NPR

Slick wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:55 am

A key part of Boris Johnson’s plan to lower greenhouse gas emissions could be worse for the climate than continuing to burn gas, a study says.

The prime minister will support “blue hydrogen”, which is made from natural gas with the carbon captured and stored, in a hydrogen strategy due to be published within days. The strategy will also back “green hydrogen”, which is made from water using electrolysis powered by renewable energy.

The gas industry says blue hydrogen will be low carbon because the emissions produced when the fuel is made will be piped under the North and Irish Seas and injected into saline aquifers and depleted oilfields and gasfields.

Hydrogen can fuel boilers, lorries, buses, trains and industrial processes but does not exist as a fuel in nature, so it has to be manufactured. It produces no carbon when burnt but its carbon footprint depends on the emissions involved in the manufacturing.

Shell, BP and other oil and gas companies are hoping the promise of making blue hydrogen will allow them to continue exploiting their gas reserves while claiming they are on course to eliminate their emissions in line with the government’s 2050 net-zero target. But research by Cornell and Stanford universities in the US found that more methane, a potent greenhouse gas, would escape into the atmosphere during production of blue hydrogen than from burning gas for heat. This is because blue hydrogen plants would burn more gas to convert methane to hydrogen and capture the carbon.

The study, in the journal Energy Science & Engineering, concludes: “The greenhouse gas footprint of blue hydrogen is more than 20 per cent greater than burning natural gas or coal for heat. The use of blue hydrogen appears difficult to justify on climate grounds.”

The study found that emissions from blue hydrogen could be reduced if renewable energy was used to make it and capture the carbon. While this would make it greener than burning natural gas for heat, it would still not be zero carbon because of methane leaks.

Robert Howarth, co-author of the study and professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell, said: “Politicians round the world ... are placing expensive bets on blue hydrogen as a leading solution in the energy transition. Our research is ... a warning signal to governments that the only ‘clean’ hydrogen they should invest public funds in is truly net-zero green hydrogen made from wind and solar energy.”

A government spokesman said: “Low-carbon hydrogen will be essential ... to eliminating the UK’s contribution to climate change by 2050, with more details to be set out in our forthcoming hydrogen strategy.

“Independent reports, including that from the Climate Change Committee, show a combination of blue and green hydrogen is consistent with reaching net zero.”

Calculon wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 4:37 pm

inactionman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 8:39 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 8:14 am
See my post above. I very much doubt it's more convenient ever. And not convinced it's cheaper at all (at the moment) when you factor in all costs.

Interested to see how hydrogen progresses.

A number of car manufacturers have retained interest in Fuel Cells, it would be good to have a number and variety of options - suspect some will better fit certain use cases than others.

Getting past hydrogen's nasty habit of both leaking through seals and spectacularly going bang is going to be tricky but I'd hope not insurmountable.

The idea of replacing all ice cars with slightly crappier, but more expensive electric versions seem a bit shit really. Hopefully our need and desire for cars will be drastically reduced in the future.

GogLais wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 6:06 pm

Calculon wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 4:37 pm

inactionman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 8:39 am

A number of car manufacturers have retained interest in Fuel Cells, it would be good to have a number and variety of options - suspect some will better fit certain use cases than others.

Getting past hydrogen's nasty habit of both leaking through seals and spectacularly going bang is going to be tricky but I'd hope not insurmountable.

The idea of replacing all ice cars with slightly crappier, but more expensive electric versions seem a bit shit really. Hopefully our need and desire for cars will be drastically reduced in the future.

That’s the answer really, stay nearer home. But what mechanism is going to drive us to do so?

GogLais wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 6:06 pm

Calculon wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 4:37 pm

inactionman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 8:39 am

A number of car manufacturers have retained interest in Fuel Cells, it would be good to have a number and variety of options - suspect some will better fit certain use cases than others.

Getting past hydrogen's nasty habit of both leaking through seals and spectacularly going bang is going to be tricky but I'd hope not insurmountable.

The idea of replacing all ice cars with slightly crappier, but more expensive electric versions seem a bit shit really. Hopefully our need and desire for cars will be drastically reduced in the future.

That’s the answer really, stay nearer home. But what mechanism is going to drive us to do so?

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 5:13 pm If you want to look a nuclear power that will actually work, have a look at thorium reactors. Much more likely to provide a workable nuclear reactor in the near term than fusion, with waste products that will cease to be radioactive on human timescales.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 4:50 pm

Brazil wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:17 pm
I know hydrogen is produced from brown coal, but can't it also be produced from seawater by electrolysis?

Yep, dead easy to create Hydrogen from water; but the problem is that (a) H2O is a very strong bond, & so requires a decent amount of energy to break; & so (b) you're using electrical energy, to create potential fuel energy, & losing energy along the way...

so why not just use the electrical energy first of all ?

It still surprises me that there hasn't been a Manhattan Project equivalent for fusion, as it would solve all our energy problems until the earth disappears into the sun.

It's called nuclear fusion, & has been just around the corner for the last fifty years...

If there was a single reason I hate pseudo-environmentalists; it is their dogmatic refusal to support any technology that includes the word, "Nuclear", in the title.

One of the former founders of Greenpeace has turned around to admitting that Nuclear is core to moving to low carbon energy generation FFS !!

mat the expat wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 2:30 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 5:13 pm If you want to look a nuclear power that will actually work, have a look at thorium reactors. Much more likely to provide a workable nuclear reactor in the near term than fusion, with waste products that will cease to be radioactive on human timescales.

Thorium reactors have also been "Just around the corner" for at least 40 years

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:35 am

mat the expat wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 2:30 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 5:13 pm If you want to look a nuclear power that will actually work, have a look at thorium reactors. Much more likely to provide a workable nuclear reactor in the near term than fusion, with waste products that will cease to be radioactive on human timescales.

Thorium reactors have also been "Just around the corner" for at least 40 years

Yeah, but to be fair there's been very little investment in research into them compared to fusion.

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:54 am
Are these the “small scale modular” reactors?

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:54 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:35 am

mat the expat wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 2:30 am

Thorium reactors have also been "Just around the corner" for at least 40 years

Yeah, but to be fair there's been very little investment in research into them compared to fusion.

Are these the “small scale modular” reactors?

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:57 am

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:54 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:35 am

Yeah, but to be fair there's been very little investment in research into them compared to fusion.

Are these the “small scale modular” reactors?

They could be large or small, but generally when people talk about small scale modular reactors they're looking at small reactors using traditional fuel.

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:02 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:57 am

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:54 am

Are these the “small scale modular” reactors?

They could be large or small, but generally when people talk about small scale modular reactors they're looking at small reactors using traditional fuel.

Ahh thanks. I was in a meeting this morning taking about SSM and that was one of many things I came out not understanding.

There seems to be a lot of investment by some big companies going into them

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:27 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:02 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:57 am

They could be large or small, but generally when people talk about small scale modular reactors they're looking at small reactors using traditional fuel.

Ahh thanks. I was in a meeting this morning taking about SSM and that was one of many things I came out not understanding.

There seems to be a lot of investment by some big companies going into them

Yeah, the idea being you can effectively just ship out a self contained unit so it prevents anyone tampering with it, trying to get fuel products out for use in weapons. Thorium reactors don't produce anything that can be used in weapons afaik.

S/Lt_Phillips wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 1:01 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:27 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:02 pm

Ahh thanks. I was in a meeting this morning taking about SSM and that was one of many things I came out not understanding.

There seems to be a lot of investment by some big companies going into them

Yeah, the idea being you can effectively just ship out a self contained unit so it prevents anyone tampering with it, trying to get fuel products out for use in weapons. Thorium reactors don't produce anything that can be used in weapons afaik.

Which is why all the initial research & investment in nuclear power was directed towards uranium reactors. Thorium reactors are way behind as a result.

mat the expat wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 2:30 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 5:13 pm If you want to look a nuclear power that will actually work, have a look at thorium reactors. Much more likely to provide a workable nuclear reactor in the near term than fusion, with waste products that will cease to be radioactive on human timescales.

Thorium reactors have also been "Just around the corner" for at least 40 years

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 1:09 pm

S/Lt_Phillips wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 1:01 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:27 pm

Yeah, the idea being you can effectively just ship out a self contained unit so it prevents anyone tampering with it, trying to get fuel products out for use in weapons. Thorium reactors don't produce anything that can be used in weapons afaik.

Which is why all the initial research & investment in nuclear power was directed towards uranium reactors. Thorium reactors are way behind as a result.

Absolutely. Nuclear reactors were not in any way developed to provide energy.

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:18 am Has anyone come across electro magnetic generators? Talked with a guy yesterday who claims to have the technology to produce up to 200mW at a time with a modular system, each generating 1-2 mW.

It sounded amazing but I’m a bit dubious about it. On the face of it, it seems like an absolute game changer in terms of green energy, but why isn’t it more widely pushed.

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:18 am Has anyone come across electro magnetic generators? Talked with a guy yesterday who claims to have the technology to produce up to 200mW at a time with a modular system, each generating 1-2 mW.

It sounded amazing but I’m a bit dubious about it. On the face of it, it seems like an absolute game changer in terms of green energy, but why isn’t it more widely pushed.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:56 am

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:54 am
Are these the “small scale modular” reactors?

Small scale modular reactors are brilliant. I've got one in my basement where I soon plan to take over......wait. I've said too much.

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:57 am

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:18 am Has anyone come across electro magnetic generators? Talked with a guy yesterday who claims to have the technology to produce up to 200mW at a time with a modular system, each generating 1-2 mW.

It sounded amazing but I’m a bit dubious about it. On the face of it, it seems like an absolute game changer in terms of green energy, but why isn’t it more widely pushed.

In my work I often come across people who claim to have a technology that can do something remarkable. They've usually designed some kind of perpetual motion machine or something else that breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Or their simple little tech would need to redesign the entire world's power grid. Or something similar.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:28 pm A quick Google wasn't my friend, what is the technology that reuses spent nuclear fuel rods and keeps reusing them until they are pretty much inert?

I remember reading about it a few years ago but I can't remember now what it is called. There was some research into it but iirc the Clinton administration shut it down

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:20 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:28 pm A quick Google wasn't my friend, what is the technology that reuses spent nuclear fuel rods and keeps reusing them until they are pretty much inert?

I remember reading about it a few years ago but I can't remember now what it is called. There was some research into it but iirc the Clinton administration shut it down

It's not exactly as I remembered it, but not too far off. One thing about these reactors is that it cleans and makes (relatively) safe the existing waste we have. When I looked into this several years ago there were academic estimates of us already possessing enough nuclear waste to power IFR reactors for a couple of hundred years, certainly enough time to develop better alternative energy sources

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/jones1/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

I'm not for a minute suggesting this is a fix-all, but it should be worth bringing back on to the table for consideration, not least for the fact the IFR reduce the toxicity of waste from tens of thousands of years to hundreds

shaggy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:24 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:20 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:28 pm A quick Google wasn't my friend, what is the technology that reuses spent nuclear fuel rods and keeps reusing them until they are pretty much inert?

I remember reading about it a few years ago but I can't remember now what it is called. There was some research into it but iirc the Clinton administration shut it down

It's not exactly as I remembered it, but not too far off. One thing about these reactors is that it cleans and makes (relatively) safe the existing waste we have. When I looked into this several years ago there were academic estimates of us already possessing enough nuclear waste to power IFR reactors for a couple of hundred years, certainly enough time to develop better alternative energy sources

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/jones1/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

I'm not for a minute suggesting this is a fix-all, but it should be worth bringing back on to the table for consideration, not least for the fact the IFR reduce the toxicity of waste from tens of thousands of years to hundreds

And totally irrelevant if China continues to burn coal and build more power stations using it. We will end up removing a few % worth of the total impact whilst Xi uses the cheapest and dirtiest fuel source and increases its competitive advantage.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:29 pm

shaggy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:24 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:20 am


It's not exactly as I remembered it, but not too far off. One thing about these reactors is that it cleans and makes (relatively) safe the existing waste we have. When I looked into this several years ago there were academic estimates of us already possessing enough nuclear waste to power IFR reactors for a couple of hundred years, certainly enough time to develop better alternative energy sources

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/jones1/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

I'm not for a minute suggesting this is a fix-all, but it should be worth bringing back on to the table for consideration, not least for the fact the IFR reduce the toxicity of waste from tens of thousands of years to hundreds

And totally irrelevant if China continues to burn coal and build more power stations using it. We will end up removing a few % worth of the total impact whilst Xi uses the cheapest and dirtiest fuel source and increases its competitive advantage.

No, not totally irrelevant. All of it matters. And China's at what, 30% of the global total with their carbon output? If everyone else gives up, what's the point?

shaggy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:55 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:29 pm

shaggy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:24 am

And totally irrelevant if China continues to burn coal and build more power stations using it. We will end up removing a few % worth of the total impact whilst Xi uses the cheapest and dirtiest fuel source and increases its competitive advantage.

No, not totally irrelevant. All of it matters. And China's at what, 30% of the global total with their carbon output? If everyone else gives up, what's the point?

Not give up, change focus and effort on alienating the biggest polluters so the biggest gain is much earlier. Ultimately we all need to buy less if everything.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:07 pm

shaggy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:55 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:29 pm

No, not totally irrelevant. All of it matters. And China's at what, 30% of the global total with their carbon output? If everyone else gives up, what's the point?

Not give up, change focus and effort on alienating the biggest polluters so the biggest gain is much earlier. Ultimately we all need to buy less if everything.

The focus on individuals doing more (and buying less!) just hides from the fact that it's overwhelmingly corporations - mostly fossil fuel corps - that are responsible.

shaggy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:54 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:07 pm

shaggy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:55 pm

Not give up, change focus and effort on alienating the biggest polluters so the biggest gain is much earlier. Ultimately we all need to buy less if everything.

The focus on individuals doing more (and buying less!) just hides from the fact that it's overwhelmingly corporations - mostly fossil fuel corps - that are responsible.

If the demand from customers is not there the need for oil and gas will diminish. To say oil companies are the biggest polluters is just an easy and empty statement, the tier 3 emissions is where most is found.

I like neeps wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:59 am

Insulate Britain are a bit whatever but this is hilarious. Why talkradio think it makes their presenter look good is beyond me.

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:01 pm That’s fucking mad, makes the presenter and TalkRadio look like idiots