Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 952
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

oxothuk wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 11:16 am
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 11:28 pm Again, if we go with the "overbuilding solar and wind" method of solving the seasonal energy demand shifts, then we'll have excess renewable energy during the peak seasons for use in producing non-fossil-fuel-based NH3. Low cost energy makes many things cheaper and thus more likely to be used.
Do you know of any current/planned projects to do this? I'm genuinely interested in industries which could economically operate on intermittent electricity sources.
No, because it needs to be driven by the solar/wind farm owners, NOT the fertilizer manufacturers. There's already some curtailment of solar/wind farms during the peak season, which affects the solar/wind farm owner's profitability. These curtailments would only get worse as more solar/wind is deployed. The incentive to do something with that power instead of curtailing it is with the farm owners. If the farm owners could divert that power to producing one-off batches of ammonia, hydrogen, or methane, it would be a value-added functionality that would pad their bottom line. Right now, the curtailments are still infrequent enough that it's not a large factor on the bottom line, so farm owners are willing to simply let it be.
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
:: Model 3 LR (Turo) :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Model Y LR AWD (wife's) :: acquired 30 Dec '20
100% Zero transportation emissions (except when I walk) and loving it!
WetEV
Posts: 4794
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 11:28 pm
WetEV wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 3:00 pm First, it is a NY Times review of a book.

Secondly, plastics is a lower priority item. Geologic time matters as the climate cycle was and needs to be balanced on geologic time. We can't take carbon out of geologic storage, release it into the environment and expect nothing bad to happen.

Lastly, perhaps you might want to read at least the whole review, if not the book.

Sorry, but I refuse to read reviews of a book as a source material.
Yet here is the point of the review and the book. Very many things are made and done, mostly now with fossil fuels, and not all of them have easy replacements. Humility is needed, as blanket statements about how easy it is to replace with wind and solar are almost certainly wrong. Or that matter, replace with nuclear. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to find alternatives, we must find alternatives. Yet this will take many decades at minimum.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red (Sold)
2019 eTron Blue
GRA
Posts: 13704
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:30 pm
GRA wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 5:27 pm

Nukes are going to be around a long time, even assuming that we'll eventually be able to do without them, which is by no means clear. Many countries simply don't have the RE, so will be dependent on others if they're willing to be so dependent.


[Snip detailed reply]
That's a false dichotomy. It's not nuclear in-place of coal. It's get rid of both. Coal now and nuclear soon after.

'Nuclear soon after' isn't going to happen, anymore than getting rid of coal is going to happen now. China has built more PV and wind than any other country over the past decade and also has the majority of PEVs, but they've also built large numbers of new coal, NG and nuke plants in the same period as well as NG pipelines from Russia, and need them to meet the demand. India has been doing much the same, and neither country is yet anywhere near the amount of electricity supply needed to bring them up to developed nation levels of per-capita energy use. India has enough trouble keeping the lights on.

As posted in another topic, California briefly hit almost 100% RE supply last weekend. We've been transitioning for decades, with the state government fully behind it. I had a look at California's off-peak electricity usage the other night at 9:45. Demand was 25,674MW, with 28.3% from NG; 21.6% (5,732 MW) from all renewables; large hydro contributed 11.3%; imports (sources mixed but not broken down) 27.3%; batteries 2.9%; Nukes (Diablo Canyon, the only operating nuke plant left in state)) 8.6%; Coal 0.0% (actually 8 MW, all but one small coal plant has closed in the state, and utilities were forced to divest their holdings in out of state coal-plants); and other 0.0%. Renewables broke down as follows: Solar, 1.4% (presumably Ivanpah Solar-Thermal, just 80MW); Wind, 72.2%,; Geothermal 13.8% (California has long had the largest geothermal field in the world; output at the time was just 793 MW, pretty much what it had been all day; total installed capacity is apparently 1,517 MW, with average production 63% or 955 MW per the Wiki); Biomass 4.5%,; Biogas 3.2%; small hydro 4.8%.

Now, after all the time, effort and money being spent, if California, the world's 5th largest economy if it were a country, is only able to produce less than 1/4 of its baseload demand from RE when solar is unavailable, and still needs more than that from NG, then it's clear that pretty much everyone else is in even worse shape, and will be dependent on coal/gas/large hydro/oil for decades to come. Absent mass seasonal storage of some form of RE, which will likely be incapable of using batteries given the amount needed so we'll need something else, which at the moment looks to be either H2 in some form (plus some pumped storage, maybe compressed air, etc.), or else we'll need nukes. If AGCC is a major concern, fission nukes are a least worst option compared to fossil fuels.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:30 pmNeeding to dedicate space to store nuclear waste for 500 hundred years isn't a "short-term" issue that justifies proliferating nuclear power.

Short term, no, but reasonable term for humans to deal with, yes. After all, Notre Dame Cathedral's been maintained for over 800 years, the Pyramids several millenia. Monitoring and maintaining the safety of a repository of high-level waste for 500 years is within our competence and memory experience.


Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:30 pm Spending time and money on developing a means of producing hydrogen from a tech that will get sunsetted is diverting resources from other tech that doesn't carry the same long-tail of ecological damage.

Which assumes you or anyone else knows it will get sunsetted. Many countries and companies are forecasting the opposite, and putting their money behind it. We're stuck with nukes for decades yet.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:30 pm Who the heck is Lovelock that makes his opinion worth anything?

I'm assuming you consider him an environmentalist; since you are accusing me of not being one because I believe we need to keep nukes around to meet baseload demand until we know we can do it some other way, I pointed out I'm hardly alone it in that. Do you hold similar disdain for Patrick Moore, former head of Greenpeace, or is he just another industry shill? Or Stewart Brand?

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:30 pm In the 15 years between 2004 and 2019, wind and solar power has grown exponentially, and will continue to do so to the point that the IEA has earned a black-eye for how poorly they've forecasted the rise of renewable energy's contribution to the US energy infrastructure over the past decade (along with the decline of coal during that time).

Solar is available to just about any country, and battery storage makes it durable and reliable for most of the year. Wind, hydro, geothermal, and even green hydrogen fuel cells (made with excess renewable energy during the summer months) can supplement during the seasonal lows. There's no technical reason for relying on coal nor nuclear.

Glad to see you're now saying that H2 may well have a major role. You really need to read "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air", because Mackay shows the total RE resources available worldwide of each type, as well as points out factors that will likely limit the practical use of each, e.g. the need for shipping lanes, fishing zones that would limit tidal, wave and offshore wind power deployments to fractions of the total resource, limitations on land use, and so on. No, solar isn't available to just about any country; Mackay shows that the UK doesn't have enough, even combined with all other RE sources with absolutely no limits on deployment (e.g. using virtually all land and offshore waters areas in the U.K. for wind, or PV, or bio-fuel crops etc. and ignoring the need for people to live and eat). Most of Europe is the same, although Portugal and Spain are in better shape. that was why the Desertec plan was floated a decade plus ago, but do people in NW Europe really want to switch their energy dependency from fossil fuels from the Middle East and Russia to RE in North Africa? Australia and some other countries with small populations, lots of non-fertile land and sun/wind, and stable governments, sure.

The U.S. does have enough solar potential (given storage), but it needs it as all the rest of the RE resource isn't adequate to meet our needs. See chapter 18 for the UK, here: https://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml, Chapter 27 "Five Energy Plans for Britain"; Chapter 30, "Energy plans for Europe, America, and the World".

Vacalv Smil's "Energy Transitions" is also an excellent source, as he shows just how much primary energy is used and needs to be replaced, and how long such transitions have taken in the past. While we can build a lot faster now, as Smil points out the amount of energy that needs replacement is also a lot larger than it was in past transitions, with the total growing all the time.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.
LeftieBiker
Moderator
Posts: 18723
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 3:17 am
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2018
Location: Upstate New York, US

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

The structure of human nature will defeat us - has in fact already defeated us. We want as much of a resource as we can get. We also want /need/are driven to breed without restraint. We refuse to take seriously any threat that is more than a year away. Given dangerous methods that provide us with more-more-more than safer methods, we always choose the dangerous ones. Given this, plus a few more things, and with Republican opportunism poured on top, like a toxic syrup, reinforcing our greed and breaking down our already weaker sense of community, given all of that, there is NO WAY IN HELL that we will do what is needed to stop our own ecosystem from killing us and most of the other larger life forms on Earth, and doing it within 200 years, if not a third of that. So, with all of that sitting on the table, why not try to make the choices that will at least give our race another generation or two? I'd rather die thinking that maybe "RE" would have worked, than die knowing that safe, modern nuclear power was always just a marketing catchphrase. Like "Too cheap to meter!"

As for nuclear power, absent a process that is both safe and meets with the approval of business (because after all, we aren't going to let the governments run something that can produce that much money) Magical Thinking is required to believe that it will save us, as opposed to making some of us richer before the inevitable "accident" that erases all of the benefits, past and future, that nuclear power has and could give.
Brilliant Silver 2021 Leaf SV40 W/ Pro Pilot & Protection
2009 Vectrix VX-1 W/18 Leaf modules, & 2 lithium E-bicycles.
BAFX OBDII Dongle
PLEASE don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.
oxothuk
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 2:35 pm
Delivery Date: 05 May 2021
Leaf Number: 550377
Location: Colorado Front Range

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

LeftieBiker wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:49 pm The structure of human nature will defeat us - has in fact already defeated us.
You may well be right. The earth is finite, and the scale of human activity is ever increasing. At some point human activity will (has?) become significant relative to the natural world and will (has?) potentially alter aspects of nature that we take for granted. Sending settlers to colonize other worlds won't help - why would those settlers behave any differently than we have?

Is there anything we can do about this? I doubt it. As you said, it's not in our nature to make sacrifices today to ward off speculative harms in the future. We can't even do so for definite near-term harms, like the eventual bankruptcy of Social Security.

On a more optimistic note, mankind has a long history of finding ways to address, or at least mitigate, the challenges we face. Has our luck run out this time? Impossible to know.

Finally, I'm not convinced that "global warning" is the most dangerous of the risks my children/grandchildren will face.. I'm a lot more worried about "global war".
May 2021 - 2021 SL+ , 8K miles, 92.8% SOH
LeftieBiker
Moderator
Posts: 18723
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 3:17 am
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2018
Location: Upstate New York, US

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

If the latter doesn't Get us, then the former definitely will - unless maybe we get Nuclear Winter, instead.
Brilliant Silver 2021 Leaf SV40 W/ Pro Pilot & Protection
2009 Vectrix VX-1 W/18 Leaf modules, & 2 lithium E-bicycles.
BAFX OBDII Dongle
PLEASE don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.
Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 952
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

GRA wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:30 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:30 pm
GRA wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 5:27 pm

Nukes are going to be around a long time, even assuming that we'll eventually be able to do without them, which is by no means clear. Many countries simply don't have the RE, so will be dependent on others if they're willing to be so dependent.


[Snip detailed reply]
That's a false dichotomy. It's not nuclear in-place of coal. It's get rid of both. Coal now and nuclear soon after.

'Nuclear soon after' isn't going to happen, anymore than getting rid of coal is going to happen now. China has built more PV and wind than any other country over the past decade and also has the majority of PEVs, but they've also built large numbers of new coal, NG and nuke plants in the same period as well as NG pipelines from Russia, and need them to meet the demand. India has been doing much the same, and neither country is yet anywhere near the amount of electricity supply needed to bring them up to developed nation levels of per-capita energy use. India has enough trouble keeping the lights on.

As posted in another topic, California briefly hit almost 100% RE supply last weekend. We've been transitioning for decades, with the state government fully behind it. I had a look at California's off-peak electricity usage the other night at 9:45. Demand was 25,674MW, with 28.3% from NG; 21.6% (5,732 MW) from all renewables; large hydro contributed 11.3%; imports (sources mixed but not broken down) 27.3%; batteries 2.9%; Nukes (Diablo Canyon, the only operating nuke plant left in state)) 8.6%; Coal 0.0% (actually 8 MW, all but one small coal plant has closed in the state, and utilities were forced to divest their holdings in out of state coal-plants); and other 0.0%. Renewables broke down as follows: Solar, 1.4% (presumably Ivanpah Solar-Thermal, just 80MW); Wind, 72.2%,; Geothermal 13.8% (California has long had the largest geothermal field in the world; output at the time was just 793 MW, pretty much what it had been all day; total installed capacity is apparently 1,517 MW, with average production 63% or 955 MW per the Wiki); Biomass 4.5%,; Biogas 3.2%; small hydro 4.8%.

Now, after all the time, effort and money being spent, if California, the world's 5th largest economy if it were a country, is only able to produce less than 1/4 of its baseload demand from RE when solar is unavailable, and still needs more than that from NG, then it's clear that pretty much everyone else is in even worse shape, and will be dependent on coal/gas/large hydro/oil for decades to come. Absent mass seasonal storage of some form of RE, which will likely be incapable of using batteries given the amount needed so we'll need something else, which at the moment looks to be either H2 in some form (plus some pumped storage, maybe compressed air, etc.), or else we'll need nukes. If AGCC is a major concern, fission nukes are a least worst option compared to fossil fuels.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:30 pmNeeding to dedicate space to store nuclear waste for 500 hundred years isn't a "short-term" issue that justifies proliferating nuclear power.

Short term, no, but reasonable term for humans to deal with, yes. After all, Notre Dame Cathedral's been maintained for over 800 years, the Pyramids several millenia. Monitoring and maintaining the safety of a repository of high-level waste for 500 years is within our competence and memory experience.


Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:30 pm Spending time and money on developing a means of producing hydrogen from a tech that will get sunsetted is diverting resources from other tech that doesn't carry the same long-tail of ecological damage.

Which assumes you or anyone else knows it will get sunsetted. Many countries and companies are forecasting the opposite, and putting their money behind it. We're stuck with nukes for decades yet.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:30 pm Who the heck is Lovelock that makes his opinion worth anything?

I'm assuming you consider him an environmentalist; since you are accusing me of not being one because I believe we need to keep nukes around to meet baseload demand until we know we can do it some other way, I pointed out I'm hardly alone it in that. Do you hold similar disdain for Patrick Moore, former head of Greenpeace, or is he just another industry shill? Or Stewart Brand?

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:30 pm In the 15 years between 2004 and 2019, wind and solar power has grown exponentially, and will continue to do so to the point that the IEA has earned a black-eye for how poorly they've forecasted the rise of renewable energy's contribution to the US energy infrastructure over the past decade (along with the decline of coal during that time).

Solar is available to just about any country, and battery storage makes it durable and reliable for most of the year. Wind, hydro, geothermal, and even green hydrogen fuel cells (made with excess renewable energy during the summer months) can supplement during the seasonal lows. There's no technical reason for relying on coal nor nuclear.

Glad to see you're now saying that H2 may well have a major role. You really need to read "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air", because Mackay shows the total RE resources available worldwide of each type, as well as points out factors that will likely limit the practical use of each, e.g. the need for shipping lanes, fishing zones that would limit tidal, wave and offshore wind power deployments to fractions of the total resource, limitations on land use, and so on. No, solar isn't available to just about any country; Mackay shows that the UK doesn't have enough, even combined with all other RE sources with absolutely no limits on deployment (e.g. using virtually all land and offshore waters areas in the U.K. for wind, or PV, or bio-fuel crops etc. and ignoring the need for people to live and eat). Most of Europe is the same, although Portugal and Spain are in better shape. that was why the Desertec plan was floated a decade plus ago, but do people in NW Europe really want to switch their energy dependency from fossil fuels from the Middle East and Russia to RE in North Africa? Australia and some other countries with small populations, lots of non-fertile land and sun/wind, and stable governments, sure.

The U.S. does have enough solar potential (given storage), but it needs it as all the rest of the RE resource isn't adequate to meet our needs. See chapter 18 for the UK, here: https://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml, Chapter 27 "Five Energy Plans for Britain"; Chapter 30, "Energy plans for Europe, America, and the World".

Vacalv Smil's "Energy Transitions" is also an excellent source, as he shows just how much primary energy is used and needs to be replaced, and how long such transitions have taken in the past. While we can build a lot faster now, as Smil points out the amount of energy that needs replacement is also a lot larger than it was in past transitions, with the total growing all the time.
I really do not know who Lovelock is, nor do I care. Knowing who he is doesn't address the mental roadblocks that I'm seeing on this forum, so spare me the explanation.

Most of crude oil production goes into transportation, so let's not get side-tracked with the lack of production-ready tech for making carbon-neutral fertilizers and plastics. Most of coal production goes into electricity generation, so having renewables replace that "now" is very much within sight (despite China and India not cooperating). Nuclear and natural gas can be displaced after there's sufficient excess renewable energy. We don't need new tech, when cheap and simple can be made readily available.

As for the UK, Ireland has an abundance of wind energy and renewables already provide a significant fraction of their energy needs (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... h_2022.pdf). But they don't have enough battery storage, so they curtail a significant amount of wind power. Bio-fuels crop is one of those bone-headed ideas meant to retain the "convenience" of fossil fuels, but without the crude oil. Stop growing plants for the sole purpose of burning it, and there won't be an issue of insufficient farmland! Stop trying to replicate the gasoline fueling model! The UK's electrification model of having L2 EVSE's at each lamppost is the better solution (lower cost than fast chargers, less strain on the infrastructure, AND permits charging convenience for those without a garage). Really, many "problems" are only problems when viewed from a fossil fuel mindset.

I'm glad you pulled up the breakdown of electricity generation in California, and although it looked like it didn't make much headway over the past 2 decades, did you not notice that the growth was exponential and NOT linear? The reason solar and wind didn't make up more of the production totals is because there weren't enough batteries to buffer the over production. Curtailment is a fairly recent issue and deployment of more battery storage will be just in time to permit more wind and solar farms to come online.

I only see green hydrogen as a convenient stepping stone to decarbonizing industrial production capabilities, and as a pre-cursor to methane synthesis (a carbon-negative storable product that can only be possible with nearly-free electricity), not as an end-goal itself.
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
:: Model 3 LR (Turo) :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Model Y LR AWD (wife's) :: acquired 30 Dec '20
100% Zero transportation emissions (except when I walk) and loving it!
Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 952
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

WetEV wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:57 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 11:28 pm
WetEV wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 3:00 pm First, it is a NY Times review of a book.

Secondly, plastics is a lower priority item. Geologic time matters as the climate cycle was and needs to be balanced on geologic time. We can't take carbon out of geologic storage, release it into the environment and expect nothing bad to happen.

Lastly, perhaps you might want to read at least the whole review, if not the book.

Sorry, but I refuse to read reviews of a book as a source material.
Yet here is the point of the review and the book. Very many things are made and done, mostly now with fossil fuels, and not all of them have easy replacements. Humility is needed, as blanket statements about how easy it is to replace with wind and solar are almost certainly wrong. Or that matter, replace with nuclear. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to find alternatives, we must find alternatives. Yet this will take many decades at minimum.
I've built an off-grid solar + battery array (from soldering 32650 LiFePO4 cells together) for my own personal use. I've tracked the Hornsdale Power Reserve (windfarm + battery storage) and followed its impact to Australia's grid that opened so many eyes to what is ACTUALLY possible versus what experts had been saying was impossible. I've also followed the near explosive growth of battery storage in many regional grids recently across the country. You will be amazed by what can be done by simply changing our expectations on how things should be done. Regardless of the actual timeline (whether it's a few years or many decades), we shouldn't be investing time and money into developing tech that solves one problem only to exacerbate others (exchanging nuclear for coal being the prime example of this). I'm not saying to close down all the nuclear power plants, just don't build any new ones.
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
:: Model 3 LR (Turo) :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Model Y LR AWD (wife's) :: acquired 30 Dec '20
100% Zero transportation emissions (except when I walk) and loving it!
WetEV
Posts: 4794
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 10:39 pm
WetEV wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:57 pm Yet here is the point of the review and the book. Very many things are made and done, mostly now with fossil fuels, and not all of them have easy replacements. Humility is needed, as blanket statements about how easy it is to replace with wind and solar are almost certainly wrong. Or that matter, replace with nuclear. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to find alternatives, we must find alternatives. Yet this will take many decades at minimum.
I've built an off-grid solar + battery array (from soldering 32650 LiFePO4 cells together) for my own personal use.
Off-grid has a wide range of meanings. Could be a 365x7x24 99.999% available system. Could be a summer cabin lights for 8 hours total if the sun doesn't shine. Rather different designs and expenses. If needed, could you design both?

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 10:39 pm the near explosive growth of battery storage in many regional grids recently across the country.
It is easy to get explosive growth starting at zero. Then it gets harder.

How many minutes of battery does the national grid have?

Remember supply chains. How much Lithium needs to mined, refined, made into batteries? How do you do this all with less or no fossil fuels? How long does it take to build the battery plants?

Repeat for copper, steel and plastics.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red (Sold)
2019 eTron Blue
Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 952
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

WetEV wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 9:06 am
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 10:39 pm
WetEV wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:57 pm Yet here is the point of the review and the book. Very many things are made and done, mostly now with fossil fuels, and not all of them have easy replacements. Humility is needed, as blanket statements about how easy it is to replace with wind and solar are almost certainly wrong. Or that matter, replace with nuclear. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to find alternatives, we must find alternatives. Yet this will take many decades at minimum.
I've built an off-grid solar + battery array (from soldering 32650 LiFePO4 cells together) for my own personal use.
Off-grid has a wide range of meanings. Could be a 365x7x24 99.999% available system. Could be a summer cabin lights for 8 hours total if the sun doesn't shine. Rather different designs and expenses. If needed, could you design both?

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 10:39 pm the near explosive growth of battery storage in many regional grids recently across the country.
It is easy to get explosive growth starting at zero. Then it gets harder.

How many minutes of battery does the national grid have?

Remember supply chains. How much Lithium needs to mined, refined, made into batteries? How do you do this all with less or no fossil fuels? How long does it take to build the battery plants?

Edit: Just in case you're thinking down this path. There are currently 6.8 million tons of lithium in the known reserves in the US. That's enough lithium to make 6868 TWh of battery storage (using known example of 63kg of lithium in a 70kwh Tesla model S battery pack), which is almost 50% MORE than all the electricity consumed in the US in 2021.

Repeat for copper, steel and plastics.
I can design/build both. The summer cabin lights for 8 hrs is easy. The 365x7x24 is doable, but not with solar alone (need a wood pellet stove and a wind turbine at minimum). And if you don't want to burn wood, then a dual-fuel generator (to burn methane in case anyone figures out how to commercialize a machine to make methane from CO2 and H2O).

The national grid is a trick question, since there isn't one. There are only inter-connected regional grids, of which there are 3 major ones.

As for the mining without fossil fuels, why is that a requirement (Although Sweden is testing a BEV mining truck, it's not ready yet)? Keep in mind that the amount of minerals needed to produce the batteries aren't a continuous need. Batteries can be recycled, as are most non-consumables. So past a certain capacity, you don't need to exponentially increase the number of mines. Whoever came up with the tons-of-batteries-in-a-landfill worry is an idiot.
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
:: Model 3 LR (Turo) :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Model Y LR AWD (wife's) :: acquired 30 Dec '20
100% Zero transportation emissions (except when I walk) and loving it!

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”