The Alternative Green Energy Thread

JKenH

shinytop said:

Interesting.  Why not BEV trucks though - are they too expensive, heavy, short range?  

I can’t answer the question on cost but have had a think about the weight issue of batteries vs HFC.

Bosch calculates that 7kg of hydrogen is enough to power a 40-tonne truck for around 60 miles.

A diesel truck uses 30 litres or about 25kg for 60 miles so hydrogen is about 3.5 times as energy dense as diesel.

So how does a battery compare in terms of energy density.

An EV battery is about 250wh/kg.

Diesel is about 12- 14 kwh /kg so is 48 - 56 times more energy dense.

An electric motor is however 90% efficient compared to a diesel motor which is around 40% efficient so effective kwh/kg becomes 225kwh/ kg for the electric and 4800 - 5600wh/kg for diesel. Let’s say 5000wh/ kg so diesel produces 22 times as much power as an EV battery for each unit of weight.  1 kg of hydrogen would therefore produce the same power as 77 kg of batteries (22 x 3.5).

Bosch calculates that 35kg of hydrogen is enough to power a 40-tonne truck for around 300 miles. To travel the same distance with an EV truck would need 2695 kg of batteries or about 3 tonnes if only 90% of battery capacity is used (to preserve battery health). 

Please note, I have not made any allowance for the comparative weight of the drive trains (HFC, storage tank and motor vs just motor in the EV) which would no doubt reduce the disparity significantly if not reverse it. 

Solarchaser

I think if you could re-use the hydrogen after burning it, you would have a good point. 

Batteries don't evaporate while being used

JKenH

The long, slow death of the UK coal industry

Frequently comments are passed as to how we would have transitioned to renewables if it hadn’t been for the intransigence and campaigning of the fossil fuel industry but the reality is no one really cared 40 years ago about climate change. Maggie Thatcher is still a hate figure among the left for shutting down the coal industry in the 1980s yet she probably did more than anyone to reduce our CO2 emissions. This article from the Guardian as recently as 2013 laments the passing of the coal industry. 

Nothing better symbolised the passing of a great industry, referred to reverentially as "King Coal", than the lowering of one of the last chunks to have been cut at Maltby colliery next to the grave of the "unknown miner" in the town's cemetery last weekend. 

Wreaths were laid and the colliery brass band played the miners' hymn, Gresford, itself an anthem to another disaster. The short service had been billed as a "thanksgiving and prayer for the future", although the many newly redundant must have wondered what future there could be in an area where good jobs are scarce. 

This means we are on the verge of losing both an irreplaceable skills base and, potentially, access to all the remaining coal. And this in a country now virtually dependent on gas and oil supplies from elsewhere; Britain was recently awaiting a gas supply ship from Qatar, after being days away from running out of supplies altogether.

Those close to the industry speak bitterly about missed opportunities. Last year, the government turned its back on investing in a new combined heat and power plant, planned to be built next door to Hatfield colliery. EU Commission officials said the now-scrapped power station would have been 'the most advanced of its type in Europe'. Kitchen says: "For just a minuscule amount of the money wasted on the banks, thousands of jobs could have been created in cutting-edge energy production in South Yorkshire and Britain might have been ahead of the curve when it came to 'clean coal technology' and carbon capture."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/11/slow-death-coal-industry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Solarchaser

Maggie done great for climate change?
So instead of digging it out ourselves, we shipped it in from cheaper countries, that must have been fantastic for the climate??

JKenH

Solarchaser said:

Maggie done great for climate change?
So instead of digging it out ourselves, we shipped it in from cheaper countries, that must have been fantastic for the climate??

Thank you for pointing that out. You are quite right that, even though Britain virtually stopped digging up coal, we continued to burn it. And there is the flaw in the argument that our current climate crisis is all the fault of the oil and coal companies.

If Exxon Mobil had unilaterally stopped production in the 1970s or 1980s, when they first discovered a link to climate change, would the world have cut its oil consumption to match or would demand have been made up from elsewhere? 

It is consumer demand for fossil fuels that still drives their use despite the link to climate change being widely publicised and of concern to most voters in the developed world.  Until governments make mining and extraction of fossil fuels illegal someone, somewhere will produce them to meet the demand. 

The key to eliminating fossil fuel usage is either therefore to ban the industry worldwide or kill demand for fossil fuels. That is not the responsibility of the oil and coal majors - rather it is the responsibility of governments around the world to dictate policy and that in democracies is driven by the electorate.

It is in the gift of the new US administration to shut down all fossil fuel production in the US if they choose to do so (and they may even have the power to ban any US domiciled companies from partaking in fossil fuel extraction anywhere in the world). They won’t do that because the US economy depends on a certain level of fossil fuel usage to survive, as indeed do most economies around the world, and to act unilaterally now would put the US at a huge short term disadvantage.

The reason the US (and indeed other countries) find themselves in this position is not the legacy of the oil or coal companies but that of previous administrations (not just the last) who for economic and the consequent political reasons have chosen to kick the ball down the road rather than taking substantive action. Previous governments have looked at the issues facing the country and while accepting we need to act have decided to balance the long term benefits of killing off domestic fossil fuel industries against the short term consequences (economic, social and, hence, political) of doing so within the term of the administration. The short term harm is always more impactful and so in politicians eyes always outweighs the long term gain. Progress is inevitably very slow. Maybe the Biden administration will be different but I wouldn’t rule out them doing that same balancing act because, ultimately, in politics principles are always overridden by the desire to remain in power.

Solarchaser

I think the point about stopping oil production,  would just shift to someone/somewhere else, yep totally valid.... however they lose all the moral high ground with the fact that they actively participated in disinformation  to hide the climate issues ff we're causing.

America as with most things is a bad example,  why, because the big oil companies actively donate to individuals and parties, hence why the country is so disbelieving of a problem, even as some of them are buffeted by the effects of long term pollution. 

The arrival of AOC 4 years ago in American politics was huge, not because she was a Hispanic woman, but because she stood fast on a policy of never accepting money from big fossil fuel companies. 

Unfortunately there has not been the tidal wave of representatives following in her footsteps,  that some of us hoped would signal the start of a more honest America.

JKenH

Pandemic Lockdown’s Clear Skies Have Warmed the Planet

The study found that aerosol reduction had a bigger impact on 2020 temperatures than the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide. 

https://www.ecowatch.com/lockdown-air-pollution-temperature-2650268659.html

JKenH

JKenH said:

It is in the gift of the new US administration to shut down all fossil fuel production in the US if they choose to do so (and they may even have the power to ban any US domiciled companies from partaking in fossil fuel extraction anywhere in the world). They won’t do that because the US economy depends on a certain level of fossil fuel usage to survive, as indeed do most economies around the world, and to act unilaterally now would put the US at a huge short term disadvantage.

The reason the US (and indeed other countries) find themselves in this position is not the legacy of the oil or coal companies but that of previous administrations (not just the last) who for economic and the consequent political reasons have chosen to kick the ball down the road rather than taking substantive action. Previous governments have looked at the issues facing the country and while accepting we need to act have decided to balance the long term benefits of killing off domestic fossil fuel industries against the short term consequences (economic, social and, hence, political) of doing so within the term of the administration. The short term harm is always more impactful and so in politicians eyes always outweighs the long term gain. Progress is inevitably very slow. Maybe the Biden administration will be different but I wouldn’t rule out them doing that same balancing act because, ultimately, in politics principles are always overridden by the desire to remain in power.

Yergin sees US shale production growing under Biden leadership

Welcome to realpolitik. Let’s see how this plays out.

Speaking at oilfield services giant Baker Hughes’ annual forum on Monday, the vice president at analyst IHS Markit said he expects the White House to ramp up its climate initiatives, but stressed it remains to be seen how hard it will put pressure on the existing US oil and gas industry. 

“There are a lot of economic advantages from shale production, and some foreign policy advantages, and Joe Biden is a foreign policy person,” Yergin said, adding that Biden has twice said he is not going to ban hydraulic fracturing.

https://www.upstreamonline.com/politics/yergin-sees-us-shale-production-growing-under-biden-leadership/2-1-955699

JKenH

Cutting gas-powered generation, carbon tax are keys to net-zero in the US by 2050: NAS

https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/cutting-gaspowered-generation-carbon-tax-are-keys-to-us.html

JKenH

Biden Assurances on Jobs Sting Like Insults in Mines, Oil Patch

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-02-16/miners-and-oil-workers-hear-insults-in-biden-talk-of-better-jobs

It’s going to be tough to square his climate policies with his promise (below).

“I want you to know that I’ll work as hard for those who voted against me as those who voted for me. That’s the job,”