambitious plans to cut emissions and set net zero [carbon] targets.”

michaels

Researchers at the UK’s Lancaster University studied a crystalline material — a solid material with parts such as atoms, molecules, or ions that are arranged in a highly ordered microscopic structure — and discovered it has properties that allow it to capture solar energy. The energy can be stored for several months at room temperature, and it can be released on demand in the form of heat.

Back to the interseasonal heat storage discussion:
https://electrek.co/2020/12/04/solar-energy-storage-months/