Terraform makes carbon neutral natural gas(terraformindustries.wordpress.com)
terraformindustries.wordpress.com
Terraform makes carbon neutral natural gas
https://terraformindustries.wordpress.com/2024/04/01/terraform-makes-carbon-neutral-natural-gas/
328 comments
It looks good.
I wish their headline was "natural gas from solar power" 'cause many things labeled "carbon neutral" wind-up being conventional petrochemicals plus some worthless "offsets" baloney.
I wish their headline was "natural gas from solar power" 'cause many things labeled "carbon neutral" wind-up being conventional petrochemicals plus some worthless "offsets" baloney.
In theory you can use any power source - hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear, wind - but the benefit to solar is that you can fully utilize it when the sun is shining and store the output (compressed natural gas) for storage, transportation and use off-hours.
You could also technically use this as a grid-battery, taking in excess grid energy when it is cheap and converting it into natural gas that can be run back through a gas peaking plant that spins up to meet peak demand. You could also look into SOFC fuel cell plants [1] to convert the stored natural gas into electricity at 60% and heat at 30% (the heat is high temperature which is good for cogeneration or as a direct heat source). There would need to be some very large spreads in margin on those to make up for the fact you're likely double-dipping on inefficiencies when going from electricity in -> natgas production -> storage -> generation -> electricity out.
On that same note though - in some free and open energy markets it is not unheard of to buy at <$10/MWh during excess production periods and sell at >$200/MWh at peak on-demand - plenty of margin for arbitrage there - as the tesla megapack facilities have demonstrated in Australia. In comparison a 4MWh megapack facility (2MW in/2MW out) is priced at $1.9M before installation [2]
[1]https://assets.bosch.com/media/en/global/stories/sofc/solid-...
[2]https://twitter.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1643488856946122754...
(updated for M/Mega - thanks)
You could also technically use this as a grid-battery, taking in excess grid energy when it is cheap and converting it into natural gas that can be run back through a gas peaking plant that spins up to meet peak demand. You could also look into SOFC fuel cell plants [1] to convert the stored natural gas into electricity at 60% and heat at 30% (the heat is high temperature which is good for cogeneration or as a direct heat source). There would need to be some very large spreads in margin on those to make up for the fact you're likely double-dipping on inefficiencies when going from electricity in -> natgas production -> storage -> generation -> electricity out.
On that same note though - in some free and open energy markets it is not unheard of to buy at <$10/MWh during excess production periods and sell at >$200/MWh at peak on-demand - plenty of margin for arbitrage there - as the tesla megapack facilities have demonstrated in Australia. In comparison a 4MWh megapack facility (2MW in/2MW out) is priced at $1.9M before installation [2]
[1]https://assets.bosch.com/media/en/global/stories/sofc/solid-...
[2]https://twitter.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1643488856946122754...
(updated for M/Mega - thanks)
Yes exactly. In the UK power is becoming increasingly negative in pricing when there is high wind + solar output. This is actually increasingly alarmingly rapidly (and there is 3-5GW of offshore wind, plus loads of utility scale solar coming online).
Prices are then very high when wind and solar is low - which happens to be when demand is the highest (cold weather snaps in winter which tend to result in very low windspeeds).
National Grid is already paying £1bn/yr to turn off wind farms when supply is too high (plus paying a fortune for new nat gas peakers, which are limited by law to run for 10 days a year max). It's projected that curtailment payments to wind farms will reach £4bn/yr.
While some of this will be rectified with more transmission capacity (there is a 4GW offshore HVDC link being built between scotland and england), if the claims of terraform are true and hold up at scale, I think this is the actual breakthrough people have been looking for.
These could be connected to substations near wind farms (which also happen to be near major gas interconnectors from the north sea) and generate when power prices were low or negative, which will be a large amount of the time. They'd then get paid not only for the arbitrage in gas prices but also they would be able to take (most/all) of the curtailment payments national grid is paying the wind farms.
To be clear batteries do not work particularly well for a market like the UK. Batteries work well for overnight storage of solar, they do not work well for northern climates like the UK that require weeks of storage of power to cover low renewable output in winter. That's not to say there isn't loads of batteries being constructed right now, there is, but it's to cover very short term movements in supply and demand - the much harder problem is covering days or weeks of low output.
Prices are then very high when wind and solar is low - which happens to be when demand is the highest (cold weather snaps in winter which tend to result in very low windspeeds).
National Grid is already paying £1bn/yr to turn off wind farms when supply is too high (plus paying a fortune for new nat gas peakers, which are limited by law to run for 10 days a year max). It's projected that curtailment payments to wind farms will reach £4bn/yr.
While some of this will be rectified with more transmission capacity (there is a 4GW offshore HVDC link being built between scotland and england), if the claims of terraform are true and hold up at scale, I think this is the actual breakthrough people have been looking for.
These could be connected to substations near wind farms (which also happen to be near major gas interconnectors from the north sea) and generate when power prices were low or negative, which will be a large amount of the time. They'd then get paid not only for the arbitrage in gas prices but also they would be able to take (most/all) of the curtailment payments national grid is paying the wind farms.
To be clear batteries do not work particularly well for a market like the UK. Batteries work well for overnight storage of solar, they do not work well for northern climates like the UK that require weeks of storage of power to cover low renewable output in winter. That's not to say there isn't loads of batteries being constructed right now, there is, but it's to cover very short term movements in supply and demand - the much harder problem is covering days or weeks of low output.
I don't get it, why does it cost billions to turn the wind farms off? Why isn't it free?
Because some of the windfarms still run on legacy contracts where they were incentivized by a guaranteed selling price for the power they produce. They are reimbursed for the loss of income they suffer due to curtailment.
Correct. The UK regulator (Ofgem) and thus UK consumers are being taken for a ride by windfarmers, who made these deals a precondition of building farms.
We will be paying them £2.5bn a year to not generate electricity by 2030
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/examining-challeng...
‘A wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs’ indeed
https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/372-why-are-unsubsidised-win...
We will be paying them £2.5bn a year to not generate electricity by 2030
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/examining-challeng...
‘A wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs’ indeed
https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/372-why-are-unsubsidised-win...
> You could also technically use this as a grid-battery, taking in excess grid energy when it is cheap and converting it into natural gas that can be run back through a gas peaking plant that spins up to meet peak demand.
The loss in such a cycle is abysmal, alone from thermal loss (not to mention the loss during compression and decompression) - even straight fuel cells are at 60% round-trip, compared to batteries with >>90% efficiency.
The loss in such a cycle is abysmal, alone from thermal loss (not to mention the loss during compression and decompression) - even straight fuel cells are at 60% round-trip, compared to batteries with >>90% efficiency.
Batteries are good at smoothing out daily or even weekly variations but do not make any sense whatsoever for seasonal power storage.
It's ridiculously cost ineffective to charge a battery in July only to discharge it in December.
60% roundtrip is cost effective if you're synthesizing when the sun is blazing and the wind is blowing hard and burning it when wind, solar and batteries have all tapped out.
Thats especially so if the equipment has low capex which it seems like this does. Unlike batteries that makes it cost effective to overbuild and idle it most of the year.
It's ridiculously cost ineffective to charge a battery in July only to discharge it in December.
60% roundtrip is cost effective if you're synthesizing when the sun is blazing and the wind is blowing hard and burning it when wind, solar and batteries have all tapped out.
Thats especially so if the equipment has low capex which it seems like this does. Unlike batteries that makes it cost effective to overbuild and idle it most of the year.
> It's ridiculously cost ineffective to charge a battery in July only to discharge it in December
Indeed.
This is why the cheapest solutions in most places are a mix of a mere few days off storage plus a target production level that is a little higher than you need on an average day in winter.
While this doesn't work above the arctic circle (you could do it with a power line somewhere sunnier or a synthetic fuel, and possibly also geothermal or nuclear etc., devil is in the details for all options) overproduction + 35-90 hours of batteries is sufficient for most people and places:
https://tonyseba.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/RethinkingEn...
Indeed.
This is why the cheapest solutions in most places are a mix of a mere few days off storage plus a target production level that is a little higher than you need on an average day in winter.
While this doesn't work above the arctic circle (you could do it with a power line somewhere sunnier or a synthetic fuel, and possibly also geothermal or nuclear etc., devil is in the details for all options) overproduction + 35-90 hours of batteries is sufficient for most people and places:
https://tonyseba.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/RethinkingEn...
Is that more effective than the traditional, "store the energy as kinetic potential energy by pushing water uphill, so you can let it go down the hill later" approach.
For storing energy cheaply for months at a time and transporting it across large distances, yes.
Pumped storage has ~90% roundtrip efficiency, good at storing energy for days or weeks but maxes out easily. The energy density of water pushed uphill is very low.
I think we should be pushing a lot more water uphill, but I see it as an alternative to or competitor to grid-scale batteries and a complement to syngas.
Syngas production will probably be most useful if built next door to a wind or solar farm and used to siphon off energy which is currently curtailed when the grid is maxed out.
It can then be easily stored in enormous quantities and easily transported by ship to anywhere in the world that needs it.
Pumped storage has ~90% roundtrip efficiency, good at storing energy for days or weeks but maxes out easily. The energy density of water pushed uphill is very low.
I think we should be pushing a lot more water uphill, but I see it as an alternative to or competitor to grid-scale batteries and a complement to syngas.
Syngas production will probably be most useful if built next door to a wind or solar farm and used to siphon off energy which is currently curtailed when the grid is maxed out.
It can then be easily stored in enormous quantities and easily transported by ship to anywhere in the world that needs it.
It's not more effective where you have the right conditions for pumped storage, but those conditions aren't very common around the world.
I'm curious about where you read this. I see this idea that pumped storage geography is rare pop up a lot on Hacker News but I don't know where it's coming from and it rarely seems to come with citations.
If you look at this map, you'll see that unlike, say, dam-appropriate geography, it's actually extremely common:
https://www.energytransitionpartnership.org/uploads/2023/05/...
If you look at this map, you'll see that unlike, say, dam-appropriate geography, it's actually extremely common:
https://www.energytransitionpartnership.org/uploads/2023/05/...
The problem is, the potential for buildouts of pumped hydro isn't that large any more. In Europe, most usable areas have been built out, and new projects are likely to be denied because anything involving creating dams or bodies of water with rapid differences in water level is incredibly devastating on nature and wildlife.
More or less devastating than extracting heavy metals and setting up a battery farm?
I'll admit that I wasn't talking about potential green-field sites not linked to rivers or existing reservoirs, as described in your link. How many of the sites they identified as viable with their algorithm would actually be economically, socially and environmentally viable is a big question though. Not saying some of these sites can come to fruition, but for sure the capex and lead time for this kind of projects is huge.
I guess that answers my question. People are getting pumped storage and river dams mixed up. It seems mschuster91 also mixed them up.
Yes, the capex and lead times on one of these things can be huge, but it's comes out ahead of nuclear power on those fronts.
Yes, the capex and lead times on one of these things can be huge, but it's comes out ahead of nuclear power on those fronts.
> People are getting pumped storage and river dams mixed up. It seems mschuster91 also mixed them up.
The environmental impact is bad for both.
River dams break fish crossings, the dammed up area gets flooded and wipes out nature as well as archeological artifacts and the dams are at constant risk of damage - especially in a war, see Ukraine for multiple examples, but also due to maintenance neglect, negligence during construction and natural disasters like earthquakes. In the worst cases such as China's Three Gorges dam, millions of people were displaced as well [1].
Pumped storage can come in two variants, either as an associate to ordinary river dams (so they inherit their issues), or as greenfield construction, where they have the same impact on the flooded are, with the additional impact of countless animals dying during pump and empty cycles.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam#Displacement_...
The environmental impact is bad for both.
River dams break fish crossings, the dammed up area gets flooded and wipes out nature as well as archeological artifacts and the dams are at constant risk of damage - especially in a war, see Ukraine for multiple examples, but also due to maintenance neglect, negligence during construction and natural disasters like earthquakes. In the worst cases such as China's Three Gorges dam, millions of people were displaced as well [1].
Pumped storage can come in two variants, either as an associate to ordinary river dams (so they inherit their issues), or as greenfield construction, where they have the same impact on the flooded are, with the additional impact of countless animals dying during pump and empty cycles.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam#Displacement_...
A link to the three gorges dam wikipedia page says exactly nothing about the potential environmental impact of pumped storage but it does confirm that you are confusing the two technologies.
Figure 2 doesn't agree with you. It's common but not geographically equally distributed.
> On that same note though - in some free and open energy markets it is not unheard of to buy at <$10/mWh during excess production periods and sell at >$200/mWh at peak on-demand - plenty of margin for arbitrage there - as the tesla megapack facilities have demonstrated in Australia. In comparison a 4mWh megapack facility (2MW in/2MW out) is priced at $1.9M before installation [2]
m means milli, M is mega.
m means milli, M is mega.
That's basically what this is, minus the "worthless" part. That's the part you'd have to read past the headline to be sure of anyway.
[deleted]
I really wonder about unintended consequences. It's exciting to be able to store solar as methane because we can "plug" this new synthetic methane easily into existing infrastructure. (But we have to get better at leak management!)
However, you almost always go through huge underground methane pockets when drilling for oil. So oil drilling stations vent / flare methane when they can't "off site" it, like when natural gas pipelines are at capacity. In those moments, the price of methane actually drops below zero--I've seen it at -$1.20 per MMBtu as recently as this year! Essentially you are paying someone to get rid of the stuff for you.
So... if we flood the market with new, cost-effective synthetic methane... will companies just flare more of it as we drill for oil?
However, you almost always go through huge underground methane pockets when drilling for oil. So oil drilling stations vent / flare methane when they can't "off site" it, like when natural gas pipelines are at capacity. In those moments, the price of methane actually drops below zero--I've seen it at -$1.20 per MMBtu as recently as this year! Essentially you are paying someone to get rid of the stuff for you.
So... if we flood the market with new, cost-effective synthetic methane... will companies just flare more of it as we drill for oil?
Climate town just did a piece on natural gas leaks and how its a much more serious problem that previously considered - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2oL4SFwkkw - certainly soured me a bit on natural gas in general, at least until there's better regulation in place.
I believe the intent is to offset oil production with the methane. Somehow. Maybe making other hydrocarbons from it?
If other hydrocarbons can be created in a form that's easy to sequester, that's useful.
There's a lot of interest in cracking methane to ethylene and hydrogen, both which are super useful in their own right. There's also the Fischer-Tropsch process which synthesises arbitrary linear alkane hydrocarbons. That requires more intermediate steps, to make syngas from methane and water.
Burning off excess methane is always going to be a problem that needs to be solved regardless. There are just too many small, remote sources that aren't likely to ever justify the cost of infrastructure build out to use on grid. For example, landfills are a big, distributed source of methane that aren't going away.
Bitcoin miners are the most commonly touted solution here, because you can drop in small modules of generators+miners with no infrastructure other than a satellite link.
Funny enough, with carbon accounting rules giving huge incentives for efficiently burning waste methane, a small percentage of the bitcoin mining network doing this could actually make bitcoin the only carbon negative industry on the planet (from a carbon accounting perspective, not literally).
Bitcoin miners are the most commonly touted solution here, because you can drop in small modules of generators+miners with no infrastructure other than a satellite link.
Funny enough, with carbon accounting rules giving huge incentives for efficiently burning waste methane, a small percentage of the bitcoin mining network doing this could actually make bitcoin the only carbon negative industry on the planet (from a carbon accounting perspective, not literally).
Well it’s still carbon neutral though right
Carbon molecules yes. But methane was a significantly higher (80x) greenhouse gas potential than CO2. So it's definitely not neutral in that regard.
Right, but the point is, once this costs nearly-the-same as methane extracted from the ground, it's not worth it to pull methane out of the ground! We'd stop having an incentive to add more CO2 to the atmosphere!
We'd be able to get to net-zero carbon / methane emissions without having to substantially change our living conditions. Cities or states would "just" bottle up some liquid methane for the winter months (or summer months) and seasonal energy usage changes become much easier to manage. (I'm aware that would involve creating more infrastructure.)
Sounds great to me.
We'd be able to get to net-zero carbon / methane emissions without having to substantially change our living conditions. Cities or states would "just" bottle up some liquid methane for the winter months (or summer months) and seasonal energy usage changes become much easier to manage. (I'm aware that would involve creating more infrastructure.)
Sounds great to me.
Yes but the issue is we almost always encounter & have to remove lots of natural underground methane to get to the oil below it.
If the oil drills lose incentive to sell the methane off, they just burn it on site as waste. Horrible I know.
So synthetic methane also needs to reduce crude oil demand I’m thinking.
If the oil drills lose incentive to sell the methane off, they just burn it on site as waste. Horrible I know.
So synthetic methane also needs to reduce crude oil demand I’m thinking.
I don't think it does, though that would be great. Burning the methane on site as waste is still significantly better than releasing it into the air (converting methane to mostly CO2 is still better than not doing it).
This technology doesn't need to solve global warming. Even if it just buys us some more time, it is fantastic news.
This technology doesn't need to solve global warming. Even if it just buys us some more time, it is fantastic news.
If you could get that methane and use it for something productive, what would you propose? I'm looking for ideas, some process that has relatively easy to transport equipment (no expensive big buildings which have to be demolished when oil field is depleted), energy intensive and makes some valuable product with that energy. If someone has any wild/interesting ideas in this space, I'd like to hear it.
Methane and its siblings (methanol, ethanol, ethane) are used as a basic feedstock for more advanced chemical processes, like plastic synthesis, or drugs, or plenty of other organic compounds.
Obviously the easiest one is "store, then burn it for energy", but it seems to me, with this technology, that methane or propane powered vehicles might see lower fuel costs. This process would just make them carbon neutral.
https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/conversi...
Obviously the easiest one is "store, then burn it for energy", but it seems to me, with this technology, that methane or propane powered vehicles might see lower fuel costs. This process would just make them carbon neutral.
https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/27789/conversi...
But we could maybe burn coal for less total climate change impact than leaking and burning methane
> once this costs nearly-the-same as methane
Problem #1 is finding people to pay for it until then.
Problem #2 is that this will make fore expensive energy at the end, efficiency being one problem and capital cost of those idle gas turbines being another. We'll have to wait and see if these ever plan any role beyond a demonstration project or two, but I'm skeptical it'll compete on price.
Problem #1 is finding people to pay for it until then.
Problem #2 is that this will make fore expensive energy at the end, efficiency being one problem and capital cost of those idle gas turbines being another. We'll have to wait and see if these ever plan any role beyond a demonstration project or two, but I'm skeptical it'll compete on price.
It's an excellent way forward because it's not only carbon-neutral, it can also "fall back" to pure CO2 capture should we ever get a decent enough grid & storage mechanisms to afford that.
Really exciting work!
Really exciting work!
Other discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39896560
What is going on with the section numbering in that blog and infographic? Super interested in the content I can't focus when we start with section 7 then jump to 9 then 13 then back to 8.
This all strikes me as a nice opening to an apocalypse movie. Pulling CO2 and upgrading to methane - wouldn't that amplify GHG effects?
Methane has a short half-life in the atmosphere, so its cumulative effect after a few decades is close to CO2 unless you're constantly outputting more, and that's assuming you're not burning it.
In the case where you're making methane from atmospheric CO2 and then burning it, it's just returning the same CO2 back, which per the article is carbon neutral.
In the case where you're making methane from atmospheric CO2 and then burning it, it's just returning the same CO2 back, which per the article is carbon neutral.
More like a few centuries, methane's global warming potential after 500 years (GWP-500) is still 7.95.
The issue with burning is that methane can leak during transport.
The issue with burning is that methane can leak during transport.
I stand corrected: did the maths wrong. Centuries it is.
There's a big difference in scale between "burning hydrocarbons to heat and power much of the world" (which includes leakage from fossil fuel drilling) and "we make some methane to be almost completely consumed and there are some leaks".
Their minimalist website is awesome: https://terraformindustries.com/ complete with plain text chemical equations.
"Why does our website look like this? At TI we believe we can change the world by displacing fossil hydrocarbon production at global scale. Like our website, our machines are simple so we can build millions of them as quickly as possible. Our website embodies our cultural commitment to allocating resources where they solve the most important problems."
"Why does our website look like this? At TI we believe we can change the world by displacing fossil hydrocarbon production at global scale. Like our website, our machines are simple so we can build millions of them as quickly as possible. Our website embodies our cultural commitment to allocating resources where they solve the most important problems."
I particularly love this:
> Are you an excellent recruiter? We get a lot of inbounds. To help us qualify your ability to match our needs, please send us your strongest candidate, a singular champion, as an exemplar of your talent hunting skill.
After a lifetime of doing HR software this sparks thoughts about a scoreboard/ranking system for agencies with exactly this kind of "you've got one chance - don't blow it" scenario. Maybe once you've provided 5 great candidates you're allowed a dud or two.
> Are you an excellent recruiter? We get a lot of inbounds. To help us qualify your ability to match our needs, please send us your strongest candidate, a singular champion, as an exemplar of your talent hunting skill.
After a lifetime of doing HR software this sparks thoughts about a scoreboard/ranking system for agencies with exactly this kind of "you've got one chance - don't blow it" scenario. Maybe once you've provided 5 great candidates you're allowed a dud or two.
To me that just sounds like “we don’t want to pay you anything but do all the work for us anyways”. Is it supposed to be some tongue in cheek way of saying “fuck off if you’re a recruiter we don’t give a shit”? Or are they instead asking for a historical example of a good hire you facilitated?
It’s akin to saying “Oh you’re a systems software engineer? Prove it by designing and implementing our entire system for us, we won’t pay you for it, we just want to know you can do it”.
It’s akin to saying “Oh you’re a systems software engineer? Prove it by designing and implementing our entire system for us, we won’t pay you for it, we just want to know you can do it”.
It's not akin to that at all. External recruiters are typically paid for placement (i.e. they get a commission paid on a hired employee after they're hired, typically 20–30% of base salary). There are good ones, but a non-trivial portion are just cold-email spamming everyone whose LinkedIn profile looks even remotely like it might match the jobs they're recruiting for and forwarding on anyone who replies.
For a company/hiring manager, one great candidate a month is far more valuable than a few dozen ones who aren't even close to matching the role. They're not saying "do the work for us", they're saying "if you want us to take your sourcing seriously, send us quality, not quantity."
For a company/hiring manager, one great candidate a month is far more valuable than a few dozen ones who aren't even close to matching the role. They're not saying "do the work for us", they're saying "if you want us to take your sourcing seriously, send us quality, not quantity."
I don't think it's a fuck off message at all. That would be just "fuck off". Why encourage recruiters if you didn't want to deal with them?
To me it says "don't just shotgun me with every rando candidate you have - I'll give you one chance, make it count". It's exactly the sort of thing you might say to a pushy recruiter you met at the bar who wants in to your business. To succeed, they must a) have a good candidate and b) understand your business (so they know that candidate is right for you).
And I'd say there's an enormous difference between what a software engineer does (spend months or years designing and implementing a system that is for a single "customer") to what a recruiter does (spend 1 hours of conversations/emails in qualifying a candidate who can be shopped out to any of a number of customers.).
To me it says "don't just shotgun me with every rando candidate you have - I'll give you one chance, make it count". It's exactly the sort of thing you might say to a pushy recruiter you met at the bar who wants in to your business. To succeed, they must a) have a good candidate and b) understand your business (so they know that candidate is right for you).
And I'd say there's an enormous difference between what a software engineer does (spend months or years designing and implementing a system that is for a single "customer") to what a recruiter does (spend 1 hours of conversations/emails in qualifying a candidate who can be shopped out to any of a number of customers.).
But if the recruiter has already gone through the work of vetting the candidate, why would the company not just talk to the candidate directly and “cut out the middleman”, so to speak? What guarantee does the recruiter have that providing the company this holy grail candidate will be met with anything more than “wow good eye, thanks!”
That's not usually how business works. Many reasons, but talent is still hard to find and employers don't want to piss off someone who can find staff for them. And it's likely against the agreement the recruiter has with the candidate for the candidate to go direct to the employer.
That sounds hilariously out of touch. Like "15 years experience required, rockstar developer, entry level position, passion not salary". No, you are not that special and I will send a "champion" to a much better employer, thanks.
I've fixed the letter A in their logo: https://gist.github.com/smotesko/ac65667cbc748a72ecddb350d69...
This is basically https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
But you know what, http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
They already have a style element in there. The whole thing becomes readable by just adding a width property. Much better when centered. Done.
But you know what, http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
They already have a style element in there. The whole thing becomes readable by just adding a width property. Much better when centered. Done.
[deleted]
“Like our machines, our website looks awful on a phone.”
Someone could’ve spent literally 5 minutes making this look reasonable on the world’s most popular web browsing device form facto, whilst still retaining the site’s retro virtue signalling aesthetic, AND it wouldn’t have taken away from their ‘core mission’ or whatever.
If you don’t care, don’t have a website at all.
Someone could’ve spent literally 5 minutes making this look reasonable on the world’s most popular web browsing device form facto, whilst still retaining the site’s retro virtue signalling aesthetic, AND it wouldn’t have taken away from their ‘core mission’ or whatever.
If you don’t care, don’t have a website at all.
On my phone the website looks essentially identical to how it looks on my desktop browser.
Does it look different on yours. It's just a plaintext website with white text on a black background and it's fast to load and easy to read for me. What's wrong with it?
Does it look different on yours. It's just a plaintext website with white text on a black background and it's fast to load and easy to read for me. What's wrong with it?
The text is too small to read on a phone without scrolling sideways.
Sometimes the children really are wrong.
Unstated benefit of the website is it repels the right people.
I only looked at the linked article and the homepage so maybe diagrams and such look worse, but those pages look fabulous on phone to me. I wish more sites looked like this one.
Who left you in charge?
using a phone to browse the web is really sad
Really exciting for Terraform to hit this mark. Hopefully true, and not an April 1st joke. Casey Handmer (founder) is a pretty interesting guy. He also helped with the initial analysis of the crackle on the Vesuvius challenge scrolls that contributed to the breakthrough of reading the first passages from the scrolls. See https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/08/05/reading-ancien...
Highly recommend checking out more articles on the Terraform Industries blog and Casey's personal blog.
Highly recommend checking out more articles on the Terraform Industries blog and Casey's personal blog.
For more, I'd recommend Jason Carman's recently released videos on Terraform:
Overview and tour (~20min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NngCHTImH1g
Deeper Interview (~40min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekEdq6PhC0Q
Overview and tour (~20min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NngCHTImH1g
Deeper Interview (~40min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekEdq6PhC0Q
Thank you so much for these recommendations!
This is excellent and I highly recommend everybody watches both, starting with shorter one.
Casey, the CEO is super interesting and inspiring.
This is excellent and I highly recommend everybody watches both, starting with shorter one.
Casey, the CEO is super interesting and inspiring.
How will this address methane leakage, which is a substantial source of athmospheric greenhouse gas emissions? Converting Co2 to methane is not carbon neutral if/when leaked...
Natural gas is already stored in enormous quantities, and shipped around the world. Leakage appears to happen mostly in transit, or at poorly maintained installations. My guess is, it's a solvable problem.
Solvable, probably. Has oversight and a commitment to fix the issue? Not yet.
https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw?si=zbr_fr5TDK2EHT72 (Topical and recent take from a favorite YouTube channel of mine)
The industry provided (self reported) estimates of linkage is a little over 1%. The realistic value is over 2% and is at the point that coal and natural gas are likely equally bad for the environment given our current infrastructure.
Carbon neutral is a useful feature but doesn’t solve that problem.
I will say I am a fan of carbon neutral methane in place of the efforts to move to hydrogen combustion (this is a thing) and hydrogen for fuel cells since there isn’t a commercially viable carbon neutral version of that yet.
Making existing methane infrastructure cleaner and less leaky is better, in my mind, in the path to solar/wind/nuclear electrification than trying to capture the emissions of coal or retool petroleum infrastructure into hydrogen.
https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw?si=zbr_fr5TDK2EHT72 (Topical and recent take from a favorite YouTube channel of mine)
The industry provided (self reported) estimates of linkage is a little over 1%. The realistic value is over 2% and is at the point that coal and natural gas are likely equally bad for the environment given our current infrastructure.
Carbon neutral is a useful feature but doesn’t solve that problem.
I will say I am a fan of carbon neutral methane in place of the efforts to move to hydrogen combustion (this is a thing) and hydrogen for fuel cells since there isn’t a commercially viable carbon neutral version of that yet.
Making existing methane infrastructure cleaner and less leaky is better, in my mind, in the path to solar/wind/nuclear electrification than trying to capture the emissions of coal or retool petroleum infrastructure into hydrogen.
We have a bunch of new methane monitoring satellites, so it is very observable and enforceable.
I agree we can do it. It just has to be done. Aka give the EPA some teeth and require actual monitoring and enforcement rather than a self reported fantasy.
Exactly. Sure we can do it but the better question is are there any incentives to do any of it ?
The fact that there isn't and that we would have to create one through some sort of government policy should be worrying, especially now that we know that enforcement is in general the government asking a branch of industry to self-regulate... and that's exactly what's happening right now with the natural gas industry and its leaks.
The fact that there isn't and that we would have to create one through some sort of government policy should be worrying, especially now that we know that enforcement is in general the government asking a branch of industry to self-regulate... and that's exactly what's happening right now with the natural gas industry and its leaks.
> Carbon neutral is a useful feature but doesn’t solve that problem.
Uh... yes it does? A fossil-fuel free fuel production process that loses 2% to the atmosphere is still fifty times lower-impact (when considering output energy -- obviously production costs are different) than one that pulls 100% out of the ground.
Uh... yes it does? A fossil-fuel free fuel production process that loses 2% to the atmosphere is still fifty times lower-impact (when considering output energy -- obviously production costs are different) than one that pulls 100% out of the ground.
See the video I linked or the other commenters with references that Methane is a higher contributor to global warming than CO2 by 30x. It’s not about the carbon removed, it’s about the methane leaked.
Even granting that number (and the 2% loss above), Terraform still wins. It's just math, sorry.
I mean, sure: this might be bad on balance. But it's starting from a position of overwhelming assumed advantage. You need to come to the table with analysis actually showing it's bad, and all you have is "it's only about twice as good and not 50x better".
I mean, sure: this might be bad on balance. But it's starting from a position of overwhelming assumed advantage. You need to come to the table with analysis actually showing it's bad, and all you have is "it's only about twice as good and not 50x better".
Remember that “at least 2%” is what we know. We don’t know the real number because it’s self reported and reconnaissance show it’s over 2%. The EPA needs to actually audit and find the real values. It could be 3, 4, 5 percent, etc and work out just fine economically. LNG has a 5% overhead before you even ship it.
Working on the margins of climate improvement is not worthwhile when billions of dollars to change the means of production are on the line.
Also, this has nothing to do with this company. This is not their responsibility. They should definitely do what they’re doing, but it doesn’t solve the root problem here of leaking methane into the atmosphere.
The totality of leaked methane is not just the pipeline. There’s the last mile, LNG distribution, and accidents that are not part of that number.
Operating on “but it’s .5% better” is very shaky when past predictions of huge improvements in the climate, and then zero real oversight, is how we got here in the first place. See Obama term 1 embracing fracking vs Obama term 2 expressing concern vs Biden term 1 restricting further expansion due to the environmental impact.
Working on the margins of climate improvement is not worthwhile when billions of dollars to change the means of production are on the line.
Also, this has nothing to do with this company. This is not their responsibility. They should definitely do what they’re doing, but it doesn’t solve the root problem here of leaking methane into the atmosphere.
The totality of leaked methane is not just the pipeline. There’s the last mile, LNG distribution, and accidents that are not part of that number.
Operating on “but it’s .5% better” is very shaky when past predictions of huge improvements in the climate, and then zero real oversight, is how we got here in the first place. See Obama term 1 embracing fracking vs Obama term 2 expressing concern vs Biden term 1 restricting further expansion due to the environmental impact.
> Natural gas is already stored in enormous quantities, and shipped around the world. Leakage appears to happen mostly in transit
And if you can make natural gas from solar that means there will be more sources of natural gas and thus less transit. Right?
And if you can make natural gas from solar that means there will be more sources of natural gas and thus less transit. Right?
As others said, it mostly makes sense as seasonal energy storage. You could have these Terraform installations at storage sites, and also gas power plants in the same place.
Solvable, yes, but at least in Europe it is currently dirtier than anthracite coal due to leakages in lifetime emissions. Solvable but not solved, and we really should be looking for solutions.
Doesn't methane get reacted away in a relatively short (≈years) period of time?
No, that’s the problem. The GWPs usually quoted are over 20 years (GWP 81.2) and 100 years (27.9), but over 500 years it’s still around a GWP of 8.
Depends on your definition of a ‘long time’ but it’s not like it reaches the low single digits even after 500 years…
Depends on your definition of a ‘long time’ but it’s not like it reaches the low single digits even after 500 years…
Atmospheric methane oxidizes into CO2 and water vapor. Then the CO2 hangs around for much longer...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Natural_si...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Natural_si...
yes eventually, but until it does it is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2
It kind of does, but calculating its actual lifetime or warming effect is tricky. This post explains it quite nicely: https://climateer.substack.com/p/methane-lifetime
It converts to more CO2, and is also worse than CO2 during the short time
Which is irrelevant if the input carbon was atmosphere sourced anyway.
no, it isn't. Over the course of a few decades, a kilogram of methane has the greenhouse impact of ~50 kilograms of CO2 because of the different absorption modes methane has that CO2 doesn't. If terraform leaks more than a few percent of their product into the atmosphere from carelessness (who cares about tracking such a low value commodity?) Then this is worse than just leaving the CO2 in the atmosphere. I really wish they'd address this fact more. Some possibilities:
-The hydrogen half is still a great way to make hydrogen for industrial processes
-The methane can be used on site of production for organic chem feedstocks
-Many new rockets are using methane as their fuel, using it at point of origin instead of transporting through leaky pipelines and trucks.
Any analysis along these lines would be reassuring that this isn't going to be a net-negative, climate wise.
-The hydrogen half is still a great way to make hydrogen for industrial processes
-The methane can be used on site of production for organic chem feedstocks
-Many new rockets are using methane as their fuel, using it at point of origin instead of transporting through leaky pipelines and trucks.
Any analysis along these lines would be reassuring that this isn't going to be a net-negative, climate wise.
[deleted]
You beat me to it, because I was going to say the same thing; wouldn't it only be carbon neutral if you had some means of guaranteeing that there's no leaks? It seems like converting CO2 to methane could actually make things worse...
If we're converting CO₂ that already exists in the atmosphere, how could it make things worse?
Isn't problem making new CO₂ from burning fossil fuels, not converting existing Co2 into other things?
Isn't problem making new CO₂ from burning fossil fuels, not converting existing Co2 into other things?
Methane is a 30x stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. So if 4% of the converted methane leaked into the atmosphere, you would be worse off (from a climate heating perspective) than if you had done nothing.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/...
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/...
Ok thanks.
Well we're super fucked then because I've read that all the freaking / coal seam gas infra leaks million of tons of methane every year.
Well we're super fucked then because I've read that all the freaking / coal seam gas infra leaks million of tons of methane every year.
30x strong on what measurement? Per molecule?
How much CO2 is Terraform Industries pulling from the atmosphere to create that 4% of methane that might be leaking?
How much CO2 is Terraform Industries pulling from the atmosphere to create that 4% of methane that might be leaking?
>>...on what measurement?
By CO2 equivalence in the context of greenhouse gas potential [1]. And, the 30X factor is only valid if you look over scales of atmospheric persistence of 100yrs. If you look at scales of 10years (the amount of time methane persists, the GHG potential strength a over 80X.
Liquid (Cryogenic) natural gas tankers and storage emit "boiloff" gas. Some of this can be burned in the 'dual fuel' propulsion engines when combined with a small amount of diesel "pilot" fuel, but not all and I'm uncertain at what quantity. Even engines that burn NG gave methane "leak by" that escapes into the atmosphere. It's not great, and no, nobody is enforcing containment via satellites at the LNG shipping level (despite a comment to the company trary above).
Hydrogen production is a much better option for dense energy storage option.
1.) https://climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/co2-equivalent...
By CO2 equivalence in the context of greenhouse gas potential [1]. And, the 30X factor is only valid if you look over scales of atmospheric persistence of 100yrs. If you look at scales of 10years (the amount of time methane persists, the GHG potential strength a over 80X.
Liquid (Cryogenic) natural gas tankers and storage emit "boiloff" gas. Some of this can be burned in the 'dual fuel' propulsion engines when combined with a small amount of diesel "pilot" fuel, but not all and I'm uncertain at what quantity. Even engines that burn NG gave methane "leak by" that escapes into the atmosphere. It's not great, and no, nobody is enforcing containment via satellites at the LNG shipping level (despite a comment to the company trary above).
Hydrogen production is a much better option for dense energy storage option.
1.) https://climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/co2-equivalent...
Some of Terraform's production will leak, the most of it will be burned, so the real outcome is a little more methane in athmosphere.
Yes if you're considering the terms 'carbon neutral' at face value; but in terms of global warming, methane traps a lot more heat per carbon atom
I think the point is that methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so if leaked, the net greenhouse impact is greater than that of the original CO2 that went into the process
Because methane is worse than co2 as a greenhouse gas
Methane has a much shorter atmospheric half life than CO2-- years as opposed to millennia. It does end up getting oxidized into CO2 and H2O, just not nearly as quickly as when it's burned.
Leaks would happen to a small degree, but since a leak represents money drifting away there's a strong incentive to fix them. Methane leaks of any size are fairly easy to detect. There's been an effort to put up satellites for this purpose.
If using this technology helps us to phase out fossil fuels, it would be a huge net win. This could effectively let us repurpose all our existing natural gas storage, transport, and generation infrastructure into a battery to store surplus renewable or off-peak nuclear energy.
This could also allow renewable energy to be shipped as LNG, allowing the gigantic amounts of solar power in places like the Sahara to be harnessed and exported. The only other way to do this is extremely long distance superconducting or incredibly high voltage transmission lines that would probably be more expensive and very vulnerable.
Leaks would happen to a small degree, but since a leak represents money drifting away there's a strong incentive to fix them. Methane leaks of any size are fairly easy to detect. There's been an effort to put up satellites for this purpose.
If using this technology helps us to phase out fossil fuels, it would be a huge net win. This could effectively let us repurpose all our existing natural gas storage, transport, and generation infrastructure into a battery to store surplus renewable or off-peak nuclear energy.
This could also allow renewable energy to be shipped as LNG, allowing the gigantic amounts of solar power in places like the Sahara to be harnessed and exported. The only other way to do this is extremely long distance superconducting or incredibly high voltage transmission lines that would probably be more expensive and very vulnerable.
>Leaks would happen to a small degree, but since a leak represents money drifting away there's a strong incentive to fix them.
This is true of existing natural gas infrastructure, and yet...
This is true of existing natural gas infrastructure, and yet...
This must mean there isn't a strong incentive to fix them.
Let some cheap gas in the atmosphere or invest in costly detection systems and qualified workforce ?
Let some cheap gas in the atmosphere or invest in costly detection systems and qualified workforce ?
Actually there's a project underway to build a 4000km HVDC line from Morocco to the UK: https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/
I thought it was a pipe dream but has got some fairly big backers now and does seem to be moving along.
I thought it was a pipe dream but has got some fairly big backers now and does seem to be moving along.
Even if it all leaks out, you're still back at 0 essentially.
No, because methane is worse than CO2. Anyway, replacing fossil methane with synthetic is strictly better so the leaks are irrelevant.
Put a terraformer next to every leak to suck it back out of the air!
In a similar vein, what if producing natural gas this way makes it cheap enough that companies choose to just vent it off when pursuing other fossil fuels.
Wouldn't putting the execs of these companies in jail be an easy legal solution?
Yes I think you're touching on the real potential problem here which is that natural gas is many times a byproduct of petroleum extraction, for which we found a use/market.
I grew up in Alberta and there were already gas flares all over the place in the forest at the various oil wells that dot the landscape in the foothills.
I hope the economics of this work out, but I worry it will either just lead to flaring at drill sites or would not be pursued because it can't compete on cost.
At the same time, if you're e.g. Germany and have a gas shortage, and now you can just make it domestically using excess renewable power, and not rely on LNG or Russia... Amazing.
I grew up in Alberta and there were already gas flares all over the place in the forest at the various oil wells that dot the landscape in the foothills.
I hope the economics of this work out, but I worry it will either just lead to flaring at drill sites or would not be pursued because it can't compete on cost.
At the same time, if you're e.g. Germany and have a gas shortage, and now you can just make it domestically using excess renewable power, and not rely on LNG or Russia... Amazing.
I don't see them patching over refinery methane leaks guerilla-style if that's what you're asking.
I've been watching a YouTube channel named Climate Town that recently did a video talking about natural gas, and leakage was a focus point in the video. It's like a documentary-style comedy channel, and I quite enjoy both the content and the format. It reminds me a bit of Jon Stewart and John Oliver.
Video link: https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw
Video link: https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw
This was my thought, methane is much worse than carbon when not burned, but just released. Any claims of carbon neutrality that rely on assuming perfect storage and transport without leakage are fantasy.
If anything, when you are calling it "easily transportable" at the same time, as they do, you are actively misleading. You can't have both: it's either easily transportable and you are accepting a bunch of methane released (and thus terrible for climate change), or it's carbon neutral and you are baking in the cost of making sure it doesn't leak in transport/storage (and thus not easily transportable). They are having their cake and eating it too by claiming both.
If anything, when you are calling it "easily transportable" at the same time, as they do, you are actively misleading. You can't have both: it's either easily transportable and you are accepting a bunch of methane released (and thus terrible for climate change), or it's carbon neutral and you are baking in the cost of making sure it doesn't leak in transport/storage (and thus not easily transportable). They are having their cake and eating it too by claiming both.
I'd be interested in a quantitative analysis here. Methane is much worse, but sunlight has broken most of it down after a decade or so. CO2 is comparatively forever.
Presumably there's a point where the lines cross and leaking green methane is still a win. I guess it just comes down to where those lines cross and whether we deem that an acceptable goal.
Presumably there's a point where the lines cross and leaking green methane is still a win. I guess it just comes down to where those lines cross and whether we deem that an acceptable goal.
Sunlight breaks methane down into CO2, so I don’t think there’s much of a win there.
But that methane "started" as CO2 in the atmosphere, so after the breakdown happens you're carbon neutral. Carbon capture and storage are still relevant topics, but "stop making the problem worse" is a good start.
If we all switched to still-leaky synthetic methane today, things would continue getting worse only until the atmospheric breakdown rate equalled the leak rate. That's still a decade of things getting worse, but it's possible that the alternatives are even more problematic.
I'm not saying it's the right or wrong path, I haven't done that analysis, I'm just saying that approaches to it could use a bit more pragmatism.
If we all switched to still-leaky synthetic methane today, things would continue getting worse only until the atmospheric breakdown rate equalled the leak rate. That's still a decade of things getting worse, but it's possible that the alternatives are even more problematic.
I'm not saying it's the right or wrong path, I haven't done that analysis, I'm just saying that approaches to it could use a bit more pragmatism.
Of course there is. CO2 and methane are not equally bad, methane is about 100x worse initially. After about 60-70 years the lines cross and the impact of a tonne of methane released is less than a tonne of CO2 released at the same date.
> After about 60-70 years the lines cross
Methane's global warming potential is estimated to be ten times CO2 after 500 years [1].
> and the impact of a tonne of methane released is less than a tonne of CO2 released at the same date.
A ton of methane released into the atmosphere breaks down into 2.75 tons of CO2 [2]. There is no possible way that this statement can be true.
[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6..., Table 7.15 (page 1017)
[2] Simple stoichiometry: CH4 (weighing ~16 g/mol) breaks down into CO2 (weighing ~44 g/mol) at a 1:1 ratio. 44/16 is 2.75.
Methane's global warming potential is estimated to be ten times CO2 after 500 years [1].
> and the impact of a tonne of methane released is less than a tonne of CO2 released at the same date.
A ton of methane released into the atmosphere breaks down into 2.75 tons of CO2 [2]. There is no possible way that this statement can be true.
[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6..., Table 7.15 (page 1017)
[2] Simple stoichiometry: CH4 (weighing ~16 g/mol) breaks down into CO2 (weighing ~44 g/mol) at a 1:1 ratio. 44/16 is 2.75.
Seems I misinterpreted. The lines that cross are radiative forcing, not GWP.
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20150116044523/https://www.see.e...
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20150116044523/https://www.see.e...
Wow that table is over my head, I spent a fair bit of time trying to unwind the acronyms but I gave up.
Can you help me understand how a gas with a lifetime of 11.8 years is having a different impact on the climate at 500 years than it did at say... 11.8 years? That's 488.2 years of being in the same state as where it started prior to the carbon capture that made the CH4.
Can you help me understand how a gas with a lifetime of 11.8 years is having a different impact on the climate at 500 years than it did at say... 11.8 years? That's 488.2 years of being in the same state as where it started prior to the carbon capture that made the CH4.
1. 11.8 years is a halflife, not a "all the methane is gone after 11.8 years" lifetime.
2. Methane doesn't just warm the atmosphere up a little bit and then disappear with no side effects. In addition to carbon dioxide, methane decomposition creates ozone and water vapor, which are both greenhouse gases. The additional heating effects of these decomposition byproducts are also included in the global warming potential calculations.
3. We care about cumulative effects over time. GWP is "how much additional heat will the atmosphere absorb because of this gas over X amount of time", scaled relative to carbon dioxide (so CO2 always has a GWP of 1). Methane's GWP-20 is about 80, which means that if I release one ton of methane today, over the next 20 years it will absorb about as much heat as if I had released 80 tons of CO2 instead. The longer the time frame the less bad methane looks, because it mostly decomposes, but even over a 500 year time frame releasing 1 ton of methane absorbs as much additional heat as if you had released 10 tons of CO2 instead. GTP is similar to GWP except it's about how much global average temperatures will rise instead of how much heat is absorbed.
4. If you can create methane out of atmospheric CO2 for free, you can subtract 2.75 from each of the GWP numbers for methane (since you remove 2.75 tons of CO2 to create one ton of methane). This is essentially what the table is showing on the CH4-non fossil line (notice each of the GWPs on this line is 2.8 less than on the CH4-fossil line).
-----
Imagine I had a magical gas called timelockium. It is not a greenhouse gas (no radiative forcing), but after exactly 10 years it decomposes to an equal mass of CO2 with no other byproducts.
The GWP-10 for this gas would be zero: over the first ten years, releasing a ton of timelockium is equivalent (in terms of heat absorbed by the atmosphere) to releasing zero tons of CO2.
The GWP-20 for this gas would be 0.5: over the first twenty years, releasing a ton of timelockium is equivalent to releasing 0.5 tons of CO2. This is because it does nothing for the first ten years, and then for the next ten years it is just CO2 [1].
For longer time frames, the GWP of timelockium would approach 1. Over 500 years, emitting a ton of timelockium would be nearly equivalent (0.98) to emitting a ton of CO2.
---
Now I have another magical gas, decayium. It is equivalent to CO2 for 10 years and then magically disappears. Again it has no other side effects or byproducts.
The GWP-10 of decayium would be 1--over the first 10 years it's identical to CO2. Over the next ten years it contributes nothing to warming, so the GWP-20 would be 0.5. For longer time frames the GWP of decayium would approach 0. the GWP-500 would be 0.02.
---
Superdecayium is like decayium except much worse. It's equivalent to 100x as much CO2 for the first ten years and then magically disappears with no side effects or byproducts. The GWP-10 is 100. The GWP-20 is 50. The GWP-500 is 2.
This last scenario is more analogous to methane, except methane chemistry is much more complicated, with gradual decay and byproducts that are also greenhouse gases. Like superdecayium, methane's GWP decreases over longer time intervals, but even over 500 years it is still worse than an equivalent mass of CO2. ---
[1] For the sake of simplicity I'm ignoring CO2 dynamics here, assuming it's just static in the atmosphere.
2. Methane doesn't just warm the atmosphere up a little bit and then disappear with no side effects. In addition to carbon dioxide, methane decomposition creates ozone and water vapor, which are both greenhouse gases. The additional heating effects of these decomposition byproducts are also included in the global warming potential calculations.
3. We care about cumulative effects over time. GWP is "how much additional heat will the atmosphere absorb because of this gas over X amount of time", scaled relative to carbon dioxide (so CO2 always has a GWP of 1). Methane's GWP-20 is about 80, which means that if I release one ton of methane today, over the next 20 years it will absorb about as much heat as if I had released 80 tons of CO2 instead. The longer the time frame the less bad methane looks, because it mostly decomposes, but even over a 500 year time frame releasing 1 ton of methane absorbs as much additional heat as if you had released 10 tons of CO2 instead. GTP is similar to GWP except it's about how much global average temperatures will rise instead of how much heat is absorbed.
4. If you can create methane out of atmospheric CO2 for free, you can subtract 2.75 from each of the GWP numbers for methane (since you remove 2.75 tons of CO2 to create one ton of methane). This is essentially what the table is showing on the CH4-non fossil line (notice each of the GWPs on this line is 2.8 less than on the CH4-fossil line).
-----
Imagine I had a magical gas called timelockium. It is not a greenhouse gas (no radiative forcing), but after exactly 10 years it decomposes to an equal mass of CO2 with no other byproducts.
The GWP-10 for this gas would be zero: over the first ten years, releasing a ton of timelockium is equivalent (in terms of heat absorbed by the atmosphere) to releasing zero tons of CO2.
The GWP-20 for this gas would be 0.5: over the first twenty years, releasing a ton of timelockium is equivalent to releasing 0.5 tons of CO2. This is because it does nothing for the first ten years, and then for the next ten years it is just CO2 [1].
For longer time frames, the GWP of timelockium would approach 1. Over 500 years, emitting a ton of timelockium would be nearly equivalent (0.98) to emitting a ton of CO2.
---
Now I have another magical gas, decayium. It is equivalent to CO2 for 10 years and then magically disappears. Again it has no other side effects or byproducts.
The GWP-10 of decayium would be 1--over the first 10 years it's identical to CO2. Over the next ten years it contributes nothing to warming, so the GWP-20 would be 0.5. For longer time frames the GWP of decayium would approach 0. the GWP-500 would be 0.02.
---
Superdecayium is like decayium except much worse. It's equivalent to 100x as much CO2 for the first ten years and then magically disappears with no side effects or byproducts. The GWP-10 is 100. The GWP-20 is 50. The GWP-500 is 2.
This last scenario is more analogous to methane, except methane chemistry is much more complicated, with gradual decay and byproducts that are also greenhouse gases. Like superdecayium, methane's GWP decreases over longer time intervals, but even over 500 years it is still worse than an equivalent mass of CO2. ---
[1] For the sake of simplicity I'm ignoring CO2 dynamics here, assuming it's just static in the atmosphere.
That was very well explained, thank you.
At 11.8 years it seemed like it would be worth considering because the total amount of anthropogenic CH4 would find equilibrium relatively soon, and that would be better, at some point, than continuing to emit new CO2 year after year.
But at 80 years... all of that infrastructure that the synthetic methane people are excited to reuse... It'll have been decommissioned by then anyway. We might as well just hold out for synthetic gasoline or double down on electric everything (both, probably).
(This is all assuming that the leak problem is unsolvable. Not sure about that.)
----
You seem to know quite a bit about this stuff, so I have an unrelated question:
Things are "simple" in this case because a degree of climate temperature increase provides a basis for comparison between different gasses. But sometimes I find myself thinking about tradeoffs between climate heating and other ecological harms. Like, I should probably get a dishwasher because they use less water than washing by hand, but what's the carbon footprint of manufacturing a new dishwasher?
I suppose you could still standardize on a degree of heating, but you'd need to figure out how much wasted fresh water is equivalently harmful to a degree of heating. That's always going to be subjective to some degree, but not all subjects are created equal. I'd much rather just let some ecologists build consensus around a number and then take that number myself as an axiom.
Does such a thing exist?
At 11.8 years it seemed like it would be worth considering because the total amount of anthropogenic CH4 would find equilibrium relatively soon, and that would be better, at some point, than continuing to emit new CO2 year after year.
But at 80 years... all of that infrastructure that the synthetic methane people are excited to reuse... It'll have been decommissioned by then anyway. We might as well just hold out for synthetic gasoline or double down on electric everything (both, probably).
(This is all assuming that the leak problem is unsolvable. Not sure about that.)
----
You seem to know quite a bit about this stuff, so I have an unrelated question:
Things are "simple" in this case because a degree of climate temperature increase provides a basis for comparison between different gasses. But sometimes I find myself thinking about tradeoffs between climate heating and other ecological harms. Like, I should probably get a dishwasher because they use less water than washing by hand, but what's the carbon footprint of manufacturing a new dishwasher?
I suppose you could still standardize on a degree of heating, but you'd need to figure out how much wasted fresh water is equivalently harmful to a degree of heating. That's always going to be subjective to some degree, but not all subjects are created equal. I'd much rather just let some ecologists build consensus around a number and then take that number myself as an axiom.
Does such a thing exist?
Not that I’m aware of. Those kinds of decisions are different depending on where you are, too; some places need to worry about conserving fresh water much more than others, for example. I don’t think there’s a meaningful way to reduce everything to a single dimension.
> I don’t think there’s a meaningful way to reduce everything to a single dimension.
Not everything all at once, no. But given just two things, I figure there's a community of experts somewhere (maybe nearby even) that can balance them better than I can. I'd like a better way of somehow tapping into that.
Not everything all at once, no. But given just two things, I figure there's a community of experts somewhere (maybe nearby even) that can balance them better than I can. I'd like a better way of somehow tapping into that.
[deleted]
But that CO2 is then theoretically recaptured to make more fuel, right? At least if the carbon in the methane is sourced from the atmosphere in the first place.
You are conflating carbon neutral with global warming neutral.
One can make natural gas from CO2 captured from air and with hydrogen electrolysed form water. But then one has to ask: why not just use hydrogen directly and skip the inefficiency and cost of direct air capture of CO2 and of making methane? If one is dead set on making a carbon-containing synfuel, why methane and not something more storable, like methanol or higher hydrocarbons? Or, why not use the hydrogen to deoxygenate biomass (including waste biomass like paper) instead of laboriously collecting completely oxidized CO2 from air?
> why not just use hydrogen directly and skip the inefficiency and cost of direct air capture of CO2 and of making methane?
Broadly speaking, one key reason is that we've already got the infrastructure in place for using methane (and other hydrocarbons) whereas we do not have this for hydrogen.
Another point is that this really isn't an either-or proposition: if people want hydrogen, then the Terraform electrolyzer can in principle provide it.
Broadly speaking, one key reason is that we've already got the infrastructure in place for using methane (and other hydrocarbons) whereas we do not have this for hydrogen.
Another point is that this really isn't an either-or proposition: if people want hydrogen, then the Terraform electrolyzer can in principle provide it.
In the UK, our gas infrastructure actually used to be used for hydrogen[1], so a lot of it should still work if we were to switch back.
[1] Actually "town gas" which was a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. But I imagine not including the CO would not be a problem.
[1] Actually "town gas" which was a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. But I imagine not including the CO would not be a problem.
Neglecting the CO will absolutely be a problem. The material properties required for handling hydrogen are very different than those for other gasses, especially methane. Increasing the concentration of hydrogen significantly increases the difficulty.
But if the pressure of hydrogen was the same as the partial pressure of hydrogen before, wouldn't it be the same? I mean, if the materials could stand that partial pressure, why wouldn't they be able to stand that pressure in the absence of CO?
Unless of course that actually took it below atmospheric pressure so all the forces went in the opposite direction.
Unless of course that actually took it below atmospheric pressure so all the forces went in the opposite direction.
Because the economics of storing and transporting hydrogen are just not great. You need a lot of energy and infrastructure to do it. And while the density per kg is great. The density by volume is absolutely terrible because hydrogen is the smallest and lightest molecule. In liquid and gas form it's nearly 3x the volume of methane (for the same amount of energy). If you are transporting it in compressed gas form (like is common to supply hydrogen vehicles), it's about 18x the volume of diesel. Needless to say, this doesn't scale for things like supplying fuel stations. In liquid form, it's better but we're still talking 3x that of methane and 4-5x that of diesel. And to keep hydrogen liquid, you typically boil some of it off continuously: it doesn't keep for very long. Methane has the same problem except the temperatures and pressures are such that it's not an enormous amount. Liquid hydrogen has to be chilled to a few degrees Kelvin. If you ship it around, you'll lose some non trivial amounts over the whole journey.
Most hydrogen produced today is used onsite to produce something else for this reason. Moving it around just adds cost and complexity.
Terraform seems to have made some progress with hydrolizers. But before people start popping champagne bottles, their synthetic gas still is an order of magnitude more expensive than natural gas. So, the value proposition of replacing one of the cheapest (but dirty) fuels with a clean alternative that is much more expensive is limited. And of course the process of using the captured carbon, releases all of it back to the atmosphere. For most use cases, switching to synthetic gas would push those use cases into the deeply unprofitable region. I.e. you'd be considering many other alternatives before committing to that.
Green hydrogen at the price levels they are citing is ballpark getting to a stage where it could replace grey hydrogen and be worth the extra cost just to clean up existing uses of hydrogen. So, things like fertilizer production and other chemical processes. It's still more expensive but the difference could be bridged with subsidies and incentives.
Most hydrogen produced today is used onsite to produce something else for this reason. Moving it around just adds cost and complexity.
Terraform seems to have made some progress with hydrolizers. But before people start popping champagne bottles, their synthetic gas still is an order of magnitude more expensive than natural gas. So, the value proposition of replacing one of the cheapest (but dirty) fuels with a clean alternative that is much more expensive is limited. And of course the process of using the captured carbon, releases all of it back to the atmosphere. For most use cases, switching to synthetic gas would push those use cases into the deeply unprofitable region. I.e. you'd be considering many other alternatives before committing to that.
Green hydrogen at the price levels they are citing is ballpark getting to a stage where it could replace grey hydrogen and be worth the extra cost just to clean up existing uses of hydrogen. So, things like fertilizer production and other chemical processes. It's still more expensive but the difference could be bridged with subsidies and incentives.
The economics of storing hydrogen for long periods is just fine, compared to the economics of storing energy in batteries for long periods.
> compared to the economics of storing energy in batteries for long periods
Which doesn't say much, since practically nobody is doing that.
Which doesn't say much, since practically nobody is doing that.
Also the need for this long term storage is never quantified by those we need it. Put a twh number on it and the problem melts away. We're actually producing batteries by the twh per year now.
People (particularly nuke bros, including some at MIT) are doing it in their arguments purporting to show 100% renewable grids are not feasible.
> their synthetic gas still is an order of magnitude more expensive than natural gas
No it's not. their projections are for $10/kcf.
No it's not. their projections are for $10/kcf.
Another point others haven't made, which Terraform Industries points out: that using solar to make Natural Gas is going to be the cheapest form of natural gas production.
You can effectively short circuit the existing fossil fuel industry and pull the hydrocarbons from the air instead of the ground to stay carbon neutral. No need to re-invent industry.
You can effectively short circuit the existing fossil fuel industry and pull the hydrocarbons from the air instead of the ground to stay carbon neutral. No need to re-invent industry.
But if the main problem with industry is that it leaks then maybe you do still have to reinvent it.
Seriously, how do you know whether the supply chain is truly using one process to synthesize, vs. Adding/cutting with extracted fuel.
On the demand side, I imagine you'd be drawing fuel gas from a rig that's like, in your neighborhood, being powered by the solar panels on your roof. So you'd probably notice if there were tanker trucks showing up to fill it.
On the supply side, you could use things like methane sniffing satellites (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00600-z) to find cases of extraction and tax (at first) or arrest (eventually) those participating in it.
On the supply side, you could use things like methane sniffing satellites (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00600-z) to find cases of extraction and tax (at first) or arrest (eventually) those participating in it.
It doesn’t matter. This isn’t driven by consumer choice, it’s driven by production cost.
At least that’s the idea.
At least that’s the idea.
Other commenters have pointed out that hydrogen may not be feasible, but the other direction -- methanol or higher hydrocarbons, seems way more interesting. Storage and density are orders of magnitude easier, and since we're synthesizing it from atmospheric component we don't have to be concerned with contaminants, especially sulfur compounds, that plague higher hydrocarbon use.
Even better in a lot of ways would be to move to amorphous carbon; generating coal from atmospheric CO2 would be a huge win in transportability especially around safety and reliability dimensions.
Even better in a lot of ways would be to move to amorphous carbon; generating coal from atmospheric CO2 would be a huge win in transportability especially around safety and reliability dimensions.
Methane is pretty directly usable. Generally it costs some additional processing to produce higher hydrocarbons, which may be worth doing. But a system that makes pure methane can be used as the first part of some other, optional, system to make other hydrocarbons from that. You don't need additional equipment and processing facilities, which is important for Terraform Industries because it wants the sytem to be as cheap as possible.
Making methane is the cheapest way to get a transportable, useful output (hydrogen is notoriously difficult to move around, methane is a lot easier, and of course propane etc is a lot easier still).
Making methane is the cheapest way to get a transportable, useful output (hydrogen is notoriously difficult to move around, methane is a lot easier, and of course propane etc is a lot easier still).
It's quite hard to create heavy hydrocarbons in a controlled fashion.
That company is already full of technical risks. Adding an extra optional one would be crazy.
That said, if not them, somebody will probably crack that one problem in time. But it's best done as an independent development.
That said, if not them, somebody will probably crack that one problem in time. But it's best done as an independent development.
Hydrogen is much more difficult to store.
It escapes easily from any container you put it in and causes hydrogen embrittlement for any metal you try to use to contain it.
Apparently it can be stored in abandoned salt mines and we probably will use them for that eventually but you dont always have one of those handy.
It escapes easily from any container you put it in and causes hydrogen embrittlement for any metal you try to use to contain it.
Apparently it can be stored in abandoned salt mines and we probably will use them for that eventually but you dont always have one of those handy.
All those points are overstated.
My guess is that the answer is taking advantage of existing NG infrastructure.
> why not just use hydrogen directly and skip the inefficiency and cost of direct air capture of CO2 and of making methane?
Because hydrogen sucks. Specifically, storing it sucks.
You'll either compress or liquefy. That costs energy. It leaks and embrittles containers. One of the best ways of storing it in a stable manner is to combine with carbon atoms. Voila, natural gas.
Because hydrogen sucks. Specifically, storing it sucks.
You'll either compress or liquefy. That costs energy. It leaks and embrittles containers. One of the best ways of storing it in a stable manner is to combine with carbon atoms. Voila, natural gas.
You repeat some of the anti-hydrogen memes. Hydrogen is actually quite storable, certainly much more easily stored than energy in batteries. The cost of underground storage caverns for hydrogen is two orders of magnitude cheaper than the cost of batteries storing the same energy.
That's great, but how do I take one of these underground caverns around with me? :P
More seriously, I'm sure hydrogen will make a valuable contribution to the stationary grid-level energy storage situation. I'm not convinced about other applications.
More seriously, I'm sure hydrogen will make a valuable contribution to the stationary grid-level energy storage situation. I'm not convinced about other applications.
You don't, just as you don't take massive takes of compressed methane around with you (I know about CNG cars; they're not competitive with BEVs or liquid fueled cars.) Methane and hydrogen are competing in stationary applications.
Because we kinda know how to do natgas storage/transport/use at large scale, while we're not quite there on the hydrogen economy.
Higher complexity hydrocarbons likely have higher synthesis costs, and if you want to enter the market, you probably want your pricing as competitive as possible.
Same for the biomass approach.
It is ultimately an approach striving for as much simplicity as possible. That's firmly baked in their culture, too - see their home page :)
Higher complexity hydrocarbons likely have higher synthesis costs, and if you want to enter the market, you probably want your pricing as competitive as possible.
Same for the biomass approach.
It is ultimately an approach striving for as much simplicity as possible. That's firmly baked in their culture, too - see their home page :)
We use all that because natural gas is cheap. If hydrogen were cheaper than natural gas, we'd use that instead, at least for the industrial processes, and we'd switch away from combustion of a gas in the distributed residential/commercial applications.
And if wishes were horses... ;)
Kidding aside: That's the whole point. This is a project that can work without retooling infra all over the world. It's a drop-in replacement to get to carbon-neutral fuel.
This solves problems right now, with limited investment. This isn't about perfection. This is specifically about "works right now, cheap, no impact on the surrounding infrastructure".
(Also, strong doubts on "we'd use hydrogen instead", because storage is a beast. Until that's solved, there is no chance we'd use that)
Kidding aside: That's the whole point. This is a project that can work without retooling infra all over the world. It's a drop-in replacement to get to carbon-neutral fuel.
This solves problems right now, with limited investment. This isn't about perfection. This is specifically about "works right now, cheap, no impact on the surrounding infrastructure".
(Also, strong doubts on "we'd use hydrogen instead", because storage is a beast. Until that's solved, there is no chance we'd use that)
I don't believe their cost figures (look above; their 250/t for CO2 doesn't jibe), and I think electrification of most residential/commercial uses will be the superior solution (it's more efficient even if the electricity is produced by burning natural gas). Industrially, hydrogen is just fine. After all, industry already manipulates vast quantities of hydrogen.
The fossil fuel uses that are the most difficult to displace involve liquid fuels for transportation; natural gas has limited use there.
The fossil fuel uses that are the most difficult to displace involve liquid fuels for transportation; natural gas has limited use there.
I would guess because natural gas has hundreds of years of us handling it, and we already have a lot of things from power generators to domestic driers that consume it.
I'm more used to seeing the other Terraform on HN so I would have perhaps titled this "Terraform Industries..."
"Terraform stinks" seems to match both.
Natural gas doesn’t stink. It’s the additives that are there for exactly the reason to be able to smell it if there is a leak.
Why the hatred buddy? Does anyone on Hackernews like technology anymore?
Is not liking some software and making a mild joke about it considered hate now?
Yes
Rust or bust!
> "Terraform stinks" seems to match both.
As compared to what, IaC-wise?
As compared to what, IaC-wise?
Looks like a bad joke made by somebody confused about the composition of farts.
OpenTofu?
CDKTF. Or in other words, shit camouflaged by a pleasant clown outfit
What are some applications where its worth taking the highest grade energy (electricity) and turning it into a lower grade (eg liquid fuels), rather than electrifying the application?
Electricity to motion is significantly more efficient per input energy than burning fuel->heat-> gaseous expansion->drive a piston->convert to rotation chain.
What am I missing about this?
Electricity to motion is significantly more efficient per input energy than burning fuel->heat-> gaseous expansion->drive a piston->convert to rotation chain.
What am I missing about this?
Electricity (during sunlight hours) is not the highest grade of energy. California threw away ~32TWh of electricity last year, with renewables at only 19% penetration. You can't give power away at noon in April; this fact is a significant barrier to building new solar. (See "Learning is not enough" and other academic research on that topic.)
We also use fossil fuels as feedstocks for fertilizers and plastics, so there are very important power-to-X applications which don't involve inefficient combustion.
Something like Terraform would probably have to exist in order to transition away from fossil fuels.
(Source: I'm CEO at a startup with a very different take on the same problem.)
We also use fossil fuels as feedstocks for fertilizers and plastics, so there are very important power-to-X applications which don't involve inefficient combustion.
Something like Terraform would probably have to exist in order to transition away from fossil fuels.
(Source: I'm CEO at a startup with a very different take on the same problem.)
So the argument is take excess solar power turn it into a fuel for use at another time. It's another take on energy storage.
Question for me is how do you make the business model work. Is it a bet that lower cost to produce or bank that carbon tax on traditional fuels makes it more cost competitive? Or in your case is it that downstream users are looking to clean up their supply chain so will look into a contract for that benefit?
To your point everything can't be electricity or alternatively fuels have different use cases. And it's certainly important to have a diversity of power sources especially as fuel has different attributes then electricity.
Question for me is how do you make the business model work. Is it a bet that lower cost to produce or bank that carbon tax on traditional fuels makes it more cost competitive? Or in your case is it that downstream users are looking to clean up their supply chain so will look into a contract for that benefit?
To your point everything can't be electricity or alternatively fuels have different use cases. And it's certainly important to have a diversity of power sources especially as fuel has different attributes then electricity.
we aren't very good at storing electrical energy just yet, but we have a couple hundred years of experience storing and using hydrocarbons. I'm sure you can read the pdf someone posted up above and get their take on it.
Exactly, the tl;dr is energy storage, but I feel like it's sort of the Amazon approach. There was an interview where they asked Bezos why books as Amazon's first product, and his answer was basically:
"I read internet usage was going up by 2300 percent a year, so I decided to try and find a business that would make sense in that context."
"Cheap and ubiquitous solar power is coming, what products does the world need in that context to move away from extracting fossil fuels?"
Like a lot of things, current technology probably isn't there yet. But philosophically, if you wait for tech to catch up with your vision of the future, you might find yourself behind.
"I read internet usage was going up by 2300 percent a year, so I decided to try and find a business that would make sense in that context."
"Cheap and ubiquitous solar power is coming, what products does the world need in that context to move away from extracting fossil fuels?"
Like a lot of things, current technology probably isn't there yet. But philosophically, if you wait for tech to catch up with your vision of the future, you might find yourself behind.
Chemical fuels are dramatically easier to store and transport than electricity. Batteries are heavy and expensive compared to a tank. Time-dependent surplus electricity (which is basically a guaranteed situation on renewable-heavy grids) is basically free, which makes efficiency concerns approximately moot.
Instead of letting excess capacity go to waste, you use it to create chemical fuel, which can be used either just as storage to be later burned in a peaker plant, or you can use it as fuel in mobile settings (trucks, planes, ships, etc) where energy density is important.
Instead of letting excess capacity go to waste, you use it to create chemical fuel, which can be used either just as storage to be later burned in a peaker plant, or you can use it as fuel in mobile settings (trucks, planes, ships, etc) where energy density is important.
You’re missing density of storage. Gasoline and natural gas are in the region of 50 MJ/kg, while batteries are more like 10MJ/kg or lower. That 5x factor is what stops us from having electric airplanes.
10 MJ/kg is way overstated for batteries. Current Li-ion is around 1 MJ/kg (278 Wh/kg)
I actually think the reason we don't have electric airplanes has to do with traction vs propulsion.
Eg: spinning a jet engine to propel air backwards is very different than spinning a motor that is (through a series of solid objects) directly connect to the ground.
and while a battery is only 1/5th density, the motors on a tesla deliver 3x the range per energy compared to a prius. (not true break even, but impressive that one of the most efficient hybrid ICE cannot compare KWh for KWh to a battery + electric)
Eg: spinning a jet engine to propel air backwards is very different than spinning a motor that is (through a series of solid objects) directly connect to the ground.
and while a battery is only 1/5th density, the motors on a tesla deliver 3x the range per energy compared to a prius. (not true break even, but impressive that one of the most efficient hybrid ICE cannot compare KWh for KWh to a battery + electric)
No it's just energy density. Hydrocarbon fuels have more. There's also the benefit that getting lighter as you expend fuel increases range (batteries don't meaningfully change mass when they discharge).
Nothing about electric powertrains causes any problems here: it's just hydrocarbon fuel is more energy dense. It's not inconceivable you could build a hybrid electric aircraft if a suitably high power hydrocarbon fuel cell was developed, since removing the combustion stages from a jet engine would simplify the design considerably.
Nothing about electric powertrains causes any problems here: it's just hydrocarbon fuel is more energy dense. It's not inconceivable you could build a hybrid electric aircraft if a suitably high power hydrocarbon fuel cell was developed, since removing the combustion stages from a jet engine would simplify the design considerably.
- heating a zillion legacy homes using existing gas pipelines
- running all the existing fertilizer and other chemical plants
- gas peakers/backups for resiliency. Gas storage is much cheaper than batteries.
Even if all new construction is electric, we have decades of infrastructure built around gas. Replacing the furnace in every German house with a heat pump just isn't going to happen in 10 years.
- running all the existing fertilizer and other chemical plants
- gas peakers/backups for resiliency. Gas storage is much cheaper than batteries.
Even if all new construction is electric, we have decades of infrastructure built around gas. Replacing the furnace in every German house with a heat pump just isn't going to happen in 10 years.
> - heating a zillion legacy homes using existing gas pipelines
They dont have electricity to heat with?
> - running all the existing fertilizer and other chemical plants
This takes hydrogen gas from the nat gas, why not just use the electricity for hydrolysis
I think other commenters have said it well. It's really just a storage mechanism. Waste daytime solar for use at non-peak solar production
They dont have electricity to heat with?
> - running all the existing fertilizer and other chemical plants
This takes hydrogen gas from the nat gas, why not just use the electricity for hydrolysis
I think other commenters have said it well. It's really just a storage mechanism. Waste daytime solar for use at non-peak solar production
Half of German homes use gas heat. Replacing half the furnaces in Germany will take a loooong time.
My point isn't efficiency, but the size of the installed plant. I fully expect new infrastructure will use more electricity. But we have accumulated trillions of dollars of infrastructure using natural gas over more than a century. There is absolutely no way we are going to replace it all in 10 years.
My point isn't efficiency, but the size of the installed plant. I fully expect new infrastructure will use more electricity. But we have accumulated trillions of dollars of infrastructure using natural gas over more than a century. There is absolutely no way we are going to replace it all in 10 years.
Seasonal storage of energy is likely only practical in fuel form. Also, there is no easy pathway to electricity to high temperature heat.
I'm guessing you mean high temperature + high energy (ie lots of watts). Cause lasers can do high temp rn, right?
Yes
The only way a technology like this will help get us to carbon zero is using it in places where there is not much hope of replacing electricity. While small elective airplanes have been demonstrated, it doesn't seem like we will be able to build, in the next couple of decades, large electric airplanes that can substantially replace current fuel powered ones.
This would require the additional step of converting methane to jet fuel, but that is also a technology under development.
That said, I personally think, in practice technology like this will only delay getting to net zero, because the existence of this will disincentivize investments in electrification. I recall Sun Tzu's claim that a force completely surrounded will fight fiercely, but if you give a way out, it will look to escape or retreat.
This would require the additional step of converting methane to jet fuel, but that is also a technology under development.
That said, I personally think, in practice technology like this will only delay getting to net zero, because the existence of this will disincentivize investments in electrification. I recall Sun Tzu's claim that a force completely surrounded will fight fiercely, but if you give a way out, it will look to escape or retreat.
> I personally think, in practice technology like this will only delay getting to net zero, because the existence of this will disincentivize investments in electrification. I recall Sun Tzu's claim that a force completely surrounded will fight fiercely, but if you give a way out, it will look to escape or retreat.
I think you’re misapplying Sun Tzu’s lesson. An attempt to completely and immediately replace the fossil fuel industry will be met with fierce resistance, and thus be more likely to fail. Whereas a more gradual approach (like carbon neutral-ish green hydrogen) gives much of the industry around fossil fuels an opportunity to survive longer, and perhaps gives you a better chance of success.
Is this actually true? Maybe, maybe not. But that would seem to be the implication of Sun Tzu’s strategy.
I think you’re misapplying Sun Tzu’s lesson. An attempt to completely and immediately replace the fossil fuel industry will be met with fierce resistance, and thus be more likely to fail. Whereas a more gradual approach (like carbon neutral-ish green hydrogen) gives much of the industry around fossil fuels an opportunity to survive longer, and perhaps gives you a better chance of success.
Is this actually true? Maybe, maybe not. But that would seem to be the implication of Sun Tzu’s strategy.
You could theoretically run jet engines on directly on methane (liquid or not) - though I am not sure how much work would be required to refit an existing one for this purpose. Methane is already used for running the turbo-pumps in rocket engines like SpaceX's Raptor or Relativity's Aeon-R.
You'd be talking about liquid methane to get the energy density you want. Handling a cryofuel would be quite hard and you'd be redesigning everything to ensure it kept working.
Electricity/energy consumption of developing world is going to be at least twice today's value. Better this than coal
Energy density is much higher, which is important for applications such as aviation.
There are ships that move over one billion kWh of LNG around at a time.
At $100 to store a kWh of electrical energy, along with approximately ten times the cost to account for structures that can support and move the extra weight (that's AFTER allowing for less energy demanded in total)... shall I leave this as exercise to the reader?
At $100 to store a kWh of electrical energy, along with approximately ten times the cost to account for structures that can support and move the extra weight (that's AFTER allowing for less energy demanded in total)... shall I leave this as exercise to the reader?
Ok, so here you're referring to moving a lot of energy w/o wires/transmission lines? Is that a commonly needed thing?
South Korea, Japan, China say hello.
Much of the world by population and gdp is a ship ride away from their major energy suppliers. Japan imports about half their LNG from Australia. Next largest is Qatar.
There are no power lines between Australia and Japan.
Much of the world by population and gdp is a ship ride away from their major energy suppliers. Japan imports about half their LNG from Australia. Next largest is Qatar.
There are no power lines between Australia and Japan.
Right, but why rely on LNG when Nuclear sources could provide so much more energy and geo-political stability, and promising investment in other avenues (eg Thorium based) could make it even moreso?
Nuclear is better in many ways. It's a shame it costs an order of magnitude more than alternatives.
Interesting point,
A quick google suggests both possibilities that solar and nuclear are each cheaper depending on how big of a picture you're looking. (Capital, construction, storage for solar cause nuclear can run at night, storage for 25000 years for the waste etc).
Still, if moving a lot of (potential) heat energy from point to point is the goal, Uranium still seems to be the move compared to so many tankers of LNG -- just to burn it. Nuclear plants put off a ton of waste heat energy, and it can be at a very high temperature too (if designed and desired).
A quick google suggests both possibilities that solar and nuclear are each cheaper depending on how big of a picture you're looking. (Capital, construction, storage for solar cause nuclear can run at night, storage for 25000 years for the waste etc).
Still, if moving a lot of (potential) heat energy from point to point is the goal, Uranium still seems to be the move compared to so many tankers of LNG -- just to burn it. Nuclear plants put off a ton of waste heat energy, and it can be at a very high temperature too (if designed and desired).
check climate town last video on youtube.
Seasonal storage. Large amounts of gas can be stored underground.
If you are talking about thermodynamics, chemical energy is exactly of the same grade as electricity.
No thermodynamics. Like usefulness. Electricity can be uses for a lot of things. a mass heated to 50c is not, relatively, as useful. Plus low temp waste heat is abundant eg: from computing, or refrigeration, or exhaust pipes of engines.
Lack of sockets is likely the main one.
Then, lack of the long long cable to the nearest socket.
Then, lack of the long long cable to the nearest socket.
Time travel. It's very expensive to move electricity into the future. Batteries are very cheap when you look at dollars per watt of onboarding/offboarding the one way time machine, but when you look at it dollars per Wh it does not look as rosy anymore. Still worthwhile for short hops. But for longer trips, you want to look at $/Whh and then batteries are atrociously expensive. Seasons are a thing and time travel is hard, even if it's only one way.
While this is impressive to some degree I just today watched Climate Town’s “Natural Gas is Scamming America” (https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw) and the entire natural gas industry is tainted beyond belief for me now. It’s not like they were a positive thing in my view before, but on the whole natural gas seems to be just as if not more detrimental than coal for climate change mainly due to how much is leaked out but also how much energy it takes to ship natural gas to other countries. The idea of creating carbon neutral natural gas seems great, but can we maybe avoid holding energy in one of the most climate-change inducing gases out there?
> but also how much energy it takes to ship natural gas to other countries.
Something like this would reduce the need to transport it to other countries, since you can manufacture it anywhere you want. Right now we're limited to where we can pull fossil fuels out of the ground, which means that it has to be transported from one place to another. That's not the case with atmospheric extraction.
Something like this would reduce the need to transport it to other countries, since you can manufacture it anywhere you want. Right now we're limited to where we can pull fossil fuels out of the ground, which means that it has to be transported from one place to another. That's not the case with atmospheric extraction.
I feel the same vibe too about this. If methane leak is an issue, H2 leakage will be a bigger issue. It's far more prone to leakage and far more corrosive.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-021-01322-8
an interesting paper for you :)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-021-01322-8
an interesting paper for you :)
If the natural gas is captured from the atmosphere, a spill will be bad, but no worse than before the capture happened, right?
They're capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, if they leak methane back out to the atmosphere that's much, much worse. Over a 20-year period, methane has ~80x the warming potential of CO2.
Being realistic, we're going to put any CO2 we manage to pull out of the atmosphere (if we can do it at cost at all) on a balance sheet.
We already do this in various places. For instance, if you dedicate land to growing a forest in Germany to offset your carbon emissions, it is added to the emission trade balance of the country no matter if you intend for it or not - you can't offset.
Hamburg Airport tried to do this as a publicity stunt, and only later noticed they're doing nothing for the CO2 bottom line.
We already do this in various places. For instance, if you dedicate land to growing a forest in Germany to offset your carbon emissions, it is added to the emission trade balance of the country no matter if you intend for it or not - you can't offset.
Hamburg Airport tried to do this as a publicity stunt, and only later noticed they're doing nothing for the CO2 bottom line.
what kind of natural gas?
This is important to consider. The video is mostly a commentary on how CO2 is being handled while the methane released from fracking is largely ignored when evaluating if a well is carbon neutral. The video also argues that methane is much worse for the environment as a whole than CO2. I'm sympathetic to the argument, but I have a hard time believing that climate scientists have not already taken this into account with their calculations _somewhere_. Maybe I'm wrong, but at this point, the US is so far gone down the fracking/natural gas hole, I'm afraid backing out of it is almost untenable.
The best we can hope for is better capture, storage, and utilization strategies. If we can find a way to create a machine similar to the Terraform Industries model, but focused on methane capture, perhaps we can reabsorb/store that as well.
The best we can hope for is better capture, storage, and utilization strategies. If we can find a way to create a machine similar to the Terraform Industries model, but focused on methane capture, perhaps we can reabsorb/store that as well.
Methane leakage have been first estimated by the gas industry actors first. With no incentive to work on those leakage (no regulation) and a strong incentive to be "green" (it grant you money and good PR which is money), numbers can't be trusted.
That's why there are demands for regulations only after scientist looked over the shoulder of industrials. At the end, scientists often only look at things, the don't decide about regulations and economy.
Backing out would require a lot of courage, but not doing it put a serious threat to the efforts of keeping the climate change at a not-too-catastrophic level.
Talking about terraform, in 2011 in germany they did test renewable powered methane production via electrolysis and Sabatier process. I can't find any news about it, but it's exactly what terraform is doing.
Terraform claim to produce H2 at less than 2.5$/kg, but I find different numbers when looking at scientific publications (it's between 4.8-7.5$/kg).[0]
They also claim to produce from "air", but C02 capture is really poor and it's better to capture it from industrial plants. But anyway, it's not a big problem.
An other problem is the water cost of electrolysis.
[0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-021-01322-8
That's why there are demands for regulations only after scientist looked over the shoulder of industrials. At the end, scientists often only look at things, the don't decide about regulations and economy.
Backing out would require a lot of courage, but not doing it put a serious threat to the efforts of keeping the climate change at a not-too-catastrophic level.
Talking about terraform, in 2011 in germany they did test renewable powered methane production via electrolysis and Sabatier process. I can't find any news about it, but it's exactly what terraform is doing.
Terraform claim to produce H2 at less than 2.5$/kg, but I find different numbers when looking at scientific publications (it's between 4.8-7.5$/kg).[0]
They also claim to produce from "air", but C02 capture is really poor and it's better to capture it from industrial plants. But anyway, it's not a big problem.
An other problem is the water cost of electrolysis.
[0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-021-01322-8
Indeed, and they claim it is "easily transportable": it seems to be the two are mutually exclusive, if you are going to shove it into the existing systems that leak methane habitually, it's horrific for climate change.
[deleted]
Green hydrogen and other "e-fuels" are an attempt to keep the gas industries infrastructure alive and relevant. If you see someone break down the math it makes zero sense, it just sounds nice.
Keeping existing infrastructure is the whole beauty of it. Ships, pipelines, factories, supply chains that you can keep using if/until other technology replaces it.
It would be - if the math added up. But it mostly ends up being lobby work to lengthen the lifespan of industry investments.
[deleted]
Will the oil industry will copy the meat industry and say this is misleading consumers because it's actually artificial gas?
Did I miss it or does this not actually say what the cost of methane priced by them is?
I see H2, DC power, and CO2 DAC, costs but no total.
I see H2, DC power, and CO2 DAC, costs but no total.
Their whitepaper uses $10/kcf.
I have not done the math here in a long time, but as I understand it:
You could produce about 8KG of CH4 with 2KG of H2 and 6KG of C or 22KG of CO2.
At $250/MT would work out to about $5.50 and the 2kg of H2 would be $5 assuming $2.50/kg so lets say $10 for simplicity.
1kg of CH4 at STP is 1,396L (according to GPT since I'm lazy right now) which is about 50cf.
That's not even close to $10kcf (assuming that this means killo-cubic-feet which as a Canadian makes me cringe).
You could produce about 8KG of CH4 with 2KG of H2 and 6KG of C or 22KG of CO2.
At $250/MT would work out to about $5.50 and the 2kg of H2 would be $5 assuming $2.50/kg so lets say $10 for simplicity.
1kg of CH4 at STP is 1,396L (according to GPT since I'm lazy right now) which is about 50cf.
That's not even close to $10kcf (assuming that this means killo-cubic-feet which as a Canadian makes me cringe).
Interesting, let me try:
A tonne of CO2 is 12/44 C, or 273kg. So let's call it $1/kg because 250 ~= 273.
A kg of CH4 is 12/16 C and 4/16 H, so a kg is $0.75 for C + $2.50/4 for H = ~$1.40/kg.
https://www.epa.gov/cmop/updated-coal-mine-methane-units-con... says 1000 cubic feet of methane is 19.26 kg. Call it 20 because we're doing it in our head.
$1.40 * 20 = $28 / kcf.
A tonne of CO2 is 12/44 C, or 273kg. So let's call it $1/kg because 250 ~= 273.
A kg of CH4 is 12/16 C and 4/16 H, so a kg is $0.75 for C + $2.50/4 for H = ~$1.40/kg.
https://www.epa.gov/cmop/updated-coal-mine-methane-units-con... says 1000 cubic feet of methane is 19.26 kg. Call it 20 because we're doing it in our head.
$1.40 * 20 = $28 / kcf.
Arrrg, this is what I get for answering this while distracted, I did not multiply by 8.
So it was 400cf or 0.4kcf for $10, so yeah you are right. That's actually not terribly far off their white paper actually. It's not as good as current market prices $12/kcf but it is not so far off, particularly if you consider potential subsidies for capturing carbon.
Thanks for that.
So it was 400cf or 0.4kcf for $10, so yeah you are right. That's actually not terribly far off their white paper actually. It's not as good as current market prices $12/kcf but it is not so far off, particularly if you consider potential subsidies for capturing carbon.
Thanks for that.
On https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NngCHTImH1g he says the goal is $100/tonne carbon capture and $1/kg H2, which puts those inputs well under the $10/kcf leaving some margin for the cost of the sabatier.
Both processes are directly proportional to the cost of electricity and heat so assuming the thesis of decreasing solar costs holds true, it's a question of when not if.
Both processes are directly proportional to the cost of electricity and heat so assuming the thesis of decreasing solar costs holds true, it's a question of when not if.
Yeah that would be pretty amazing.
I assume the whitepaper missed details of production that they have since had to account for.
I'm quite curious what their cost is today.
I'm quite curious what their cost is today.
I see this, and I like how it sounds on the surface. But I can't help but raise an eyebrow when I see "carbon neutral". Got me wondering how they'll be delivering the gas, if they won't be using trucks or building other infra that uses fossil fuel-consuming equipment. If they actually have resolved this end-to-end, super great! But otherwise, I feel like they're still ignoring crucial externalities.
> Got me wondering how they'll be delivering the gas, if they won't be using trucks or building other infra that uses fossil fuel-consuming equipment.
Sounds like you’ve answered your own question.
Time for you to get to work on an end-to-end natural gas powered supply chain that can run on the natural gas they’re pulling out of thin air.
Lots of fun problems for you to solve. A lifetime of fulfilling work ahead.
Sounds like you’ve answered your own question.
Time for you to get to work on an end-to-end natural gas powered supply chain that can run on the natural gas they’re pulling out of thin air.
Lots of fun problems for you to solve. A lifetime of fulfilling work ahead.
Hah, interesting problems but already have my hands+brain full working on problems in my main area of interest.
One thing comes to mind: don't transport it. It's sitting right next to a solar power plant...one that shuts down at night. Why not store the gas locally and use it as a battery when the sun isn't shining?
You can run the trucks on liquified natural gas. Or run a natural gas power plant next to the Terraform module that can charge an electric truck's battery.
Couldn't these systems be built much closer to municipalities' distribution centers (compared to existing NG wells), and so require even less transportation than what currently exists?
Natural gas is just the beginning, they'll be able to make any hydrocarbon in time
Casey is also very bullish on Musk and his Mars plans. I wouldn‘t be surprised if half of the plan is to have the tech ready to build the methane generation infrastructure for Musk‘s Mars colony.
In fact he started this company after looking into how they're going to make gas when they get to Mars
There's a song about this already: https://music.apple.com/us/album/powered-by-renewables-ep/17...
"time to terraform" by Big Bear and the Sierra Serenaders
"time to terraform" by Big Bear and the Sierra Serenaders
[deleted]
If the CO2 concentrator could be minimized, it would make an excellent addition to HVAC systems - would minimize the need for outside fresh air if you could just capture the CO2 exhaust from human occupants and expel that. Could even have houses and offices with sub-atmospheric CO2 concentrations!
Let's hope they don't switch to the BSL license too
Last time I looked into this, Terraform's 1MW reactor can fill a normal LNG truck in 145 days of operation. Or if you prefer, 145 such reactors would be needed to fill one (1) LNG truck per day.
The work they're doing will help prove out DAC, moving it further down the tech adoption curve, which is good. The task of making methane from the air should be performed with multi-GW nuclear reactors, which produce full power 90% of the time they exist, and which can use heat instead of electrolysis to free hydrogen, which is more energetically efficient. The use of an extensive and intermittent power source which only produces electricity is a severe limitation here.
The work they're doing will help prove out DAC, moving it further down the tech adoption curve, which is good. The task of making methane from the air should be performed with multi-GW nuclear reactors, which produce full power 90% of the time they exist, and which can use heat instead of electrolysis to free hydrogen, which is more energetically efficient. The use of an extensive and intermittent power source which only produces electricity is a severe limitation here.
Would love to see nuclear do this, but the challenges to getting nuclear built are myriad. Regulatory burdens, cost to build reactors, painfully slow learning rate for nuclear reactor design and buildout.
Solar, while certainly not ideal, is comparatively trivial to build out. Functionally you buy and lay out cheap panels. Far smaller political challenges. Some friction around land use and interconnect, but compared to nuclear, orders of magnitude easier and the way forward seems clear with the existing political realities and economies of scale in action for solar panels.
Solar, while certainly not ideal, is comparatively trivial to build out. Functionally you buy and lay out cheap panels. Far smaller political challenges. Some friction around land use and interconnect, but compared to nuclear, orders of magnitude easier and the way forward seems clear with the existing political realities and economies of scale in action for solar panels.
The best part about using nuclear for fuel generation is that you get to sidestep the biggest problem with nuclear - when you build a power plant you want to build it near people (who may object on safety grounds), but you can build a DAC fuel generator way out in the middle of nowhere.
Even better, you could build your nuclear DAC fuel generator in an old natural gas field, where there's ready-made transportation infrastructure for your product to where it's needed!
Even better, you could build your nuclear DAC fuel generator in an old natural gas field, where there's ready-made transportation infrastructure for your product to where it's needed!
>The best part about using nuclear for fuel generation
The main point of this operation is to utilize free surplus energy from solar and wind to store fuel for days where solar and wind can't produce enough. Free-as-in-beer surplus, since the energy would otherwise be wasted or sold at negative prices, like what we have been seeing lately in certain markets.
Nuclear can always produce electricity, so converting to fuel has no benefits it's just a loss compared to using the electricity directly. Also, nuclear electricity is never free but always very expensive because you need a large amount of very highly educated people and expensive infrastructure to deal with it.
>you can build a DAC fuel generator way out in the middle of nowhere.
If things go very badly with a nuclear reactor, there's no such thing as a "middle of nowhere" that's far enough away. The fallout from Chernobyl made certain foods as far away as the arctic circle unsuitable for human consumption.
The main point of this operation is to utilize free surplus energy from solar and wind to store fuel for days where solar and wind can't produce enough. Free-as-in-beer surplus, since the energy would otherwise be wasted or sold at negative prices, like what we have been seeing lately in certain markets.
Nuclear can always produce electricity, so converting to fuel has no benefits it's just a loss compared to using the electricity directly. Also, nuclear electricity is never free but always very expensive because you need a large amount of very highly educated people and expensive infrastructure to deal with it.
>you can build a DAC fuel generator way out in the middle of nowhere.
If things go very badly with a nuclear reactor, there's no such thing as a "middle of nowhere" that's far enough away. The fallout from Chernobyl made certain foods as far away as the arctic circle unsuitable for human consumption.
Nuclear can always produce electricity, but spinning plants up and down takes time. More importantly, a nuclear plant has a design lifetime, and most of the cost comes from building the plant in the first place, not from the fuel. It therefore costs a lot of money to let a nuclear plant sit idle. Furthermore, building a small nuclear plant is almost as expensive as building a large one, because of the regulatory hurdles and the effort needed to design it. So not building a nuclear plant as big as you possibly can has a cost as well. The difficulty is that you then need a consumer capable of using all that excess power, which necessitates putting it next to large population centers, who are likely to complain about the risk of nuclear. Being able to build a large reactor out in the middle of nowhere, and be able to rely on always having a consumer for its power even if at a very low price would make it much more viable.
>most of the cost comes from building the plant in the first place, not from the fuel.
I don't think that's correct. The costs of handling spent fuel is ongoing for an unknown amount of time. Eventually the running costs add up.
The main storage site in the UK (which admittedly does more than just store waste) costs around USD 3 billion per year, basically as much as building a new nuclear plant every 5 years.
Then you have unforeseen events that can drastically change the calculations. Like the Asse II mine in Germany where a storage site started leaking and has to be relocated at an estimated cost of at least 3.7 billion euro over the coming decades. After that is completed, the relocated waste will continue to cost money to handle as well.
Such cost are generally NOT included, or has a fraction of the true liability included, in the cost estimates of nuclear power.
When you take such things into account it quickly becomes clear that nuclear is not nearly as cheap as many have been lead to believe, but instead very expensive and very heavily subsidized.
Consider also that even if it were cheap, it is strategically (both in a military sense and for reliability) a bad idea to have few large power plants instead of many smaller ones. The most recent nuclear reactor in the EU has had several emergency stops already and causes severe stress on the grid since it provides such a large percentage of the total power.
Having a geographically diverse set of solar and wind plants combined with local batteries, gas generators and small peak-handling gas plants has to be a better solution than nuclear power. More resilient, cheaper and faster to build, easier to maintain, not to mention a much more predictable total cost.
I don't think that's correct. The costs of handling spent fuel is ongoing for an unknown amount of time. Eventually the running costs add up.
The main storage site in the UK (which admittedly does more than just store waste) costs around USD 3 billion per year, basically as much as building a new nuclear plant every 5 years.
Then you have unforeseen events that can drastically change the calculations. Like the Asse II mine in Germany where a storage site started leaking and has to be relocated at an estimated cost of at least 3.7 billion euro over the coming decades. After that is completed, the relocated waste will continue to cost money to handle as well.
Such cost are generally NOT included, or has a fraction of the true liability included, in the cost estimates of nuclear power.
When you take such things into account it quickly becomes clear that nuclear is not nearly as cheap as many have been lead to believe, but instead very expensive and very heavily subsidized.
Consider also that even if it were cheap, it is strategically (both in a military sense and for reliability) a bad idea to have few large power plants instead of many smaller ones. The most recent nuclear reactor in the EU has had several emergency stops already and causes severe stress on the grid since it provides such a large percentage of the total power.
Having a geographically diverse set of solar and wind plants combined with local batteries, gas generators and small peak-handling gas plants has to be a better solution than nuclear power. More resilient, cheaper and faster to build, easier to maintain, not to mention a much more predictable total cost.
Intermittent, yes. Expensive, no.
It's just not.
It's a bit more expensive in the US because, hey, protectionism, but solar panels are now by far the cheapest source of electricity on Earth if you don't care when that electricity is delivered, and cheaper again if you're happy to have it in the Sahara or northern Australia.
Solar power is now so cheap it is hard to conceive of any way nuclear power could ever compete against it where its advantages (24-hour all-year power) aren't relevant.
Terraform's secret sauce is that they are designing their equipment to be cheap so it doesn't matter that they're only utilising it maybe 30% of the time.
It's just not.
It's a bit more expensive in the US because, hey, protectionism, but solar panels are now by far the cheapest source of electricity on Earth if you don't care when that electricity is delivered, and cheaper again if you're happy to have it in the Sahara or northern Australia.
Solar power is now so cheap it is hard to conceive of any way nuclear power could ever compete against it where its advantages (24-hour all-year power) aren't relevant.
Terraform's secret sauce is that they are designing their equipment to be cheap so it doesn't matter that they're only utilising it maybe 30% of the time.
1) Does this require that the atmosphere forever stay at the current CO2 concentration, or will it continue to work well if we manage to clean the atmosphere properly?
2) Does this also pave the way for more permanent CO2 cleanup of the atmosphere?
3) Since they have really economical extraction of H2, could they just ramp down the CO2 extraction and instead buy in CO2 emitted from industrial processes? I'm not sure if this is an interesting suggestion or not, since the CO2 goes into the atmosphere either way, but at least we would be getting two usages out of it.
2) Does this also pave the way for more permanent CO2 cleanup of the atmosphere?
3) Since they have really economical extraction of H2, could they just ramp down the CO2 extraction and instead buy in CO2 emitted from industrial processes? I'm not sure if this is an interesting suggestion or not, since the CO2 goes into the atmosphere either way, but at least we would be getting two usages out of it.
It's pretty amazing to have an actually carbon-neutral way to create natural gas.
"TL;DR: The future of energy is solar+batteries+synthetics."
Basically infinite energy with clean water as a byproduct, and all signs point to it being financially viable compared even to fossil fuels. It's like a dream. I can't wait to see a bunch of companies being successful in this area.
Basically infinite energy with clean water as a byproduct, and all signs point to it being financially viable compared even to fossil fuels. It's like a dream. I can't wait to see a bunch of companies being successful in this area.
> Our core innovation is the utilization of proven and well-understood industrial processes implemented within innovatively simple and cost-effective proprietary technology systems...
So they invented nothing, and put a nice package around existing tech?
I can see the use-case when combined with intermittent energy generator (e.g. : solar), but I am not really convinced by the rate of return, when compared to similar tech that do not emit greenhouse gases in case of failure (liquid salt, heated sand, ...)
I can see the use-case when combined with intermittent energy generator (e.g. : solar), but I am not really convinced by the rate of return, when compared to similar tech that do not emit greenhouse gases in case of failure (liquid salt, heated sand, ...)
They're putting a lot of effort into carefully not including easily comparable numbers on their website. There's numbers, they might be impressive for the technology, but where do they sit relative to commercial production?
It can be more but by how much? To me, the consumer, "renewable hydrocarbons" is worth a pretty substantial premium, but they're not enthusiastic to tell me what that is or where they think it's headed.
It can be more but by how much? To me, the consumer, "renewable hydrocarbons" is worth a pretty substantial premium, but they're not enthusiastic to tell me what that is or where they think it's headed.
I would like to see Terraform succeed with their green goals!
When I can run 'terrform plan' on my entire infra without using a billion joules of energy, I'll chip in
When I can run 'terrform plan' on my entire infra without using a billion joules of energy, I'll chip in
How does this compare to using microbes to produce hydrocarbons from CO2 and other waste gases? (NB, not from atmospheric CO2)
Here a recent article on the topic, specifically for making jet fuel, for an industry that would be impossible to electrify.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-024-02136-z
Here a recent article on the topic, specifically for making jet fuel, for an industry that would be impossible to electrify.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-024-02136-z
I think that kind of technology does work, but scale up has been incredibly challenging. Let alone doing it profitably. Farming microbes in a nutrient rich slurry is continually fighting contamination from foreign species. The most interest has been in photosynthesizing varieties where delivering light throughout the vessel becomes impossible due to the required organism density.
It's interesting that aviation is said to be industry impossible to electrify, and at the same time we have electric airplanes for some time and keep developing the technology.
There's never been any doubt that you can make a small, short-range battery electric airplane.
We will probably be able to make short-range battery electric and fuel cell airliners.
There is no prospect whatsoever of making an intercontinental battery electric airliner; there is no plausible battery chemistry with enough energy density to give you sufficient range. There are slightly better prospects of hydrogen-powered intercontinental airliners, but even that is very challenging given how bulky the hydrogen propellant required will be.
The only realistic medium-term prospect appears to be sustainable aviation fuel, though I wonder if future generations might one day have a crack at nuclear aviation.
We will probably be able to make short-range battery electric and fuel cell airliners.
There is no prospect whatsoever of making an intercontinental battery electric airliner; there is no plausible battery chemistry with enough energy density to give you sufficient range. There are slightly better prospects of hydrogen-powered intercontinental airliners, but even that is very challenging given how bulky the hydrogen propellant required will be.
The only realistic medium-term prospect appears to be sustainable aviation fuel, though I wonder if future generations might one day have a crack at nuclear aviation.
Which electric airplanes are you talking about, other than electric demonstrators?
An example of commercially used electric airplane today could be one of this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqF55MjU9jc , Green Flight Academy in Sweden, used to train pilots.
Some more arguments for electric airplanes are here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH4b3sAs-l8 .
I recommended to my friends to buy cheap land in places like Nevada and Arizona, because it will possibly skyrocket in value due to Terraform:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJKh-2Q5DRA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJKh-2Q5DRA
Is there any place where they say how many kWh of electricity they need to get one kWh equivalent of gas?
[deleted]
I really appreciate them putting actial numbers in here! So many places are deliberately vague on numbers.
A $100,000 base cost for the entire system is unbelievably cheap!
To put that in context, you could offset the entire worlds CO2 emissions for just $35 trillion worth of these! That might sound like a lot, but it's technically achievable, being half the USA federal budget for 10 years.
The energy requirements also aren't impossible, about 350TW of power, easily less than a 100km x 100km square of solar panels. (Admittedly, this is several times more expensive than the Terraform installations, but we need power anyway and will be getting more efficient at solar panel manufacture)
Interestingly, this also puts an upper bound on a reasonable CO2 tax of $1000/ton or around £1.8 per litre of petrol, so lovers of fossil fuels and flying can still drive on the track or go for a flight on weekends.
A $100,000 base cost for the entire system is unbelievably cheap!
To put that in context, you could offset the entire worlds CO2 emissions for just $35 trillion worth of these! That might sound like a lot, but it's technically achievable, being half the USA federal budget for 10 years.
The energy requirements also aren't impossible, about 350TW of power, easily less than a 100km x 100km square of solar panels. (Admittedly, this is several times more expensive than the Terraform installations, but we need power anyway and will be getting more efficient at solar panel manufacture)
Interestingly, this also puts an upper bound on a reasonable CO2 tax of $1000/ton or around £1.8 per litre of petrol, so lovers of fossil fuels and flying can still drive on the track or go for a flight on weekends.
Wow... what can't Terraform do?!?
https://www.terraform.io/
https://www.terraform.io/
There's got to be a catch to all this. If there was no catch, this would be the hottest startup in the world by far.
I'm going to post my favorite graph, it's called the "MAC graph". It shows, in itemized investments, how much it will cost to reach net-zero emissions for the U.S.
Instead of time, the X axis is how much you are willing to invest, in $/Ton of CO2
The types of investments are sorted by their respective cost ; the later they appear on the X axis, the lower their name is on the Y axis
You can observe by yourself here that direct carbon capture is all the way to the bottom of the list
https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/2021-07/MACgraph_sim...
Each dollar invested in Terraform would net you 100x the results if you invested it in wind, solar, nuclear, electric vehicles or heat pumps
Here's Hank Green talking about this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dRgCsZ1q7g
Instead of time, the X axis is how much you are willing to invest, in $/Ton of CO2
The types of investments are sorted by their respective cost ; the later they appear on the X axis, the lower their name is on the Y axis
You can observe by yourself here that direct carbon capture is all the way to the bottom of the list
https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/2021-07/MACgraph_sim...
Each dollar invested in Terraform would net you 100x the results if you invested it in wind, solar, nuclear, electric vehicles or heat pumps
Here's Hank Green talking about this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dRgCsZ1q7g
Two things:
1) Terraform is making Zero carbon fuels, not sequestering into the ground (the purple on the graph, not the orange)
2) I don't think it's accurate to say "each dollar invested" gets the same 100x results. The graph seems to show that wind, solar, nuclear, and electric all taper off in how much CO2 they offset. It looks once you are spending $100/T, you literally can't make any more of an impact with solar or wind. Once you get to spending $250/T (what it currently costs for Terraform to do it, for real), Zero carbon fuels looks like it has the same 1 GTon impact as onshore solar and wind combined.
Finally, "electricity and heat production" (i.e, what solar and wind can help with) accounts for just 25% of GHG emissions. Transportation and industry (excluding electricity used by industry) together account for more than 35% of emissions. Many industrial processes can't simply "use electricity". The only way to get emissions down is to provide a like-for-like substitute - no one can afford to completely redesign their factory or chemical plant, but they could probably afford to pay more for NG as prices for syngas fall to closer to FF NG. There is no silver bullet.
We need every single innovation available.
1) Terraform is making Zero carbon fuels, not sequestering into the ground (the purple on the graph, not the orange)
2) I don't think it's accurate to say "each dollar invested" gets the same 100x results. The graph seems to show that wind, solar, nuclear, and electric all taper off in how much CO2 they offset. It looks once you are spending $100/T, you literally can't make any more of an impact with solar or wind. Once you get to spending $250/T (what it currently costs for Terraform to do it, for real), Zero carbon fuels looks like it has the same 1 GTon impact as onshore solar and wind combined.
Finally, "electricity and heat production" (i.e, what solar and wind can help with) accounts for just 25% of GHG emissions. Transportation and industry (excluding electricity used by industry) together account for more than 35% of emissions. Many industrial processes can't simply "use electricity". The only way to get emissions down is to provide a like-for-like substitute - no one can afford to completely redesign their factory or chemical plant, but they could probably afford to pay more for NG as prices for syngas fall to closer to FF NG. There is no silver bullet.
We need every single innovation available.
I was extremely confused on why an IaC solution/package company would have a leg on the natural gas business lol
“… our electrolyzer capex costs <$100/kW”
Forget the DAC and natural gas, how are they generating green H2 for so cheap?
Forget the DAC and natural gas, how are they generating green H2 for so cheap?
Are there any third parties that have comments on this process? A press release isn't too much to go off of.
April 1 date on the article. Wordpress site.
I ain't saying it ain't true, but I await their next press release.
I ain't saying it ain't true, but I await their next press release.
Here's their company page. Might explain the use of word press...
https://terraformindustries.com/
https://terraformindustries.com/
It makes something ring hollow then.
Why do the whole high and mightly we're using ASCII thing, then to throw me to WordPress. Certainly a bit of HTML with a few inline images fit the overall goal better.
That said, I wish them the best, and I hope that they dominate their market. :)
Why do the whole high and mightly we're using ASCII thing, then to throw me to WordPress. Certainly a bit of HTML with a few inline images fit the overall goal better.
That said, I wish them the best, and I hope that they dominate their market. :)
[deleted]
Wow, can Cloudformation claim that?
the hydrogen stuff being enabled by the IRA is extremely exciting. i'm familiar with a number of startups that are able to use methane with e. coli to produce plastics & synthetic fibers where it has only become cost competitive since the IRA
So how many can we put on Mars and how long would they take to do significant Mars warming?
If it's carbon neutral, it won't warm Mars at all...
Well if methane is more of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, which it is, then it will
it's time to stop calling methane "natural gas".
You're right. That's hydrogen sulfide
The pictures look oddly fake to me.
Well, that's really stretching the concept of Infrastructure as Code /grin
Hmm, this is interesting, but I have few doubts about it. First, Metane is worst gas to come by. Its super greenhouse gas. Second, everyone screems about carbon neutral, but do those people understand carbon cycle on this planet? Its essential for plants. Less CO2 in atmosphere, plants growth is slower. If you start to compete with plants for it, it might have unforseen consequences.
I hope someone will put some research on it. This is usual human aproach. Lets fix one thing, worry about consequences later.
I hope someone will put some research on it. This is usual human aproach. Lets fix one thing, worry about consequences later.
We've spend the last 2 centuries burning fossil fuels from the ground, significantly increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels. Capturing some of it back won't make a difference for plants.
Also, when you burn methane, you release CO2 again. So it's not like there's a finite amount of CO2 to pump from the atmosphere, it will renew itself.
Fraking has made natural gas so cheap, I can't see these being used for anything but virtue signaling. They claim a breakthrough in converting hydrogen to natural gas, but natural gas is by far the cheapest source of H2.
And, given that methane is 80 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2 is, is it really a good idea to be manufacturing it? Inevitably there would be leakage, and it wouldn't take much to leak enough gas to more than compensate for any C02 sucked out of the air.
And, given that methane is 80 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2 is, is it really a good idea to be manufacturing it? Inevitably there would be leakage, and it wouldn't take much to leak enough gas to more than compensate for any C02 sucked out of the air.
Their claim is that this method is still yet cheaper than drilling/fracking.
> Their claim is that this method is still yet cheaper than drilling/fracking.
They claim the green way to go is converting hydrogen into methane....check out the link for a company claiming the green way to go is converting methane to hydrogen:
https://www.pnnl.gov/news-media/new-clean-energy-process-con...
I rather suspect that taking an energy detour through methane either way is a red herring. I mean....the OP says that their whole process is powered by solar energy. So they are presupposing that solar energy is going to be WAAAYYYY cheaper than methane. Why not just use the solar power directly?
They claim the green way to go is converting hydrogen into methane....check out the link for a company claiming the green way to go is converting methane to hydrogen:
https://www.pnnl.gov/news-media/new-clean-energy-process-con...
I rather suspect that taking an energy detour through methane either way is a red herring. I mean....the OP says that their whole process is powered by solar energy. So they are presupposing that solar energy is going to be WAAAYYYY cheaper than methane. Why not just use the solar power directly?
The cost of natural gas on the Henry Hub is somewhere around $300/ton. A ton of natural gas requires 2.75 tons of CO2, so the cost of CO2 capture has to be well below $110/ton (and that ignores the cost of the hydrogen and the equipment for doing the methane synthesis.)
They must be assuming large increases in natural gas prices or large CO2 taxes.
I think it will be much easier to get the price/BTU of H2 down below the current price of natural gas than it would be to get synthetic methane down that cheap.
(If they are assuming large CO2 taxes then it's probably a better business model to just collect CO2 from the air and sequester it.)
They must be assuming large increases in natural gas prices or large CO2 taxes.
I think it will be much easier to get the price/BTU of H2 down below the current price of natural gas than it would be to get synthetic methane down that cheap.
(If they are assuming large CO2 taxes then it's probably a better business model to just collect CO2 from the air and sequester it.)
I went to double-check your math and I don't see $300/ton on Henry hub.. the units are a little weird as it looks like the price is per million btu which is... 50 pounds? of lng, so to get the per-ton price we take the Henry hub price and multiply by 40 (2000 pounds per ton divided by 50 pounds per million btu)? with a 52-week high of 3.63, this would get to $177 per ton, which seems short of your $300/ton? Anyway, I ask because id love to learn where I went wrong with the math (my result makes your point stronger, not contradicts it...)
I think you're closer to right. I started with a wrong figure that I didn't double check. Thanks for catching the error.
> so the cost of CO2 capture has to be well below $110/ton
they say $250/t in the article, but could you expand how you came to "A ton of natural gas requires 2.75 tons of CO2"? Where 1.75t of CO2 is disappearing in result?
they say $250/t in the article, but could you expand how you came to "A ton of natural gas requires 2.75 tons of CO2"? Where 1.75t of CO2 is disappearing in result?
Molecular weight of methane (CH4): 16
Molecular weight of CO2: 44
One molecule of CO2 is needed to get the carbon atom to make one molecule of methane.
44/16 = 2.75
The 1.75t of CO2 that went missing is the oxygen, which obviously isn't in the methane.
Molecular weight of CO2: 44
One molecule of CO2 is needed to get the carbon atom to make one molecule of methane.
44/16 = 2.75
The 1.75t of CO2 that went missing is the oxygen, which obviously isn't in the methane.
Thank you, I am an idiot in chemistry )
The US is already extracting a lot of natural gas and leaking a ton of it. The main culprit of these leaks are those regulatory bodies who outsource their jobs onto the companies. Fund them better and enforce heftoer penalties and the issue of leaks can be minimized drastically
Leakages are indeed an enormous problem. It’s estimated than more than 2% of the gas leaks !
> They claim a breakthrough in converting hydrogen to natural gas, but natural gas is by far the cheapest source of H2.
Are you serious? Water is right there!
Are you serious? Water is right there!
Water is right there, but the hydrogen is really closely bound to the oxygen, and extremely hard to get out.
It's considerably easier to get H2 out of methane. Unfortunately, that process also yields CO2, so it's not helping the greenhouse gas situation.
Hydrogen proponents suggest a route where we start with "blue hydrogen" from natural gas. Then, when we've got a good H2 infrastructure going and a lot of excess electricity from solar, we can switch over to "green hydrogen" from water.
Skeptics point out that this is incredibly stupid, and that "hydrogen proponents" tend to be closely in bed with the fossil fuel industry. It looks an awful lot like an excuse to delay the elimination of fossil-fuel replacements like wind and solar.
It's considerably easier to get H2 out of methane. Unfortunately, that process also yields CO2, so it's not helping the greenhouse gas situation.
Hydrogen proponents suggest a route where we start with "blue hydrogen" from natural gas. Then, when we've got a good H2 infrastructure going and a lot of excess electricity from solar, we can switch over to "green hydrogen" from water.
Skeptics point out that this is incredibly stupid, and that "hydrogen proponents" tend to be closely in bed with the fossil fuel industry. It looks an awful lot like an excuse to delay the elimination of fossil-fuel replacements like wind and solar.
There is this really dumb internet meme, that hydrogen is just there as a plot by the fossil fuel industry to keep selling fossil fuels.
What this ignores is that hydrogen must still be made even in a post-fossil fuel economy. It's not optional. Production of ammonia requires hydrogen, and without ammonia-derived nitrogen fertilizer billions of people will starve. About half the nitrogen atoms in your body came from synthetic ammonia.
The meme is really weird. In all other applications, we assume that fossil fuels will be displaced, by law and force if necessary. But somehow SMR will always be used to make hydrogen; the technology will somehow be immune to the forces that will be deployed against all other fossil fuel uses. It's really crazy when examined closely.
What this ignores is that hydrogen must still be made even in a post-fossil fuel economy. It's not optional. Production of ammonia requires hydrogen, and without ammonia-derived nitrogen fertilizer billions of people will starve. About half the nitrogen atoms in your body came from synthetic ammonia.
The meme is really weird. In all other applications, we assume that fossil fuels will be displaced, by law and force if necessary. But somehow SMR will always be used to make hydrogen; the technology will somehow be immune to the forces that will be deployed against all other fossil fuel uses. It's really crazy when examined closely.
It's a meme because most of the people peddling hydrogen as a solution don't look at replacing existing uses of hydrogen (e.g. ammonia or as a process chemical) but instead try to sell it for dead on arrival ideas like fuel cell cars, blending in the natural gas pipelines, or burning it directly in homes for heat.
There's an order of magnitude more companies and hype around those use cases than there are around actually important ones.
There's an order of magnitude more companies and hype around those use cases than there are around actually important ones.
Natural gas was also pitched exactly this way in 2008 or so. There's now a mountain of natural gas infrastructure being built, the the US is a major exporter, and for some reason people think the industry is going to just "switch off" that infrastructure when asked to.
This is 30+ year design lifetime infrastructure. Investments were made on that basis: no one is going to turn off anything.
Which is the best argument in favor of otherwise ludicrously inefficient power-to-gas storage schemes: if you could, by some miracle, undercut fracking extraction, then at the very least you'd only have to bankrupt the well-operators - not the pipeline, export terminals etc.
But I'm extremely skeptical this is possible and it will be fought against dirtily (see the anti-wind power campaigners).
This is 30+ year design lifetime infrastructure. Investments were made on that basis: no one is going to turn off anything.
Which is the best argument in favor of otherwise ludicrously inefficient power-to-gas storage schemes: if you could, by some miracle, undercut fracking extraction, then at the very least you'd only have to bankrupt the well-operators - not the pipeline, export terminals etc.
But I'm extremely skeptical this is possible and it will be fought against dirtily (see the anti-wind power campaigners).
Power-to-hydrogen is often attacked for being inefficient, but the alternative presented by the anti-hydrogen people for dealing with seasonal variations and long dark-calm periods is to just overbuild solar and wind massively -- in which case, most of the time power from these is just being curtailed. Apparently using this excess power with 0% efficiency is preferable to using it with nonzero efficiency making hydrogen.
The issue is that hydrogen makes no sense except for transportation fuel, where it also makes no sense. There are other options for stationary energy storage, and hydrogen is amongst the worst. i.e. if we can tolerate high losses, iron-air flow batteries are a much more reasonable option[1]
The thing is you pay for all of that pretty heavily - it's all more expensive with other drawbacks, but it's not nearly the complete pain that handling hydrogen is.
[1] https://essinc.com/iron-flow-chemistry/
The thing is you pay for all of that pretty heavily - it's all more expensive with other drawbacks, but it's not nearly the complete pain that handling hydrogen is.
[1] https://essinc.com/iron-flow-chemistry/
For long term energy storage, minimizing the capital cost of energy storage capacity is paramount. Round trip efficiency is not.
On that relevant metric, hydrogen is very hard to beat, particularly if proper geology is available (salt formations for solution mined storage cavities). Costs less than $1/kWh are possible.
Artificially heated geothermal may be competitive on that metric, but its RTE is likely to be even lower.
On that relevant metric, hydrogen is very hard to beat, particularly if proper geology is available (salt formations for solution mined storage cavities). Costs less than $1/kWh are possible.
Artificially heated geothermal may be competitive on that metric, but its RTE is likely to be even lower.
Yup, or things like sulphur thermal storage[1]. Also, hydrogen is pushed heavily by the fossil fuel industry, as it will provide another out for all their methane reserves (via steam reforming).
[1]https://www.solarpaces.org/why-solar-sulphur-cycle-ideal-sea...
[1]https://www.solarpaces.org/why-solar-sulphur-cycle-ideal-sea...
100% of anything doesn't really go away. We still use horse-drawn vehicles for some purposes. But we didn't have to get rid of 100% of the horse-drawn vehicles to get rid of the mountains of horse shit which used to accumulate on city streets.
Skeptics also point out that the blue part of blue hydrogen is carbon capture and storage, and nobody seems to be willing to pay for the extra cost of that.
> Are you serious?
yes :-) Think about it: why did Saturn V use hydrogen and oxygen? Because burning hydrogen produces more energy by weight than any other chemical reaction.
If putting hydrogen and oxygen together releases the most energy, then splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen would also take the most energy. Any other chemical reaction which yielded H2 would take less energy.
yes :-) Think about it: why did Saturn V use hydrogen and oxygen? Because burning hydrogen produces more energy by weight than any other chemical reaction.
If putting hydrogen and oxygen together releases the most energy, then splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen would also take the most energy. Any other chemical reaction which yielded H2 would take less energy.
Their recent post on "Terraformer Environmental Calculus" is a great read, if you are interested in this space: https://terraformindustries.wordpress.com/2024/02/06/terrafo...
Congratulations to the team!