Climate Change

[old goat]

Seems to me that hydrogen fuel cells are a much better solution than batteries. You would be able to refuel the way you refuel with gasoline. A lot of infrastructure would have to be built. Probably a good solution for large scale solar/wind back up as well. For solar backup for individual houses batteries still seem more practical.
Unlike with batteries there is no need for unsustainable minerals. Fortunately, water is easy to obtain and there is plenty of it.

Oh, wait.

But seriously, currently most hydrogen comes from natural gas, which means you have to do something with the CO2 that results. Eventually it needs to be produced by solar powered electrolysis and doing that on a large scale is a ways off.

[Percy Rideout]

So you want to completely change the water rights of America and have it declared that only people and land that are located in a watershed have a right to any of its water? [emoji848]

Playing god and physically moving water out of its native watershed effects the local environment in a multitude of negative ways, and since this entire thread is about climate change and the environment, I'm here to say that due to those negative effects, these should be the first user groups to tighten their belts.

Now that you mention it though, we do need a complete rework of the water rights in the American Southwest as the current agreement is clearly not working.

[SumJongGuy]

Playing god and physically moving water out of its native watershed effects the local environment in a multitude of negative ways, and since this entire thread is about climate change and the environment, I'm here to say that due to those negative effects, these should be the first user groups to tighten their belts.

Now that you mention it though, we do need a complete rework of the water rights in the American Southwest as the current agreement is clearly not working.

But wait... isn't that same God supposed to save the righteous from the other ill effects of burning fossil fuels, not having to wear masks during a pandemic.. pretty much everything except needing a gun to defend yourself?

[Supermoon]

Seems to me that hydrogen fuel cells are a much better solution than batteries. You would be able to refuel the way you refuel with gasoline. A lot of infrastructure would have to be built. Probably a good solution for large scale solar/wind back up as well. For solar backup for individual houses batteries still seem more practical.
Unlike with batteries there is no need for unsustainable minerals. Fortunately, water is easy to obtain and there is plenty of it.

Oh, wait.

But seriously, currently most hydrogen comes from natural gas, which means you have to do something with the CO2 that results. Eventually it needs to be produced by solar powered electrolysis and doing that on a large scale is a ways off.

I don't know enough about this stuff, but I was wondering if you could build a potential energy system to store power in your home. Get like 500 gallons of water, or a bunch of lead, or something, hook it up to a motor and when you have extra power, crank it up off the ground. When you need power, let the weight down and spin some sort of generator. In theory, if things got bad, you could hand crank the weight up and have more power for your house. Hell if you used water, you could drink it in a pinch, too.

i have no idea how high/how much weight you'd need to make this practical.

[Iowagriz]

That reminds me of this power generation facility in Michigan. My daughter interned for the company that ran it and got the tour. Pretty cool concept to use the excess nighttime power to refill the pond for daily generation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludi...ge_Power_Plant


Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

[Percy Rideout]

But wait... isn't that same God supposed to save the righteous from the other ill effects of burning fossil fuels, not having to wear masks during a pandemic.. pretty much everything except needing a gun to defend yourself?

Waste our time, stray from the topic at hand, and provide an ill informed opinion. Congratulations on the ignorance trifecta!

[shaft]

I don't know enough about this stuff, but I was wondering if you could build a potential energy system to store power in your home. Get like 500 gallons of water, or a bunch of lead, or something, hook it up to a motor and when you have extra power, crank it up off the ground. When you need power, let the weight down and spin some sort of generator. In theory, if things got bad, you could hand crank the weight up and have more power for your house. Hell if you used water, you could drink it in a pinch, too.

i have no idea how high/how much weight you'd need to make this practical.

I firmly believe that mechanical storage is part of the solution. Examples include: pumped hydroelectric (your idea,) compressed air energy storage, flywheels, and ideas like - cranes lifting up heavy objects, then letting them down. The benefit versus chemical battery storage is longer life, more cycles in lifetime, and - as a result - better "energy stored over energy invested." See chart from this study

Note the massive size of lowagriz's example. You need a lot of water and a good height difference.

Let's explore your example. This is basic kinematics:

• 500 gallons = 500 gal x 8.3 lbs/gal x 2.2 kg/lb = 9,130 kg
• say, 20 feet high = 6 meters
• Pumped hydro typically has a round-trip efficiency of 70%.

Potential Energy equals mass x gravitational constant x height (PE = mgh).

PE = 9,130 x 9.8 x 6 = 536,844 joules = 0.15 kWh x 70% = 0.105 kWh

While this is not a ton of energy, water towers used for multiple reasons can be interesting. The idea here is to de-couple the use of our reserviors. Right now, our reservoirs are deployed based on a variety of reasons - energy demand, water demand, river flows, etc. These are not time coincident. By having water towers downstream of reservoirs, it may be possible to de-couple two of those uses. I had hears there is a paper on something like this somewhere. I will see if I can dig it up.

[shaft]

I don't know enough about this stuff, but I was wondering if you could build a potential energy system to store power in your home. Get like 500 gallons of water, or a bunch of lead, or something, hook it up to a motor and when you have extra power, crank it up off the ground. When you need power, let the weight down and spin some sort of generator. In theory, if things got bad, you could hand crank the weight up and have more power for your house. Hell if you used water, you could drink it in a pinch, too.

i have no idea how high/how much weight you'd need to make this practical.

I firmly believe that mechanical storage is part of the solution. Examples include: pumped hydroelectric (your idea,) compressed air energy storage, flywheels, and ideas like - cranes lifting up heavy objects, then letting them down. The benefit versus chemical battery storage is longer life, more cycles in lifetime, and - as a result - better "energy stored over energy invested." See chart from this study

Note the massive size of lowagriz's example. You need a lot of water and a good height difference.

Let's explore your example. This is basic kinematics:

• 500 gallons = 500 gal x 8.3 lbs/gal x 2.2 kg/lb = 9,130 kg
• say, 20 feet high = 6 meters
• Pumped hydro typically has a round-trip efficiency of 70%.

Potential Energy equals mass x gravitational constant x height (PE = mgh).

PE = 9,130 x 9.8 x 6 = 536,844 joules = 0.15 kWh x 70% = 0.105 kWh per cycle

While this is not a ton of energy, water towers used for multiple reasons can be interesting. The idea here is to de-couple the use of our reserviors. Right now, our reservoirs are deployed based on a variety of reasons - energy demand, water demand, river flows, etc. These are not time coincident. By having water towers downstream of reservoirs, it may be possible to de-couple two of those uses. I had hears there is a paper on something like this somewhere. I will see if I can dig it up.

[SumJongGuy]

Waste our time, stray from the topic at hand, and provide an ill informed opinion. Congratulations on the ignorance trifecta!

OK playing the typical lame meme games when you don't have substance? OK




You're the idiot who brought up GAWD.. And I've pegged you perfectly..

[raisingarizona13]

And I've pegged you perfectly..

That's what she said.

[Percy Rideout]

OK playing the typical lame meme games when you don't have substance? OK




You're the idiot who brought up GAWD.. And I've pegged you perfectly..

Solid follow up meme, you're learning!

"playing god" is a euphemism for when man tries to upend the natural order of things.

Why that word triggered you may require introspection on your part, not force the TGR collective to read your tangential drivel that does not address the topic at hand, at all.

Don't have substance? I'm here on topic talking about problems and potential solutions related to climate change. You're in here talking....politics....god.... Honestly we are all at a loss on where your (lack of) logic is going here.

Speaking of substance. Do you have any substantive opinions on climate change? TGR has different forum options for your political opinions if that's what you solely choose to dwell upon.

[old goat]

New Yorker article on energy storage. Physics for poets.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ewable-storage

Much as I hate to admit it, Percy is echoing what John Wesley Powell said--that agriculture and habitation in the West should be limited and only be along watercourses. But now we're 150 years of unrestrained growth and development and industrial agriculture in the desert and trying to dig our way out of a hole, which is tough to do. It's hard for me to imagine that Phoenix and Las Vegas will exist in 20 or 50 or who knows how many years. Even cities on big rivers, like Sacramento, aren't safe.

[SumJongGuy]

This might be a solution..



Enough salt to last forever!

[SumJongGuy]

New Yorker article on energy storage. Physics for poets.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ewable-storage

Much as I hate to admit it, Percy is echoing what John Wesley Powell said--that agriculture and habitation in the West should be limited and only be along watercourses. But now we're 150 years of unrestrained growth and development and industrial agriculture in the desert and trying to dig our way out of a hole, which is tough to do. It's hard for me to imagine that Phoenix and Las Vegas will exist in 20 or 50 or who knows how many years. Even cities on big rivers, like Sacramento, aren't safe.

How much impact/help would banning grape/wine production have? Where is most of the H2O going?

[altacoup]

Seems to me that hydrogen fuel cells are a much better solution than batteries. You would be able to refuel the way you refuel with gasoline. A lot of infrastructure would have to be built. Probably a good solution for large scale solar/wind back up as well. For solar backup for individual houses batteries still seem more practical.
Unlike with batteries there is no need for unsustainable minerals. Fortunately, water is easy to obtain and there is plenty of it.

Oh, wait.

But seriously, currently most hydrogen comes from natural gas, which means you have to do something with the CO2 that results. Eventually it needs to be produced by solar powered electrolysis and doing that on a large scale is a ways off.

Denmark is positioning themselves to produce hydrogen via electrolysis from wind power. Their plan is to turn it into a major export industry.

Producing electricity on an industrial scale that doesn’t emit carbon is a huge task. Neither Solar or wind are able to scale up to that currently. We’re going to need some serious innovation and investing. I’m not optimistic.

[Supermoon]

It doesn’t have to be carbon zero. Just really low carbon. Especially if ICEs, shipping, etc get off fossil fuels.

[muted reborn]

That's what she said.

Perfect usage

[SumJongGuy]

That's what she said.

Perfect usage

He said it too...

[raisingarizona13]

He said it too...

If she did it right and that's his thing......I suppose so

[bodywhomper]

Biomass to hydrogen: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcell...t%20combustion.

[old goat]

Biomass for hydrogen makes sense if the source is material that would otherwise be burned or landfilled and turned into fee methane. It doesn't make sense if, as the article suggests, plants are grown for the purpose of turning them into hydrogen. If there is land that isn't needed for food (is there?) better to plant trees and let them keep growing and absorbing carbon and producing hydrogen with non-carbon energy.

[bodywhomper]

It’s being explored to address ag practices that typically included open burning. It’s also being explored as a part of forest management.

[old goat]

It’s being explored to address ag practices that typically included open burning. It’s also being explored as a part of forest management.

Yeah, that's an appropriate use of biomass. When a biomass plant was being considered for the landfill outside Truckee they said there was far more biomass from clearing projects than the plant could handle. But the article did claim that there's a lot more ag capacity than we need for food --which I doubt, especially when western ag goes off line due to lack of water--which should be used for biomass. In any case, growing plants specifically to turn into hydrogen isn't the way to go long term. As a transition it does make sense. I wouldn't count on carbon capture though--according to my geophysicist friend who designs carbon capture projects he thinks capture can reduce CO2 by 5-10% of the amount emitted.

[PB]

That was what caught my eye: too much CO2 to get a little H.

[old goat]

I should clarify--what my friend said is that carbon capture, if employed to the fullest extent possible, would reduce carbon emissions by 5-10% of the current total national amount. This was a totally of the top of his head number. Presumably the CO2 generated by biomass plants would be captured much more effectively. But then what to do with the CO2? The number one use is to inject into oil wells to squeeze out more oil. Number to is to manufacture synthetic fuels and plastics. Or it can be injected into the earth, which sounds like another huge industry if we make biomass hydrogen on a massive scale.

On another note, watching a piece on saving Venice (from rising seas, not from the Russians)--apparently salt marshes are far more effective absorbers of carbon dioxide than forests. (And by far the biggest users of CO2 are algae, so be careful when you call someone pond scum--you would be praising them. Maybe we should stop worrying about nutrient runoff into bodies of water--like Lake Tahoe--in order to preserve their clarity.)