zlacker

[parent] [thread] 35 comments
1. youese+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-01-22 18:48:25
Sounds like de-centralized power generation, maximizing remote work, and delivery vehicles powered by electricity and hydrogen is the way forward.
replies(2): >>r00fus+O4 >>jackde+q5
2. r00fus+O4[view] [source] 2021-01-22 19:11:07
>>youese+(OP)
Yeah, everything except the hydrogen part sounds like a good move.
replies(2): >>gecko+r5 >>ip26+gc
3. jackde+q5[view] [source] 2021-01-22 19:14:05
>>youese+(OP)
Why de-centralized power generation? I was under the impression that the electrical distribution system is very efficient in the US and economies of scale make large scale renewables much cheaper.
replies(3): >>RobRiv+t6 >>throwa+f8 >>snoshy+h8
◧◩
4. gecko+r5[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 19:14:07
>>r00fus+O4
Hydrogen as part is totally reasonable. It gives us hydrocarbon density without us needing to add to the CO2 in the atmosphere. The important thing to remember when discussing it is that it's an energy storage medium, not an energy generation medium. Most of the time I get irritated is when people treat hydrogen as the latter. But if our culture is just too damn wedded to cars for now, and battery tech just isn't there yet, then using hydrogen as a stopgap--provided the hydrogen is made from renewable energy--seems fine to me.
replies(3): >>ozborn+48 >>trypto+yb >>ggreer+Ag
◧◩
5. RobRiv+t6[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 19:18:42
>>jackde+q5
heat loss in power distribution is nontrivial
replies(1): >>jackde+I7
◧◩◪
6. jackde+I7[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 19:24:30
>>RobRiv+t6
In the US at least, transmission loss seems to be on order of 5% of total energy distributed. Source: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3#:~:text=Th....

The economies of scale seem to be much larger. For example, utility scale solar seems to be about half the unit cost compared to residential and commercial solar: https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/solar-installed-system-cost.ht...

◧◩◪
7. ozborn+48[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 19:26:05
>>gecko+r5
The problem is that hydrogen is more likely to be made with steam-methane reforming, not electrolysis using clean energy sources.

It is also difficult to store, so I suspect the hydrogen ship has sailed.

replies(2): >>gecko+E8 >>Dennis+8u
◧◩
8. throwa+f8[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 19:26:53
>>jackde+q5
For me, I just like the idea of self-reliance and being able to function in the event of an issue with the grid. I've unfortunately experienced weather events that have led to 2 week outages of power, for example. Fossil fuels provide that security and benefit to some degree, and also have the added bonus of transportability. Yes it is not self-reliance in the sense that you still depend on a supply chain to produce those fuels. But it is easy to store a lot of those fuels for an extended period of time. It's not really practical to do so for electricity, however. A Tesla Powerwall is much much more expensive than a tank, and only stores 13.5 kWh.
replies(1): >>jackde+Ma
◧◩
9. snoshy+h8[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 19:27:06
>>jackde+q5
Electrical distribution in the US is actually aging quite badly and is in deep need of replacement of large parts of it. Inefficiency isn't entirely the problem, although many (including me) would argue that it isn't as efficient as it could be. DC power transmission at high voltages is now feasible due to new technologies, and it is more efficient as well as easier to step up/down. At large scale, even such seemingly small losses do start to add up and matter.

Decentralization brings an obvious benefit - if power is consumed near generation, you need less infrastructure to distribute it, thereby lowering costs. Once we start adding large numbers of EVs charging at home, our energy consumption will tilt more and more towards the home, making generation and consumption on the spot much more efficient and useful.

Another benefit of decentralization is grid resilience. Removing single points of failure by distributing them means that large scale power outages (while already infrequent) would become less frequent.

replies(3): >>jackde+aa >>cobook+Hd >>conk+QU
◧◩◪◨
10. gecko+E8[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 19:28:48
>>ozborn+48
Yep, and that's a very legitimate concern and why I'm certainly not bullish about hydrogen. I just don't want to reflexively throw it out; sufficient energy production from clean sources would make electrolysis quite reasonable, even if it's not ideal, and there are approaches to handling the storage, too, if that ends up being the last bit. I suspect, based on current trends and sciences, that we'll see better batteries instead, but I don't see harm in continuing to look at hydrogen for now.
◧◩◪
11. jackde+aa[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 19:35:48
>>snoshy+h8
100% agree about grid modernization and resilience being high priorities, but as I pointed out in another comment, the economies of scale for renewables are really really massive (utility scale solar is about half the unit cost of residential and commercial rooftop solar). Transmitting power long distance also partially solves intermittence problems with renewables by allowing overcapacity in one region to power extra demand in another. A bunch of good points for sure, but if I had to bet, I would guess that the future of our energy system involves far more long distance transmission and large installations.
replies(1): >>snoshy+md
◧◩◪
12. jackde+Ma[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 19:39:46
>>throwa+f8
I dig the idea of self reliance and preparedness, but like you pointed out, fossil fuels and small generators solve the problem really well. In most places in the US, the grid is pretty reliable so optimizing the system for those handful of days/year doesn't seem prudent. Granted, some places (looking at you California) have a lot of work to do on reliability.
◧◩◪
13. trypto+yb[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 19:44:02
>>gecko+r5
IMO ammonia makes more sense than hydrogen.

It doesn't cause metals to become brittle. Its relatively stable. It doesn't require as low temperature or as high pressure to liquidize. It also stores ~50% more hydrogen per volume, as each ammonia has 3 hydrogen, unlike elemental hydrogen with just 2.

replies(1): >>throwa+Dk
◧◩
14. ip26+gc[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 19:48:40
>>r00fus+O4
Maybe not for delivery vehicles, but a combo of batteries plus green hydrogen fuel cell might enable long haul airplanes. Hybrids, if you will.
◧◩◪◨
15. snoshy+md[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 19:53:15
>>jackde+aa
Fair point about the unit costs being drastically lower due to economies of scale. As with any large scale infrastructure, it will certainly be a mix of both local generation and utility scale transmitted power. The real question is where the balance of the two will end up. Either way, distributed generation at scale will be a unique phenomenon that hasn't been seen before, and will certainly result in quite a bit of disruption throughout the industry.
◧◩◪
16. cobook+Hd[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 19:54:26
>>snoshy+h8
Decentralization is also in the National Security interest. Makes it much harder for an adversary to take down large swaths of the US Grid.
replies(1): >>snoshy+jh
◧◩◪
17. ggreer+Ag[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 20:09:40
>>gecko+r5
Hydrogen vehicles will never become popular. There are several reasons for this:

- To be carbon-neutral, the hydrogen must come from splitting water.[1] Currently hydrogen comes from steam reforming of methane (which releases lots of carbon).[2]

- Hydrogen is a very pernicious molecule. It will slowly leak through metal and weaken it.[3]

- Hydrogen vehicles must be refueled at special fueling stations. Electric vehicles can be charged anywhere there is electricity (such as at home).

- Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are more expensive than battery electric vehicles. Toyota sells the Mirai for $57,500 and loses money on each one.

- Storage and transportation of hydrogen is very difficult. It must either be stored in gaseous form at very high pressure, or in liquid form at 20 degrees above absolute zero. Current vehicles use high pressure tanks, which also require high pressure pumps. Many hydrogen stations can only provide 5,000psi pumps, which means you'll only get half a tank (and half of your expected range).[4]

- Hydrogen is more flammable than gasoline (it will ignite in a much wider range of mixtures with oxygen).[5] Unlike gasoline, the flame is invisible in daytime. Unlike gasoline, hydrogen is invisible and has no smell, making leaks undetectable without special equipment. If an odorant is added to the hydrogen, it will likely damage the fuel cell.

- Hydrogen is more expensive than gasoline and far more expensive than electricity. Even with subsidies, refilling a Toyota Mirai costs over $80.[4] That gives you just over 300 miles of range. My Tesla Model 3 has the same range and a full charge costs me $6 at home. Supercharging is also cheaper, at around $25.

- Batteries got cheap faster than anyone predicted (except Tesla). In 2015, a study looked at past estimates of battery prices versus observed prices. They found that analysts were consistently pessimistic about cost reductions. Correcting for this, they noted that cost per kWh, "...could reach $200 by 2020." Actual cost in 2020 was $123.[6]

Given all of these disadvantages, I don't see how hydrogen vehicles could be considered reasonable. The economics, physics, safety, and convenience simply don't work out.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_splitting

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement

4. https://www.cars.com/articles/fill-er-up-refueling-the-2016-...

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety

6. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/04/will-falling-battery-...

replies(1): >>letsgo+1o
◧◩◪◨
18. snoshy+jh[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 20:12:55
>>cobook+Hd
This I'm not so sure about. It will certainly be different, but it's still an open question whether it will be easier to secure from a national security standpoint.

There's the physical security aspect of this, which is as you say, hard to take down when it's decentralized. However, as power generation gets more distributed, we'll naturally start seeing more (if not most) of these pieces of equipment be controlled over networks (private or public), and securing distributed infrastructure from a software standpoint is still a hard problem.

Just look at the state of IoT security today. It's quite bad, and that's not even realistically including nation state attackers in the threat model. I don't expect this to go well with a decentralized grid, at least not for a while initially.

replies(2): >>cobook+rl >>jounke+vM
◧◩◪◨
19. throwa+Dk[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 20:31:29
>>trypto+yb
It's also highly toxic and a leak in the wrong place could kill thousands of people.
replies(2): >>r00fus+il >>evgen+Nl
◧◩◪◨⬒
20. r00fus+il[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 20:36:10
>>throwa+Dk
And hydrogen substrate isn't similar?
replies(1): >>philip+2o
◧◩◪◨⬒
21. cobook+rl[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 20:36:50
>>snoshy+jh
I'm not convinced that it needs to be internet controlled. Hopefully it uses protocols like BLE or Zigbee requiring proximity. That way such an attack would require being physically near the device.
replies(1): >>jholma+lY2
◧◩◪◨⬒
22. evgen+Nl[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 20:38:28
>>throwa+Dk
But we have handled ammonia on an industrial scale for more than a century and are really good at it. Any safety concerns about ammonia are ridiculous when compared with some of the other substances we handle and live around on a daily basis.
replies(1): >>bluGil+jt
◧◩◪◨
23. letsgo+1o[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 20:51:47
>>ggreer+Ag
I think most hydrogen proponents are pushing for it to replace hydrocarbons for shipping, planes, and seasonal energy storage, not cars.

There's not a lot of other great options today if we want to decarbonize those sectors because of the energy density required.

replies(1): >>bobthe+jb1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
24. philip+2o[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 20:51:47
>>r00fus+il
Hydrogen is not toxic by inhalation, but it's a much worse explosion/fire risk.

Hydrogen is flammable when mixed with air between 4% and 75%, and it takes a minimum energy of 0.016 millijoules to ignite. Ammonia is flammable between 15% and 28% and takes 680 millijoules to ignite. It takes much more energy to ignite ammonia and there's a much narrower range of mixtures with air where it can support combustion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammability_limit#Examples

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
25. bluGil+jt[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 21:24:47
>>evgen+Nl
A a John Deere employee I can tell you that several very much wanted products have failed to be developed because someone put their safety black-hat on and came up with a to abuse that product the release ammonia into the air. Once an evil person figures out how to control our system it is trivial for them to figure out many terrorist attacks involving ammonia releases.

Yes the world deals with ammonia all the time. However we have special training for anyone who handles it. Even the most caution to the wind types wear full respirators and thick gloves when handling it.

When you buy ammonia at walmart what you get is 1% ammonia, 99% water. Then you are instructed to dilute it with more water 16:1, Even at that ratio it is nasty enough that those who use it have windows open.

replies(1): >>jessau+Ny
◧◩◪◨
26. Dennis+8u[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 21:31:48
>>ozborn+48
A company in Norway thinks it can get electrolysis to price parity with steam-methane reforming by 2025, and maybe cheaper after that.

https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/nel-to-slash-cost-of...

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
27. jessau+Ny[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 22:06:13
>>bluGil+jt
Please be specific. Liquid anhydrous ammonia is a common fertilizer. John Deere still sells e.g. the 2430 and the 2510. How did the hypothetical "very much wanted" products differ from those applicators? Are we talking about a handheld model? (That might have been a bad idea!) One suspects the hypothetical "evil persons" whose threat delayed product development were more interested in cooking meth than in terrorist attacks...
replies(1): >>bluGil+m71
◧◩◪◨⬒
28. jounke+vM[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-22 23:34:23
>>snoshy+jh
Decentralization means rooftop solar, and decentralized control (aka smart meters) have been in place for quite a while in many places.
◧◩◪
29. conk+QU[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-23 00:34:06
>>snoshy+h8
How is stepping DC up/down easier than AC?
replies(1): >>jessau+FY1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
30. bluGil+m71[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-23 02:36:57
>>jessau+Ny
None of them can be controlled from the internet.
replies(1): >>jessau+VW1
◧◩◪◨⬒
31. bobthe+jb1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-23 03:19:53
>>letsgo+1o
Also add trains to that list, mostly because the cost of stringing wire is constant and below certain traffic levels batteries make more sense.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
32. jessau+VW1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-23 13:54:58
>>bluGil+m71
John Deere is to be commended, one supposes, for being much more concerned about blackhat terrorists than e.g. Siemens with all their internet-accessible SCADA installations, but neither ISIS nor Putin care about killing a couple of farmers in western Iowa. Thread parent was about automobiles, and while maybe professionally-operated vehicles like semi trucks or buses would be better with which to start using ammonia on a large scale, vehicles are unlike applicator implements in that they aren't actually designed to release ammonia into the environment. Conceivably a car could be hacked to lock the brakes at high speed, but there's just no mechanism to pour out its fuel tank.
replies(1): >>bluGil+4o5
◧◩◪◨
33. jessau+FY1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-23 14:11:42
>>conk+QU
Perhaps parent meant DC is easier now than DC used to be? We can't use transformers, but power circuitry has improved with better FETs.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
34. jholma+lY2[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-23 21:13:41
>>cobook+rl
Zigbee devices can form mesh networks. That means viruses on them can form mesh networks. If, in addition to your Zigbee-only home automation gear, you've got a zigbee-enabled internet-enabled hub of some kind, you can get comand-and-control into the network from anywhere in the world. So much for proximity. I worked briefly in a SCADA-adjacent space a decade ago, and people were delivering PoCs back then.

IoT is a raging tirefire. It's hard to even imagine how bad the security situation is.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
35. bluGil+4o5[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-24 20:13:52
>>jessau+VW1
How do you know that the tank won't rupture in an accident? Such engineering is not cheap.
replies(1): >>jessau+ZQ7
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
36. jessau+ZQ7[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-01-25 16:18:46
>>bluGil+4o5
Ammonia is less flammable and explosive than gasoline, which is commonly found in currently-engineered and currently-existing fuel tanks. They are both much less flammable and explosive than hydrogen, which is the other fuel under discussion in this thread. Ammonia tanks would be pressurized, which is different than gasoline, but lots of tanks are pressurized.
[go to top]