Storing Energy

[Elderberry]

Watts Up With That?  by Willis Eschenbach 6/15/2021

I’ve been reading some folks’ claims about how batteries are the key to a bright green renewable future. Of course, we wouldn’t need batteries if we didn’t try to depend on unreliable, intermittent sources like solar and wind, but let’s set that question aside for the moment.

A number of ways of storing energy exist that allow us to generate electricity as needed. Batteries, pumped water storage, compressed air, electro-mechanical flywheel systems, electro-chemical “flow batteries”, all are in use in various locations. And there are “intermittent flow” systems, which although they are not storage, allow for greater generation at certain times … including Niagara Falls, where the flow over the falls is reduced at night so more power can be generated when it’s not masquerading as a tourist attraction. Not storage … but pretty cool nonetheless …

Setting Niagara aside, I thought I’d look at how much energy storage exists in the world. Here’s a list of all of the world’s energy storage systems, by type.

More: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/15/storing-energy/

[BassWrangler]

Watts Up With That?  by Willis Eschenbach 6/15/2021

I’ve been reading some folks’ claims about how batteries are the key to a bright green renewable future. Of course, we wouldn’t need batteries if we didn’t try to depend on unreliable, intermittent sources like solar and wind, but let’s set that question aside for the moment.

A number of ways of storing energy exist that allow us to generate electricity as needed. Batteries, pumped water storage, compressed air, electro-mechanical flywheel systems, electro-chemical “flow batteries”, all are in use in various locations. And there are “intermittent flow” systems, which although they are not storage, allow for greater generation at certain times … including Niagara Falls, where the flow over the falls is reduced at night so more power can be generated when it’s not masquerading as a tourist attraction. Not storage … but pretty cool nonetheless …

Setting Niagara aside, I thought I’d look at how much energy storage exists in the world. Here’s a list of all of the world’s energy storage systems, by type.

More: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/15/storing-energy/

I don't know anyone who thinks batteries are a viable source for bulk energy storage. They are the best option right now for electric cars, but as energy storage devices, they suck. And the gains in battery tech have been very incremental for many years - no big revolution there. They are a viable solution for evening out the day/night storage needs from solar.

For bulk storage, the alternatives I've heard proposed are pumped hydro and molten salt. I know molten salt is a big part of this new nuclear reactor that Bill Gates is partially funding.

BTW, the greenies don't like hydro-electric. I guess they want us all to live in caves.

[Joe Wooten]

BTW, the greenies don't like hydro-electric. I guess they want us all to live in caves.

No, tehy do not want us alive at all. Too many people are harder to keep in control, so tehy will be happy to see 95% of all alive now die.

[BassWrangler]

No, tehy do not want us alive at all. Too many people are harder to keep in control, so tehy will be happy to see 95% of all alive now die.

Yep, they've been talking about over-population since Ehrlich's book, "The Population Bomb", in 1968.

[thackney]

I don't know anyone who thinks batteries are a viable source for bulk energy storage. They are the best option right now for electric cars, but as energy storage devices, they suck. And the gains in battery tech have been very incremental for many years - no big revolution there. They are a viable solution for evening out the day/night storage needs from solar.

For bulk storage, the alternatives I've heard proposed are pumped hydro and molten salt. I know molten salt is a big part of this new nuclear reactor that Bill Gates is partially funding.

BTW, the greenies don't like hydro-electric. I guess they want us all to live in caves.

Pumped hydro has been used for decades.  First one in the US was 1929.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/history-hydropower

Grid Sized Utility Batteries are definitely a growing market and not just tied to unreliable power sources like Wind and Solar.  They are being installed as stand alone units to take the place of peaker Gas Plants that only run a few hours a day.

Battery Storage in the United States: An Update on Market Trends
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/batterystorage/

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The best place for energy storage is hydrocarbons.

One has potential energy stored there and is transportable in pipeline, truck, rail or in a gas tank, and quickly turned into usable energy with a flame or spark.

A wonderful solution by God to provide us an easier life here on this earth.

[BassWrangler]

The best place for energy storage is hydrocarbons.

One has potential energy stored there and is transportable in pipeline, truck, rail or in a gas tank, and quickly turned into usable energy with a flame or spark.

A wonderful solution by God to provide us an easier life here on this earth.

Except we're consuming them faster than the sun and plankton are making new ones. Or are you suggesting man should manufacture hydrocarbons for energy storage?

[thackney]

Except we're consuming them faster than the sun and plankton are making new ones. Or are you suggesting man should manufacture hydrocarbons for energy storage?

I still have hopes on algae farming for oil production.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Energy-and-innovation/Advanced-biofuels/Advanced-biofuels-and-algae-research

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Except we're consuming them faster than the sun and plankton are making new ones. Or are you suggesting man should manufacture hydrocarbons for energy storage?

Exactly where did you get that line of reasoning?

And are you familiar whatsoever with the subject?

@BassWrangler

[BassWrangler]

Exactly where did you get that line of reasoning?

And are you familiar whatsoever with the subject?

@BassWrangler

I think you should work on making your point without being rude. For that reason, I won't be responding to your question.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I think you should work on making your point without being rude. For that reason, I won't be responding to your question.

Rude?  And what point do you believe I was trying to make anyway?

Am trying to find out if you are an expert on the subject, as you spoke with authority saying

Except we're consuming them faster than the sun and plankton are making new ones. Or are you suggesting man should manufacture hydrocarbons for energy storage?


Are you an authority on the subject?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Except we're consuming them faster than the sun and plankton are making new ones.

Since you squirmed out of answering how you arrived at this, I'll just point out that there is zero scientific basis to make that statement, and a lot of anecdotal basis that says otherwise.

World crude reserves have climbed for decades as crude production has also climbed over the same time, with limited dips.  Natural Gas is increasing at even greater volumes.  And Coal tops them all in quantity of reserves.

And these are just proved reserves, not the magnitudes-higher unproven resources known to exist but at this time not considered to be proven.

[Idiot]

I still have hopes on algae farming for oil production.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Energy-and-innovation/Advanced-biofuels/Advanced-biofuels-and-algae-research

I'm kind of partial to drilling for hydrocarbons myself...lololol.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I still have hopes on algae farming for oil production.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Energy-and-innovation/Advanced-biofuels/Advanced-biofuels-and-algae-research

Am unsure whether that is more cost effective than simply converting coal or natural gas to synthetic crude.

[thackney]

Since you squirmed out of answering how you arrived at this, I'll just point out that there is zero scientific basis to make that statement, and a lot of anecdotal basis that says otherwise.

World crude reserves have climbed for decades as crude production has also climbed over the same time, with limited dips.  Natural Gas is increasing at even greater volumes.  And Coal tops them all in quantity of reserves.

And these are just proved reserves, not the magnitudes-higher unproven resources known to exist but at this time not considered to be proven.

But they are not the same reserves, but continuing to develop new reserves.  To claim the world produces oil near our current consumption rate is just silly unless you think it magically started doing that recently.  A bit of math, the consumption rate and the earth age would put us oil 8 miles thick covering the entire surface.  I did the math years ago at the other site.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

But they are not the same reserves, but continuing to develop new reserves.  To claim the world produces oil near our current consumption rate is just silly unless you think it magically started doing that recently.  A bit of math, the consumption rate and the earth age would put us oil 8 miles thick covering the entire surface.  I did the math years ago at the other site.

I do not know your math, but it is pretty simple to me that increasing reserves over a hundred years while also increasing production means there is more oil being found than is being consumed.  So for all intents and purposes, oil production is being replenished during that time.

Will this go on indefinitely?  Likely not as there is no perpetual machine and the earth is finite, but since we will be in the ground way before then, what is the point you are trying to make?

[thackney]

I do not know your math, but it is pretty simple to me that increasing reserves over a hundred years while also increasing production means there is more oil being found than is being consumed.  So for all intents and purposes, oil production is being replenished during that time.

Will this go on indefinitely?  Likely not as there is no perpetual machine and the earth is finite, but since we will be in the ground way before then, what is the point you are trying to make?

My point is the same @BassWrangler made.  Oil/Gas is found in sedimentary basis from material laid down from the surface trapped away from oxygen.  This eliminates the ability to decompose into CO2, Water and the like.  It is not magically produce from the molten center of the earth.  Heat and pressure break down oil, not form it.  We do that in refineries every day.

If the processes in the earth down deep produced oil at the current consumption rate, with the age of the earth, we would have drowned in oil before civilization even began.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

My point is the same @BassWrangler made.  Oil/Gas is found in sedimentary basis from material laid down from the surface trapped away from oxygen.  This eliminates the ability to decompose into CO2, Water and the like.  It is not magically produce from the molten center of the earth.  Heat and pressure break down oil, not form it.  We do that in refineries every day.

If the processes in the earth down deep produced oil at the current consumption rate, with the age of the earth, we would have drowned in oil before civilization even began.

The origin of oil and gas remains a mystery.  One theory is it is derived in sedimentary basins, but there are proven places around that do not have that.  I have worked basins in which oil and gas are produced from drilling in igneous rock, for example.  We do not know for certain it was not derived from those sources or relocated from sedimentary zones.  You yourself have espoused that methane hydrates might exceed all sources of hydrocarbons discovered to date.  Are they necessarily sedimentary?

The overall point is of course we do not have infinite supplies, but what we do know is that there are enough to sustain us for many generations, likely hundreds of years, even at current rates.

So what is the point in trying to 'prove' they are finite?  It makes no difference to the ones who use it.

This earth will disintegrate in time and I have no problem living on it right now and not worrying about that eventuality.

[thackney]

The origin of oil and gas remains a mystery.  One theory is it is derived in sedimentary basins, but there are proven places around that do not have that.  I have worked basins in which oil and gas are produced from drilling in igneous rock, for example.  We do not know for certain it was not derived from those sources or relocated from sedimentary zones.  You yourself have espoused that methane hydrates might exceed all sources of hydrocarbons discovered to date.  Are they necessarily sedimentary?

I believe that is the only place they are found, do you know of others?

The overall point is of course we do not have infinite supplies, but what we do know is that there are enough to sustain us for many generations, likely hundreds of years, even at current rates.

Agreed

So what is the point in trying to 'prove' they are finite?  It makes no difference to the ones who use it.

It makes no difference to those of us who use it today.  Use by others yet to come will eventually need to change.  Methane Hydrates is a likely path along the way to that change, in my opinion.

This earth will disintegrate in time and I have no problem living on it right now and not worrying about that eventuality.

The more immediate concern is not that we will use it all up and none will be available.  It is that we use up the cheap stuff and it increasingly becomes more expensive.  We will continue to develop and search for other sources of power.  We are beginning on that path but it is a very long path.  We will still be using oil/gas routinely in my lifetime.  My 2¢ only.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I believe that is the only place they are found, do you know of others?

Not sure what you are saying here.  Are you saying that oil and gas are only found in sedimentary rock?  If so, that is incorrect.

Volcanic and Basement plays are few but in a number of basins, including within the country you worked in, Yemen.  I recall Total making 10,000 bopd wells there in non-sedimentary formations.

Are those always sourced from sedimentary?  We suspect but do not really know.

[thackney]

Except we're consuming them faster than the sun and plankton are making new ones....

@BassWrangler

I'm avoiding the heat and decided to check my math.  This is a silly exercise to try and demonstrate the unlikely reality of the earth producing oil, at our current rate of consumption, from underneath rather than laid down in sediment from above.  Not arguing with you sir.  Just ammo against the concept.

Numbers and sources posted so anyone can check and point out mistakes I have made.

100   million barrels per day   
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php      
      
 36,500    million barrels per year   
      
1 Fluid barrel = 4.21 Cubic feet      
      
 153,665    million cubic feet per year   
      
Age of earth = 4.5 billion years      
https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html      
      
Volume of oil @ 100 million b/d for 4.5 billion years      
 691,493    million billion cubic feet   
6.91E+20   cubic feet   
      
1.47E+11   cubic feet per cubic mile   
https://www.convertunits.com/from/cubic+feet/to/cubic+mile      
      
4.70E+09   cubic miles of oil @ 100 million b/d for 4.5 billion years   
 4,697,704,626    cubic miles of oil @ 100 million b/d for 4.5 billion years   
      
Surface Area of Earth = 1.97E+08 square miles      
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/earth/by-the-numbers/      
 197,000,000    Surface Area of Earth in square miles   
      
 23.85    miles deep of oil on the surface if produced @ 100 million b/d for 4.5 billion years   
      
That value represents the depth if oil existed as a lake.  In reality it is found in layers that is mostly rock with oil in void spaces between the grains.      
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/petroleum-reservoirs      
      
If I pick a generous value of 8% porosity like found in a good producing sandstone, that means the depth of layer containing rock becomes much greater      
      
Layer of rock containing oil if earth produced oil @ 100 million b/d for 4.5 billion years      
298   miles thick   
 1,573,850    feet thick   
      
Lots of approximations in the calculation.  The whole thing is rather silly.  I used a radius found at the out edge of the earth to caluclate the volume of a large layer.        
Since the measurement would actually be going down from the surface the layer would actually be significantly larger.      
      
As you can see, this would put us well into the mantle into an extremely hot zone.      
      
      
https://volcano.oregonstate.edu/earths-layers-lesson-1      
      
The temperature of the mantle is ~1,600 degrees Fahrenheit at the top.  This is well above the temperature oil breaks down.      

And this only includes crude oil.  Natural gas, natural gas liquids and the like would be in addition...

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@BassWrangler

One comment:  Carbon atoms are not 'destroyed', just linked differently when a hydrocarbon becomes something else.  Over time, what prevents them from once again becoming used in a hydrocarbon chain, such as by photosynthesis?

[thackney]

One comment:  Carbon atoms are not 'destroyed', just linked differently when a hydrocarbon becomes something else.  Over time, what prevents them from once again becoming used in a hydrocarbon chain, such as by photosynthesis?

Photosynthesis requires being on the surface for light.  Carbon released from fuel in a power plant can be "reused" out of the atmosphere into a plant or other carbon based life.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Photosynthesis requires being on the surface for light.  Carbon released from fuel in a power plant can be "reused" out of the atmosphere into a plant or other carbon based life.

Of course.  Carbon is not destroyed so what is this about plankton and the sun making 'new ones'?

[thackney]

Of course.  Carbon is not destroyed so what is this about plankton and the sun making 'new ones'?

We have only been consuming oil and the like in recent years, compared to the process producing oil that would be 500 million to 5 billion years old.  For the production process to match our current consumption rate seems impossible.  If it did, we would be drowning in it.