Split from 2020 Elections: Energy Technology

[marshwiggle]

Yeah, I alluded to the material limitations (I'm thinking mostly of rare earth metals for organometallic catalysts), but I appreciate you bringing it back up. I think it's a really crucial limitation of most of our PV devices relative to, say, photosynthetic approaches at light harvesting.

I really wish people had put more research into biological membranes 30 years ago (or even now), since the main barrier to photosynthetic mimics is the membrane environment providing the exact spacing needed for efficient transfer, and one of our biggest gaps in biochemical research (IMO) is synthetic membranes.

There have been advances in PV technology here and there, but I think most of the work (probably rightfully) is going into water splitting / fuel cells. A lot of the limits I see are in longevity and durability, where there are some really promising new materials that just do not last very long, or for many of the liquid DSCs aren't durable enough for long, constant use.

So the trade-off is often between low conversion (efficiency) and durability and longevity.

Slightly tangential, but this relates to the possibility of hydrogen energy storage. The idea has been around since at least the 70's, and while there have been technological advances, (including things like membrane developments), there still isn't an off-the-shelf industrial or residential hydrogen storage system including an electrolyzer, storage, and fuel cell. This is just one illustration of how hard the storage problems really are, because of the limits of chemistry and physics.

[eigen]

Yeah, I alluded to the material limitations (I'm thinking mostly of rare earth metals for organometallic catalysts), but I appreciate you bringing it back up. I think it's a really crucial limitation of most of our PV devices relative to, say, photosynthetic approaches at light harvesting.

I really wish people had put more research into biological membranes 30 years ago (or even now), since the main barrier to photosynthetic mimics is the membrane environment providing the exact spacing needed for efficient transfer, and one of our biggest gaps in biochemical research (IMO) is synthetic membranes.

There have been advances in PV technology here and there, but I think most of the work (probably rightfully) is going into water splitting / fuel cells. A lot of the limits I see are in longevity and durability, where there are some really promising new materials that just do not last very long, or for many of the liquid DSCs aren't durable enough for long, constant use.

So the trade-off is often between low conversion (efficiency) and durability and longevity.

Slightly tangential, but this relates to the possibility of hydrogen energy storage. The idea has been around since at least the 70's, and while there have been technological advances, (including things like membrane developments), there still isn't an off-the-shelf industrial or residential hydrogen storage system including an electrolyzer, storage, and fuel cell. This is just one illustration of how hard the storage problems really are, because of the limits of chemistry and physics.

Very true. I should say there have been great improvements in the development of water splitting catalysts, but building them large scale is going to be difficult.

Harry Gray's work for new combinations of materials in a high-throughput scale (solar army) is interesting, and while I don't like the guy, Nocera is certainly the farthest along in making individual home fuel-cells, mostly based off of a combination of light harvesting and microbes. There are a ton of other new players in the field as well.

But yeah, I'd say we've got another 10 years before the tech is good enough in the lab, and another 10-15 after that until it is refined enough to be widespread, both of those estimates conservative.

[jimbogumbo]

Yeah, I alluded to the material limitations (I'm thinking mostly of rare earth metals for organometallic catalysts), but I appreciate you bringing it back up. I think it's a really crucial limitation of most of our PV devices relative to, say, photosynthetic approaches at light harvesting.

I really wish people had put more research into biological membranes 30 years ago (or even now), since the main barrier to photosynthetic mimics is the membrane environment providing the exact spacing needed for efficient transfer, and one of our biggest gaps in biochemical research (IMO) is synthetic membranes.

There have been advances in PV technology here and there, but I think most of the work (probably rightfully) is going into water splitting / fuel cells. A lot of the limits I see are in longevity and durability, where there are some really promising new materials that just do not last very long, or for many of the liquid DSCs aren't durable enough for long, constant use.

So the trade-off is often between low conversion (efficiency) and durability and longevity.

Slightly tangential, but this relates to the possibility of hydrogen energy storage. The idea has been around since at least the 70's, and while there have been technological advances, (including things like membrane developments), there still isn't an off-the-shelf industrial or residential hydrogen storage system including an electrolyzer, storage, and fuel cell. This is just one illustration of how hard the storage problems really are, because of the limits of chemistry and physics.

Very true. I should say there have been great improvements in the development of water splitting catalysts, but building them large scale is going to be difficult.

Harry Gray's work for new combinations of materials in a high-throughput scale (solar army) is interesting, and while I don't like the guy, Nocera is certainly the farthest along in making individual home fuel-cells, mostly based off of a combination of light harvesting and microbes. There are a ton of other new players in the field as well.

But yeah, I'd say we've got another 10 years before the tech is good enough in the lab, and another 10-15 after that until it is refined enough to be widespread, both of those estimates conservative.

Thank you all for this thread, and I am especially glad polly, marshwiggle and eigen are continuing to post. When I made my original comment I was well aware of the work that has been occurring. I have no allusions that this would be a fast process. I also think that a President has little to do with it except stay out of the way. An administration can make a difference via incentives, but mostly shouldn't thRow up roadblocks. I'm hoping significant gains to an everyday lifestyle level can be made by the time my grandkids (two junior high and one struggling to emerge even as I write) are adults.

[marshwiggle]

Thank you all for this thread, and I am especially glad polly, marshwiggle and eigen are continuing to post. When I made my original comment I was well aware of the work that has been occurring. I have no allusions that this would be a fast process. I also think that a President has little to do with it except stay out of the way. An administration can make a difference via incentives, but mostly shouldn't thRow up roadblocks. I'm hoping significant gains to an everyday lifestyle level can be made by the time my grandkids (two junior high and one struggling to emerge even as I write) are adults.

One of my goals is to counter the conspiracy theories that everything is "suppressed by big oil", (not much different from "covid is a governement conspiracy!"), and that the magic technology has been kept hidden. The people who think fossil fuels can be eliminated tomorrow (Green New Deal?) are as deluded as the climate change deniers.

[polly_mer]

Upthread, someone mentioned solar being repressed by the utility companies.  A different technology challenge is the smart grids to have multiple generation points with multiway flow that depends on the current need.

My bet is the private power companies are pushing to ensure they don't end up with most of the expenses and all the blame for glitches while someone else gets the benefits and any money around.  One strong argument for utilities to be public is to spread the costs to those who get the benefits.

Many people are willing to pay higher taxes for better lives for themselves and their neighbors.  Few people want to pay higher taxes when the benefits go to unknown others far away when their local communities have crummy schools, bad roads, minimal libraries, and unreliable utilities (water, power, sewer, garbage pickup, phone service, and increasingly internet access).  People with means and money will move to the better communities and then pay not only higher taxes, but often homeowner association (HOA) fees with enforced rules to ensure that the place remains nice.

Someone also did a toss away "don't have to live like a peasant" comment somewhere recently.  One doesn't have to go all the way down to old-tyme peasant for life to be unpleasant enough to desire to opt out.  In late 2018, France had riots by the farmers and other rural folks for increased taxes that would much more heavily affect them than the urban folks (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/03/france-fuel-protests-heres-whats-happening-and-why-it-matters.html).

Transportation is a large user of the energy-dense, extremely convenient fossil fuels.  In modern America, being able to order consumer goods and have them delivered to the house is normal.  The sticker is called the last mile.  It's pretty efficient to mass transport things by train, big trucks, and even cargo planes to a warehouse.  Getting a single package to a doorstep millions of times per day is a huge inefficiency, even if drone delivery takes off, when many of those doorsteps are several hours from the warehouse (Polly waves cheerily from a minimum of two hours from an officially urban area when the roads are open with much of the last 30 miles unsuitable for a semitrailer and a minimum of six hours from an urban area that people not in the region might name as an urban area).

Mass transit in cities has a similar last mile problem moving people.  One way the problems of the urban poor are different from the rural poor is technically having access to jobs that pay acceptably well, but having significant transportation problems between the current neighborhood and the new job.  The routes that are the less well used are often the ones that should be most subsidized and expanded if the goal is helping poor people work their way out of poverty.

But, again, people who can move to a better connected hub, do and then they want something different that directly supports their neighborhood.  One of the running jokes in some quarters is the people who live in Connecticut and yet it's an easier commute every morning on the train (only one stop, can work or read for most of an hour) than living geographically closer (multiple legs of the journey, much less pleasant seating if one can get it, divided attention because of the multiple legs).

Don't even get me started on meat and other food choices where doing one's part is small for those who already have constricted choices through lack of money, but is very noticeable for those of us who have benefited from the expanded choices so that "in season" is no longer meaningful and a good cut of meat is part of most meals.  Going from modern first-world choices to a level of life that was common in the 1950s American suburbia is a hard sell for anyone who isn't a true believer and really didn't get accustomed to the modern amenities anyway.

[Parasaurolophus]

The people who think fossil fuels can be eliminated tomorrow (Green New Deal?)

Nope.

[Kron3007]

Thank you all for this thread, and I am especially glad polly, marshwiggle and eigen are continuing to post. When I made my original comment I was well aware of the work that has been occurring. I have no allusions that this would be a fast process. I also think that a President has little to do with it except stay out of the way. An administration can make a difference via incentives, but mostly shouldn't thRow up roadblocks. I'm hoping significant gains to an everyday lifestyle level can be made by the time my grandkids (two junior high and one struggling to emerge even as I write) are adults.

One of my goals is to counter the conspiracy theories that everything is "suppressed by big oil", (not much different from "covid is a governement conspiracy!"), and that the magic technology has been kept hidden. The people who think fossil fuels can be eliminated tomorrow (Green New Deal?) are as deluded as the climate change deniers.

Well, it dosnt help when government's around the world subsidize the oil industry, making other technologies less competitive.  So, even if the oil industry is not holding them down, the oil industry is being artificially propped up, kind of the same thing.

It also doesn't help that big oil companies have been actively suppressing and hiding climate change data for decades, including their own internal findings. 

Perhaps if big oil was not subsidized and people were told the truth, alternative energies would be far more advanced by now. 

[dismalist]

Well, it dosnt help when government's around the world subsidize the oil industry, making other technologies less competitive.  So, even if the oil industry is not holding them down, the oil industry is being artificially propped up, kind of the same thing.

Nay, only renewable processes and products are subsidized worldwide. Petroleum products in transportation are taxed.

[spork]

Since I initiated this with a comment about a First World rail system, I guess I should comment.

My energy consumption is driven mostly by constraints imposed by existing systems and personal financial benefit. I discount the future, like most humans. For example:

Our house, which is twice as large as what we really need, is one hundred years old. Our main heat source is natural gas-fired steam. I calculated that fixing or replacing the house's thirty-three windows would significantly reduce our heating bill. But I went with vinyl-frame windows, even though, according to the information I've read, they generate far more carbon emissions when manufactured than wood-frame windows. They also are made from non-renewable toxic materials, don't last as long, and get tossed into landfills instead of being recycled. So why didn't I go with restoring the original windows or buying new wood-frame windows? It would have cost me twice as much as the vinyl replacement windows did. And someone else will own the house in twenty years, when these windows need to be replaced because the seals are failing.

Probably there is zero net benefit to the environment from this. My energy consumption would be much less in a house half as large with concrete walls and solar hot water and electricity systems on the roof. But even if that were the situation, we still own two cars, have a two-hour round trip commute for work, and eat food that is produced unsustainably. And we now have two cats as pets; instead of feeding them canned ground up industrially-raised animals for the next decade or two, it would be far better for the environment if we killed and ate them.

I don't see much chance of big changes from individuals lowering their thermostats in the winter or eating organic vegetables in the summer. Public policy needs to be designed to make old habits more costly and incentivize the development of new habits.

[dismalist]

Precisely!

Look, friends, those who are truly fearful of global warming should advocate a carbon tax. That would fix the problem at source, the cheapest way of fixing any problem.

In the absence of advocacy, I infer no one is really worried about global warming and that the term is a mere mantra, as in religion.

[Parasaurolophus]

You could have pinned your hopes on a carbon tax thirty years ago. Today, it's clear that the expected utility would be nowhere near enough.

That said, there's no reason it can't be part of the package, and indeed, it typically is. California, for one, is part of a carbon market. I have no idea where you've gotten the idea that nobody is advocating for it. What's true is that the conversation has moved past mere carbon taxes, because it's clear they're not sufficient.

[dismalist]

You could have pinned your hopes on a carbon tax thirty years ago. Today, it's clear that the expected utility would be nowhere near enough.

That said, there's no reason it can't be part of the package, and indeed, it typically is. California, for one, is part of a carbon market. I have no idea where you've gotten the idea that nobody is advocating for it. What's true is that the conversation has moved past mere carbon taxes, because it's clear they're not sufficient.

As they would solve the problem, if it exists, and we don't have them in sufficient quantity, I infer this is all bs. :-)

[Kron3007]

Well, it dosnt help when government's around the world subsidize the oil industry, making other technologies less competitive.  So, even if the oil industry is not holding them down, the oil industry is being artificially propped up, kind of the same thing.

Nay, only renewable processes and products are subsidized worldwide. Petroleum products in transportation are taxed.

According to the international monetary fund, the global oil industry was subsidized to a tune of 5.2 trillion in 2017...

Perhaps they are taxed, but the companies are subsidized.

[dismalist]

Well, it dosnt help when government's around the world subsidize the oil industry, making other technologies less competitive.  So, even if the oil industry is not holding them down, the oil industry is being artificially propped up, kind of the same thing.

Nay, only renewable processes and products are subsidized worldwide. Petroleum products in transportation are taxed.

According to the international monetary fund, the global oil industry was subsidized to a tune of 5.2 trillion in 2017...

Perhaps they are taxed, but the companies are subsidized.

Source please. I'd like to know what the IMF's definition of a subsidy is. And I don't trust the IMF! :-)

[Parasaurolophus]

The IMF is evil. But they're not wrong on this score.

Perhaps it would be easier to begin by asking which kinds of sources you would trust.