From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
This year’s FES is now out, and there are some surprising changes from last year’s:
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/future-energy/future-energy-scenarios-fes
As always, they offer several scenarios:
.
As mass rollout of hydrogen still seems unlikely, I will again concentrate on the middle scenario, “Electric Engagement”. There is zero chance that the public will willingly engage in the “transition”, so it will have to be enforced via heat pump and EV mandates, and so on. The three scenarios are all pretty similar anyway in concept.
The report includes this useful table:
The key point to note is Peak Demand, which in 2035 would be 81GW. For that you would need at least 100GW of reliable capacity, to allow for a safety margin.
The Work Book gives further detail on projected generating capacity:
Excluding I/Cs, we have 40GW of firm capacity. In winter that 48GW of solar power might give us about 1GW averaged over 24 hours, which of course assumes that there is sufficient battery storage to spread the load throughout the night.
There will be times every year when wind power drops to less than 5% of capacity. Even 5% would only provide 5GW, and on occasions this could drop much lower.
It is immediately apparent that we will have nothing like the 100GW needed. Storage is projected at 112 GWh, which might help to meet peak demand for an hour or two, but useless for longer power shortages. Remember too that batteries need to be recharged – if the wind is not blowing, there will be no electricity available to enable that.
But what is noteworthy is that for the first time, the FES recognises that we will still need a lot of thermal generation. They say we will need 18GW of unabated gas, plus 8GW of gas power with CCS and 6GW of hydrogen burning power stations. This backs up what the DESNZ told me last month, that we will need 30 to 50GW of “long duration flexible capacity by 2035”, which they said could only be met by unabated gas. Indeed 50GW is probably the absolute minimum.
Most of the hydrogen will be produced by steam reforming gas; the amount available from electrolysis will small. It would therefore make much more sense, and be much cheaper, to continue burning gas anyway. Similarly gas power stations with CCS will still need gas, and more of it than if you just burnt the gas in the first place.
This new analysis drives a coach and horses through the demented Miliband’s plan to fully decarbonise the grid completely by 2030.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
He’s going to have one hell of a problem when Trump’s elected.
If FF are phased out, can Scotland supply 200 proof alcohol for firetrucks?
We all will have one. Except russia and china – they’ll celebrate.
I won’t.
Your problem is you tend to generalise a lot.
Do you not recall the trade war with China (2017 – 2019)?
Really?
“We all will have one.”
Yep, your whole little greenie anti-human fantasy will collapse around you… Diddums. !!
Normal people will be much better off, especially Americans.
“Normal people will be much better off, especially Americans.”
Only if Trump wins in November. If not, we’ll be in the cesspool right along with the rest of the free world that is embracing this nut zero 💩
But you’re just fine with a President embroiled in two conflicts and provoking a third with China.
The first POTUS since Carter not to begin a new major conflict in his first term was Trump, who was accused by far-left characters like you of inevitably beginning WW3. Instead you projected your favourite candidates intentions, to begin WW3.
And yet, you continue to condemn Trump because he challenges your Globalist ambitions.
The rest of the west is waking up to your far-left behaviour. Anti far-left wing sentiment is breaking out across Europe, and your efforts to induce pathetic identity politics and community division are now recognised by decent people.
You are a witless automaton blindly following a far-left ideology that claims it has all the answers when, in reality, there are only compromises.
“far-left ideology that claims it has all the answers when, in reality, there are only
compromises. creating the problems.Trump left the economy in shambles, 6 percent unemployment and only 1 percent growth. That’s why he was voted out.
Biden makes too many careless errors.
Prior to Covid, unemployment was 3.7%. Covid caused it to rise over 8% by the time Trump left office.
https://www.shadac.org/news/unemployment-rate-trends-data-pre-mid-post-pandemic
Your claims are incorrect.
GDP growth pre-Covid was 2.9%. It flipped down nearly 5% at the Covid onset.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-growth-rate
Your claims are incorrect.
He was voted out because of election interference, specifically the intentional cover up of the laptop story and suppression of free speech in social media.
Polls show that between 5% and 10% of voters wound not have voted for Biden had the story not been censored.
Your claims are incorrect.
Your claims are incorrect.
He doesn’t care.
…code for “incompetent”. But if the Biden Maladministration were merely incompetent, chances are the actions and policies coming forth would help more than half the people about half the time. They don’t, and the only possible conclusion must be, the destruction is deliberate!!!
Biden’s energy policies empower Russia and China. Part of defeating Russia is increasing the supply of oil and gas so the prices are lower. This was a contributing factor in the fall of Russia’s previous incarnation (the USSR). We worked closely with the Saudis on that.
If hurting one means helping the other, then which way do you go?
I’d go with hurting Russia since our resident expert says China is transitioning away from fossil fuels.
China was building 600 new coal-fired power stations, but then it completed one of them and is now only building 599. Soon it may only be building 598, then 597, etc. That is a clear transition away from fossil fuels. Isn’t it?
I do hope so.
Give Trump some Green Energy stock shares and he’ll be all for green energy.
Trump is not a Democrat.
Future Energy Scenarios — the next few weeks and months
Ed Miliband sets out his priorities for the department – gov.uk
…delivering our mission to boost energy independence and cutting bills through clean power by 2030
….taking back control of our energy with Great British Energy
…upgrading Britain’s homes and cutting fuel poverty through our Warm Homes Plan
…standing up for consumers by reforming our energy system
…creating good jobs in Britain’s industrial heartlands, including a just transition for the …industries based in the North Sea
…leading on international climate action, based on our domestic achievements
In other words, a load of nonsensical locally heated air. We could be energy independent using not only the North sea, but all that shale under our feet. But Miliband doesn’t like us much cos we’re fick and he – as a high priest of the new clerisy – knows exactly what is best for everyone….
Miliband overrules officials with immediate ban on new North Sea oil
Ed Miliband torn to shreds by Labour’s top union donor in furious North Sea Oil row
Fears for food security as Miliband pushes through Britain’s biggest solar farm
Energy Secretary’s decision to overturn planning inspectorate on project in rural eastern England sparks fury
Campaigners fight against Britain’s biggest solar farm after plans …
Ed Miliband prepares to wage a wind-powered war on the shires
Green MP opposes 100-mile corridor of wind farm pylons in his Suffolk constituency
Future energy scenarios will involve a lot of self inflicted and totally unnecessary pain and hardship.
How very Soviet.
He said “cutting bills through clean power“. Somebody wrote it.
Well, actually you could. By completely controlling people’s use and rationing of energy. I think a lot of people would actually like to see that happen.
As you may be aware, the fool Miliband, recorded a video, where he is stood in front a backdrop of wind turbines, playing a guitar, singing “The answer is blowing in the wind”. How truthful and accurate he is.
Aye, lad, we can smell for miles.
and miles and miles and miles… (The Who)
Never has so much been written about so much nonsense. The concept of Net Zero will be dead and buried by 2035.
I’d much rather it were dead by 2025
I think 2029 is the best we can hope for – and then only if enough people vote Reform UK in that year’s general election.
I never thought I’d be reading about it in 2024. Might go on until 3034.
It was someone commenting in WUWT I think who said: Never has so much been invested by so many for so little. Well, something like that anyway.
What happened to the cost-benefit analysis? No sane person would have embarked on a project of this scale without a cost-benefit analysis. Probably a pilot project too.
A back of the envelope estimate.
The cost is astronomical, $US200 trillion according to Bloomberg’s Green Energy Research Team, other estimates are similar if not more.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-05/-200-trillion-is-needed-to-stop-global-warming-that-s-a-bargain
Bloomberg’s investors want $US275 trillion spent.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-21/investors-call-for-policy-unleashing-275-trillion-for-net-zero.
Using the $200 trillion figure, there are 2 billion households in the world so that works out to $100,000 per household. Ninety percent of the households in the world can’t afford anything additional so that is about $1 million per household in the developed world or about $36,000 per year or additional $3,000 per month per household for 26 years.
Most families would prefer to have $1 million in the bank and a degree or two of warming.
The fact is that outside of the Tropics almost everyone spends almost all of their time indoors anyway.
But any cost/benefit analysis involving unreliables is fraudulent, because they completely ignore backup!!! And if pressed, they simply shrug and mumble something about “grid connection”. I think this falls under the category, “Lying With Statistics”.
Oh, yeah, there it is there, instead of “grid connection” they use the term “Interconnections”.
When the wind is low due to a blocking high over Europe and the Norwegian rainfall has been low you can kiss that interconnector goodbye. France’s nuclear power will be sent eastwards and Norway will protect itself.
At the end of last year I deliberately went “cherry-picking” for the “best-case, sunny day in summer” and “worst-case, cloudy day in winter” cases for the “Solar” input to the GB electricity grid.
It turned out that there was a day in December 2022 that “beat” (to the down-side !) all “24 hour” periods for December 2023 to that point.
I’ve posted this graph before, but I think it’s worth posting again.
Notes / Calculations
That 1.15 GWh on 18/12/2022 came from a “nominal / nameplate / faceplate” capacity of ~15 GW.
1.15 x (48 / 15) = 3.67 … let’s be generous and round that up to 4 GWh.
4 GWh / 24 (hours per day) = 1/6th of a GW = 0.16666… GW.
Let’s be generous and round that up to 0.2 GW (average over 24 hours).
Your “average day” 1 GW number for 48 GW of “Solar capacity” may be in the right ball-park, but we really ought to be looking at “worst-case” weather patterns instead … which means dividing by (at least) an additional factor of five.
Follow-up (I can only post one image file from my hard disk per WUWT post).
Paul Homewood is more focussed on the “demand following” inputs to the GB electricity grid than the “baseload” ones.
An alternative view of the data for the two “24 hour periods” selected for my OP is given below.
It provides a different perspective on what the word “capacity” actually means over a 24 hour period.
.
Correction
1.15 GWh x (48 / 14.3) ~= 3.86 GWh.
Rounding that up to 4 GWh is still being generous.
Why average something over 24 hours that cannot operate for 24 hours under any possible scenario? In winter it’s closer to 6 hours/day, or is it 4 hours and zero if it’s cloudy? Such a falsehood gives some people hope that solar might help. It can’t and so it won’t!
My understanding is that the basic idea originated from the various “Solar panel installers” that were created to profit from the initial, extremely generous, government subsidies of the 2010s. These “professional installers” came up with the notion of “Peak Sun Hours” for their intermediate ‘system calculations”.
Example URL : https://enkonn-solar.com/peak-sun-hours/
[ URL to image file on that page, which should “autoload” below … ]
Various environmental activists ran with the idea that it “wasn’t fair” to include the hours of darkness in the “24-hour energy (in GWh) to ‘average power rating’ (in GW)” calculations for solar panels, and noticed that for 50-51°N latitudes — e.g. the south coast of the island of Great Britain, from Cornwall to Kent — around the summer solstice an “8-hour day” would give you the result that “the ‘average’ solar panel output (in GW) = the height of the rectangle ~= the manufacturer’s ‘Peak’ power rating (in GW)”.
The confusion between “GWh” (total energy over a period of time) and “GW” (instantaneous power output / rating) in both social and mainstream media outlets has only got worse since then.
The various “boxes” in the graphic at the bottom of my OP reach the same conclusion, I just get there coming from a different angle.
Queue Sterling’s climate podcast quote: “You know who’s tried that… Germany…”
Electricity from solar at night and on a cloudy day… ZERO
Output from wind on a windless day, from whatever capacity wind is installed… ZERO or possibly negative.
Same as Miliband’s IQ…. Zero
Wait. One a cloudy day you might get 1% of max rating. Maybe.
If I recall my Electrical Engineering class adequately (it was 46 years ago, after all), the PV wafer has some sort of capacitance factor wherein the input has to meet a certain threshold or the output is indeed 0 = zero = zilch = nada = nothing = bupkus = you get my point. And that threshold is significantly above absolute pitch black, though I can’t remember what the exact numbers were then, I don’t expect it’s much improved today. I think it was explained to me that normal eyesight could still read fairly easily, in other words, a good solid cloudy day.
A 500 hp 2025 Corvette has a base price of $65,000, carries about 500 kWh of useable energy for propulsion, lighting, heating, and cooling. The fuel weighs about 90 lbs. Its 2 ft^3 plastic fuel tank only ads a few pounds more. It is formed into various nooks and crannies in the car and can be refilled forever without damage. It will comfortably go (no ‘range anxiety’) several hundred miles on that tank and find a 5-minute refill point within range nearly everywhere in the US. I’ll consider an EV when it beats that. The vast majority of people in the US agree with me, not the ‘carbon’ hoaxers.
According to what metric? Electric motors are 95% efficient whereas an internal combustion engine is at most 40% efficient. Other than range electric cars comfortable beat ICE cars in every way. But even that is not an issue for most drivers. In the UK for instance the average trip is 8.1 miles meaning than an EV easily has enough range for most trips.
IW, do you take into account efficiency where the energy was generated? The EV is only storing energy generated somewhere else.
I understand the idea “can be neither created nor destroyed, only changes form”, and don’t want to drag the process back to the theoretical formation of the galaxy. Even the physicists shrug and say “just happened” at some point. However “car is rolling down road” seems late in the process to pick a starting point.
Even if you take the efficiency of the power generated elsewhere electric vehicles are still more efficient than ICE. A gas turbine can have an efficiency of >60% so you are better off burning natural gas to generate electricity then use that to power an EV than using petrol.
Basically electric motors are a lot more efficient than internal combustion engines. They also produce more torque which is why
EVs are much better at accelerating. Plus of course they are way less
polluting and a lot quieter.
And now you’ll factor in the need to carry a heavy battery everywhere they go.
Surely that has an impact on the effective efficiency of the vehicle. If not, whey not drive everywhere with 10 bags of cement in the boot/trunk?
Can they charge up in 5 minutes? No.
I used to drive 120 miles round trip per day and many people in the US drive 60 miles round trip..
Actually not that many people drive more than 60 miles on a regular basis. Have a look at
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-march-21-2022-more-half-all-daily-trips-were-less-three-miles-2021
None of which is to say that an EV is the best solution for everyone or for every trip. If you live in a city and you want to get from A to B as quickly as possible then you are probably best off with a moped that can cut through traffic for example. But a moped is not good if you are going shopping or travelling cross country.
If you want a car to go a long distance then BYD is planning to release a plug-in hybrid with a 2000km range in 2025 while currently they have one that goes over 1000km before it needs to refuel or recharge.
Yep… the claim is 62 mpg for the extg car (gas) & another 18 for the electric portion for a total of 80 mpg.
If I get 62 mpg , why the hell do I want to deal with plugs?
So the 1200 mile range … same question.
If I can go 420 miles with no gas stops, at 70 mph over the mountains, I’ll look into it. It will not require subsidies, lies, mandates, or shilling. It will obviously develop by itself.
Give it up already. By now, I don’t actually care the performance of an all electric vehicle because I will never under any circumstances buy one. Why? Because the d*** government has been pushing them so f***ing hard!!! Got my dander up, I will never succumb.
I drive an average of 350 miles round trip twice a week.
‘People’ like Izakk would have me spend the night, charge up, and up my rates by 35%, to make up for the inefficiency.
Izakk is a doucebag that lives in a bubble of ignorance and selfishness.
Where did I say that. I stated quite clearly that “an EV is the best solution for everyone or for every trip”. If an EV doesn’t work for you then don’t buy one. But for most people and most trips it will work just fine.
You didn’t. Biden did.
In my present job I drive 180 miles round trip daily, just to get to and from work.
The best CCGT generators can achieve 60% efficiencies.
Most steam turbine generators are in the 35% range.
Going with your 60%:
60% of 95% is 57.5%
Average car weight is ~ 4000 lb.
Average EV battery weight is ~1000 lb.
So the 57.5% again is reduced by 20% to 45.6%.
Average charger station efficiency is 90%. Although some can be better or worse depending on age, design, load capacity, temperature, and other factors.
So the 45.6% is reduce by 10% to 41.0 % (compared to 40% for ICE)
It is unknown how many transformers are in series between the power station and the charger. Those transformers are 95% efficient, although that varies greatly based on design, temperature, age, and power line currents.
There are a lot of variables involved so a specific vehicle might be better or worse. The ICE efficiency is based on assumptions of age and maintenance so it will have a range.
Essentially, the EV versus ICE energy efficiencies are a wash and possibly the ICE could be better.
I have for many years used the factor 3.5. For every kwh I pay for at my meter, the generating station needs to use 3.5 times that in fuel because of the inefficiencies along the way. That disregards what exactly the generating station is, I think it was assuming a coal-fired generating station.
A constant-speed diesel motor has close to 50% thermal efficiency, but I don’t know if the losses involved in using one in a hybrid diesel-electric system outweigh the lower thermal efficiency at non-optimal engine speeds. Variable valve timing may broaden the optimal engine speed range as well.
There are almost certainly ongoing R&D efforts in these areas.
Reducing drag also provides a major improvement to overall fuel economy. The spoilers fitted to semi-trailer prime movers apparently give quite large improvements in fuel economy, along with the use of enclosed trailers.
The obvious metric is car sales. They prove that most people in the US do agree with Mr. Johnson and prefer gasoline to EV.
PS. Most people don’t buy cars (or anything else) based on “average”. It’s the ends of the curve that you shop for. Maybe not the extreme, but at least two standard deviations out. In North America it’s not unusual to see Ontario plates in Orlando. That’s 1,500 miles. Many of us are routinely driving a lot more than 8 miles.
That is why people are lining up to buy EVs, right? Because they are so much better than ICEs..😄
My God Izaak, I never looked at it that way. The EV’s must be selling out faster than they can get them on the lots.
I better get down there and get mine before they realize they are priced waaay to low, and jack up the price (and before the subsidies run out).
Was this supposed to be in the sarcasm font?
But what’s the efficiency of the battery? Under no scenario can you get back out of a battery every milliwatt-hour you put into it. Never going to happen. I have been in the energy business long enough to know that for every kwh consumed at the meter, you have to burn 3.5 times that amount of fuel at the generating station. So, although I disbelieve the 95% claim, I’ll go with it, let’s do the arithmetic… 0.95 x 0.90 x (1/3.5) = 0.24428571428572 or, about 25% efficiency. I’ll take my 40% efficient (which is also incorrect, but I’m using the number you gave) ICE all day every day and twice on Sunday. Because I can still refuel it unlimited times, the range is hardly affected by temperature (I’ll pretend I’m not going to run an air conditioner whether it’s battery or ICE), I can find a refueling point at precisely the place I need it within +/-20 miles (a gallon of gasoline, IOW), and I can go from smack dab empty to fully fueled in <5 minutes. No need for me to reduce the performance of my transportation back to pre-1900.
Hydrogen fantasy over for Twiggy Forrest and Fortescue as the sackings…err…redundancies begin-
Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue slashes 700 jobs, tempers green hydrogen ambitions (msn.com)
First it was Sun Cable dreaming and now it’s the light headed hydrogen going bye byes.
It is an immutable fact that it takes more energy to manufacture hydrogen than that hydrogen then contains. No technology will change this fact. Why do they even try?
Green hydrogen: loss upon loss upon loss. Kinda efficiency in reverse..
Deficiencies upon deficiencies.
Indeed. The Milliband equation..😆
Meanwhile in the UK Miliband..
Not happy with the offshore wind turbines either sleepy-
Approved offshore wind farm to cost residents 55% more in energy bills (msn.com)
There seems to be a pattern forming here watermelons.
Since when did “interconnectors” become part of the world’s electricity generation capacity? And when can we expect the children who write about the glories of hydrogen as a fuel learn something about the extraordinary difficulties (and extraordinary expense) of dealing with this gas for such a purpose?
I’ve seen stoat-brained liar Nick Stokes push the interconnector lie as well.
Who the hell can afford “the smart house of the future” when inflation is destroying the middle class?
It’s the only way they can pretend that a renewable based system might work without impossible amounts of storage, they pretend that there is limitless on demand energy that can always be imported from overseas whenever we need it, it’s kind of a version of the fabled “dispatchable emissions-free resources” that form the bedrock of NY policy despite the rather fundamental problem that they don’t exist at even a theoretical level.
The basic problems:
Since when did “interconnectors” become part of the world’s electricity generation capacity?
When we gave up cheap efficient large dispatchable generators with hub and spoke distribution for expensive increasingly unmanageable spaghetti and meatballs. I guess green Utopia is reached when everyone is entirely energy self sufficient with solar panels and windmills on their rooves and batteries around their walls with an EV in the garage all funded by the taxpayers as it solves the spaghetti and meatballs frequency and voltage conundrum while changing the weather.
More importantly, when can we expect the children who write about the glories of hydrogen as a fuel learn that it TAKES fuel to produce and IS NOT. NOR WILL EVER BE, an energy SOURCE?!
Plus hydrogen is highly explosive and burns with an almost invisible flame.
Show them a film on Apollo 1 to give them a sense of how dangerous gasses that burn can be.
Apollo 1 was Oxygen.
Hydrogen: Show them the Hindenburg.
Looks like all the cars are driving on one-way streets.
And just what is propelling those two people flying without a plane? Methane?
You left out flying cars that were a big part of the 1964 World Fair.
Well they would do that now wouldn’t they greenies?
Gas giant Woodside buys grazing properties in southern NSW to offset carbon emissions (msn.com)
Happy now Nick?
I’m just waiting for him to announce that all vehicle manufacturers must ensure that horse-drawn carriages must make up 20% of sales by Friday afternoon.
Oh, no, can’t do that! Horses emit methane too!!!
The new Government’s energy policies are a mass of contradictions, bright ideas which mostly cannot work, and certainly cannot work as a whole. Like, devolution to English regions sounds great, until you realize it will stop all wind farm and solar farm planning approval, so you centralize planning thus reducing devolution.
Then there’s economic growth, which will require these new houses and also lots of AI, which will require power, which (and not planning approval) is actually tghe main blocking factor.
Which is going to get worse, because the attempt to move to EVs and heat pumps will raise demand even before you start promoting housebuilding and server farms, at the same time as the move to wind and solar.
And now we have the co-leader of the Green Party. From the Spectator:
Adrian Ramsay has forgotten his own party’s raison d’être. Today the MP for Waveney Valley has confirmed he will oppose new electricity pylons in his East Anglian constituency – pylons that would be used to transport, er, green energy from offshore wind farms to the grid. How interesting…
The craziness continues. A tiny island with very little available land for wind and solar farms, so far north that solar output is 10-11% of faceplate, is trying to move its power generation to wind and solar at the same time as it tries to double demand, and at the same time as the Green tendency tries to prevent the construction of transmission facilities to take the existing power to where its supposed to be needed, despite its being supposedly in favor of getting to Net Zero ASAP by way of wind and solar.
Right, lets just put up the wind turbines in the North Sea, then refuse to construct transmission, and pay them not to produce electricity. Makes sense to me.
Where are they building all this on-shore solar and wind? Well on farmland, which would otherwise be used for crops which would diminish dependence on food imports. They are doing this, would you believe, to diminish dependence on energy imports!
And no-one ever talks about batteries or storage?
This was the country that started the industrial revolution? What happened? Is there something in the water that inhibits rational thought in the UK?
We shall see, when Ed Miliband heads off to COP29. Who knows what sort of mad ideas he may come back with. You think it could not get any worse, but he’s going to have news for you.
Buy a decent three year old hybrid now. While they are still available and affordable. And put in a multi fuel stove, while its still legal. And buy a good old fashioned Dutch style bike. You are going to need all of them.
That extra energy for AI and everything ‘smart’ takes about 10x more than we have now. Data(computer) centres are already struggling. So before you start implementing ( and changing) energy systems you better make sure 1×1=2. You cannot have the current and especially future tech AND go Green at the same time. And you really need that tech to be able to control the population w control and comply mechanisms. That’s one of the main issues. Plus, when it comes down to chosing energy when there isnt enough what are the chances people are going to take the restrictions put upon them by the state? And if there are no restrictions upon citizens it means de-industrialisation and no smart tech. Then good luck w your ‘smart’ system. Attached, take a look at the many issues modern cars have w faulty electronic and computer systems. You can just imagine the scale of increasing ‘smart’ tech in everything and breakdown numbers.
My future energy plans are to keep using what works until something better comes along.
That doesn’t mean no R&D or no pilot projects.
It does mean more nuclear. We need enough nuclear to provide our the majority of our baseline power. I’m in favor of keeping our coal plants, but we need cleaner ways to mine coal. We should continue to use natural gas. Natural gas plants can be brought online quickly, so natural gas can be part of our baseline generation and used to meet peak demands.
Besides, the whole thing is about re-engineering our society. It’s not about resources, pollution or climate.
First up: energy for datacentres vs the population..
Not if Trump wins. It looks like he’s going to have both houses of Congress, too.
He won’t have 60% in the Senate, so Schumer can block pretty much anything productive.
The last time Trump won he left the economy is shambles, 6 percent unemployment and only 1 percent growth. That’s why he was voted out.
Trump might just switch back to being a Democrat and the head of the party just to spite them.
Biden should pass the torch to someone else.
How many times are you going to repeat these lies?
As a chemical engineer, I fail to understand how using hydrogen produced by steam-methane reforming will reduce CO2 emissions.
The overall reaction for steam – methane reforming is
CH4 + 2 H2O –> CO2 + 4 H2
Burning the four moles of hydrogen for energy gives the following reaction:
4 H2 + 2 O2 –> 4 H2O
Adding the two reactions and cancelling common products and reactants results in
CH4 + 2 O2 –> CO2 + 2 H2O
which is the same reaction as for burning natural gas (methane, or CH4) directly. This means that steam-methane reforming followed by burning hydrogen yields the same amount of CO2 as simply burning natural gas.
From an energy point of view, steam-methane reforming is a catalytic endothermic (heat-consuming) reaction which requires heating to about 1400 F. Some of the waste heat from the products can be recovered to boil water into steam, but due to that pesky Second Law of Thermodynamics, some of the energy is lost as heat to the environment.
This means that direct burning of natural gas produces more net energy, and produces the same amount of CO2, than steam-methane reforming following by burning hydrogen.
The only way that hydrogen can be used for energy production to reduce CO2 emissions is if it is obtained by electrolysis of water, with electricity provided by a nuclear power plant or a “renewable” source, such as hydroelectric, wind, or solar power.
Giant space hose to suck Hydrogen from a nebula?
Harold the Organic Chemist Says:
You should use the following header for your comments:
SteveZ76 the Chemical Engineer Says:
I have found the commenters are more respectful and pay better attention to my comments.
Sometimes I add this footnote:
PS: I am a retired organic chemist with a B.Sc.(Hon) and Ph.D.
Commenters rarely give me a hard time.
Oh well, I guess fusion is out… maybe 2070.
Anything ‘smart’ requires extra energy which comes from?
I can’t see how this report is anything but trash.