CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

Void · 2024-09-17 08:22:03

Moderators, I will be happy to participate in the modification or relocation of this materials, or the elimination if you require it.

I originally cringed when hearing of notions to capture CO2 and sequester it. Obviously, this would cost money and energy and be of no profit. But it was a wonderful "Hairshirt" that the greens wanted to impose on us.

I will qualify types of Greens. We have the "Lords and Ladies" Wanna-Be's who would love to subjugate the "Lower Types", they are verbal and violent in true nature. And we have the science-industrial types, who actually might get us to a better situation. Not Pontif Intellectuals though, they are phony.

It seems that Earth is the first planet humans have terraformed.

I am now seeing multiple instances of the probability of harvesting CO2 as a resource. And it seems also that contrary to the critics, pathways to harvest large amounts of intermittent energy can perhaps be blended with energy storage methods.

So, we may emerge into a world where we may regard the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere as a benefit, as it can be plucked out of the atmosphere almost anywhere, sort of like a universal pipeline system for Carbon.

Here is one such thing: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo … 0b6e4&ei=6

The interaction of East Asian peoples with Western peoples seems to produce good effects, in many cases.

(That might be true, but maybe they just do it themselves)

Anyway, a day may come where it will be desired to prohibit extraction of CO2, unless someone will burn hydrocarbons to replace it.

Ending Pending

So, we may have three worlds where Carbon can be plucked from the Atmosphere: Earth, Mars, Venus. So, learning how to do it here could augment doing it "There".

Ending Pending

Here is a sibling topic for future reference:

https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 21#p226621
"Index» Life support systems» Radiators in Space in some cases for Data Centers"

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-10-01 09:46:06)

Void · 2024-09-17 09:27:40

Here is another article about converting CO2 into a resource: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/n … c991&ei=12

Ending Pending

tahanson43206 · 2024-09-17 10:23:17

For Void re #2

The article references formate .... I asked Google to explain the term, and learned that it is a combination of a water molecule and one carbon atom.

I'm hoping your topic will eventually provide more information, but while we wait for that, here is a warning from the US National institute of Health:

Formate | CHO2- | CID 283
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (.gov)
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › compound › Formate
Formate is a monocarboxylic acid anion that is the conjugate base of formic acid. Induces severe metabolic acidosis and ocular injury in human subjects.

Google found that formate is sold on the open market for use as a solvent.

It would appear that whatever drawbacks or dangers may be associated with this material, humans have learned how to distribute and use it safely.

(th)

Void · 2024-09-17 19:26:13

I think that what has started can eventually become power to gas, as per a dream of Louis, or even better perhaps all sorts of desired chemicals.

You can suppose that if geothermal becomes almost universal, then places like Iceland may have a high magnitude of power to spare for such things.

Similarly, places with renamable energy, that are remote from normal consumers, may be able to also generate useful chemicals from such energy.

So, I guess the point is eventually perhaps we will be concerned by too little CO2 in the atmosphere, if things more that direction.

I can imagine sailing ships the size of supertankers, that might draw energy from turbines in the water and that they also being mostly robotic and highly automated could make such chemicals from the Carbon in the atmosphere.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-09-17 19:31:19)

Void · 2024-09-27 13:58:46

Here is yet another example of the possible future when Carbon may be minded from the atmosphere for a profit: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/s … 9857&ei=14

Quote:

Michigan researcher’s system proves to be effective
The process starts with nanowires being submerged in water enriched with carbon dioxide and exposed to light equivalent to the sun at noon.
The energy from the light frees up electrons that split the water near the surface of the gallium nitride nanowires. This generates hydrogen to fuel the ethylene reaction, but also oxygen, which the gallium nitride absorbs to transform into gallium nitride oxide.
“The copper is good at hanging onto the hydrogen and grabbing onto the carbon of the carbon dioxide, turning it into carbon monoxide. With the hydrogen in the mix and an injection of energy from the light, the team believes two carbon monoxide molecules bond together with the hydrogen,” the release stated.
Researchers found that 61% of the free electrons that the semiconductors generated with the light contributed to the reaction to produce ethylene.
While a different catalyst based on silver and copper achieved a similar efficiency of roughly 50%, it needed to run in a carbon-based fluid, and it could function for only a few hours before it degraded.
The Michigan team’s device ran for 116 hours without slowing down, and the team has run similar devices for 3,000 hours.
Moreover, the device produced ethylene at a rate exceeding four times that of the closest competing systems.
“In the future, we want to produce some other multicarbon compounds such as propanol with three carbons or liquid products,” said Bingxing Zhang, U-M assistant research scientist in electrical and computer engineering and first author of the paper.
The study has been published in the journal Nature.
The photoelectrochemical synthesis of valuable multicarbon products from carbon dioxide, sunlight and water is a promising pathway for clean energy generation and carbon neutrality. However, it is challenging to create and stabilize efficient C–C coupling sites to achieve multicarbon products with high selectivity, yield and stability. Here we designed a low-coordinated copper-cluster catalyst interfacially coupled in situ with a GaN nanowire photocathode, achieving a high ethylene Faradaic efficiency of ∼61% and a partial current density of 14.2 mA cm−2, with a robust stability of ∼116 h. The in situ self-optimized Ga–N–O interface was confirmed to facilitate and stabilize the interfacially oxidized copper species of copper clusters, which function as efficient C–C coupling sites for ethylene production. Furthermore, the hydrogen-feeding effect of GaN for promoting CO hydrogenation also guides the facile CHO-involved C–C coupling pathway. This work sheds light on the interface design and understanding of efficient and stable (photo)electrosynthesis of highly valuable fuels from CO2.

I think we have possibilities of abundant energy to use to do this task ass well.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-09-27 14:02:17)

RobertDyck · 2024-09-27 15:40:53

Terraformer · 2024-09-27 16:00:18

You also have a lot of permafrost. Should any methane releases from that be charged to your account then?

tahanson43206 · 2024-09-27 17:02:06

For RobertDyck re #6

Thanks for showing us the profoundly erroneous advertisement by the petroleum industry in Canada.

It is good of you to leave the advertisement uncommented, so that our members and readers can decode the error for themselves.

(th)

RobertDyck · 2024-09-27 17:38:05

tahanson43206 wrote:

For RobertDyck re #6
Thanks for showing us the profoundly erroneous advertisement by the petroleum industry in Canada.
It is good of you to leave the advertisement uncommented, so that our members and readers can decode the error for themselves.

Profoundly erroneous? Try working out the numbers. How many tonnes of CO2 are emitted by Canada each year. How much does a single tree absorb each year? How many trees are required to absorb all of Canada's emissions?

We have a problem in Canada: an environmental activist has been made Minster of the Environment. That means government policy is based on cult doctrine, not science. And he doesn't care how much it harms Canadians. We have winter here, home heating is life or death. Falling asleep in temperature below freezing (32°F or 0°C) can kill you. Warm clothing can help, but when outdoor temperature is below -30°C (-22°F) that is not going to be enough. Penalizing home heating is not justified.

Void · 2024-09-27 19:35:34

Your argument holds weight with me Robert. But I was going to joke around about a world where the major producers of CO2 says "It is ours, we put it there, don't take it, we will use it."

I know that many people are down on renewable energy here, but all the quoted faults are likely to be fixed over time. For solar panels the price may continue down, the efficiency may continue up, and the lifetime of the devices will perhaps become centuries.

As for recycling of solar panels that is starting to become more possible.

As for recycling windmills that also is becoming practical.

I believe that space-based power will power computer centers in space, as all you need for cooling is shade, which solar power devices can provide. And with that it is likely that power can be beamed around with microwaves.

So, indeed it could be that Carbon in the air may be easier to use in many places than fossil Carbon sources.

So, if this becomes true then we will marvel that fossil fuels booted up our industrial economies, and then in the next era, the Carbon deposited in the air could again produce great wealth.

It is possible that this can come true: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … &FORM=VIRE Quote:

Tony Seba just revealed why Elon Musk is no longer interested in EVs
YouTube
The Electric Viking
519.8K views
4 months ago

I really do think that it will make sense to have a world wide power system that could involve orbital microwave facilities, both to reroute energy Earth>Space>Earth, and to have Solar Orbital>Earth.

And with that cooling in space that would be provided in the shadows of power satellites.

Ending Pending

I would think to include some of the materials from this topic here: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 21#p226621 From this topic: "Index» Life support systems» Radiators in Space in some cases for Data Centers" From post #6 of that topic: Quote:

Perhaps 3 or more major space centers in orbit a bit above LEO, as represented by this from post #4:

So, I think that power could be redistributed in space, and also supplemented from orbital solar power. And the natural cold behind the devices in orbit could be used for data center cooling.

Ending Pending

About "Rethink X" which "The Electric Viking" mentioned:
https://rethinkx.medium.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RethinkX

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-09-27 20:34:16)

RobertDyck · 2024-09-27 21:53:21

I believe in renewables. The Canadian province where I live used to have 100% hydroelectricity, but in the early 2000s a few windmills were built. We still have 100% green sustainable electricity. I have posted many times about making houses energy independent using a combination of solar, wind, and geothermal heat pump, with a high efficiency wood fireplace as a backup. One person claimed there's no such thing as a high efficiency fireplace, so I told him technically it's a high efficiency wood stove shaped to look like a fireplace, but the salesmen call it a fireplace.

I have also talked about using thermal depolymerization to recycle plastic into oil and natural gas, then convert that into new plastic. Don't burn it, that is not recycling.

The problem is an environmental activist who was made the Minister who created so many restrictions on oil pipes so difficult that any new pipeline is not possible. Don't tax individuals to death for goods that have no alternative. Do not tax people to stop using any form of fossil fuel for home heating when failure to heat your home means death. The Minister is from Quebec, one of 3 provinces with 100% green electricity, all use mostly hydro with a tiny bit of wind. And Quebec has so much hydro power that they can heat their homes with electricity. In my province we heat with natural gas; there's not enough electricity to heat all homes with electricity. And electricity costs more.

Alberta is in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. They have a change in elevation, rivers flow downhill, but very small rivers with not enough water flow for significant power. Saskatchewan has rivers with significant water flow but the whole province is as flat as a pancake. No change in elevation, no power. And wind is far too inconsistent for primary source. For those provinces, fossil fuel is the only option.

Void · 2024-09-27 22:59:27

There are different ways to react to such a situation as yours. I grew up on the Canadian Shield in Minnesota. Our prospects are not like that of Texas or California. But due to that we cannot absorb as many people as Texas can or California did. This is a situation a person can like. House prices do not necessarily go up as much, but if you are not trying to profit from such value appreciation then you may have a home for a lower price. In other words, it is not so crowded.

As far as what is going on in Canada, it is worse than for the USA. Some of our states were forced to give up ownership of other people. Strangely enough, the "Whites" of those states have become more and more Republican. And now even some parts of the "Blacks" are moving to Republican.

I see the Getto's as a new form of plantation culture which was developed from those who came from slave ancestry. It is curious that the people who own these slum plantations seem to be more from more recent immigration types. The South "Whites" are not so involved anymore. And some of the owners are in fact also "Black".

The prior white immigrants, were often of a more northern and western heritage from Europe. Those of a heritage of Dublin, London, Paris, Rome, Athens, Cairo, and (Not to mention), are of a greater verbal character which has been overlaid by various forms of Abrahamic patterns. I think it is in their nature to try to enslave other people with words. And with words they can foster violent thuggish mobs to control to submission the less aggressive and perhaps less verbal people. This then is our Democratic party in this country at this point. The technological gifted people are leaving the Democrat party now. So, what amount of charm the Democrat party once had is dissipating. The Verbals simply do not respect technological skills. They may talk the talk, but that is just "Word Salads".

You seem to have a similar problem in Canada, but there are more verbal bullies as a percentage of population so you are sort of screwed. But I believe in a flip-flop Fourth Turning, so while the last four turnings were to their benefit, the next four will be to ours. I believe that we escaped the danger of the civil war already, but there are still very large social tensions.

They adore hierarchy and think that it is good for the souls of the downtrodden to suffer more, not less.
We accept some hierarchy as necessary but prefer distributed power when possible and to lift up individuals in prosperity if possible.

But on to technological things. To make fuels and other substances from the CO2 in the atmosphere in the long term could work very well in Canada, as you could make it in summer and use it in winter.

But also consider Satellites in orbit where Canada could be linked to the Southern Hemisphere with microwaves. Each has a opposite summer. So power beamed from the Southern Hemisphere could be sent to places like Canada, and in Summer, power from places like Canada could be sent to the Southern Hemisphere.

Value of product would be more important than efficiency.

But Tony Seba has notions that indicate that renewables will be usable in places like Alaska and Germany: I don't have that video just yet.

But the point is people will always want more energy. If it can be done while reducing damages, then I have no problem with that.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-09-27 23:27:14)

RobertDyck · 2024-09-28 10:01:50

Satellite power is a fallacy that keeps coming up. The idea is space does not have night or clouds, so continuous power generation. But the only way to get that power to the surface is microwaves. Experiments in beam power transfer have only worked over a few.miles, not the 36,000 km from Geostationary Earth Orbit. And over just a few miles only 30% of the power is recovered. On Earth we have day and night, length of day is longer in summer and shorter in winter, but on average 50%. Then there's clouds. So you get 30% of the power available from sunlight, but transmission is by power cable delivering 100%. At least over short distance, such as the roof of a house to that same house. Cost is radically different: maintenance in space requires a spacecraft launched on a rocket, and the workman must wear a spacesuit. On Earth the workman arrives in a pickup truck with a ladder and wears jeans and a t-shirt. Possibly a safety harness when working on the roof of a 2-story house. So I argue strongly against power satellites.

Void · 2024-09-28 10:18:23

Well, OK, you may have some ground to stand on. I see a number of 77% in ideal conditions with one jump, and perhaps 37% efficiency in reality. But I am thinking this does not allow for technological advances in the future with a learning process.

But a point is that wasted power is wasted power. If you store energy, in terrestrial methods you also have a power loss on delivery to a process.

I see that a round trip efficiency of a Lithium-Ion Battery is perhaps 78%. So then you have losses. As for solar power, I see that it is more efficient than land-based power. This could be due to light that the atmosphere blocks and also of course less shading, and day night cycle.

But keep in mind that in my thinking, the first objective was to provide power and cooling in space for Data Centers. After than surplus could be sent by microwave, or I suppose laser, to other locations.

There are a lot of factors to consider. I am seeing 15-20% for land based solar and 30% for space based solar, but it is mentioned that perhaps 40% is attainable in the future. And I am sure that land based solar will improve as well.

But in the end the thing that matters is wealth produced for effort expended.

Continued in post #16.

.

Last edited by Void (2024-09-28 10:36:31)

RobertDyck · 2024-09-28 10:30:06

Here in Canada there are some things we could do. Manitoba Hydro identified several locations they could build new dams. We could deliver power to northwest Ontario, such as the towns of Kenora, Dryden, and the city of Thunder Bay. Carbon nanofibre cables have lower electrical resistance than copper, which has less resistance than aluminum. Result is less power loss over long distance transmission. It's questionable if that would be enough to deliver power from northern Manitoba to Toronto, but definitely do-able for the part of Ontario that borders Manitoba. And Saskatchewan borders Manitoba on the other side. But politics gets in the way. Provincial politicians in southern Ontario have no problem buying power from Quebec or doing business with Quebec or the US, but have a mental block about doing business with Manitoba. I lived in Toronto for 3 years and I still don't understand why. They're arrogant and condescending, but... One reason I mention the town of Dryden is when Ontario hiked electricity prices a few years ago, Dryden wanted to buy power from Manitoba. At that time Ontario had the highest electric rates in Canada while Manitoba had the lowest. But Ontario politicians wouldn't allow it. They expected high electric rates to subsidize small solar and wind farms in southern Ontario. They didn't care about northwest Ontario.

As background: Ontario had nuclear power plants, but due to activists they were mothballed. Ontario dammed every river that could generate power. They even dammed Niagara Falls; 90% of water now goes through turbines at night, only 10% over the falls. They increase to 30% during the day for tourists. Most power in Ontario was generated by coal. However, due to carbon emissions craze, they refurbished their nuclear plants and brought them back online so they could demolish the big coal plant. The Thunder Bay coal burning power plant was converted to burn wood pellets, expecting waste from the pulp and paper industry in Dryden would provide the wood pellets. But they never did produce wood pellets, instead imported by ship from Norway. Do you realize how much oil is necessary to ship those wood pellets? So they shut it down. The Atikokan coal burning power plant was to be converted to burn peat. Technically peat is renewable but it takes thousands of years to regrow. Atikokan is also in northwest Ontario. I don't know what happened to it.

Void · 2024-09-28 10:35:38

Well I absolutely support your mentioning of cleaver methods in Canada.

But I also want to point out the possible advantages of Mega Satellites in orbit of a world such as Earth.

https://www.sciencealert.com/could-huma … anet-ceres
Image Quote:

Such platforms could collect power primarily for in space use, but could also host data centers that could use in space cooling in the shade of the device, and also space manufacturing could be included.

As for relayed power, that may prove worth the trouble. We will need to keep looking at it as an option. Ideally it would somehow be efficient, but even so, at times power is worth much more than at other times.

It is a question of value delivered.

In such a station you also have the advantage of some protection from impactors. Many impactors are more likely to impact non-critical devices and so then the reduction of impacts of critical devices. It would simply improve odds.

So, it is a question of values accumulated vs. effort expended.

And if we consider the eventual emergence of robotic labor at say $0.10/hour, then the economics become much more favorable. In such as case as that, it may not matter if the energy delivered is only 37% of what was collected, as you could simply collect 3 times as much solar energy to make up for the losses.

But I think that your challenges to the idea are very important. It is good to test things.

But never depend on the same reality of economics to be persistent over time in a matter like this, I say.

I see that a round trip for an air battery can be 70%, so, perhaps not that good, and keep in mind that the solar in orbit will be more efficient in the first place.

But your challenges have been very good ones. It is hard to win against them. But if you build platforms in space for Data Centers and also space manufacturing, then it may be more practical to also include space based power to beam down, or even to beam power up from Earth in some cases.

Lets just call the power beaming a weak maybe perhaps. In time we may find out.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-09-28 10:51:49)

RobertDyck · 2024-09-28 11:36:55

This discussion is about capturing CO2 and using it as a resource. The easiest way to do that is plants: trees, grass, food crops, algae in the sea, diatoms, etc. Trees can be harvested for lumber and paper. Hemp grows faster, has lots of uses.

The US Navy studied using Mars technology. The idea was use electric power from the nuclear reactor of an aircraft carrier. Capture CO2, split water in an electrolysis tank to form hydrogen and oxygen, then combine CO2 with hydrogen to form jet fuel. This would allow producing fuel for aircraft on the ship. Obviously fuel production would happen when the reactor is not needed to power the ship's propulsion.

RobertDyck · 2024-09-28 11:38:42

Ps. Don't put servers in space. Put them on Earth with communication relay satellites in space. Again, maintenance is more practical.

Void · 2024-09-28 14:41:17

Quote the Robert:

This discussion is about capturing CO2 and using it as a resource. The easiest way to do that is plants: trees, grass, food crops, algae in the sea, diatoms, etc. Trees can be harvested for lumber and paper. Hemp grows faster, has lots of uses.

No, actually it is about "CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]" (Now)

Plant away. Tony Seba says that much farmland can revert to other vegetation when our food supply switches to "Precision Fermentation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RethinkX# … %80%932030

So, yes, if that is true then that is a big one.

As for Canada, there can be the argument that what is planted grows, capturing Carbon but then decays releasing Carbon. But if the wood is made to lumber, then you can sequester for a significant time.

Quote the Robert:

The US Navy studied using Mars technology. The idea was use electric power from the nuclear reactor of an aircraft carrier. Capture CO2, split water in an electrolysis tank to form hydrogen and oxygen, then combine CO2 with hydrogen to form jet fuel. This would allow producing fuel for aircraft on the ship. Obviously fuel production would happen when the reactor is not needed to power the ship's propulsion.

And that is great. I think that fuels could be manufactured at sea with sailing ships, if they drag turbines though the water to turn generators. Particularly around Antarctica. (You would want to have motors to when the wind is not suitable to keep you from grounding.

Quote the Robert:

Ps. Don't put servers in space. Put them on Earth with communication relay satellites in space. Again, maintenance is more practical.

The human thirst for energy will be almost infinite. Any power that could be used to compute on the ground could be used for other purposes to suit human needs.

Large orbital platforms could support space manufacturing and research, tourism, and compute in orbit.

And it may become practical to deliver power point to point by microwaves or lasers, if the technology is practiced.

It may be that in some cases it can be used to level power in grids, even though it may not be of a top efficiency.

And then there is the likelihood that we would want similar platforms for the Moon and Mars and probably other worlds.

So, sure hug your trees, but it is not a binary choice. We want all good things for the human race.

To some degree orbital power to power data centers, and perhaps beam power down, may be assistive in reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere while producing products of value on Earth.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-09-28 14:58:32)

Void · 2024-09-28 17:43:43

Here is yet another claim of making useful chemicals from atmospheric CO2: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/s … e09e&ei=11
Quote:

Scientist develops revolutionary technology that turns air pollution into valuable resource: 'We can directly use those converted chemicals and fields for other applications'
Story by Stephen Proctor • 5h • 3 min read

It is actually very interesting to pluck Carbon from the atmosphere. Of course, much of this is temporary sequestering. But might it be possible to make something like wood, or Carbon products that could be used to make structure?

https://news.mit.edu/2022/lab-timber-wo … r%2C%20etc.
Quote:

Toward customizable timber, grown in a lab
Researchers show they can control the properties of lab-grown plant material, which could enable the production of wood products with little waste.
Adam Zewe | MIT News Office
Publication Date:May 25, 2022

Interesting but Robert may also have merit in saying "Grow Trees".

Time will tell.

But it might be good to learn how to grow "Precision Wood", rather than "Wild Wood". Maybe its properties can be better controlled at the level of wood grain and other factors. Then if wood of any sort can be used to build structures for the "Permanence" movement as per our other members thinking, we might remove Carbon from the atmosphere at locations with abundant energy, and take it out of circulation long term.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-09-28 17:54:39)

kbd512 · 2024-09-28 17:57:59

That infographic from the US Energy Information Administration adequately illustrates how wasteful electric power generation is, at a macro level. Two thirds of the electrical energy generated is ultimately converted back into heat. I would argue that the actual figure is much higher than that, likely as high as 90%, because lights and electronics only represent 10% of the electrical energy consumption.

Unless low grade heating and cooling is provided in a more practical way than by generating electricity, the very idea of electricity being "efficient" is a farce. The US EIA diagram above shows that it's not. As long as we're continuing to assert that is "efficient", CO2 represents an even more efficient way of converting high grade heat energy into electrical energy. Supercritical CO2 can make the thermal power conversion processes 50% to 60% efficient while reducing the tonnage of metal required to make the turbine and all other thermal power transfer components by quite a lot (10X for sCO2 turbine vs a steam turbine, 8X for printed circuit heat exchangers vs plate and fin based heat exchangers). Even in the vacuum of space where waste heat rejection is limited to radiation, you still get a very healthy performance boost.

sCO2 turbines and heat exchangers are truly tiny, relative to the power they generate. These engines can power generating stations, light and heavy duty vehicles, and ships. A container ship propelled by a 2,300t 107,000hp diesel the size of a cathedral can be replaced with an engine small enough to fit inside a thruster pod, thus no prop shaft is required. The main machinery space is a mostly empty room with a tiny engine and electric generator to provide ship's electrical power.

Something as large as this:

Gets replaced with something more similar in size to this (the turbocharger for the giant diesel engine shown above):

Thus, it can fit inside this:

When it's combined with this, thrust efficiency improves between 30% and 45% in the 20 to 30 knot speed range:
Sharrow_MX-3_72e14469-e480-47f9-a15a-951a47b5a802_1800x1800.jpg

This is what traditional vs new props do at speed (all those air bubbles on the traditional prop are lost energy):

This is why we still want better propeller tech, even though the basic tech is now centuries old:

Supercomputers and AI were able to design the propeller where our traditional compute methods proved inadequate. New multi-axis CNC machines were able to carve the props from solid blocks of metal. Sharrow's company was able to iterate 6 to 10 new prop designs PER DAY. Using the old methods, a company would develop 1 to 2 new prop designs per year. That's an exponential increase in productivity which lead to a commercial product. It's little wonder that better prop development took so long and progress was so slow. This is the sort of very pointed engineering design task that our emerging AI tech should be turned loose on. A task as complex as driving requires human brain computational capability while only consuming 20 Watts of power. The most advanced supercomputers are about 6 orders of magnitude away from replicating what the human brain can do, for a given amount of power input.

AI did a marvelous job improving prop efficiency after minimal direction from an engineering team.
AI improved combustion efficiency of piston engines by 20% to 30% by using a piston crown designed to promote complete combustion.
AI figured out how to design a supersonic CO2 compressor.
AI figured out how to increase combustion efficiency in the kerosene powered rocket engine to the point that it produces a blue flame, remarkably similar to burning natural gas, rather than a smoky / sooty exhaust.

Those are examples where we can use our electronic and compute tech to make dramatic improvements, because they're tightly focused engineering programs intended to tackle very specific problems.

Radical improvement to basic design is clearly still possible:

If you already know we're going to mostly continue doing what we have been doing, then squeezing out every last bit of performance from all our existing power and propulsion systems is a better-than-average method for reducing fuel burn rates and ensuring that Earth remains more rather than less inhabitable. CO2 is a great enabler towards that end, but why stop at Earth? CO2 allows engines to become tiny, the efficiency shoots way up, the cost increase over what we're already using is either minimal or there's an actual cost decrease to make the sCO2 turbine vs a conventional gas turbine or steam boiler (unsurprising since it's so much smaller). Wholesale implementation of sCO2 turbines would have a much greater effect on reducing CO2 emissions than all the photovoltaics and wind turbine built to date. The same was true of switching from burning coal to natural gas.

We are not going to stop shipping things around the world. Apart from nuclear power, there is no other electrical energy source available, apart from burning fuel, that is remotely capable of propelling a cargo container ship at 25 knots. All these wind turbines and photovoltaic panels get shipped around the world multiple times during their manufacturing and installation process, so let's not pretend we're getting our green energy without shipping. The height of the masts of sailing ships capable of carrying the tonnage of cargo of a modern container ship while achieving 25 knots would literally be equivalent to a skyscraper. Sailing is worth pursuing, and perhaps AI can show us the error of our ways as it relates to optimally design a very large sailing ship, but when the wind dies down the cargo still has to get delivered on time, hence the need for better engines.

If you truly want to put data centers and electrical power generating stations in orbit, then sCO2 turbines powered by mirrors to provide the heat source is the most reliable and durable way of doing that. You get 1/4 to 1/3 of the power by converting photonic power directly into electrical power. You get 1/2 to 2/3 of the same input power by using these new sCO2-powered heat engines. There is a dramatic cost / mass / input embodied energy / ultimate durability differential between the thermal-mechanical-electrical solution and the purely electrical solution. Maybe the purely electrical system should be more efficient, but in practice it's not, so that represents another potentially fruitful research project for AI to figure out for us.

So, yes, CO2 absolutely is a valuable commodity that we can and should use to power our future here on Earth and in space. We already have a pair of 300MW sCO2 turbine power plants in advance stages of construction and certification here in Texas. Two will provide electricity while the other is intended to replace multiple diesels for pumping natural gas. Another plant is being built in some other state in the midwest (I forgot which one), while still others are being built in other countries. We need gargantuan power stations to truly live on other planets, because the per-person energy consumption rates are so high. Keeping the generating stations in orbit limits how much infrastructure has to be soft-landed inside the gravity wells. There will be some cross-over point where the only realistic options are a nuclear thermal surface power station or a solar thermal power station in orbit.

The efficiency and transmission distances readily achievable by electrical power transfer through an atmosphere is almost entirely a function of frequency selection. This is the same issue with laser power transmission through water. If you insist on using a laser operating inside the visible spectrum, then the power required to reach the bottom of the Marianas Trench with a few milliwatts of remaining power will exceed the energy available in the known universe. Your absurdly powerful laser will literally "cut through the entire planet" long before then, but to truly "force" a tiny number of those emitted photons through a column of water that tall, almost all of your energy gets absorbed by the water long before it reaches the bottom. This is an indicator that that particular solution makes the underwater laser communication problem unsolvable, not that it's impossible to communicate / transmit power through that much water. Your realistic options are to drastically decrease the frequency used to transmit power, or run an electrical cable down there, if you want the transmitted power to travel long distances underwater with minimal attenuation. AC power is transmitted through wiring at low frequencies for the same reason.

Fiber channel lasers can be very efficient at modest scale, but the reason the USAF's 1990s era Airborne Laser Laboratory used a chemical laser, is that at MW+ power levels, the thermal efficiency is rather poor for fiber channel due to increasing electrical resistance during heating and individual laser diodes only transmit about 1W of power, so you would need about 2 million of them to transmit 1MW. The downside of the chemicals is that they undergo an exothermic reaction and the entire system is very bulky. ABL contained about 5 semi-trailers worth of equipment that was not solid state, so it had to be tweaked or tuned regularly. The fiber channel laser diodes eliminate all of the explosive bits of the chemical lasers, and so long as they're kept cool, can operate continuously for quite some time. In contrast, chemical lasers can readily scale-up to GW power output levels using perhaps 1MW of electrical input power, but then you have the continuous tweaking issues to deal with and the fact that the chemicals used are converted into unsuable chemical byproducts. For a chemical laser to transmit continuous power, you'd have to regenerate / separate the chemicals after the chemical reaction takes place during lasing.

That is why very high power lasers are infrequently seen outside of labs, where conditions can be carefully controlled. The chemical ones do work, but are intrinsically dangerous to operate, and the solid state ones, although not nearly as dangerous to the operator, have severe packaging and thermal management issues, plus the need to generate huge amounts of electrical power. Someone might solve all of that, but it probably won't be in the near future. Perhaps 20 to 50 years from now we'll have MW+ scale solid state lasers. The USAF has mostly given up on using them for anything except blinding inbound EO/IR missiles.

Well, that covered a lot of different ideas all relying upon this new sCO2 turbine tech we've devised.

Void · 2024-09-29 08:02:55

I appreciate your post. I am not so averse to nuclear as you may think, particularly in deep space.

And yes, the idea of using high efficiency CO2 thermal turbine generators is quite suitable. The mirrors would do a good job of providing shade, for radiators. In fact, the mirrors could be radiators as well. So, either could be used, but the one is suggested to be better. (Mirrors). In order to use solar power in dimmer light than that of Earth orbit, you would likely want mirrors to focus on solar panels, so then you might as well just go thermal.

So, thank you for your post.

I think that I have arrived at something that may sequester Carbon but be economically useful to humans.

We can consider efficiency for Acetate + Oxygen > Yeast, (Maybe Algae). Robert mentioned Algae.

The environmental movement has members that belong to an unholy cult in my opinion. It uses the guilt and shame used by Abrahamic religions but has not a god other than the nature cult. As such then tend to be anti-human and are developing into mob similar protection racket. The intent of environmentalism is potentially good, if it is about proper stewardship of assets at hand.

I recently ran into a video that explained that a certain ethnic group was rated as being above average in verbal skills, but not at some other skills of reason and related to the visual. Since those people were so much more intelligent at things verbal, it was decided that their poor performance at the other skills must be a data error. So, it was decided that the non-verbal skills would be eliminated from IQ tests. So, you have a world where the verbal rule, but they do not have sufficient reasoning or visual powers. So, they fly around the world in jets and on pleasure boats and try to make working class people who may have reason and visual intelligence to wear hair shirts.

I hope to avoid the hair shirts. So, then I want a process that sequesters Carbon and yet gives wealth. Robert mentioned Algae, which has potential, but the environmentalists would rather make hair shirts for us. Oh wait, they don't make things, they just take things. So, they will try to induce us to make hair shirts to wear, using words and at times directed thuggery.

Anyway, Roberts mention of Algae was tried by "Native Americans" and the environmentalists made it stop. It would have produced fish, and some of the organic matter would have ended up in the deep ocean. Some of the organics would be buried under ocean sediments and some would eventually be Oxidized in part to CO2. But that CO2 would not tend to emerge again until the cold water it was in flowed to low latitudes and then upwelled to the surface though gradual heating. So that is thousands of years I believe.

I would like to propose ocean aquiculture using yeast or algae grown on Acetate & Oxygen. We think that Yeast and Algae, will grow from this, but I don't know if Macro-Algae will. It would be very good if it would. I am going to make an "Educated Wish" that Macro-Algae will grow with Acetate & Oxygen. This and Dark Oxygen, if it exists could be how a planets life could grow even in the circumstances of a "Snowball Earth".

I would suggest doing this farming on the Continental Shelves. The reason is accessibility, and the possibility of later retrieving the Carbon if it is needed in an ice age. So, in this scheme we could use electric power from a source, to make Acetate. We may also Aerate the water into which this will be injected, using power of some kind.

So, we might hope to grow yeast, algae, macro-algae, and perhaps animals in this modified continental shelf situation.
We might want to incorporate pyrolysis into this. If you have organic waste then treat it with pyrolysis, you can generate fuels, and also a form of Carbon that is hard for living things to bring back into the biological web. The fuels could be consumed, and the char could be deposited on the continental shelf.

Biochar: https://biochar-international.org/about … e%20as%20a
Quote:

Biochar Production Technologies
Equipment for making biochar can be as simple as a primitive campfire or as complex as a modern bio-refinery. The basic process is called pyrolysis.
Pyrolysis is the breaking down (lysis) of a material by heat (pyro). As the material is broken down, it releases gas. This is the first step in the combustion or gasification of biomass.
All the processes involved in pyrolysis, gasification, and combustion can be seen in the flaming match. The flame provides heat for pyrolysis, and the resulting gases and vapors burn in the luminous zone in a process called flaming combustion, leaving behind char. After the flame passes a given point, the char may or may not continue to burn. When the match is put out, the remaining wood continues to bake, or pyrolyze, releasing a smoke composed of condensed tar droplets as it cools.

This can also be used to improve soils.

The creation of Acetate by electric methods: "Manufacture Acetate from CO2"
General Response: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Manufactu … 86&pc=U531
So, there seem to be many paths to create Acidic Acid, here is one: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41929- … rtant%20to
Quote:

Article
Published: 19 October 2023
Electrochemical acetate production from high-pressure gaseous and liquid CO2
Jiachen Li, Yun Kuang, Xiao Zhang, Wei-Hsuan Hung, Ching-Yu Chiang, Guanzhou Zhu, Gan Chen, Feifei Wang, Peng Liang & Hongjie Dai

So, then it may be time to review growing things with acetate.

Wind, Wave, and in some cases Solar power may be available for the Continental shelfs. Also Nuclear is a potential option.

So, then aquaculture beyond sunlight or in dim light:
https://www.udel.edu/udaily/2022/june/g … California
And this article seems to be space oriented: https://www.snexplores.org/article/inno … r%20CO%202,

The process on the Continental Shelfs, may be in the open but could also be in thermal containments. Calliban often mentions Concrete.

I have this today:

Using electricity, heat pumps can pull heat out of the upper waters or air on a warm day, and into the top of the tank, and produce cold at the bottom of the tank from cold sea bottom water or from air on a cold day. Then using an upgraded form of OTEC, the temperature differential could generate electricity. So, then your aquaculture installations could be batteries as well.

If you wanted to use resistance heating you could make the top water much hotter than 180 degrees C, but the best heat pump I am aware of can do 180 degrees C.

Hot water may not be very compatible with growing things, but the lower layers in the tank should be suitable.

The amount of light produced at the bottom could be relatively low and so then it might be hoped to grow macro-algae, primarily using acetate and Oxygen as the source for algae growth.

We also have the options of something similar to this in canals and lakes, and also in space, including space platforms and Mars itself.

Ending Pending

And by the way, I think we need a practice where the EPA and FAA can be sued, if evidence of interference with human progress without justification can be demonstrated, and particularly if a for profit motive or power politics are involved. While extraction of money might not be the objective, removal of bad actors may be.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-09-29 10:00:20)

Void · 2024-09-30 09:27:35

Continental Shelfs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent … ent%20that Image Quote:

This tends to be unused "Land", that tends to be proximate to intermittent energy sources of various types.

This could be wind, wave, and even solar. Other things like tides and ocean currents are possible. But we also have the sources of heat and cold from the water above the continental shelfs, and even the air above that.

But also, the potential to store amplified thermal energy, and also perhaps pneumatic energy methods as well.

In the previous post I suggested this sort of thing:

It could be made of concrete and could anchor a windmill on top of it or perhaps some other energy device such as wave power.

But to my surprise I have found that plastics tend to survive well in the sea. Of course, we already have a problem from the enemy as they have vilified plastics in several ways. One of course is plastic waste discarded in the oceans. The solution to that is don't discard plastics in the ocean, and also clean up what is there as so called "Garbage Patches".

The other problem is microplastics, which we do not know the level of danger of. It is my opinion that biology will see it as a food source and so consume it ultimately. But that is not proven. There is some evidence of microbial evolution occurring to turn plastics into a food.
This of course could be a problem if plastic is put in the ocean with the intent of keeping it as structure, but one problem at a time.

So, it is possible that Carbon could be sequestered in plastic structure under the sea.

Also wood, but wood has some problems with sea organisms: https://bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu/resou … o%20severe

But we will not burn down wood structure under the water.

The point is to sequester Carbon in useful ways that may create economic benefits, rather than to just be a cost to society as the hair shirt people would like us to endure.

For plastic structure we might not go to high temperatures, but that may still be useful if you are storing compressed air under the sea. You could use temperate water to heat air as it is expanded to produce energy recuperation.

In the example of wind power in the North Sea, power lines that send wind power to land could also bring power from land to the wind mills. This could be valuable if you are doing activities on the Continental Shelfs, such as have been in this topic.

Where I have suggested thermal and pneumatic energy storage, you could also just add Acetate & Oxygen to open water to farm some things underwater. You might even add so lighting to the sea bottom, but that would be expensive, I am sure. But lets say a macroalgae could live on energy 5% light and 95% Acetate & Oxygen, then you might grow them to a benefit, and also in an open aquaculture you would also have animal organisms and microalgae, I would suppose.

Doing this it is possible that you might "Trick" biology, as to grow something out of its normal place may to some extent avoid pest organisms. But that is not promised, just hoped for.

The continental shelfs below the surface are a very large frost-free zone, even often at high latitudes.

Rather than growing some crop in a vertical greenhouse or other greenhouse you might hope to grow something in this matter and create valuable products even if you turn some of it into biochar.

So, I would think that you might extract some valuable items from the things that grow, and then subject the remainder to pyrolysis to produce biochar and also likely some type of hydrocarbon gasses of liquids. The hydrocarbon products may have value.

Then you could store much of the biochar on the Ocean Bottom, and if necessary, even cover it with sediments to keep it for Oxidizing.

If deposited on the Continental Shelf, then that Carbon might be available if it is necessary to increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere a long time from now.

The hope is to create a Carbon Sequestration method(s) that does not reduce the wealth of people but may even increase it.

Ending Pending

Oh, a visual aid might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_ … generation Image Quote:

So, the wind power seems to be more for higher latitudes, and even the arctic. However of course ice packs could inhibit wind power in the arctic, although you could have windmills on the shore or constructed islands, and farming installations under the ice.

The Constuction of artificial islands for windmills in the Arctic Ocean may be helpful if the sea ice is less available to mammals that use sea ice. Also, such islands might help create a barrier to ice blocking shipping, but that would be very expensive to build.

Ending Pending

It thinks my next post may be about orbital devices that may participate in energy exchanges with the surface, and also which may host other space activities such as data centers.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-09-30 10:23:13)

kbd512 · 2024-09-30 10:30:02

Void,

I'm not the least bit averse to using nuclear power, whether right next to my home here in America, Earth in general, or anywhere else. I also couldn't care any less about the opinion of someone who flies around in a private jet, regarding how much CO2 I do or don't generate. All the proposals I've made are intended to foster human flourishing, stabilize our energy system by creating vast energy stores, and recycling whatever CO2 we generate so that our next batch of fuel is always available. Recycling CO2 is so fundamental to life on Earth that every biological part of Earth was involved in that process long before humans existed.

Void · 2024-09-30 11:40:32

So, we are similar at least in these things spoken of.

Ending Pending

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2024-09-17 08:22:03

CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#2 2024-09-17 09:27:40

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#3 2024-09-17 10:23:17

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#4 2024-09-17 19:26:13

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#5 2024-09-27 13:58:46

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#6 2024-09-27 15:40:53

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#7 2024-09-27 16:00:18

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#8 2024-09-27 17:02:06

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#9 2024-09-27 17:38:05

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#10 2024-09-27 19:35:34

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#11 2024-09-27 21:53:21

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#12 2024-09-27 22:59:27

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#13 2024-09-28 10:01:50

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#14 2024-09-28 10:18:23

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#15 2024-09-28 10:30:06

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#16 2024-09-28 10:35:38

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#17 2024-09-28 11:36:55

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#18 2024-09-28 11:38:42

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#19 2024-09-28 14:41:17

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#20 2024-09-28 17:43:43

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#21 2024-09-28 17:57:59

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#22 2024-09-29 08:02:55

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#23 2024-09-30 09:27:35

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#24 2024-09-30 10:30:02

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

#25 2024-09-30 11:40:32

Re: CO2 as a resource [associated with orbital assets]

Board footer