Author Topic: Lazard report on energy  (Read 7214 times)

Liberty

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9042
  • twitter.com/libertyRPF
    • twitter.com/libertyRPF
Lazard report on energy
« on: November 08, 2017, 06:32:40 AM »
"Most haystacks don't even have a needle." |  I'm on Twitter  | Watch this, please


OnTheShouldersOfGiants

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Lazard report on energy
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2017, 08:36:28 AM »
Great stuff, thanks for sharing. I'm not the biggest fan of comparing LCOE values for dispatchable and non-dispatchable technologies but I certainly don't know a better way. Regardless, great to see the cost of alternative non-emitting technologies dropping so quickly. Humans are too smart to continue digging hydrocarbons out of the ground and burning them at 30-60% thermal efficiency.

Cardboard

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
Re: Lazard report on energy
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2017, 12:40:46 PM »
"Humans are too smart to continue digging hydrocarbons out of the ground and burning them at 30-60% thermal efficiency."

Indeed, they have been very smart to do just that since fossil fuels are the energy and the battery at the same time. 30-60% thermal efficiency using such a flexible energetic/storage package is hard to beat.

As I mentioned before, hydrogen is the closest substitute and CO2 free. Then you have to think also about the amount of toxic waste that lithium batteries and their compounds along with the exploitation of rare earth metals is creating. None of that for hydrogen.

Thankfully, I am not alone thinking in that direction and expect more discoveries in the years to come:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/27/in-the-future-zero-emission-hydrogen-boilers-could-heat-your-home.html

Cardboard

Liberty

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9042
  • twitter.com/libertyRPF
    • twitter.com/libertyRPF
Re: Lazard report on energy
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2017, 03:56:17 PM »
Hydrogen is a way to store energy. It's not a source of energy (at least not on earth).

Fossil fuels were great to get us here. But now that we know their downsides and have alternatives, we should transition as fast as possible.
"Most haystacks don't even have a needle." |  I'm on Twitter  | Watch this, please

Cardboard

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
Re: Lazard report on energy
« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2017, 04:54:33 AM »
"Hydrogen is a way to store energy. It's not a source of energy (at least not on earth)."

Ever heard of combustion?  ::)

Cardboard

Liberty

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9042
  • twitter.com/libertyRPF
    • twitter.com/libertyRPF
Re: Lazard report on energy
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2017, 06:47:33 AM »
"Hydrogen is a way to store energy. It's not a source of energy (at least not on earth)."

Ever heard of combustion?  ::)

Cardboard

Ok, let me spell it out:

Where are you getting your hydrogen? You can't find pure hydrogen on earth since it's very reactive and binds to other things. Out in the void of space you might be able to find a decent concentration of H somewhere and use it to power a ship or whatever, but not here.

If you're getting it from fossil fuels (like natural gas), you are still just using fossil fuels (which are themselves technically a form of stored solar energy, the problem is that all that nice H is bound to a lot of carbon that gets released) and have a lot of the same problems.

If you are getting the H from water electrolysis, you are using energy to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen molecules. When you burn or use the H in a fuel cell, you're getting less power out than what you put in with the electrolysis. And if the energy for electrolysis comes from a dirty power grid, that hydrogen is worse than just using that electricity directly because of the losses...

So in this scenario, the hydrogen acts as a kind of battery: You dump power in, and later get less of it out than you put in. Might as well charge a Li-ion battery with that electricity, that'd be more efficient and would save all kinds of trouble with storing very leaky hydrogen at high pressures or cryogenic temps and using expensive fuel cells rather than cheaper batteries. Not to mention that we already have a distribution system for electricity, but we don't have one for hydrogen.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2017, 06:50:47 AM by Liberty »
"Most haystacks don't even have a needle." |  I'm on Twitter  | Watch this, please

Cardboard

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
Re: Lazard report on energy
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2017, 07:49:22 AM »
It does not fit your model doesn`t?

Sure, pure hydrogen needs to be separated from other elements with the most common being water or H2O. But, to say that hydrogen itself is not energy is dumb. One can say the exact same about fossil fuels. Fossil fuels only produce energy once they are forced to enter into a chemical reaction with oxygen called combustion.

And to extract fossil fuels, you need to spend money just like you would need to "extract" pure hydrogen from molecules.

My suggestion to you who is gung ho about existing technologies and obviously close minded to learn stuff that does not fit your model, would be to read a bit about new processes to extract hydrogen straight from a solar panel without electrolysis. The key is the catalyst/compound and they are closing in. 

Regarding distribution, we already know how to distribute gases such as propane, butane, natural gas, etc. Funny that people are scared of hydrogen (because of the Hindenberg?) but, have these tanks filled with explosive fuels/gases sitting all over their properties. And we already have the vehicles with the proper combustion system to make it work. So no need for polluting batteries, rare earth materials, cobalt, silver, etc.

Cardboard

jeffmori7

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 641
Re: Lazard report on energy
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2017, 07:58:36 AM »
Two things against hydrogen:

the overall energy efficiency: https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html

But I am curious to hear more about this thing with solar panel without electrolysis, honestly haven't heard about it yet.

And the overall cost of operation which should be the same for a car as gas, while EV will decrease 5-10 fold the cost of operation of a car.


Still, I think there is a place for hydrogen when you have electricity surplus, it is a way to stock energy that could be more convenient than large-scale battery for some industrial applications. Let's see how it play.

Liberty

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9042
  • twitter.com/libertyRPF
    • twitter.com/libertyRPF
Re: Lazard report on energy
« Reply #8 on: November 09, 2017, 08:02:23 AM »
Cardboard, clearly have a superficial understand of the field.

When you extract fossil fuels, you get more energy out than you put in.

When you extract hydrogen from water, you get less energy out than you put in.

This is analogous to storage in a battery.

Fossil fuels are technically stored solar energy because millions of years ago plants performed photosynthesis to bind these atoms together (carbon, hydrogen, etc), a solar-powered chemical process.

Hydrogen distribution is very different from propane or natural gas distribution. Very different.

Solar-powered electrolysis or chemical separation is not a free lunch. These processes are way less efficient than even current general solar panels, and they're more expensive, and you end up with hydrogen which then is harder to distribute and lossier to use than if you had had just a solar panel giving you useful DC electricity.

And if you burn hydrogen in ICE engines, you get WAY lower efficiency than fuel cells and are basically making the whole process even worse than it already is compared to battery EVs. And it's not like making ICEs is a free lunch either, there's a lot of embedded energy in them.

The hydrogen dream has been around for a long time, and a superficial understanding of it makes it seem really great (I've been there years ago), but once you actually look at the details, it doesn't make any sense when there are much better alternatives.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2017, 08:47:03 AM by Liberty »
"Most haystacks don't even have a needle." |  I'm on Twitter  | Watch this, please

Cardboard

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
Re: Lazard report on energy
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2017, 09:47:19 AM »
I guess that scientists at the University of Cambridge and Stanford have like me a superficial understanding of the field. They are definitely wasting their time... 

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/03/20/new-technique-uses-solar-energy-make-hydrogen-biomass-room-temperature/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/521671/cheap-hydrogen-from-sunlight-and-water/

Might as well rely on genius Liberty who whines all day about Canadian housing cost. Likely because he is still in his parents basement now raising two kids?

Cardboard