51–60 of 331 posts
How will this address methane leakage, which is a substantial source of athmospheric greenhouse gas emissions? Converting Co2 to methane is not carbon neutral if/when leaked...
Basically infinite energy with clean water as a byproduct, and all signs point to it being financially viable compared even to fossil fuels. It's like a dream. I can't wait to see a bunch of companies being successful in this area.
What are some applications where its worth taking the highest grade energy (electricity) and turning it into a lower grade (eg liquid fuels), rather than electrifying the application? Electricity to motion is significantly more efficient per input energy than burning fuel->heat-> gaseous expansion->drive a piston->convert to rotation chain. What am I missing about this?
This would require the additional step of converting methane to jet fuel, but that is also a technology under development.
That said, I personally think, in practice technology like this will only delay getting to net zero, because the existence of this will disincentivize investments in electrification. I recall Sun Tzu's claim that a force completely surrounded will fight fiercely, but if you give a way out, it will look to escape or retreat.
How will this address methane leakage, which is a substantial source of athmospheric greenhouse gas emissions? Converting Co2 to methane is not carbon neutral if/when leaked...
If anything, when you are calling it "easily transportable" at the same time, as they do, you are actively misleading. You can't have both: it's either easily transportable and you are accepting a bunch of methane released (and thus terrible for climate change), or it's carbon neutral and you are baking in the cost of making sure it doesn't leak in transport/storage (and thus not easily transportable). They are having their cake and eating it too by claiming both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their claim is that this method is still yet cheaper than drilling/fracking.
The cost of natural gas on the Henry Hub is somewhere around $300/ton. A ton of natural gas requires 2.75 tons of CO2, so the cost of CO2 capture has to be well below $110/ton (and that ignores the cost of the hydrogen and the equipment for doing the methane synthesis.) They must be assuming large increases in natural gas prices or large CO2 taxes. I think it will be much easier to get the price/BTU of H2 down below…
they say $250/t in the article, but could you expand how you came to "A ton of natural gas requires 2.75 tons of CO2"? Where 1.75t of CO2 is disappearing in result?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cost of natural gas on the Henry Hub is somewhere around $300/ton. A ton of natural gas requires 2.75 tons of CO2, so the cost of CO2 capture has to be well below $110/ton (and that ignores the cost of the hydrogen and the equipment for doing the methane synthesis.) They must be assuming large increases in natural gas prices or large CO2 taxes. I think it will be much easier to get the price/BTU of H2 down below…
> so the cost of CO2 capture has to be well below $110/ton they say $250/t in the article, but could you expand how you came to "A ton of natural gas requires 2.75 tons of CO2"? Where 1.75t of CO2 is disappearing in result?
Molecular weight of CO2: 44
One molecule of CO2 is needed to get the carbon atom to make one molecule of methane.
44/16 = 2.75
The 1.75t of CO2 that went missing is the oxygen, which obviously isn't in the methane.
What are some applications where its worth taking the highest grade energy (electricity) and turning it into a lower grade (eg liquid fuels), rather than electrifying the application? Electricity to motion is significantly more efficient per input energy than burning fuel->heat-> gaseous expansion->drive a piston->convert to rotation chain. What am I missing about this?
Instead of letting excess capacity go to waste, you use it to create chemical fuel, which can be used either just as storage to be later burned in a peaker plant, or you can use it as fuel in mobile settings (trucks, planes, ships, etc) where energy density is important.
Natural gas is just the beginning, they'll be able to make any hydrocarbon in time
Casey is also very bullish on Musk and his Mars plans. I wouldn‘t be surprised if half of the plan is to have the tech ready to build the methane generation infrastructure for Musk‘s Mars colony.