Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

[UncaNed]

There is no such thing. It could be carbon neutral if carbon capture is used in the process but otherwise it’s still fuel with exhaust emissions.

The process is extremely costly in terms of (electric) energy used so direct electrification will always be superior.

You’re absolutely right that big oil will be all over this though

"carbon capture".

Doesn't simple thermodynamics dictate that the thermodynamic energy cost of "capturing" that carbon will have to be as much or more than the energy liberated from burning the carbon, and therefore it would make burning the fuel in the first place a net loss if it has to be recaptured at some point?

And isn't the above the simple, end-all answer to any suggestion of "carbon capture" as a solution for anything (yet for some reason I've never see it stated this simply before)?

 

[mongo]

"carbon capture".

Doesn't simple thermodynamics dictate that the thermodynamic energy cost of "capturing" that carbon will have to be as much or more than the energy liberated from burning the carbon, and therefore it would make burning the fuel in the first place a net loss if it has to be recaptured at some point?

And isn't the above the simple, end-all answer to any suggestion of "carbon capture" as a solution for anything (yet for some reason I've never see it stated this simply before)?

Please don't reply on this thread, just thumbs up or thumbs down me here, if this has already been discussed, otherwise I'd love a link to the appropriate TMC thread.

Capture on the front end:
Synthgas generated from solar is less efficient than using solar directly, but its later combustion doesn't increase total energy output above the amount of solar collected.
Zero net carbon change
Zero net energy change

Capture on the back end:
Carbon capture of fossil fuels requires less energy than burning the fuel produces.
Net energy release
Net carbon release (but stored back underground)

 

[mongo]

In the end, just using electricity to power vehicles will take a step out of the equation. A step that will figure into the overall cost of the synthetic fuel.

It trades pack + electric motor + charging infrastructure
for
Tank + engine + refueling infrastructure
Generation can occur at point of use.

Lastly, of all the items listed above, only Li-ion is not destroyed when used. Then, the base elements can be recycled after many, many, many use cycles. So it is difficult to compare against synthetic fuel without accounting for how many kWh cycles occur before replacement is needed. Factor this in and Li-ion and near zero electricity costs might still have a significant advantage.

Yep, the generation/use cycle is shorter so manufacturing cost is not amortized.
The base elements are still reused though.

 

[mspohr]

Carbon capture of fossil fuels requires less energy than burning the fuel produces

How?
You have to remove the O2 that was added during burning and that will require the same amount of energy that was released.
Also all fossil fuel burning is incredibly inefficient.
Also carbon capture is inefficient.
Loss upon loss.

 

[mongo]

How?
You have to remove the O2 that was added during burning and that will require the same amount of energy that was released.
Also all fossil fuel burning is incredibly inefficient.
Also carbon capture is inefficient.
Loss upon loss.

Carbon in the form of CO2, not carbon in elemental form.
In terms of our-timefrane imparted energy, burning fossil fuels is crazy efficient. Turning heat into electrical or mechanical energy is sub-efficient.

 

[mspohr]

Carbon in the form of CO2, not carbon in elemental form.
In terms of our-timefrane imparted energy, burning fossil fuels is crazy efficient. Turning heat into electrical or mechanical energy is sub-efficient.

How do you store CO2 without it eventually leaking back to the atmosphere?

 

[mongo]

How do you store CO2 without it eventually leaking back to the atmosphere?

I didn't say it was a good idea...

 

[mspohr]

Fury after Exxon chief says public to blame for climate failures

Darren Woods tells Fortune consumers not willing to pay for clean-energy transition, prompting backlash from climate experts

www.theguardian.com

The world is off track to meet its climate goals and the public is to blame, Darren Woods, chief executive of oil giant ExxonMobil, has claimed – prompting a backlash from climate experts.

Experts say Woods’s rhetoric is part of a larger attempt to skirt climate accountability. No new major oil and gas infrastructure can be built if the world is to avoid breaching agreed temperature limits but Exxon, along with other major oil companies currently basking in record profits, is pushing ahead with aggressive fossil-fuel expansion plans. “It’s like a drug lord blaming everyone but himself for drug problems,” said Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia business school.

Troves of internal documents and analyses have over the past decade established that Exxon knew of the dangers of global heating as far back as the 1970s, but forcefully and successfully worked to sow doubt about the climate crisis and stymie action to clamp down on fossil fuel usage. The revelations have inspired litigation against Exxon across the US.

Woods does not mention that his company lobbied to fend off provisions in an earlier version of the legislation that would have levied heavy taxes on polluting companies to pay for climate efforts, or that a top Exxon lobbyist was filmed saying that the firm’s support for a carbon tax was a public relations strategy meant to stall more serious climate policies.

 

[kpanda17]

ICEvs to EVs
As for the slow roll to EVs, using PHEVs as a distraction, the government's incomplete execution, public FUD and some manipulation by legacy auto is why ICEvs continue to impact the environment.
1. Government's incomplete execution was that they did not embrace ALL EV leadership (Elon) for tough charging SLAs, esp for Electrify America, and rapid charging infrastructure construction, not NEVI 2024 slowness we see today but rapid fixes and rollout. Also EV education is not in IRA. We needed PSAs touting and educating EVs to the public.
2. Public FUD is due to the terrible public charging experiences by non-Teslas and public lacking knowledge of EVs. The public FUD makes sense.
3. Legacy auto sees EVs as a disruption to their fiefdoms they built over the last 100 years. Legacy's terrible buying process and ICEvs needing constant service keep their industry alive. If someone walks into a legacy dealership for any auto type or an EV, the dealer will steer them to ICEv and PHEVs and away from EVs. Toyota just stated they would rather pay for credit then promote EVs.

Heavy Machines with BEVs
We should be subsidizing the change to BEV truck charging infrastructure and vehicles, like the Tesla Semi.
The legacy large truck manufacturers are also creating FUD.

Solar and Wind
Amazing that there are industry forces are discouraging solar and wind projects as these are industry fiefdoms disruptions.
More FUD of battery storage fires.

What happened to our drive of energy independence as a national security measure? Our solar, wind and hydro resources should be embraced as low carbon, national security resources. Fracking and it's pollution and carbon spread vs wind and solar. I choose the later.

Home Energy
We should be educating and helping families convert to solar and heat pumps nationally.

 

[eevee-fan]

US Counties Are Blocking Renewable Energy, But Not For Thee

Actually, that's pretty smart. Build renewables but prevent it from being installed locally. Have your neighboring states buy your panels then buy power from them. So instead of having solar noon a day, you have multiple solar noons. Looks like the Fool Me Once state is fooling everyone else. LOL

 

[eevee-fan]

Amazon just bought a 100% nuclear-powered data center

One of the US's largest nuclear power plants will directly power cloud service provider Amazon Web Services' new data center.

electrek.co

Powering cloud computing and generating clouds too, from what I can see in the picture.

 

[fhteagle]

US Counties Are Blocking Renewable Energy, But Not For Thee

Actually, that's pretty smart. Build renewables but prevent it from being installed locally. Have your neighboring states buy your panels then buy power from them. So instead of having solar noon a day, you have multiple solar noons. Looks like the Fool Me Once state is fooling everyone else. LOL

I couldn't get the maps of counties with restrictions to advance to 2023, so I'm not sure if my county made the list or not. We're technically in a special use permit moratorium while zoning regs are getting an overhaul. This was triggered by a really shady solar developer who tried to sneak a facility in on state owned and absentee landlord owned land within the county. That combined with a few hard learned lessons from some abandoned fossil methane wells means we really want to think it through before letting a huge facility of any kind in. So we might look "anti-solar" to the outside world, but the local power co-op is actually pretty heavy on residential, community, and microgrid solar already. Long story short, if we're going to host a solar PV facility, we don't want anyone trying to blow sunshine up our you know whats...

 

[mspohr]

I couldn't get the maps of counties with restrictions to advance to 2023, so I'm not sure if my county made the list or not. We're technically in a special use permit moratorium while zoning regs are getting an overhaul. This was triggered by a really shady solar developer who tried to sneak a facility in on state owned and absentee landlord owned land within the county. That combined with a few hard learned lessons from some abandoned fossil methane wells means we rally want to think it through before letting a huge facility of any kind in. So we might look "anti-solar" to the outside world, but the local power co-op is actually pretty heavy on residential, community, and microgrid solar already. Long story short, if we're going to host a solar PV facility, we don't want anyone trying to blow sunshine up our you know whats...

So, is an abandoned solar farm worse than an abandoned methane well?

 

[fhteagle]

So, is an abandoned solar farm worse than an abandoned methane well?

Yes, no, maybe. Neither one is what we want here, and I think it's prudent to have regs that make any/all developers think through and publicly disclose all the ecological, aesthetic, emergency services, etc impacts of what they are proposing before a single backhoe hits dirt. I don't think expecting the company that builds it to be the same one that's going to own and operate it, maintain the grounds, be responsible for all decommissioning costs is an unreasonable ask. A developer that wants to put up 700 acres of panels, collect some tax credits, and flip the asset (possibly to a shell company designed to go bankrupt) is not something we want to deal with. Socializing the costs and privatizing the profits really isn't okay, no matter what the company or industry.

 

[mspohr]

Yes, no, maybe. Neither one is what we want here, and I think it's prudent to have regs that make any/all developers think through and publicly disclose all the ecological, aesthetic, emergency services, etc impacts of what they are proposing before a single backhoe hits dirt. I don't think expecting the company that builds it to be the same one that's going to own and operate it, maintain the grounds, be responsible for all decommissioning costs is an unreasonable ask. A developer that wants to put up 700 acres of panels, collect some tax credits, and flip the asset (possibly to a shell company designed to go bankrupt) is not something we want to deal with. Socializing the costs and privatizing the profits really isn't okay, no matter what the company or industry.

Since there is no operating cost, the solar will just keep producing even if everyone goes bankrupt.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Since there is no operating cost, the solar will just keep producing even if everyone goes bankrupt.

Not to mention that the aluminium can be recycled, so there's a financial incentive for someone else to remove them.

 

[kpanda17]

AI driving change in our cloud infra

Amazon goes nuclear, acquires Cumulus Data's atomic datacenters for $650M

E-commerce giant on the hook for 480MW of power from Susquehanna plant

www.theregister.com

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Since there is no operating cost, the solar will just keep producing even if everyone goes bankrupt.

It'll keep producing until there's a hardware failure, likely first in the inverters.

There needs to be the same kind of approach used in other industries, where there's some kind of bond and/or fund that will pay for removal and recycling of the panels and mounts, plus removal of the bases. (Some use concrete, but some are on spikes in the ground that are easily removed).

Despite some FUD scare stories, PV panel recycling costs would add less than $0.10/W. And it would be decreasing over time as the panel Wattages are increasing with efficiency. And of recycling course is after many years of life, so actual expenditure is well after ROI.

 

[fhteagle]

I wonder what the relative cost / benefit of recycling panels is vs donating to under privileged communities, countries, etc. The main enterprise gets to re-panel, re-inverter, and possibly re-battery with the latest and greatest, hopefully improving profitability and extending the life of existing installations greatly. The receiving community gets to install for only the cost of transporting the panels, inverters, and batteries, some new mounting hardware, and hopefully community sourced labor.

 

[mspohr]

It'll keep producing until there's a hardware failure, likely first in the inverters.

There needs to be the same kind of approach used in other industries, where there's some kind of bond and/or fund that will pay for removal and recycling of the panels and mounts, plus removal of the bases. (Some use concrete, but some are on spikes in the ground that are easily removed).

Despite some FUD scare stories, PV panel recycling costs would add less than $0.10/W. And it would be decreasing over time as the panel Wattages are increasing with efficiency. And of recycling course is after many years of life, so actual expenditure is well after ROI.

Why would you remove a solar installation that has a 25+ year life rather than replace the rare inverter failure?