Solar energy solves global warming • Hacker News Board

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#11

Post by ZeroGravitas » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 3:19 PM UTC

V__ wrote: post #4

> In the future, we will still have CO2 credits. But instead of allowing companies to release CO2 into the air… Credits might allow companies to capture co2. The article then goes on to explain that solar + co2 capture results in methane. But isn't this at best co2 neutral? Since nearly all use-cases for methane would release the co2 again and would make the credits' comparison pointless? Besides that, will methane a…

I think they mention it further down, but some fraction of methane isn't burned but turned into things like plastic and other industrial chemicals.

> And not all of it will be re-released into the atmosphere. As we saw in the Ocean Farming article, some of it will sink in the oceans13 . Even today, 3% of methane is not burned, but used in other ways like plastics production, thus leaving the carbon cycle altogether...

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#12

Post by stickyricky » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 3:19 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #7

A problem with making methane is some will leak, and in the short to medium term methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas. A step before making methane is making hydrogen. If you can get away with just using hydrogen, it will be more efficient than going through the extra steps to make methane.

Doesn't methane break down in the atmosphere relatively quickly? I think the goal of this proposal is to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Producing hydrogen doesn't contribute to that goal (which isn't to say its a bad idea only that the hydrogen production facilities can exist independently of this proposal).

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#13

Post by AdamTReineke » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 3:20 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #7

A problem with making methane is some will leak, and in the short to medium term methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas. A step before making methane is making hydrogen. If you can get away with just using hydrogen, it will be more efficient than going through the extra steps to make methane.

Isn't the problem with hydrogen that it's harder to store? I thought it was a big problem. Keeping it from leaking out of storage vessels and pipes because the molecule is so small.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#14

Post by Zandikar » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 3:26 PM UTC

bad_alloc wrote: post #2

This article assumed carbon capture from the air to form methane will risk depleting CO2 from the atmosphere. This methane is supposed to be used as an energy storage medium. ...wat? The proposed process is extremely wasteful and almost any other carbon source is much more available, nevermind other forms of energy storage. This might be reasonable on Mars, but why would we ever want to convert solar power to Methane…

> Am I missing something

Considering reading your comment gave me whiplash after reading the article, one of us is.

> extremely wasteful

What's the waste?

> almost any other carbon source is much more available

More available than the air?

> on a scale that changes the atmosphere

Because we're filling the air ground and water with carbon and nitrous oxide poisons from burning more and more fossil fuels extracted out of the ground when instead we could use solar to recycle carbon emissions back into fossil fuels without (allegedly) a net increase in atmospheric CO2.

Ignoring the carbon cycle, this still has benefit though, as this solves a HUGE logistical problem with a lot of renewables, and that's storage and transport of energy. Being able to store your electrical potential at standard temperatures and pressures in a fluid form that is cost effective to transport or store is massive in it's own right.

Now, I'm not saying what they claim is as easy, viable, clean, efficient, scalable, and or otherwise possible. It may or may not be, I'm not qualified to make that distinction, it's not my area of expertise. The devil is in the details of course and I've become quite jaded and cynical of such high minded claims by nascent technologoies, but if we assume the process works more or less as they say, the WHY of this seems pretty clear to me.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#15

Post by hx8 » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 3:26 PM UTC

stickyricky wrote: post #12

pfdietz wrote: post #7

A problem with making methane is some will leak, and in the short to medium term methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas. A step before making methane is making hydrogen. If you can get away with just using hydrogen, it will be more efficient than going through the extra steps to make methane.

Doesn't methane break down in the atmosphere relatively quickly? I think the goal of this proposal is to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Producing hydrogen doesn't contribute to that goal (which isn't to say its a bad idea only that the hydrogen production facilities can exist independently of this proposal).

1. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, so we should be limiting our emissions.

2. Methane lingers for decades. Short in planetary timelines. Long in human timelines.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#16

Post by _aleph2c_ » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 3:28 PM UTC

The nice thing about methane is that it's not too energy dense, so you can sell it to your population like gasoline. You may not want to give the population mini-nukes or vacuum energy generation from EVOs.

We don't need to use solar panels though, we already have exceedingly cheap energy generation in the form of nuclear power. We also have inexpensive ways of transmuting the nuclear waste.

We don't really have a environmental problem, we have a regulatory problem; it is impossible to develop any of this new technology because we have made it infinitely expensive by law. We have also made non-technical environmentalism the height of fashion, and now its used as the spiritual engine for the political-left. For those of you who are concerned that this process is net neutral, there is nothing stopping us from using a similar process to pull the carbon out of the C02 and use it for construction, or to just bury it.

The key to a better future is to reconsider our attitudes toward energy innovation and to remove the activists from our regulatory boards and to re-write our laws to make it possible to innovate and build. We teach our kids that they are doomed, maybe we should encourage them to study nuclear and plasma engineering instead.

Re: Solar energy solves global warming

#17

Post by hannob » Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 3:28 PM UTC

When considering synthetic chemicals made from solar energy, methane is probably one of the last you should consider.

Making any type of chemical energy carrier comes with substantial losses, so whenever you can, using electricity directly is better.

If you absolutely need a chemical energy carrier, the first one you will look at is hydrogen, because it's the simplest and you avoid all the direct air capture or other CO2 sourcing issue.

If H2 does not work due to its low volumetric energy density, the next one to consider is ammonia. It has a higher energy density, but it also has some downsides. It's very toxic, it does not burn very well, and burning it causes nasty side products like NOx and N2O.

Then there's methanol. In case you want a hydrocarbon, that's almost always better than methane. It's a liquid, which is a huge advantage in ease of handling. Transporting and storing it is a lot easier compared to any type of gas.

Methane has the big disadvantage that it's itself a potent greenhouse gas. (Btw, hydrogen also is an indirect greenhouse gas, although not as strong as methane.) The only thing methane has in its favor is existing infrastructure, but it's a weak argument compared to the other downsides.