3 ms·

Since you seem knowledgeable about this process - can it be miniaturized for personal production? I realize it is a net loss but storable high density energy is

Since you seem knowledgeable about this process - can it be miniaturized for personal production? I realize it is a net loss but storable high density energy is useful for various applications like off grid use or home generators. For example, people who need refrigerated insulin but live in remote areas (where they often get delayed fixes when a weather event disrupts utilities).

dredmorbius 5y ago
I've read and/or skimmed a few papers. I can point people to the literature, I don't claim to understand much of it well myself. That said: - The pilot projects are essentially small-scale deployments. The principles are being developed at what's effectively "personal scale", plus or minus. - I expect that there would probably be economies of scale in several regards, including in operations, maintenance, and training. - At small scale, if you want fuel, growing it may be the more robust and reliable option. This gets back to the fundamental problem that fuels require considerable energy inputs. For an off-grid site, a firewood-fueled stove, possibly driving a generator through some mechanism (turbine, steam engine) or a biomass-based oil (olive, corn, canola, algae, ...) or alcohol (via fermentation) production serving needs for which liquid fuels were absolutely essential might be more reliable. Keep in mind that a little over a century ago, the US was effectively biofuel powered, with a principle prime mover in the form of the horse. Horsefeed consumed roughly 20% of total US agricultural output at the time. When I first started looking into alternatives to a fossil-fuel based world, my assumption was that biomass would be a readily-viable substitute. In reality, there simply is not enough net primary production (plant growth) to reasonbly support present levels of human energy consumption, let alone projected growth through economic advancement and population increase through the 21st century. If humans are to live on biomass (as we once did), either standards of living, or population, or both, will have to decrease quite considerably. (This give rise to some of the more modest suggestions of a maximum viable long-term human population, ranging from about 500 million to 2 billion, suggested by some experts on the topic.) One of the prime positie attributes of hydrocarbon fuels, especially the slightly heavier grades (kerosene, diesel, fuel oil, etc.) is that they travel and store exceedingly well. So long as 1) a synfuel capability exists and 2) your off-grid site has some commerce with the outside world, trading for fuel would likely be your best bet.

dredmorbius 5y ago

I've read and/or skimmed a few papers. I can point people to the literature, I don't claim to understand much of it well myself. That said: - The pilot projects are essentially small-scale deployments. The principles are being developed at what's effectively "personal scale", plus or minus. - I expect that there would probably be economies of scale in several regards, including in operations, maintenance, and training. - At small scale, if you want fuel, growing it may be the more robust and reliable option. This gets back to the fundamental problem that fuels require considerable energy inputs. For an off-grid site, a firewood-fueled stove, possibly driving a generator through some mechanism (turbine, steam engine) or a biomass-based oil (olive, corn, canola, algae, ...) or alcohol (via fermentation) production serving needs for which liquid fuels were absolutely essential might be more reliable. Keep in mind that a little over a century ago, the US was effectively biofuel powered, with a principle prime mover in the form of the horse. Horsefeed consumed roughly 20% of total US agricultural output at the time. When I first started looking into alternatives to a fossil-fuel based world, my assumption was that biomass would be a readily-viable substitute. In reality, there simply is not enough net primary production (plant growth) to reasonbly support present levels of human energy consumption, let alone projected growth through economic advancement and population increase through the 21st century. If humans are to live on biomass (as we once did), either standards of living, or population, or both, will have to decrease quite considerably. (This give rise to some of the more modest suggestions of a maximum viable long-term human population, ranging from about 500 million to 2 billion, suggested by some experts on the topic.) One of the prime positie attributes of hydrocarbon fuels, especially the slightly heavier grades (kerosene, diesel, fuel oil, etc.) is that they travel and store exceedingly well. So long as 1) a synfuel capability exists and 2) your off-grid site has some commerce with the outside world, trading for fuel would likely be your best bet.