The Death Of Fossil Fuels

[EACLucifer]

Converting diesel locomotive engines to run on ammonia and hydrogen

Not that much detail that I can find, but it sounds as though the hydrogen is generated in situ from the ammonia, so the fuel distribution infrastructure should be less tricky than for hydrogen, not more.

Ok, but I’d be a lot happier to see progress in making green ammonia before additional uses for ammonia are found

Diesel locomotives are a pretty carbon-efficient way of moving stuff around, too.

[bjn]

Slight random aside. Fossil fuels make up over 30% of seaborne freight by tonnage.

Total seaborne trade 2020, a bit over 10 billion tons
Crude oil 2020, a bit over 1.7 billion tons
Coal 2019, a bit over 1.4 billion tons

No natural gas or refined petroleum in those figures either. So call total FF shipping between 35% to 40%. Maybe more.

Kicking fossil fuels will drastically reduce the amount of shipping and so reduce the need for fossils in hard to decarbonise long distance shipping.

Pulling figures from…

https://hbs.unctad.org/world-seaborne-trade/
https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2020/trade

[Martin_B]

Slight random aside. Fossil fuels make up over 30% of seaborne freight by tonnage.

Total seaborne trade 2020, a bit over 10 billion tons
Crude oil 2020, a bit over 1.7 billion tons
Coal 2019, a bit over 1.4 billion tons

No natural gas or refined petroleum in those figures either. So call total FF shipping between 35% to 40%. Maybe more.

Kicking fossil fuels will drastically reduce the amount of shipping and so reduce the need for fossils in hard to decarbonise long distance shipping.

Pulling figures from…

https://hbs.unctad.org/world-seaborne-trade/
https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2020/trade

The 'other tanker trade' from the unctad page covers: "refined petroleum products, gas and chemicals", and is another 1.2 billion tons. Chemicals won't be zero, but I wouldn't be surprised if petrol and especially LNG is ~1 billion tons, so maybe over 40%.

[Grumble]

Slight random aside. Fossil fuels make up over 30% of seaborne freight by tonnage.

Total seaborne trade 2020, a bit over 10 billion tons
Crude oil 2020, a bit over 1.7 billion tons
Coal 2019, a bit over 1.4 billion tons

No natural gas or refined petroleum in those figures either. So call total FF shipping between 35% to 40%. Maybe more.

Kicking fossil fuels will drastically reduce the amount of shipping and so reduce the need for fossils in hard to decarbonise long distance shipping.

Pulling figures from…

https://hbs.unctad.org/world-seaborne-trade/
https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2020/trade

quite a bit of the fuel shipped to refineries ends up being the energy source for the refinery as well. The amount of fuel used in getting fuel to the end user is a fair chunk of the initial production.

[bjn]

From memory, something like 1.5 kWh per litre of refined petroleum is also needed.

[IvanV]

Converting diesel locomotive engines to run on ammonia and hydrogen

Not that much detail that I can find, but it sounds as though the hydrogen is generated in situ from the ammonia, so the fuel distribution infrastructure should be less tricky than for hydrogen, not more.

Ok, but I’d be a lot happier to see progress in making green ammonia before additional uses for ammonia are found

Diesel locomotives are a pretty carbon-efficient way of moving stuff around, too.

Much more carbon efficient at moving both passengers and freight, in comparison to road transport with fossil fuels. Which makes it a relatively poor value decarbonisation, especially for certain types of traffic. But when you aim at full decarbonisation of other forms of surface transport, then rail has to keep up or risk being marginalised due to some faulty logic.

A cheaper decarbonisation suitable for the hard-to-decarbonise lines would be wonderful. The biggest difficulty with NH₃ as a fuel is that it is very nasty stuff that you really don't want to leak or spill, due its toxicity and chemical damage to people and other things. Though plainly we do have experience of transporting nasty chemicals around in tankers and transferring them between containers.

Another difficulty with NH₃ as a fuel is that you'd like it to be combusted to water and nitrogen. But in practical reality you get quite a bit of NO_x, high in comparison to other kinds of combustion, where the NO_x is an accident of combusting a bit of the nitrogen from the air, rather than being in the fuel. So there is potentially a much larger NO_x scrubbing job to avoid air quality issues. Also you have to carefully scrub any uncombusted NH₃.

[Grumble]

Ok, but I’d be a lot happier to see progress in making green ammonia before additional uses for ammonia are found

Diesel locomotives are a pretty carbon-efficient way of moving stuff around, too.

Much more carbon efficient at moving both passengers and freight, in comparison to road transport with fossil fuels. Which makes it a relatively poor value decarbonisation, especially for certain types of traffic. But when you aim at full decarbonisation of other forms of surface transport, then rail has to keep up or risk being marginalised due to some faulty logic.

A cheaper decarbonisation suitable for the hard-to-decarbonise lines would be wonderful. The biggest difficulty with NH₃ as a fuel is that it is very nasty stuff that you really don't want to leak or spill, due its toxicity and chemical damage to people and other things. Though plainly we do have experience of transporting nasty chemicals around in tankers and transferring them between containers.

Another difficulty with NH₃ as a fuel is that you'd like it to be combusted to water and nitrogen. But in practical reality you get quite a bit of NO_x, high in comparison to other kinds of combustion, where the NO_x is an accident of combusting a bit of the nitrogen from the air, rather than being in the fuel. So there is potentially a much larger NO_x scrubbing job to avoid air quality issues. Also you have to carefully scrub any uncombusted NH₃.

I used to work in a nitriding plant, which used ammonia. They normally keep a pilot light on the exhaust to burn off any unused.

[Grumble]

Healthy scepticism on hydrogen economy claims.

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/analysi ... -1-1334006

[bjn]

Healthy scepticism on hydrogen economy claims.

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/analysi ... -1-1334006

Libereich is pretty good to follow on Twitter and his Cleaning Up podcast is well worth listening to.

[Grumble]

Healthy scepticism on hydrogen economy claims.

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/analysi ... -1-1334006

Libereich is pretty good to follow on Twitter and his Cleaning Up podcast is well worth listening to.

Thanks for the tip

[Martin Y]

Now this is an exasperating "is that a big number?" story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63457377

A tale of how transporting LNG by ship has perhaps ten times the carbon footprint of using a gas pipeline. Okay, but is that a big number? After all, you're going to burn the gas when it gets there, so how about a bit of perspective to show whether the emissions from shipping are a significant worsening of that, or if the shipping is actually a tiny marginal difference?

Well I can't tell because the article gives the estimated CO2 emissions in "kg per barrel". 7kg/barrel for pipeline gas and 70kg/barrel for shipped liquid gas. Is that a barrel of liquid gas? Or an amount of gas that's equivalent to a barrel of oil? Fundamentally, how many kg do you get by burning the "barrel" of gas? No idea.

[dyqik]

Yes, it's a barrel of LNG.

A Google for "LNG CO2 per barrel" tells me:

The average carbon dioxide coefficient of liquefied petroleum gases is 235.7 kg CO2 per 42-gallon barrel (EPA 2021).

10 seconds to find that out. A minute to write this post telling you about it.

[Gfamily]

Yes, it's a barrel of LNG.

A Google for "LNG CO2 per barrel" tells me:

The average carbon dioxide coefficient of liquefied petroleum gases is 235.7 kg CO2 per 42-gallon barrel (EPA 2021).

10 seconds to find that out. A minute to write this post telling you about it.

From here
For reference - fuel oil is about 430kg CO2 per barrel

[Martin Y]

I guess I gave up too easily at "a barrel".

<edit> On the other hand I've been trying for 10 minutes to google variations on CO2 emissions per barrel of LNG/LPG and finding an avalanche of numbers, but certainly not being offered the number on a plate or in any format I could calculate the answer in ten seconds. One link did helpfully tell me how much a barrel is (and I assumed it meant US gallons because that seemed a safe assumption). I don't know what wording takes you straight to an answer but I didn't stumble on it.

[Martin_B]

The line in the BBC article says:

"For piped gas from Norway, we see around 7kg of CO2 per barrel, but for LNG imports into Europe, we estimate the average is over 70, so around 10 times lower for piped gas versus LNG," said Patrick King from Rystad.

So, the 7 kg per barrel of CO2 is for transport via pipeline from Norway.
The estimated 70 kg per barrel of CO2 is for transport from outside Europe (Africa, Middle East, Australia, etc).

So not comparing the same thing, then. Transporting LNG via pipeline from the Middle East (or Australia!) would mean having to install large numbers of pipelines either subsea or across other countries (which doesn't always go so well) plus having a large number of intermediate pumping stations, which will certainly increase the kg per barrel of CO2.

Also, I'd like to see the calculation for the 70 kg per barrel of CO2 for tanker shipping. The numbers I've heard for shipping LNG are considerably lower, and this does smack slightly of a Norwegian firm bigging up importing gas from Norway over gas from elsewhere!

[Grumble]

I’m sure getting gas from Norway via pipeline is the most environmentally friendly way of doing it, but that’s a low bar. It’s needed right now but I’ve been heartened by the amount of wind power we’ve generated recently. I suspect we’re basically at a point where with a bit more grid modernisation we could run entirely on wind, solar and nuclear, for a while at least. It seems like there’s a certain amount of gas they always keep going, and I think that’s for frequency stabilisation.

[Millennie Al]

I suspect we’re basically at a point where with a bit more grid modernisation we could run entirely on wind, solar and nuclear, for a while at least.

Not if we want to switch a large proportion of raod vehicles to EVs. That adds a lot more demand.

[Gfamily]

I suspect we’re basically at a point where with a bit more grid modernisation we could run entirely on wind, solar and nuclear, for a while at least. It seems like there’s a certain amount of gas they always keep going, and I think that’s for frequency stabilisation.

Not every day, at least not on UK resources alone

gonna need a bigger windfarm.jpg (41.53 KiB) Viewed 594 times

[Grumble]

I suspect we’re basically at a point where with a bit more grid modernisation we could run entirely on wind, solar and nuclear, for a while at least. It seems like there’s a certain amount of gas they always keep going, and I think that’s for frequency stabilisation.

Not every day, at least not on UK resources alone
gonna need a bigger windfarm.jpg

When I said “for a while” that meant while the wind farms were generating at full chat. Of course they’re intermittent, which is why we need things like demand side response (charging EVs for example) and storage to do peak shaving and back-fill.

[Grumble]

I suspect we’re basically at a point where with a bit more grid modernisation we could run entirely on wind, solar and nuclear, for a while at least.

Not if we want to switch a large proportion of raod vehicles to EVs. That adds a lot more demand.

I’m talking right now, not some point in the future. Of course by the time we have done this modernisation there will be more EVs and heat pumps.

But it is National Grid ESO’s intention to have the grid ready to do this by 2025, this isn’t pie in the sky.

[Gfamily]

Our local authority have arranged for a company to cast their net across the borough for a multiple property application of Solar Panels with optional batteries.
For about £6K, we can have panels that will reduce our bills by about £450 this year (plus another £350 in export earnings) - or if we bought a battery, we could expect £600 bill reduction and £200 export earnings). The battery would cost just over £2K for a small one.

My brother is an architect with specific focus on stomping on fossil fuel use, so he's going to be looking at the costs and benefits

[Bird on a Fire]

The French government seems to be starting to act appropriately quickly, or almost:

In France, solar just got a huge boost from new legislation approved through the Senate this week that will require all parking lots with spaces for at least 80 vehicles – both existing and new – to be covered by solar panels.

The new provisions are part of French president Emmanuel Macron’s large-scale plan to heavily invest in renewables, which aims to multiply by 10 the amount of solar energy produced in the country, and to double the power from land-based wind farms.

Starting July 1, 2023, smaller carparks that have between 80 and 400 spaces will have five years to be in compliance with the new measures. Carparks with more than 400 spaces have a shorter timeline: They will need to comply with the new measures within three years of this date, and at least half of the surface area of the parking lot will need to be covered in solar panels.

According to the government, this plan, which particularly targets large parking areas around commercial centers and train stations, could generate up to 11 gigawatts, which is the equivalent of 10 nuclear reactors, powering millions of homes. Public Sénat writes that stipulations were put into place excluding parking lots for trucks carrying heavy goods or parking areas in historic or protected areas, to avoid “distorting” them, according to an amendment to the bill. While it’s unclear, future iterations of the bill will likely detail parking lots that would be excluded, in addition to how this plan will be funded and what the penalties would be for lack of compliance.

Other measures on the table include building large solar farms on vacant land found alongside highways and railways, as well as on agricultural lands where feasible. Macron has said that any bill passed would need to guarantee money that ensures local communities directly benefit from the energy shift.

https://electrek.co/2022/11/08/france-r ... ar-panels/

Will be interesting to see how this pans out, in light of the concerns raised here over skills shortages, inefficiency of micro projects, etc etc. Generating 11+ GW from brownfield sites seems a no-brainer.

[Gfamily]

Covering parking places will also help reduce the need to use Aircon when returning to your car. In the summer at least.

[dyqik]

Covering parking places will also help reduce the need to use Aircon when returning to your car. In the summer at least.

It helps keep snow and frost off of cars in winter as well, reducing the need for heaters and time sitting idling while the car defrosts.

[bjn]

The French government seems to be starting to act appropriately quickly, or almost:

In France, solar just got a huge boost from new legislation approved through the Senate this week that will require all parking lots with spaces for at least 80 vehicles – both existing and new – to be covered by solar panels.

The new provisions are part of French president Emmanuel Macron’s large-scale plan to heavily invest in renewables, which aims to multiply by 10 the amount of solar energy produced in the country, and to double the power from land-based wind farms.

Starting July 1, 2023, smaller carparks that have between 80 and 400 spaces will have five years to be in compliance with the new measures. Carparks with more than 400 spaces have a shorter timeline: They will need to comply with the new measures within three years of this date, and at least half of the surface area of the parking lot will need to be covered in solar panels.

According to the government, this plan, which particularly targets large parking areas around commercial centers and train stations, could generate up to 11 gigawatts, which is the equivalent of 10 nuclear reactors, powering millions of homes. Public Sénat writes that stipulations were put into place excluding parking lots for trucks carrying heavy goods or parking areas in historic or protected areas, to avoid “distorting” them, according to an amendment to the bill. While it’s unclear, future iterations of the bill will likely detail parking lots that would be excluded, in addition to how this plan will be funded and what the penalties would be for lack of compliance.

Other measures on the table include building large solar farms on vacant land found alongside highways and railways, as well as on agricultural lands where feasible. Macron has said that any bill passed would need to guarantee money that ensures local communities directly benefit from the energy shift.

https://electrek.co/2022/11/08/france-r ... ar-panels/

Will be interesting to see how this pans out, in light of the concerns raised here over skills shortages, inefficiency of micro projects, etc etc. Generating 11+ GW from brownfield sites seems a no-brainer.

It should be a relatively easy install, much easier than a roof. You can drive right up to the already levelled installation location, make some foundations for the factory built frames. Bolt them together, bolt on some panels, wire it up. Job done. Do that a few dozen times and you'll get it down pat. Hardest part will probably be feeding it back to the grid.