TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Solar energy solves global warming

83 点作者 ph0rque将近 2 年前

16 条评论

hannob将近 2 年前
When considering synthetic chemicals made from solar energy, methane is probably one of the last you should consider.<p>Making any type of chemical energy carrier comes with substantial losses, so whenever you can, using electricity directly is better.<p>If you absolutely need a chemical energy carrier, the first one you will look at is hydrogen, because it&#x27;s the simplest and you avoid all the direct air capture or other CO2 sourcing issue.<p>If H2 does not work due to its low volumetric energy density, the next one to consider is ammonia. It has a higher energy density, but it also has some downsides. It&#x27;s very toxic, it does not burn very well, and burning it causes nasty side products like NOx and N2O.<p>Then there&#x27;s methanol. In case you want a hydrocarbon, that&#x27;s almost always better than methane. It&#x27;s a liquid, which is a huge advantage in ease of handling. Transporting and storing it is a lot easier compared to any type of gas.<p>Methane has the big disadvantage that it&#x27;s itself a potent greenhouse gas. (Btw, hydrogen also is an indirect greenhouse gas, although not as strong as methane.) The only thing methane has in its favor is existing infrastructure, but it&#x27;s a weak argument compared to the other downsides.
评论 #36683653 未加载
评论 #36682795 未加载
评论 #36682522 未加载
评论 #36683666 未加载
评论 #36684707 未加载
评论 #36683509 未加载
V__将近 2 年前
&gt; In the future, we will still have CO2 credits. But instead of allowing companies to release CO2 into the air… Credits might allow companies to capture co2.<p>The article then goes on to explain that solar + co2 capture results in methane. But isn&#x27;t this at best co2 neutral? Since nearly all use-cases for methane would release the co2 again and would make the credits&#x27; comparison pointless?<p>Besides that, will methane actually be needed in the future? Looking at the common uses [1], it&#x27;s mostly used for fuel and hydrogen generation. Both things, which solar, can be used for directly without the conversion loses of using methane as an intermediate step.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Methane#Uses" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Methane#Uses</a>
评论 #36682844 未加载
评论 #36682226 未加载
评论 #36682216 未加载
评论 #36682225 未加载
bad_alloc将近 2 年前
This article assumed carbon capture from the air to form methane will risk depleting CO2 from the atmosphere. This methane is supposed to be used as an energy storage medium.<p>...wat? The proposed process is <i>extremely</i> wasteful and almost any other carbon source is much more available, nevermind other forms of energy storage. This might be reasonable on Mars, but why would we ever want to convert solar power to Methane on a scale that changes the atmosphere? Am I missing something?
评论 #36682181 未加载
评论 #36682325 未加载
photochemsyn将近 2 年前
If you&#x27;re going to try to use solar power to reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the only endpoints that make much sense are carbon fiber and diamond. Things like limestone require a counterion like calcium or magnesium for each captured carbon atom, which is hard to come by.<p>Routes to carbon fiber and diamond pass through methane, which is also the input for the vast majority of petrochemical processes (including at-use-point generation of hydrogen via steam reforming), so the main thing to do is set up industrial scale solar-powered methane plants that use water and atmospheric CO2 as their feedstocks, generating natural gas which can then be piped or shipped as LNG to where they&#x27;re needed as either an energy source for electricity generation (in which case the carbon returns to the atmosphere as CO2) or as a synthetic feedstock for everything from methanol to dyes to plastics and, carbon fiber and diamond as long-term stable storage products (with uses in say construction etc.). Diamond Age, here we come.<p>As far as the rationale for using solar&#x2F;wind electricity to do this, that should be obvious, you&#x27;re converting an intermittent&#x2F;seasonal power source into stored chemical energy, just as biological photosynthesis does. That stored energy can then be used as needed, during winter months and so on. Of course batteries make more sense for storing solar power for use at night (hourly), but chemical fuels are better for months-long storage or for long-distance transport of energy, e.g. you can make methane in North Africa &#x2F; Middle East and then ship it to Finland in the winter.<p>If you really wanted to, you could also run this process with electricity from nuclear power but the way technology is going, using wind&#x2F;solar is going to be about 10X cheaper at the inputs end. Regardless, this approach would allow for the complete elimination of fossil fuels from the energy mix, which is the only plausible way to stop global warming.
评论 #36683352 未加载
pfdietz将近 2 年前
A problem with making methane is some will leak, and in the short to medium term methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas.<p>A step before making methane is making hydrogen. If you can get away with just using hydrogen, it will be more efficient than going through the extra steps to make methane.
评论 #36682243 未加载
评论 #36682232 未加载
评论 #36683779 未加载
tlb将近 2 年前
Methane might not be the best thing to make in a CO2 capture plant. Methane has an especially high greenhouse effect, and it seems to leak when transported around for fuel. And it&#x27;s not a good fuel for the applications where grid energy or batteries don&#x27;t work, like aviation.<p>It&#x27;d might be better to turn CO2 + H2O into a longer-chain hydrocarbon suitable for jet or diesel engines.
goethes_kind将近 2 年前
Which is easier:<p>1. Build solar and wind, anywhere across the globe to 4x overcapacity, and then use power-to-gas technology to store the energy into synthetic hydrocarbons, which can be plugged directly into our current infrastructure.<p>2. Reinvent the whole of society to run on lithium batteries.
评论 #36685565 未加载
评论 #36683825 未加载
评论 #36683801 未加载
_aleph2c_将近 2 年前
The nice thing about methane is that it&#x27;s not too energy dense, so you can sell it to your population like gasoline. You may not want to give the population mini-nukes or vacuum energy generation from EVOs.<p>We don&#x27;t need to use solar panels though, we already have exceedingly cheap energy generation in the form of nuclear power. We also have inexpensive ways of transmuting the nuclear waste.<p>We don&#x27;t really have a environmental problem, we have a regulatory problem; it is impossible to develop any of this new technology because we have made it infinitely expensive by law. We have also made non-technical environmentalism the height of fashion, and now its used as the spiritual engine for the political-left. For those of you who are concerned that this process is net neutral, there is nothing stopping us from using a similar process to pull the carbon out of the C02 and use it for construction, or to just bury it.<p>The key to a better future is to reconsider our attitudes toward energy innovation and to remove the activists from our regulatory boards and to re-write our laws to make it possible to innovate and build. We teach our kids that they are doomed, maybe we should encourage them to study nuclear and plasma engineering instead.
评论 #36682831 未加载
评论 #36682494 未加载
评论 #36682594 未加载
KineticLensman将近 2 年前
TFA glibly asserts that the biggest cost of producing methane in this way is the energy required, and then states that the reduction in the cost of solar energy means that the described process could break even. It would be really good to see some actual numbers here, apart from those relating to the cost of solar, for the infrastructure and other things that are barely mentioned.
tastyfreeze将近 2 年前
Nice! Synthesizing fuel is something I think about whenever I study power generation. Ideally, the synthesized fuel doesn&#x27;t require cryogenic storage to store large quantities. The less energy that storage requires the better for fuel ubiquity. I dream of a fuel generating device that is utilized to dump excess generated power. Currently off grid power generation dumps load as heat. The heat is often used to heat water or a room but occasionally dumped in atmosphere.<p>Methane synthesis is the first step in a whole chain of high energy synthesis. The two most important economically are longer hydrocarbons (ethane, propane) and ethylene which is the base for poly-ethylene plastics.<p>But, for synthesis the electricity has to be essentially free to be economical. These chemical pathways require a lot of energy. I would probably use methanogens to create methane from organic waste then use excess electricity for higher order synthesis.
owisd将近 2 年前
When you’re manufacturing natural gas from solar the pre-existing network of gas pipelines alleviate the intermittency problem with solar because you can store energy as methane in an existing system that’s already designed for seasonal volumes of energy storage.
zackmorris将近 2 年前
This is great, but also hopelessly naive for a very important reason. Check out this graph from the article:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;substackcdn.com&#x2F;image&#x2F;fetch&#x2F;f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep&#x2F;https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F3b31a8b0-c1bd-4d94-801d-4bbd0cf4b40e_1600x1130.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;substackcdn.com&#x2F;image&#x2F;fetch&#x2F;f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr...</a><p>Note the trend line intersecting with the x axis in 1980. Now this:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;yaleclimateconnections.org&#x2F;2023&#x2F;02&#x2F;the-forgotten-story-of-jimmy-carters-white-house-solar-panels&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;yaleclimateconnections.org&#x2F;2023&#x2F;02&#x2F;the-forgotten-sto...</a><p>The world was set to do everything we&#x27;re doing today in the 80s. Except that the powers that be decided to extract every last dollar from fossil fuels, regardless of consequences like global warming. Decades of government subsidies for everything except solar and wind followed, creating a long tail of glacially slow price reductions for renewables. So we accept evolution and reject revolution because we can&#x27;t see the strings controlling the marionette. &lt;- writing this on a site dedicated to hacking around barriers is especially painful<p>I wrote about stuff like heat pumps and carbon capture in long emails to my friends in the 2000s, complete with prices and sources. Then had to wait 20 long years for the world to manifest those ideas in its own time. Which hinged on political close calls like Obama&#x27;s reelection, which provided a brief safety net for electric car manufacturers among other things, and almost didn&#x27;t happen. It took almost no time for his successor the former president to impose a 30% tariff on solar panels in 2018 in a last-ditch attempt to block us from cancelling our power bills.<p>The real challenge we&#x27;re facing is that the wealthy of the world could have solved this yesterday for a relatively paltry investment but chose not to. The proof of that is in their continued downplaying of such causes as they play hard with rockets, Twitter, etc. This is the tragedy of the commons at scale. Similar to the problem of parents choosing for the good of their children individually but not collectively. In other words, unstoppable without a cultural awakening.<p>But I applaud the author&#x27;s efforts.<p>Edit: just a little &quot;proof&quot; from Naked Gun 2 1&#x2F;2, released in 1991 when this was already common knowledge: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=M8Wk79i1gcg">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=M8Wk79i1gcg</a>
KingMob将近 2 年前
Another article that presumes capitalism will somehow put an end to global warming, when capitalism got us into this. The article spends all this time describing the economic benefits, which won&#x27;t mean a damn thing when we&#x27;re fighting wars over water and starving en masse from crop failures.<p>Capitalism has had 40 years to do something climate disruption, and instead, the hottest average days ever recorded all occurred in the last week.
评论 #36683948 未加载
leach将近 2 年前
Isn’t nuclear more stable and efficient than solar?<p>Why is it not regarded as a solution
评论 #36683515 未加载
评论 #36682941 未加载
评论 #36682435 未加载
评论 #36683323 未加载
评论 #36682726 未加载
评论 #36683755 未加载
mech987987将近 2 年前
Another mechanism promoted by the same trend the article mentions- corn ethanol yields increasing.
mirko22将近 2 年前
Unless we deal with storage and energy production fluctuations solar will not solve anything…