|
Post by overthehill on Dec 11, 2021 14:58:25 GMT
Biomass energy: green or dirty?
2 years old independent report and nothing has changed to diminish my views on the biomass and forestry industry marketing machine or resultant loans.
Renewable? maybe , carbon neutral? no chance. Proplend had an old loan for biomass project and it was one of my most relieved exits ! Definitely for professional investors.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,020
Likes: 4,829
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 11, 2021 15:42:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2021 15:08:24 GMT
I think you have made some fundemental unit errors in this calculation. Note that a kW is about an electric fire output while a kilotonne is a lot of mass. Meanwhile the hours have disappeared. One is 1/hr and one is *hr and you divided one by the other... they cannot just disappear.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,020
Likes: 4,829
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 12, 2021 15:15:31 GMT
I think you have made some fundemental unit errors in this calculation. Note that a kW is about an electric fire output while a kilotonne is a lot of mass. Meanwhile the hours have disappeared. One is 1/hr and one is *hr and you divided one by the other... they cannot just disappear. Mea culpa, it was my Gigas and kilos watt wuz confuzzled. But, yes, you can just cancel the hours out, so long as they're cancelled on both sides. Feel free to read implicit hours in, if you prefer. It doesn't change the point, that biomass emits about the same relative CO2 as gas, and half coal - but on a far shorter-timeframe, renewable, carbon cycle.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2021 16:53:26 GMT
But you cannot end up with
"kt/GW." you have to end up with
"kt/GW hr (squared)"
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 13, 2021 20:34:30 GMT
I think you're both not quite right. The fundamental mistake here is power (as in "6% of power") isn't measured in GWh but GW. GWh represents a quantity of energy. I would suggest the way to think about this is to consider the amount of energy generated in one hour, so 2.36 GWh, and in that hour was emitted a CO2e amount of 1.19kt, leading to a pollution rate of ~0.5 kt/GWh. The correct units are kt/GWh.
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 13, 2021 21:12:12 GMT
...as confirmed here. Scroll down to the blue table where it tells us "units are tonnes CO2e/GWH" and biomass has a typical value of 505. Or 0.505kt/GWh, if you prefer.
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Dec 16, 2021 12:34:19 GMT
More money for developing hydrogen transport !
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2021 12:55:22 GMT
Hydrogen is not really suitable for cars, but very suitable for trucks, vans and trains (non-electrified) but worth noting that hydrogen cars are basically electrical vehicles at the moment.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,020
Likes: 4,829
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 16, 2021 13:24:17 GMT
...but worth noting that hydrogen cars are basically electrical vehicles at the moment. There's not even a lot of "basically ... at the moment"There's two ways to move a vehicle using hydrogen. There's combustion. Silly, inefficient idea, huge tanks. Cheap-to-convert stop-gap that was being waved about a decade and a half ago. www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/bmw/7-series/first-drives/bmw-hydrogen-7Then there's fuel cells, generating electricity to power electric motors. Again, this was getting a lot of attention in the 00s, before Lithium-Ion became the default battery tech. www.autoblog.com/2006/01/11/peugeot-citroen-unveils-smallest-auto-fuel-cell/Ultimately, though, it's just a much more inefficient way to get electricity from power station to forward motion, compared to batteries...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2021 16:21:57 GMT
Much more inefficient....
only very true if we look at just inputs and outputs. The decay of the battery is seldom included in the calculations while the fuel cell is more stable long term. What will be interesting is if they can come up with an infinite charge battery then I'd buy the battery solution over hydrogen. As you know the whole arguement about efficiency is never raised as a reason to stop using diesel or petrol only ever to not use hydrogen. We should really ask ourselves why we turn our backs on h2 which is at least twice as efficient as petrol and yet keep selling and buying petrol cars? Why? Is it the influence of the petrol/diesel lobby? Ah yes.
Then there are serious limits on batteries for large vehicles as the weight of the battery quickly becomes the major part of the vehicle as you try to take the capacity up above a certain size. Battery powered trains to replace diesel trains would be useless as can be seen by the hydrogen trains in Germany. Teslas big truck (our equivelent to curtain siders) in the states is never going to compete with a diesel truck but an H2 one might.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,020
Likes: 4,829
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 16, 2021 17:21:23 GMT
As you know the whole arguement about efficiency is never raised as a reason to stop using diesel or petrol Mmm. Petrol/diesel cars are heavily sold on their fuel consumption, never their range. When did you last see an EV sold on anything but range? When did you see miles per kw? I used to have a car with a 600+ mile range. It wasn't economical, it just had a HUGE tank. Our current car has half the range. But does +2/3 the mpg...
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Jan 8, 2022 9:44:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2022 16:53:04 GMT
When airships or monorails are offered as solutions you know people have taken the joke too far.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,020
Likes: 4,829
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 8, 2022 17:27:19 GMT
So... If the airship transports the hydrogen across the Atlantic, how does it get back again? And why can't the hydrogen by made at the destination?
|
|