Terraform makes carbon neutral natural gas

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 04, 2024, 12:13 AM UTC

CrazyStat wrote: post #113

scq wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there is. CO2 and methane are not equally bad, methane is about 100x worse initially. After about 60-70 years the lines cross and the impact of a tonne of methane released is less than a tonne of CO2 released at the same date.

> After about 60-70 years the lines cross Methane's global warming potential is estimated to be ten times CO2 after 500 years [1]. > and the impact of a tonne of methane released is less than a tonne of CO2 released at the same date. A ton of methane released into the atmosphere breaks down into 2.75 tons of CO2 [2]. There is no possible way that this statement can be true. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/down…

Post by kalkr » Thu, Apr 04, 2024, 12:13 AM UTC

cqqxo4zV46cp wrote: post #136

julienchastang wrote: post #104

Their minimalist website is awesome: https://terraformindustries.com/ complete with plain text chemical equations. "Why does our website look like this? At TI we believe we can change the world by displacing fossil hydrocarbon production at global scale. Like our website, our machines are simple so we can build millions of them as quickly as possible. Our website embodies our cultural commitment to allocating resourc…

“Like our machines, our website looks awful on a phone.” Someone could’ve spent literally 5 minutes making this look reasonable on the world’s most popular web browsing device form facto, whilst still retaining the site’s retro virtue signalling aesthetic, AND it wouldn’t have taken away from their ‘core mission’ or whatever. If you don’t care, don’t have a website at all.

Post by krastanov » Thu, Apr 04, 2024, 12:14 AM UTC

purple_ferret wrote: post #146

kartoffelmos wrote: post #37

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...

In a similar vein, what if producing natural gas this way makes it cheap enough that companies choose to just vent it off when pursuing other fossil fuels.

Post by _aavaa_ » Thu, Apr 04, 2024, 12:16 AM UTC

ajb wrote: post #44

carbonguy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why not just use hydrogen directly and skip the inefficiency and cost of direct air capture of CO2 and of making methane? Broadly speaking, one key reason is that we've already got the infrastructure in place for using methane (and other hydrocarbons) whereas we do not have this for hydrogen. Another point is that this really isn't an either-or proposition: if people want hydrogen, then the Terraform electrolyzer c…

In the UK, our gas infrastructure actually used to be used for hydrogen[1], so a lot of it should still work if we were to switch back. [1] Actually "town gas" which was a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. But I imagine not including the CO would not be a problem.

Post by logtempo » Thu, Apr 04, 2024, 12:17 AM UTC

yodelshady wrote: post #66

maerF0x0 wrote: post #38

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?

There are ships that move over one billion kWh of LNG around at a time. At $100 to store a kWh of electrical energy, along with approximately ten times the cost to account for structures that can support and move the extra weight (that's AFTER allowing for less energy demanded in total)... shall I leave this as exercise to the reader?