Environists (no mental in the middle) tell us that hydrogen produced by electrolysis from solar panels and windmills is the savior. Hydrogen is difficult to transport and store. It leaks through all metals, embrittling them on the way. A hydrogen pipeline must be three times larger than a methane pipeline to deliver the same power. The end-to-end efficiency of today's hydrogen systems, from solar panels to pipelines to fuel cells in your virtue-signaling Toyota Mirai, is about 22%. It's far more dangerous than methane. The explosive range is 4-96% in air, compared to methane's 46-54%.
We will need hydrocarbons indefinitely, unless somebody has secret blueprints for airplanes and ships that don't need them. Mined ones will be depleted eventually, and become too valuable as chemical feedstock to burn them. When that ton of bricks hits us, we can make hydrocarbons using CO2 extracted from seawater (where its concentration is 140 times greater than in the atmosphere) using bipolar membrane electrodialysis and hydrogen separated from water, combined by the Fischer-Tropsch process. The most energy-efficient way to obtain hydrogen (that I know of) is the thermochemical copper-chlorine process that needs heat, ironically, at exactly the core temperature of a nuclear reactor. Much more efficient than using the heat to make steam, then electricity, then electrolysis.
Details in my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy? A Comprehensive Quantitative System Engineering Study of the Relationship between Climate, Science, and Technology." Everything quantified. No vague handwaving. 350 bibliographic citations allow readers to verify I didn't simply make up stuff.
The “Energy Transition” is only an “Electricity Transition”.
To start with, there is no such thing as “renewable” energy, as it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Electricity from wind turbines and solar panels are 100% dependent on favorable weather conditions offered by free wind and sunshine.
Wind turbines and solar panels ONLY generate electricity but CANNOT make any products or transportation fuels for life as we know it.
• Crude oil by itself is useless black tar, unless you build a multi-billion-dollar refinery to break it down to produce various types of transportation fuels, and oil derivatives that are the basis of the products in our materialistic world.
• Wind turbines and solar panels ONLY generate electricity but CANNOT make any products or transportation fuels for planes, ships, trucks, or cars.
Nice clarification .....what I think strange is it's not difficult to understand the concept.....I run 100% gasoline in my truck. I think the introduction of ethanol is to wear them out faster.....higher operating temps wear out the plastic components and makes them brittle.Less energy per combustion and more heat, a bad trade off......it also evaporates easier when its hot and its hygroscopic...we are being "nudged"towards EV's...like it or not ...I can drag your Tesla to its destination and charge it while we're driving....that's effeciency.....
Nudged toward EV’s - I don’t like it. And I hate burning alcohol in gasoline as it is not just inefficient and damaging to components; it’s just plain stupid. It takes more energy to manufacture the alcohol than the fuel value energy we get from combusting it. That’s just dumber than dumb - a reflection of the intelligence and integrity of politicians.
Tucos's Child: I hate to say I told you so, but I warned about the precariousness of the Middle East Oil & Gas supply, and now we are seeing the ramifications of that vulnerability, a terrible tragedy for the entire World is unfolding. I didn't realize how severe an effect it would also have on the World's fertilizer & helium supply.
And those in America who thought they were immune, have had a rude awakening. Diesel prices doubling. The effects of that are going to be deep and prolonged, even if Trump comes to his senses and exits, or more likely if his handlers quit trying to disrupt the World's food & energy supplies. The same bunch of creeps who instituted the blockade against nuclear energy.
We need alternatives to petroleum based liquid fuels. Not agrofuels. Methanol based and battery electric replacements for diesel fueled mobile equipment. DME should be a substantially more economical fuel for diesel trucks, more efficient, as well as being far cleaner burning. No particulate or SOx emissions and very low NOx emissions. And can be made from methanol with coal, biomass or stranded gas assets as feedstock.
You should do an analysis of the Middle East supply conundrum.
Also there is a lot of dangerous actions being undertaken against Russia by the European psychos. Sending swarms of drones, given to their Ukrainian proxies, to attack Russian energy infrastructure, incl NPPs, but mainly oil & gas (while the idiots are buying Russian oil & gas). And the birdbrains keep promoting war with Russia.
Russia is getting pissed, and warning the use of nuclear weapons against Europe. There is a severe energy quagmire happening and likely to continue or even accelerate and all we hear from the politicians is: "Renewable Energy (by which they mean wind & solar) will save us". Except for Trump who keeps promoting his pie-in-the-sky delusion that the US can double their oil & gas output:
WE'RE BEING LIED TO: Oil Shock Coming by Fall, Even if Iran War Ends Today /Chris Martenson, Daniel Davis / Deep Dive
Will do. Over the last couple of weeks I have posted a number of articles. I would value your feedback to the extent you can take a look. The major through line is (1) we need to decarbonize faster, (2) our principle mechanism has been wind and solar which account for less than 3% of energy after 25 years and $11 trillion, (3) we have had the safe, clean, economical and scalable technology for 50 years, but it was demonized principally by environmentalists, and (4) really time to wake up and assess what's going to get us the maximum decarbonation for the dollar, and it is not wind and solar.
I am seeking to influence the most important influencers in this space to whatever extent I can.
I like your energy writings very much. Here are some answers to the above:
1) There is no need to decarbonize faster until nuclear power is in place. Fossil fuels and organic chemistry are the miracles of the modern age - every product and every aspect of our existence in the modern world is based on hydrocarbons. Please see the work of Ronald Stein, PE. Further, CO2 cannot warm the earth or atmosphere due to it's molecular physics- it absorbs and emits in the far infrared, a very cold energy, and is a trace gas at 400 ppm. It cannot impart sufficient energy on 99.9 % of the other gases in the atmosphere to warm it. 2) Solar and wind - terrible fiasco, maybe good in niche applications, heavily fossil fuel dependent from cradle to grave, highly inefficient over lifetime. 3) nuclear? 4) see 1.
You are welcome to PM me as well. Keep up the good work.
So if the CO2 in the atmosphere raises the temperature of the atmosphere by 1 degree Celsius, does that mean 2235 Megajoules/kg. or is it 1 million times that much?
Thank you 🙏
Environists (no mental in the middle) tell us that hydrogen produced by electrolysis from solar panels and windmills is the savior. Hydrogen is difficult to transport and store. It leaks through all metals, embrittling them on the way. A hydrogen pipeline must be three times larger than a methane pipeline to deliver the same power. The end-to-end efficiency of today's hydrogen systems, from solar panels to pipelines to fuel cells in your virtue-signaling Toyota Mirai, is about 22%. It's far more dangerous than methane. The explosive range is 4-96% in air, compared to methane's 46-54%.
We will need hydrocarbons indefinitely, unless somebody has secret blueprints for airplanes and ships that don't need them. Mined ones will be depleted eventually, and become too valuable as chemical feedstock to burn them. When that ton of bricks hits us, we can make hydrocarbons using CO2 extracted from seawater (where its concentration is 140 times greater than in the atmosphere) using bipolar membrane electrodialysis and hydrogen separated from water, combined by the Fischer-Tropsch process. The most energy-efficient way to obtain hydrogen (that I know of) is the thermochemical copper-chlorine process that needs heat, ironically, at exactly the core temperature of a nuclear reactor. Much more efficient than using the heat to make steam, then electricity, then electrolysis.
Details in my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy? A Comprehensive Quantitative System Engineering Study of the Relationship between Climate, Science, and Technology." Everything quantified. No vague handwaving. 350 bibliographic citations allow readers to verify I didn't simply make up stuff.
Energy Transition
The “Energy Transition” is only an “Electricity Transition”.
To start with, there is no such thing as “renewable” energy, as it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Electricity from wind turbines and solar panels are 100% dependent on favorable weather conditions offered by free wind and sunshine.
Wind turbines and solar panels ONLY generate electricity but CANNOT make any products or transportation fuels for life as we know it.
• Crude oil by itself is useless black tar, unless you build a multi-billion-dollar refinery to break it down to produce various types of transportation fuels, and oil derivatives that are the basis of the products in our materialistic world.
• Wind turbines and solar panels ONLY generate electricity but CANNOT make any products or transportation fuels for planes, ships, trucks, or cars.
Back to basics reality check ✅, thank you Ronald!
Excellent!
Outstanding! Thank you for this understandable article.
Nice clarification .....what I think strange is it's not difficult to understand the concept.....I run 100% gasoline in my truck. I think the introduction of ethanol is to wear them out faster.....higher operating temps wear out the plastic components and makes them brittle.Less energy per combustion and more heat, a bad trade off......it also evaporates easier when its hot and its hygroscopic...we are being "nudged"towards EV's...like it or not ...I can drag your Tesla to its destination and charge it while we're driving....that's effeciency.....
Very practical and logical comment Bob, thank you.
Yes. Many of these concepts can be distilled down in a simple and accurate way.
Nudged toward EV’s - I don’t like it. And I hate burning alcohol in gasoline as it is not just inefficient and damaging to components; it’s just plain stupid. It takes more energy to manufacture the alcohol than the fuel value energy we get from combusting it. That’s just dumber than dumb - a reflection of the intelligence and integrity of politicians.
As always - on the mark!
It's funny, you didnt mention the energy density of sunshine or wind, yet the climate hysterics would have us believe they are all about energy!
Great suggestion Andy, a whole new field of pseudo-sub-science is born ! ;-)
Yeah always about the grift.....
Tucos's Child: I hate to say I told you so, but I warned about the precariousness of the Middle East Oil & Gas supply, and now we are seeing the ramifications of that vulnerability, a terrible tragedy for the entire World is unfolding. I didn't realize how severe an effect it would also have on the World's fertilizer & helium supply.
And those in America who thought they were immune, have had a rude awakening. Diesel prices doubling. The effects of that are going to be deep and prolonged, even if Trump comes to his senses and exits, or more likely if his handlers quit trying to disrupt the World's food & energy supplies. The same bunch of creeps who instituted the blockade against nuclear energy.
We need alternatives to petroleum based liquid fuels. Not agrofuels. Methanol based and battery electric replacements for diesel fueled mobile equipment. DME should be a substantially more economical fuel for diesel trucks, more efficient, as well as being far cleaner burning. No particulate or SOx emissions and very low NOx emissions. And can be made from methanol with coal, biomass or stranded gas assets as feedstock.
I think the best alternative is build out nuclear and decrease burning of precious hydrocarbons for electricity.
Until then, fossil rules.
Note: oil prices are set by worldwide commodity traders. There is a glut of fossil fuels worldwide.
You should do an analysis of the Middle East supply conundrum.
Also there is a lot of dangerous actions being undertaken against Russia by the European psychos. Sending swarms of drones, given to their Ukrainian proxies, to attack Russian energy infrastructure, incl NPPs, but mainly oil & gas (while the idiots are buying Russian oil & gas). And the birdbrains keep promoting war with Russia.
Russia is getting pissed, and warning the use of nuclear weapons against Europe. There is a severe energy quagmire happening and likely to continue or even accelerate and all we hear from the politicians is: "Renewable Energy (by which they mean wind & solar) will save us". Except for Trump who keeps promoting his pie-in-the-sky delusion that the US can double their oil & gas output:
WE'RE BEING LIED TO: Oil Shock Coming by Fall, Even if Iran War Ends Today /Chris Martenson, Daniel Davis / Deep Dive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cohiddoFZlU
https://needsofthemany98.substack.com/p/the-energy-cost-of-energy?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Re. EROI- Lots of good reading there Scott, I am going to spend some time at your Substack.
I also see that you cited the classic EROI paper Weissbach, D. et al. (2013).
We are like minded:
https://tucoschild.substack.com/p/the-joule-ers-accountant-and-energy
Stay in touch,
TC
Will do. Over the last couple of weeks I have posted a number of articles. I would value your feedback to the extent you can take a look. The major through line is (1) we need to decarbonize faster, (2) our principle mechanism has been wind and solar which account for less than 3% of energy after 25 years and $11 trillion, (3) we have had the safe, clean, economical and scalable technology for 50 years, but it was demonized principally by environmentalists, and (4) really time to wake up and assess what's going to get us the maximum decarbonation for the dollar, and it is not wind and solar.
I am seeking to influence the most important influencers in this space to whatever extent I can.
Thanks.
https://needsofthemany98.substack.com/archive
Hello Scott,
I like your energy writings very much. Here are some answers to the above:
1) There is no need to decarbonize faster until nuclear power is in place. Fossil fuels and organic chemistry are the miracles of the modern age - every product and every aspect of our existence in the modern world is based on hydrocarbons. Please see the work of Ronald Stein, PE. Further, CO2 cannot warm the earth or atmosphere due to it's molecular physics- it absorbs and emits in the far infrared, a very cold energy, and is a trace gas at 400 ppm. It cannot impart sufficient energy on 99.9 % of the other gases in the atmosphere to warm it. 2) Solar and wind - terrible fiasco, maybe good in niche applications, heavily fossil fuel dependent from cradle to grave, highly inefficient over lifetime. 3) nuclear? 4) see 1.
You are welcome to PM me as well. Keep up the good work.
TC
Here is framing for my recent work. Welcome your feedback.
https://needsofthemany98.substack.com/p/were-losing-the-energy-transition
All makes sense to me, very concise compilation.
I would only skip the CO2 angle - the life giving gas is not an issue.
$11T for wind & solar, that's a high number, I haven't heard that before. Last I heard it was up to $7T last year sometime. Can you elucidate that?
Thanks for asking.
https://substack.com/profile/788544-scott-grout/note/c-261133508?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=gwg0
Excellent, thanks! I'll use that.
Thank you!....
Exactly Jeff, they want the farmer's vote!
Thank you for stopping by Van, and the information about electrolysis and the Cu/chlorine process.
So if the CO2 in the atmosphere raises the temperature of the atmosphere by 1 degree Celsius, does that mean 2235 Megajoules/kg. or is it 1 million times that much?