Even IPCC has conceded the 1.5C goal is impossible without carbon capture.
The secondary benefit of reducing combustion fuel usage is improving air quality which is why EVs (or I guess hydrogen FCEV) must be the requirement for city centre air quality.That won't help if the power plant next to the city keeps on emitting toxic fumes. In a previous post I already showed (through a simple calculation) that only a few percent of coal based electricity generation makes a BEV several time more dirty compared to a modern hybrid. Also, dense city centers are not big so the actual number of people living there is low while there are many more people living in the suburds. All in all the idea to make a few streets cleaner while exposing the entire city to several times higher concentrations of toxic gas is not a good idea. It makes more sense to simply block the streets that have little ventilation for traffic (or ban cars with poor or no emission control for those streets) in order to improve air quality.
And CO2 capture is one of the worst ideas ever. You basically create an underground toxic gas bubble. There have been several incidents with natural CO2 sources that suddenly release their content resulting in a great number of deaths.
Even IPCC has conceded the 1.5C goal is impossible without carbon capture.A quick scan tells me that this is to be achieved through biomass (= grow more plants).
Can you link to your analysis/post because I scanned through and couldn't find a mention of that. It doesn't sound even remotely correct to me, but even if it was, longer term we are moving towards 0% coal, we used nearly no coal in the last 5 years and it's expected by 2030 that we will use no coal at all.
All we need to do is plant more vegetation, forests, and change our usage to reduce unnecessary emissions.
... longer term we are moving towards 0% coal, we used nearly no coal in the last 5 years and it's expected by 2030 that we will use no coal at all. The only reason it's being used at all this winter is due to gas shortages as a result of the Ukraine war.
I suspect we'll still have ICE for a long time in specialty applications. For simplicity little beats a small petrol genset for emergency / worksite power for instance. And diesel trucks will probably outpace electric trucks on some routes. However, these will need to run on carbon neutral fuels, either synthetic or biofuel, and/or have a carbon offsetting tax applied to them that pays for the carbon produced to be removed. This will make such fuels uneconomical for all but the most difficult use cases to use batteries and fuel cells in.
I suspect we'll still have ICE for a long time in specialty applications. For simplicity little beats a small petrol genset for emergency / worksite power for instance. And diesel trucks will probably outpace electric trucks on some routes. However, these will need to run on carbon neutral fuels, either synthetic or biofuel, and/or have a carbon offsetting tax applied to them that pays for the carbon produced to be removed. This will make such fuels uneconomical for all but the most difficult use cases to use batteries and fuel cells in.
Correct. It’s not about converting everything instantly to BEVs it’s about converting what’s possible. It’s possible now and the near future to move personal cars away from ice. That’s needs to be done
Though some farm equipment does seem ideal for electrification - short distances, long days, but with a place to charge every night. An electric tractor with a 100kWh battery doesn't seem infeasible to me. More difficult if the engine has to do a lot more work, like a combine or mill.
Industrial/farm equipment will likely transition to having on site LH2 tanks/pumps resupplied by tanker truck, once the LH2 infrastructure is in place for long haul trucking it's not an issue.
Large LH2 tanks have low enough evaporation rate you don't really need to take it into much consideration.
Industrial/farm equipment will likely transition to having on site LH2 tanks/pumps resupplied by tanker truck, once the LH2 infrastructure is in place for long haul trucking it's not an issue.
Large LH2 tanks have low enough evaporation rate you don't really need to take it into much consideration.
Onsite diesel tanks are low tech and require little maintenance.
Pressurised cryogenic tanks are high tech, and require regular maintenance and special skills to maintain. Conditions on a remote farm and the staff skillsets will remain, to use the standard euphemism, a challenge.
Incorrect. The whole goal is to move to renewable, non-poluting energy sources. ICE in itself isn't bad. It is the fuel that is being used that makes it bad. Alternatives can even be worse (like BEVs powered indirectly from coal).
People are obsessing over CO2 but the reality is that CO2 emissions are not today's problem. The emission of toxic gasses like SO2 and NOx (which cause respiratory and other health issues) are. Just look up the number of annual deaths due to producing electricity from coal as published by the WHO. Even in small countries like the NL, the number exceeds over 100 persons per year that die prematurely. Nuclear is far better and it boggles the mind how environmentalists can be against it...
As I wrote before, I ran the numbers a long time ago to show that moving the BEVs is not a good idea if electricity is (partly) generated by coal plants (which are also likely to provide the cheap night time power to have a base load): [...]
As I wrote before, I ran the numbers a long time ago to show that moving the BEVs is not a good idea if electricity is (partly) generated by coal plants (which are also likely to provide the cheap night time power to have a base load): [...]
The sector you have highlighted is not limited to electricity generation alone.
Incorrect. The whole goal is to move to renewable, non-poluting energy sources. ICE in itself isn't bad. It is the fuel that is being used that makes it bad. Alternatives can even be worse (like BEVs powered indirectly from coal).
People are obsessing over CO2 but the reality is that CO2 emissions are not today's problem. The emission of toxic gasses like SO2 and NOx (which cause respiratory and other health issues) are. Just look up the number of annual deaths due to producing electricity from coal as published by the WHO. Even in small countries like the NL, the number exceeds over 100 persons per year that die prematurely. Nuclear is far better and it boggles the mind how environmentalists can be against it...
The problem with ICE is even running on the cleanest carbon neutral fuel they produce soot, NOx and other hazardous compound (fuel produces VOCs from evaporation, plus some hydrocarbons escape the combustion process.) Also pretty much every engine burns a little bit of oil, which adds to the problem. NOx is actually a really tough problem to solve as VW discovered with their cheating diesels,
I just had a horrible thought.
A hillbillie playing around with liquid hydrogen.
Industrial/farm equipment will likely transition to having on site LH2 tanks/pumps resupplied by tanker truck, once the LH2 infrastructure is in place for long haul trucking it's not an issue.
Large LH2 tanks have low enough evaporation rate you don't really need to take it into much consideration.
Onsite diesel tanks are low tech and require little maintenance.
Pressurised cryogenic tanks are high tech, and require regular maintenance and special skills to maintain. Conditions on a remote farm and the staff skillsets will remain, to use the standard euphemism, a challenge.Modern day farm equipment is chuck full with electronics anyway. So a tank -which still is a passive device- won't matter much. Besides that, H2 isn't stored in a cryogenic tank at all but a normal tank that can withstand pressures up to 750 bar. If a farmer owns a blow torch, then the knowledge on how to deal with high pressure gas tanks is already present.
Industrial/farm equipment will likely transition to having on site LH2 tanks/pumps resupplied by tanker truck, once the LH2 infrastructure is in place for long haul trucking it's not an issue.
Large LH2 tanks have low enough evaporation rate you don't really need to take it into much consideration.
Onsite diesel tanks are low tech and require little maintenance.
Pressurised cryogenic tanks are high tech, and require regular maintenance and special skills to maintain. Conditions on a remote farm and the staff skillsets will remain, to use the standard euphemism, a challenge.Modern day farm equipment is chuck full with electronics anyway. So a tank -which still is a passive device- won't matter much. Besides that, H2 isn't stored in a cryogenic tank at all but a normal tank that can withstand pressures up to 750 bar. If a farmer owns a blow torch, then the knowledge on how to deal with high pressure gas tanks is already present.
750 bar isn't "business as usual". Then add hydrogen embrittlement of metals, a topic which I haven't investigated.
I'll stand in a puddle of diesel while you throw a lighted match in it. Would you stand in a cloud of escaped hydrogen when I (remotely ) throw a lighted match at you?
Onsite diesel tanks are low tech and require little maintenance.
Pressurised cryogenic tanks are high tech, and require regular maintenance and special skills to maintain. Conditions on a remote farm and the staff skillsets will remain, to use the standard euphemism, a challenge.
methane powered tractors seems an obvious solution,especially for livestock farms.