3 ms·

Am I missing something here? "On the surface, vast quantities of hydrocarbons in solid and liquid form lie ready to be used for energy. Although the atmosphere

Am I missing something here? "On the surface, vast quantities of hydrocarbons in solid and liquid form lie ready to be used for energy. Although the atmosphere lacks oxygen, water ice just below the surface could be used to provide oxygen for breathing and to combust hydrocarbons as fuel." [my emphasis.] They are proposing splitting water to get oxygen for burning hydrocarbons to produce energy - but splitting water itself takes a lot of energy, and low-entropy energy at that. Could this process possibly result in a net increase in useful energy?

m4rtink 7y ago
Even if it does not, you could use it as a nice chemical battery. Say you split some water ice using energy from you nuclear reactor (or possibly even a turbine in your methanoelectric dam!) and store the pressurized oxygen. Then you can use the stored oxygen with methane from the atmosphere to provide a lot of energy where needed, possibly far away from your main nuclear reactor, dam on a liquid methane river or other non-portable energy sources.
- Bedon292 7y ago
  An example would be rocket fuel to leave, so you don't have to bring it all with you.
  - m4rtink 7y ago
    Definitely, can use it to power chemical rockets as well. :)
stromgo 7y ago
I'll answer the energetic question. Splitting water produces oxygen and hydrogen, so with our oxygen we have the choice between burning hydrogen or burning Titan's hydrocarbons. Burning the hydrogen would bring us back to square one, so the question is whether burning hydrocarbons yields more energy than burning hydrogen. It appears to not be the case. Some numbers I found online: burning 1 mole of O2 with hydrogen yields 572 kJ burning 1 mole of O2 with methane yields 444 kJ burning 1 mole of O2 with butane yields 443 kJ burning 1 mole of O2 with octane yields 437 kJ burning 1 mole of O2 with glucose yields 467 kJ https://personal.utdallas.edu/~metin/Merit/MyNotes/energyScience2.pdf https://personal.utdallas.edu/~metin/Merit/MyNotes/energySci... https://www.ausetute.com.au/fuelenergy.html https://www.ausetute.com.au/fuelenergy.html

m4rtink 7y ago

Even if it does not, you could use it as a nice chemical battery. Say you split some water ice using energy from you nuclear reactor (or possibly even a turbine in your methanoelectric dam!) and store the pressurized oxygen. Then you can use the stored oxygen with methane from the atmosphere to provide a lot of energy where needed, possibly far away from your main nuclear reactor, dam on a liquid methane river or other non-portable energy sources.

Bedon292 7y ago
An example would be rocket fuel to leave, so you don't have to bring it all with you.
- m4rtink 7y ago
  Definitely, can use it to power chemical rockets as well. :)

stromgo 7y ago

I'll answer the energetic question. Splitting water produces oxygen and hydrogen, so with our oxygen we have the choice between burning hydrogen or burning Titan's hydrocarbons. Burning the hydrogen would bring us back to square one, so the question is whether burning hydrocarbons yields more energy than burning hydrogen. It appears to not be the case. Some numbers I found online: burning 1 mole of O2 with hydrogen yields 572 kJ burning 1 mole of O2 with methane yields 444 kJ burning 1 mole of O2 with butane yields 443 kJ burning 1 mole of O2 with octane yields 437 kJ burning 1 mole of O2 with glucose yields 467 kJ https://personal.utdallas.edu/~metin/Merit/MyNotes/energyScience2.pdf https://personal.utdallas.edu/~metin/Merit/MyNotes/energySci... https://www.ausetute.com.au/fuelenergy.html https://www.ausetute.com.au/fuelenergy.html