Power to gas - the next step

SpaceNut · 2019-12-23 20:23:36

Sea water co2 concentration
https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanograp … nclp07.pdf
The average concentration of inorganic carbon in the ocean is ~2.3 mmol kg−1 and its residence time is ~200 ka.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Sto … on_Dioxide

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/27/ … -seawater/

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/file … 050916.pdf

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanograph … _gases.pdf

http://www.microcosmofscience.com/remov … from-water

http://wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2 … ERG-11.pdf

Extraction of Carbon Dioxide from Seawater by Ion Exchange
http://stoppingclimatechange.com/Carbon … tTRDoc.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … ty_Studies

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … rodialysis

SpaceNut · 2019-12-23 20:55:45

So choosing the best method to get co2 out of the ocean water is still in the air for what will be done with the least amount of energy to yield.
With This Modest Little Machine, US Navy Could Rule The Seas

The real beauty of the device, dubbed the Electrolytic Cation Exchange Module, is that the whole process takes place without requiring additional chemicals or creating toxic byproducts.
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-rele … o-the-seas
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/fa … R&D089.pdf
concentration in the ocean about 140 times greater than that in air.

tahanson43206 · 2019-12-23 21:07:17

For SpaceNut re #77 ... Thanks for this addition to your helpful accumulation of support for the manufacture of methane by wind generator at sea.

In my original concept for this system, I was imagining the CO2 would be extracted from the atmosphere, but the links you have provided include advice that the volume of CO2 dissolved in the oceans is vastly greater than that floating in the atmosphere.

What is helpful as well, is information suggesting that CO2 is naturally taken up by the oceans from the atmosphere.

The implication I draw from the links explored so far, is that if CO2 is drawn from the ocean to make methane, and the methane is consumed later on to make CO2 and water, the CO2 released to the atmosphere will be drawn back into the ocean.

However, (upon reflection) it is clear that whatever mechanism works to draw CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean is NOT capable of drawing CO2 from the atmosphere at a rate sufficient to compensate for the outpouring of CO2 from consumption of fossil fuels over recent centuries.

I'll now follow the link in #77 about the "modest little machine"

Edit: The report is from 2015, and itself is an update from 2012.

The E-CEM is still operating at the lab/research scale, but it has already demonstrated proof-of-concept for converting CO2 to hydrocarbons, which can be used to produce liquid natural gas, compressed natural gas, and the military grade liquid fuels F-76 and JP-5.
In addition, last year the research team demonstrated that synthetic fuel from the E-CEM could be used to power an internal combustion engine. Well, it was a pretty small engine (the engine was in a commercially available radio-controlled aircraft), but the key point is that the engine required no modification, and the aircraft actually made it into the air.

That description just about matches Louis original vision for this topic.

2015 is almost 5 years ago. By now the process should have advanced significantly.

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2019-12-23 21:13:35)

SpaceNut · 2019-12-23 21:54:55

https://www.nrl.navy.mil/mstd/branches/ … tive-fuels

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1038769.pdf

https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/re … 2018_p.pdf

tahanson43206 · 2019-12-24 09:12:33

For SpaceNut re #79

Thank you for your (impressive to me) follow up on the Navy research into manufacture of methane and hydrogen from sea water!
I've not had time to study it or the links, but am looking forward to it.

Here is another comment from Lizard King at luf.org.

Please note the justified criticism! Since I am the key sponsor of the Antarctic wind proposal, I accept the criticism, and hope that suitable responses may become available in coming Sols.

***
Link might be relevant.

Natural gas supply exceeds pipeline capacity in west Texas. Well operators are having to pay to get their gas taken away. No relief until 2021 at soonest.

I've read the thread @marsforum and see no serious discussion of the logistical challenges of producing green hydrocarbons near the South Pole. It is a major hurdle to the plan.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/permian- … 00422.html

***
Question for SpaceNut ... what is @marsforum

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2019-12-24 09:13:24)

SpaceNut · 2019-12-24 11:14:30

I think they were abrevating the newmars name...

The natural gas as a production of oil has that issue when present as many just burn it off as it is done over in the Saudi area nation do.

The shale oil and fracking have also produced a surplus driving down the gas price as well. But all that surplus is needed and then some for the likes of BFR launches.

Logistical challenges are what in particular?
Shipping not seen as a problem as we ship gas all over the world.
Docking near an oil rig means making an extension to the gas pipe to fill the tanker.
Cold temperature and remote sensing not seen as a show stopper.

SpaceNut · 2019-12-24 16:21:59

The processes for mars and earth needs are not all that different only the energy to gain the fuel is.

Engineering Mars commercial rocket propellant production for the Big Falcon Rocket (part 2)

The electrolysis of water requires a minimum of 237.13 kilojoules of electrical energy input to dissociate each mole of liquid water. Each mole of water gives you 2 grams of hydrogen and 16 grams of oxygen gases. Put another way, commercially available electrolysis systems require about 50 kilowatt-hours of power to produce one kilogram of hydrogen and eight kilograms of oxygen gas from nine kilograms of liquid water.

Some values to work with

One such method that has been suggested is to produce oxygen directly from atmospheric carbon dioxide using Solid Oxide Electrolysis (SOE), also called “zirconia electrolysis.” The SOE process involves the direct dissociation of carbon dioxide (which, as previously indicated, comprises 95 percent of the Martian atmosphere) into carbon monoxide and oxygen gas. Conceptually, the zirconia electrolysis process is quite simple. Carbon dioxide gas is heated to temperatures of about 1000°C, where it partially dissociates into carbon monoxide and oxygen.

No stated energy levels.

Reverse water-gas shift (RWGS) reaction can go both ways, and this catalyst produces carbon monoxide with an efficiency of 60 percent conversion of carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide at 350°C under a pressure of 150 torr. This efficiency results because this reaction has a low equilibrium constant even at temperatures of 400°C.

No stated energy levels.

Quiang and co-authors9 considers that an amount of 850 kilowatt-hours per kilogram energy required to liquefy natural gas really corresponds to about 3 megajoules per kilogram. Gerasimov et al.10 proposed a plant in which the amount of energy consumed is about 700–800 kilowatt-hours per kilogram (2.5–2.8 megajoules per kilogram). In a textbook on natural gas, Medici believes a refrigeration cycle using a ternary mixture of refrigerants identified achieving a level of 1.9 megajoules per kilogram as a minimum for the energy required for compression of methane into liquid form.11
The current terrestrial technology that is one of the most energy efficient is an electric-drive liquefaction plant which uses 230 kilowatt-hours to make a tonne of LNG. Considering a pressure of the electric-drive liquefaction process of 55 bar (the critical pressure of methane is 46 bar) and a compression efficiency in the range between 0.8 and 0.85 for liquefying methane (plus overhead), electric requirements around 230 kilowatt-hours consumed per 1,000 kilograms of methane produced is reasonable. This puts the power needed to liquefy a BFR single full load of 240 metric tons of liquid methane at around 55.2 megawatts every 26 month optimal Earth/Mars launch position production run.

tahanson43206 · 2019-12-24 19:15:46

For SpaceNut re #81

Here is a longer reply from Lizard King at luf.org

I should have been more clear. The technology to transport gas all certainly already exists and is mature tech. I'm not challenging feasibility. I'm challenging practicality and the economics of what is a very bold project That technology is not however cheap or quick to build at the scale necessary to move the needle on GHGE. Moving gas by ship (economically) would require liquifaction. A liquifaction train of the size that makes economic sense when filling large tankers costs billions of dollars (and you need a market that either has land available at port or existing regassification facilities [hundreds of million more]. Just the logistics capability you would require is a bigger project than building a 5 star Vegas casino or cruise ship (the largest comparable dollar wise economic projects I can see this project attracting debt financing for.) Imagine going to a Wall Street investment bank representing yourself as from the newmars forum and asking them to underwrite a 10 billion dollar bond offering. The market won't loan that much to experienced casino operators to build a new casino. You want more money than that for something unprecedented and you have no track record in marine construction. It is a "brother can you spare a dime?" situation. This is why there are so few new oil and gas startups. You basically have to be semiretired from a successful career as an oil executive to meet the table's ante. I'm skeptical you can be profitable at a scale small enough to attract seed capital.
Cheniere Energy (LNG) has the sort of scale that would scratch the surface enough to move net fossil fuel CO2 emission by a measurable amount. They are only about half finished building out their liquifaction capacity and already have 31.9 billion USD in plant, property, and equipment on the balance sheet at cost. It is unclear if they will be able to support their debt long term. I haven't invested in the stock because I'm not sure that even at their scale the cash flow proposition really works. And they just have to solve the logistics part of the puzzle. The wind to gas project has to solve the engineering challenges of deploying massive wind turbines in the artic and build out the facilities to utilize the electricity before the enormously expensive logistics are even necessary.
What I'm driving at is I don't think the forum appreciates the scale (and cost!) of the problem of delivering that much gas to market whether by ship, rail, pipeline, whatever. Many billions of dollars of gas logistics infrastructure exists in west Texas. And the industry's best planners have been unable to overcome the challenge of scale even in a favorable environment. Cheniere's 30+ billion in assets are in Texas where the weather environment is relatively benign and regulatory environment is very favorable. Building out 100 billion in infrastructure on the Artic high seas would be the largest marine construction program ever. And that would just be the "toe in the water" to conquer this challenge. It might be useful to examine Australia's Gorgon gas project which would be similar in scale but in a hospitable environment.
I'd also recommend looking into coastal wind on the US Gulf Coast. It would be a whole lot easier to tie into some existing offshore infrastructure than start completely from scratch in an area with no sovereign authority to provide permitting, law enforcement, emergency services, etc. It will also be less expensive to acquire and deploy qualified "roughnecks" in their normal stomping grounds that it would be to pay whatever premium pay they demand to work in a remote Artic environment.
I love that you are dreaming big. If you want it work, you are going to need partners with experience and deep pockets.

Louis, since you started this topic, I'm hoping you will engage with Lizard King here. While the scale of his investment activity is modest compared to others in the field, he ** does ** make a living through careful investing.

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2019-12-24 19:18:00)

SpaceNut · 2019-12-24 19:37:59

post 82 gives energy numbers for liquifying and you have the ocean to dump the heat into.

The cost to volume is the question for the free resources to make the methane, lpg, lng.

The clean air company of Italy using waste heat seems to be making a profit for doing the same thing using water from near by while taking energy to pull the co2 from the air.

One could use the making to subsidize the poor or people in poverty rather than going for the extra high profit margin which would not be selling to the existing markets. Price on purchase could be income based with excess being sold on open market.

So the main cost is the initial setup of all equipment and not any experience of how much can be produced with the amount of energy needed for the equipment being used for the gas volume to sell.

There is no comercial off the self equipment to purchase to build the unit so its all custome at this point....

tahanson43206 · 2019-12-24 19:53:27

for SpaceNut re #84

I ** really ** like the direction you seem (to me at least) to be heading here!

There are examples of for-profit corporations which dedicate all earnings to public good. An example that often comes to (my) mind when this subject comes up is the Paul Newman line of dressings and other products.

https://www.newmansown.com/food/type/dressing/

I don't know enough to be sure how the company is organized, but I have long had the impression that it is distinctly different from traditional not-for-profit corporations in the United States. My impression (without having investigated thoroughly) is that the company is set up as a for-profit corporation which dedicates 100% of its profits to charity.

Even if I'm wrong about this particular company, the methane manufacturing enterprise posited in this topic could certainly be organized along those lines. It seems to me (again without having in-depth knowledge to work from) that the rigmarole involved in dealing with the US/State/Local governments is less of a hassle for for-profit corporations than others. All governments are (understandably) suspicious of outfits which make money, so it seems more straight forward to say the goal is to make money at the outset, and then simply donate every unit of currency after expenses. There could even be provision for delivering a portion of earnings to panting governments, inasmuch as they qualify as charities to be supported.

However, the methane manufacturing enterprise would be multi-national and operating within a framework to be defined and regulated by the United Nations, so the various national operations could operate as seems best to them.

The manufacturers who deliver sea-going vessels for service in this arena could be for-profit, and in many cases they would be.

***
I would like to point out potential merit in Lizard King's suggestion to consider looking at wind options in the Gulf of Mexico.

My interest in the band of wind around Antarctica is based upon the steady nature of that wind. The conditions are ** always ** awful, but they never get worse than that, as would be the case in the Gulf of Mexico.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2019-12-24 20:32:59

Some areas you can use wave power as well....

There are 4,000 oil rigs in the Gulf Of Mexico that will be decommissioned in the next few decades.

https://www.offshore-technology.com/fea … -gas-rigs/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN1GX18D

tahanson43206 · 2019-12-25 06:42:37

For SpaceNut re #86 and the topic in general

Your suggestion is interesting, and a nice follow up to the observation from Lizard King. The current owners of those oil rigs are responsible for them, and without an alternative use, they would be faced with costs of demolition. Potentially, if the owners of those rigs have deep enough pockets, they might be interested in the wind-to-methane option we've been discussing here. It would take a well thought out proposal to interest them, because they would have to make investments not only to preserve the rigs, but to add the components we've been discussing recently.

Another concern is whether the rigs are strong enough to withstand constant lateral pressure from a large mill. There may be ways to determine strength of the rigs, but that would be an additional investment.

All that said, I hope members of this forum (and others who may care to join the discussion) will pursue the idea a bit further.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2019-12-25 11:55:43

For SpaceNut in particular, and for Louis as creator of this topic ...

A book might be written about the Ring-of-Wind methane manufacturing complex.

It would evolve over time from initial sketches, such as the ones posted in this topic in recent times.

SearchTerm:BookMethaneWind

Edit#1: Foreward would be by Dr. Robert Zubrin, in an ideal circumstance

In order to win Dr. Zubrin's support, let alone foreword, this book would need to be of quality equal or at least comparable to "The Case for Mars".

Edit#2: 2019/12/26:

Table of Contents, Acknowledgements

Chapter 1 should be an overview of the proposed system.

This is the section for "Tell 'em what you're going to tell them.

Chapter 2 through n: Subsections of the overall project

Six friends of Kipling: What and Why and When and How and Where and Who

Chapter n: Review of the proposed system

This is the section for "Tell 'em what you told them"

Appendix section to support chapters with more detail as needed

References section

Footnotes section

Index

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2019-12-26 07:46:45)

SpaceNut · 2019-12-25 12:43:31

I agree that sumarizing the topics content into an article as you meantion with the title "A Ring of Wind - Methane manufacturing" would be a well read content for all.

I am looking still at the sabetier reactor construction and other such reactors to be able to make the fuel as the oxygen in the air being release after electrolysis is not a problem here on earth. In fact pumping it into the ocean would spurn life in the dead zone areas as it lacks oxygen due to the levels of pollution.

tahanson43206 · 2019-12-25 13:24:27

For SpaceNut re #89

Bravo for your (to me VERY) interesting idea of pumping oxygen back into the sea after electrolysis, as a way of promoting sea life in the vicinity of the floating systems. A related concept is stirring up water from far below the surface platform to bring up nutrients. This concept ties in quite nicely with the contribution from Calliban, of Trompe systems to compress gas without mechanical pumps (except for impellers needed to pull water down the column).

The water at the bottom of the Trompe column will release its compressed methane into a receptacle, and then travel OUTSIDE the downpipe back towards the surface since it will be heated by the compression of the methane. Thus, it will pull surrounding cold nutrient rich water up toward the surface.

Each platform could support a vibrant sea community which wouldn't be there otherwise.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2019-12-25 14:26:17

A topic from Void Energy researchers break the (Sabatier's Princip) catalytic speed limit

Sabatier_reaction is also selective to temperature and pressure in the chamber as to the output from it.

With the proof of mars concept in In-Situ Propellant Production, design a opensource demonstrator

I also think that I posted a few links from this Detailed consideration of Mars ISRU propellant plant

tahanson43206 · 2019-12-25 15:03:50

For SpaceNut re #91

Thank you for bringing back another of Void's many contributions to this forum.

And thank you for the link to the 2015-2017 topic about in-situ propellant, with posts by RobertDyck and GW Johnson as well as others.

The argument about proving the efficacy of the technology was interesting (to me at least) because I was not aware that the reaction is not regarded (apparently) as proven. Implementation in the sea-going methane plants ought to retire some uncertainty about the reaction.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2019-12-25 15:43:53

For SpaceNut re #86

This is a second follow up ....

The active contributing membership of this forum varies from time to time ...

By any chance is there someone with a few minutes to spare who is in a position to investigate the links SpaceNut provided to oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico that are due to be decommissioned.

The question to be addressed is whether any of the owners of those wells would be interested in the wind-to-methane project.

The income to be generated would be low compared to pulling oil from under the Gulf, but if the oil is exhausted, then perhaps the production of green methane would look attractive for (potential) tax reasons, as compared to the cost of decommissioning the towers.

I am (reasonably) confident that airlines (as just one example) would pay a premium to be able to assure their customers they were flying them with green fuel.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2019-12-25 17:56:27

Just some more trolling of the newmars topics that relate:

The Sabatier Reactor as Powerplant - Forget Nuclear, Go Chemical

Powering a Propellant Plant Facility

SpaceNut · 2019-12-25 19:39:01

I got thinking about a means to text this and somehow coupling this topic back to Marsociety and rememberd these topics:

Testing My Hacienda On Mars Society Devon Island or at
Testing My Hacienda on Svalbard Island

Both places need energy and heat all year round without bringing fuel to the testing site for generators and there available seawater makes it a good candidate without some fo the setup costs for an oil rig.
I think one has a small windmill so we have wind data to leverage for the design.

tahanson43206 · 2019-12-26 07:56:37

For SpaceNut re #95

This topic has a chance of growing if we can enlist contributors to help build out various option trees. Your suggestion of looking at energy input opportunities for Devon Island and Svalbard island seem to me to make a lot of sense, and I would hope there is some data collected by residents of those locations to work from.

In addition, satellite data collected in recent decades would (certainly should) contain coverage of those areas.

I've read nothing (so far) that seems to hint at any significant wind flows in either of those locations, but that question could be explored if we can entice someone to take it on.

The ideal growth path for this forum would be a gradual increase in contributors like Calliban.

Losses of long term contributors will occur. The forum needs to add new contributors at a pace which exceeds attrition.

kbd512 was talking about human replacement rates in various countries recently. There need to be enough births to at least sustain the population, and perhaps even increase it slightly, or the culture will ultimately disappear.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2019-12-26 11:21:46

If the data is out there it will get posted to the topics...

How Long Will It Take to Replace Fossil Fuels With Renewable Sources of Energy?

How Can We Use Less Fossil Fuels?

Mother earth web page:
wind power resources

Edit:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10645
Keith Cowing's Devon Island Journal 18 July 2003: Wind blowing that day with gusts

http://strategic.mit.edu/docs/4_15_NASA … 214196.pdf
Haughton-Mars Project Expedition 2005 Final Report

http://spacelogistics.mit.edu

tahanson43206 · 2019-12-26 18:33:28

For SpaceNut re #97 and topic in general ...

Thanks for the many interesting links you've provided for this topic.

Just FYI ... in order to try to move the wind band concept along, I filled out an inquiry form at one of the UN sites. Chances of anything useful arriving from a first inquiry are slim at best, but the inquiry may reach a person who is interested in the subject and willing to go beyond boilerplate, as is otherwise the most likely result.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2019-12-26 18:51:39

For SpaceNut and anyone else who may be interested in Louis' topic here ...

The article at the link below provides more detail about Vladimir Putin's strategic thinking about natural gas than I have seen anywhere else in recent times.

It helps to put the prospect of competing in production and distribution of methane from wind-at-sea systems into context. One interesting aspect of the article is the long view taken, which includes Mr. Putin being long gone before the production of green alternatives becomes a concern.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/puti … 51174.html

(th)

SpaceNut · 2019-12-26 19:36:19

weather station reports for the area
https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/we … da_5938808

for the week it looks like 8 mph is the lowest that it got....

http://www.arctic.uoguelph.ca/cpe/envir … /winds.htm

http://www.arctic.uoguelph.ca/cpe/envir … l/wind.htm
prevailing wind

https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/project/mi … von_island
Mars Researchers Rendezvous on Remote Arctic Island

So next step is sizing the generators output for the wind speed and then a custom seawater to fuel system needs to be built with the energy source value.

https://homesteading.com/diy-wind-turbi … -the-grid/
15 Brilliant DIY Wind Turbine Design Ideas For Living Off The Grid

Do-It-Yourself Wind Turbine Project
https://greenterrafirma.com/DIY_Wind_Turbine.html
4 Foot Wind Turbine - option for 6 Foot Sweep

https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc … d-turbine/
Make Your Own Miniature Wind Turbine

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2019-12-23 20:23:36

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#77 2019-12-23 20:55:45

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#78 2019-12-23 21:07:17

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#79 2019-12-23 21:54:55

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#80 2019-12-24 09:12:33

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#81 2019-12-24 11:14:30

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#82 2019-12-24 16:21:59

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#83 2019-12-24 19:15:46

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#84 2019-12-24 19:37:59

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#85 2019-12-24 19:53:27

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#86 2019-12-24 20:32:59

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#87 2019-12-25 06:42:37

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#88 2019-12-25 11:55:43

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#89 2019-12-25 12:43:31

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#90 2019-12-25 13:24:27

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#91 2019-12-25 14:26:17

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#92 2019-12-25 15:03:50

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#93 2019-12-25 15:43:53

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#94 2019-12-25 17:56:27

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#95 2019-12-25 19:39:01

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#96 2019-12-26 07:56:37

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#97 2019-12-26 11:21:46

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#98 2019-12-26 18:33:28

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#99 2019-12-26 18:51:39

Re: Power to gas - the next step

#100 2019-12-26 19:36:19

Re: Power to gas - the next step

Board footer