Synthetic petroleum

[kerbiloid]

25 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

More specifically put, it would be "When fusion power becomes a mature industry, and natural fossil fuels are depleted..."

I.e. when fossil fuels will be depleted and the same energetical companies say:
"Ok, the fossil cow is now dead, what did they say about that fusion? Let's rename British Petroleum into British Neutronium."

So, there is no competition between fission/fusion and fossils, just a natural sequence of profits.

[p1t1o]

5 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

I.e. when fossil fuels will be depleted and the same energetical companies say:
"Ok, the fossil cow is now dead, what did they say about that fusion? Let's rename British Petroleum into British Neutronium."

So, there is no competition between fission/fusion and fossils, just a natural sequence of profits.

I didn't mean that "when the fossil fuel industry can't compete with the fusion industry" what I meant was: "once it becomes too expensive to mine oil/coal/gas due to scarcity, the cost/benefit of making fusion work suddenly looks much better, and a true fusion industry won't be competing against oil/coal/gas as it won't exist anymore, unlike when fission came in."

It should still result in a cost benefit, as the sheer abundance of fuel + energy produced will be much higher.

You don't always make more money by jacking up prices, sometimes you do it by lowering them.

Imagine if the energy companies found a way to sell electricity to the billion or so people who currently can't afford it?

[wumpus]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Once they have fusion reactor, the first thing they do — prohibit petroleum cars.
 

Jay Leno (who owns at least one of every desirable car in existence) insists that the car is going the way of the horse.  It probably won't be outright banned (except for in cities), but ownership will plummet.  More likely there would be a ban on burning hydrocarbons (even indirectly) for such toys and you would need some expensive fusion->water cracking->hyrdocarbon forming scheme that wouldn't be imaginable (economically) without fusion.

[kerbiloid]

11 minutes ago, wumpus said:

 It probably won't be outright banned (except for in cities), but ownership will plummet.

I mean exactly this. Environmental taxes and penalties, lack of obsolete fueling stations. So, hydrocarbon cars will stay as a luxury and a tool for emergency services.

[todofwar]

43 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

I mean exactly this. Environmental taxes and penalties, lack of obsolete fueling stations. So, hydrocarbon cars will stay as a luxury and a tool for emergency services.

Especially once you add in driverless cars to the equation. I'm betting on a network of electrical driverless Ubers that you use with a subscription fee instead of insurance/gas. Of course, road trips go out the window, which will be unfortunate because those are nice ways to see the country.

But again, it's not all about energy sources, and many batteries (most?) actually have organic solvents for their electrolytes. 

[cantab]

I really don't think private car ownership will go away. I think once self-driving cars become mature, human driving will be overregulated into oblivion in response to high-profile human-caused accidents, but people will still own their self-driving cars. Ever been left waiting ages for a taxi? I have, it sucks, and I'm very glad I now have my own car so I don't have to deal with taxis any more.

[JebKeb]

OK, it looks like we've cleared up CO2 capture. Siemens cycle is locked in.

Next, are there any other methods of producing methane other than the Sabatier reaction? I'm blank minded.

This may come in handy outside my ludicrous device, because liquid methane could be a rocket fuel, with a bit of insulation. (I'm aware of the freezing point issues with LOX.)

[shynung]

8 hours ago, cantab said:

I really don't think private car ownership will go away. I think once self-driving cars become mature, human driving will be overregulated into oblivion in response to high-profile human-caused accidents, but people will still own their self-driving cars. Ever been left waiting ages for a taxi? I have, it sucks, and I'm very glad I now have my own car so I don't have to deal with taxis any more.

I agree. The cars themselves may be automated to the point of becoming the horizontal equivalent of personal elevators, but people have been accustomed to having them nearby, ready to take them anywhere, I don't think we'll ditch personal cars anytime soon.

However, there are some places where human driving might come in handy (out in the wilderness, for example), and some people enjoys driving, so I don't think human driving would completely vanish. It'll be much highly regulated, probably similar to today's pilot licenses.

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, JebKeb said:

OK, it looks like we've cleared up CO2 capture. Siemens cycle is locked in.

Next, are there any other methods of producing methane other than the Sabatier reaction? I'm blank minded.

This may come in handy outside my ludicrous device, because liquid methane could be a rocket fuel, with a bit of insulation. (I'm aware of the freezing point issues with LOX.)

Yes.
С+2Н2 → СН4
600°C, Pt  cat.

Also you could hardly find more cheap and available source materials than CO2 and H2O.

Industrially they produce CH4 from natural gas (obviously) or coal.

C+H2O → CO + H2, so:

many C + many H2O  + some O2 → C + CO + CO2 + H2 + CH4 , which then is separated in an absorber.

Edited May 20, 2016 by kerbiloid

[John JACK]

On 17.05.2016 at 8:23 PM, kerbiloid said:

I.e. they spend our energy for their needs?
We don't need them high, we don't need them delivering water and fertilizer to 3 meters height.

They spend free energy for whatever. Bigger plants adsorb more atmospheric CO2 and bigger plants capture more sunlight. And bigger plants need less land area for same biomass production. Algae pools have no height and almost no surface area, so you need to spend our energy to deliver CO2 at least.

We spend our energy only to plant them (for a first time), and to harvest them. And weeds don't need much watering or fertilising. Lazy, cheap and effective is good.
Big grass plants don't even need their own fields — they can be grown between and around, as windbreaks. Each winter you can cut every other strip, and leave next to keep snow.

On 18.05.2016 at 2:26 PM, kerbiloid said:

And it's absolutely easy to make them cheaper. Just raise the environment pollution penalties against the old ones.

That's one way.

I looked up Fischer-Tropsch and it really gives a mix of different alkanes, good as fuel. Though it's comparable to lighter oil fractions, for chemical use product needs more processing. And you totally can use plant matter for this — gasify it with some water, run on catalyst, separate and reuse water. In return you get less energy than by burning hay outright, but yield nice liquid.

 

On 18.05.2016 at 3:11 PM, todofwar said:

Lubricants, dyes, plastics, pharmaceuticals, all require petroleum. Hell, even acetic acid is primarily petroleum derived.

Yes, because fossil oil is cheapest and most common raw material. That doesn't mean nothing can be done without it. It will take more power, but power is getting cheaper and less dependant on fossil hydrocarbons.

 

On 19.05.2016 at 3:05 AM, JebKeb said:

So, anyone got any other methods of CO2 capture?

You listed methods of CO2 production. To capture carbon you need to grow biomass, not to burn it.

Methods to capture CO2 from air (where it matters) are physical (partial liquefaction), biological (grass fields, algae pools) and chemical (alkaline and other scrubbers).

On 19.05.2016 at 5:24 PM, shynung said:

When fusion power (or any advanced nuclear power) goes online on a large scale, electricity would become dirt cheap compared to today.

Power is already dirt cheap. Will be even more cheaper if people wouldn't whine about clean and safe nuclear plants and did not insist to continue burning radiation-death spewing coal stations and useless wind turbines.

The trouble is that cheap power is wire delivered, use it or lose it. And ways to store power are not cheap. Batteries have high dead weight and low capacity, safely(ish) stored hydrogen is even worse. Also fusion reactors must be big to be effective (as in one station for a continent big), so transmission cost will be higher too.

[shynung]

11 minutes ago, John JACK said:

Power is already dirt cheap. Will be even more cheaper if people wouldn't whine about clean and safe nuclear plants and did not insist to continue burning radiation-death spewing coal stations and useless wind turbines.

The bolded part is the scenario I'm talking about. There should be a time where everyone ditches almost every fuel-burning appliance (think gas stoves) and personal vehicles, because electricity would be much cheaper than the alternative energy sources.

11 minutes ago, John JACK said:

The trouble is that cheap power is wire delivered, use it or lose it. And ways to store power are not cheap. Batteries have high dead weight and low capacity, safely(ish) stored hydrogen is even worse. Also fusion reactors must be big to be effective (as in one station for a continent big), so transmission cost will be higher too.

So what? In an urban environment, almost every inhabited building is connected to the grid anyway. Installing charging spots for cars wouldn't be very difficult. It's just a matter of time until everyone living in cities commute using electric vehicles.

In long distance routes where putting charging stations every few kilometers aren't an option, use vehicles fueled by light hydrocarbons, like methane or ethanol. These are easier to synthesize than octane (main component of gasoline), because the carbon chain is shorter. In case people insists on using their electric daily driver, just have them rent a small generator trailer which charges their battery on the go.

Even then, battery technology is still advancing. A low-end brand new electric vehicle can go about 160 km in one charge (Nissan Leaf), while a more high-end model reaches 430 km (Tesla Model S).

[John JACK]

23 minutes ago, shynung said:

There should be a time where everyone ditches almost every fuel-burning appliance (think gas stoves) and personal vehicles, because electricity would be much cheaper than the alternative energy sources.

Well, electricity replacing even portable heating devices (where burning hydrocarnons is both cheapest and more effective way) is surely science fiction. Maybe even retrofuturism, because to that time we'll already use non-electrical power everywhere.

26 minutes ago, shynung said:

In an urban environment, almost every inhabited building is connected to the grid anyway

Not exactly. In urban environment cars often are parked at public parking area away from owner's home. So that places must be equipped with (paid) charging outlets where none was before. Also electric cars draw ludicrous amounts of current — Tesla needs at least 48 amps, while almost every household has just 25 amp main fuse. Tesla still has 400 kg of batteries, and while mass can be lowered, power capacity will only increase. Parking areas and charge stations will need to be connected by pretty thick cables, and if everyone drives an electric car, all city power grid will have to be doubled or tripled. That will happen eventually, but sudden change to electric transport will demand for expensive infrastructure overhaul.

But liquid or liquefied fuel is compact, stores well and can be transported in simple tanks. I agree that light hydrocarbons are simple to synthesise, and they are easier to distribute to every car. And you cannot power a rocket or a jet by electricity!

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, John JACK said:

They spend free energy for whatever.

They spend free energy when they are not cultivated for it.
When they are —  every joule spent for unnecessary things (branches, roots, fruits, flowers, even bounds between cells) is boldly stolen.

2 hours ago, John JACK said:

Bigger plants adsorb more atmospheric CO2 and bigger plants capture more sunlight.

More numerous green cells do this. Other parts are wastage.

Also: if under the most upper layer of leaves  there are other leaves, this means only one thing: inefficiency of the most upper layer, which are losing most part of sunlight.
Ideally — under a thin upper layer of leaves there should be a purple darkness, as yellow-green photons should be absorbed in the first several centimeters.

2 hours ago, John JACK said:

And weeds don't need much watering or fertilising.

Weeds need energy to appear and grow, then - to transport water through themselves to the green parts (which are only required.)

2 hours ago, John JACK said:

Big grass plants don't even need their own fields — they can be grown between and around

The more "between and around" you have - the more area you should cultivate in total. This requires energy, water, electricity.
A solid green layer of algae is a lesser evil for the topic purposes than forests and meadows.

Edited May 20, 2016 by kerbiloid

[shynung]

53 minutes ago, John JACK said:

Well, electricity replacing even portable heating devices (where burning hydrocarnons is both cheapest and more effective way) is surely science fiction. Maybe even retrofuturism, because to that time we'll already use non-electrical power everywhere.

Not portable heating devices, mind you. Household appliances. Think stoves and ovens. Stuff like camp stoves would still use fuels.

54 minutes ago, John JACK said:

Not exactly. In urban environment cars often are parked at public parking area away from owner's home. So that places must be equipped with (paid) charging outlets where none was before. Also electric cars draw ludicrous amounts of current — Tesla needs at least 48 amps, while almost every household has just 25 amp main fuse. Tesla still has 400 kg of batteries, and while mass can be lowered, power capacity will only increase. Parking areas and charge stations will need to be connected by pretty thick cables, and if everyone drives an electric car, all city power grid will have to be doubled or tripled. That will happen eventually, but sudden change to electric transport will demand for expensive infrastructure overhaul.

It doesn't have to happen overnight. Cars are built to last decades. It's completely fine to wait until the current generation's cars to be used until they break down or scrapped (or the owners get sick of high fuel prices), while slowly being replaced by newer generation electrics. The infrastructure upgrades should follow as the automobile fleet upgrades.

55 minutes ago, John JACK said:

But liquid or liquefied fuel is compact, stores well and can be transported in simple tanks. I agree that light hydrocarbons are simple to synthesise, and they are easier to distribute to every car. And you cannot power a rocket or a jet by electricity!

Use the light hydrocarbons for long distance. I'd say something like Chevy Volt's energy usage plan (use battery until it's low, then turn on engine/generator) should be enough.

Also, while large commercial aircraft's pretty much stuck with hydrocarbon, electric rockets already exist: ion thrusters, arcjets, resistojets, magnetoplasma thrusters (VASIMR), and more.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, John JACK said:

Well, electricity replacing even portable heating devices (where burning hydrocarnons is both cheapest and more effective way) is surely science fiction

This "fiction" already takes place for several decades in many houses in a city where I work. No gas ovens, induction and microwave furnaces.

1 hour ago, John JACK said:

In urban environment cars often are parked at public parking area away from owner's home.

That's an argument for multistorey apartments and public transport (trams, trolleys - you know).

[John JACK]

31 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

When they are —  every joule spent for unnecessary things (branches, roots, fruits, flowers, even bounds between cells) is boldly stolen.

Stolen — from whom? That energy would be wasted anyway. You can not cover every square inch of Earth in solar cells, and even if you could, there is no way to harvest all the energy. And there is no point in trying — amount if solar radiation is huge but still limited, and most of it is needed for ecology to work. Plants growing and falling are still part of global ecosystem, and solar cells fields are not.
Joules spend into branches are stored for our consumption and joules spend into seeds save us joules to plant seeds again. So we still get free energy, and plants steal only from heating bare ground. And the water weeds get is still free — from rain and ground.

41 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Ideally — under a thin upper layer of leaves there should be a purple darkness, as yellow-green photons should be absorbed in the first several centimeters.

And in sunny day that thin layer will be scorched.

Plants' leaves are green and semi-transparent for a reason. That reason is no process is hundred percent efficient. Leaves need to adsorb only small amount of solar radiation, reflecting or letting through most, to prevent overheat and maintain comfortable temperature. Algae ponds will need to evaporate huge amounts of water (fresh clean water), and still may cook contents to soup in best days.

52 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

The more "between and around" you have - the more area you should cultivate in total.

Nope. People already cultivate more area — to feed people. Fields already need windbreaks, or they turn into dustbowl desert in several years. Harvesting windbreaks for energy don't need additional area cultivated. And it actually boosts fields productivity, while taking nothing to maintain. While solid layer of algae requires energy, water, electricity — and land area that must be stolen from fields, forests, meadows.

21 minutes ago, shynung said:

electric rockets already exist: ion thrusters, arcjets, resistojets, magnetoplasma thrusters (VASIMR), and more.

Yep, but that's deep space propulsion. Boosters still need TWR that only chemical (or despised N-word) engines have, even if assisted by mass driver. Though most human power needs still can be satisfied with wired or canned electricity.

15 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

No gas ovens, induction and microwave furnaces.

Well, good luck lugging your microwave (with a hundred mile spool of cable) to a camping trip. I hope there still be woods and fields to trip to.

Public transport is not a solution for everything. Walking half-hour to a trolley stop may be healthy but is not very time effective. Just like two or three transfers on one leg of a daily journey.

[kerbiloid]

9 minutes ago, John JACK said:

Stolen — from whom?

From the "energetical" plantation. The more energy is misused by the plants, the greater area you need to occupy with this plantation, the longer way for a tractor, the longer pipes for water, etc.

12 minutes ago, John JACK said:

Joules spend into branches are stored for our consumption and joules spend into seeds save us joules to plant seeds again.

Every joule spent into a branch means several joules lost to grow this branch.

13 minutes ago, John JACK said:

And in sunny day that thin layer will be scorched.

Bingo! A thin layer of algae - never. Its underwater.

13 minutes ago, John JACK said:

Plants' leaves are green and semi-transparent for a reason.

No, they just are non-ideal. A leaf is not a solid plate, it is a pattern, its weak parts are transparent and can't catch all sunlight falling onto them.
The more homogeneous is the layer - the more energy it catches at its very top, the less biomass is required per area.

16 minutes ago, John JACK said:

Harvesting windbreaks for energy don't need additional area cultivated.

Total area of those windbreaks in ridiculous comparing to total area of the cornfield. Ten more tonnes of straw and brushwood are not a solution.

19 minutes ago, John JACK said:

Well, good luck lugging your microwave (with a hundred mile spool of cable) to a camping trip. I hope there still be woods and fields to trip to.

Thanks. Camping places have anything they need, including electricity, gas, wood, but their total consumption is miserable comparing to the regular need in energy.

 

[JebKeb]

On 20 May 2016 at 0:40 PM, kerbiloid said:

Yes.
С+2Н2 → СН4
600°C, Pt  cat.

Also you could hardly find more cheap and available source materials than CO2 and H2O.

Industrially they produce CH4 from natural gas (obviously) or coal.

C+H2O → CO + H2, so:

many C + many H2O  + some O2 → C + CO + CO2 + H2 + CH4 , which then is separated in an absorber.

Getting carbon (read carbon, not carbon dioxide)  out of the air would take more energy. And we still have the electrolysis to deal with. Also, we're doing this to be carbon neutral, not be pulling coal out of the ground to turn it into methane. Charcoal is another option, though to produce methane and syngas. It'll probably only provide a small amount of carbon, though, because I don't think there's enough quickly replenishable biomass on the planet to do this.

Now, to move onto the Siemens cycle again. Anyone got equations for how much a gas is heated as it's compressed?

Quick side topic: do liquids and solids heat up as they are compressed?

[kerbiloid]

15 minutes ago, JebKeb said:

And we still have the electrolysis

Electrolysis requires energy. Much energy. Which is currently produced by burning the coal. Anyway, from an external powerful energy source.
Creating methane from carbon you just store a part of external energy as an energy of chemical bounds. So, it's by definition an endothermic process.

Charcoal is just a carbon part of dry plants. See above about flowers vs algae.

Liquids mostly cannot be compressed. Solids get crushed when being compressed. So, they both get heated only by the energy waste value.
Gases can heat on compression just because there are huge distances between their atoms. Solids and liquids are already packed.

Edited May 24, 2016 by kerbiloid

[JebKeb]

I'm planning on putting a huge roof over the complex, covered in solar panels.

[kerbiloid]

7 minutes ago, JebKeb said:

I'm planning on putting a huge roof over the complex, covered in solar panels.

Then why do you need methane?

[JebKeb]

16 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Then why do you need methane?

Only one party involved. Also, a lot more assets are around suited for methane. Let's say $10K for the methane system, per house. There are around 2 million houses in Victoria, Australia (where I'm planning to start the business). That's $20 billion, and I still think I overestimated the price of the NG grid. I projected a price of around $500 million for the fuel plant.

My philosiphy is, use what you've got. We have nearly 2 billion petroleum cars. Use them for 20 or so years. Electric cars still need more development thanks to oil companies, so ICE will probably continue another 15 years. I still like electric. I just think we should try to fix the problem now, not later. And we still need energy dense storage for rockets.

Edited May 24, 2016 by JebKeb

[kerbiloid]

While the natural carbon/hydrocarbons cover their cost, nobody will kill the cow which gives milk.

When they will begin deplete, first "green alternative sources" will be (already are) rising - "instead of dirty nukes". Because it's a profitable good for sell, too — why not to sell it?
This will also change the energetical infrastructure into "pure electricity" way.

When low-cost carbons/hydrocarbons indeed will be over, the Almighty Atom will rise.
And this — already up — "green energy & pure electricity" infrastructure (lines, feeders and charging plants) will be powered with nuke reactors.

2 bln of petroleum cars (I even didn't know about that) are a gift of gods for industry. Imagine: you can produce and sell 2 bln electric cars instead.

Edited May 24, 2016 by kerbiloid

[JebKeb]

5 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

2 bln of petroleum cars (I even didn't know about that) are a gift of gods for industry. Imagine: you can produce and sell 2 bln electric cars instead.

Hmmm...bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! 

[JebKeb]

Anyone got equations to figure out the heat produced by compression, and heat lost by expansion? It is kind of kritical in the CO2 capture/production machine.

P.S. Hahahah kritical. I'm leaving it because it's funny.