UK needs hydrogen, carbon capture to meet net zero goal, National Grid says

Posted: July 28, 2020 by oldbrew in climate, Emissions, Energy, hydrogen, ideology
Tags:

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) [credit: cnet.com]


Aren’t they in effect spelling out why the target is unachievable, not to say ridiculous? Whichever way you look at it – cost, feasibility, technology, benefits (lack of?) etc. – it has failure written all over it.
– – –
Britain’s goal of achieving net zero emissions by mid-century is achievable but immediate action is needed across a range of technologies including carbon capture and storage (CCS), electricity grid operator National Grid said.

Last year Britain became the first major economy to pass a law to bring all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, compared with its previous target of at least an 80% reduction from 1990 levels, says yahoo!finance.

“Reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is achievable. However, it requires immediate action across all key technologies and policy areas, and full engagement across society and end consumers,” National Grid said in its annual Future Energy Scenarios report.

“Hydrogen and carbon capture and storage must be deployed for net zero,” it added. “Industrial-scale demonstration projects need to be operational this decade.”

Hydrogen as a fuel has been gaining traction but the number of projects using “green” hydrogen – made from renewable energy – are quite few and costly.

CCS – which traps emissions and buries them underground – is also not at the commercialisation stage.

Last month, Norwegian oil firm Equinor said it planned to build a plant in Britain to produce hydrogen from natural gas in combination with CCS.

Full article here.

Comments
  1. ivan says:

    More pie in the sky ideas that will never happen for the simple reason the country will be bankrupt well before 2050.

    It sounds as if the national grid has been taken over by politics and the real engineers pushed out (just look at the stupid ideas for using unreliables).

    The country need a new Cromwell to kick the politicians and civil servants out and start again.

  2. JB says:

    Its my understanding that Cromwell didn’t fare so well during his “tenure.”

    “Reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is achievable. …” Not if its never been demonstrated on a large scale before, under ANY timeline.

    Seems like everyone these days is another Robespierre.

  3. Curious George says:

    Avoid nuclear at all costs!

  4. oldbrew says:

    Report:
    Hydrogen as a fuel has been gaining traction but the number of projects using “green” hydrogen – made from renewable energy – are quite few and costly.

    CCS – which traps emissions and buries them underground – is also not at the commercialisation stage.
    – – –
    Sums it up. And what’s the point of ‘trapping emissions’ anyway? Certainly no use while belching them out of biomass power stations.

    Most so-called greenhouse gas is water vapour so the CO2 obsession has always been futile.

  5. Paul Vaughan says:

    Neither Left Nor Right Bot Orthogonal

    “Net Zero” is savage psy-ops. A panel of psychology devils was asked, “What do we do to tell people 2+2 does not equal 4?” Then MSM joyously hoses people with psy-op cannons.

    “Net zero” is “leadership” trying (and failing) to drum up support for US military strategies.
    In their view they need their flock to be as ready and independent as possible for war.

    But they’re becoming their own enemies. Their coercive methods trample the human rights of innocents. All they can come up with is one financial terrorism scheme after another — always targeting innocents rather than bad “leaders”. This is root cause of steep western decline.

    Recently they’re becoming downright frightening.

    I read some plan from an ex-Obama “health” “expert” today that appeared as a cannon pointed right at my head. The level of hubris suggests they believe WWIII is imminent. What this expert proposed is STRICTLY intolerable. I can’t stand with USA while they’re pushing such abusive psy-ops right through MSM. There was zero counterpoint in the article. It was just blunt Orwellian statement with ZERO regard for sensible balance. It was just ALL extreme.

    The level of violation I felt reading that article was enough to trigger something deep and primal. They’re going WAY too far. That is why I believe they believe WWIII is imminent and it’s their “leadership” responsibility to “prep” the public with “behavior modification” for a world governed by 2 or 3 tech giants with extreme addictions to mischievous drama.

    They want the order of the world upended daily (if not hourly). They want nothing stable. Their visions is nonstop break-neck-paced spinning and switch-flipping. There’s nothing desirable about this vision.

    I suspect they’ll be thrilled if there are less vaccine survivors than Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors. These “leaders” are expert only at ERR CRAFT. They get high off constant instability. Their passion in life is to undermine security. They love high drama and they’re constantly all excited about writing it and pushing it. They LIKE to bully people. It makes them chuckle. They’re having a big party.

    I strictly reject their vision.

    They keep talking about “leadership” failures when the public won’t go the way they want. The leadership failure is they’re savagely pushing the wrong way.

    “Net Zero” is simple:
    If you’re the leader of a giant tech operation supporting the US military you’re richer than anyone. In that case even if you’re extensively guilty of countless injustices, western powers will “look the other way”… Meanwhile your competitive counterparts get held hostage while their relative innocence goes strictly unreported in devilish legal and political gymnastics.

    We’d have a stable, placid world if we averaged this out equitably, discontinued the psy-ops, and allowed competition in the marketplace (huawei, tencent, alibaba, tiktoc, whatever).

    Compartmentalizing discourse — and ops — is the problem. We’re being held hostage by poison-pill package deals — a real western el IT specialty.

    Division isn’t the problem; the problem is poison pills. Everywhere there’s a division elite exploit buy poison pill err craft, sew inequity’s “net zero”.

    In order to help extremists push extremes: Stay in your box — no crossing topics to call out poison pill package deal engine near ring buy el IT forces.

    Those valuing balance, freedom, and stability see and the discuss the forest for the trees.

    Provocative quest UN: If EU thought releasing Meng Wanzhou tomorrow would prevent WWIII, would you stubbornly stick to your “net zero” guns?? Someone has to be brave enough to ask. The reason for suggesting a vaccine is going to kill or maim potentially billions buy design (world domination in err craft) is to make sure IT doesn’t turn out that way.

    We have such bad “leaders” we have to communicate like this.
    If we had sensible leaders none of this style of communication would be necessary.

  6. Gamecock says:

    ‘Last year Britain became the first major economy to pass a law to bring all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050’

    2019 declared what 2050 must do. Like 2050 will care.

    Imagine 1989 telling us what we must do now. Hilarious, no?

    “It sounds as if the national grid has been taken over by politics and the real engineers pushed out”

    I disagree. Real engineers are saying, “Okay, folks, if you are really going to do this, these are things you need to start working on.”

    ‘Britain’s goal of achieving net zero emissions by mid-century is achievable’

    Get yourself a book on building neolithic structures. And learn Danish.

  7. A C Osborn says:

    Well, actually wasn’t it 1988 that Hansen told us all what to do and the world jumped on the bandwagon.

  8. Paul Vaughan says:

    Mirror Ring Meth ODs

    When prep a – gaffe – and a fails “they’ll make other trouble”, 16 figures.

    Poise soon pill extract shh UN will be orthogonal to DO vision Party Lines:
    IT’s high drug UN known-go AI.

    Gamecock wrote:
    “Imagine 1989 telling us what we must do now. Hilarious, no?”

    f(ERSST) off, no. image UN ocean US sos eerie 2 sea IT’s 1984 toolin’ US what We miss UN DO. Weather left or right IT’s hell l’air US snow.

    Tech giants feed poison pills to 1 US pop EU’ll ace threw 2-headed monster US sly a nato My.

    The hope is when they read such cynicism they’ll realize savage devilish technocracy earns knot trust bot blister ring criticism. “Gift” favored tech giants (sov. mono pole lie) mature competition, as they’ve drugged US down with well-sponsored poison US bull lying.

  9. pochas94 says:

    Start small. Just make hydrogen available to consumers at strategic locations. Leave CCS until Phase IV. Or phase VI. Or never.

  10. oldbrew says:

    Green tech: Microsoft uses hydrogen fuel cells as data center power backups
    July 28, 2020

    https://www.techrepublic.com/article/green-tech-microsoft-uses-hydrogen-fuel-cells-as-data-center-power-backups/
    – – –
    OK if you’ve got a fortune in the bank.

  11. pochas94 says:

    Assuming platinum will be the fuel cell catalyst, there will have to be an efficient platinum recovery process in place to realize the ultimate economy.

  12. pochas94 says:

    Avoid massive projects like CCS that simply parasitize the economy for the benefit of a wealthy few and no one else. CO2 is harmless.

  13. Graeme No.3 says:

    Continuous electrolysis runs at about 62% efficiency i.e. it takes 226,000 MJ (63MWh) of electricity to produce 1,000 Kg. of hydrogen with 140 MJ (39MWh equivalent). If this is then used in a fuel cell at 60% efficiency** you would get 84 MJ (23MWh) . That assumes that storage, handling and distribution are all made without losses (highly improbable). So the cost of the electricity supplied would be about 3 times that at generation.

    Intermittent electrolysis (suitable for supply by renewables) runs at less than 37% efficiency, or an overall one of 22% or a cost escalation of 4.55 times.

    **Yes, you can get higher efficiency (90%) with a supply of pure oxygen but said fuel cell weighs about 10 tons, not really suitable for vehicles.

  14. oldbrew says:

    Offshore wind farm problems…

    JULY 20, 2020
    Floating wind farms: How to make them the future of green electricity
    by Susan Gourvenec, The Conversation

    Unfortunately, while floating wind farms are technically feasible, they’re not economically viable. Doing anything offshore is expensive. [bold added]

    https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-farms-future-green-electricity.html
    – – –
    But the BBC says it’s cheap as chips, or soon will be 🙄

  15. Phoenix44 says:

    Of course net zero cannot be achieved without new technologies – or stopping doing entirely things like flying, heating, driving.

    We have imbecilic middle-class Greens who think their Green Utopia will be like now but without the plebs ruining nice places and without McDonalds and idiot politicians who think promising something 30 years off won’t have serious consequences today.

  16. Chaswarnertoo says:

    Have we reached peak insanity yet?

  17. oldbrew says:

    The Conversation article quoted above also says:
    Countries around the world need to ramp up renewable energy supply quickly to meet growing demand and rapidly reduce emissions. Despite this urgency, offshore wind currently provides less than 1% of the world’s electricity supply.

    And many of the most favourable sites have already been taken by the wind industry. If 1% has taken 20 years or more, what chance of multiple times that much in the next 30 years? About zero.

  18. oldbrew says:

    GWPF: Banning The Sale Of Petrol Cars Would Be ‘A Colossal Error’
    Press Release 29 July 2020

    As Professor Kalghatgi explains:
    “Even with an improbable hundred-fold increase to 10 million in battery electric vehicle numbers in 2030, 75% of cars will still run on petrol and diesel”, says Professor Kalghatgi.

    “But no manufacturer is going to invest in more advanced cars if they are banned from selling them”.

    https://mailchi.mp/a2b78aeca5c6/press-releasebanning-the-sale-of-petrol-cars-would-be-a-colossal-error-178050
    – – –
    So the majority will be driving obsolete fuel burning cars for a decade or two after new ones are banned, if not longer unless they cut off the supply of fuel or tax it out of sight. Or maybe make it difficult/impossible for them to pass the MoT test.

  19. Paul Vaughan says:

    Chaswarnertoo asked:
    “Have we reached peak insanity yet?”

    Recall that according to 16 figures a 10 year event series plan has been written. You’re only witnessing the beginning at this stage. Try to imagine what psy-ops will look like by the 7th or 8th event.

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    Net Fear O (as sin Or well)

    oldbrew wrote:
    “And many of the most favourable sites have already been taken by the wind industry. If 1% has taken 20 years or more, what chance of multiple times that much in the next 30 years? About zero.”

    They’re only worried about having enough supply for elite during war (when supply lines will SURELY be cut). With a bit more they can hold some of the upper middle class in their orbit through the war.

    Major events highlight inequity. The 10 year event plan is a ratchet. It’s a bad, PROGRESSIVE plan.

    Basically the way they reason is it’s safer to attack the poor at home (in increments) than bad leaders abroad. It’s homeland upper class vs. foreign upper class.

    They’ve decided since they “can’t beat ’em, join ’em” in dishing out human rights violations. They have to unfold the plan in increments for obvious reasons.

    So if the poor want to survive (everyone has survival instinct) _____________ (fill in the blank).

    “Poor” may well extend FAR above today’s median if capable parties cannot manage to bring the planned event series squarely into check. The progressives will grow more bold — and brutish — with each event.

    3 pieces of the solution:

    1. Western elite’s financial terrorism fancy — now not just on so-called “rogue” foreign nations but countless millions of individuals at home …well let’s just say this isn’t making any friends and in the long run “what you sew you reap” so IT’s better to correct course. Elite shouldn’t be allowed to push the military beyond what it can back. The “econometric people” wear blinders — dumb assumptions built into their “vision”. Savagely sustained financial terrorism APPEARS DESIGNED TO TRIGGER nuclear response. “The optics” (maybe the reality too) are that people have primal survival instincts and when pushed too far they SNAP! NO ONE can model that human psychology accurately = where the west presently needs a less UN in humility.

    2. Allow Chinese competition to sharpen western tech giants (do you have any idea how much inefficient waste and extreme racism there is at ________? (fill in the name of your favorite western tech giant)).

    3. Put the western math education system on par with the Chinese math education system. Western parents will FREAK at educators, so we have a serious problem here. Creative solutions are imperative. Give them drugs if necessary — or at least make provocative statements like this TO RAISE THE CREATIVE TENSIONS needed to SOLVE the root problems.

    …and you thought this was only about windmills??? Wool sea AB out that!!!

  21. ivan says:

    “It sounds as if the national grid has been taken over by politics and the real engineers pushed out”

    I disagree. Real engineers are saying, “Okay, folks, if you are really going to do this, these are things you need to start working on.

    Sorry, that is political speak. Real engineers would know that such things are just pie in the sky, they also know the stupidity of trying to integrate unreliables into the grid , especially under the conditions imposed by the government.

  22. dennisambler says:

    “Reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is achievable…by creative CO2 accounting. Targets are usually met, even meaningless ones. At least Corona virus solved the A & E waiting time targets….

  23. oldbrew says:

    Eurotunnel says:
    For safety reasons we are not able to transport vehicles powered by ANY flammable gasses, including but not limited to: BiFuel, Autogas, Hydrogen, LPG, CNG or CGH2.

    https://www.eurotunnel.com/uk/travelling-with-us/vehicles/fuel-types/

    So much for using hydrogen in HGVs.

  24. pochas94 says:

    And thus progress has been ended for all time.

  25. oldbrew says:

    If there was enough money in it Eurotunnel would find a way to take the business.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s