How much innovation is necessary to see off fossil fuels?

[Lafayette]

LOOKING GOOD

From here: How much innovation is necessary to see off fossil fuels?

Excerpt:

“The stone age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.” That sounds like the oath of environmentalists opposed to the use of fossil fuels. In fact, the prediction was made by Sheikh Zaki Yamani, a Saudi Arabian oil minister who shot to prominence as the face of the Arab oil embargo of 1973. He was convinced that innovations in alternative energy sources and fuels would ultimately loosen oil’s grip on the global economy.

It has not happened yet. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the first oil shock. Far from innovating its way to a clean-energy future, the world slipped into complacency as the disruptions of the 1970s faded from memory. Oil, coal and natural gas still make up over four-fifths of the world’s primary energy supply. That addiction—plus a concatenation of war, policy mistakes and economic trends—has now inflicted another energy crunch on the world. Will this squeeze also be forgotten, or could it lead to an overdue revolution in energy?

Governments slipping into complacency is old-hat. Times have changed, however, and complacency is not allowed in most modern nations. Governments may indulge from time-to-time, but when markets get very angry they love to give entire governments "reminders" about who is the "actor" and who the "audience" in the political-games they play. The actors are clearly those industrial-and-commercial entities that trade competitively. Country-governments simply watch the effort and the tax-funding it provides them.

And politicians are mostly concerned by the "piggy-banks", that is the taxation that offers them the financial means to do what-they-want-to-do.

Which is mostly spend tax-dollar receipts and "looking good" for reelection ...

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

The first innovation will be affordable hydrogen powered automobiles and the needed infrastructure. EVs are not the answer.

 

[longview]

LOOKING GOOD

From here: How much innovation is necessary to see off fossil fuels?

Excerpt:



Governments slipping into complacency is old-hat. Times have changed, however, and complacency is not allowed in most modern nations. Governments may indulge from time-to-time, but when markets get very angry they love to give entire governments "reminders" about who is the "actor" and who the "audience" in the political-games they play. The actors are clearly those industrial-and-commercial entities that trade competitively. Country-governments simply watch the effort and the tax-funding it provides them.

And politicians are mostly concerned by the "piggy-banks", that is the taxation that offers them the financial means to do what-they-want-to-do.

Which is mostly spend tax-dollar receipts and "looking good" for reelection ...

I think most of the initial step innovation is complete.
Power to liquid technology
The economic curves are in motion, and likely will not stop until fuels made from oil are less profitable,
than fuels made from electricity. Oil will keep raising in price due to it's higher cost and lower supply.
Fracking is a symptom of the supply falling not a solution.
In my opinion, when oil is at a stable price above $96 a barrel, it will be more profitable for a refinery to
harvest carbon from CO2, and hydrogen from water, and make their finished fuel products from elements.
Governments could help this process along, by trimming the fuel tax on carbon neutral fuels, but I do not see that happening.
Encouraging grid attached home solar on it's savings merits vs net metering would also help.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The first innovation will be affordable hydrogen powered automobiles and the needed infrastructure. EVs are not the answer.

Hydrogen as a storage medium has a 30-40% round trip efficiency.

 

[longview]

Hydrogen as a storage medium has a 30-40% round trip efficiency.

That would be amazing! I think as we more forward with energy storage,
the idea of overall efficiency will not be as large a factor as the practical application
of how that energy is stored.
Think of it this way, what is more valuable, a gallon of carbon neutral man made gasoline,
of the same mass of hydrogen. The gasoline has an existing demand, and distribution infrastructure,
the hydrogen not so much.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Hydrogen as a storage medium has a 30-40% round trip efficiency.

How effecient is gasoline?

 

[Noodlegawd]

How effecient is gasoline?

Gasoline is 0% efficient at converting electricity into a form that can be used to power a vehicle. The whole point of this discussion is how to get rid of gasoline.

The correct comparison is the one you implicitly made yourself: 30-40% efficiency for hydrogen, vs about 95% efficiency for lithium ion batteries.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Gasoline is 0% efficient at converting electricity into a form that can be used to power a vehicle. The whole point of this discussion is how to get rid of gasoline.

The correct comparison is the one you implicitly made yourself: 30-40% efficiency for hydrogen, vs about 95% efficiency for lithium ion batteries.

But then the EVs already have a massive carbon footprint by the time they reach the Car dealer showroom.

 

[longview]

Gasoline is 0% efficient at converting electricity into a form that can be used to power a vehicle. The whole point of this discussion is how to get rid of gasoline.

The correct comparison is the one you implicitly made yourself: 30-40% efficiency for hydrogen, vs about 95% efficiency for lithium ion batteries.

Technically a replacement for gasoline would have an efficiency of ~ 12%, 60% creation efficiency, and 20% Carnot efficiency,
when burned in the vehicle. The benefit is in compatibility with existing demand and infrastructure.

 

[bomberfox]

LOOKING GOOD

From here: How much innovation is necessary to see off fossil fuels?

Excerpt:



Governments slipping into complacency is old-hat. Times have changed, however, and complacency is not allowed in most modern nations. Governments may indulge from time-to-time, but when markets get very angry they love to give entire governments "reminders" about who is the "actor" and who the "audience" in the political-games they play. The actors are clearly those industrial-and-commercial entities that trade competitively. Country-governments simply watch the effort and the tax-funding it provides them.

And politicians are mostly concerned by the "piggy-banks", that is the taxation that offers them the financial means to do what-they-want-to-do.

Which is mostly spend tax-dollar receipts and "looking good" for reelection ...

Politicians are commodities most like.

 

[Lafayette]

Politicians are commodities most like.

What can one expect from an economy that is overly obsessed with money-money-money .... ?

 

[bomberfox]

What can one expect from an economy that is overly obsessed with money-money-money .... ?

Yep neoliberalism in a nutshell but only the bosses are allowed to be money hungry and greedy. They hate it only when workers get greedy.

 

[longview]

What can one expect from an economy that is overly obsessed with money-money-money .... ?

For starters, we can expect people to behave and make similar choices as they have made before.
The solution is not to attempt to force people to change, but find a path towards energy sustainability,
that assumes people will not change.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

LOOKING GOOD

From here: How much innovation is necessary to see off fossil fuels?

Excerpt:



Governments slipping into complacency is old-hat. Times have changed, however, and complacency is not allowed in most modern nations. Governments may indulge from time-to-time, but when markets get very angry they love to give entire governments "reminders" about who is the "actor" and who the "audience" in the political-games they play. The actors are clearly those industrial-and-commercial entities that trade competitively. Country-governments simply watch the effort and the tax-funding it provides them.

And politicians are mostly concerned by the "piggy-banks", that is the taxation that offers them the financial means to do what-they-want-to-do.

Which is mostly spend tax-dollar receipts and "looking good" for reelection ...

Kickin' the efficiency of solar up to 40% is gonna help a whole lot.

Thermophotovoltaic cells top 40 per cent efficiency – Physics World

Two-junction devices could be integrated into renewable-energy systems for low-cost thermal-grid storage

physicsworld.com

 

[Gateman_Wen]

How effecient is gasoline?

0%.. We don't make it, it's not renewable.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Politicians are commodities most like.

What kinda efficiency do you get when you burn politicians for fuel?

 

[bomberfox]

What kinda efficiency do you get when you burn politicians for fuel?

>.

 

[Helix]

There needs to be a national moonshot with the goal of replacing fossil fuels.

 

[longview]

There needs to be a national moonshot with the goal of replacing fossil fuels.

We already know how to make any liquid hydrocarbon fuel we want from electricity, water, and CO2. It will become economically viable when oil is stable above about$96 a barrel.
The process is called power to liquid.

 

[Noodlegawd]

But then the EVs already have a massive carbon footprint by the time they reach the Car dealer showroom.

1. That's only true because a huge percentage of our electricity is still generated with fossil fuel.
2. Even so, the difference between an EV and a gasoline-powered vehicle in that regard can be made up very quickly during the life of the vehicle.

 

[Lafayette]

Yep neoliberalism in a nutshell but only the bosses are allowed to be money hungry and greedy. They hate it only when workers get greedy.

Much of that "money unfairness" started a long, long time ago. It was a Dem PotUS who first reduced upper-income taxation. From here:

But what’s the best way to raise taxes on the rich? It’s natural to assume it would be by raising income tax rates at the very top. Ocasio-Cortez and other proponents of this idea often note that the top rate was as high as 70 percent as recently as 1980.

It’s true that it was under the administration of Ronald Reagan that the top tax rate fell from 70 to 50 percent (and eventually to just 37 percent), a move since remembered by anti-tax Republicans as one of the central successes of Reaganomics.

But it wasn’t Reagan who first proposed bringing the top rate down: It was Democrats in Congress who killed the 70 percent tax bracket. Their reasons for doing so hold important lessons for Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and any other progressive who wants to use the tax code to roll back income inequality and make the rich pay their fair share.

Shall we get our historic facts correct? Yes, it was a Dem PotUS who first reduced upper-income taxation to please his father who had massed a considerable amount of money for the election of his son, JFK!

Subsequent Replicant PotUSes reduced the upper-limits even further. As shown here:

Two of those three steps-down shown above (since the 1960s) in upper-income taxation were brought about by Replicant Presidents!

With the exception of the very first one that was initiated by a Dem PotUS (JFK) ... !

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

1. That's only true because a huge percentage of our electricity is still generated with fossil fuel.

Which part of bigger carbon foot print even before it gets top the showroom floor did you not understand? Are you aware of the rare earth minerals that have to be mined just to produce the batteries for EVs? They are primarily mined in China and not mined in an environmentally clean manner.

2. Even so, the difference between an EV and a gasoline-powered vehicle in that regard can be made up very quickly during the life of the vehicle.

You said it yourself. That electiricity is still generated with fossil fuel. EVs may be green when driving down the road, however they are still getting that power from fossil fuels.

 

[Lisa]

How effecient is gasoline?

Creating hydrogen from water is an energy negative process. Its not a viable solution.

 

[longview]

Creating hydrogen from water is an energy negative process. Its not a viable solution.

all forms of energy storage have a loss, the question is how functional is the storage medium?
In the case of Gasoline, jet fuel, or diesel, it is very functional.
As we move forward with Solar and wind, there will be massive surpluses from the DUCK curve,
Some seasons will have high output but low demand, like Spring and Fall, Energy storage allows that surplus
to fill some useful role beyond overheating the electrical grid.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Creating hydrogen from water is an energy negative process. Its not a viable solution.

No less so then running EVs opn power genertated from coal planets.