This is what we know about hydrogen. Maybe stable is not the right word but h2 tends not to exist (barely) in the atmosphere.
Last edited:
Canada / Germany Hydrogen
- Thread starter tcp71
- Start date
Yes, but manufacturing ammonia from natural gas is so much cheaper than using electricity and water it’s laughable. Ammonia is injected into soil to provide soil with nitrogen. It’s a UGE industry.
Last edited:
Right but not because it is unstable. It’s is the escape velocity.
True. But farmers and providers such as FS are well trained in handling the compound.
Here is the process of taking methane, usually the largest component of natural gas, and turning it into ammonia. The CO2 is the boogeyman . Sorry, but the image is a bit smudged.
Ammonia for energy use will never compete with LNG. Let me use a phrase from Canada used back the the 80’s.
Regarding the greenie Europeans that turn up their nose to LNG.
“ They can freeze in the dark”.
Regarding the greenie Europeans that turn up their nose to LNG.
“ They can freeze in the dark”.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,566
I am pretty sure the Germans came looking for LNG from Canada, and wanted to invest in it to help secure their own Energy future. Trudeau is the "Greenie" that said no. The thread is not about the politics either way, but that there is no good way to get Hydrogen from Canada to Germany.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Well, with the battery, you produce it and then it lasts for ~10 years. For the hydrogen, you are perpetually producing it, compressing it and transporting it, so that's one factor to consider.
I believe I already did the stack of losses calculation for you in one of the previous threads? You could compare that to the 50% figure.
While the information was used to discuss hydrogen transport, this is a nice tidbit of information. Skipping the Transportation part, hydrogen efficiency is 80% x 65% x 60% for a total of 31.2% efficiency. From the web, Natural Gas is around 90% (without any shipping input), electricity even less. Hydroelectric is quite good, but I've yet to see the included environmental impact of dams on waterways, just the power generation information. Small nuclear would be my choice. We've learned quite a bit from Chernobyl, Three mile island, Fukushima, etc...build them better.:
Yeah, I think you did, hey, this is nowhere near anything that I know about. I just think and analyze too much but I think (right or wrong) these are good questions?
I just keep reading about the amount of mining that is going to take place for the elements in these batteries and after I posted a correct photo of the lithium mining and fields and the vast amount of resources including even statements that we will reach a point that it wont be possible to mine all the lithium would would need in another decade or two. Again, I have no idea if all this is true.
Nor do I know the energy we are using for all this and the environmental impact of it all and then using your example of power plants themselves only being able to roughly generate power including the transmission of that power at roughly 50% efficiency.
SO I was just wondering start to finish, which is better and more sustainable, if either in the coming decades? I guess we can all suspect that something else will come along? I do understand h2 is costly ect ect... but seems like not so costly that there exists vehicles that run on it.
So I suspect there must be a start to finish paper someplace on each "storage" type?
I dont know, it just seems to me, who knows nothing, that burning fossil fuels (gasoline) may not be that much worse than these alternatives?
(yeah, my whole life I questioned everything)
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
For power generation, I think it's important to consider the footprint of the inputs. Rankine cycle nuclear is only ~31-32% efficient in turning steam into electricity, but the source is 20,000x more energy dense than fossil fuels and has no direct emissions. That waste heat can also be harnessed for things like district heating, greenhouse warming...etc.While the information was used to discuss hydrogen transport, this is a nice tidbit of information. Skipping the Transportation part, hydrogen efficiency is 80% x 65% x 60% for a total of 31.2% efficiency. From the web, Natural Gas is around 90% (without any shipping input), electricity even less. Hydroelectric is quite good, but I've yet to see the included environmental impact of dams on waterways, just the power generation information. Small nuclear would be my choice. We've learned quite a bit from Chernobyl, Three mile island, Fukushima, etc...build them better.:
View attachment 130256
And of course there are no transportation emissions in getting power from that facility to your EV.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Well, as we've previously discussed, using the methane directly seems to be less resource intensive (and lower emissions) than how hydrogen is currently produced. And you can use methane in a fuel cell. So there's that option.
Other options are synfuels, produced with clean electricity, it's similar to the idea with hydrogen but utilizes current established transportation mediums and doesn't have the challenges inherent to handling and transport that we see with hydrogen.
Batteries are very much a "we know how to do batteries" reaction to "how do we eliminate direct emissions from this?" Like we saw with power tools, people were quick to embrace portable electric, particularly when the technology (going from NiCad to Lithium Ion) improved dramatically. We are seeing the electrification of many areas as a result of this.
No, it's absolutely not all sunshine and rainbows, but batteries are "easy"; significantly easier than hydrogen.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,566
I am 100% against more nuclear until we figure out how to dispose properly of the waste and de-commission the reactors. Currently waste is sitting around in cooling pools and barrels all over the world with no plans. The Germans have been de-commissioning some East German reactors for a decade with a couple more decades to go at who knows what cost.
These costs are never factored in - ever. Its assumed future generations will deal with it.
I was taught to clean up after myself or don't make a mess.
These costs are never factored in - ever. Its assumed future generations will deal with it.
I was taught to clean up after myself or don't make a mess.
You do know why this problem exists, right? It’s the reason there is no high-level waste repository.
We have the solution and spent 10s of billions 19 billion + on it. But politics are forbidden and for good cause in here. AS a nation, the majority voters do not want Nuclear or we would have it.
The thing is, the majority votes on emotion rather than fact. No sense going any further so we dont have to have this thread locked. One can do their own research on the subject. Here is one place to start. Bottom line is the place was built and when you think of the cost, its pennies compared to current budget spending AND a true energy independence/
Anyone interested the internet is your friend, lets just keep in mind BITOG is not the place to discuss it, I am just providing some links.
A rare tour of the tunnel that is ground zero for a nuclear waste controversy
A permanent site for the nation's radioactive stockpile in the Nevada desert continues to fuel controversy
www.cbsnews.com
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository - Wikipedia
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Waste isn't stored in "barrels", that's a Greenpeace lie.
Spent fuel (high level waste) goes through three phases of storage:
1. Cooling pool - This is for 5-10 years until the fuel is sufficiently cooled to allow for dry cask storage
2. Cask storage - This is "intermediate" storage designed to be sufficient for ~100 years with current cask designs - This is how most SNF is currently housed
3. Deep Geological Repository - The fuel is encapsulated in a protective permanent storage capsule and socked away underground. SNF is only really hazardous for ~300 years, at which point the activity level has dropped off a cliff as all the more active components have disappeared.
A good video on #1 and #2 is this one from one of the employees at Bruce Power:
What cask storage looks like here in Canada:
This warehouse is a bit smaller than your average Costco and houses approximately 50 years of spent fuel.
On #3, most places around the world with nuclear power are in the process of securing sites, finalizing site prep, or, in the case of Finland, constructing their deep geological repository:
Finland Breaks Ground On World’s First Deep Geologic Nuclear Waste Repository
The repository will be the first in the world to start final disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
www.forbes.com
France has a slightly different policy, because they actively reprocess their spent fuel (which the US doesn't do). Their waste material is vitrified but will ultimately also require storage in a DGR.
Here in Canada, our DGR plans include retrievability for use in next generation reactors such as the Moltex SSR, which is claimed to produce only low to intermediate level waste as it burns off all the highly active products. In Russia, they actively use spent fuel in breeder reactors, which means a lesser final waste product and less overall waste.
It is also important to note that the nuclear industry is the ONLY industry required to fully account for all of its waste, and fund managing it, along with decommissioning. All US nuclear plants have decommissioning funds, which Holtec is currently using (and making money with) to decommission sites. Here in Canada, Ontario has ~$20 billion socked away to cover decommissioning, DGR construction and management and the fund is deemed "over-subscribed" in this state. This money is collected as part of regular operation of the sites and included in the per kWh rate they receive.
Last edited:
Yes, this goes along with the notion that you can compress methane into a liquid. People speaking with certainty about things for which they have no idea.
This kind of mindset - incorrect - and worse USA movies are really keeping us in the carbon age longer than need be, a bit ironic given actors/players.
We as humans have been taught to learn from mistakes and improve. Not abandon all hope and freeze.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,566
Compress, cool, whatever - LNG is shipped as a liquid - Hydrogen is not. You can't argue the facts so try to denigrate the verbiage. The point is one is shipped in liquid and one isn't.
And oh yes, Nuclear waste isn't stored in "barrels" Its stored in "casks"?? I figured people here were smart enough to realize the barrel likely wasn't a left over oil drum, but I guess not. BTW are those casks left over Jack Daniels casks, because that would be a waste of good oak. Ha.
Good day.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,566
The USA has no deep geological storage location. In fact no one has one in operation yet. Just because someone says its going to happen and makes pretty web pages doesn't mean it has or will. Trust but verify.
The US has tons of wastes in "casks" stored on site at energy plants. ORNL was given hundreds of millions of dollars to come up with a way to actually inspect these "casks" to ensure there not leaking.
When this is all truly figured out - not a government promise to do it in the future, then I will be 100% in support of nuclear energy. Until then we should breath our own smog, and not force our children to deal with our disaster.
Last edited:
Similar threads
