Terraform Industries is a startup that wants to produce natural gas using solar energy, along with CO2 and water vapor from the air. Their equipment is designed to be low cost (so it can run...
Terraform Industries is a startup that wants to produce natural gas using solar energy, along with CO2 and water vapor from the air. Their equipment is designed to be low cost (so it can run during the day only, when the sun shines) and hooked up directly to solar panels.
The economics isn’t there yet, but they’re betting on solar energy getting cheaper, which has always been a good bet so far.
This may be a good use for solar power in locations where a grid connection is hard to get.
The Terraform Industries natural gas production machine is built on the 1 MW scale, to match the typical 5 acre solar array and bypass the cost of inverters and power transmission in getting energy to market. It is composed of three parts: carbon capture, hydrogen electrolysis, and methanation Sabatier reactor. In order of magnitude terms, the machine consumes 6 MWh/day at $10/MWh to filter CO2 from 7 m^3/s of air and produce 6.4 kcf/day of natural gas. This corresponds to 331 kg of CO2 recycled per day, and is enough to supply the per capita hydrocarbon needs of about 20 people at Western standards of living.
Too bad they need hydrogen gas, which (as of now) is mostly obtained from fossil fuel. They stipulate that its "green" hydrogen, but I'm a bit skeptical... I guess they could get it from...
Too bad they need hydrogen gas, which (as of now) is mostly obtained from fossil fuel. They stipulate that its "green" hydrogen, but I'm a bit skeptical... I guess they could get it from electrolysis of water, but then they'd need more energy.
I like the idea of producing natural gas. We already have a lot of infrastructure for it and it is easier to store/transport than many other options! Hope they manage to figure out a viable business out of it.
Edit: Replaced hydrolysis with electrolysis. Hydrolysis is a completly different process! Was a while since I took chemistry classes.
All HYDROcarbons need hydrogen. You can't get away from that and that's why you're seeing all these different colors of hydrogen being proposed. It's even worse with renewable sources of carbon as...
All HYDROcarbons need hydrogen. You can't get away from that and that's why you're seeing all these different colors of hydrogen being proposed. It's even worse with renewable sources of carbon as they general need more hydrogen to remove all those pesky oxygen they bring along.
In this case the water vapor, by electrolysis, is the source of hydrogen, not a fossil fuel. But, and this is the issue with so much of these projects, that (along with CO2 capture) makes this process immensely inefficient. All that solar could go directly to the grid and be used in a heat pump and your electric stove instead of being burned.
Sure, as long as they don't use fossil fuel for the hydrogen I think this could be a good thing. Using fossil fuel would negate the benefits of this whole process I imagine! This could be used as...
Sure, as long as they don't use fossil fuel for the hydrogen I think this could be a good thing. Using fossil fuel would negate the benefits of this whole process I imagine!
This could be used as a way to produce fuel for gas powered combustion engines. Not sure, but the energy density of NG is probably better than a battery AND less need for rare earth minerals!
I don't see how this tech ever would take off without strict regulations forcing it to. If you're already extracting hydrogen from the ground in order to produce methane, it would be far, far...
I don't see how this tech ever would take off without strict regulations forcing it to.
If you're already extracting hydrogen from the ground in order to produce methane, it would be far, far cheaper and easier to just... use the methane that comes with that hydrogen.
I imagine that the only reason why they wouldn't do that is if it's illegal to do that, which is also the only reason this technology would ever be competitive with natural gas drilling in the real world.
Comment box Scope: personal reactions Tone: neutral/skeptical/confused Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the article, but “natural” gas is mostly methane. I don’t see...
Comment box
Scope: personal reactions
Tone: neutral/skeptical/confused
Opinion: yes
Sarcasm/humor: none
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the article, but “natural” gas is mostly methane. I don’t see much purpose in using solar resources or even green hydrogen to create methane. When we burn “natural” gas (methane), it releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And methane is really bad.
I see the angle that there is existing infrastructure for methane gas, but the emissions problems with natural gas are mostly related to its transportation and use—not its extraction from the ground. I don’t see where this technology fits into that.
I agree that there could be utility in a closed system that has methane gas infrastructure but can’t accept grid energy, like a cargo ship or cruise ship. I guess if you had all the equipment on board to generate the fuel, you wouldn’t have to transport it to the ship. You could, in theory, produce just enough to run the ship (and no more) in order to minimize waste from inevitable methane leaks.
But it’s still methane, which is still a potent greenhouse gas. And if solar becomes efficient enough to make this (expensive) process economical, would it be enough to forego natural gas altogether?
Every carbon in the methane is coming from atmospheric CO2, so unless there’s a leak, it’s just as carbon-neutral as solar itself. Methane burns quite cleanly and it would take a gigantic leak to...
Every carbon in the methane is coming from atmospheric CO2, so unless there’s a leak, it’s just as carbon-neutral as solar itself.
Methane burns quite cleanly and it would take a gigantic leak to be much worse than burning regular natural gas from the ground. On the whole it’s not a bad prospect - if not pragmatic at present due to the level of inefficiency.
Comment box Scope: comment response Tone: appreciative Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Thanks for the clarification. If leaks onboard a cargo ship (or other application) can be contained, I...
Comment box
Scope: comment response
Tone: appreciative
Opinion: yes
Sarcasm/humor: none
Thanks for the clarification. If leaks onboard a cargo ship (or other application) can be contained, I understand how this could reduce emissions from current processes.
This isn’t quite accurate. Methane is 20x more potent GHG vs CO2, so if the system has any trace leak it can be a net negative. I think it’s more effective to use the solar energy directly as...
This isn’t quite accurate. Methane is 20x more potent GHG vs CO2, so if the system has any trace leak it can be a net negative.
I think it’s more effective to use the solar energy directly as electricity to the greatest extent possible.
Edit- I think I misread your comment, you are probably right that it will can be burned fairly cleanly. I still think using electricity is more effective.
Yeah - I thought about that. Figured methane losses would be on the order of a few tenths of a percent, meaning the CO2 equivalent of the methane released would be relatively low compared to...
Yeah - I thought about that.
Figured methane losses would be on the order of a few tenths of a percent, meaning the CO2 equivalent of the methane released would be relatively low compared to carbon sequestered, and chose not to dive into the weeds - but you're absolutely right.
The concept of sunlight to fuels is going to be important for a long time. Hydrocarbons make pretty amazing transportation fuels due to their high energy density and power density and, as long as...
The concept of sunlight to fuels is going to be important for a long time. Hydrocarbons make pretty amazing transportation fuels due to their high energy density and power density and, as long as we want to keep moving people and goods around, we are going to prefer hydrocarbons to electric power.
Intermittent renewables also benefit enormously from access to energy storage, and making hydrogen and/or methane is an excellent long-term energy storage mechanism.
Last, I think there is often too little tolerance for incremental progress in developing technologies. It is easy to evaluate harshly the first-of-a-kind project because it encounters difficulties that more mature technologies either don't see or have already overcome. However, new technologies are needed to overcome the intrinsic limits of old ones and the road to a successful new technology is often paved with its own failures.
For example, even if this project sees massive methane leaks at first, it doesn't mean that the net effect will be negative. Even if the net GHG effect of this plant is to elevate GWP, it doesn't mean that other plants will, too. Even if the core concept of a methane end product is intrinsically elevating GWP, it could become an intermediate step towards liquid hydrocarbons in something like a Fischer Tropsch reaction, which would be much less volatile.
Sadly, it takes a lot of milk to make a little cream, and if we can't foster scientific failures in renewable energy, we will have difficulty creating successful innovations that will benefit a post-fossil fuel world.
I wouldn't describe Terraform's efforts as a first-of-a-kind-- the CEO is quoted in the article as saying "what the company has done is not “super original.”". There are substantial efforts around...
I wouldn't describe Terraform's efforts as a first-of-a-kind-- the CEO is quoted in the article as saying "what the company has done is not “super original.”".
There are substantial efforts around direct air capture of CO2, hydrogen production by electrolysis, and solar fuels. This is just a combination of the three operations, targeted at a small scale.
I agree we are going to have a hard time replacing hydrocarbons in some key areas like jet fuel, but in most cases I think renewable electricity has clear advantages. Storage of intermittent renewables is one example, batteries can have round trip efficiencies near 80%. This system is much lower than that, and the roadmap to higher efficiencies is not very promising.
Natural gas is also used as a feedstock in the chemical industry, ironically, mostly to make hydrogen. There are some other products that could be made with it, but usually you can use methanol as...
Natural gas is also used as a feedstock in the chemical industry, ironically, mostly to make hydrogen. There are some other products that could be made with it, but usually you can use methanol as the starting reactant.
I’m skeptical of the use case for syn-methane, given the transition away from natural gas as a fuel and the ability to directly produce methanol and hydrogen from the same reagents and processes (They currently seem to be at pilot scale). That said, their R&D may prove useful in new catalysts, better process controls, and more efficient DAC. @Loire might be able to give more insights on the petrochemical side of things.
Terraform Industries is a startup that wants to produce natural gas using solar energy, along with CO2 and water vapor from the air. Their equipment is designed to be low cost (so it can run during the day only, when the sun shines) and hooked up directly to solar panels.
The economics isn’t there yet, but they’re betting on solar energy getting cheaper, which has always been a good bet so far.
This may be a good use for solar power in locations where a grid connection is hard to get.
From the whitepaper:
Too bad they need hydrogen gas, which (as of now) is mostly obtained from fossil fuel. They stipulate that its "green" hydrogen, but I'm a bit skeptical... I guess they could get it from electrolysis of water, but then they'd need more energy.
I like the idea of producing natural gas. We already have a lot of infrastructure for it and it is easier to store/transport than many other options! Hope they manage to figure out a viable business out of it.
Edit: Replaced hydrolysis with electrolysis. Hydrolysis is a completly different process! Was a while since I took chemistry classes.
All HYDROcarbons need hydrogen. You can't get away from that and that's why you're seeing all these different colors of hydrogen being proposed. It's even worse with renewable sources of carbon as they general need more hydrogen to remove all those pesky oxygen they bring along.
In this case the water vapor, by electrolysis, is the source of hydrogen, not a fossil fuel. But, and this is the issue with so much of these projects, that (along with CO2 capture) makes this process immensely inefficient. All that solar could go directly to the grid and be used in a heat pump and your electric stove instead of being burned.
Sure, as long as they don't use fossil fuel for the hydrogen I think this could be a good thing. Using fossil fuel would negate the benefits of this whole process I imagine!
This could be used as a way to produce fuel for gas powered combustion engines. Not sure, but the energy density of NG is probably better than a battery AND less need for rare earth minerals!
So the question is, what's the cheaper source of hydrogen? If it's fossil fuels, that's what'll be used in the event the tech takes off.
I don't see how this tech ever would take off without strict regulations forcing it to.
If you're already extracting hydrogen from the ground in order to produce methane, it would be far, far cheaper and easier to just... use the methane that comes with that hydrogen.
I imagine that the only reason why they wouldn't do that is if it's illegal to do that, which is also the only reason this technology would ever be competitive with natural gas drilling in the real world.
Comment box
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the article, but “natural” gas is mostly methane. I don’t see much purpose in using solar resources or even green hydrogen to create methane. When we burn “natural” gas (methane), it releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And methane is really bad.
I see the angle that there is existing infrastructure for methane gas, but the emissions problems with natural gas are mostly related to its transportation and use—not its extraction from the ground. I don’t see where this technology fits into that.
I agree that there could be utility in a closed system that has methane gas infrastructure but can’t accept grid energy, like a cargo ship or cruise ship. I guess if you had all the equipment on board to generate the fuel, you wouldn’t have to transport it to the ship. You could, in theory, produce just enough to run the ship (and no more) in order to minimize waste from inevitable methane leaks.
But it’s still methane, which is still a potent greenhouse gas. And if solar becomes efficient enough to make this (expensive) process economical, would it be enough to forego natural gas altogether?
Every carbon in the methane is coming from atmospheric CO2, so unless there’s a leak, it’s just as carbon-neutral as solar itself.
Methane burns quite cleanly and it would take a gigantic leak to be much worse than burning regular natural gas from the ground. On the whole it’s not a bad prospect - if not pragmatic at present due to the level of inefficiency.
Comment box
Thanks for the clarification. If leaks onboard a cargo ship (or other application) can be contained, I understand how this could reduce emissions from current processes.
This isn’t quite accurate. Methane is 20x more potent GHG vs CO2, so if the system has any trace leak it can be a net negative.
I think it’s more effective to use the solar energy directly as electricity to the greatest extent possible.
Edit- I think I misread your comment, you are probably right that it will can be burned fairly cleanly. I still think using electricity is more effective.
Yeah - I thought about that.
Figured methane losses would be on the order of a few tenths of a percent, meaning the CO2 equivalent of the methane released would be relatively low compared to carbon sequestered, and chose not to dive into the weeds - but you're absolutely right.
The concept of sunlight to fuels is going to be important for a long time. Hydrocarbons make pretty amazing transportation fuels due to their high energy density and power density and, as long as we want to keep moving people and goods around, we are going to prefer hydrocarbons to electric power.
Intermittent renewables also benefit enormously from access to energy storage, and making hydrogen and/or methane is an excellent long-term energy storage mechanism.
Last, I think there is often too little tolerance for incremental progress in developing technologies. It is easy to evaluate harshly the first-of-a-kind project because it encounters difficulties that more mature technologies either don't see or have already overcome. However, new technologies are needed to overcome the intrinsic limits of old ones and the road to a successful new technology is often paved with its own failures.
For example, even if this project sees massive methane leaks at first, it doesn't mean that the net effect will be negative. Even if the net GHG effect of this plant is to elevate GWP, it doesn't mean that other plants will, too. Even if the core concept of a methane end product is intrinsically elevating GWP, it could become an intermediate step towards liquid hydrocarbons in something like a Fischer Tropsch reaction, which would be much less volatile.
Sadly, it takes a lot of milk to make a little cream, and if we can't foster scientific failures in renewable energy, we will have difficulty creating successful innovations that will benefit a post-fossil fuel world.
I wouldn't describe Terraform's efforts as a first-of-a-kind-- the CEO is quoted in the article as saying "what the company has done is not “super original.”".
There are substantial efforts around direct air capture of CO2, hydrogen production by electrolysis, and solar fuels. This is just a combination of the three operations, targeted at a small scale.
I agree we are going to have a hard time replacing hydrocarbons in some key areas like jet fuel, but in most cases I think renewable electricity has clear advantages. Storage of intermittent renewables is one example, batteries can have round trip efficiencies near 80%. This system is much lower than that, and the roadmap to higher efficiencies is not very promising.
Natural gas is also used as a feedstock in the chemical industry, ironically, mostly to make hydrogen. There are some other products that could be made with it, but usually you can use methanol as the starting reactant.
I’m skeptical of the use case for syn-methane, given the transition away from natural gas as a fuel and the ability to directly produce methanol and hydrogen from the same reagents and processes (They currently seem to be at pilot scale). That said, their R&D may prove useful in new catalysts, better process controls, and more efficient DAC. @Loire might be able to give more insights on the petrochemical side of things.