Jump to content

Energy scenario for unlimited green, cooling down the planet, energy without carbondioxide emmisions


Recommended Posts

Okay here is the plan me and my colleagues give to the world for free:

We made a proposal for an energy scheme for hydrogen electricity in sun bathed countries with PV cells.
THis PV cells produce hydrogen by electrolyses.
Hydrogen is being converted to formic acid (Mierenzuur) because it's biodegradable.
With formic acid we fill a converted oiltanker,
When unloaded release the hydrogen and we drive a hydrogen turbine with it for electricity production.
The method above provides enough electricity to feed the world energy demand or even 4 or ten times more in potential, and releases no carbon dioxide, and retreives warmth from desert or other sun bathed countries.

This is a concept, any remarks are welcome.
Level is PHd university level so watch your words please...
Have fun but keep in mind it is a serious subject.
If every works out as planned the sealevel rise will be stopped within a century.
Zeespiegelstijging.PNG.33b6c71e47c4de2f2dfdcd53afcd3986.PNG
It's in dutch , sorry

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know better than to dis Dutch techo-engineers . .  !!

hope you "git 'er dun!!" (Gringo-ism) 

The Germans are also big on hydrogen fuel, and 

some of 'em think it can be produced w/o carbon emissions.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

I know better than to dis Dutch techo-engineers . .  !!

hope you "git 'er dun!!" (Gringo-ism) 

The Germans are also big on hydrogen fuel, and 

some of 'em think it can be produced w/o carbon emissions.  

Only possible if you use renewables.
Solar cells, hydropower, geothermal, tidal, wind.

I did a hazop (hazardous operation study) on hydrogen and it's not for consumers like house wifes and children or even dog that unleash the dighest explosive gas in the world. If a hydrogen car starts  in an underground garage and the whole garage is filled with the right h2 O2 composition, the ignition by some who lights up a cigarette will give total destruction scenarios.

Beter leave hydrogen handling to trained operators on highly secrure industrial fenced conditions.
Interesting reseach projects going on in the world to build the most effective hydrogen turbine:

Genaral Electric:
https://www.ge.com/gas-power/future-of-energy/hydrogen-fueled-gas-turbines

Rolls Royce:
https://www.h2bulletin.com/rolls-royce-to-make-100-hydrogen-generators-from-2023/

Asea Brown Bovery:
https://new.abb.com/process-automation/energy-industries/hydrogen

Siemens:
https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/priorities/future-technologies/hydrogen/zehtc.html

And of course the Japanse and far east countries are working as well.

This is how a pilotplant in this subject looks like:
128947131_Finspangonsitepilotplant.thumb.PNG.7b651151de2c645fbe8d749b294aaa60.PNG

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So all these sun bathed places are going to just let it happen and not use their new position to leverage lots of money from those that need it?

Sounds like just handing control to a new group of players. Although Saudi might just stay in the game as they have plenty of sun.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Schakel said:

Okay here is the plan me and my colleagues give to the world for free:

We made a proposal for an energy scheme for hydrogen electricity in sun bathed countries with PV cells.
THis PV cells produce hydrogen by electrolyses.
Hydrogen is being converted to formic acid (Mierenzuur) because it's biodegradable.
With formic acid we fill a converted oiltanker,
When unloaded release the hydrogen and we drive a hydrogen turbine with it for electricity production.
The method above provides enough electricity to feed the world energy demand or even 4 or ten times more in potential, and releases no carbon dioxide, and retreives warmth from desert or other sun bathed countries.

This is a concept, any remarks are welcome.
Level is PHd university level so watch your words please...
Have fun but keep in mind it is a serious subject.
If every works out as planned the sealevel rise will be stopped within a century.
Zeespiegelstijging.PNG.33b6c71e47c4de2f2dfdcd53afcd3986.PNG
It's in dutch , sorry

Produce ammonia , it’s three times more energy dense 

https://www.science.org/content/article/ammonia-renewable-fuel-made-sun-air-and-water-could-power-globe-without-carbon

 

 

 

FDD22D16-DCAD-4E29-BCB5-1810F768EBE2.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 months ago we installed some solar panels on my boat shop roof. My total cost was $2000 for the equipment and wiring. I worked on the installation for about a day and a half and one of my employees probably spent  a day. 
We are saving over $100 off the electric bill every month. 
saving:  Although rates increased slightly, our year to year difference between the actual bills has ranged from $104 to $131. 
 

I believe the USA could radically cut emissions if we simply started building and installing solar panels on as many rooftops as we possibly can. 
 

if we were to start making huge solar panels arrays in our deserts and generally in places where there is very little vegetation, I believe we could seriously cut back on our CO2 generation. 
 

Can we store huge amounts of energy by lifting very heavy objects? We definitely need another storage battery breakthrough or fuel cells. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the student has done the energy balance calcs so there's no reason to quibble there.  I'm sure it 'can' be done.

Here's the immediate issues with these schemes:

1)  Energy density of the carrier.  (see attached figure).  The reason the world runs on diesel / gasoline / kerosene is because its the best energy storage medium mother nature could devise that wouldn't kill its host.  Fat is a FANTASTIC means of storing energy - one of the best methods for chemical storage that evolution could create.  Formic Acid is down there on the bottom left.  That means, in practice, we'd need AT LEAST four times as many ships, terminals, tankers, etc to move it around.

In terms of storage, countries like Germany would need to stockpile at least some reserves and those reserves would also be at least 4 times the footprint they currently occupy.  Its possible to have a distributed network of pipes but again, those have to carry significantly more material and would therefore be bigger.  This collides with the NIMBY problem - there's zero public will to improve distribution networks, regardless of country.  NO ONE wants more pipes, even to save the world.

That's why most of these schemes rely on conversion to biomethane or some sort of co-equivalent chemical like bio-isobutane so they can blended and piggyback on the existing pipeline structure.

2)  Efficiency:   Electrolysis throws away about 40% of the available energy unless it's co-generated with nuclear using technology that's NEVER been demonstrated at scale (e.g., ESOFCs).  Storage/Transport of hydrogen is very tough and would loose a prohibitive amount of energy so the Formic plants have to be colocated with the solar/wind farms.  That's not a deal breaker but it means that there's a lot of transport from the solar to the places people use power (see issue 1).  Creating the formic acid loses more energy so you're down to about 50% efficiency, before transportation costs are factored in.

The formic acid has to get reconverted to energy at the point of consumption and carnot engines aren't capable of more than 55% Efficiency under screamingly optimistic conditions.  So you're combined cycle efficiency has taken a beating - from that initial 1 KW/m2 solar under ideal conditions, you're at 0.6 after electrolysis, then 0.5 after conversion/transportation, and finally 0.25 or so at the point of use.  Hope you like solar panels - you're going to need a LOT of them.

3)  Concentrated Formic acid is a pretty severe health hazard and decomposes on its own releasing CO.  That has to be vented and people are going to freak out about both.  I don't know how to get it approved by any regulatory body.  Seriously.  I don't know how it can be done.

4) Cost.. yea... it'll be expensive.

------------------

If you want, I can point you to some other papers that present alternative zero-carbon plans from a retired friend of mine that are more rigorous.

FA.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, slug zitski said:

And if that tanker has an incident all life in de radius of about 350 km wil die.
Handling hoses has to be done with Hazmat suit.
573141444_Hazmatpak.jpg.7ebf69fbcaea359f72efd9a2e0a4b456.jpg
And when inhaling of 5 ppm occurs you have serious lung problems.
Formic Acid is the solution because it's biodegradable.
And fuel cells run on it so if the tanker is formic acid fuel cell driven you have very little CO2 emmision  and very strong propulsion.


 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BeSafe said:

I'm sure the student has done the energy balance calcs so there's no reason to quibble there.  I'm sure it 'can' be done.

Here's the immediate issues with these schemes:

1)  Energy density of the carrier.  (see attached figure).  The reason the world runs on diesel / gasoline / kerosene is because its the best energy storage medium mother nature could devise that wouldn't kill its host.  Fat is a FANTASTIC means of storing energy - one of the best methods for chemical storage that evolution could create.  Formic Acid is down there on the bottom left.  That means, in practice, we'd need AT LEAST four times as many ships, terminals, tankers, etc to move it around.

In terms of storage, countries like Germany would need to stockpile at least some reserves and those reserves would also be at least 4 times the footprint they currently occupy.  Its possible to have a distributed network of pipes but again, those have to carry significantly more material and would therefore be bigger.  This collides with the NIMBY problem - there's zero public will to improve distribution networks, regardless of country.  NO ONE wants more pipes, even to save the world.

That's why most of these schemes rely on conversion to biomethane or some sort of co-equivalent chemical like bio-isobutane so they can blended and piggyback on the existing pipeline structure.

2)  Efficiency:   Electrolysis throws away about 40% of the available energy unless it's co-generated with nuclear using technology that's NEVER been demonstrated at scale (e.g., ESOFCs).  Storage/Transport of hydrogen is very tough and would loose a prohibitive amount of energy so the Formic plants have to be colocated with the solar/wind farms.  That's not a deal breaker but it means that there's a lot of transport from the solar to the places people use power (see issue 1).  Creating the formic acid loses more energy so you're down to about 50% efficiency, before transportation costs are factored in.

The formic acid has to get reconverted to energy at the point of consumption and carnot engines aren't capable of more than 55% Efficiency under screamingly optimistic conditions.  So you're combined cycle efficiency has taken a beating - from that initial 1 KW/m2 solar under ideal conditions, you're at 0.6 after electrolysis, then 0.5 after conversion/transportation, and finally 0.25 or so at the point of use.  Hope you like solar panels - you're going to need a LOT of them.
The cells aren't the biggest cost factor.

3)  Concentrated Formic acid is a pretty severe health hazard and decomposes on its own releasing CO.  That has to be vented and people are going to freak out about both.  I don't know how to get it approved by any regulatory body.  Seriously.  I don't know how it can be done.

Our thinktank has Formic acid fuels cells runing but with little CO2 emmision, that's true. Power they deliver is much higher then diesel engines.

------------------

If you want, I can point you to some other papers that present alternative zero-carbon plans from a retired friend of mine that are more rigorous.
That might be very interesting, this is  concept phase project proposal, so modification-suggestions are welcome.

FA.png

We studied the safety of liquid and gaseous Hydrogen and both are unobtainable.

Liquid because the critical temperature (where there is no liquid form of any gas is possible is 30 degrees kelvin.
It has to be super cooled and that alone is extremely expensive.

Vunerable as well. it has to be vented. If a hydrogen tanker vents in a thunderstorm, well you don't want to know:
The blast will be such that you won't even have to look for survivers of mostly 15 men crewed tankership.

Gaseous hydrogen takes most volume of any other gas by weight. Only thing you can do is compress it to 900 bar.
Somewhat  obtainable for smaller volumes, but impossible for larger volumes.
The wall have to be so thick and carbonfibre wounded that it becomes a weight monster.
Extremely expensive as well.

Formic acid look like the least best carrier but it has many advantages.

Thanks for the feed back and profound deep discussion.
You have been studing as well...
The subject deserves all the attention in the world, thanks.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Schakel said:

And if that tanker has an incident all life in de radius of about 350 km wil die.
Handling hoses has to be done with Hazmat suit.
573141444_Hazmatpak.jpg.7ebf69fbcaea359f72efd9a2e0a4b456.jpg
And when inhaling of 5 ppm occurs you have serious lung problems.
Formic Acid is the solution because it's biodegradable.
And fuel cells run on it so if the tanker is formic acid fuel cell driven you have very little CO2 emmision  and very strong propulsion.


 

This is true 

every energy solution had its defects …consider nuclear 

hydrogen is corrosive  explodes and requires infrastructure  .. it also requires proper handling 

im sure sophisticated societies can figure hydrogen out 

what about the rest of the world ? 

And the fact remains that Ammonia has a high energy density 

I doubt  that any one fuel will solve the co2 problem 

a mix of energy sources will be the easiest to achieve globally 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

This is true 

every energy solution had its defects …consider nuclear 

 

Nuclear gives radioactive waste with halftime of 10 ^12 years.
The planet is 8 10^9 years, Burial in subduction zones will inevitable lead to that  the highly radioactive waste ends up in vulcanopipes and when a vulcanic blast occurs, the world is treated with nuclair fall out in its volcanic ash.
Side effects will be comparable of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagashaki.
Not recomendable as well.
Give it thought...

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Schakel said:

Nuclear gives radioactive waste with halftime of 10 ^12 years.
The planet is 8 10^9 years, Burial in subduction zones will inevitable lead to that  the highly radioactive waste ends up in vulcanopipes and when a vulcanic blast occurs, the world is treated with nuclair fall out in its volcanic ash.
Side effects will be comparable of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagashaki.
Not recomendable as well.
Give it thought...

Everything has consequences 

look at Africa , cobalt extraction 

those batteries are not environmentally friendly 

folks who propose magic bullet one size fits all solutions will fail 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, slug zitski said:

Everything has consequences 

look at Africa , cobalt extraction 

those batteries are not environmentally friendly 

folks who propose magic bullet one size fits all solutions will fail 

Perhaps, but it will be the leading technology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Co2 can be substantially  reduced  by citizens becoming more energy efficient and by planting a few billion trees 

industrial co2 .. steel making , cement , fertilizer … each have their own solution 

one size can’t fit all 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chum said:

What about using tidal generators like the ones that lift large weights and store potential energy that way? There doesn’t seem to be a downside to me, except their obviously not as useful for inland communities. 

100 % correct. As long as it is, what is classified as, renewable energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

Co2 can be substantially  reduced  by citizens becoming more energy efficient and by planting a few billion trees 

industrial co2 .. steel making , cement , fertilizer … each have their own solution 

one size can’t fit all 

Okay I agree with you on the planting trees option.
And off course we need to respect each solution done by every branch of industry.
Lots of work will be generated as well. Almost everything will have to be rebuild.
Engineers have a very good future prospect at the moment.
We'll need everyone of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Schakel said:

Okay I agree with you on the planting trees option.
And off course we need to respect each solution done by every branch of industry.
Lots of work will be generated as well. Almost everything will have to be rebuild.
Engineers have a very good future prospect at the moment.
We'll need everyone of them.

There will never be enough money to build new , redesign  society 

how many trillions were spent on corona ? 
the next corona is just around the corner 

drinking water , agriculture topsoil loss ,antibiotic resistance …

the world is full of problems , co2 is just another one 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Hey Schackel, I have a question for you if I may.
So using Photovoltaic panels your scheme will produce H through electrolysis.

 The H will then be burned in I.C.E. in lieu of gas, diesel, LNG, CNG etc.

The byproduct of H from burning it is mostly H2O.

The number one green house gas, at like 95% is water vapor (I know, right, but it makes a real bad poster child), how does that help in the long run?
Are we not still contributing to GH gases and in effect substituting one GHG for another??

There is an index for that.
Water is not the worst gas in the world it's steam, clouds, rain.
No harm done.

At the moment we have ammoniak problems in the Netherlands because of too much cow, chicken and pig shit.
We proposed underground storage for that but politics isn't fast in decision making.
Meanwhile everyone is couching his lungs out.
My laundry smells like ammoniak.
And the problem is far from over, sometimes I consider going to Norway.
Clean air, very much sustainable energy, they switch by law as one of the first countries in the world to 100%  electric cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Schakel said:

There is an index for that.
Water is not the worst gas in the world it's steam, clouds, rain.
No harm done.

At the moment we have ammoniak problems in the Netherlands because of too much cow, chicken and pig shit.
We proposed underground storage for that but politics isn't fast in decision making.
Meanwhile everyone is couching his lungs out.
My laundry smells like ammoniak.
And the problem is far from over, sometimes I consider going to Norway.
Clean air, very much sustainable energy, they switch by law as one of the first countries in the world to 100%  electric cars.

Fresh water is scarce and precious in the Netherlands 

might be a poor idea to choose underground storage 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Obama is 62 years old, he can comfortably live in that house for 20+ years and not fear rising oceans. Besides, there is a thing called grandfathered flood insurance. 

Minor quibble - he's 60.  Birthday is August 4, 1961.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
15 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Obama is 62 years old, he can comfortably live in that house for 20+ years and not fear rising oceans. Besides, there is a thing called grandfathered flood insurance. 

Minor quibble - he's 60.  Birthday is August 4, 1961.

Another minor quibble, the estate is on a hill. It's more than 3X as high above sea level as my house is.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

Fresh water is scarce and precious in the Netherlands 

might be a poor idea to choose underground storage 

Underground storage was for manure from cow, chicken and pigs we are overpopulated by them.

@ Bravo Bravo. Wooden shoes are very comfortable in winter. And they act as safety shoe as well.
Modern farmers still use them, a matter of culture. But you abhore culture don't you?
Everybody  must wear sneakers?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Another minor quibble, the estate is on a hill. It's more than 3X as high above sea level as my house is.

- DSK

If you look at the land in the background it is not vey high. A topo map says the elevation of great pond is 3'.

Edit to Add: the land does look like it is higher than 3'

Natural landscape, Nature, Vegetation, Property, Aerial photography, Bird's-eye view, Nature reserve, Landscape, Real estate, Estate,

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Schakel said:

Underground storage was for manure from cow, chicken and pigs we are overpopulated by them.

@ Bravo Bravo. Wooden shoes are very comfortable in winter. And they act as safety shoe as well.
Modern farmers still use them, a matter of culture. But you abhore culture don't you?
Everybody  must wear sneakers?

You might be able to pipe it to Germany so that they can make bratwurst out of it 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like it would work, but the emerging reality of low-entropy energy production is that we are unwittingly swapping air pollutants for water and soil pollutants.

Photovoltaics, batteries, electrolysis and fuel cells tend to need a lot of Rare Earth Elements and/or lithium.  Where those come from is the dirty secret of our grand plans.  Increasingly, they come from filthy ore extraction operations in West Africa and South America, often (usually?) by Chinese operators who have made an effort to move this out of China.

I have already seen a formerly pristine river in Ghana flow the color of a dust collection bag house. (Tons of ore must be processed for only a tiny amount of REES.) And the locals rarely if ever have a stake in these operations, so they will end up losing their long-term eco-tourism revenues in exchange for trinkets. 

My take is that the engineers and scientists need to sit the fuck down with these grand plans before they launch and not repeat the mistakes of the last hundred-some years. It is not enough to just present an attractive energy balance, but it also needs to present a workable balance for people, water and soil. What is the point of giving people cheap energy if it comes with the costs of flushing debris down rivers to get it?

There are ways to get REES in a clean way, but the energy nerds have shown little interest in them. I have yet to meet an EV driver who has any interest in the real cost of their beloved tech.  They want to donut, but they don't want to think about the 50-pound block of hog lard needed to make the donuts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Seems like it would work, but the emerging reality of low-entropy energy production is that we are unwittingly swapping air pollutants for water and soil pollutants.

Photovoltaics, batteries, electrolysis and fuel cells tend to need a lot of Rare Earth Elements and/or lithium.  Where those come from is the dirty secret of our grand plans.  Increasingly, they come from filthy ore extraction operations in West Africa and South America, often (usually?) by Chinese operators who have made an effort to move this out of China.

I have already seen a formerly pristine river in Ghana flow the color of a dust collection bag house. (Tons of ore must be processed for only a tiny amount of REES. And the locals rarely if ever have a stake in these operations, so they will end up losing their long-term eco-tourism revenues in exchange for trinkets. 

My take is that the engineers and scientists need to sit the fuck down with these grand plans before they launch and not repeat the mistakes of the last hundred-some years. It is not enough to just present an attractive energy balance, but it also needs to present a workable balance for people, water and soil. What is the point of giving people cheap energy if it comes with the costs of flushing debris down rivers to get it?

There are ways to get REES in a clean way, but the energy nerds have shown little interest in them.

What?  Who let you back in?
 

Sheesh…..

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Seems like it would work, but the emerging reality of low-entropy energy production is that we are unwittingly swapping air pollutants for water and soil pollutants.

Photovoltaics, batteries, electrolysis and fuel cells tend to need a lot of Rare Earth Elements and/or lithium.  Where those come from is the dirty secret of our grand plans.  Increasingly, they come from filthy ore extraction operations in West Africa and South America, often (usually?) by Chinese operators who have made an effort to move this out of China.

I have already seen a formerly pristine river in Ghana flow the color of a dust collection bag house. (Tons of ore must be processed for only a tiny amount of REES.) And the locals rarely if ever have a stake in these operations, so they will end up losing their long-term eco-tourism revenues in exchange for trinkets. 

My take is that the engineers and scientists need to sit the fuck down with these grand plans before they launch and not repeat the mistakes of the last hundred-some years. It is not enough to just present an attractive energy balance, but it also needs to present a workable balance for people, water and soil. What is the point of giving people cheap energy if it comes with the costs of flushing debris down rivers to get it?

There are ways to get REES in a clean way, but the energy nerds have shown little interest in them. I have yet to meet an EV driver who has any interest in the real cost of their beloved tech.  They want to donut, but they don't want to think about the 50-pound block of hog lard needed to make the donuts. 

The polutant of PV cell when using Si is Silicium only generally known as sand.
That is for 100 cristalline pv cell, but the effeciency isn't so high round 25 percent. Still you protect desert sand from heated sun and provide shelter for plants and creating a moist soil atmosphere. Cooling down the planet on mass scale. So what, why not to take the most effective NI cd Ni or whatever heavy metal PV cell..
Beware: I discussed this subjects with all kind of PHd's. I think the idea is worth trying, I got positive feed back from financials.

A consideration other then formic acid is; you won't believe it, Ethanol or alcohol.
A whole converted oiltanker filled with the precious booze ingredient.
I hope some of you get more enthousiastic.
Fill her up again!
Knock_Nevis.jpg.c02d88de2066377baaff3fef83a6239c.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

20 months ago we installed some solar panels on my boat shop roof. My total cost was $2000 for the equipment and wiring. I worked on the installation for about a day and a half and one of my employees probably spent  a day. 
We are saving over $100 off the electric bill every month. 
saving:  Although rates increased slightly, our year to year difference between the actual bills has ranged from $104 to $131. 
 

I believe the USA could radically cut emissions if we simply started building and installing solar panels on as many rooftops as we possibly can. 
 

if we were to start making huge solar panels arrays in our deserts and generally in places where there is very little vegetation, I believe we could seriously cut back on our CO2 generation. 
 

Can we store huge amounts of energy by lifting very heavy objects? We definitely need another storage battery breakthrough or fuel cells. 


Unfortunately a 8.5 KW installed by a Tesla subcontractor is 17,000 dollars and 27,000 with one power wall which I feel is important to let it work in less than idea conditions

Its still problematic for a homeowner to layout the full price and wait for the rebates of 7000 Fed and 7000 South Carolina and the utility is still allowed to charge you monthly to connect the panels to the grid and it’s required to connect to the grid 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Schakel said:

The polutant of PV cell when using Si is Silicium only generally known as sand.
That is for 100 cristalline pv cell, but the effeciency isn't so high round 25 percent. Still you protect desert sand from heated sun and provide shelter for plants and creating a moist soil atmosphere. Cooling down the planet on mass scale. So what, why not to take the most effective NI cd Ni or whatever heavy metal PV cell..
Beware: I discussed this subjects with all kind of PHd's. I think the idea is worth trying, I got positive feed back from financials.

A consideration other then formic acid is; you won't believe it, Ethanol or alcohol.
A whole converted oiltanker filled with the precious booze ingredient.
I hope some of you get more enthousiastic.
Fill her up again!
Knock_Nevis.jpg.c02d88de2066377baaff3fef83a6239c.jpg

If the liberals find a tanker full of alcohol they will tax it till it sinks 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

Seems like it would work, but the emerging reality of low-entropy energy production is that we are unwittingly swapping air pollutants for water and soil pollutants.

Photovoltaics, batteries, electrolysis and fuel cells tend to need a lot of Rare Earth Elements and/or lithium.  Where those come from is the dirty secret of our grand plans.  Increasingly, they come from filthy ore extraction operations in West Africa and South America, often (usually?) by Chinese operators who have made an effort to move this out of China.

I have already seen a formerly pristine river in Ghana flow the color of a dust collection bag house. (Tons of ore must be processed for only a tiny amount of REES.) And the locals rarely if ever have a stake in these operations, so they will end up losing their long-term eco-tourism revenues in exchange for trinkets. 

My take is that the engineers and scientists need to sit the fuck down with these grand plans before they launch and not repeat the mistakes of the last hundred-some years. It is not enough to just present an attractive energy balance, but it also needs to present a workable balance for people, water and soil. What is the point of giving people cheap energy if it comes with the costs of flushing debris down rivers to get it?

There are ways to get REES in a clean way, but the energy nerds have shown little interest in them. I have yet to meet an EV driver who has any interest in the real cost of their beloved tech.  They want to donut, but they don't want to think about the 50-pound block of hog lard needed to make the donuts. 

That's the Idea. Correct. But to obtain cristal clear view we need al lot of opinions and hard work on top level engineering.
And every company may bring his optimal solution. What's so strange about capatalism that the most effective idea makes most money and therefore wins. You can't sit on your hands for too long. The investments in these kind of project is enourmous, we'll have to work with floating targets that will be optimized later in the project.

The Netherlands is garanteed safe until 2050 so we have some time left.
After that the biggest destruction of capital will begin, losing harbor and refineries and steelfurnaces is stage one.
And believe me:  they don't work when flooded.

So there is enough at stake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Kindly explain. If water vapor, in whatever form, makes up around 95% of GHG, how is that not a problem? It is still a green house gas.

And the index you mention, do we have a link please? I would be interested in learning more.

955136700_toptengreenhousegasses.PNG.9efe858caf4d004ef68c9579aa0b8e42.PNG

Fun fact with water is that it precepites and it starts raining, hailstoning or snow.
Hoping it will build snow and get the poles and glaciers to grow again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

I understand that. But we have for the past 5 decades worked hard to remove particulate out of the atmosphere..... the result seems to be we have lessened or reduce the amount of aerosols. An unintended consequence of that is water vapor remains in the atmosphere longer, takes longer to turn into droplets, form clouds and reach saturation point to precipitate. The water vapor also holds in heat in the atmosphere and contributes a great deal to warming.
This to me seems problematic.

Are you suggesting increased atmospheric humidity is the inevitable result of human induced reactions?  That increased electrolysis and using hydrogen as a reactant will suddenly increase water vapor concentration in the atmosphere?  Are you seeing the atmosphere like a "sink", in this scenario?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Schakel said:

The polutant of PV cell when using Si is Silicium only generally known as sand.
That is for 100 cristalline pv cell, but the effeciency isn't so high round 25 percent. Still you protect desert sand from heated sun and provide shelter for plants and creating a moist soil atmosphere. Cooling down the planet on mass scale. So what, why not to take the most effective NI cd Ni or whatever heavy metal PV cell..
Beware: I discussed this subjects with all kind of PHd's. I think the idea is worth trying, I got positive feed back from financials.

A consideration other then formic acid is; you won't believe it, Ethanol or alcohol.
A whole converted oiltanker filled with the precious booze ingredient.
I hope some of you get more enthousiastic.
Fill her up again!
Knock_Nevis.jpg.c02d88de2066377baaff3fef83a6239c.jpg

 

Yea, in the energy world, Ethanol and Menthol are 'partially burned' hydrocarbons.  They're only about 80% the energy content of their straight chain brethren but the bigger problem is they degrade conventional seals/gaskets and they have some other esoteric problems like inconvenient flash points, some toxicity issues, and an annoying habit of unzipping too quickly in some conventional energy conversion technology such as turbines and high temperature fuel cells.  Direct methanol in PEMs has been tried for 20 years - the membranes can't take it.  That's a dead end, IMHO.

One important factor - the Si used in semiconductors isn't 'just sand'.  Its actually VERY specific sand.  if you want to get Si to semiconductor grade, you need an highly tailored process that can't take an infinite range of input raw material.  In fact, most plants have long term agreements with specific sand miners - these are 'ore grade' deposits, not beach sand.

There are many Engineers and Scientists that ARE working on these problems.   I appreciate the enthusiasm as well but I think you need to go talk to a broader group PhDs .  Many of these projects have BEEN tried.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15CLI-CopFuture-threeByTwoMediumAt2X.jpg

There's something disturbingly beautiful about this picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Can we store huge amounts of energy by lifting very heavy objects?

https://www.science.org/content/article/gravity-based-batteries-try-beat-their-chemical-cousins-winches-weights-and-mine-shafts

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to put that in perspective, that solar farm would produce about enough power for this place...  

TimesSquare.png.b3eff0548c83d3b82f9d800a35ff8758.png

 

Not all of NYC mind you, just Times Square and the immediate buildings around it. 

The exact demands don't match - Times Square eats more at night and solar farm works by day so you'll also need three of these hydro storage facilities.

 

 

Tumut.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BeSafe said:

Just to put that in perspective, that solar farm would produce about enough power for this place...  

TimesSquare.png.b3eff0548c83d3b82f9d800a35ff8758.png

 

Not all of NYC mind you, just Times Square and the immediate buildings around it.

 

 

So a small city of about 100K people with attendant businesses.

Sounds reasonable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BeSafe said:

 

Yea, in the energy world, Ethanol and Menthol are 'partially burned' hydrocarbons.  They're only about 80% the energy content of their straight chain brethren but the bigger problem is they degrade conventional seals/gaskets and they have some other esoteric problems like inconvenient flash points, some toxicity issues, and an annoying habit of unzipping too quickly in some conventional energy conversion technology such as turbines and high temperature fuel cells.  Direct methanol in PEMs has been tried for 20 years - the membranes can't take it.  That's a dead end, IMHO.

One important factor - the Si used in semiconductors isn't 'just sand'.  Its actually VERY specific sand.  if you want to get Si to semiconductor grade, you need an highly tailored process that can't take an infinite range of input raw material.  In fact, most plants have long term agreements with specific sand miners - these are 'ore grade' deposits, not beach sand.

There are many Engineers and Scientists that ARE working on these problems.   I appreciate the enthusiasm as well but I think you need to go talk to a broader group PhDs .  Many of these projects have BEEN tried.

That's what we do in this forum. Thanks for the input.
Gasket problems can be overcome by a configuration that is called double mechanical seal.
2382_Dual_Seal_740x400_4.png.59df848fb3dbc952fab2f23c35f51597.png
But then you start throwing money at the problem.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The oil inspired, energy from sunbathed countries that feed western civilisation. can be overcome by a simple solution.
586762914_Hydrogenhousewithsolarcells.jpg.fd8f4e0bbc4805c56dda7587290add4f.jpg
This house is self sufficient and is hydrogen driven without the expensive and olutive batterij packs and converters.
It even delivers to the electricity grid during summer.
The rest of the eltricity needed for this house can be delivered by underground warmth storage and/or hydrogen tanks.
This and many other project are build and optimised at the campus of the university where I work.
Take a peek:
Green village test site for renewable energy solutions at the Technical University Delft

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mikewof said:

My take is that the worlds leaders need to sit the fuck down with engineers and scientists to manage these grand plans before they launch and not repeat the mistakes of the last hundred-some years.

FIFY

Engineers and scientists can only work if leaders show them the time and money to do so.

World leaders includes social (the will), business (the market controllers) and political (the law and taxes).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ncik said:

FIFY

Engineers and scientists can only work if leaders show them the time and money to do so.

The climate change conference in Glasgow ended last week.
I don't think it's too late for cooling down the planet action.
https://unfccc.int/conference/glasgow-climate-change-conference-october-november-2021

Does anyone has any idea about the ammount of work the greenification of industry and society delivers?
Almost beyond comprehension, it's the biggest project on earth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Schakel said:

The climate change conference in Glasgow ended last week.
I don't think it's too late for cooling down the planet action.
https://unfccc.int/conference/glasgow-climate-change-conference-october-november-2021

Does anyone has any idea about the ammount of work the greenification of industry and society delivers?
Almost beyond comprehension, it's the biggest project on earth.

My comment was directed at Mikewof who thinks that only engineers and scientists are to blame for every problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ncik said:

Please, Scakel, I'm asking quod umbra a question about removing particulates from the atmosphere.

image.thumb.png.f3d1e650e9835768dc30b472ec2abaea.png

Just a sugestion these torrential rain act like giant airscrubbers.
But you want to know his scientific work I guess. Sorry to interfere, I build several industrial scrubbers.
Huge cyclones of slurries in all kinds.
a-view-of-flue-gas-desulfurization-absorber-in-the-turow-power-plant-a-thermal-condensing-power-plan-ynia-the-basic-fuel-of-power-plant-is-lignite-2AD6W0K.thumb.jpg.2bb6c8967e04219c22f24be23beb4b87.jpg

 

Sorry to interfere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, tommays said:


Unfortunately a 8.5 KW installed by a Tesla subcontractor is 17,000 dollars and 27,000 with one power wall which I feel is important to let it work in less than idea conditions

Its still problematic for a homeowner to layout the full price and wait for the rebates of 7000 Fed and 7000 South Carolina and the utility is still allowed to charge you monthly to connect the panels to the grid and it’s required to connect to the grid 

Yes… point well made..

The fossil fuel stockholders own $$Trillion$$ of known reserves they would love to extract from the Earth, refine, and sell. For that reason they invest billions in buying governments who then write regulations which drive up the prices of ANY competitor energy source. 
 

I did not pay any of the Government fees. My installation is 100% proper according to every code. 
i would love to triple or Quintuple the size of my solar array but doing so would cross my installation into the regulated realm. 
 
* The regulations are made for the benefit of those who must sell me electricity if my generation units stop working. 
There is a certain logic to it but the price seems a bit high.

* the price and system:

If I generate any more than my current level, All my electricity use must be metered INCUDING that which I generate. 
The Electric  company gets to charge me a per kilowatt service fee based upon my peak usage ( including energy I generate). 
The Electric Company gets to charge me an access rate based upon my peak usage. … including my generated electricity. 
 

The electric company has to buy excess power I generate but the buy back rate is much lower than the rates they charge to me. 
 

So…. The current result is a work around.

-*  If you try to GIVE the extra power to the electric company, the smart meter can detect your extra power generation and the electric company can put you on the higher rate system. 
* For a few extra bucks it is relatively simple to rig your generation system to shut down rather than give the excess energy away. 

With such a system, you can generate as much as you wish in the  daytime and only buy electricity while the sun is down.

When your AC, heater, or boat shop air compressors kick on, the necessary additional solar panels are “turned on” to serve the need. 
 

Diesvthis dirt if system waste tremendous amounts of energy?? HELL YES!! 
but… it causes the utility companies to buy more fossil fuel. 
 

summary: We MUST write the regulations to suit our actual needs snd not the needs of those who  can afford to purchase governments.

That’s  going to be mighty hard 
 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

A semi related article by the Dutch Meteorological Institute about how many days we need to store energy to cover our current electricity needs if generated only by wind and solar power.

https://www-knmi-nl.translate.goog/over-het-knmi/nieuws/dagen-met-weinig-wind-en-zon?_x_tr_sl=nl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=nl&_x_tr_pto=nui

 

The results surprised me:

"For how many days do you need to store energy to always have enough energy? This energy is needed to make up for the shortage in periods with too little sun and wind. With the combination of sun and wind, the largest cumulative deficit in a year is on average 5 times the daily use. The highest deficit in 30 years is 13 times the daily use. If you connect the stations, that is an average of 4 times the daily use. The highest deficit in 30 years is then 8 times the daily use "

 

These results are valid only in our climate but make me hopeful a solution is possible in our country with relatively few possibilities to store energy by conventional means such as pumped hydro for example. If we create the average needed amount of storage (4 days) there remain only a couple of days of insufficient power per year. On those few remaining days we can chose to shut down large power users.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Voiled said:

A semi related article by the Dutch Meteorological Institute about how many days we need to store energy to cover our current electricity needs if generated only by wind and solar power.

https://www-knmi-nl.translate.goog/over-het-knmi/nieuws/dagen-met-weinig-wind-en-zon?_x_tr_sl=nl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=nl&_x_tr_pto=nui

 

The results surprised me:

"For how many days do you need to store energy to always have enough energy? This energy is needed to make up for the shortage in periods with too little sun and wind. With the combination of sun and wind, the largest cumulative deficit in a year is on average 5 times the daily use. The highest deficit in 30 years is 13 times the daily use. If you connect the stations, that is an average of 4 times the daily use. The highest deficit in 30 years is then 8 times the daily use "

 

These results are valid only in our climate but make me hopeful a solution is possible in our country with relatively few possibilities to store energy by conventional means such as pumped hydro for example. If we create the average needed amount of storage (4 days) there remain only a couple of days of insufficient power per year. On those few remaining days we can chose to shut down large power users.

Hello voiled

That's an unconvinient truth, we simply do not have enough sun hours so we need imported green energy.
This plan with formic acid or ethanol tankers gives a solution.

Greetings fellow dutchman.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sailabout said:

Have they worked out solar panels are heating the earth yet?

Just put your hand on one on a sunny day..

Plus the windmills slow the air so its getting hotter where the panels are.

And they give you cancer and you can't watch TV at night. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

Nuclear! 

Mr. Bravo Bravo,

You don't have minus 665 apreciation points for nothing.
Try to say something that's socialbly acceptable.
I have beated most trolls by making an addition.
And you? Nucleair?...

Once again the academic story and perhaps you will understand.
Earth is 8.000.000.000 years old (8* 10 ^8)
Plutonium has a half life ( the time needed for obtaining the half of radio active radiation) of 1.000.000.000.000 (10^12)years.
So it ends up in earth magma conversion that is driving the palnet.
100 percent sure that if it ends up in magma pipes under vulcanoes and there is a volcanic eruption the volcanic ash area will be polluted.

Now I have an academic question for you:
What is the chance of nucleair waste ending up in a volcanic pipe in the future?
Do want to bet? Or it is a problem in the far future?
heaven is a place on earth and with one simple discision you wipe out possible life after ??? years.
But it will occur for sure.
And it is not neccessary.

Can I recieve a academic answer as well or are you goingt to drown this usefull thread with rubbisch.

Go on a long walk, take a look at the ocean and the trees and the mountains and the bees and wonder yourself:
Is all this worth my nuclair dream, where I become rich.

The french had a very clear expression:
Après moi, le déluge
After me the flood.

That counts for nuclair, and for the constructive work of what Oil, Gas and Coal did for the planet.

Cheers!
1757557726_subductionzonegraphic.thumb.jpg.5e9ea0968e0fd3a77914adf1ce858dd5.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Voiled said:

A semi related article by the Dutch Meteorological Institute about how many days we need to store energy to cover our current electricity needs if generated only by wind and solar power.

https://www-knmi-nl.translate.goog/over-het-knmi/nieuws/dagen-met-weinig-wind-en-zon?_x_tr_sl=nl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=nl&_x_tr_pto=nui

 

The results surprised me:

"For how many days do you need to store energy to always have enough energy? This energy is needed to make up for the shortage in periods with too little sun and wind. With the combination of sun and wind, the largest cumulative deficit in a year is on average 5 times the daily use. The highest deficit in 30 years is 13 times the daily use. If you connect the stations, that is an average of 4 times the daily use. The highest deficit in 30 years is then 8 times the daily use "

 

These results are valid only in our climate but make me hopeful a solution is possible in our country with relatively few possibilities to store energy by conventional means such as pumped hydro for example. If we create the average needed amount of storage (4 days) there remain only a couple of days of insufficient power per year. On those few remaining days we can chose to shut down large power users.

 

8 hours ago, Voiled said:

A semi related article by the Dutch Meteorological Institute about how many days we need to store energy to cover our current electricity needs if generated only by wind and solar power.

https://www-knmi-nl.translate.goog/over-het-knmi/nieuws/dagen-met-weinig-wind-en-zon?_x_tr_sl=nl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=nl&_x_tr_pto=nui

 

The results surprised me:

"For how many days do you need to store energy to always have enough energy? This energy is needed to make up for the shortage in periods with too little sun and wind. With the combination of sun and wind, the largest cumulative deficit in a year is on average 5 times the daily use. The highest deficit in 30 years is 13 times the daily use. If you connect the stations, that is an average of 4 times the daily use. The highest deficit in 30 years is then 8 times the daily use "

 

These results are valid only in our climate but make me hopeful a solution is possible in our country with relatively few possibilities to store energy by conventional means such as pumped hydro for example. If we create the average needed amount of storage (4 days) there remain only a couple of days of insufficient power per year. On those few remaining days we can chose to shut down large power users.

How much electricity does the Netherlands import , export 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Schakel said:

Mr. Bravo Bravo,

You don't have minus 665 apreciation points for nothing.
Try to say something that's socialbly acceptable.
I have beated most trolls by making an addition.
And you? Nucleair?...

Once again the academic story and perhaps you will understand.
Earth is 8.000.000.000 years old (8* 10 ^8)
Plutonium has a half life ( the time needed for obtaining the half of radio active radiation) of 1.000.000.000.000 (10^12)years.
So it ends up in earth magma conversion that is driving the palnet.
100 percent sure that if it ends up in magma pipes under vulcanoes and there is a volcanic eruption the volcanic ash area will be polluted.

Now I have an academic question for you:
What is the chance of nucleair waste ending up in a volcanic pipe in the future?
Do want to bet? Or it is a problem in the far future?
heaven is a place on earth and with one simple discision you wipe out possible life after ??? years.
But it will occur for sure.
And it is not neccessary.

Can I recieve a academic answer as well or are you goingt to drown this usefull thread with rubbisch.

Go on a long walk, take a look at the ocean and the trees and the mountains and the bees and wonder yourself:
Is all this worth my nuclair dream, where I become rich.

The french had a very clear expression:
Après moi, le déluge
After me the flood.

That counts for nuclair, and for the constructive work of what Oil, Gas and Coal did for the planet.

Cheers!
1757557726_subductionzonegraphic.thumb.jpg.5e9ea0968e0fd3a77914adf1ce858dd5.jpg

Try asking a Kindergartener to solve a simple Geometry question. You'll have better luck, and a much better chance of getting a correct answer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ishmael said:

And they give you cancer and you can't watch TV at night. 

lol I saw the first article on the internet about a small island with a huge PV install and it has raised the average temp of the area, so its not just a joke.
It absorbs more solar than the natural habitate so its understandable

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Things in the Netherlands are moving fast because we, together with Bangladesh, are most threatend by sealevel rise:
1061383200_Dutchcitizenswonclimatechange.jpg.3df8952e5c1ea48dd0a0878a7c66bae9.jpg
Inmmediatly our Royal Dutch Shell wasn't royal and wasn't dutch anymore.
They have their headquarters in Great Britain from now on....
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, slug zitski said:

 

How much electricity does the Netherlands import , export 

737613969_electricityimportexport.PNG.383d92063d47a35c1f1b2a5edfefd8ba.PNG
We have a history as traders, rich Amsterdam was build with the money they earned in the golden century.
If Sealevel rise is not stopped we will lose our beautifull and beloved country by the end of this century.
We are willing to fight but will the rest of the world help us?
Xi Jinping president of China said china isn't ready for transformations, they are biggest coal consumers in the world and produce most Carbon Dioxide.
2101565857_worldCO2production.thumb.PNG.69685f8a5f87967bf6104cd6cb3f9a17.PNG

 

We are such a small player in CO2 production that we aren't even mentioned in this chart. (Rest of the world 21%.)
As said before it's a big project with a lot of points of view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your original tags are still true

So three days on now, where are you going with this?  Are you looking for feedback or just advocating?

I'm also not sure what you meant by "Knock Nevis with Ethanol or Formic Acid?".  My point with the energy density graphic was that you're going to need FOUR of those supertankers for every one currently in service but that creates a sea-born equivalent of the rocket equation.  The value of the cargo has to pay for the trip and if the cargo is only 1/4th as valuable (i.e., it has 1/4th the energy), then is there actually enough value to warrant doing the trip in the first place?  The usual answer is 'economy of scale' which, in this case, means ships that are TWICE as big - at least.

If I'm going the electrolysis route, I'm gonna go full throttle into the nuclear/electrochemical hybrid model using solid ceramic electrolytes, create hydrogen, and then either Fisher-Tropsch my way to 5-12 chain HCs or use recycle CO2/H2 into some hybrid molecule that makes sense so I can leverage existing pipelines and distribution networks.  I'm not sure Formic acid is a realistic replacement molecule because of the auto-decomposition problem.  I don't know that chemistry well enough to truly judge those merits and would be curious how the experts plan to  ameliorate that pathway.

If nuclear is truly off your radar, then you can do concentrated solar/electrochemical but that's even more complicated engineering.  You end up with concentrated solar/salt storage/electrochemcial -> hydrogen -> chemical process, etc..  The sunlight might be free but all that claptrap isn't and has to pay for itself eventually.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Schakel said:

737613969_electricityimportexport.PNG.383d92063d47a35c1f1b2a5edfefd8ba.PNG
We have a history as traders, rich Amsterdam was build with the money they earned in the golden century.
If Sealevel rise is not stopped we will lose our beautifull and beloved country by the end of this century.
We are willing to fight but will the rest of the world help us?
Xi Jinping president of China said china isn't ready for transformations, they are biggest coal consumers in the world and produce most Carbon Dioxide.
2101565857_worldCO2production.thumb.PNG.69685f8a5f87967bf6104cd6cb3f9a17.PNG

 

We are such a small player in CO2 production that we aren't even mentioned in this chart. (Rest of the world 21%.)
As said before it's a big project with a lot of points of view.

I was curious about overall energy budget 

import export 

both require long term contracts that will influence  your overall energy policies 

this scenario must be the same with many countries 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BeSafe said:

Your original tags are still true

So three days on now, where are you going with this?  Are you looking for feedback or just advocating?

I'm also not sure what you meant by "Knock Nevis with Ethanol or Formic Acid?".  My point with the energy density graphic was that you're going to need FOUR of those supertankers for every one currently in service but that creates a sea-born equivalent of the rocket equation.  , then is there actually enThe value of the cargo has to pay for the trip and if the cargo is only 1/4th as valuable (i.e., it has 1/4th the energy)ough value to warrant doing the trip in the first place?  The usual answer is 'economy of scale' which, in this case, means ships that are TWICE as big - at least.

If I'm going the electrolysis route, I'm gonna go full throttle into the nuclear/electrochemical hybrid model using solid ceramic electrolytes, create hydrogen, and then either Fisher-Tropsch my way to 5-12 chain HCs or use recycle CO2/H2 into some hybrid molecule that makes sense so I can leverage existing pipelines and distribution networks.  I'm not sure Formic acid is a realistic replacement molecule because of the auto-decomposition problem.  I don't know that chemistry well enough to truly judge those merits and would be curious how the experts plan to  ameliorate that pathway.

If nuclear is truly off your radar, then you can do concentrated solar/electrochemical but that's even more complicated engineering.  You end up with concentrated solar/salt storage/electrochemcial -> hydrogen -> chemical process, etc..  The sunlight might be free but all that claptrap isn't and has to pay for itself eventually.

 

 

Are you looking for feedback or just advocating

It's called brainstorming, what ever leads to creative solutions on a macroeconomical and energy wise level. Anything is possible until extraterrestial are discussed.
Then I'll throw in the towel and perhaps use moderation. (wasn't neccessary until now) Knock on wood..

 

Then is there actually enThe value of the cargo has to pay for the trip and if the cargo is only 1/4th as valuable (i.e., it has 1/4th the energy)ough value to warrant doing the trip in the first place?

Well, economies are driven by price and demand. Demand on green fuel will rise. Most people buy an electric car now, install solarpanels. underground warmth reservoirs, anything flies as long as it's energy efficient. Biggest concern is not the western countries, they have the brains and the universities and are educated. How about mongolia, China, Brasil Rusia, India. So called BRIC countries. There are some taggy clues in this project. Maybe it won't work and at the end of the century 3/4 of the people in the Netherlands that live below sealevel (-6 meter = zoetermeer, Amsterdam -2) we'll have to migrate seeking higher grounds. My family anticipated long time ago and we have a property in Lillehammer Norway 240 meter above sea level. Worst case scenario is 80 meters sealevelrise.

The sunlight might be free but all that claptrap isn't and has to pay for itself eventually.

T
hat is very true...

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2021 at 4:28 AM, Ishmael said:
On 11/15/2021 at 9:43 PM, Sailabout said:

Have they worked out solar panels are heating the earth yet?

Just put your hand on one on a sunny day..

Plus the windmills slow the air so its getting hotter where the panels are.

And they give you cancer and you can't watch TV at night. 

I think he's being ironic, should be purple.

And if he's not, that's just a sad indictment of scientific literacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites