Talk:Power-to-gas

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Message for the editor: The image about power-to-gas contains a mistake. The process step of methanation includes the production of CH2, according to the image. This should be CH4 (methane) instead of CH2. Lukas Grond (DNV KEMA)

Looks like someone has fixed this Chidgk1 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly deployed

"Power-to-gas systems are commonly deployed as adjuncts to wind parks or solar-electric generation."

This is confusing as the rest of the article makes clear this isn't true in October 2014. They are so for only deployed in a tiny proportion of such cases. I have changed the wording to be more accurate.

Storage function

This section needs to be rewritten for clarity by someone who understands what they're talking about. The statement that "The storage requirement in Germany is estimated at 16GW in 2023, 80GW in 2033 and 130GW in 2050" is meaningless. "GW" i(gigawatt) is a measure of power, not energy. The associated measure of energy would be "GWh" (gigawatt-hour), if that's what's actually meant. It's not obvious that it is, because it's perfectly reasonable to talk about a requirement for power delivered from storage. That's independent of the amount of energy held in storage, except to the extent that the ratio of power to energy determines how quickly the store will be depleted.

Another fundamental error is the failure to distinguish between chemical potential energy and electrical energy. If there is on GWh of energy stored in gas, is that referring to the chemical potential energy of the gas, or to the amount of electrical energy that can be derived from the stored chemical energy? There's a large difference between the two. 2601:647:4E01:6348:AD2B:9A3E:8382:3885 (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Agnostic Engineer[reply]

I came to this talk page to ask the same question after reading the paper (which I had to first find as the link was dead: I fixed the link). It's not strictly obvious from the paper, which is just as sloppy about this. However, just from the magnitude of the numbers, I think we can infer that these are power requirements, not energy storage requirements, since Germany can already store 200,000 GWh of methane. I don't know what percentage of German electricity currently comes from methane "peaker" plants, but those plants handle the retrieval side already. This means that the storage system is complete when total P2G capacity reaches these same numbers. But this raises additional questions:

Are storage and retrieval power symmetric? If not, which is larger?.
P2G efficiency is about 40% On the storage input side. is the power the DC power to the P2G units or methane power output of the P2G units?

How can we discover the answers so as to update the article? I have no non-Wikipedia knowledge of this stuff. -Arch dude (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read the reference and concluded that it really does mean power I/O in GW, not storage in GWh, so I modified the article to clarify this. I still don't know how to answer the new questions. -Arch dude (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should refer to power. For power-to-gas, the power (i.e. the capacity to generate gas from electricity) is generally the most significant parameter. Gas storage is relatively cheap (which is why power-to-gas is considered for long term storage in the first place). --Ita140188 (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel production on Mars

Elon Musk announced his plans for a power to gas station on Mars at this speech at the 2017 International Astronautical Congress.

2 cargo ships 2022 2 cargo ships and 2 passenger ships 2024

Return by methane and oxygen created from CO2 in the atmosphere and H20 in stones.

When there are 6 ships 2024 on Mars, a return to Earth requires the production of 6 * 240 tons methane and 6 * 860 tons oxygen within a little bit more than 2 years until the next launch window.

For all, I assume 30 GWh electric power necessary. 15 GWh per Earth-year could be a 12 MW photovoltaic and 36 MWh buffer battery to power an 1,7 MW power to gas system.

Pege.founder (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD/BRR

Hi @Ita140188: [1] does not comply with WP:BRD so I would like to start a discussion here. Do you think your edit improves the article; if so, how?

Would you please create power-to-methane as a redirect? 75.166.121.67 (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@75.166.121.67: Hi, sorry for the hurried revert and thanks for opening this discussion. The point is that, as you mentioned, the lead should be a summary of the article. Power to methane is already mentioned in the lead in the right context. Repeating the mention in bold is giving excess weight on that specific concept. I created the redirect as you suggested. --Ita140188 (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The style guide suggests that redirects to articles mention the alternate title names in bold in the introduction. I also would like to add [2] -- where do you think it should go? 75.166.121.67 (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power-to-methane is not an alternate title. It is a subcategory of the article. The redirect targets a section, so no need for the bold in the lead. References should be added only to substantiate claims, not as means of promotion (not sure if this is the case, but just a reminder) --Ita140188 (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]