Comments on: IPCC Warns Methane Traps Much More Heat Than We Thought

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:44:00 +0000

The statement at the end about natural gas consumption needing to peak in the next 10-15 years is interesting. Let’s say we phase out coal power linearly by 2030, a reasonable target. Also, assume that power consumption falls each year by 2% due to conservation and energy efficiency improvements. At what rate would solar, wind, hydro and geothermal power need to grow annually to allow natgas to peak by 2025? This isn’t a difficult math problem.

By: Ivor O'Connor

Ivor O'Connor — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 23:19:00 +0000

Heindl has gone on record earlier this year in TED talks stating we only get 25% of the energy back. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF7mbEsEP04 starting at 6:45 into the video.

Keep in mind we already have the infrastructure to work with methane and will need very little of it back in terms of electricity. Most will be used for the transport sector like you say. For powering jets and the like.

By: Jouni Valkonen

Jouni Valkonen — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 22:09:00 +0000

This article did not say it, but the conversion efficiency from electricity to methane is 60 %. But Audi stated: "the commercial application of this new power storage technology. In the coming years, we will provide the market with plants of up to 20 MW of electrical power input and reduce investment costs to the necessary level for energy management applications."

By: Jouni Valkonen

Jouni Valkonen — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 22:04:00 +0000

I do not know, unfortunately. And I do not think so that even Internet knows that. However Audi has opened 6 MW pilot plant in Germany. I would guess that they are doing it perhaps not for profit but at least that it pays back the investment. It is not good for Audi’s imago if they cannot make e-gas sustainably as the whole purpose is to make sustainable fuel for NG-cars.

There are several other synthetic methane pilot projects ongoing in Germany. However there is currently too little wind+solar that it is not yet economical at larger scale, because there is too little surplus electricity at hands.

Audi opens 6 MW power-to-gas facility
http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/audi-opens-6-mw-power-to-gas-facility_100011859/

Anyway, my bet is that when there is 300 GW solar peak power in Germany in 2020’s and the demand is only 60 GW, this means that that there is enough surplus electricity production for synthetic methane to be profitable.

I doubt that methane can compete with advanced low cost batteries in 2020’s, but methane as such is very useful, because it is easy to synthesize jet fuel and gasoline from methane. Qatar airways already synthesizes most of their jet fuel from natural gas.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 21:00:00 +0000

We’d need numbers to take that past the point of being a thought.

What is the cost of generating methane, storing it and turning it back into electricity?

By: Jouni Valkonen

Jouni Valkonen — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 20:47:00 +0000

I think that it is most economical to make synthetic methane from surplus PV and Wind. Curtailing may be necessary however if it is uneconomical to match transmission capacity for peak wind and peak solar.

By: globi

globi — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 17:59:00 +0000

Please keep also in mind that fossil fuel heating fossil (incl. hot water) can be replaced by flexible heat pump heating (further reducing the need for natural gas and increasing demand response capacity).
And loads which are currently operated at night (due to lower electricity prices) can be operated during day time (reducing night time demand).
And interconnected wind farms provide baseload and power transmission over long distances is easy and affordable: http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp202/06c9cd09d993758cc1257601003db274.aspx
And wind and PV power surplus can easily be curtailed if necessary.
And hydro power is flexible and hydro power can be increased without building more dams.

By: mzso

mzso — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 11:32:00 +0000

What about this? http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/10/ipcc-indicates-worst-case-climate.html
Or only FUD news are allowed about climate change?

By: Ivor O'Connor

Ivor O'Connor — Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:16:00 +0000

This should be a lively article.

First off the methane breaks down exponentially over time. So using numbers at 100 years is significantly lower than using numbers from the current year. Or over the next five years. Or 10 years.

Cynical me asks why do most other projections for nuclear, fossil fuels, RE go out 20 years at most. Usually. So we peer into the future about our energy mixes and what the planet temperature will be in 2020 or 2030. Yet when we talk Methane we talk 100 years? This is seriously messed up.

Still it is good to point this discrepancy out. Even if we are somehow being compelled to fight this fight with our arms and legs tied.

By: Jouni Valkonen

Jouni Valkonen — Fri, 04 Oct 2013 11:38:00 +0000

although methane is more short lived in atmosphere than CO2, it does not disappear from the atmosphere but is just transformed into carbon dioxide.

But no worries, the cost of solar power is set to go down to one third by 2020. After that natural gas is required only for non-windy night time generation (+ winters in northern latitudes):

Even if the solar industry stays flat based on dollar volume, lower costs should triple installations by 2020
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/10/even-if-solar-industry-stays-flat-based.html