5 ms·
Once you're past the distance where transmitting electrical power is feasible, you would probably have to store the energy chemically. In principle you could ch
by philwelch 7y ago
Once you're past the distance where transmitting electrical power is feasible, you would probably have to store the energy chemically. In principle you could charge gigantic banks of lithium batteries and then ship the batteries, but that would require infeasible (probably ludicrous) amounts of lithium, and lithium batteries are a pretty inefficient way to chemically store energy.
Alternatively, it probably isn't cost-effective with current technology, but on a fundamental level, you could use a nuclear reactor to power a system that chemically recombined atmospheric CO2 and water back into hydrocarbon fuels. Unlike fossil-derived hydrocarbons, these hydrocarbons would be carbon-neutral since you'd be sourcing all the carbon from the same atmosphere that it would eventually be dumped back into. This is probably going to make sense for things like vehicles, aircraft, rockets, etc. long before it makes sense for power generation, but there are definite benefits. We already have all the necessary technology to burn hydrocarbons, meaning that any improvements in synthesizing hydrocarbon fuels can potentially eliminate the need to switch these things over to batteries or whatnot. Which may be extremely helpful if we run into serious resource constraints over lithium, or if we grow increasingly concerned with the environmental byproducts of lithium battery production.
- keanzu 7y ago> past the distance where transmitting electrical power is feasible A 1,100 kV link in China was completed in 2019 over a distance of 3,300 km with a power of 12 GW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current It is feasible to transmit electrical power over far greater distances than most people imagine. For reference Barcelona to Moscow is a 3,000 km flight.
- philwelch 7y agoSure, but if you want to be safe and resilient against earthquakes and other natural disasters, those are potentially going to take out long distance transmission lines, too.
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y agoThen build them to be resilient against that.
- philwelch 7y agoSure, whatever. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea to build long distance transmission lines, I just wanted to write about a different option because I figured the other subthreads on this post adequately covered the transmission line idea.
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current can reach far, compared to conventional transmission lines, with the added benefit of making the grid less fragile, because it can't be built other than 'smart'. Another possible bonus of your scenario could be https://phys.org/news/2020-01-chemists-product-nuclear-power.html https://phys.org/news/2020-01-chemists-product-nuclear-power... wherin the use of an depleted uranium catalyst could be plugged somewhere into that to produce ethylene.