Ayup. Transportation accounts for less than half of carbon emissions. We know how to do carbon free power generation, and carbon free heat. Those technologies are mature and easily deployed. So the big hype is about electric transportation, a technology that is not mature, and requires huge manufacturing and infrastructure investment?
Steve
On transportation you wonder what assumptions are made about EVs now that consumers seem to prefer hybrids. Also abt hydrogen and trucks, locomotives, ships, and airplanes. Large investment needed to get there. And Trump expected to cancel Biden’s climate programs.
On agriculture green hydrogen can be used for green nitrogen fertilizer. Diesel fuel can be partially replaced with biodiesel. And the same solutions used for trucks can be adapted. Hydrogen far more likely than electric tractors and combines. Investment required. Little effort reported in the news. Diesel locomotive replacement far more likely and more active.
Problem is, H2 technology is even more immature than battery electric. I remember a POTUS, 20 years ago, praising H2, while refusing to invest in more mature, more deployable in the short term, technologies. The thought crossed my mind that, he was promoting the status quo, by not backing anything that could be a near term threat to carbon fuels.
The White House, in a fact sheet issued ahead of the visit, said that “new technology has contributed to a reduction in the cost of natural gas-based hydrogen production from $5 per gallon in 2003 to $3.60 today.”
Daniel Becker, director of the Global Warming and Energy program at the Sierra Club, said in a written statement. He said Bush’s initiative “doesn’t guarantee that a single fuel cell car goes on the market,” and he criticized the plan as relying too heavily on “polluting forms of energy” – such as coal, nuclear power and oil – to produce the hydrogen.
https://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/06/bush-energy/
Steve
It is unlikely that CO2 emissions from the electric power sector will be as low as 514 million metric tons in 2035. CO2 emissions from natural gas power plants are going up nearly every year, and 2023 emissions were already 705 MM tonnes, so how can you get to 514 MM tonnes in 2035?
If it is possible to totally eliminate the use of coal in the power sector, then most of those coal plants will be replaced with natural gas burners, with a smaller percentage replaced with renewables. That is the trend over the last decade, and I don’t see any reason for the trend to change any time soon. Therefore, a more realistic estimate for electric power CO2 emissions in 2035 is more like 900 to 1000 million metric tons.
The increasing buildup of the intermittent renewables like wind and solar guarantees future dependence on fossil fuels.
_ Pete
I disagree with your opinion. The renewables are growing faster than the natural gas currently and will accelerate in the nesxt decade. Basing the future on the past is like driving with only looking in the rear view mirror. Natural gas is becoming an expensive fuel to burn for electricity. Utilites want the cheapest generation which is solar and wind.
I agree some new developments are needed. Fuel cell technology to make electricity from hydrogen does work. How much can costs be improved by mass production. Or from further development. Battery Electric locomotives might work on railroads which can carry much weight and park tenders with batteries to recharge. I think battery powered big trucks are iffy. Battery powered farm equipment difficult at best. Battery powered airplanes will not be jets.
If you give up on battery power and hydrogen, what else is there?
The issue isn’t the cost of the fuel cells, the issue is the cost of the hydrogen.
Thing is, liquid hydrocarbon fuels are so nice for transportation: energy dense and easy to handle.
Anything that is stationary, except for extremely remote locations, can be connected to a wire. As a secondary benefit, converting residential, commercial, and process heat, to electricity eliminates the hazard of gas explosions and CO poisoning. How mature is electric process heat? The malleable iron foundry I worked in, in 1975, had a completely electric melt department: arc melt furnaces, and channel induction holding furnaces.
The issue with a wire, same as any battery vehicle charger, is what is at the other end of the wire? If it’s a hydrocarbon fueled plant, what have you gained?
So, seems the first priority is to convert the generation fleet to carbon free sources, so you really reduce carbon emissions, rather than shift carbon emissions from one place to another.
Steve
Expensive is relative. Natural gas is cheaper than coal, but in many locations not cheaper than utility scale solar and wind. EIA projects that this year 96% of new grid capacity will be carbon free. Almost all of that is solar, storage, and wind, with 2% nuclear.
“Solar and battery storage to make up 81% of new U.S. electric-generating capacity in 2024”
I bugs me that battery is included in “electric generating capacity”. Batteries store energy.
DB2
Bugs me too. That’s why I used the term “grid capacity” in my post instead of generating capacity.
We keep running into the fact that fossil fuels are inexpensive.
Fermentation ethanol is a possible green fuel for transportation. And it can be converted into hydrocarbons similar to gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel. This is known technology but like hydrogen will not be cheap.
Today, around 40% of the US corn crop goes to making ethanol, and the current ethanol mixture in gasoline is only 10%. If you want to boost that to 85 or 100% ethanol, I don’t think we have enough spare farmland in Iowa, Illinois and Nebraska to grow that much more corn.
_Pete
That is definitely an issue, but it appears that the main issue is that it isn’t a good energy return on energy expended (which is partially reflected in cost).
It is totally reflected in the cost. That’s the whole problem. It costs multiple units of other energy to make each unit of hydrogen energy. That means hydrogen will always be some multiple more expensive.
ICE is less mature and demands huge updating and reconstruction constantly.
If you are talking distances EVs can travel that is not a big deal.
The entire debate or discussion is waiting on battery technology. We are good now but not great.
Now that’s funny…
DB2
One option is to use “waste heat” from nuclear reactors to produce hydrogen, which would require little to no electricity. The reactor produces electricity while the heat produced as a side product is used to make hydrogen. Makes both nukes and hydrogen more affordable. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319922054817
The Japanese appear to be leaders in this tech with their high temperature next gen reactors.
The reactor passed safety tests where it was able to cool down without need of safety rods after shutdown at 850C running temp.
On a related note, Japan is also developing a hydrogen powered commercial airplane to compete in the passenger jet business with Boeing and Airbus. Japan Plans $26 Billion New Hydrogen-Powered Passenger Jet Program
Japan seems to have a plan to be a leader in a future hydrogen energy market.