A happy Carbon loving future.

kbd512 · 2018-06-19 07:04:02

Louis,

A 77% price reduction on Lithium-Ion batteries still means the battery pack itself costs as much as a complete car. That means electric cars went from completely unaffordable to the common person, except to very wealthy people, to affordable for middle-aged yuppies who now have stable jobs. You're right, though, it's still progress.

The same site, heck the same page, you linked to says 80.5% of energy consumption in 2017 came from coal, gas, or mineral oil. Scroll down and read the part of the page you don't like. That's why Germany's emissions keep increasing. 1.3% of their consumption actually came from solar.

Tethering off a balloon in the flight levels is probably a non-starter for basic physics reasons and likely for regulatory reasons, too.

Being surrounded by seawater while carrying hundreds of thousands of tons of batteries that literally explode in water seems like a really bad idea to me, but Russia is built nuclear powered cruise missiles that spew radiation everywhere, so far less advisable things have certainly been tried.

Terra firma is still a great place to put solar panels and batteries, though.

SpaceNut · 2018-06-19 17:16:12

If one could make there own fuel then the car becomes a moot point but safe ways, methods must be approved and regulated to make sure that there is no danger to others.

A Sabetier reactor would be a blessing for the water that is hard or acidic as using a closed loop gas system recirculating the exhaust to make methane would allow for creation of clean water as well.

Void · 2018-06-19 21:01:43

Spacenut, I think that falls into the category of artificial photosynthesis, as there is an overlap, where you can make food from fuels, or fuels from fuel (Biofuels).

It causes me to speculate on the Louis ships. The point being that for a country like the UK, where wind is a big deal, but solar not so much, then altering the plan of Louis.

That is solar ships, that may facilitate what you propose (In general, to use artificial photosynthesis to generate Fuels and technically free Oxygen).

A question is, do you throw away the Oxygen, to the atmosphere, or export it to a process? Probably not convenient to ship it back to the UK or North American East Coast (If we are working in the Atlantic). Maybe the Oxygen goes to South America where low grade sawdust or weeds can be burned for energy, in pure Oxygen. This eliminates heating up the Nitrogen which might go up the smoke stack. It also eliminates possible Nitrogen related pollutants.

Then if a synthetic fuel which is less polluting than crude oil in the event of a spill could be made, and if that liquid fuel were usable in fuel cells, the fuel could be shipped to costal locations of various places where we do not want to convert farmland to biofuel productions, and also do not wish to emphasize the use of solar cells, beyond what is convenient.

So then these artificial photosynthesis locations in the ocean could then suck CO2 out of the atmosphere that had been placed there by internal combustion engines (And other things).

But where to get the materials to build the platforms? From space? Moon? NEO/NEA's?

Then how to deliver to the ocean surface. Shells constructed to aeroburn in to the atmosphere, then glide and splash down? Aeroburning could be so set up that it would disperse particulate matter into the upper atmosphere, cooling the Earth by reflectance into space of some light. This then would get us over the CO2 hump which might appear, if the Carbon locked up in the permafrost, or Ocean Methane Clathrate begins to emerge to the atmosphere because the Earth has warmed too much.

Well some toys to speculate on.

If we are going to have platforms in the doldrums to make biofuel, then I do want palm trees and hotels also with that.

Going to biofuel also spares us from trying to find the materials to make giant battery assemblies which might catch fire or sink.

I am also hoping that the fuel produced would be liquid for ease of transport, and usable in a fuel cell, because I am supposing that a fuel cell can "Burn" the fuel, without dispersing heat to the Nitrogen in the air it uses.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-06-19 21:18:09)

kbd512 · 2018-06-20 01:57:51

I rather like George Carlin's take on all of this:

George Carlin - Saving the Planet

In his skit, he rightly notes that we still haven't learned how to take care of each other. At the end of his skit, he says "Take care of yourself. Take care of yourself and somebody else."

Terraformer · 2018-06-20 02:34:57

Maybe we could farm the Sargasso sea for biofuel?

louis · 2018-06-20 05:25:08

If you had a further 77% price reduction over 6 years and then were able to halve the size of batteries in electric vehicles because you had electric roads on main routes (which means you can recharge batteries in transit) the indexed price of your EV battery would be at 2.65 in 2022 compared with 100 in 2010. I am not saying that is going to happen, but just using it as an illustration of how cost profiles can change dramatically. With electric roads you would also have extra convenience (never having to be concerned about running out of fuel on long motorway journeys, or having to stop to fill up with petrol/gas). Electric vehicle engines are also less costly to maintain.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
A 77% price reduction on Lithium-Ion batteries still means the battery pack itself costs as much as a complete car. That means electric cars went from completely unaffordable to the common person, except to very wealthy people, to affordable for middle-aged yuppies who now have stable jobs. You're right, though, it's still progress.
The same site, heck the same page, you linked to says 80.5% of energy consumption in 2017 came from coal, gas, or mineral oil. Scroll down and read the part of the page you don't like. That's why Germany's emissions keep increasing. 1.3% of their consumption actually came from solar.
Tethering off a balloon in the flight levels is probably a non-starter for basic physics reasons and likely for regulatory reasons, too.
Being surrounded by seawater while carrying hundreds of thousands of tons of batteries that literally explode in water seems like a really bad idea to me, but Russia is built nuclear powered cruise missiles that spew radiation everywhere, so far less advisable things have certainly been tried.
Terra firma is still a great place to put solar panels and batteries, though.

kbd512 · 2018-06-20 06:25:55

Louis,

If you put exchange battery packs in service stations around the country and everyone pays into a battery distribution and management service, a Fedex for batteries if you will, then you don't need to spend millions per mile to electrify the roads. I would rather have a 200km range and recharging infrastructure all over the place that can recharge packs in seconds or simply swap packs than super-huge battery packs in the worst possible place to survive road hazards and accidents. Put the battery pack in the engine compartment, along with all other power equipment, and put the motors in the wheels.

Putting the battery in the floor was actually a really good idea from a CG standpoint, but terrible from a crashworthiness standpoint because the only thing that catches fire is right below the passengers. If solid polymer electrolyte comes along to ameliorate the fire hazard, then you can put the pack in the floor again for CG considerations, but it would still be better if the pack could be lifted up out of the engine bay and swapped at service stations in seconds. No individual should have to outright buy batteries that huge. It should be a service that constantly replaces obsolete technology with better technology and recycles the older materials to extract the useful materials.

louis · 2018-06-20 07:46:16

In the UK the vast bulk of the population are no more than 5 miles away from an A Road or motorway. Electric roads are a much better fuelling solution. Electrifying roads is not actually that expensive. Roads have to be resurfaced every few years in any case. It's not like building a railway.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
If you put exchange battery packs in service stations around the country and everyone pays into a battery distribution and management service, a Fedex for batteries if you will, then you don't need to spend millions per mile to electrify the roads. I would rather have a 200km range and recharging infrastructure all over the place that can recharge packs in seconds or simply swap packs than super-huge battery packs in the worst possible place to survive road hazards and accidents. Put the battery pack in the engine compartment, along with all other power equipment, and put the motors in the wheels.
Putting the battery in the floor was actually a really good idea from a CG standpoint, but terrible from a crashworthiness standpoint because the only thing that catches fire is right below the passengers. If solid polymer electrolyte comes along to ameliorate the fire hazard, then you can put the pack in the floor again for CG considerations, but it would still be better if the pack could be lifted up out of the engine bay and swapped at service stations in seconds. No individual should have to outright buy batteries that huge. It should be a service that constantly replaces obsolete technology with better technology and recycles the older materials to extract the useful materials.

kbd512 · 2018-06-20 08:59:35

Louis,

If the roads there are of such low quality that they have to be resurfaced every few years, then you should probably fix that problem first before you decide to bury more stuff beneath the roads. Is this a government-sponsored make-work project?

louis · 2018-06-20 10:46:14

The cost is projected to be around $1 million per Km of road.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/26/moto … index.html

If you had that system on one fifth of the road surface of our main trunk roads in the UK (maybe about 7000 Kms of road) - so one Km in every five - that would be about $1.4 billion - dirt cheap given the huge savings on cars (ie cars would be much cheaper as batteries would be much smaller). If the system had a life of 20 years and the cost was spread over 20 million vehicles that would be a trifling $3.50 per vehicle per annum.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
If the roads there are of such low quality that they have to be resurfaced every few years, then you should probably fix that problem first before you decide to bury more stuff beneath the roads. Is this a government-sponsored make-work project?

Last edited by louis (2018-06-20 11:46:40)

kbd512 · 2018-06-20 11:54:01

Louis,

You just said the roads have to be resurfaced every few years. How is this going to last 20 years?

They've tried this in China already. It was a lot more expensive than they thought it would be. Do they have some new technology to do the job for less cost or is this the same tech?

louis · 2018-06-20 15:05:27

Have you never seen roads being resurfaced. They often work around installations like drain covers.

There are varioius teams around the world working on this idea. I think eventually one will win out as a cheap and effective system.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
You just said the roads have to be resurfaced every few years. How is this going to last 20 years?
They've tried this in China already. It was a lot more expensive than they thought it would be. Do they have some new technology to do the job for less cost or is this the same tech?

kbd512 · 2018-06-20 16:24:43

Louis,

I've seen roads resurfaced, but if a road has to be resurfaced every 3 years, then how is the thing that's embedded in the road not going to have to be replaced as well? How much extra work time is allocated to work around road obstructions? How are the roads of such poor quality that they need to be resurfaced every 3 years?

Here's a thought. This "range anxiety" stuff is pure nonsense. Vanishingly few Americans drive hundreds of miles at a stretch except professional truck drivers and people going on vacation. If you're going on vacation, then let someone else take you there. I want to relax on vacation, not drive. Driving is not relaxing. That's someone else's job when I'm on vacation.

I need a cheap electric car that seats 2 adults and 2 kids (skinny young people) that can go 100 miles on a charge. That's 99% of the driving most of us will ever do. The extra 1% is meaningless. I need a daily driver. It doesn't need fold out door handles, gull wing doors, heated adjustable LED lit cup holders, or any other absurdly ridiculous plastic crap. It needs to be a functional car with power steering, anti-lock brakes, air bags, air conditioning, a radio, and nothing else. Think of a base model Ford Fiesta. That's a daily driver. I don't care how fast it does 0 to 60. I can't do 0 to 40, and sometimes not even 0 to 20. Tesla still hasn't figured out this affordable sedan thing. The Model 3 needed to be an electric Ford Fiesta. A practical car for practical purposes.

louis · 2018-06-20 18:13:43

I didn't say three years...I wrote "few years". Looking it up, it seems to be 8-15 years...certainly you could integrate a lot of the installation into resurfacing works.

100 miles sounds a lot till you've done 50 miles and get stuck in traffic and it's raining and it's cold so you've got all the electrics going...and your battery is old, so not as efficient as it used to be...

Anyway, I wasn't particularly referencing anxiety - more convenience. Having to hook up your car everyday is a faff. Much better if you could just automatically charge up on your route to work.

Your cheap electric vehicle is going to be a lot cheaper if the battery is half the size compared with before thanks to electric roads.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
I've seen roads resurfaced, but if a road has to be resurfaced every 3 years, then how is the thing that's embedded in the road not going to have to be replaced as well? How much extra work time is allocated to work around road obstructions? How are the roads of such poor quality that they need to be resurfaced every 3 years?
Here's a thought. This "range anxiety" stuff is pure nonsense. Vanishingly few Americans drive hundreds of miles at a stretch except professional truck drivers and people going on vacation. If you're going on vacation, then let someone else take you there. I want to relax on vacation, not drive. Driving is not relaxing. That's someone else's job when I'm on vacation.
I need a cheap electric car that seats 2 adults and 2 kids (skinny young people) that can go 100 miles on a charge. That's 99% of the driving most of us will ever do. The extra 1% is meaningless. I need a daily driver. It doesn't need fold out door handles, gull wing doors, heated adjustable LED lit cup holders, or any other absurdly ridiculous plastic crap. It needs to be a functional car with power steering, anti-lock brakes, air bags, air conditioning, a radio, and nothing else. Think of a base model Ford Fiesta. That's a daily driver. I don't care how fast it does 0 to 60. I can't do 0 to 40, and sometimes not even 0 to 20. Tesla still hasn't figured out this affordable sedan thing. The Model 3 needed to be an electric Ford Fiesta. A practical car for practical purposes.

kbd512 · 2018-06-20 20:04:46

Louis,

Ok, that seems much more reasonable. The words "few" or "several" means "three" to this stupid American. For a moment there, I was wondering what kind of quality of asphalt and concrete was available in the UK, or if your Army was driving tanks on the roads.

I understand your point on the bells and whistles, but consuming a 100 mile range is a LOT for a daily commute. Plugging a car in at night is like plugging in an iPhone. It's not a big deal. The socket should also heat the battery pack to keep it warm.

An electric road is desirable, but I'm not so sure how well it will work in practice. It could work great, but some kid who was never supposed to be in the street might see a shiny thing, touch it, be killed from lack of adult supervision, and then mommy and daddy government swoop in to save the day because parents who should not be parents don't have the common sense to not let their kids play in the street. If the good idea fairy can make it work well enough, it's worth having on the main thoroughfares.

louis · 2018-06-21 02:56:08

There's no electricity at the surface in the normal course of events. Your theoretical kid would have to dig it up to be in danger but then the kid could equally start digging up a pavement/sidewalk as of now - he could just as easily be killed as there are dangerous cables beneath already. Children's health is much more likely to be affected by fuel emissions.

I don't know whether the Swedish model will be widely adopted. It looked a bit clunky to me. This Israeli version was more how I was imaginging it:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … -vehicles/

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
Ok, that seems much more reasonable. The words "few" or "several" means "three" to this stupid American. For a moment there, I was wondering what kind of quality of asphalt and concrete was available in the UK, or if your Army was driving tanks on the roads.
I understand your point on the bells and whistles, but consuming a 100 mile range is a LOT for a daily commute. Plugging a car in at night is like plugging in an iPhone. It's not a big deal. The socket should also heat the battery pack to keep it warm.
An electric road is desirable, but I'm not so sure how well it will work in practice. It could work great, but some kid who was never supposed to be in the street might see a shiny thing, touch it, be killed from lack of adult supervision, and then mommy and daddy government swoop in to save the day because parents who should not be parents don't have the common sense to not let their kids play in the street. If the good idea fairy can make it work well enough, it's worth having on the main thoroughfares.

Last edited by louis (2018-06-21 02:56:59)

SpaceNut · 2018-06-21 16:45:17

Sorry gang was composing this last night but fell off to sleep

Wireless car powered roads..

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … -vehicles/
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/163 … outh-korea
https://newatlas.com/uk-electric-highways-trial/38897/

m150193_eRoad_isometric_illustration_Final.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max&h=670&q=60&w=1000&s=857485f57ef4122b09736cc837444767

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road-powe … ic_vehicle

The design is more like that of a motor coil on the ground that you cross to alternate the fields in the cars pickup coil as it travels down the road. The strength of the filed in the road and the distance from it are part of the equation for how much energy is transfered to the vehicle as it moves. The ac wave form is rectified as it does not matter what frequency it comes in at only that the amplitude of the ac is great enought to produce a charge greater than that of the batteries voltage in order to provide power from movement.

kbd512 · 2018-06-22 03:35:53

SpaceNut,

First, why are the English still driving on the wrong side of the road?

Second, if the electromagnet induces current flow in a conductive object like a tire chain or dropped car keys with 90% efficiency, will someone who drops their keys or gets out of their car to put on / adjust / take off tire chains get fried?

I've no idea what the answer is to the first question is, but already know the answer to the second question. I only ask because I see truck drivers do this on a routine basis. How about CH4 or H2 powered cars or trucks carrying welding gas cylinders? Big badda boom?

If the field is mis-aligned, how much further might the inductor induce a current flow?

What happens if someone with a pacemaker is driving or walking along the side of the road in a misaligned field?

Anybody else understand why this is such a bad "good idea"?

Plugging in a car at night is not a major inconvenience. Charging a car at night takes seconds. We already plug and unplug mobile devices at least one device per day. Ten seconds per day is not a big deal.

A driving range of 100 miles is substantial and 200 miles is just way more than Joe Average needs. Maybe your rear ends can handle that much sitting, but we have to take a break before we complete the drive to Austin to see the parents. Make electric vehicles that take one to four modular swappable battery packs with a set number of kWh per pack. There's a gas station on every corner in America. The gas station can use solar panels and rent spare battery packs. No need for grid power. Loss of grid means bean dip for personal mobility at that point.

The #1 problem after hurricanes is no grid power and no gas due to flooding since all gas pumps are electrical. Winds destroy solar farms, but roof top installations survive because they were built to survive in an economical way. Imagine a world where portable tin film solar panel canisters and portable battery packs are simply relocated to high ground prior to flooding. Mobile apps "advertise" the new locations of the gas stations, and people have access to power as their needs dictate.

List of Desirable Features for Motor Vehicles:
* racing style harness that pins you to the seat in a crash, like modern ejection seats do just prior to ejection
* crush zones that absorb the mechanical loads from collisions
* no explosives onboard, so batteries shouldn't catch fire or explode
* no engine noise, road noise, or vibration so the driver is more aware of their surroundings
* electromagnetic vehicle leveling suspension system that allows for a smooth ride over poor quality roads
* stainless steel construction to inhibit or totally prevent corrosion
* electric hub motors that assist with braking
* network of solar powered service stations the provide rentable battery packs
* vehicle range selectable using modular and easily swappable battery packs rented from the service stations
* color wide-format HUD to display speed limit, navigation waypoints, and obstructions around the vehicle
* 360 degree day/night camera system
* FLIR for night driving, M1 tank style
* automatic braking to avoid IR / heat sources generated by humans, animals, and other vehicles
* cell phone that automatically reports collisions to law enforcement and uses remaining functional cameras to show the accident

Range is now irrelevant. Existing batteries are entirely sufficient for passenger vehicles and semi-trucks. All that is required is the deployment of infrastructure to existing service stations.

The concept of mobile service stations using electric semi-trucks with deployable thin film solar arrays is also possible and requires far less infrastructure than a stationary service station. No grid tie-in, no concrete, no service station structure, and no gas tanks. The electric truck will use electromagnetic refrigeration to store cold beverages. The service station will use a crane to swap battery packs. Vehicles pull up to the truck on the side of the road, the crane replaces the battery, puts the depleted battery in a charging slot, and the driver can get out and pay for their soda or snack with their phone, if desired, because the containers for the products are built into the trailer. If simply retrieving a fresh pack, then the driver never leaves their car, no explosives are involved, and the entire process takes less than a minute. That's faster than any gas station will ever be. The trunk space saved with no gas tank means every vehicle will have a spare tire.

Railways will rapidly become irrelevant with convoys of electric trucks that use software to keep them in close proximity to reduce drag from air resistance. The road train concept works well in Australia and could also work well in the US with detachable convoy elements. Putting more stuff in the roads is not required to do any of this, no matter how cheap. Above ground mobile infrastructure is the way to go. This is how the parcel delivery service already works and it works remarkably well.

louis · 2018-06-22 03:54:25

Automated road trains will of course be perfect for Mars.

As for us driving on the wrong side of the road, I liked the system the Portugese used to have of three lane highways with no markings apart from dotted lines...so the question of who had priority over the central lane could only be resolved by a game of chicken.

kbd512 wrote:

SpaceNut,
First, why are the English still driving on the wrong side of the road?
Second, if the electromagnet induces current flow in a conductive object like a tire chain or dropped car keys with 90% efficiency, will someone who drops their keys or gets out of their car to put on / adjust / take off tire chains get fried?
Post #43
l.

Void · 2019-01-22 23:48:56

I wanted to put this somewhere. It is interesting. If you choose to buy into Peter Ziehans analysis.

https://twitter.com/PeterZeihan/status/ … 1720986624

The above is twitter and pictures, not a video, I would look especially at the global diagram of Quote:

More
11)
We’re not done. We must account 4siting concerns: no #solar on cropland, no #wind at high elevation, no generation >1k miles from metro regions, no transit thru barriers (Himalayas, #failedstates, etc). That removes >half of what’s left. Check out #China -green leader my ass.

This makes for a very interesting world. How are we to convince countries which are developing to abandon Carbon fuels, unless orbital solar or fusion power becomes available?

The odd thing is it looks like a great deal of the usable wind and solar power are in countries with "western" influences. If you choose to define countries containing the diaspora from Europe that way.

Of course technology can change and then change the calculation. And then he does not include wave power or perhaps futuristic geothermal power.

I am not sure I completely buy into the negativity portion of what Peter Zeihan says, but his illustrations will tend to indicate who is more fortunate and who is less fortunate.

It does look like somehow Carbon sinks will be required, and not at a wealth penalty. They will have to generate wealth. What about the open oceans? Solar, Wind? Solar Carbon sink? Wind Carbon Sink? That is generation of HydroCarbon fuels on the open ocean and transport of such to markets of need.

Hmm...That requires floating structures. Are there enough metals on Earth for that? Can you get them from the Moon? Ha Ha build your solar and wind oceanic platforms from the Moon.

Do a pseudo nuclear winter as well, with conditioned Moon dust materials, to cool the planet off if necessary. Maybe do it with asteroid materials. NEO's.

Or perhaps I will just twiddle my thumbs, and gloat that my life expectancy is likely 20 year at best Good timing on my part!

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-01-23 00:02:36)

SpaceNut · 2019-01-23 18:28:49

When nuclear becomes as easy as changing out the batteries in a flash light and are affordable then we will have something that the individual can control the use of.
The soccerball that spins can return you a benefit for the kids playing is just one of those off direction alternative powering sources and the small home brewed windmills fit in as well. Solar thermal concentrated heat is another which can create power. But all of these come back to what can the individual afford.

kbd512 · 2019-01-23 19:29:06

Void,

Floating structures don't have to be steel. One of my primary points of contention with Louis is the utterly insane quantities of steel required for current wind turbines. Steel isn't all that cheap just to produce and highly machined steel components get really expensive, really fast. There is a better way.

Dr. Habib Dagher's research group at University of Maine has successfully demonstrated the VolturnUS floating wind turbine (composite and concrete instead of steel). The floating trimaran pylon is composite and concrete, the tower is composite, and the nacelle is also composite.

The first floating offshore wind turbine in the US: Habib Dagher at TEDxYouth@JBMHS

Verterra Energy's Volturnus (plastic and composite) river and ocean bed water turbine.

The New Turbine Pulling Power From Rivers

Fusion for electrical power remains an incredibly tough nut to crack, although in-space propulsion fusion technology has encountered no insurmountable technological hurdles because it does not attempt to extract electrical power for propulsion purposes. It would be great if we could make it work, but so far, no dice.

Solar remains a very good option for local deployment, such as daytime power for education of children in classrooms. There is no escape from poverty without adequate education. Period. There are no exceptions. You can be taught or teach yourself, but either way you must learn and apply what you've learned or you're doomed to lead a short and miserable life. Electrical power provides the conditions that are conducive to learning, primarily a comfortable environment that's well lit and capable of using technological aids to convey knowledge.

The bar to sufficient electrical power is becoming lower and lower as newer solar and wind technologies see widespread deployment. The issues primarily occur at substantial scale where materials and design choices limit what works best. That's where nuclear technology comes into its own. However, only advanced and stable societies with widespread use and understanding of technology can employ nuclear power.

Void · 2019-01-23 21:22:17

Yes that is all good stuff. Peter Zeihans maps may not show ultimate limits, because as you have said and show technology can continue to change the story.

I do remember that Louis pondered a ship filled with batteries which would go south and charge up and then I presume return home to power his house.

That sort of could exist. Lets say you had a tanker filled with dry ice. Then an energy source to convert the dry ice and water into fuels.

Then of course you might hope to use ocean solar or ocean wind for that purpose.

In the case of wind, perhaps you might have something like a super tanker with sails, and dragging a turbine in the water behind it to generate the electricity. Cost effective? I don't know. Anything like this would start out expensive until you ironed out the wrinkles.
So, an interesting place to apply such a thing would be the roaring 40's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Forties

Hard to imagine Europe utilizing that resource, but then again whaling at one time did go across oceans tp procure resources.

And then there are the doldrums.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doldrums
In the Doldrums, perhaps solar power to manufacture fuels.

Perhaps the cold of the dry ice could be used as well against the warm of the equator, to provide the power to create the fuel (In part).
But of course the dry ice had to be made with energy expenditure. But for a place windy place such as some of offshore Europe, then that provides a load for peak power availability, if you can justify the plant to make the dry ice.

And yet another trick would be to condense moisture in the tropics on to the dry ice as it vaporized, to provide water to ship somewhere.
Cost effective? Good chances no, but you can bake a loaf of bread before you half bake it. Don't shut me down for trying. Yoda is yes and no wrong. It depends on your process. Obviously you don't learn to walk without falling down. I am sure I fell down.

I will be honest I hope what I propose will be along time coming, as I see the potential for disputes. Maybe it can be handled appropriately. Maybe not.

Done.

SpaceNut · 2019-01-23 21:43:47

I would love a Sabatier reactor to help in processing my rusty, mineralized water into clean drinking water and fuel to heat with in the process plus if there is a surplus of energy for power thats even better. But what would it cost me even in the do it yourself build following all precautions....

PCI To Develop Ultra-Compact Microlith® Sabatier Reactor Offering Advance In Long Range Manned Spaceflight published in 2010...

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/c … _reaction/

Report on the Construction and Operation of a Mars In-Situ Propellant Production Unit

Void · 2019-01-23 22:35:32

Well, I think it would be a task for big entities.

I am glad you are willing to ponder it.

Some modifiers of the previous post(s)

For the higher latitudes, and perhaps less solar and wind fortunate, I do see some other winkles to have a look at.

Particularly for the wind option, could you get your CO2 strait from the atmosphere, and skip the dry ice? I think the wind option may work somewhat better for that, as of course you have more atmosphere circulating through your CO2 collector.

For the solar power option, maybe your solar collectors on the ship might be like umbrella's, and you would also host people who want to get out of cold weather. Maybe they would vacation, or maybe they would mix leisure with some working hours. After all you would have a ship with solar power. The solar power would not all have to go to making fuel. Even though I said a tanker type ship, I don't presume that you would be exposing smelly petroleum to the wood be vacationers.

And of course there is the question of liquid Oxygen. Dangerous in proximity to fuel. Still, is it better to burn or fuel cell consume, fuel in air, or against a more pure Oxygen? No Nitrogen taking away heat, if you consume Oxygen. But then again the ship would then be a floating bomb.

Another potential negative is what fuel are you making? Methane? Well then you had better not be leaking much of it, if you believe in the greenhouse effect. Of course Nature and Oil drilling I presume already produce Methane to the atmosphere.

Some other fuel that is a liquid? Well then the potential for oil spills. But we ship oil about all the time. At least this created oil might not be as toxic.

Back to water again, it does seem to me that a ship with a deep draft, it's bottom might be in cold water. Could you condense moisture inside of a layer at the bottom of the ship? Would it be worth it? Perhaps if you have manufacturing, of whatever, yes use the water on board the ship. But then again, what about delivering it to a port?

And then I said sailing ships, in some cases, but there is such a thing as a wave powered ship.
https://www.greenoptimistic.com/wave-po … ElC8vZFzIU
http://www.wavepropulsion.com/

A playground for the imagination?

The roaring 40's! Wind and Waves? Keelhauling Well maybe not. Making Oil from movement! Well Gas, and not from a BM I hope.

It does actually make more sense to use wind and waves to manufacture a product than to use it to travel from port to port. Because the winds wanted are not necessarily available as optimal for travel port to port.

Good Enough.

Cost effective? Cow should I know?

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-01-23 22:50:42)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2018-06-19 07:04:02

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#27 2018-06-19 17:16:12

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#28 2018-06-19 21:01:43

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#29 2018-06-20 01:57:51

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#30 2018-06-20 02:34:57

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#31 2018-06-20 05:25:08

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#32 2018-06-20 06:25:55

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#33 2018-06-20 07:46:16

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#34 2018-06-20 08:59:35

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#35 2018-06-20 10:46:14

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#36 2018-06-20 11:54:01

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#37 2018-06-20 15:05:27

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#38 2018-06-20 16:24:43

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#39 2018-06-20 18:13:43

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#40 2018-06-20 20:04:46

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#41 2018-06-21 02:56:08

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#42 2018-06-21 16:45:17

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#43 2018-06-22 03:35:53

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#44 2018-06-22 03:54:25

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#45 2019-01-22 23:48:56

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#46 2019-01-23 18:28:49

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#47 2019-01-23 19:29:06

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#48 2019-01-23 21:22:17

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#49 2019-01-23 21:43:47

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#50 2019-01-23 22:35:32

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

Board footer