Propane - Energy Carrier

tahanson43206 · 2022-08-03 07:40:41

For Calliban re #25

Thank you for the link in #25 ... I'm looking forward to following it later today ...

In the mean time, kbd512 has (somewhat bravely) undertaken an inquiry to see if he can provider leadership that would lead to manufacture of synthetic hydrocarbons using solar power.

You are the only member of this forum able to seriously evaluate nuclear fission energy as a means of creating the synthetic fuel the world needs now, let alone in the future.

In other topics, you have offered hints that (at least in your mind's eye) you can "see" a manufacturing enterprise at the scale needed.

I'm hoping my post here will encourage you to think about (and hopefully write about) how that might be done.

I get the impression (from observing various media) that more and more humans are becoming aware of the need for change in how we've always done things.

There may (at long last) be some interest in alternatives, even if someone actually has to do some work, and someone actually has to assume some risk.

Humans will avoid risk and expense (or effort).

That is evident in discussions in this forum.

However, Ma Nature has a way of prodding humans, and I see lots of prodding under way.

(th)

Calliban · 2022-08-03 09:37:10

Actually, a spherical tokamak fusion reactor, may be a practical option for providing the heat and electric power needed for large scale synthetic fuel production. Everything that we know about magnetic confinement fusion suggests that scaling up will increase net energy yields and improve technical viability. For electrical grids, this has practical limitations. When power plants get so large that individual machines are meeting more than say 10% of total demand, it becomes difficult to meet demand in other ways if that reactor happens to be offload. This is one of the reasons why we don't build 5000MWe nuclear reactors. You also have the difficulty of transmitting power from a single point source to distributed consumers.

But if you are making synthetic fuel, neither of these problems exist. Global diesel consumption is a constant 2TW of power. Diesel can be stored in tanks and shipped by tankers to customers anywhere in the world. The same would be true for propane. We do not need to be concerned with transmission either, since the fuel factory could be built close to the reactors. For producing synthetic fuels we can therefore build enormously powerful fission or fusion reactors, essentially next door to where those huge amounts of energy will be used for fuel production.

The ITAR reactor in France has a vacuum chamber volume of 880m3. That is equivelent to the volume of a sphere about 12m in diameter, although the ITAR vessel is doughnut shaped. Suppose we build a spherical Tokamak some 60m in diameter. We could build the vacuum vessel out of reinforced concrete, which would also serve as a biological shield. The plasma volume would be 125x greater than ITAR. All else being equal, such a reactor could generate up to 60GW of thermal energy.

But a number of beneficial things would happen as the reactor is scaled up. Firstly, confinement time increases, simply because it takes longer for an ion to cross the diameter of the vessel. For a plasma of the same density, such a large vessel would reduce surface area to volume ratio and make it more likely that an ion would collide with other ions before escaping. Both of these factors increase average confinement time. Such a reactor would have about one tenth of tge area to volume ratio of ITAR, which is very very significant in itself. But the second factor may allow meaningful temperature gradients to be established between the centre and edges of plasma. This is enormously beneficial, because temperature gradient would allow the reactor to operate at a lower beta, which is the ratio between magnetic and plasma pressure. This allows plasma pressure to increase overall and remember that reaction rate and power density are proportional to the square of plasma pressure. Finally, the larger the vessel, the more neutron energy contributes to plasma heating. This is usually negligible, but as reactors scale up, it will start to become significant.

So for all the difficulty that the world has had achieving practical fusion energy, scaling up may the key to success. And synthetic fuel production may be the perfect application. A 50GWe reactor, could supply 10GWe to the electrical grid and another 40GWe to synthetic fuel production. Just one such reactor would produce enough syn fuel to displace about 1% of global diesel consumption.

Other benefits to building huge reactors are fuel sustainability. One of the difficulties that a fusion fuel cycle would face would be producing sufficient tritium to fuel itself. Neutron economy would be very tight in a pure fusion reactor. However, large diameter plasmas could run hotter. This would allow the ratio of tritium to deuterium in the fuel gas to be reduced. This would start to ease the difficulties of tritium breeding.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-08-03 10:09:25)

tahanson43206 · 2022-08-03 11:08:49

For Calliban re #27

First, thank you for providing such an unexpected and (to me for sure) inspiring reply to my request for assistance ...

Second, assuming you (as an experienced engineering manager) are familiar with the principles of brainstorming...

Your post about a spherical fusion chamber brought an unexpected association to mind: magnetic monopole

Such are supposed (to the best of my knowledge) not to exist, but the center of a spherical fusion chamber would be a good place for one.

Otherwise, all we have is Ma Nature's example of great mass able to provide the conditions for fusion.

A black hole might work, but it has the distinct disadvantage of eating the profits.

I wonder if magnetic fields can be designed to create a point of greatest strength in the center.

I've never run across speculation along those lines, let alone reports of research.

It may not be possible in this Universe.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-08-03 11:17:39

For Calliban .... this post is a continuation of free association inspired by #27

Electrostatic force is notable for having a center, or at least the possibility of a center.

This reminds me .. it is wildly off topic, and it belongs in the radiation topic, but the current discussion reminded me of a need for research to see if a capacitor can deal with ionized radiation.

It is known for decades (see Keppenheimer, et al) that electrostatic force can ward off charged ions, including Cosmic alpha particles travelling near the speed of light. The disadvantage (also known for decades) is that a radiation system designed with just one charge (ie, positive) on the outside (as of a sphere) would deflect positively charged particles but accelerate negatively charged ones.

So my question for research in space is ... If a capacitor plate of (let's say) one square meter in cross section is set parallel to another plate of the same dimension, and a charge is induced between the two, would the positive side deflect positively charged particles, and would the negatively charged back plate repel negatively charged ones?

This topic is about propane as an energy carrier (I remind myself)

We are off on this tangent because the possible use of fusion to make propane entered the topic in a perfectly legitimate addition.

I'm right in the middle of debugging the Email Outreach script, and took a quick break to check the forum.

Hopefully later I'll return to put this side track into a more appropriate topic.

(th)

edit to put back in content

SpaceNut wrote:

tahanson43206, 2 plates with separation with media between it is electrolysis the moment you pass a current between the plates.
We know that co2 passed in a chamber with the moxie membranes would allow for oxygen to be vented with co to be made use of in the seawater process. But is there a means to use heat to break the water bond and use of a membrane to do the same without power?
I think void brought forth a titanium oxide plate, but I am having a memory gap.
edit
Seems that high temperature above 2000' c while it will cause the water to break down its the ignition of hydrogen and oxygen that soon happens. That mean you need higher temperature membranes and power to force the hydrogen towards a plate while the oxygen would go towards the other.
Seems the much lower temperature of just 500'c mean you get a lower efficiency for reaction as the 100'c for boiling is just the starting point for the bond to begin to break.
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/113 … -pressure/

kbd512 · 2022-08-03 13:43:58

Calliban,

Someone first needs to demonstrate the ability to build a functional fusion reactor that produces net power output. We've tried to clear this technological hurdle since the mid-1950s. Thus far, the problem has proven remarkably resistant to a functional solution. I agree that this would be ideal, but unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world. Like it or not, solar thermal power is the most ready-to-apply solution to the problem. There's very little red tape, no fundamental technological issues to resolve, and it's hard to determine how any other type of power plant could be remarkably cheaper than steel, concrete, oil, and salt. My thought process on this is to choose the solution where the materials are extremely abundant, inexpensive to purchase in mass quantities, and easy to maintain. A gigantic nuclear fusion power plant, however theoretically desirable to have, is none of those things. It has very expensive superconducting magnets, a plasma containment chamber that is radioactive during and after operation, if not to the same degree of a fission reactor, and it does produce nuclear waste that must be dealt with when the power plant is decommissioned.

On top of that, a fusion reactor has to breed Tritium, an initial batch of Tritium has to be sourced from fission reactors, and these are very scarce and long-lead-time line items that are non-negotiable because there are no acceptable substitutes. The Hydrogen fuel is incredibly plentiful, but that is not what has made the cost of ITER rise into the tens of billions of dollars and require a dozen different countries to supply the components to make it work, including Russia. They're still not sure it will work at all, so if it doesn't the decades of effort and funding is a net loss, even if we learn something about the process and can build a better reactor design next time.

If we "just had" the one thing we don't have, then all of our problems would be solved. - Every futurism-phile who ever lived.

One thing that ideas people seem to miss is that you solve the immediate problem first, using the technology you have. All individual pieces of the solution I want to implement have been exhaustively tested over decades. Solar thermal power works. Heat transfer oil works. Molten salt thermal energy storage works. The catalysts that react CO2 with water vapor to synthesize Methane work. The catalysts that transform Methane into Propane also work, and are commercialized. The catalysts that transform Ethanol and Methanol into gasoline / kerosene / diesel have been around for decades, and were also commercialized. I recognize that the solution is not terribly interesting from the perspective of a creative engineer, because we're simply combining different well-proven technologies into a functional fuel synthesis plant, but this is actually the best part of the proposal. We have a novel synergy of different technologies, but no new / novel technologies.

I think people are balking at the total cost and materials inputs, despite knowing full well that they will arrive at a fully functional fuel synthesis plant after they pay the piper his due. I don't question whether or not this will work, because every individual piece of the technology puzzle has been solved and there are functional commercial implementations (solar thermal power, Methane / Methanol / Ethanol synthesis, and Methane-to-Propane / Methanol-to-Gasoline/Diesel/Kerosene, molten salt energy storage, etc). The only remaining questions are overall plant efficiency, and if there are potentially better ways to do specific parts of the complete process that raises overall efficiency, what the trade-offs would be for that increased efficiency, and if those trade-offs are worth the price paid.

Calliban · 2022-08-04 07:40:39

For synthesis of propane from CO2 and hydrogen. The process steps appear to be:

1. Reduction of CO2 to CO, using the reverse gas shift reaction.
2. Synthesis of methanol from CO and H2.
3. Conversion of methanol to dimethyl ether through condensation reaction.
4. Conversion of dimethyl ether to short chain alkanes.

We should discuss each step in series and then look for ways of integrating them.

tahanson43206 · 2022-08-04 08:23:29

For Calliban re #35

Thank you for your contribution to the goal of creating a repository suitable for study by a reader who might wish to write a proposal for an astonishingly wealthy Uncle who likes to dabble in business trial balloons.

As a basic principle upon which such a venture might proceed, it seems to me that everything needed to put a permanent production line into operation is available for free, with the notable exception of land.

Solar power is free. Air is free, and water is free from the ocean.

A well designed facility should last for 50 years and perhaps longer, with minimal maintenance and protection from weather and other destructive forces.

Thus, after an initial investment, the Uncle should see a steady return, and the young relative should see a modest but reliable income in return for keeping an eye on things.

In order to achieve the goal of a reliable, accessible repository I am proposing use of the NewMars Dropbox account.

I'll begin the process by asking ** you ** if you would be willing to indulge my vision, by storing files in such an account, and editing them if changes become necessary.

We set up such a facility for Large Ship, but to my knowledge, nothing has happened in that specialization due to a variety of factors. The situation could change at any time, so I am content that the facility is available and ready to go at a moment's notice.

You have an advantage over someone like me, in your practical management experience, combined with knowledge you've been accumulating over a number of years. On the other hand, an enterprise such as we are considering here will require contributions by a great many people over an extended period. Experience with management is what i am looking for, in attempting to open a pathway for some young niece or nephew with that rich Uncle.

To try to keep momentum going, we have the topic available for development "Beyond Oil and Gas" which you recommended some time ago. I suspect (but do not yet ** know ** ) that the authors set on paper everything the project team needs to follow the steps outlined in Post #35.

(th)

kbd512 · 2022-08-17 16:03:57

Calliban,

The nature of the problem is over-consumption without recycling. If we can commit to recycling as a way of sourcing our material demands on the Earth to sustain ourselves, then we can arrive at a perpetually sustainable solution. However, that means changing attitudes about what materials are ultimately required for such a solution to exist. The electronics and batteries advocates assert that an ever-increasing quantity of electronics, batteries, and electrical equipment, which is by far the most consumptive model, will somehow transform itself into a perpetually sustainable solution after magic happens. I've seen no "magic happen" within my lifetime, which doesn't register as a blip in the grand scheme of things, but I've lived long enough to see how these proposed anti-solutions are hurting everyone and destroying the Earth's natural environment in this techno-futurism quest to overturn basic math and physics. Basic math says there are no electrochemical reactions as powerful as chemical reactions between Oxygen and Hydrogen. Basic math says orders of magnitude more materials are required for electric-everything while we struggle to electrify the electric power grids, which are still almost exclusively the end result of burning something to generate energy.

I was thinking more along the lines of how to supply America with fuel, since we're 20% of global demand. Removing American demand for crude oil and natural gas would take considerable pressure off the existing petroleum reserves. I'm expect to offset a healthy chunk of the Carbon requirement using Carbon from plastic and fly ash waste. This is much easier to accomplish since plastic and fly ash are solids that don't have to be captured by retrofitting expensive equipment to existing power plants, which both consumes power to operate and also increases the cost of electricity. If this helps to preserve Earth's natural environment for all the other plants and animals at the same time, then I consider this the best possible outcome. Lighter hydrocarbons, especially room-temperature-storable variants such as Propane, are more economical in terms of mass, as compared to gasoline / kerosene / diesel (in a practical sense that accepts increased storage tank mass that doesn't meaningfully contribute to the power required to move a given type of vehicle down a road), and they burn equally well in both existing and newer combustion engines that take advantage of their unique properties.

The same mass-efficiency concept applies to nuclear fission or fusion, as compared to coal / gas / oil / batteries / wind turbine / photovoltaics / hydroelectric / geothermal energy. The mass of the materials required to convert matter into energy is less important in stationary applications, but if the total mass requirements for the conversion equipment or fuel become extreme enough, then it has a significant impact on the overall sustainability of the concept. You have pointed out how nuclear fission is about 100 to 1,000 times more mass-efficient in terms of materials input, as compared to wind and solar. This is all obvious and true, which is why at some point.

15 billion metric tons of fossil fuels are consumed per year. If we had to convert everything to use electronics and batteries, some extreme multiple of that mass would have to be sourced and converted into energy generation and storage machinery. In practice, nearly all of that comes from fossil fuels. I'm proposing that we source our fossil fuels from the environment. At the very least, we're not making the problem any worse than it already is, and ostensibly can draw down atmospheric and ocean CO2 over time, about as rapidly as we put it into the air, by locking it up in lakes of fresh / recycled hydrocarbon fuels.

I want to source CO2 from the ocean to account for any source material deficit, consume as much waste material as we can (plastic, fly ash, wood pulp, etc), and then dip into oil and gas reserves if and only if that's the only practical way to obtain fuels. Furthermore, I want to source the materials for this "green energy" idea, with the hope that it pans out using as-yet-unavailable new technologies, which we must do before we can transition to anything, by using input solar thermal energy. I like nuclear power best and I know that's the simplest way to achieve a net-zero CO2 addition, but TPTB don't like readily achievable solutions that don't squander trillions of dollars. As such, I'm accepting their wasted effort and capital in order to arrive at a workable solution.

tahanson43206 · 2022-10-04 19:41:57

An article about "renewable" propane showed up in the news feed, and now I can't find it ...

The article was reporting on a particular company that is using propane from biological processes internally, to make other products that require the heat from burning the gas. Apparently there is some thought being given to flowing part of this gas out for sale, but that has not happened "yet".

Here are some snippets Google found:

Google
About 7,090,000 results (0.42 seconds)
What is renewable propane?
Renewable propane (also known as biopropane) is a non-fossil fuel that is produced from 100% renewable raw materials. It's commonly produced from inexpensive and abundant feedstock like animal fat, algae and cooking oil. Renewable propane has the same chemical structure and physical properties as conventional propane.
Renewable Propane: The Near-Zero Solution
https://www.roushcleantech.com › renewable-propane-t...
Is propane renewable or non renewable?
Although both are chemically identical, renewable propane is made from biomass-based feedstocks, while conventional propane is produced from liquid components recovered during natural gas processing and the process of refining oil into gasoline.
5 Facts About Renewable Propane | Cenexperts®
https://www.cenex.com › about › cenexperts-blog-page

(th)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-10-05 03:25:43

Backyard Propane Tank Is One German Plant’s Answer to Gas Threat
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/backyard-pr … -1.1826548

Propane School Buses: Let’s Clear the Air
https://stnonline.com/partner-updates/p … r-the-air/

Some people speculate Mars may had flowing waters and even life a long time back and because of this it might have some kind of oil or gas trapped beneath the surface. Back on Earth I think one of the attractions of Propane is that it is a far cleaner fuel than others. C3H8 a gas at standard temperature and pressure but compressed into liquid for transport.

From the energy Alaska site
http://energy-alaska.wikidot.com

Propane, also known as liquified petroleum gas (LPG), is a three-carbon alkane gas (C3H8). Stored under high pressure in a cylindrical tank, propane converts into a colorless, odorless liquid. As pressure is released, the liquid propane vaporizes and becomes a gas which can then be used for combustion. The smell commonly associated with propane is actually an added odorant, ethyl mercaptan, to help users to detect leaks. Propane has a high octane rating and excellent ignition properties for spark-ignited internal combustion engines. It is non-toxic and therefore presents no threat to soil, surface water, or groundwater.
Propane is produced as a by-product of natural gas processing and crude oil refining. It accounts for about 2% of the energy used in the United States. Uses include home and water heating, cooking and refrigerating food, clothes drying, powering farm and industrial equipment, and drying corn. Rural areas that do not have natural gas service commonly rely on propane. The chemical industry uses propane as a raw material for making plastics and other compounds. Less than 2% of U.S. propane consumption is used for transportation fuel.

Propane is popular for portable stoves because its low boiling point makes it vaporize as soon as it is released from its pressurized container. The other liquified gas include butadiene, butane, propylene, isobutylene, butylene, and mixtures. It is used in forklifts, motor boat, resurfacing machines recreational campers for the retired snowbird person that like to move around from region to region and move from the colder states to the warmer states. If a reactor had to be taken offline for update or repair propane might be used for heating homes or manufacturing.

tahanson43206 · 2022-10-05 06:22:42

For Mars_B4_Moon re Propane topic and Post #35

Thank you for this concise overview of propane and the entire field.

The topic is of interest for Earth because the gas can be manufactured by humans, using CO2 from the air or from water such as sea water.

The post just ahead of #35 was about production of propane from biological sources. In that case, CO2 is captured from the air (or water) by living organisms, and the organisms are fed into the manufacturing process.

The statistic you cited, of propane (and related substances) accounting for about 2% of usage in the US was a surprise.

The opportunity exists for entrepreneurs to harness nuclear power, or one of the renewable options, to manufacture propane for sale.

I would like to see some of the bold ideas expressed by NewMars members translated into Real Universe income producing activity.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-10-05 21:07:32

The Biological creation of fuel from Digesters are usually just something off gridders do but in this day and age of high cost to fuels lots more are trying the DIY constructions of these and many more concepts. What its labeled for the fuel content or type matters not as all that is being looked at is low cost to create from waste for the most part.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-04-13 12:05:38

The end is nigh for gas-powered cars?

Environmental Protection Agency standards to boost EVs

https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/10/2367 … as-car-end

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2022-08-03 07:40:41

Re: Propane - Energy Carrier

#27 2022-08-03 09:37:10

Re: Propane - Energy Carrier

#28 2022-08-03 11:08:49

Re: Propane - Energy Carrier

#29 2022-08-03 11:17:39

Re: Propane - Energy Carrier

#30 2022-08-03 13:43:58

Re: Propane - Energy Carrier

#31 2022-08-04 07:40:39

Re: Propane - Energy Carrier

#32 2022-08-04 08:23:29

Re: Propane - Energy Carrier

#33 2022-08-17 16:03:57

Re: Propane - Energy Carrier

#34 2022-10-04 19:41:57

Re: Propane - Energy Carrier

#35 2022-10-05 03:25:43

Re: Propane - Energy Carrier

#36 2022-10-05 06:22:42

Re: Propane - Energy Carrier

#37 2022-10-05 21:07:32

Re: Propane - Energy Carrier

#38 2023-04-13 12:05:38

Re: Propane - Energy Carrier

Board footer