This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Follow via RSS

Author Profile

John Benson

Senior Consultant Microgrid Labs

About me

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:Microgrid Labs, Inc.Senior Consultant: 2014 to PresentDeveloped product plans, conceptual and preliminary designs for projects, performed industry surveys and developed...

Member since 2013
416 items added with 305,994 views

Status

Clean Power Professionals Expert

Top Members

Richard Brooks

Co-Founder and Lead Software Engineer

Reliable Energy Analytics LLC

Charley Rattan

Hydrogen & Offshore Wind, business advisor and trainer

Charley Rattan Associates

Publication

Release the Crackers

image credit: 123rf.com

Sep 22, 2020 3:18 pm GMTSep 22, 2020 3:17 pm GMT
2081 views

Access Publication

This paper will investigate why ammonia is probably the best carrier for hydrogen, possibly can be used directly as a fuel, and the latest developments in ammonia technology including crackers.

Access Publication

Thank John for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Discussions

Sign in to Participate

Matt Chester on Sep 22, 2020 4:15 pm GMT

Thank you for the amazing thought you inspired of this guy moonlighting at an Ammonia production plant-- I love it!

And thanks, more importantly, for the really informative post

John Benson on Sep 22, 2020 4:51 pm GMT

Thanks for your comment.

The kraken certainly has enough arms for it, but he may have trouble getting a grip on the ammonia molecules, not to mention the hydrogen atoms.

-John

Bob Meinetz on Sep 22, 2020 4:25 pm GMT

"Hydrogen and ammonia will probably play important roles in our future evolution to a GHG-free economy."

"The Haber–Bosch process is a reaction between hydrogen and nitrogen at an elevated temperature (840 °F) and high pressure (1,500 psi)."

"In gaseous form compressed hydrogen is transported in bundles of long cylindrical tanks, installed on trailers."

"According to the release, the worlds’ largest green hydrogen project will supply 650 tons of carbon-free hydrogen for transportation globally..."

"...an uncommon waste-to-fuel process is planned and one that can convert that material into biogas"

"...It will be gasified at temperatures of 7,000 degrees Fahrenheit before getting transformed into hydrogen"

I'm anxious to hear about the GHG-free Haber-Bosch process, GHG-free trailers, GHG-free hydrogen compression, GHG-free waste-to-fuel process, GHG-free global transport, and GHG-free gasification at temperatures of 7,000°F that will be used to make the hydrogen to power your GHG-free economy, John. Can you provide details?

Below: a tanker carrying hydrogen. One day, we are assured, it will be a GHG-free fuel.

John Benson on Sep 23, 2020 6:06 pm GMT

Hi Bob:

Right now nothing is "greenhouse gas free" and will not be for several decades. This is why I try to avoid using this term, preferring "very low GHG" when describing processes or products (although I occasionally might slip, and I'm sure the occasional quote might use it). By very low GHG I mean the process or product is implemented/produced with as low a GHG as is currently reasonably achievable.

I'm a stickler for what it means to be GHG-free - it means that no energy or materials used for a product or process created any GHG in their creation, and this includes transportation and lower tier components. I am OK with some small amount of GHG so used being balanced out via properly certified offsets.

-John

Bob Meinetz on Sep 24, 2020 1:05 am GMT

John, at this moment Diablo Canyon (nuclear) Power Plant is generating 2.2 billion watts of electricity that is, indeed, GHG-free. It's been doing that for 35 years. Nothing else comes close.

With hydrogen we're way, way ahead of ourselves in assuming it isn't dirtier than burning gasoline, or even coal. When the energy requirements needed to electrolyze, pump, ship, refrigerate, and compress hydrogen to be useful for public consumption are included, there's little to support the excitement about hydrogen other than excitement itself. It really does not make sense.

The first step should be to perform a full well-to-wheels (W2W) energy pathway analysis for hydrogen from wind. Currently, according to Argonne National Laboratory's GREET (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies) model, a modern high-compression, internal-combustion engine fueled by a 90/10 mix of gasoline/ethanol generates fewer W2W emissions than a similar vehicle powered by a hydrogen fuel cell! The devil is in the details, and the fact no one has performed such an analysis leads me to believe it's 100% hype, designed to appeal to green sensibilities, to sell fake solutions to naïve customers. Snake oil.

Honestly, I wouldn't care if it wasn't the world my kids will have to inhabit - buyer beware, and all - but it is.

John Benson on Sep 24, 2020 5:38 pm GMT

Hi Bob:

And how much GHG did it take to build Diablo? Plenty, More to the point, how much will take to build NuScale's first reactor? Ditto.

Also what provides Diablo's emergency backup and black-start power? Diesels. I would guess that NuScale would also use diesels. for the same function. I would assuming it's built before 2030. Although they might fuel them using biodiesel (ditto Diablo, if the NRC is OK with this). If you will remember, I am a former BWR engineer, and I can think of many processes where the NuScale reactor will need to generate GHG.

As I said, we are decades away from net zero, and we have many small steps to take before that.

Read the post below:

https://energycentral.com/c/ec/journey-thousand-miles%E2%80%A6

-John

Bob Meinetz on Sep 24, 2020 11:59 pm GMT

John - where does this "net zero" creature live? Like a unicorn, a jabberwocky, or any other mythical animal, it doesn't exist. No one, nowhere, has successfully sequestered more CO2 than that emitted by the sequestration facility itself - much less, the 37 billion tons of carbon humans expel into the atmosphere each year.

"Net zero" makes even less sense than trying to power a grid with windmills and solar panels - and that's a pretty low bar.

"I am a former BWR engineer, and I can think of many processes where the NuScale reactor will need to generate GHG."

Admittedly, I'm not that familiar with the nuts and bolts of a NuScale Reactor Module (below), so as a former BWR engineer: please explain to me where the GHGs come out. I've looked and looked, but I can't find the exhaust pipe!

Matt Chester on Sep 25, 2020 11:26 am GMT

It seems like John's point is you're asking for the well-to-wheel analysis on hydrogen and build in the emissions associated with equipment, transportation, manufacturing, etc. and that's more than fair, but does it not mean you should also look at the well-to-wheel analysis of any NuScale reactor as well-- any concrete needed, any manufacturing processes, etc.? If we're comparing apples-to-apples then embedded emissions should be counted for both. It may very well be that NuScale still wins out in a landslide, but to make that point the comparison should be consistent.

Bob Meinetz on Sep 25, 2020 4:51 pm GMT

Matt, if I need to prove the NuScale reactor will never "need to generate GHG", or even "can generate GHG", I'm wasting my time. Really. And it's par for the course for renewables advocacy - bury the discussion in an avalanche of obfuscation and redirection in order to support an ideological, non-science-based point of view.

"But who is 'Bob Meinetz' anyway?" they might say. "Though he painstakingly reference his facts, who's to say his references are accurate?"

Fair enough, I say. Let's defer to the experts - top climate scientists, like the director of the Climate Science, Awareness, and Solutions program at Columbia University's Earth Institute, Dr. James Hansen. Or Kerry Emanuel of MIT, or Ken Caldiera of Carnegie-Mellon. What do they say?

"Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change."

Translation: whatever the environmental impact of a NuScale reactor (or any reactor) might be, nuclear energy wins out in a landslide.

Who is the Ultimate Driver of E-Mobility?

In all E-Mobility adoption efforts, the key focus should be on consumer's cost and comfort concerns.

The Conundrum of the North American Lithium-Ion Battery Supply Chain

It is difficult to see how North America can build a robust lithium-ion supply chain without having domestic lithium-ion cell fabricators at the core of that chain that have the ability and inclination to purchase goods from other domestic suppliers.

U.S. awards $1.4B for nuclear reactors built by Oregon company

NuScale's first Small Modular Reactor project gained significant funding support. The UAMPS project located near Idaho Falls should be more likely to proceed with this large grant - over $200/KW of support. It will be very interesting to see..

Grid-Connected EVs: The New Age of EVs as Distributed Energy Resources – DERs

Recently, a perfect storm of enabling rules, orders, and standards arrived that pave the path for grid-connected electric vehicles (EVs) to serve as distributed energy resources (DERs): California Rule 21, FERC Order 222, and SAE J3072.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

Start a Post » Learn more about posting on Energy Central »

EnergyBiz® Network

Generation Network

Energy Management Network

Intelligent Utility® Network

Grid Network

Energy & Sustainability
Network

Author Profile