99 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, August 7, 2021”

  1. A bit more on hydrogen for seasonal grid backup, below. Why is this important? Because it’s literally dirt cheap, on the order of .1 cents per kWh. Compare that to batteries at very roughly $100 per kWh!

    “Underground hydrogen storage is the practice of hydrogen storage in caverns,[1][2] salt domes and depleted oil/gas fields.[3] Large quantities of gaseous hydrogen have been stored in caverns for many years.[4] The storage of large quantities of hydrogen underground in solution-mined salt domes,[5] aquifers,[6] excavated rock caverns, or mines can function as grid energy storage,[7] essential for the hydrogen economy.[8] By using a turboexpander the electricity needs for compressed storage on 200 bar amounts to 2.1% of the energy content.[9]”

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

    Why is $100 per kWh way too expensive for seasonal storage? Let’s say the US needed 2 weeks of storage. How much would it cost?

    The US uses an average of 450 gigawatts of power. Multiply that by 24 hours times 14 days and we get 151,200 gigawatt hours (GWh), or 151 terawatt-hours. Multiply that by ten cents per watt-hour (aka $100 per kWh) and you get $15 trillion. That’s our annual GDP.

    Hydrogen can be stored in very, very cheap salt caverns, like methane.

    So, what about the cost of the electricity? Electrolysis is inefficient – doesn’t that make it prohibitively expensive? Well, remember that we’ll only need seasonal storage after we’ve built a LOT of solar and wind power, and we’re going after 100% renewable power on the grid. At that point there will be more than enough renewables on average, and there will be a lot of surplus in the summer, during the day. That power will be essentially free. So, even if the full cycle is only 25% efficient, that’s fine.

    All that’s left is generating capacity. Fuel cells are efficient, but remember: we don’t need efficiency here, because the power is very, very cheap. So, we go with cheap generation: single cycle turbines, or even internal combustion engines.

    1. The US doesn’t need 2 weeks of seasonal storage. If the combination of sunlight, hydro and wind to power the entire country is available for 6 hours a day on the worst day of the year then we need 24 hours of storage.

      1. That’s an excellent point: this analysis is a very conservative, worst-case scenario. It’s intended to reassure folks who aren’t familiar with the wide spectrum of strategies used for load following by grid operators (Independent System Operators) in the US.

        On the other hand, greatly minimizing backup storage would require pretty aggressive use of other strategies like over-building, long distance transmission, forecasting, decentralized resource management (e.g., rooftop PV) and demand side management. Those have costs, both in dollar terms and in organizational “band-width” to deal with complexity and risk.

        Optimal use of these strategies will evolve over time, as they are fine-tuned and expanded. Which will be most useful, lowest cost (and will fit best into utility and consumer cultures) is unpredictable.

      2. The nice thing is most industry countries have already a natural gas network that can be expanded and converted.

        Hydrogen can be transported in steel pipelines and stored in caverns. That’s cheap. If you don’t have the reserves, you need lots of high capacity overland power lines and serious overbuilding. That’s very expensive, and risky.

        Existing technology is electrolysis with an efficiency of 80%, and converting it back in a modified gas power plant with 60%. Plus the energy for transporting and storing. This depends.

        All this technology is mostly steel and concrete – so you build it big and fast. Just go to General Electric and order stuff. No exotic batteries, complicated high energy overland transmissions and other lot’s of new to develop stuff.

        A backup storage can deliver when a powerline has blown up for example – either by accident, terrorism or a storm. A tornado killing a 20 GW switch central in Iowa could darken New York then. Or you would even have to overbuild this expensive infrastructure.

        And with such a system, you could buy liquid hydrogen produced in the australian desert , or the Kalahari, transported by a converted LNG tanker and inject it into the canadian system during a cold winter.

        Or invest more in the fission / fusion technology, combined with geoenergy.

        1. Tony Seba and his team has already done the work. They collected real life data on energy consumption and renewable energy production in several large markets. Their conclusion is that you only need between 1-4 days worth of storage. All you have to do is build renewable capacity that is 3 to 5 times the demand and store the surplus in batteries. This is not only affordable, but the cheapest possible generation of electric power. In the US this would cost $2 trillion between 2021-2030. For perspective, the US spends around $1 trillion/year on war and the Federal government spends $1.6 trillion/year (pre-Covid number) on overpriced healthcare.

          This is a short 12 minute video that explains how the US can transition to 100% renewable with battery backup by 2030. If you want to get to the meat of the argument start at 4 minutes.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM2RxWtF4Ds

          1. I don’t see any indication that they modelled non-battery storage. Have you seen that?

            Their results make perfect sense for chemical batteries. And I agree that their solution is viable. But there are two problems.
            First, their costs are projected. 5x overbuilding would be uncompetitive with fossils right now. And, even with cost reductions I think it’s far from optimal. I strongly suspect that “wind-gas” (hydrogen, ammonia, methane, etc) is a substantially cheaper solution than overbuilding by 3 to 5 times, with as much as 4 days of battery storage.

            I strongly suspect that the optimal system would involve overbuilding of 1.5 to 2 times, one day of battery storage and 7-10 days of underground H2.

            Don’t get me wrong: this is good work, and it’s consistent with other studies which indicate that a fully renewable grid is perfectly viable. And…maybe that’s all that’s important right now.

            But it seems useful to point out that it’s a limited result, and we can do better by using the full spectrum of grid-management solutions.

            1. Yes that is possible. However note that cost of battery keeps falling by 20%/kWh/year. We are in the early stages of several battery breakthroughs (iron air, zinc air, molten metal, solid state, etc.). Batteries require no special infrastructure to install and respond in milliseconds to demand. How would you store H2 if there are no caverns or salt domes near power generation? Then there is the cost and low efficiency of converting the stored H2 back to electricity.

              Added after edit:
              Note that fossil fuel plants are overbuilt too by a factor of 2. Overbuilding is inevitable if you want the grid to meet peak demand.

            2. Suyog,

              I agree: solutions will vary depending on the resources available, and the relative costs at the time of installation.

              It helps to keep in mind the scale of things. One day of battery storage is expensive, even at $20 (which is only 20% of current costs): for the US that would be about $200B. But, one day of hydrogen storage would only cost very roughly $1B.

              Lot’s of variations are possible: you might have 14 days of storage but limit it to covering only 25% of consumption: that would sharply reduce the most expensive part, the gas turbines (or fuel cells, if relative costs go that way).

      3. I’m going to keep it simple- I think it is a big mistake to think that intermittent sources of electricity won’t need much more backup storage or other forms of standby generation that you guys suggest.
        It doesn’t worry me since the all the people who actually make policy decisions know this full well, and we are a hell a long way from this theoretical concern being relevant.

        I speak on this as a person who has lived with solar on the roof and in a state with a heavy renewable generation capability. The fluctuations in energy output are tremendous

        1. Some things to keep in mind:

          A single household PV installation has dramatically more variation in output than a regional grid: it’s the Law of Large Numbers.

          A regional grid has variety of energy sources: solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, coal, gas, oil/diesel, etc. Hydro is important for buffering other sources. Solar and wind are inversely correlated: when one is low the other tends to be high.

          Overbuilding has a dramatic effect. Let’s saw we only had wind power available for our grid (not likely – but maybe we’re at Nome Alaska in winter…). If we build generation to exactly match consumption on average, then very roughly 50% of the time we’ll have too much power, and roughly half the time we’ll have not enough. If we overbuild by 100% ( or build 2 x what we need, on average) then we’d have too much very roughly 75% of the time, and too little 25%. Overbuild by 3x and we’d probably have too much 90% of the time. And so on.

          And that’s just overbuilding: we’re assuming we had only one power source, and didn’t have access to transmission from other regions, or use Demand Side Management, etc., etc., etc.

          I know, I know: solar is lower in winter. Wind is higher, and that would help, but yes, winter is still the problem. That’s why we’re talking about seasonal storage…

          1. Nick G —
            A major source of demand in winter is heating. This problem can be solved with better insulation. Sometimes energy problems aren’t energy problems at all.

            It doesn’t make a lot of sense to live in a poorly insulated building in a cold climate and then build huge power plants and burn tons of fuel to deal with the problem.

            1. Absolutely. Wall insulation, better windows, plugging air leaks are all important. I’ve found laminated glass very useful: no heat needed above freezing.

              Of course, some older houses are much harder to improve than others.

            2. Those are easy words to say [insulate better] and it couldn’t be more true.
              And yet the cost and feasibility of improving the performance of most pre-existing buildings in the world is a huge challenge.
              Get some bids for projects if you aren’t familiar.
              Save up.

        2. Hickory,
          The solution to intermittency is distributed generation, overbuilding by a factor of 3 to 5 (see Tony Seba’s video linked above) and storage.

          1. Agree, but more storage than you guys have been talking about.
            This is a discussion that will have much more importance in the far future, since it will take most places another decade or more likely three decades at current pace to even get to 1x production.
            Better not shut down the nat gas turbines too fast, or you will handing the opponents of energy innovation a huge gift in the form of rolling blackouts.

            1. Well, what’s your rough estimate of the amount of storage that might be needed?

            2. I don’t have rough estimate, but I do know that a few days for grid storage will be a recipe for failure. Very quickly.
              As far as how much might be needed, that is a very vague question considering all the different variables at play in such a question.
              If you want an educated answer to that question then ask a series of people who actually work in grid management- California ISO for example. Those people have their finger on the pulse.
              https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx

              Someone like Seba is not a good source for this info since he has taken the role of vision promoter. Selling a vision. Its nice, but not for actual planning purposes, I think.

            3. Mark Jacobsen has done a lot of work on this. His work seems to minimize storage:

              Going green will pay off in 7 years, says study

              Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson published a study that says going 100% green will pay for itself in seven years. Jacobson’s research underpinned the Green New Deal, according to Bloomberg.

              Jacobson’s study, which is titled, “Impacts of Green New Deal Energy Plans on Grid Stability, Costs, Jobs, Health, and Climate in 143 Countries,” was published in the journal One Earth.
              https://woods.stanford.edu/news/stanford-study-charts-path-green-new-deal-143-countries

              It would cost $73 trillion to revamp power grids, transportation, manufacturing and other systems to run on wind, solar and hydro power, including enough storage capacity to keep the lights on overnight.

              But that would be offset by annual savings of almost $11 trillion, the report found.

              Jacobson claims in his paper:

              Studies among at least 11 independent research groups have found that transitioning to 100% renewable energy in one or all energy sectors, while keeping the electricity and/or heat grids stable at a reasonable cost, is possible.

            4. Hickory,

              I agree with you: the precise form of a 100% renewables grid is kind’ve academic.

              But…a lot of people on POB seem to have a hard time believing it’s possible. So, for them, showing how solutions would work is helpful.

            5. Oh Christ, not the Mark Jacobson report again. It was, and still is, pure unadulterated hopium.

              https://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722

              Did you know if we had a 200×200 km square of PV cells in the Sahara, we’d have all the energy we ever needed? Did I mention PV cells are cheaper than ever? Energy SOLVED!

              Meanwhile, back at the ranch…

              And there are plenty of other critiques outside of those woolly assumptions, namely to do with reality and how it is super easy to talk theory but not put into practise. We already heard a load of guff about hydrogen and I’ve not seen anything but handwaving over the cost and time needed simply to change the boilers over, to say nothing of the pipe work. Strangely relevant objections are ignored.

              I’m just going to skip over Seba since smarter people than me have pointed out his tendency to make headlines with ridiculously over optimistic predictions. He is to renewables what Shellenberger is to nuclear.

            6. Kleiber,

              The report you provided argues for the elimination of fossil fuels:

              “A number of studies, including a study by one of us, have concluded that an 80% decarbonization of the US electric grid could be achieved at reasonable cost (1, 2).”

              It argues that Jacobsen’s approach is sub-optimal: that it’s too narrow to allow for the lowest cost:

              “A number of analyses, meta-analyses, and assessments, including those performed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the International Energy Agency, have concluded that deployment of a diverse portfolio of clean energy technologies makes a transition to a low-carbon-emission energy system both more feasible and less costly than other pathways”.

              This seems to be an argument over details. For instance, Jacobson does not include biomass, which the author argues can come from current waste and can produce bio-gas equal to about 40% of current NG.

              Jacobsen replied quite assertively to this criticism: The post below covers the back and forth over Jacobson’s proposals.

              https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/08/mark-jacobson-naysayers/

            7. Kleiber,

              The report you provided argues for the elimination of fossil fuels:

              Yeah, why wouldn’t it? That’s kinda why I read it all those years ago.

              So we’re on the same page, pointing out how difficult it is to run the world on renewables and soon is not the same as never wanting it. I’d love for nothing more than energy so cheap there’s no point metering it (and we all know where that bullshit landed us). But it’s not going to happen, in fact, my bills have only gone up as I’ve moved to the more ethical renewable electric and bio-gas providers over the pond. Though energy for all providers is going up quite a bit now as they fail to make money.

              I had a brief look over your link, and that 80% comment is rather confusing for the critique paper to have put in. Poor reviewing there by PNAS, it seems, so that was a good catch. Overall my point stands: the reason you’re not seeing these plans come about is primarily because it assuredly isn’t as easy or as cheap as many would have you imagine. If it were, the fossil fuel companies who already have clout in this race, would have easily been all ready to take hold of the torch and move us away from such harmful carbon based fuels. It’s all very well talking up theoreticals, and I’ve read plenty. But as my comment about the Sahara PV idea puts across, it’s nothing to do with our technology level or how much sunshine or wind we have on Earth.

              Ask yourself, if it’s such a slam-dunk, why is no government on the planet anywhere near achieving such a goal in decarbonisation? It sounds like everyone is utterly clueless, yet I’ve just read the past month about countless new coal, gas, and oil projects on the books. China saying it’ll be carbon free mid-century (super useful that is…) and then opening old coal plants to stop people freezing to death or suffering rolling blackouts tells me it’s not as cut and dry as many make it out to be. Just like nuclear was never a wonder tech that made everything possible. Fool me once…

              It’s also utterly beside the point, because as I’ve argued in the past and Hickory does here in this thread, solving carbon emissions does not solve for climate change or environmental damage. On the contrary, renewables are terrible in different ways to fossil fuels. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and anyone thinking they can carry on as they do now because they drive a Tesla with Solar City produced electricity is deluding themselves. But it doesn’t mean getting that ICE off the road and that house off a centralised gas and coal powered grid isn’t a goal. It’s just not a solution.

              The best and only option is, and always was, degrowth and realignment of our cultures to a world without rapacious growth in consumption and population. Green tech puts a nice ethical spin on what is otherwise BAU, but without burning ancient sunlight. People need to understand that plans to move off FFs do not mean we dodged the bullet, thought it’s too late now anyway. They mean we need to work within a new paradigm whereby the energy access is constrained and the wants of most people are declined in lieu of the needs of others.

              Either way, this is all WAY too late to address climate change anyway given the details of trance leaked AR6 assessment report without political filter language applied skewing the severity of our predicament. That the global gov’ts haven’t done much even after this is pretty telling of how screwed we are. Your house is on fire, will you at least stop pouring gasoline on the blaze and maybe call a fire engine? Nah, we’re good.

          2. I’m familiar with California’s ISO. I have found them very useful. Also https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/, ercot (TX), New England, PJM and the rest.

            They do a lot of planning exercises but I haven’t noticed a 100% renewables scenario: have you seen something?

            1. No, but I do know that they wrestle with electricity supply on a second by second basis, juggling a very complex situation. Without that sort of background I think most experts have a sizeable hole in their resume.
              Its like a person making health care policy, but never spent time working in the emergency room and ICU.

              Check this out to get a glimpse of the challenge-
              https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/story/2019-06-12/california-grid-operator-a-target-for-millions-of

    2. Dihydrogen is a molecule whose behavior is different from the behavior of methane. This molecule is smaller than methane. So the storage is more difficult than with methane. The conversion of the existing network of gazoduc and pipes is going to be an herculean task. In France, the introduction of hydrogen into the gas network is limited to 8% as the pipes are not conceived to transport hydrogen. And by the way, instead of using energy to store in the soil hydrogen produced on surface, it could be more useful to prospect and extract natural hydrogen, as far as possible. There are apparently a lot of areas in the USA which could explored and evaluated. On this map, the sites where hydrogen emissions from the ground have been detected so far.

      1. Pure Hydrogen can be transported in steel pipelines, and stored in caverns.
        This has been done already.

        There is a 100 miles hydrogen pipeline in Germany, working since 80 years.

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

        Town gas in the 1900-1930s was 50% hydrogen and was transported in cast steel pipelines and stored in gasometers. This is no rocket technology.

  2. The environmental movement may be gaining some traction, not much, but still enough to be encouraging, as the result of so much coverage of record setting wildfires.
    I’m seeing a gradual change in the attitude of some of my hillbilly neighbors in respect to such events.

    And some of the regulars here may remember that I said we would be at every high risk of losing the local area fruit harvest this year due to unseasonably warm late winter weather, in combination with a typical hard spring frost.
    It happened. Production won’t average more than ten percent, fifteen percent max, of the usual five year average.

  3. A bit of background on storage in salt domes. Storage, for oil, gas or hydrogen, is not in old salt mines but salt dome storage. That is hollowed out salt domes created for the specific purpose of storage.

    What is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?

    The salt caverns are created by drilling wells into massive salt domes and injecting them with freshwater to dissolve the salts. The dissolved salt is then pumped back o­ut and either piped several miles offshore or reinjected into disposal wells. This process, called solution mining, creates caverns of very precise dimensions that can hold anywhere from 6 to 35 million barrels of oil. The average cavern can hold 10 million barrels of oil, and at 200 feet (61 meters) wide by 2,000 feet (610 meters) high, it’s big enough to comfortably fit Chicago’s Sears Tower inside [source: DOE].

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/strategic-petroleum-reserve1.htm

    http://geology.com/stories/13/salt-domes/

    1. Thanks Nick , never had an inkling about how all the oil and gas was stored .

      1. Seeing as how the arctic and Canada are on fire, I’m inclined to agree.

    2. There are maps included in this link indicating hundreds of miles of existing hydrogen pipelines.

    3. Italian city of Bolzano is testing hydrogen buses for regular city traffic. They have now 17 buses and have ordered 12 more. Testing is supported by EU; single bus costs three times more than regular diesel bus. Hydrogen is produced with non-polluting electricity from tap water; article does not tell exactly whether wind or sun is used for electricity.
      Similar tests are done iin Innsbruck and München.
      There seems to be great confidence for hydrogen use in future, visions about large facilities in Africa and Italy would be a hub for hydrogen transport and delivery to Europe.

      At least there are attempts to bring a more resilient future – OTOH as the discussions here show there are so many problems that need solutions that one fears that any changes are too small too late anyway.

  6. Thanks Hickory. Mitsubishi’s turbines max out at 30% H2; they are targeting 100% H2 by 2025.

    GE seem to be much further along. See attached chart…

  7. Energy facilities, and other vital infrastructure like rail and ports, are at increasing risk from global warming effects-
    “Coastal energy infrastructure is increasingly threatened by rising sea levels, storm surge, and severe storms. Inland energy infrastructure, especially along rivers, is exposed to the greater frequency of extreme precipitation events.”
    https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/energy-facilities
    https://coast.noaa.gov/floodexposure/#-10216539,3562127,6z

      1. I can’t read that article without an account, but from the headline it looks like a good example of this problem. A detailed report from a few years is full of good detailed info on the food distribution system-
        https://www.chathamhouse.org/2017/06/chokepoints-and-vulnerabilities-global-food-trade

        A similar report on energy would be fascinating, but it would be a very big project.
        The amount of money that will need to be spent on hardening and moving low lying energy, food, and commerce infrastructure facilities up hill around the world is astronomical.
        Price to pay for all the easy energy that the world is built on.

      2. That river basin [Parana] is the source of huge amount of Ag exports to rest of the world.
        If you have any interest in Geography, and all of the related aspects, it is a watershed worthy of study.

  8. Fascinating article from a Darwinian perspective arguing that stupid people and social media are basically functioning as an immune system for the virus:

    The new Moloch.

    1. It’s a cute idea, but…the virus didn’t create the anti-vax meme, Republicans did for their own reasons.

      1. That’s not really the point, though. No one is saying the virus is literally cybernetic and is memetically altering society as well as biologically. What is happening, though, is the confluence of genetics and memetics allowing for a natural disease to gain better standing in society. Think of the anti-vaxxers and Republicans here as being what the KGB would call “Useful Idiots”, were the USSR a virus in this case. Our own culture is allowing for something that could have been eradicated easily to persist and prosper.

        Imagine if smallpox had such apologists.

        1. I agree with that, but the original article doesn’t seem to limit itself to something sensible like that:

          “In this post, I propose the idea that COVID-19 is the first virus to jump the platform barrier also, from natural biology to human technology. COVID-19 exists now as two symbiotic, coevolving viruses: the molecular COVID-19 virus, which is transmitted by contact between human bodies, and a memetic virus that’s transmitted by social media contact between human minds.”

          The Republican lies about covid aren’t a magical, overpowering “memetic virus”. It’s simply a set of lies, propagated by the power of conservative authority and media saturation. It would fall apart if it wasn’t propelled by these conservative political and media leaders.

          To suggest that these lies are simply a spontaneous social virus is to deny the reality of really bad, really corrupt leadership.

          1. Thank you Nick for a fantastic post. I agree 1000%. The anti-maskers and the anti-vaxxers are costing lives. They are preventing us from getting this virus under control. If everyone would get the vaccine today we could wipe this virus out in a month. But these idiots, these absolutely blooming idiots, are preventing this from happening. They are causing people to die. They are responsible for the deaths of children, young adults, and thousands of others who die from this preventable virus.

            I just deleted a post from an anti-vaxxer. I will not allow this site to be an instrument of death. They can take their death cult somewhere else. I am sorry if I seem to be going over the edge here. But these idiots just blow me away. Just how stupid can one whole segment of the population get? That is a rhetorical question. Do not feel an obligation to reply.

    2. Thank you Mike. The author has updated with a link to a math model:

      royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2021.0186

  9. Harrowing New UN Report Finds Humans Are The ‘Unequivocal’ Cause Of Climate Change

    The latest review of climate literature finds that the window to avert catastrophic warming with existing tools is rapidly closing.

    How much worse is entirely up to us.

    “We know that there is no going back from some changes in the climate system — however, some of these changes could be slowed and others could be stopped by limiting warming,” Ko Barrett, vice chair of the IPCC and the senior adviser for climate at NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, said during a call with reporters.

    In the United States, President Joe Biden is advancing a number of policies to confront a threat that his predecessor, President Donald Trump, not only ignored but dismissed as a hoax. Ballooning emissions and decades of inaction by wealthy nations and polluting industries have rung in an era of extremes. The deadly heat wave that gripped the Pacific Northwest and Canada last month, for example, would have been ”virtually impossible” without human-caused climate change, a recent study concluded.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/united-nations-ipcc-climate_n_6110051be4b05f81570b9f50

    1. If that’s the case then why is global temperature rising not just on Earth but other Planets as well, especially Mars. Last I knew, nobody on other Planets is burning fossil fuels but maybe the old Huffpost knows more than the leading astrological climate scientists do.

      2. Doggie-Dingo , from which planet are you ? Do us a favor ,please return . This blog is for us inferior earthlings and not for aliens with such superior intellect . Adois .

    2. “…the window to avert catastrophic warming with existing tools is rapidly closing.”

      That became true when Ronald Reagan was re-elected in 1984.

      Once there’s damage on the apple, it’s too late to spray.

    3. Did the UN also ‘find’ an ‘unequivocal’ way to stop climate change?

      1. Sure. And it would be cheaper, and have a lot less pollution: Move away from oil, gas and coal.

      2. The oil, gas & coal industries would like you to believe that it can’t be done; or that it will hurt you; or that you should focus on something else, anything else, like problems with cows or biofuel, etc, but it’s fossil fuels that are the primary problem, and we don’t need them.

  10. This one is for Ron,

    Plus (formerly Plus.ai), a global provider of self-driving truck technology, has completed a driverless Level 4 truck demonstration on a highway. The driverless semi truck was operated using Plus’s Level 4 autonomous driving technology, without a safety driver, teleoperator, or any other forms of human intervention.

    This represents a significant milestone for the autonomous trucking industry and for Plus, which demonstrated the company’s first driverless Level 4 heavy truck operation at the Qingdao port in April 2018.

    The driverless Level 4 truck demonstration was completed on the Wufengshan highway in China’s largest economic center of Yangtze Delta. The demonstration was conducted with a special permit on the newly built highway, with Plus being the first company to be granted such a permit in China. During the demonstration, the driverless truck drove safely and smoothly in typical highway traffic.

    https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/08/plus-completes-driverless-level-4-semi-truck-highway-demonstration.html

    Ron’s comment- https://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-may-22-2021/#comment-718453

    1. Like all efforts at carbon capture the key determination is energy cost.
      Does it take more energy to capture CO2 [reduce the carbon] than was originally gained from the carbons prior oxidation (burning of fossil fuel)?

      for those who haven’t taken chemistry the term reduction in carbon chemistry in simple terms is the replacement of of oxygen bonds with hydrogen bonds- such as going from CO2 to ethanol in this example or CO2 to glucose in the example of photosynthesis. Carbon reduction is an energy requiring process, while the opposite reaction of oxidation releases energy. Just offering this info to clarify my opening statement.

      1. Hickory,

        That goes without saying (assuming, of course, that the people behind a proposal like this aren’t pure scammers!). The point of the article is simply that the efficiency of this process can be improved with a catalyst:

        “Because CO2 is a stable molecule, transforming it into a different molecule is normally energy intensive and costly. However, according to Liu, ​“We could couple the electrochemical process of CO2-to-ethanol conversion using our catalyst to the electric grid and take advantage of the low-cost electricity available from renewable sources like solar and wind during off-peak hours.” Because the process runs at low temperature and pressure, it can start and stop rapidly in response to the intermittent supply of the renewable electricity.”

        Oxidation & reduction are important concepts, but they can get complex. I think of them in a simple way: oxidation, and reversing oxidation. So, we burn a fossil fuel and in doing so we combine it with oxygen, producing useful energy and creating Co2. We pull off the oxygen, and we reverse the reaction, and we can get back pure carbon. That, of course, needs an energy input.

        Smelting is a form of reduction: you reduce aluminium oxide to get pure aluminium. It’s form of electrolysis, with an electricity input. You can purify iron ore in very roughly the same way: traditionally that’s done with coal, but it can be done with electricity directly, or indirectly with electrolytic hydrogen (which, surprisingly, seems to be more convenient). Coal has historically been a cheap way to reduce iron ore, which is why iron is cheaper than aluminium.

        1. The big problem is the availibility of hydrogen. And converting carbon dioxide in ethanol is a waste of energy as the hydrogen can be used directly. If they have so much hydrogen to reduce carbon dioxide, why they are not using it directly as a source of energy? On the other hand, reducing iron ore into iron sponge by using reduction with hydrogen is more pertinent as for this stage, coal will not be used. For aluminium oxide, the reduction is possible through exotic conditions in laboratory experiments. https://www.powermag.com/world-first-test-production-of-fossil-free-hydrogen-reduced-sponge-iron-completed/

          1. I understand the gas-to-liquid plans are because liquids are more convenient to manage.

            The energetics of hydrogen are well understood now. This week there was an article in the Toronto Globe & Mail (paywall) examining the hype. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/international-business/article-hydrogen-powered-vehicles-a-realistic-path-to-clean-energy/

            Some interesting things from that;

            Within three years, General Motors, Navistar and the trucking firm J.B. Hunt plan to build fuelling stations and run hydrogen trucks on several U.S. freeways. Toyota, Kenworth and the Port of Los Angeles have begun testing hydrogen trucks to haul goods from ships to warehouses.

            Volvo Trucks, Daimler Trucks AG and other manufacturers have announced partnerships, too. The companies hope to commercialize their research, offering zero-emissions trucks that save money and meet stricter pollution regulations.

            In Germany, a hydrogen-powered train began operating in 2018, and more are coming. French-based Airbus, the world’s largest manufacturer of airliners, is considering hydrogen as well.

            “This is about the closest I’ve seen us get so far to that real turning point,” said Shawn Litster, a professor of mechanical engineering at Carnegie Mellon University who has studied hydrogen fuel cells for nearly two decades.

            Hydrogen has long been a feedstock for the production of fertilizer, steel, petroleum, concrete and chemicals. It’s also been running vehicles for years: Around 35,000 forklifts in the United States, about 4 per cent of the country’s total, are powered by hydrogen. Its eventual use on roadways, to haul heavy loads of cargo, could begin to replace diesel-burning polluters.

            No one knows when, or even whether, hydrogen will be adopted for widespread use. Craig Scott, Toyota’s head of advanced technology in North America, says the company is perhaps two years from having a hydrogen truck ready for sale. Building more fuelling stations will be crucial to widespread adoption.

            Kirt Conrad, CEO of Canton’s transit authority since 2009, says other transit systems have shown so much interest in the technology that SARTA takes its buses around the country for demonstrations. Canton’s system, which bought its first three hydrogen buses in 2016, has since added 11. It’s also built a fuelling station. Two California transit systems, in Oakland and Riverside County, have hydrogen buses in their fleets.

            “We’ve demonstrated that our buses are reliable and cost-efficient, and as a result, we’re breaking down barriers that have slowed wider adoption of the technology,” Mr. Conrad said.

            The test at the Port of Los Angeles started in April, when the first of five semis with Toyota hydrogen powertrains began hauling freight to warehouses in Ontario, Calif., about 100 kilometres away. The US$82.5-million public-private project eventually will have 10 semis.

            Hydrogen fuel is included in U.S. President Joe Biden’s plans to cut emissions in half by 2030. The infrastructure bill the Senate approved this week includes US$9-billion for research to reduce the cost of making clean hydrogen, and for regional hydrogen manufacturing hubs.

            The long-haul trucking industry appears to be the best bet for early adoption of hydrogen. Fuel cells, which convert hydrogen gas into electricity, provide a longer range than battery-electric trucks, fare better in cold weather and can be refuelled much faster than electric batteries can be recharged. Proponents say the short refuelling time for hydrogen vehicles gives them an edge over electric vehicles for use in taxis or delivery trucks, which are in constant use.

            That advantage was important for London-based Green Tomato Cars, which uses 60 hydrogen fuel cell-powered Toyota Mirai cars in its 500-car zero emission fleet to transport corporate customers. Co-founder Jonny Goldstone said his drivers can travel over 500 kilometres on a tank and refuel in three minutes.

            …

            For now, Green Tomato is among the largest operators of hydrogen vehicles in what is still a tiny market in Europe, with about 2,000 fuel cell cars, garbage trucks and delivery vans on the roads.

            About 7,500 hydrogen fuel cell cars are on the road in the U.S., mostly in California. Toyota, Honda and Hyundai produce the cars, which are priced thousands more than gasoline-powered vehicles. California has 45 public fuelling stations, with more planned or under construction.

            Unlike with buses and heavy trucks, experts say the future of passenger vehicles in the U.S. lies mainly with electric battery power, not hydrogen. Fully electric vehicles can travel farther than most people need to go on a relatively small battery.

            1. GM also threw a lot of money at Nikola. I trust their visionary leaders about as far as I can lob the city of Detroit.

              Hydrogen trucks might make more sense than batteries, but that’s only because your choices are between the equivalents of the Wright Bros. flier and the Spirit Of St. Louis when what you need is a 747.

  12. Right.
    My point was that all of these applications need to viewed in terms of energy viability.
    Just because there is a catalyst doesn’t mean it gets anywhere close to real world viability.
    Thats all.

    1. Agree.
      I had this subject in university years ago that was cost accounting. I did not get the hang of it. The point was to attribute costs to a factor… In the energy transition space it translates to investment against benefit (revenue stream). So fossil fuels have a decreasing proposition due to higher investments than before and increasingly lower revenue at least in volume terms. Renewables have a debatable reduced investment cost (more honest to say there are some problems with increased raw material costs at the moment). But the useful longevity of the metals uncovered in this boom (nickel, lithium, aluminum, copper, platinum , silver, cobalt and several rare earth metals) may be high etc. 20-40 years. And after that many of them are perfectly recyclable on the caveat to use surplus electricity to do so.

      Arguments stand to pursue “the green transition”; it will not be very easy (my honest take). It (green energy) will also contribute to getting energy supply diversity and as a consequence more security. Which many nations want.

      1. It’s the same with something like rare Earth mining of the oceans or even just desalination. Technically, yes you can get gold and clean potable water from the ocean. But can you afford it energetically and monetarily? Those are variables not to be dismissed.

        1. Sure.

          It’s just that I haven’t seem much sign of such dismissal. On the contrary, the forces who support fossil fuels, and who oppose a transition away from them, do a very good job of raising such doubts…

      1. I’m hopeful that their systems are actually viable given what I’ve read. The simplicity works in their favour here, even if it has those teething problems.

  14. You guys interested in renewable powered grid with storage may find this good info to digest-

    “12 hours of energy storage enough for U.S. to run on 80% solar+wind…. Scientists in California have modeled a solar-heavy/wind power electricity grid, without nationwide HVDC, that could reliably deliver 80% of U.S. electricity needs. 100% of needs would require 3 weeks of energy storage.”

    https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/

    1. Hmm, it’s not only storage.

      The main problem are the powerlines needed to fill a hole – when the complete east coast is in a cloudy wether with not much wind. The power line needed are bigger and more expensive than anything build before. The biggest over land power lines build are a few GW so far – you’ll need dozends of them accross the whole USA:

      Or the 20% backup has enough power to deliver 100% – kind of lots of peaker plants. That would be a second infrastructure.

      So the 3 weeks storage is it. It’ll be hydrogen – filled up with the projected 50% over capacity. So the efficieny doesn’t matter at all, since the overcapacity would be voided otherwise. It can be 30%.
      So it’s all caverns, steel pipes and gas turbines – not that expensive to build. The new thing to develope are the giant electrolysis cells, scaling existing infrastructure to the max.

      More safe and I think even a lot cheaper than 100 GW powerlines cross the country. Imagine a short circuit in a 100 GW power line – it would be like a MOAB explosion.

      The 12 hour storage will be needed additional, as a day / night equalizer. This will be battery / pumped hydro.

      1. The way I see it is not whether we can afford the long distance high capacity power lines plus the wind and solar farms……… but rather can we afford NOT to build them?

        In my estimation these things are going to be just as important to our future security as the military industrial complex that has at least prevented any other country from launching a serious attack against us.

        Building this infrastructure is most likely going to cost less than the MIC.

        It won’t have to be built all at once, and as it gets built, the cost of doing it, on a per unit of capacity or mile will fall substantially.

        Costs almost always fall when an industry is scaled up.

        1. “but rather can we afford NOT to build them?”

          Bingo. Grand slam bingo.

        2. Building this infrastructure is most likely going to cost less than the MIC.

          It’s also likely to cost less than FF BAU. Authors of studies often compare several renewable scenarios, but fail to include BAU as a baseline. It’s very likely that most or all the scenarios will be cheaper than FF BAU.

        3. Not being dependend on high power lines is important – it adds resilence to bad situations.

          Having the backup more local in caverns – you can connect these with good old steel pipelines – gives you independence when a blizzard downs powerlines or a hack attack takes out one single transformer station.

          Remember – a system of caverns connected by pipelines can endure the pipeline being blown up and is needed to repair. And it’s more propable in a bad situation (as a winter blizzard) to be able to power up a 100 MW turbine fed by a local cavern, then putting your faith in a 3000 miles long power line.

          A blown up power line is blackout in the next second – or 12 hours when the battery backup is empty.

          The 12 hour battery backup I assume in both scenarios – a hydrogen store will be only tapped when the batteries run dry. And normal powerline connection will be there, too – only not the maximum scenario when solar cells in California can run the whole eastcoast cluttered in fog, from New York to Atlanta.

          PS: We have a system like this on nat gas basis here in Germany. Now it is fed with external gas sources, but can distribute between north and south and has lot’s of reserves. This is for heating and power stations.

          I think this can be converted to hydrogen – there are already studies done and plans in the making. They are also building(more planning because of the nimby-problem) big power lines – but these are very expensive, you have the nimby-problem and they still can deliver only a small fraction of the power needed when you switch off gas, coal and nuclear.

  15. About the Deep Earth Energy Project (DEEP) in Saskatchewan. Has government and private funding.

    “The first 32 MW facility is anticipated to commence construction in 2022 and involves a plan to drill 18 horizontal wells, each with a total length of approximately 7,000 meters. Subsequent phases are projected to reach 160 MW with additional drilling and construction. Based on our extensive international directional drilling experience and industry leading technology, we are confident we can make a meaningful contribution to DEEP’s business strategy and through our equity investment share in future growth. The geothermal industry experience gained through our involvement with DEEP also positions us favorably to participate in other geothermal projects in North America and internationally.”

    Their site is https://deepcorp.ca

  16. Emerging geothermal technology.

    This is a description of the Eavor-loop project which has a little better explanation than other sources.
    From https://www.bdplaw.com/publications/hot-rocks-is-an-alberta-geothermal-energy-industry-more-than-just-hot-air/

    Eavor-Loop

    Eavor Technologies Inc. (Eavor), an Alberta company, is the developer of the Eavor-Loop, a closed loop system, which consists of two vertical wells several kilometers apart connected by many horizontal multilateral wellbores. The expertise of Alberta’s drilling industry is highly applicable to projects like the Eavor-Loop that require precise drilling. The Eavor-Loop uses these horizontal wellbores as an underground “radiator” and does not require a porous and permeable formation (whether naturally occurring or enhanced through hydraulic fracturing). Due to the unique nature of the working fluids Eavor uses as a medium, it does not employ conventional completion methods, but has invented a proprietary completion technology to isolate the working fluid from surrounding rock (without loss of circulation).

    The configuration of the Eavor-Loop allows the fluids to circulate naturally, thus saving the “parasitic” energy costs normally expended to pump the fluids in and out of the formation. The process is called thermosiphoning – the hot fluids in the wellbores tend to rise to the surface and the cooler fluids from which the heat energy has been extracted at the surface tend to sink. The heat energy brought to the surface is used to generate electricity in a specialized generator that operates using lower temperature fluids than conventional generators. Although the temperature of the heat source will decline over time, the decline is slow, allowing for a significant productive term. Eavor Technologies Inc. currently has a demonstration project near Rocky Mountain House, Alberta. The project was designed to prove the critical elements of the Eavor-Loop technology, not its commerciality at this stage.

    Eavor-Loop technology is theoretically capable of operating at scale almost anywhere on Earth.

    “does not employ conventional completion methods”
    and
    “proprietary completion technology”
    and
    “specialized generator that operates using lower temperature fluids than conventional generators”

    may mean that this is where the major problems will come from.

    1. Thanks Gerry.

      The project was designed to prove the critical elements of the Eavor-Loop technology, not its commerciality at this stage.

      Like Ambri’s liquid metal battery above? Design elements proved in 2012, still not commercial in 2021. Hopefully Eavor-loop will be commercially available and successful before 2030.

      PS I’m a big fan of new technology, a techno-optimist even. Great that so many solutions are being pursued…

      1. Yeah, I’m hopeful something will come of the Eavor-loop. They’re also building one in Germany. The unconventional well completion and unconventional electric generator are ‘pink’ flags until they actually provide some data.

        I remember 20 or 30 years ago when a company provided much hype about their new air car. When you read that they were developing a revolutionary new engine which would enable this air car to do miraculous things, it was clear that it was mostly speculation without any substance.

  17. “By 2060 the world’s second-largest economy aims to transform its power generation mix from roughly 70% from fossil fuels today to 90% from renewable sources such as wind and solar, as well as hydro and nuclear power,”

    Sorry to burst the bubble energy planners, but this is not a lofty or auspicious goal.
    Its more a story of desperation that all nations will be engaged in- a struggle to keep things moving despite being far beyond peak oil, and gas, and coal, and forests.

    https://daily.energybulletin.org/2021/08/china-is-redrawing-the-worlds-energy-map-bloomberg/

    1. As I said – there is lot’s of old, developed technology you can use to build this.

      Pipelines, harbours, tankers, solar cells in utility scale – only new thing are the increased electrolysis cells. You can build big and fast – when using these liquid metal batteries you have to start at lab level first, going up seveal stages until you reach utility level. 20 years later at best.

      So it’s a lower risk project than going into more modern technology. And you can scale this stuff without problems. Using a few sqare miles of west australian desert gives less problems than doing this in developed countries, too – say enviromentalists.

      And with a 360 day / year sun desert, a political stable country (no ISIS fundamentalist sending bomb drones every now and then) you can calculate better than in the common oil producting gulf country.

      1. only new thing are the increased electrolysis cells. You can build big and fast

        And you don’t need to build that much – it’s an asymmetric kind of thing. If you need 3 weeks of storage that will be used once per year then your average H2 production can be very roughly 10% of average grid generation (3 weeks of generation output divided by 52 weeks weeks of electrolytic input, divided by 60% utilization factor).

        Also, by the same logic, you’ll only need 20% overbuilding to power this (3 weeks of generation output divided by 52 weeks weeks of grid input, divided by 30% efficiency).

  19. Making hydrogen at offshore wind turbines?

    1, It is usually (much) cheaper to transport hydrogen than it is to move electricity.

    2, Having the electrolyser in the turbine or on a nearby structure enables the electronics in the turbine to be simpler.

    3, If making hydrogen is the ultimate purpose of the electricity made at the wind farm, then it may make sense never to attach the turbine to the grid. …

    4, In addition, the hydrogen pipeline to the shore can act as a very efficient storage medium. …

    https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2021/8/11/hydrogen-made-at-the-wind-turbine

    1. Additionally, removing the requirement for grid connection frees wind project deployment from the number one constraint- getting the grid interconnection permit. You need the permit before you can get construction loans, equipment purchase, and physical grid extension to your site.
      This applies to both onshore and offshore deployment.
      Secondly- you will avoid any production curtailment, which happens regularly when the grid has temporary instances of electricity overload.

      Curtailment- “As renewable energy continues to grow, producers, distributors and customers alike keep grappling with the growing pains of increasing variability in the nation’s power supply. A key challenge is curtailment, the deliberate reduction in renewable output below what could have been produced, in order to balance energy supply and demand….In states like California, a rapid buildout of renewables has led to excess supply, especially during peak solar hours. As a result, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) has often sold excess energy from its grid at a loss rather than undertake costly shutdowns and re-starts of natural gas-fired power plants — and renewable generation is often curtailed [disconnected from the grid]”

  21. Heat pumps for building temp control- yeh

    “We found that the heat pump was not only capable of maintaining a comfortable and safe indoor air temperature during extreme heat, but it also costs $228 less per year to operate than a dual fuel cooling and heating system (AC unit gas furnace). In addition, CO2 emissions are reduced by around 25 percent for the entire home when it operates with the heat pump compared to the high-capacity AC and furnace.”

    https://cleantechnica.com/2021/08/12/why-heat-pumps-are-the-answer-to-heat-waves/

    Another great feature is that during summer heat, these units can be supplied directly from the sites own solar output during much of the day.

    1. While good for cooling, in the UK there has been a lot of consternation over heat pumps for heating as opposed to gas boilers. Namely because it demands much larger gauge pipes and radiators and a lot better insulation to be viable in most properties being retrofitted. Though this is for air-to-water systems of the air source variety, not air-to-air that can be reversed to act like A/C.

      1. Any thoughts about ductless mini-split heat pumps? They would seem to be a good solution for such retrofits.

        1. The lady I have been living with since about six months after my dear wife departed in 2017, has three of them in our home. I love them. She loves them. On very hot days we can just turn two of them on and they cool the whole house. On normal days one will do the trick.

          And of course, they are heaters in the winter. Works perfectly in the winter also. We love them and would recommend them to everyone. We live in a more temperate area of the nation, Las Cruces New Mexico, about 40 miles north of El Pas Texas.

    2. I have a friend who has run some extra wiring in his house that is supplied by his solar panels, so that he can run window air conditioners, fans, and so forth without any grid connection.

      If he needs AC at night, he simply moves ac cords from solar sourced outlets to grid sourced outlets.

      This has worked like a charm for him since he lives in a place with lots of hot muggy but mostly sunny weather.

    1. The liberal establishment in general and the Democrat Party in particular need to be putting some serious effort into publicizing such news as is in this link about building offshore wind farms.

      A HELL of a lot of people in the trades are hard core right wingers.
      And a hell of a lot of them will sing a different political tune when they come to understand who is in favor of building stuff that will provide jobs for them…….

      And the wind and solar industries are going to provide many times as many jobs as the fossil fuel industries, with the jobs distributed more evenly all over the country.

  23. https://cleantechnica.com/2021/08/13/nrels-thermoplastic-blade-research-dives-deep-with-verdant-powers-tidal-energy-turbines/

    My personal opinion is that tidal power is going to be HUGE within another five to ten years, and grow as fast or even faster than the solar power industry, once there are standardized design tidal turbines in mass production.

    Just look at the advantages……. nearly perfect prediction of production for years in advance, meaning this is power that can be either fed directly into the grid on a firm schedule, or to charge up batteries on a twenty four or even four hour cycle. This is going to go a HELL of a long way towards solving the intermittency problem, and making HIGHLY efficient use of batteries which can be charged up for peak demand periods such as early evening when every body gets home from work, etc.

    And these machines are going to use only a small fraction of the amount of materials needed to build big wind turbines, especially big offshore turbines.

    It’s going to be easier to transport and install them by a factor of five or ten, for a wild ass guess.

    Now as far as HOW many can eventually be built, I have no real idea.

    1. Tidal, although certainly promising with some new developments, has limits to how much energy it will provide. It’s a LOT less than solar and wind. You’re looking at a 100 GW global from sites considered viable.

      Additionally, for how simple the ideas are in utilising tides, the technology has only really come to a point where it may even be viable. Anything in the ocean is inherently less long lasting and harder to maintain and produce than something like PV cells on a roof or turbines in a land based farm.

      https://youtu.be/pdxjlRFjNLU

Comments are closed.