Does the UK need more gas power?

[Ken]

while methanol and ammonia are relatively inexpensive industrial commodities when made with unabated natural gas while using the atmosphere as an open sewer, they are going to be much more expensive in the future. And methanol at least is already more expensive than diesel in most of the world, up to 2.2 times as expensive for the same energy. And ammonia costs more than methanol does while having even less energy per ton.

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/12/me ... ic-finale/

[Krill]

You are implying that there is a more energy efficient process, I'd be interested to know what that is...?

Methane cracking. Assuming someone else (taxpayers) assume the burden of cleaning up the mess (climate fallout)



Energy production isn't the problem. It's lack of stakeholder participation.

Methane cracking might be cheaper (when ignoring clean up and other long term costs), but being pedantic, that is not the same as efficient. From an atom efficiency perspective, it is less efficient than electrolysis which produces two valuble products (admittedly from another valuble feedstock).

There are other catalytic process which aim to produce solid carbon products (ie graphene sheets) without CO2 as a product, and frankly whilst these are very interesting, but thats more about carbon nanotube technology than H2 production on an industrial scale.

Looking at some literature, it looks like electrolysis uses 52.5kWh of energy to produce 39.4 kWh of energy in the H2, but some new research has dropped the cost as low as 41.5kWh. That's seriously impressive stuff, moving from 75% to 98% efficiency. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28953-x

With that in mind, Steam reforming is only 65% efficient: https://www.amiqweb.es/app/download/934 ... orming.pdf

I am rather sceptical of a centralised production of H2 because that has no bearing on the power grid being overloaded and requiring curtailment. H2 production needs to localised to where power is generated to reduce the need for curtailment. Electrolysis is actually not that challenging to scale down either, in fact there are benefits due to not overloading water and sewerage systems by localising it.

[Countrypaul]

I too am sceptical of centralised production of H2, but am not convinced that producing H2 close to where power is generated will be better than producing H2 close to where it will be used. If used in say the production of steel then for example producing the H2 in the Highlands of Scotland for use in southern Wales to take an extreme example would incur significant transportation costs with associated losses and probably with higher risk than transmitting electricity between the 2 locations. If producing H2 to store and use in an ICE or FC to produce electricity would obviously make sense close to where the initial electricity was produced. i will let others argue the philosophical details of whether this is close to production of H2 or close to the use of H2

[Saladin]

The thing is that storing heat adds to the cost and it is lossy, whereas storing compressed gas can be for decades as long as the container doesn't leak.

H₂ is the leakiest gas in the known universe

Methane cracking might be cheaper (when ignoring clean up and other long term costs), but being pedantic, that is not the same as efficient. From an atom efficiency perspective, it is less efficient than electrolysis which produces two valuble products (admittedly from another valuble feedstock).

Fair.
Currency is the worst feedback system. It's an untethered concept with no basis in science.
Yes you'd be better off burning the methane than the hydrogen derived from it. Grey hydrogen is fairly pointless as a combustible fuel.

We should be looking at resonance. Forget FIAT economics we ain't leaving this rock with that ball and chain.

[openspaceman]

The thing is that storing heat adds to the cost and it is lossy, whereas storing compressed gas can be for decades as long as the container doesn't leak.

H₂ is the leakiest gas in the known universe

Yes I should have said air rather than gas

[Krill]

I too am sceptical of centralised production of H2, but am not convinced that producing H2 close to where power is generated will be better than producing H2 close to where it will be used. If used in say the production of steel then for example producing the H2 in the Highlands of Scotland for use in southern Wales to take an extreme example would incur significant transportation costs with associated losses and probably with higher risk than transmitting electricity between the 2 locations. If producing H2 to store and use in an ICE or FC to produce electricity would obviously make sense close to where the initial electricity was produced. i will let others argue the philosophical details of whether this is close to production of H2 or close to the use of H2

To be clear, I agree with the general point about localised production v. Usage. The counter point to this is that once areas which use H2 are identified, I think (but can't prove) there will be such areas all around the country anyway, and there will be RE generators that get curtailed in the same locations ie there will be H2 usage in Scotland but that doesnt mean all H2 should be produced and transported from Scotland. Effectively there would need to be a balance.

[Saladin]

I guess the subtext to what I'm advocating is that there's unexplored options that aren't being put forward that make our projected energy models look quite inadequate compared to our potential. If the only inventions that are allowed to succeed are those that can be exclusively controlled by a minority and're conducive to distribution methods with a wholey measured dissemination according with unrealistic values attached to their worth, then the constraints we are working under are incredibly stifling.
Do we really believe that energy has to travel through a pipe or a cable?
What is the purpose of 50hz? Why not 27khz?
Who benefits most from the cost of productivity to compliance with regulation.



If we are to innovate we need to move the goalpost away from greed and psychopathy and towards well-being and egalitarism.
8 billion people in the world. 46% of those are living on less than $5.50 a day. How may Einsteins are too busy scrapping ends meet instead of helping solve the not so difficult problems we are facing.
We don't especially need new tech just a refreshed sense of values.

[Joeboy]

"If we are to innovate we need to move the goalpost away from greed and psychopathy and towards well-being and egalitarism."

I don't disagree but don't see it happening. You are talking about millenia deep hardwired human behaviour.

[Saladin]

[Joeboy]

I know, I used to think that way. Bob's ace but Bob's deid and so are many of his ideas. The best thing I personally have found to do is sort what I can, lead by example and help where I can without ramming it to people. As to the greater herd? I'll just leave it there.