Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 107 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #425
    AvatarTransmute
    Member

    The idea of a dramatic difference between cheap electrical energy from fusion and depleting multi-purpose energy from oil is a little presumptuous. Oil, coal and natural gas, fossil fuel in general provide energy in many ways: heat for homes, hydrogen stock from making fertilizer, explosive fuel for internal combustion engines, heat for steam turbines for electricity. DPF fusion would be ideal for producing electricity and some heat, it size would forbid it from powering small things like cars and self-powered machinery, or vehicles which need very high power densities and low mass like airplanes and helicopters (jet turbines). One option is hydrogen from electrolysis of water, converting electrical energy from fusion into a fuel, but hydrogen is a poor fuel: it has horribly low energy volumetric density, it combustion properties are not easily compatible with internal combustion engines; thus limiting hydrogen to powering fuel cell cars at best, leaving out aircraft and other machinery. Oil is an excellent fuel if only there was a way that fusion power could make oil

    #2156
    AvatarDuke Leto
    Member

    Despite my criticism in the other thread we were going at it in, I have to admit, I’m fascinated by the idea.

    If you could output Fusion Oil at or about the equivalent of $1.00 per barrel and ~ 25 cents per Fusion Gas gallon, you’d create an enormous amount of wealth out of thin air in the developed West and put a stake through the heart of Big Oil, the House of Saud and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    My only concern is that the mass of discarded hydrocarbons per year must be equal to the consumed Fusion Oil or we don’t have an emissions null scenario.

    Anyone have any estimates on the raw molarity of hydrogen and carbon that gets discarded as opposed to the molarity of burned hydrogen and carbon in octane fuel. (That would probably be quadrillions of mols, but rough numbers are fine.)

    Based on the efficiency of the conversions we’re talking about, and the need for SOME Nitrate output from the sewage system for fertilizer, if we have a molarity equilibrium, preferably an ongoing credit in favor of plastics production, then your system is golden.

    #2161
    AvatarTransmute
    Member

    I not a perfect solution, I’ve just went over the numbers:

    I agree about the limits of biofuels, I once did a study 2 years ago on cellulose to ethanol and found that if we converted all agriculture waste in the USA it would only replace 16% of USA gasoline (7% of oil use), we would need energy crops, lots of it, I estimated up to 45% of the nation (~20% now) would have to become farm land making energy crops to replace the nations oil use. Even with fusion oil we could not replace all of today

    #2165
    AvatarDuke Leto
    Member

    That’s about what I thought in terms of biomass needs.

    That’s why I figured direct synthesis of hydrocarbons from water and CO2 would be simpler, less steps involved and easier access to cheap raw materials. Of course I don’t know if there’s a direct synthesis method other then photosynthesis for sugar and then on through your method.

    What about cultivating dense algae in artificially lighted tanks year round for biomass?

    #2166
    AvatarDaveMart
    Member

    Duke Leto wrote: That’s about what I thought in terms of biomass needs.

    That’s why I figured direct synthesis of hydrocarbons from water and CO2 would be simpler, less steps involved and easier access to cheap raw materials. Of course I don’t know if there’s a direct synthesis method other then photosynthesis for sugar and then on through your method.

    What about cultivating dense algae in artificially lighted tanks year round for biomass?

    Algae growth:
    Seems like it might be the way yo go to me – I agree with other comments that a lot of the stuff about fuels from other plants is pretty much a plan to mine the tax-payer – but algae cultivation can grow fuel at sufficient densitiies to make a real contribution to energy needs – the initial capital costs would be high though.
    http://news.com.com/Want+alternative+energy+Try+pond+scum/2100-11386_3-6145197.html?tag=nefd.lede
    Regards,
    DaveMart

    #2169
    AvatarTransmute
    Member

    Well there a many ways you can get CO2 out of the air, you could cool the air until you get CO2 ice but that would be energy intensive (though simple). You could run a brine solution past open air then pump it through a semipermeable membrane with a vacuum on the other side, CO2 would selectively enter the vacuum, but this would be expensive to make and maintain. Thirdly you could just grow organic matter, plants already do most of the work for you by capturing the CO2, polymerizing it, and adding some hydrogen to it; all you need for it is sunlight, water and a place to grow, all of which are plentiful and cheap. Only desalination plants could compete economically because they already produce products (fresh water and mineral salts). Algae with waste CO2 or organic matter feed into them have achieved conversion efficiency many times that of normal (from .5% of the sunlight utilized to 7%!) but you have to consider the cost of building enclosed ponds. Open prairie land will do for growing energy crops, it requires almost no maintenance, re-grows rapidly, and provides natural habitats, all you have to do is collect it before every winter when it naturally dies, the disadvantage is that it does not produce much organic feed stoke, maybe a 1-2 tons per acre per year, with intensive care and monocultures maybe 10 tons per year. Waste conversion would already complete most of our oil needs, so not much extra would need to be grown. Algae farms could do the trick but their advantage is only when you pump waste CO2 in. There plenty of waste CO2 though, even when you consider the removal of all fossil fuels: concrete and cement for example produce a lot of CO2 from the thermal decomposition of limestone, aluminum and other electrolysis refined metals and minerals also release CO2 (or produce carbon residue), etc. The advantage of algae over using the waste CO2 directly is that the algae does most of the work for you with free energy (sunlight) the disadvantage is you need to make enclosed ponds, I would just assume that economically the advantages out weights the disadvantage, greatly.

    #2171
    AvatarDuke Leto
    Member

    Just another use for the old abandoned coal mines.

    #2173
    AvatarTransmute
    Member

    Duke Leto wrote: Just another use for the old abandoned coal mines.

    I don’t know about that, I mean how do you get sunlight down there? There plenty of uses for old mines and if worst comes to worse just fill them with carbonated salt water, and run electrolysis to make hydrogen and carbonates that fill the mine shut, but that a subject for a diffrent thread.

    #2174
    AvatarDuke Leto
    Member

    You don’t GET the sunlight down there, you produce it via lighting.

    #2175
    AvatarTorulf
    Member

    Hydrogenated Pyrolysis may be useful in several ways.
    The gasoline become as an energy carrier for fusion energy.
    There are to problems how can be solved, waste problem and the replacement of oil.

    This sounds better than the present use of ethanol/methanol from this energy crops.
    Ethanol energy comes from sun and is already stored in the organic waist.
    From that I hear so do a car driven from ethanol made from energy crops, consume an amount of crop how is growing on corresponding area the car drive over.
    If this is the case may western cars will compete with third world people of the food.
    This may be avoiding if we can use fusion to make the fuel from waste and smaller volumes of crop.

    There may be lots of organic waste to use. We have lots of organic waste from paper industry and sewer water how is a big problem. This can be turned in to a resource. Garbage is now burn for house heating. Should it not be better to drive cars on it and heat houses from fusion electricity?
    This may also reduce fusion resistant from oil companies how can use parts of there old infra structure.

    But this will also conserve some problem from the fossil fuel era.
    Some of the cars pollution problems remains, (NOx, hydro carbons, oil spill).

    The largest danger may be if they are making fuel from coal. This is already in the plans for counter the oil turn pike. South Africa and China have advanced planes for making gas from coal in (HTR) high temperature (fission) reactors. In this way fusion oil may continue the CO2 emission.

    #2177
    AvatarTransmute
    Member

    Torulf you have hit some good points, yes it is just a storage for fusion power, fusion power is stored in making oil, this is the same as hydrogen which is just electric power from any source stored. As I

    #2181
    AvatarGlenn Millam
    Member

    Transmute wrote: The idea of a dramatic difference between cheap electrical energy from fusion and depleting multi-purpose energy from oil is a little presumptuous. Oil, coal and natural gas, fossil fuel in general provide energy in many ways: heat for homes, hydrogen stock from making fertilizer, explosive fuel for internal combustion engines, heat for steam turbines for electricity. DPF fusion would be ideal for producing electricity and some heat, it size would forbid it from powering small things like cars and self-powered machinery, or vehicles which need very high power densities and low mass like airplanes and helicopters (jet turbines).

    http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology/disruptors_eestor.biz2/index.htm
    http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/dealflow/archives/2005/09/kleiner_perkins_1.html

    EEStor is developing the technology that will make electrical energy truly portable and efficient for most uses. It also has great financial backing. I do see where we would want to use DPF energy to make plastics and other non-fuel synthetic oil products to support our current supply of crude oil. But the natural tie of EEStor and DPF will replace almost all need for fossil fuels. Both techs look to be ready in the same time frame.

    Transmute wrote: Garbage, sewage and agriculture waste are a plentiful source of organic matter, many attempts are being made to salvage this vast amount of literally thrown away energy and organic feed-stock. A technique called Hydrogenated Pyrolysis could make all other technique to extract oil substitutes and energy from these sources pale in comparison. Hydrogenated Pyrolysis consist of placing any organic matter under pressure and heat, add hydrogen and the organic matter will convert into petroleum and water (CxOyHz + H2 -> CxHn + H2O), the process is very efficient as even carbon dioxide will be converted into petroleum (CO2 + H2 -> CH4 + H2O), but Hydrogenated Pyrolysis is highly energy negative (requires much more energy in then comes out) because of the need to make hydrogen to fuel the reaction, because of this Hydrogenated Pyrolysis is at present not considered viable, if only there was a cheap energy source that could provide heat and electricity to make hydrogen and power the pyrolysis, this is what DPF fusion could provide if it becomes viable.

    I’m not sure we need to continue the use of carbon-based fuels. We don’t need to recycle the CO2 that we are using; we need to sequester what we have already burned. Global warming needs to be stopped dead in its tracks. If we create synthetic oils via DPF and put it into cars in NY and LA, the CO2 isn’t going to make it to trees, grass and corn. Its gonna go into the air and add to the problem.

    The atmosphere is already saturated with CO2. We need to find a way to stop emitting non-resperatory CO2.

    One other consideration. As DPF hits the market and spreads, oil prices will drop, and as people get rechargeable electric cars, it will bottom out. Making synthetic fuel will have to not be cheaper than current oil prices, it will have to be cheaper than oil prices at 1990’s levels or less to be economically viable. DPF, being on the order of 10-100x cheaper than current oil prices, will always remain cheaper than fossil fuels. Same cannot be said with fuels manufactured with DPF electricity. That, and an EEStor car has the convenience of being able to recharge at home in a few minutes.

    Transmute wrote: Imagine a world were all organic waste is recycled into oil: no more landfills, no more complex and energy expensive sewage treatment and wasted dry sludge, all of this becoming oil (assuming non-organic waste like metals and ceramics are extracted and recycled separately).

    Imagine a world where all trash is recycled using machinery fueled by DPF electricity. With such low energy costs, we could tag all manufactured materials with readable codes and everything we junk could be recycled robotically. We could also dedicate towers to do nothing but sequester atmospheric CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gasses. No oil needed.

    Fusion oil likely be more lucrative then making electricity from fusion only. Especially as world demand from fossil fuel flies over limited extraction rates. Hydrogen will likely be cheap in a DPF fusion powered world and could replace some of oil’s uses, but the rest that hydrogen can

    #2182
    AvatarDuke Leto
    Member

    What’s the capacity on EEStor and the associated range?

    #2183
    AvatarTransmute
    Member

    Glenn Millam,

    You provide every extraordinary claims with no evidence what so ever to back them up. What your suggesting is an ultracapacitor with energy densities 10X+ existing ultracapacitors, if you can provide proof that this has been achieve and is marketable as claimed then I

    #2185
    AvatarDuke Leto
    Member

    Hey again Glenn. I agree in principle with the arguments you present, and point out that I figured this Fusion Oil stuff had to hit $1 a barrel to do the needed job. (Undercut Exxon and destroy it and its influence forever.)

    I think that you’re wrong about steady state CO2 production for fuel, while most of the CO2 would be emitted in urbanized regions, this might actually HELP retard Global warming as it will be proportionatly reduced in the production centers and the biomass would continue to suck it up over most of the Earth’s surface area, which where it counts.

    Plus, the idea for synthesizing Lime in the ocean from spare CO2 is a good one, particularly if governments institute emissions licenses for companies to be allowed to produce CO2, AND will issue these to CO2 sinkers for resale to same, moreso if the governments of the world can be convinced to set the target emissions at negative levels and continue decreasing them. (ie subsidizing CO2 absorption).

    I agree with transmute that the EEstor needs more demonstrable proof that it can work before I believe it. In principle, of course, it looks pretty good for long distance, if you can get 65 mph for 5 hrs or so and 1 refueling stop of 4 minutes or so. Might even work for Propeller driven aircraft.

    If it’s ok, Glenn, can you look at my other thread on repurposing coal mines? I know keeping jobs in mining communities is a major concern of yours.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 107 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.