Making Methane in Swindon

[Moxi]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/n ... df79&ei=28

Low on detail but I believe I understand how they are doing it - how much more inefficient could they possibly strive to be though

To me it feels like they forget the check phrase " we can do it! but should we?"

Moxi

[MikeNovack]

I don't get this at all. USUALLY proposed sustainable methane plants are capturing methane produced by anaerobic decomposition of waste. Particularly in a wet climate, a lot of that waste (manure, etc.) is going to decompose by anaerobic organisms, so the methane will be produced, the only question is, will it be captured << remember, methane is a worse "greenhouse gas" than the carbon dioxide you get from burning it >>

[Stig]

Here's a thought: why not co-site it with an anaerobic digester that's burning methane from food waste to generate electricity.

Or am I missing something?

[Moxi]

Well I presume they use electricity to make hydrogen from electrolysis and then mix in CO2 and pass over a catalyst to produce Methane aka the Sabatier process ? use the electric directly is the most efficient followed by use the hydrogen you made using the electric followed by use the methane made from the electric making hydrogen and extra electric creating the right catalyst temperature ?

As an article its very light on detail - devoid.

Moxi

[ivan]

What a stupid idea! Presumably to part wealthy idiots from their money for 'investment' purposes. Where are they getting their CO2? Bottled CO2 is actually quite expensive, and often made by burning gases like methane, as it provides nice clean gas. So chances are, this is what they're using. It certainly makes sense to be sited by a clean CO2 producer such as a large brewing plant, but that should be a pre-requisite not an afterthought that wasn't possible. And that is before you consider they will be putting more joules of electricity in than they will get out as useful fuel.

I don't think their 'renewable methane' will be very eco-friendly when they do the maths. I really cannot see the purpose of producing methane from electricity EXCEPT as a vehicle fuel where energy density is more important than carbon-footprint, but EVs have already evolved to a level where they generally satisfy that requirement.

Who provides the funding for these ideas? I could provide hundreds of similar ideas!

[NoraBatty]

My head hurts!

Their alternative to pumping ff methane out of the ground to burn and add to carbon emissions, is to fill a field with solar panels, to generate electricity to heat limestone, producing to CO2,
They are then going to seperate H and o2 from H2O by electrolysis with more solar electricity, then mix the Co2 with hydrogen to make methane... and burn that to produce electricity and add to carbon emissions instead?!

Heath Robinson comes to mind!

https://rivan.com/little-rose-lane/

[smegal]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/n ... df79&ei=28

Low on detail but I believe I understand how they are doing it - how much more inefficient could they possibly strive to be though

To me it feels like they forget the check phrase " we can do it! but should we?"

Moxi

Sabatier reaction?

I agree, sounds like a subsidy farming exercise. They'll argue that the limestone will then absorb atmospheric CO2, but would be better using another cO2 source.

[Oliver90owner]

A cement works flue gas contains lots of CO2, from the calcined limestone and fuel burned, so would be a far better place to site this process. At least the heat for decomposing the limestone would have been part of the normal cement manufacturing process. I, too, think the whole thing is a stupid way to go.

[ivan]

I have a friend who owned a plant nursery. The dutch growers make big improvements in yields by adding CO2 to the greenhouses. But when he looked at buying CO2 in the UK, he found it was really expensive! Unless you happen to be located next to somewhere that produces clean CO2 as a by-product, it is really costly - due to the potential purification, compressing, bottling and transporting costs. It would be tempting just to burn stuff in the greenhouse, but you can only burn really clean fuels - like methane or propane, or you get a ton of yucky carbonaceous potentially toxic by-products that will kill your crop and your staff. When he costed the fuel needed to produce the required amount of CO2, he found that was also way more expensive than the potential increase in crop yield. The dutch had the advantage of huge co-gen subsidies I think.

[smegal]

I have a friend who owned a plant nursery. The dutch growers make big improvements in yields by adding CO2 to the greenhouses. But when he looked at buying CO2 in the UK, he found it was really expensive! Unless you happen to be located next to somewhere that produces clean CO2 as a by-product, it is really costly - due to the potential purification, compressing, bottling and transporting costs. It would be tempting just to burn stuff in the greenhouse, but you can only burn really clean fuels - like methane or propane, or you get a ton of yucky carbonaceous potentially toxic by-products that will kill your crop and your staff. When he costed the fuel needed to produce the required amount of CO2, he found that was also way more expensive than the potential increase in crop yield. The dutch had the advantage of huge co-gen subsidies I think.

The greenhouse CO2 projects that I'm aware of use on site CHP engines and capture the CO2 for use in the greenhouses.