Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

SpaceNut · 2021-11-09 21:24:05

The price of gas has been on the rise since earlier in the year resting now for winter at 3.34 a gallon of course this is the winter blend as its already getting cold.

SpaceNut · 2021-11-13 18:52:54

`The inflation genie is out of the bottle’ as consumer sentiment takes a hit and Californians pay $12 for a regular burrito

Gas pump price in the back drop 3.99 for premium. With 3.38 for regular

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-i … eid=yhoof2

production hasn’t caught up as quickly as demand Don’t blame Biden for high gas prices

kbd512 · 2021-11-14 01:12:43

SpaceNut,

I keep wondering to myself when someone else besides myself, will simply come out and say what this is really all about. This is nihilist ideology, the end result of zero-sum thinking, rationalizing the mass murder of impoverished people that said ideology deliberately creates by denying energy to them, which will only end in war, chaos, and tyranny. There's nothing "liberal" about it. It's supported by mass media and politicians who lust after attention. They gleefully exploit the misfortunes of others for personal gain. It should be completely revolting and disgusting to anyone who has the slightest bit of compassion for their fellow humans. It's replacing traditional religions that worship an almighty deity with worship of government or victimization or racism, because most people can't live without religion. As much as I don't like organized religion, at least some part of Christianity / Judaism / Islam / Buddhism were about love for humanity. This new religion paints humanity as the enemy. There's something basically wrong with that. It's a death cult hellbent on delivering humanity to oblivion. Word to the wise, don't drink their Kool-Aid.

Calliban · 2021-11-15 04:04:11

Agreed Kbd512. In an increasingly agnostic society, worship of nature is displacing worship of God. There is an inbuilt assumption that all human progress is bad, in that it displaces nature. The delusion of naturalism found its first expression in the energy sector, where harnessing natural energy flows was deemed in some way morally superior to using the stored energy of fossil fuels and uranium. This sort of fallacy could hardly have arrived at a worse time. We are burdening ourselves with energy intensive and poorly productive infrastructure, at a time when surplus energy from fossil fuels is declining. This development offers very little of value to the other species that inhabit our planet. The increased mining required will decimate natural habitats. Green energy is important to believers of the Gaia religion due to its ideological purity, not its practical benefits to the natural world.

It is noteworthy that James Lovelock, an ecologist and inventor of the Gaia hypothesis (and for a long-time considered a father of the Green movement), has public disavowed the large scale investment in low power density renewable energy infrastructure and is a strong supporter of nuclear power. This man is a practical environmentalist and is not a green utopian. Needless to say, this is an embarrassment to the green lobby and no doubt the man has been socially ostracised as a result.

Gail Tverberg's latest post is worth reading. She points out that intermittent energy is actually not a very useful addition to our energy mix and it requires large quantities of depleting fossil fuels for its construction.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2021/11/10/o … rely-told/

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-15 05:20:35)

SpaceNut · 2021-11-15 05:43:42

Humans lived for many a century without power, just fire and they payed attention to the food sources remembering that if one over hunted that they would need to move. So Gaia has been around for way longer than the energy crisis we now face for not having it. I am reminded of the hermit that live along the Merimac river which made use of a few solar panels but hunted and gardened near his home he made in the woods not for a few months but nearly 20 years before some one got the person jailed for squatting on property that he said she said was there and was not given privileged to be there.

Calliban · 2021-11-15 11:46:46

Chinese middle distillates (diesel) refinery production appears to have peaked back in 2017. Consumption and road freight volumes appear to have peaked around the same time.
http://crudeoilpeak.info/china-peak-diesel

Diesel consumption in road freight is a fairly good indicator of economic activity, since it tells you that the volume of real goods transportation has peaked. China appears to be facing energy based limitations across the piste, with surging coal prices and power rationing. Chinese coal production has been on a plateau since 2011. The country is attempting to expand the use of nuclear power to fill a growing energy gap. This will require building as many nuclear powerplants as exist in the entire rest of the world within the next decade. Can they do it? Time will tell.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-15 11:49:46)

SpaceNut · 2021-11-15 17:50:49

Sure Biden has the power to lower your price at the gas pump, and he's facing increasing pressure to do so

But once you release the federal reserve there is no more to counteract a rising price tag. Right now its not going up all that fast and we are no where near the price when it was done during the last sudden rise.

Something that will also drive gas up as these battery for hybird will not be available so we will need more gas.

China’s lithium mining, battery firms are in an investment frenzy

Calliban · 2021-11-15 19:00:34

SpaceNut wrote:

Sure Biden has the power to lower your price at the gas pump, and he's facing increasing pressure to do so
But once you release the federal reserve there is no more to counteract a rising price tag. Right now its not going up all that fast and we are no where near the price when it was done during the last sudden rise.
Something that will also drive gas up as these battery for hybird will not be available so we will need more gas.
China’s lithium mining, battery firms are in an investment frenzy

He could have given permission for the Keystone pipeline extension. This would have removed a bottle neck that is presently preventing North American oil production from increasing. There is insufficient oil in the strategic petroleum reserve to make much difference in terms of filling supply shortfalls. The US strategic petroleum reserve is about 1 day of global oil consumption, or about a week of US domestic consumption. Really it is there to supply the military in emergencies.

There are other things that might reduce oil demand, but generally over a longer timescale. The continued rollout of hybrid and electric vehicles. Improvements to public mass transit, using trams, better rail infrastructure, electric buses, etc. The extension of freight rail networks. Development of hydraulic hybrid drive trains for trucks. The technological development of biofuels, through technologies like flash pyrolysis and cellulose and lignin cracking using heat and hydrogen. We don't need to stop using oil altogether. We need affordable options that allow for reduced amounts of oil to be used more efficiently. But these require a lot of concentrated effort and years of well targeted policy. I get the feeling that the people in power in recent years don't have that much patience. They want headline grabbing soundbites and seem to expect 'technology' to deliver instant miracle solutions that change the world overnight.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-15 19:06:49)

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-15 19:12:41

For Calliban .... this belongs in the Nuclear is Safe topic, but I'm tagging on the Gasoline discussion ....

If you are interested in seeing what we might be able to do with it, we could move it to Nuclear is Safe...

The ideal solution is to make fuels (including gasoline) from CO2 from the air and water, using nuclear power.

I reported (in the Analog topic) that a recent article went through the numbers to replace all fossil sourced fuels with nuclear fission plants.

There are two issues that arise ... one is waste, and I like the idea of delivering waste to subduction zones, so the waste cools down under the mantle.

However, the second issue was NOT discussed in the article...

The work force that build and which still operates existing reactors is approaching retirement, and the workforce needed to replace them is NOT in development in the US, due in part to the power of the fear factor in the population.

If there were a desire to replace all fossil sourced fuel with nuclear fission, there would appear to be no possibility whatsoever to find workers to build and to operate the plants.

The Chinese are reported to be thinking about building 150 new fission plants, and while that seems like a good idea to me, it is a tiny fraction of what is needed.

A ** possible ** solution might be to bet heavily on small reactors that do not require operator attention, and your topics and others have explored that option.

Still, even ** that ** option requires a large well educated work force to produce the small reactors, to distribute and supervise them, and to retrieve them when they need to be refurbished at the factory.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-11-15 19:51:28

keystone-xl-pipeline-route-map-overall-2_0.png?itok=D_lVrhNa

importing not producing and its tar sand or shale type which is even dirtier.
It also goes through wet lands and have not done a good job or leak cleanup from existing section.

Calliban · 2021-11-16 02:47:49

SpaceNut, US tight oil is a very light, low viscosity oil. It must be blended with heavy oils (like Canadian syncrude) to be acceptable by US refineries. Refineries are designed to accept oils with narrow ranges of viscosity, density and heat capacity. Tight oil is far lighter than anything on the market 40 years ago, which is about the last time that major refining capacity was built in the US. Keystone XL would have boosted Canadian export capacity. Whilst this isn't the only problem for the US tight oil industry, the Keystone extension would have removed an important supply bottleneck.

The world's oil production is going to decline due to natural depletion, without any help from politicians. Given that it is our most important energy source at present, and powers the bulk of human and goods transportation, it would be unwise to do anything that might hasten its demise. Nuclear power and renewable energy sources, can reduce our dependence on coal and natural gas for electricity production (at a price). Reducing significantly our dependence on oil derived hydrocarbons for transportation is going to be a much longer and more arduous task, that will take many decades. You and I will probably be dead and buried before that task is even halfway complete. Suffice to say, this is going to be a slow evolution. The amount of infrastructure that must be modified or outright replaced, would bankrupt the world if we attempt to force changes too rapidly.

Without Keystone extensions, US tight oil production will be constrained by supplies of syncrude. There are options that could make use of tight oil and tar sands without additional transport capacity. Tight oil could be degassed by heating to separate out the lightest alkanes. The heavier alkanes could be blended with middle distillates, to produce diesel blends. We could upgrade Canadian syncrude by cracking it using renewable or nuclear hydrogen. But this would require investment in a dedicated syncrude refining capability.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-16 03:45:34)

SpaceNut · 2021-11-22 14:23:06

Biden set to release oil from Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower gas prices

Energy costs soared 4.8% just from September to October, with gasoline, natural gas and heating oil surging for the same reason that many other commodities have grown more expensive: Demand has risen as Americans drive and fly more, but supplies haven’t kept up. A gallon of gas, on average, was $3.42 nationwide according to AAA, up from just $2.11 a year ago

kbd512 · 2021-11-22 16:31:07

SpaceNut,

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve will last for a maximum of 1 month. If there's no new oil to refill the reserves, then releasing product from the reserve is a very temporary solution at best. When you stop permitting the drilling of new oil wells and global demand is so high that there's not enough product to meet demand, then prices must go up to reduce demand. Alternatively, you run out of product even faster if the prices don't go up.

Simply declaring that we're going to stop using oil and gas, decades before there is any possibility of having a new energy source put in place to take the place of oil and gas, does not magically cause both the new energy sources and the vehicles or machines capable of using the new energy supply to fall out of the sky and take the place of all the machines that are currently using petroleum power.

Calliban · 2021-11-22 17:50:20

The strategic petroleum reserve:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg … ed_States)

'As of September 4, 2021, the inventory was 621.3 million barrels (98,780,000 m3). This equates to about 31 days of oil at 2019 daily U.S. consumption levels of 20.54 million barrels per day (3,266,000 m3/d)[3] or 65 days of oil at 2019 daily U.S. import levels of 9.141 million barrels per day (1,453,300 m3/d).'

Certainly not something that will make a big difference, given that global demand is ~100m b/d. The US SPR could meet 4% of global demand for 150 days. Then it will be gone. The right use of this fuel would be to maintain essential services during emergencies, not to bring price down.

It does appear pathetic given the talk of green new deals and CO2 reduction, for Biden to beg the middle east to increase oil production. Talk about energy transitions is always cheap. But the fact remains that the economy is critically dependant on oil products as transportation fuels and chemical feedstock. A president that messes with the oil supply system and pushes up prices won't be president for very long.

kbd512 · 2021-11-22 17:55:28

Calliban,

Correct. The primary purpose of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is to cover emergency supply issues, whether civil or military in nature.

SpaceNut · 2021-11-25 17:19:37

The national average for a gallon of gas is $3.41, which is $1.29 more than it was a year ago, according to AAA. Even after a recent price dip in crude oil, gasoline remains 7 cents more per gallon than it was a month ago. While consumers are seeing a steady rise in the prices of many goods and services, the cost of gas is especially visible. It is displayed along highways across the country, including in areas where a gallon has climbed as high as $7.59.

I paid $3.39 today to get gas...all I can say is do not travel if you do not need to and combine transaction if possible that results in less miles being put on.

Calliban · 2021-11-29 05:31:22

Well worth a read:
https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/running-o … il-markets

Goehring & Rozencwajg predict that by Q4 2022, global oil demand will exceed total pumping capacity for the first time in history. The reason? Deteriorating global supply caused by under-investment and robust demand growth from non-OECD consumers. US shale sector is struggling to reach it’s previous production levels due to depletion in producing basins. Total demand did not exceed pumping capacity in 2007, despite the closing gap between supply and demand that triggered high prices and, indirectly, the global financial crisis. This will be an unprecedented event. A huge inflationary response in the price of real goods would appear to be inevitable.

The everything bubble has been looking for a pin for several years now. Economic bubbles usually burst as a result of energy constraints. This constraint would appear to be worse than anything experienced up to this point. Will this be the key event that causes fiat currencies to unravel in the OECD?

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-29 05:32:54)

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-29 08:43:04

For Calliban re #367 and nuclear fission to make hydrocarbon fuels posted elsewhere

Because I have the luxury of reading your ongoing posts on different topics in a single reading, I can see the range of point of view you bring to the forum.

In Post #367 you follow your inclination to discover the worst that might happen (and I'm NOT complaining!)

Elsewhere in the forum you reminded us (for the latest of many such reminders) that nuclear fission can make hydrocarbon fuels from air (CO2) and water.

The cost of building and operating a nuclear fission plant to make hydrocarbon fuel will eventually cross the value line for hydrocarbon fuels.

A community of patient investors could start construction today, and have the plant(s) ready to meet global demand when the price meets the cost of the equipment.

Once established, this source of hydrocarbon fuels will never run out.

The technical problems have ALL been solved. This is a ** social ** problem.

Nuclear waste is a concern, but that is because the simple solution of burying the waste in the subduction zones of one or more tectonic plates is not yet widely recognized.

There is a (large) business opportunity for an organization to collect fission waste and bury it in subduction zones.

There is more than enough energy available in the Universe we live in for every human to enjoy a high standard of living, whether they work or not.

The fact that we are not living at such a level simply means we (humans) haven't put our minds to the problem.

It's past time (in my opinion) for us (humans) to start on that path.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-11-29 10:29:07

Some interesting material from the same authors.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrtGQykLVw

http://info.gorozen.com/2021-q2-market- … oil-crisis

One interesting fact from the article that I wasn't actually aware of: Since 2000, all of the western supermajor oil producers except Total have seen declining oil production. Investment in oil exploration and development between 2010-2020, was double what it was in the previous decade. And yet total discoveries remained about the same as during the previous decade; R/P declined and production declined overall. It is getting more and more difficult and expensive to produce each new barrel of oil. Climate activism is making it even more difficult, by forcing investors to abandon oil sands, which is one of the few growth areas that Western oil companies still have to play. But the carbon intensity of that oil is extremely high.

The immediate consequences of falling non-OPEC oil production will be global shortages as demand outstrips supply and the growing power of OPEC+ after a 40 year hiatus. In terms of solutions to this problem, I think we need to think in terms of mitigation rather than solution. There just isn't a viable substitute to abundant liquid fuels in terms of the benefits they provide to consumers and industry. Nuclear power can help to provide low cost electricity. But uranium is not a transportation fuel in any practical way. It may be possible to use limited amounts of hydrogen and heat to upgrade heavy oils, coal and biomass into more portable liquid fuels. More efficient cars would reduce oil demand. Expansion of rail based transportation would be an efficient ways of using electricity to transport people and goods.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-29 10:39:48)

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-29 11:43:30

For Calliban re #369

In this post I see no sign of your having read my post from two hours before.

It is possible you read it, disagree with it, and find it more courteous to ignore it.

If that is the case, thank you.

However, on the slight chance you did NOT read it, I would be interested in any glimmer of hope you may be able and willing to provide for the proposition that nuclear fission can produce all the hydrocarbon fuels needed by the human race, both now and into the future.

I'm here to post a link to a well-written overview of the state of play of nuclear power in the current global situation.

I'll put it in your Nuclear is Safe topic, even though the article makes clear that Nuclear Power is NOT safe, any more than the alternative energy supply methods are safe.

The question that ** I ** think this topic should be addressing is how to design a capitalist enterprise that can build a nuclear facility to make gasoline and other hydrocarbons at a price that is competitive with extracted and refined hydrocarbons.

If global leaders get around to enacting a carbon tax, then fuel produced by nuclear fission will suddenly have a significant boost in economic value.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-11-29 12:48:19

TH, I did read it and think it is a good idea. But there will be problems scaling it up sufficiently and in a short enough time, for it to make an impact in the near future. There are cost issues as well with using any source of electricity to produce combustible fuels. Let's begin with those.

1 barrel of oil contains around 6.1GJ of energy. That is 1700kWh. Production of hydrogen is anywhere between 60-90% efficient depending upon the type of electrolysis technology used. At semi-decent current densities it is about 70%. Ideally, we need to replace oil with a liquid fuel. The energetically easiest would be ammonia, given that the haber process is endothermic. Let us estimate that production of ammonia, starting with electricity is around 50% efficient. Production of synthetic hydrocarbons is less efficient because we must break down CO2. Let's assume ammonia at 50% efficiency. We need 3400kWh to produce 1 barrel of oil equivalent. Let's assume we can produce electricity for $0.01/kWh. The electricity needed to produce our ammonia will cost $34. Let us assume that capital cost of the electrolysis plant and ammonia synthesis plant add $10 to each barrel. That works out at $44 per equivalent barrel. That is about the limit of what the US economy can pay without cancelling economic growth.

Is a price of $0.01/kWh a realistic price for electricity? The industrial retail electricity price (i.e. what big industrial consumers pay) is between 6-7 cents per kWh.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/190 … ince-1970/

That would put the price of our synthetic fuel at about $230/barrel. That is far above what is affordable to the present day economy. Realisation of this fact is part of what leads me to champion efforts to achieve greater fuel economy in ICE vehicles, rather than pour investment into BEVs that will never be affordable to most people. But for synthetic fuels to make serious inroads, fuel economy would need to improve a lot or electricity would need to be produced very cheaply.

Could we produce nuclear electricity a lot more cheaply? It is possible with huge scale economies and very streamlined regulatory processes and simplified supply lines. But it is clearly a huge obstacle to overcome. And it will take a long time to build the capacity. How long exactly?

A 1000MWe nuclear reactor, running at 90% capacity factor produces 1 million kWh of energy per hour and about 8 billion kWh per year. In one year, we could produce 2.35 million barrels, or 6440 per day. But to put human oil consumption into perspective, we presently consume around 100 million barrels per day. To replace even 10% of present oil demand we would need to build around 1500 new reactors. That is about 3x present nuclear generating capacity.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-29 13:08:34)

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-29 13:37:06

For Calliban re #371

Thank you for your reply! I am saving this post for a reply later today. Chores are calling, but I wanted to let you know two things:

1) Thanks for your reply
2) The Phoenix Water initiative is NOT stalled, although the Social Engineering to bring it about is under furious revision as recipients are evaluated.

The Phoenix Water initiative is happening because of your sustained and consistent advocacy for nuclear fission to meet human needs of the present time.

The gent who's working the problem would not have been thinking about it if I had not contacted him, ** and ** if kbd512 had not provided so much help with calculations that showed that the existing Palo Verde plant could supply all the fresh water that Phoenix needs, and have plenty of power left over to supply fresh water to much of Arizona, as well as a 10% share to Mexico for the kindness of allowing Arizona to sip water from the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California).

I am holding steady to a vision of sizing the power plant sufficient to consume ** all ** the sea water, and NOT return a molecule to the Sea of Cortez.

A major (social) impediment has been the insistence of previous US originated designs to return vast quantities of brine to the Sea of Cortez.

If I am successful in helping the thought process along (and that is most definitely NOT guaranteed) then 10% of the water shipped North would be returned to Yuma as fresh water destined for distribution to Mexico via existing facilities, and NOTHING else would be returned.

The US side would have the benefit of all the Sodium, Chlorine, Magnesium and most importantly, Deuterium that would be removed from the input stream.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-11-29 16:13:39

tahanson43206 wrote:

For Calliban re #371
Thank you for your reply! I am saving this post for a reply later today. Chores are calling, but I wanted to let you know two things:
1) Thanks for your reply
2) The Phoenix Water initiative is NOT stalled, although the Social Engineering to bring it about is under furious revision as recipients are evaluated.
The Phoenix Water initiative is happening because of your sustained and consistent advocacy for nuclear fission to meet human needs of the present time.
The gent who's working the problem would not have been thinking about it if I had not contacted him, ** and ** if kbd512 had not provided so much help with calculations that showed that the existing Palo Verde plant could supply all the fresh water that Phoenix needs, and have plenty of power left over to supply fresh water to much of Arizona, as well as a 10% share to Mexico for the kindness of allowing Arizona to sip water from the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California).
I am holding steady to a vision of sizing the power plant sufficient to consume ** all ** the sea water, and NOT return a molecule to the Sea of Cortez.
A major (social) impediment has been the insistence of previous US originated designs to return vast quantities of brine to the Sea of Cortez.
If I am successful in helping the thought process along (and that is most definitely NOT guaranteed) then 10% of the water shipped North would be returned to Yuma as fresh water destined for distribution to Mexico via existing facilities, and NOTHING else would be returned.
The US side would have the benefit of all the Sodium, Chlorine, Magnesium and most importantly, Deuterium that would be removed from the input stream.
(th)

If the pipeline is sourcing water from the Sea of Cortez, then you could run it both directions. Have the pipeline empty into a receipt pond at the desalination facility and discharge spent brine into a separate brine pond. When the receipt pond is full and contains a couple of days worth of sea water feed for the desalination plant, you switch the valve to the brine tank and let the brine tank drain back into the sea by gravity.

Alternatively, you could use ion exchange membranes to produce fresh water and concentrated brine. If you are using a nuclear powerplant to generate power, then why not use waste heat to evaporate the concentrated brine coming out of the ion exchange filters? The brine would flow down a long trench, covered by a high pitch glass roof. Plastic water pipes under the concrete lined trench would deliver heat. A fan would blow air down the trench causing surface evaporation, which will then condense on the glass roof and run down the roof to ditches running parallel to the trench. Salt would collect at the bottom of the trench and could be shovelled out.

Back to the topic of synthetic fuels. We need to leverage artificial energy in a way that avoids having to provide allow the requisite input energy. I would suggest using biomass as a starting material. That way, mother nature has already done the hard work of capturing carbon from the air and reducing it to an energy rich starter material. Woody biomass is a roughly 50/50 mixture of cellulose and lignin and is approximately C6H9O5. We know that syngas with proportions CO + 2H2 will produce methanol in a chemical reactor at the right temperature and pressure and using the correct catalyst. We also know that flash pyrolysis can convert biomass into predominantly combustible liquids, with a small quantity of gas and char. But heating rates must be very high. I would propose either burning biomass into syngas and adding nuclear hydrogen to get the proportions correct for methanol production, or using nuclear electricity to flash pyrolyse a mixture of chipped biomass and char in an electric furnace. The resulting bio-oils can then be blended with middle distillates from an oil refinery, to produce a synthetic diesel. Methanol is a petrol substitute and dimethyl ether (a coproduct of methanol) is a diesel substitute.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-29 16:36:33)

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-29 18:14:49

For Calliban re #373

Your return to the topic is appreciated!

In an attempt to go with the flow of your thinking, what do you think of growing grass for input to the methanol plant?

Grass is an effective nanoscale technology for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, and it uses Solar energy to accomplish it's task.

We (or at least ** I ** ) tend to think of biomass as a byproduct of some other primary activity, but (I am speculating here) fresh grass might be as good (effective) an input to the methanol plant as any other biomass.

Hay is (per Google):

hay
/hā/
noun
grass that has been mown and dried for use as fodder.
synonyms: forage, dried grass, pasturage, herbage, silage, fodder, straw

If you were designing a plant to use biomass for input to a methanol process, would you prefer fresh grass or hay?

The farmers you hire to produce your input could do either, but (knowing little about agriculture) I wonder if the fields would be more productive if they were engaged in growing fresh grass all the time?

The more I let your suggestion linger, the better I like it.

Edit a few minutes later: After posting, I realized that drying the grass is a mistake! Grass (and no doubt other plants) collect Carbon ** and water to make the carbohydrates and other materials of cells and cellular structures. To dry the grass means to release valuable water to the atmosphere.

That would be a waste of energy already invested by the hard working plant in capturing elements it needs to build itself.

I would deduce that a nuclear fission based methanol plant might be situated in prime farmland where grass is a crop that grows abundantly.

Since water is an important input, the nuclear fission plant might be designed to insure that a steady supply of fresh water is available to the grasslands nearby.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-11-30 01:11:16

Switchgrass and Miscanthus are two commonly used biomass crops. Both are high dry biomass yield grasses. Miscanthus has the greatest yield and can grow on marginal land, but water stress tends to limit its yield in Western USA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscant … _giganteus

One thing of note is that this crop can make use of waste water, including black treated sewage water. We could plant it around towns and cities for that precise purpose. In this way, we get to use the water twice.

From the article below, it would appear that flash pyrolysis will convert woody biomass into a mixture of 60% bio oils, 20% char and 20% gas. The char can be ground and returned to the soil, boosting soil fertility. The gas can be burned to power the gasification process or compressed and used as a gaseous vehicle fuel. If we can use the nuclear reactor to power an electric gasification furnace, then we can use the gas for other applications.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar

Miscanthus can produce yields up to 40 dry tonnes per hectare and median yields are around 20 dry tonnes per hectare. Would it be possible to grow sufficient biomass in this way to replace US oil production, or at least a significant chunk of that oil production?

A yield of 20 dry tonnes per hectare is 40MJ/m2 per year. Let's assume that half of this energy yield is captured in finished fuels. 1 barrel of oil equivalent is 6.1GJ. So 300m2 of land will produce 1 barrel per year. To produce 10 million barrels per day (3.6 billion per year), some 1 trillion m2 (1 million km2) of land must be cultivated with miscanthus. That is about 10% of US land area. It looks to me as if it would be achievable to fuel US transportation in this way. Or more likely, biomass derived fuels can be produced in sufficient quantities to substitute oil derived fuels, if total consumption is more modest and more efficient than present.

US oil consumption presently sits around 20 million barrels per day. Much of this is exported as finished products to other nations. If a combination of measures could be used to reduce inland liquid fuel consumption to say 5 million barrels per day, then meeting this demand using biomass derived synthetic fuels begins to look more achievable.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-30 02:19:54)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#351 2021-11-09 21:24:05

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#352 2021-11-13 18:52:54

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#353 2021-11-14 01:12:43

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#354 2021-11-15 04:04:11

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#355 2021-11-15 05:43:42

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#356 2021-11-15 11:46:46

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#357 2021-11-15 17:50:49

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#358 2021-11-15 19:00:34

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#359 2021-11-15 19:12:41

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#360 2021-11-15 19:51:28

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#361 2021-11-16 02:47:49

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#362 2021-11-22 14:23:06

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#363 2021-11-22 16:31:07

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#364 2021-11-22 17:50:20

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#365 2021-11-22 17:55:28

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#366 2021-11-25 17:19:37

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#367 2021-11-29 05:31:22

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#368 2021-11-29 08:43:04

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#369 2021-11-29 10:29:07

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#370 2021-11-29 11:43:30

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#371 2021-11-29 12:48:19

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#372 2021-11-29 13:37:06

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#373 2021-11-29 16:13:39

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#374 2021-11-29 18:14:49

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#375 2021-11-30 01:11:16

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

Board footer