You are not logged in.
Interesting ideas on an established theme.
I think manufacturing methane and oxygen when you have an energy surplus is probably a quicker and better route to energy storage, since we will already be producing methane and oxygen for fuel-propellant. Methane and oxygen can be used directly for heating, for electricity generation or for transport power.
That said, the use of basic materials makes your proposal an attractive one.
Calliban wrote:The huge diurnal temperature fluctuations on Mars make this idea more workable there than it would be on Earth. Assuming a daytime average temperature of zero Celsius and a night-time panel temperature of -50C, say, Carnot efficiency for a vapour cycle would be 18.3%. A practical heat engine can get between half and two-thirds Carnot efficiency. So a flat plate solar thermal power plant would get ~10% efficiency on Mars.
The Martian atmosphere is so thin that convective heat losses from panels will be negligible. No cover glass would be needed. Panels could be slabs made from concrete or clay with plastic pipes running through them. A practical heat transfer fluid would be brine, containing concentrated chlorate salts. The heat exchanger could also be made from thermoplastics and would consist of essentially a coiled hosepipe within a large tank of water or brine. During the day, lightly salted ice-water would be melted in one tank by heat flowing from the panels at about zero C. This tank will provide a hot source. At night, a second tank containing concentrated brine would have heat removed through the panels and would freeze at -50C. Insulation for both tanks would be provided by regolith. The tanks could be nothing more complex than excavated holes lined with polyethylene sheeting.
A vapour generation cycle would run between the two tanks continuously, providing base load power. Compressed CO2 would make a workable secondary power-cycle fluid. Alternatively, there is SO2, ammonia, ethane, propane or various fluorocarbon compounds.
To cover outages resulting from dust storms, the tanks would need to be oversized to provide several weeks worth of storage. There will be capital cost implications to this. Overall, the system will be large but relatively low tech. It will need valves and pumps on the primary (brine) side and valves, pumps, turbines, generators and liquid-vapour separators on the secondary CO2 vapour cycle side. Lots of carbon steel on the secondary side; plastics on the primary side.
Power density will be limited by the amount of heat that the panels can dump into the Martian night. Assuming a -50C working temperature for panel radiating as a black body, gives a panel thermal power density of 140watts. The panel can only radiate at night, so time average thermal power density is 70w/m2. Assuming a 10% electrical conversion efficiency gives a panel electrical power density of 7W/m2. This is poor by most standards, but begins to look much better if panels can be made from clay and storage tanks are nothing more elaborate than polythene lined holes in the ground. A 1MWe power plant would cover 143,000m2 or 36 acres.
To store 4 weeks worth of power, would require some 6720MWh (24million MJ) of thermal heat storage in each tank. 1 litre of water has latent heat of freezing of about 400KJ. So each tank would need a volume of 60,000 cubic metres - a cube 39m aside. That is a lot. Especially considering that sourcing water from buried glaciers on Mars, will take about that same amount of energy as concrete manufacture on Earth. Heat could be stored in solid rock by drilling bore holes.
Offline
Like button can go here
louis wrote:Interesting ideas on an established theme.
I think manufacturing methane and oxygen when you have an energy surplus is probably a quicker and better route to energy storage, since we will already be producing methane and oxygen for fuel-propellant. Methane and oxygen can be used directly for heating, for electricity generation or for transport power.
That said, the use of basic materials makes your proposal an attractive one.
Methane-oxygen synthesis for power production has extremely low cycle efficiency – about 5%. I examined this in a previous thread.
Assuming that the intention is to provide small amounts of power only very occasionally – say 10% of baseload power, for a dust storm lasting a couple of months occurring once every two years; then it might be an affordable expense, especially if it can be tailed onto the existing propellant production process. But it is wasteful in the extreme. Like everything else, these sorts of decisions will be made on the basis of cost benefit analysis.
Long-term energy storage is always problematic, because it requires large amounts of energy storage that is utilised very poorly. This has a terrible effect on the marginal cost of each kWh. This is why renewable energy is proving so poorly effective at replacing fossil fuels for power generation here on Earth. We can build pumped storage plants that balance supply over a period of hours, but it will never be affordable to store even 1 week of spare power in this way. I suspect that the 'solution' to this problem will have more to do with going without; or maybe just finding an energy source that doesn't fluctuate with the weather. Can anyone think of one?
Offline
Like button can go here
Well I would envisage meth-ox production being tailored to a PV power approach. In those circumstances for things like agricultural and propellant production, probably the two biggest calls on power, you would "make hay while the sun shines" as the old proverb goes which means you don't attempt to maintain production levels when solar radiation dips to very low levels. In such circumstances you would cut back on production of food and propellant. That means two things: (a) you need to have a large food store to see you through major dust storms (not likely to be much of a problem in the early stages of colony development) and (b) you need a larger propellant production facility than you would with nuclear.
You'd probably only be looking to use maybe 10% of your average energy use through meth-ox production. Estimates of how much energy is required to sustain life and basic services vary but 10KwEs per person seems a popular figure (probably an overestimate in my view). For a 10 person colony producing enough propellant to return to Earth in one Starship that would mean 100KwE or 10% of the total energy supply (1MwE).
Even the severest dust storms do not stop solar radiation entirely, so PV will still keep working, albeit at a reduced level. From what I have read, you are maybe getting an average 40% of normal or thereabouts over the life of a dust storm.
The reality is there are unlikely to be any periods when your PV system could not cover the emergency baseload figure. But of course, you need to plan for calamity, so you would need to arrive with a large meth-ox supply and begin building up your reserve. Meth-ox production is a bit like a savings account - you only have to have a slight surplus and the account will build and build until you have a very large surplus available. A reasonable compromise would be to look to build an energy reserve of 245,000 KweHs per ten people comprising meth-ox, chemical batteries and maybe pumped storage - enough to maintain 100 Kwes over 100 sols.
I think on Mars we have an opportunity to explore the possibility of storing methane as clathrates. Could we create those and bury them on Mars in a shadowed area?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_c … ercial_use
Calliban wrote:louis wrote:Interesting ideas on an established theme.
I think manufacturing methane and oxygen when you have an energy surplus is probably a quicker and better route to energy storage, since we will already be producing methane and oxygen for fuel-propellant. Methane and oxygen can be used directly for heating, for electricity generation or for transport power.
That said, the use of basic materials makes your proposal an attractive one.
Methane-oxygen synthesis for power production has extremely low cycle efficiency – about 5%. I examined this in a previous thread.
Assuming that the intention is to provide small amounts of power only very occasionally – say 10% of baseload power, for a dust storm lasting a couple of months occurring once every two years; then it might be an affordable expense, especially if it can be tailed onto the existing propellant production process. But it is wasteful in the extreme. Like everything else, these sorts of decisions will be made on the basis of cost benefit analysis.
Long-term energy storage is always problematic, because it requires large amounts of energy storage that is utilised very poorly. This has a terrible effect on the marginal cost of each kWh. This is why renewable energy is proving so poorly effective at replacing fossil fuels for power generation here on Earth. We can build pumped storage plants that balance supply over a period of hours, but it will never be affordable to store even 1 week of spare power in this way. I suspect that the 'solution' to this problem will have more to do with going without; or maybe just finding an energy source that doesn't fluctuate with the weather. Can anyone think of one?
Offline
Like button can go here
The most energy efficient option is to avoid high power processes when solar input is low. That negates the need for storage. That is the way our ancestors used the sun and wind. They varied demand inline with supply, not the other way around.
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2017/09 … ather.html
Thermal storage is quite easy, especially if heat is the end use. Battery, compressed air and pumped storage, can then be used to meet demands that cannot be postponed at night or close to sunset and sunrise. These storage options are affordable for meeting reduced short-term power demands, over a period of hours - say during the Martian night.
Methane-oxygen energy storage is too inefficient to be useful for routine power supply. We would use this to provide emergency power during dust storms. Basically, nothing beyond hotel requirements.
There is a price to pay of course. In addition to the costs of power supply and storage; demand management implies that high energy equipment can only be used when power is abundant. That is clearly problematic if that equipment is expensive and you are attempting to amortise capital cost over a greatly reduced production. Solar power on Mars (at the equator) will vary according to a sine function.
Last edited by Calliban (2019-11-26 05:57:05)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Like button can go here
Yes, variable energy usage is the sensible way forward with a PV system.
On the day-night cycle, a lot can be done during the day: washing machines can wash clothes, life support processes like oxygen separation can be carried out during the day, water purifiers can purify water, water can be heated for use in kitchens and bathrooms in the evening (having been kept well insulated). Batteries for lap tops, reading lights and so on, can be charged during the day and made available from evening onwards. During the night chemical batteries, recharged during the day, can supply power to the settlers.
Yes, I do envisage meth-ox as primarily about emergency supply in dust storms. But here's the beauty of the solution: you will always have a huge additional supply of meth-ox because that will be produced as propellant, but in any emergency you can divert it to power supply.
The most energy efficient option is to avoid high power processes when solar input is low. That negates the need for storage. That is the way our ancestors used the sun and wind. They varied demand inline with supply, not the other way around.
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2017/09 … ather.html
Thermal storage is quite easy, especially if heat is the end use. Battery, compressed air and pumped storage, can then be used to meet demands that cannot be postponed at night or close to sunset and sunrise. These storage options are affordable for meeting reduced short-term power demands, over a period of hours - say during the Martian night.
Methane-oxygen energy storage is too inefficient to be useful for routine power supply. We would use this to provide emergency power during dust storms. Basically, nothing beyond hotel requirements.
There is a price to pay of course. In addition to the costs of power supply and storage; demand management implies that high energy equipment can only be used when power is abundant. That is clearly problematic if that equipment is expensive and you are attempting to amortise capital cost over a greatly reduced production. Solar power on Mars (at the equator) will vary according to a sine function.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
When I looked into that re propellant production for one Starship return, I think it was a relatively trivial amount required to scale up for higher power output - less than 5 tons as I recall. One thing - solar energy on Mars does not fluctuate wildly from one minute to the next as there is virtually no cloud cover, no fogs.
The most energy efficient option is to avoid high power processes when solar input is low. That negates the need for storage. That is the way our ancestors used the sun and wind. They varied demand inline with supply, not the other way around.
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2017/09 … ather.html
Thermal storage is quite easy, especially if heat is the end use. Battery, compressed air and pumped storage, can then be used to meet demands that cannot be postponed at night or close to sunset and sunrise. These storage options are affordable for meeting reduced short-term power demands, over a period of hours - say during the Martian night.
Methane-oxygen energy storage is too inefficient to be useful for routine power supply. We would use this to provide emergency power during dust storms. Basically, nothing beyond hotel requirements.
There is a price to pay of course. In addition to the costs of power supply and storage; demand management implies that high energy equipment can only be used when power is abundant. That is clearly problematic if that equipment is expensive and you are attempting to amortise capital cost over a greatly reduced production. Solar power on Mars (at the equator) will vary according to a sine function.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
repost
In the later posts of the housekeeping topic it was brought up that converting a automobile engine into a house back up generator was possible of which its more than plausible to do.
We talked a bit about the laws for vehicles not registered on a property and how a shed to enclose it may or may not be a safe guard against theft of property. Of course an engine generator is larger than a portable generator in that case so its un likely that it would walk off.This did tickle my brain and I remembered today a post from kbd512 on the IVF system that ULA uses to power the rockets rather than battery power. so will post in another topic that is better suited to mars.
What I remember is that the IVF system made use of the natural boiloff of the fuels from the tanks and mars will still have boiloff issues even for the Starship due to the large quantity of fuels needed it makes sense to not let it vent but to provide power from the IVF for the settlers that are going to need many sources for co2 along with others to make it happen.
One would make use of the cargo landing fin battery powerwall batteries to save the energy produced for later use as its cycles to make use of the outgassing that would take place for the boiloff control.
Offline
Like button can go here
Generac a 22 kilowatt generator would burn approximately 2.1 gallons per hour at ½ load and 3.6 gph at full load, while a larger 38 kilowatt unit would burn 3 gallons per hour at ½ load and 5.4 gph at full load. A 500-gallon tank will power your home continuously for a week. Of course the power level is no where near what we need and even when getting multiple unit tallied up you need extra units to be able to take them off line to make repairs and to do maintenance.
Of course other fuel types could be used https://www.generator-review.com/genera … ion-guide/
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-g … references
https://coolconversion.com/density-volu … -in--tonne
500 US gallons of methane equals 0.879 tonne
500 US gallons of methane equals 879 kilograms ah thats better for calculating….
So all I need is the power level and extra units count to solve with for none stop use when we have dust storms as a backup using the starships supply and depending on how much is there we might not get to use it if a storm happens before we get much saved up.
Offline
Like button can go here
For SpaceNut .... re #108
I may have overlooked it, but did you include the stock of Oxygen you need for your Generac on Mars?
In another post just now, I am offering the guess that CO is more cost effective than ** any ** of the chemical fuels that include Hydrogen, because of the compounding energy losses at each stage of production, while the Oxygen requirement remains invariant.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
combustion is the same ratio as to what is used to burn methane in a rocket so the oxygen is figured in with the sum of what we make for starship fuels to burn as there are both oxygen and methane being generated.
Offline
Like button can go here
For SpaceNut re #110
In addition to adding Oxygen to the post about running a generator on Mars, it is worth remembering (or at least thinking about) the fact that the Generac (or competitive equivalent) generators will be designed for specific fuels, so if you import them from Earth, you will be obligated to expend the extra energy to make methane (or propane - different fuel needs different setting on generator), in addition to making the Oxygen.
If the generator is intended to use CO, then the machine needs to be designed to operate best with that fuel and the oxidizer that goes with it. I expect it will turn out the energy investment for a CO/CO2/O2 generator will be less, and the total energy cost for the CO system will be less for a comparable level of output delivered.
** All ** machines are going to need high quality synthetic oil, and ** that ** is best imported from a location like Titan where hydrocarbons are reported to exist in considerable quantities.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
tahanson43206,
Here in America, we make most of our synthetic lubricants from Methane. There's no need to go to Titan when you're already making the base stock for your lubricants. You may as well bring the rest of the oil refinery from Earth to Mars.
1. React pure O2 with CH4 to produce Syngas
2. Fischer-Tropsch process
3. Hydro-cracking / chopping up your hydrocarbon chains
4. Distillation / sorting of your hydrocarbon chains into oils and greases
So long as we're making CH4, we may as well convert some of it into C3H8 / Propane for indefinite storage at ambient temperatures.
I propose we call our Mars-made line of synthetics Marzoil. We need to patent that before Pennzoil snaps it up.
Offline
Like button can go here
For kbd512 re #112
Bravo! That would be a "trademark". I participated in securing one once. It was a hassle, because a bureaucrat has to try to prevent lawsuits by anticipating what objections might arise. The name you are proposing is similar to another existing trademark, so expect some objection. A smart move might be to see if a company that owns "Pennsoil" might be willing to split profits with you. It is not out of the question.
Start by initiating the claim, so you have a basis for them to consider your offer. It could be the best investment you ever made.
In addition, the company that owns "Pennzoil" would be a logical manufacturer of synthetic oil on Mars. There is enough early hint of a Mars "wave" so that you might ** just ** be able to catch an executive with imagination, who wants to secure the market on Mars. And (as you point out) there ** will ** be a market for ** all ** the upstream products that can be made.
All that said, I would like to invite the attention of a ** real **chemist , to compute the relative energy cost of various products achieved in various ways.
The process you've described would be a base line, for comparison with the cost of importing oil from Earth (Yuk) or from Titan (uncertainties).
It might well turn out that a smart team working the Titan field will be able to out compete an equally smart team trying the home made product route.
It's NOT just the raw energy cost in a case like this ... the market price is also dependent upon factors such as product quality, variety, reliability and supply volume. The home made oil may be cheaper, but due to the failures of Louis' solar panels due to dust, it may be out-of-stock, and the Titan team will sweep the market.
SearchTerm:Marzoil Post #112 kbd512
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here