CDZ avoiding climate catastrophe : paying attention to our methane output should be of bigger concern to us, i and quite a few others think

[Grumblenuts]

Seriously,.. this is useful info {from Journal of Engineering Science and Technology April 2016, Vol. 11(4)}:

Energy storage can be categorised in terms of their form in which they store energy. Electrical energy storage includes electrostatic energy storage which are capacitors and supercapacitors and magnetic or current energy storage which includes superconducting magnetic energy storage. Mechanical energy storage stores energy in the form of kinetic energy and potential energy using flywheel and pumped hydro storage and compressed air energy storage respectively. Chemical energy storage systems storage energy in the form of electrochemical energy, such as batteries; chemical energy, eg: fuel cells; and thermochemical energy storage, eg: solar metal, solar hydrogen. Thermal energy storage stores energy in the form of low temperature energy storage and high temperature energy storage. Examples of low temperature energy storage include aquiferous cold energy storage and cryogenic energy storage. Examples of high temperature energy storage include sensible heat systems such as steam or hot water accumulators, and latent heat systems such as phase change materials [5].

Cryogenically liquefied air functions as an energy management energy storage system and is a form of thermal energy storage. A study carried out by Li et al. compared the use of hydrogen, a chemical energy storage system, with cryogen energy storage systems, which includes liquefied air; to store oceanic energy. The research studied the two forms in terms of efficiency of production, storage and transportation as well as energy extraction. The study showed that cryogens have a better potential to be an energy carried compared to hydrogen as it has few technical challenges to overcome and can be combined easily with renewable energies, is environmentally friendly and sustainable [7].

Cryogenically liquefied air is a cryogen and according to the second law of thermodynamics, the high grade cold energy stored in cryogens is a more valuable energy source than heat [8]. Cryogens store energy in the form of sensible and latent heat. Even though the specific heat and phase change heat of cryogens and heat storage material is in approximately the same magnitude, cryogens have higher exergy density, making it a better thermal energy storage medium.

3. Liquefied Air

Air consists of approximately 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, and thus has similar thermodynamics properties as nitrogen gas. Liquefied air is produced cryogenically, at -196°C, which is the boiling point of nitrogen; at atmospheric pressure. Liquefying air reduces the volume of air by 700 times. According to the Centre for Low Carbon Futures, liquid air has the potential of being an effective energy vector. Liquid air has been identified as a cheap, abundant and safe energy vector to store such energy [9].

Air can be liquefied when renewable energy produced is greater than the grid demand; this allows energy to be stored in the form of liquid air instead of being wasted. Liquefaction of air can also be carried out when the energy demand from the grid is low, eg. Off-peak hours (at night or at wee hours of the morning); so it makes use of cheaper electricity tariffs to liquefy air.

Liquefied air can be stored in insulated vessels at low pressures and/or be transported to be used when and where required [5]. The liquefied air can then be regasified where and when excess energy is required. The expansion of liquid air can be used to run turbines which generate electrical energy from mechanical energy; it can also be used indirectly in Rankine or Brayton cycles as described in Section 5.

 

[flacaltenn]

US$26,900

Uh, no tanks! But check out these puppies:

They even remove warts and preserve bull semen!

Cryopreservation of bull semen or fertilized eggs

$26,000 is a bit steep. Hard to buy a new car for that anymore tho. But since it includes the fuel cell -- which is about $10K dollars of one of the many hydrogen fuel cell cars -- it aint bad if it LASTS 20 years.

Solar home installations for that amount of power run about $12 to $16K -- And they dont store anything for when the panels aren't working. I should reprice it - but for a 1.2Kwatt home -- to stretch your SOLAR to a 24 hour day would ALREADY cost more than the price of that H2gen/fuel cell. Because you'd need THREE TIMES the panels (to use 1/3 during the day and store 2/3 for the night.) and a LOT of wall mounted batteries. MORE than a "normal" home solar installation would use.

The more I type here, the more I convince myself that $26K aint bad.

ESPECIALLY if the govt SUBSIDIZED IT AS MUCH AS THEY DO (DID) for home solar.

 

[flacaltenn]

Out of the air? That's hilarious! There is .00005% of air that is hydrogen!

Breaking down hydrocarbons requires the expenditure of energy, making the entire process incredible inefficient. Contrary to popular opinion, hydrogen is not a fuel, but rather an energy transfer method.

I was probably listening to tornado alerts when I typed "air". CLearly MEANT water. Energy intensive -- damn straight. When you measure the amount of coal or nat gas it would take. BUT with OFF GRID SOLAR/WIND and STORAGE -- it becomes "cheap" to produce.

You can frack it from CH4 -- even MORE efficient and far less CO2 than BURNING the CO2. More here.

Hydrogen Fuel Basics

Hydrogen is a clean fuel that, when consumed in a fuel cell, produces only water. Hydrogen can be produced from a variety of domestic resources.

www.energy.gov

And of COURSE hydrogen is a fuel.

European Union Hydrogen Highway | Hydrogen Cars Now

The European Union hydrogen highway system is discussed including the building of refueling stations in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom.

www.hydrogencarsnow.com

European Union Hydrogen Highway
European Union
Hydrogen Highway
The European Union hydrogen highway network is at present a loose affiliation of H2 refueling stations developed by various countries. Leading the charge is Germany who has the most hydrogen refueling stations with 30 followed by everyone else.

You can buy a hydrogen car NOW from about 4 major car manufacturers including Benz and BMW. There are entire towns in Alaska powered by hydrogen fuel cells.

 

[flacaltenn]

Seriously,.. this is useful info {from Journal of Engineering Science and Technology April 2016, Vol. 11(4)}:

"liquified air" Vs hydrogen.

Interesting. I guess the necessary compression energy for liquified air presents it's OWN dangers and energy challenges. With any liquified gas -- you're gonna need containment with thermal isolation. It really is not a "distributable energy product" for homes and transport. It's the kinda of GRID STORAGE thing that would be located at a solar/wind farm or at centralized "grid scale storage" stations. And then energy FROM the grid would be used to compress and store. Which means you'd still have to put wind/solar ON grid to charge the compression in any cost effective manner -- and deal with vagarities of those energy sources.

Not sure if the study they quoted took into the account the "energy budget" for getting the 2 of them into "adequate storage". Hydrogen does not have to be supercompressed to be useful as a grid generation product.

For hydrogen - there's some safety risks like we have with nat gas. But in that case, you dont need the super containment and compression as you do with "liquified air".

 

[Grumblenuts]

"liquified air" Vs hydrogen.

Interesting. I guess the necessary compression energy for liquified air presents it's OWN dangers and energy challenges. With any liquified gas -- you're gonna need containment with thermal isolation. It really is not a "distributable energy product" for homes and transport. It's the kinda of GRID STORAGE thing that would be located at a solar/wind farm or at centralized "grid scale storage" stations. And then energy FROM the grid would be used to compress and store. Which means you'd still have to put wind/solar ON grid to charge the compression in any cost effective manner -- and deal with vagarities of those energy sources.

Not sure if the study they quoted took into the account the "energy budget" for getting the 2 of them into "adequate storage". Hydrogen does not have to be supercompressed to be useful as a grid generation product.

For hydrogen - there's some safety risks like we have with nat gas. But in that case, you dont need the super containment and compression as you do with "liquified air".

I'd agree that because liquid air has been worked with and studied less, deliberately or not, than compressed hydrogen gas, either with home power or vehicles in mind, it's definitely not going to win the battle for best all around right away. No, hydrogen gas, though extremely flammable and requiring heavy, 2000 to 6000 psig steel containment for decent amounts even at low grade, has definitely got the running start there, especially where one can get away with on site electrolysis (normally very dirty and dangerous) and fuel cells. Yes, liquid air may never be stuffed neatly into a box hanging from your house, but it sure should win many over in the community to large scale grid service market.

No, unlike hydrogen, you don't need "super containment and compression" with liquid air. About 20 psi is its normal condition boiling pressure, similar to liquid propane. All that's needed is a well insulated tank to maintain its temperature instead of the beefy, high pressure kind normally used with hydrogen. And unless it splashes or spills right on you, who cares? It's just expanding air. As with propane, one likely just needs to keep the pressure above the boiling minimum to prevent moisture related clogging troubles and so forth. So designate say a working pressure of 100 or 200 psi as "full" and get it refilled (or recharge it) when it drops below 40 or 50 psi. Industrial "low-pressure" cryogen tanks for nitrogen (22 psi boiling) handle up to 350 psi working pressure. Buy 'em used on eBay, CHEAP!! LOL. Or just make your own, LOL. You know they mostly just get tossed out in scrap yards left and right anyway, same as all the other kinds.

 

[Grumblenuts]

$26,000 is a bit steep. Hard to buy a new car for that anymore tho. But since it includes the fuel cell -- which is about $10K dollars of one of the many hydrogen fuel cell cars -- it aint bad if it LASTS 20 years.

Solar home installations for that amount of power run about $12 to $16K -- And they dont store anything for when the panels aren't working. I should reprice it - but for a 1.2Kwatt home -- to stretch your SOLAR to a 24 hour day would ALREADY cost more than the price of that H2gen/fuel cell. Because you'd need THREE TIMES the panels (to use 1/3 during the day and store 2/3 for the night.) and a LOT of wall mounted batteries. MORE than a "normal" home solar installation would use.

The more I type here, the more I convince myself that $26K aint bad.

ESPECIALLY if the govt SUBSIDIZED IT AS MUCH AS THEY DO (DID) for home solar.

I would plan on having as many options as possible, including keeping a cheap gas or diesel generator around for emergencies. But really? No comment about:

And the final joy killer is the system's maximum continuous power output of 5 kW, limited presumably by the throughput of the fuel cell. There are single split-system air-con systems out there that draw more than 7 kW, and they're not particularly extravagant ones. 5 kW of continuous power output is going to be an issue; you'll need to keep your grid connection active.

Do you too somehow not have central air and remain married? A "1.2Kwatt home" sure sounds dinky these days.

 

[flacaltenn]

I would plan on having as many options as possible, including keeping a cheap gas or diesel generator around for emergencies. But really? No comment about:

Do you too somehow not have central air and remain married? A "1.2Kwatt home" sure sounds dinky these days.

Probably, when all 3 of my HVACs kick on at once -- I probably exceed 5KW..

But it's not "an average home".. WHICH BTW -- I'll be in soon, because I'm getting tired of working my ass off to keep up the house and the grounds.

When I downsize on a nice Tenn lake not far from Nashville -- I'll BE a "hydrogen fuel" barron.

 

[jc456]

That's complete rubbish. You're an idiot.
Why not say you don't believe it without proving your ignorance.

See everyone, the demofk here has no fking clue the value of CO2. she just admitted she doesn't know that if you remove CO2 we die. hahahahahahhaahahahahahahaha what a fking idiot.

 

[Flash]

Climate change is real and is Nature.

AGW is a scam.

Humans have adapted to climate change in the past. They will do so in the future.

 

[Flash]

It is not enough that the Moon Bats stay awake at night worrying about an asteroid hitting the earth or gamma ray burst from an exploding star but now they are worried about methane gas?

LOL!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

See everyone, the demofk here has no fking clue the value of CO2. she just admitted she doesn't know that if you remove CO2 we die. hahahahahahhaahahahahahahaha what a fking idiot.

It's amazing that this kind of scientific ignorance can still exist. Where does it come from? I saw John Kerry say that not producing CO2 was only half the batter. We still need to find a way of removing it from the atmosphere.

This kind of ignorance is dangerous.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's amazing that this kind of scientific ignorance can still exist. Where does it come from? I saw John Kerry say that not producing CO2 was only half the batter. We still need to find a way of removing it from the atmosphere.

This kind of ignorance is dangerous.

If you go hasten the ice melt in the Arctic Ocean, it will SUCK so much CO2 out of the atmos that Kerry's ears will flap.

Cold ocean water is the most efficient way to "remove CO2" if it's not covered in ice.

 

[jc456]

We'll all die? What a pathetic justification for denying climate change.
It doesn't matter because the world is progressing towards reducing carbon if you belief it or not.

hahahaahahahaha you still didn't even look up why we made such a statement. that makes you lazy as well.

 

[JustAGuy1]

We'll all die? What a pathetic justification for denying climate change.
It doesn't matter because the world is progressing towards reducing carbon if you belief it or not.

It's not going to fly kid, at least not in your life time.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yeah, sounds like pie in the ocean.

“The Arctic’s carbon sink is not stable,” Dutkiewicz said. “Multiple things are happening in the Arctic—some are making the Arctic more of a sink, some are making it less of a sink.” It’s just going to be a matter of time to see which force outweighs the other. “I don’t think we know yet,” Dutkiewicz added, “but it’s precarious. Declining sea ice is bad for all sorts of other reasons, so one slight benefit is this increased productivity, but it probably won’t outweigh everything else that’s going on.”

 

[Clipper]

The largest source by far of unburned methane is from undersea deposits of frozen methane that simply bubbles up through the sea water as it sublimates into the atmosphere with no possible way to stop it. The Article is bullshit and paid for by green scammers.

There's tons of it under permafrost that's been there for hundreds of thousands of years. The same permafrost that is melting away in Siberia & other places due to global warming.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It really is rather shocking to see how many people really believe that removing CO2 from the atmosphere is beneficial and something the world is currently doing. There are some real scientists out there.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Scientists say this invisible gas could seal our fate on climate change | CNN

Slashing carbon dioxide emissions is critical to ending the climate crisis. But, for the first time, scientists emphasized the need to control a more insidious culprit: methane.

edition.cnn.com

Scientists say this invisible gas could seal our fate on climate change​

By Rachel Ramirez, CNN
Updated 0208 GMT (1008 HKT) August 12, 2021

(CNN)Slashing carbon dioxide emissions is critical to ending the climate crisis. But, for the first time, the UN climate change report emphasized the need to control a more insidious culprit: methane, an invisible, odorless gas with more than 80 times more warming power in the near-term than carbon dioxide.
According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is higher now than any time in at least 800,000 years.
With Earth rapidly approaching the 1.5-degree-Celsius threshold above preindustrial levels, scientists say methane emissions need to be reduced fast. Charles Koven, a lead author of the IPCC report, said this is due to methane's incredible warming power.

Earth is warming faster than previously thought, scientists say, and the window is closing to avoid catastrophic outcomes
"The fastest way that we might mitigate some of the climate change that we're seeing already in the short term is by reducing methane," Koven told CNN. "If we were to reduce methane emissions, it would act to offset one of these sources of warming."
If the world stopped emitting carbon dioxide tomorrow, Koven said, global temperatures wouldn't begin to cool for many years because of how long the gas stays in the atmosphere. Reducing methane is the easiest knob to turn to change the path of global temperature in the next 10 years, he said.
Methane, the main component of the natural gas we use to fuel our stoves and heat our homes, can be produced in nature by belching volcanoes and decomposing plant matter. But it is also pumped into the atmosphere in much larger amounts by landfills, livestock and the oil and gas industry.

Natural gas has been hailed as a "bridge fuel" that would transition the US to renewable energy because it is more efficient than coal and emits less carbon dioxide when burned. Importantly for industry, natural gas is in abundant supply around the world and is less costly to extract from the ground.


But proponents for this new "cleaner" gas missed a dangerous threat: that it could leak, unburned, into the atmosphere and cause significant warming.
Methane can leak from oil and natural gas wells, natural gas pipelines and the processing equipment itself. According to data from the US Energy Information Administration, the US has thousands of active wells for natural gas, millions of abandoned oil and gas wells, about two million miles of natural gas pipelines, and several refineries that process the gas.
One in three Americans lives in a county with oil and gas operations, posing climate and public health risks, according to a report by the Environmental Defense Fund.

Until recently, tracking the location and magnitude of methane leaks was difficult. Now, infrared cameras and advanced satellites can estimate methane emissions around the globe, giving scientists and regulators insight into what's being released from facilities.
Climatologists at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration previously told CNN that pernicious changes in the climate system will only intensify unless people stop using fuels that burn and leak greenhouse gases like methane.
"For carbon dioxide, we've always known about power plants and smokestacks and things like that; but with methane, until recent years, we didn't understand how much an influence a small number of large sources have really had," Robert Jackson, professor of environmental science at Stanford University, told CNN. "We didn't understand how long the tail was and how important the super-emitters were for reducing emissions."
The latest IPCC assessment highlights that scientists now have a better understanding of how much methane is being released by human activity like agriculture and the fossil fuel industry, and how much it contributes to the climate crisis.

Around the world, fossil fuels, agriculture and coal mining are skyrocketing methane emissions. Nonetheless, the production and sources vary by region. In the North America, a majority -- 14% of total methane emissions -- come from the oil and gas production followed by livestock at 10%. In China, coal mining is the biggest methane driver, contributing 24% to total emissions.
Though agriculture is a major source of methane, Jackson said the emissions from farming and food production would be harder to tackle.
"There are only certain things we can do with cattle," Jackson said. "We can either ask people to stop eating beef or we can try and give cattle feed additives to change the microbes in the chemistry of their guts. But that's not easy to do for billions of cattle around the world."
The International Energy Agency estimate that the oil and gas industry around the world can reduce methane by 75% using the technology already available. It also estimates that 40% of the emissions could be reduced without extra costs, since the natural gas captured could then be sold.

Flaring at a natural gas processing facility in North Dakota.
Climate activists like Lisa DeVille, a member of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation, are urging policymakers to make stringent methane reductions. The Bakken oil field in North Dakota surrounds the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, where DeVille lives, with nearly 1,000 oil and gas wells that scientists found in 2016 was leaking 275,000 tons of methane per year.
"This means the land that is part of my identity as an Indigenous woman has been turned into a pollution-filled industrial zone," DeVille said. "This is unacceptable."
As the co-founder of the grassroots group Fort Berthold Protectors of Water and Earth Rights, DeVille is tackling environmental regulations head-on. In 2018, the organization successfully sued the Trump administration's Bureau of Land Management for rolling back a critical methane waste prevention rule.
Global temperatures are now at 1.1 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, according to the report, and the planet is already seeing the impact in the form of extreme fire behavior, severe flooding, relentless drought and deadly heat waves.
The IPCC report makes clear that stopping methane emissions is key to slowing the planet from reaching 1.5 degrees. Scientists say world leaders need to act immediately in tackling all greenhouse gas emissions, and not just carbon dioxide.

Climate scientists have done their bit. Now the pressure is on leaders for COP26.
Rick Duke, senior director and White House liaison for John Kerry, President Biden's special climate envoy, told CNN in a press call that reducing methane, and methane leaks, is a top priority for the Biden administration.
"There's been incredible largely behind-the-scenes effort already to prepare to move faster and more comprehensively to cut methane domestically, at the same time that we're addressing this as a diplomatic imperative," Duke said.
Already, pressure is mounting. In June, DeVille discussed tribal issues, particularly slashing methane emissions and transitioning to clean energy quickly and equitably, with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan.
"What we do in the next few years will determine what kind of world we have, what kind of world we leave for our children," said DeVille, who is now seeking to meet with Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to discuss similar issues. "We must rapidly switch to clean energy, stop fossil fuel carbon pollution, and then methane leaks."
CNN's Drew Kann and John Keefe contributed to this report.

My question, especially to the Republican audience and leaders that frequent this forum, is this :
Would you allow Biden to curtail the US' methane output, and with that set an example for the rest of NATO and the world?
An example that by the way would increase world-wide goodwill for the USA.

Wow, the kooks don't see the reality, I posted a thread and got some of the same crap from these biddable fools:

NOVA | Arctic Sinkholes | Season 49 | Episode 1 | PBS

In the Arctic, enormous releases of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, threaten the climate

www.pbs.org

My thread is this:

NOVA: Methane, Carbon and the impact on Climate Change​

I suppose we can take a 21st Century whore to reality but you can't make them think.

 

[Rye Catcher]

There's tons of it under permafrost that's been there for hundreds of thousands of years. The same permafrost that is melting away in Siberia & other places due to global warming.

Yep.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yep.

Whenever the permafrost thaws, everything dies.