23 replies to this topic

[mariner]

Maesrk line , the world's biggest container ship operator ahs just annouced the purchase of up to eight low carbon container ships. Basically to run on methanol vs heavy diesel.

 

https://www.maersk.c...-vessel-by-2023.

 

It is sort of ironic that fuel used for decades by sprint cars etc. for its anti knock etc. should now b ea green poster child fuel.

 

https://www.maersk.c...reen-e-methanol

[jcbc3]

Sorry, couldn't resist:

 

Spoiler

[Greg Locock]

So the actual process is electrolysis-> H2 add CO2-> methanol -> burn methanol in ship's engine.

 

They are using methanol as a hydrogen 'carrier' in effect, rather like the ammonia burning proposal. If the electrolysis stage can be perfected at an industrial scale then it has many ramifications.

[jcbc3]

https://science.scie...0/6513/eaba6118

 

My company (or rather 'the company that employs me') is in the SOEC business. If you need a quote shoot me a PM 

[Bloggsworth]

Methanol, great for encouraging de-forestation and famine...

[Canuck]

This strikes me as a huge load of baloney.

 

Combustion of fossil fuels is directly contributing to the permanent and irreversible increase of concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2).

 

However, the combustion of biofuels and other biogenic energy sources are recycling those CO2 emissions through renewable plant materials and other biomass feedstocks.

 

When sustainably sourced, combustion from such fuels does not result in significant lasting increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

https://climatechang...iogenic-carbon/

 

I don't follow how releasing CO2 captured in corn or wood is less harmful than that captured in hydrocarbons. Bloggsworth is right.

[gruntguru]

I may have missed your point, but it should be obvious that growing trees or corn will remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

Regardless - the process linked by jcbc3 and proposed by Maersk does not use bio-inputs. It uses solar PV to electrolise water then use the hydrogen to produce methanol.

Edited by gruntguru, 25 August 2021 - 22:02.

[gruntguru]

https://science.scie...0/6513/eaba6118

 

My company (or rather 'the company that employs me') is in the SOEC business. If you need a quote shoot me a PM 

 

That methanol cycle looks very encouraging. I had to hunt beyond your linked article but it appears that SOEC offers electricity -> hydrogen conversion efficiencies near 100%. (The process also consumes some low grade heat.) http://www.helmeth.e...lysis-cell-soec

[Greg Locock]

So, this what we do

 

1) sunlight+water=H2

2) H2+(something else)=liquid hydrogen carrier,

3) transport liquid hydrogen carrier like petrol

4a) liquid hydrogen carrier -> reformulator->H2->fuel cell->electricity

or

4b) liquid hydrogen carrier +air+engine= Par

 

1) has attracted a great deal of money and interest. the actual efficiency is unimportant, the cost per kWheq of H2 is the target number

2) is what we are talking about

3) is pretty much known tech

4a) has a problem - reformulators aren't very efficient, but they are good enough (60-80%), depends on the liquid hydrogen carrier

4b) has a problem - internal combustion engines aren't wildly efficient, but they are good enough at around 40% if hybridized

 

That doesn't look Captain Crazypants. 4b is how we keep flying.

Edited by Greg Locock, 25 August 2021 - 22:39.

[Canuck]

I may have missed your point, but it should be obvious that growing trees or corn will remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

Regardless - the process linked by jcbc3 and proposed by Maersk does not use bio-inputs. It uses solar PV to electrolise water then use the hydrogen to produce methanol.

It is sort of a nifty cycle - green stuff requires CO2 to grow, unlike you and I. More CO2 in the atmosphere is / has / does create greater growth, an effect we're seeing in real time today. I don't believe however, that any level of CO2 will create growth at the rate of consumption (assuming this is a direction we'd move to broadly rather than in specific niche areas which are (apparently) already among the "greenest" of transportation). It smacks entirely of green- signalling with zero real impact.

 

You clearly didn't read it all the way down. You can't tickle hydrogen into methanol without bringing in some "Biogenic CO2" (or maybe hydrocarbon CO2 or maybe by grouping all of the loudest shouting nitwits into a closed room to capture their CO2 emissions) which was what sent me on my Biogenic search. Burning down forests is not in fact, a green solution to hydrocarbon. Perhaps the "combustion of municipal waste" would do it.

[gruntguru]

If the only missing feedstock is CO2, there is no problem. No need to burn down forests - we have exhaust stacks all over the world belching billions of tons of the stuff. My interpretation of "biogenic CO2" includes rescuing CO2 that is otherwise headed for the skies.

 

If all that ever gets "greened" away there will still be CO2 produced when we burn the methanol. If we ever get to that point I doubt there will be a need to burn methanol either. (ie all "carbon burning" replaced by electricity storage or hydrogen solutions)

Edited by gruntguru, 26 August 2021 - 21:52.

[Canuck]

My interpretation of "biogenic CO2" includes rescuing CO2 that is otherwise headed for the skies.

Regardless of your feelings about biogenic CO2, it's not a word coined by Maersk to mean "all the CO2 we can find"! It would be simpler to say " you know what, when I said that the process linked and proposed by Maersk does not use bio-inputs, I was mistaken". Instead you reinvent the word and in the process skip over the fact that their own media materials show "bio-inputs" specifically. But no, let's go dancing instead. Maybe this is what happens when you're locked in your home 23 of 24 hours a day.

[gruntguru]

 

What is Biogenic Carbon?

 

Biogenic carbon is the emissions related to the natural carbon cycle, as well as those resulting from the combustion, harvest, digestion, fermentation, decomposition or processing of biologically based materials.

 

Examples of Biogenic Carbon

 

CO2 from the combustion of biogas collected from biological decomposition of waste in landfills, wastewater treatment, or manure management processes

CO2 from combustion of the biological fraction of municipal solid waste or biosolids

CO2 derived from combustion of biological material, including forest-derived and agriculture-derived feedstocks

An Alternative to Fossil Fuel Combustion

 

Combustion of fossil fuels is directly contributing to the permanent and irreversible increase of concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2).

 

However, the combustion of biofuels and other biogenic energy sources are recycling those CO2 emissions through renewable plant materials and other biomass feedstocks.

 

When sustainably sourced, combustion from such fuels does not result in significant lasting increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

 

However, not all sources of biogenic carbon are rapidly renewable, if they’re renewable at all. Clear examples of this include old growth forests, peat bogs, or other sensitive and enduring ecosystems. In fact, use of biogenic carbon as a fuel source could even result in damage to that ecosystem while increasing atmospheric CO2.​

 

Not sure what is attracting Maersk to biogenic CO2 rather than CO2 from existing coal fired infrastructure. Two guesses:

 - A "greener" result (driving biofuel consumption rather than coal)

 - A longer-term solution - coal is being phased out as an energy source.

 

Either way, I don't see any justification for moaning about biogenic CO2.

[Canuck]

The position (broadly) that biofuel is greener than traditional hydrocarbon is exceedingly dangerous. Deforestation is already an issue for luxuries like coffee. If we turn wood into oil (so to speak), the rate of deforestation will skyrocket with exceptionally dire outcomes. The "issue" with biogenic CO2 is specifically that.

 

I live within an hour of forestry abundance. I've been surrounded by natural forests my entire life. The rate at which we consume forestry products vastly exceeds the forest's speed to re-grow. We're continually butting up against the commercial desire to log old-growth forests with tress that are hundreds and perhaps thousands of years old vs. the need to preserve them and replace wood products with something else to sow the consumption (which is of course in complete and utter opposition to the established and still-taught requirements for all business to grow all the time). The same universities breeding the earth-first warriors are also producing the greed-is-good, growth-at-all-costs CEOs. Those CEOs green-wash everything they can. Burning down forests to capture CO2 to convert hydrogen back into a hydrocarbon so we ship cheap garbage made from plastic out of China is not green, I don't care what the shipping company says.

[gruntguru]

I don't see any evidence for that in the Maersk release. Their proposal requires CO2 as an input. No suggestion that they intend to burn old growth forests - or burn anything for that matter - just to generate CO2. That would be absurd.

 

As I said before there must be a sustainability advantage to using biogenic CO2 - surely it would be cheaper and easier to capture the CO2 from a coal-fired stack somewhere.

[Canuck]

I didn’t mean to imply they were hunting for the most threatened forests and bogs but I think you understand that.

Irrespective of what you think, every definition of biogenic CO2 I’ve found is very specific: obtained from the combustion or decomposition of biomass. Unless they’re using human and animal waste, the biomass they’re using for transportation is the very CO2-absorbing biomass we need more of, not less of (if we ascribe to CO2-induced global climate change). Unlike our biomass, coal isn’t actively absorbing CO2 at this stage.

I would be vastly more impressed by them running on hydrogen.

[mariner]

There is something about using biomass for fuel concept which I dont understand and that  which is the opportunity cost question.

 

AS I understand it the justification for doing E10 petrol ( for example) is that the 10% ethanol comes form harvesting plants which can the be re planted for more fuel in future . So the CO2 put out when the fuel is burnt is captured , eventualy, by the replacement plants growth.

 

Fine but ti sort of implies that as E10 production grows that there will always be EXTRA planting land capacity.

 

IF the biomass planting for E10 just replaces re planting for more food  then surely the E10 burnt is net increase over time to atmospheric CO2?

[Nathan]

https://science.scie...0/6513/eaba6118

 

My company (or rather 'the company that employs me') is in the SOEC business. If you need a quote shoot me a PM 

Do they have a stock ticker? 

[jcbc3]

Nope, still privately owned. Founded in 1940, Sold 30% to an investment group in 2018 with the purpose of going public (the invested money has gone to R&D solely). When they let the investors in, they also offered employee shares. I bought as many as I could (worth two monthly salaries). When they do the IPO, I'll cash in. I reckon on a doubling of value at least. I'll keep you posted when they list.

[Bob Riebe]

Isopropyl -- cars should using  Isopropyl, if they ran out of fuel, they could go to the dollar store and refuel.

[Lee Nicolle]

There is something about using biomass for fuel concept which I dont understand and that  which is the opportunity cost question.

 

AS I understand it the justification for doing E10 petrol ( for example) is that the 10% ethanol comes form harvesting plants which can the be re planted for more fuel in future . So the CO2 put out when the fuel is burnt is captured , eventualy, by the replacement plants growth.

 

Fine but ti sort of implies that as E10 production grows that there will always be EXTRA planting land capacity.

 

IF the biomass planting for E10 just replaces re planting for more food  then surely the E10 burnt is net increase over time to atmospheric CO2?

Ethanol is produced from a lot of bi products from sugar, and other crops. 

[Lee Nicolle]

Many tractor pull tractors and categories are running on methanol. So no huge black plumes that they are known for. I believe in  diesel drag race engines as well.

Emmisions?? methanol is carclegenic and the combination of dust and methanol fumes at the speedway gives me a hangover. 

[gruntguru]

 methanol is carclegenic

 

Did you mean garglegenic?

[Lee Nicolle]

No, I mean cancer causing. Maybe not particularly so but everything adds up. It is ditto for unleaded fuel as well.

A friends dad died of it,, though regularly washing parts in it bare handed and fueling [large] model aircraft.

A couple of speedway guys I know of have died with suspicion of methanol causing cancers.