4 ms·

This is the 2nd part of the "we need lots of clean/carbon free energy" - a way of storing and transporting it. Chemical fuels have a great energy density. Prob

by jbert 12y ago

This is the 2nd part of the "we need lots of clean/carbon free energy" - a way of storing and transporting it. Chemical fuels have a great energy density. Problem is, they dump carbon into the air when you burn them (and also basic pollutants). So we just need: 1) fusion or similar "lots of 'free' energy" 2) a process like this to soak up that energy + CO2 + H2O and emit nice energy dense hydrocarbons 3) decent catalytic convertor/filter tech (we're pretty good on this at the moment when we want to spend the money?) then we've got a long-term energy future.

Dn_Ab 12y ago
Chemical fuels have a great energy density. Problem is, they dump carbon into the air when you burn them (and also basic pollutants) Exactly! > So we just need: 1) fusion or similar "lots of 'free' energy" Utilizing geo, hydro and solar (carpeting them in inhospitable areas) and fission is enough. Fission is particularly effective, the energy yield per kg of fuel for fusion is only 4x that of fission. Between less wasteful alternate reactor designs and extracting fuel from the ocean, if we start figuring things out now, things will be fine. > 2) a process like this to soak up that energy + CO2 + H2O and emit nice energy dense hydrocarbons This is well studied by the US Navy and others. It's especially cost effective when drawn from the ocean. Wikiterms: 'sabatier reaction', 'power to gas', 'carbon neutral fuel'. > then we've got a long-term energy future. We're still going to have to act quickly, before the energy (and resources) required to initiate this industry is more than could be had with the then current reserves. A true debt. Thus squandering the selfless sacrifice made by dinosaurs many kilomillennia ago in order that we at least could bootstrap a space faring civilization.
- XorNot 12y ago
  It's a hilariously under-appreciated fact that the US military is on track to be one of the biggest investors in green power and fuels, as both are major logistics hassles and strategic concerns for it. The USAF would love to not have to worry about the long-term availability of fuel oil, and just depend on a desert array of concentrators somewhere in the US.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    The military, and most specifically the US Navy, have lead fuel innovations over the past 150 years. Wind -> coal (1850s) -> Oil (1910s/1920s) -> Nuclear (1950s) And now hybrid and synthetic fuels. Much of the more interesting peak-oil / collapse literature comes from military organizations, including in the US, Germany, and UK.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Fischer-Tropsch more than Sabatier, but yes. We're still going to have to act quickly That would be a true tragedy.... And it wasn't dinosaurs so much as algae and ancient plants, as well as the forebearance of the bacteria of that time to break down the material.
olegkikin 12y ago
Not true. Burning hydrogen produces water vapor.
- jbert 12y ago
  If you're making your chemical fuel from whatever is in the atmosphere, you're going to have a pollution-neutral cycle (if you can keep a lid on the secondary effects, like unburnt particles).

by jbert 12y ago

Dn_Ab 12y ago

Chemical fuels have a great energy density. Problem is, they dump carbon into the air when you burn them (and also basic pollutants) Exactly! > So we just need: 1) fusion or similar "lots of 'free' energy" Utilizing geo, hydro and solar (carpeting them in inhospitable areas) and fission is enough. Fission is particularly effective, the energy yield per kg of fuel for fusion is only 4x that of fission. Between less wasteful alternate reactor designs and extracting fuel from the ocean, if we start figuring things out now, things will be fine. > 2) a process like this to soak up that energy + CO2 + H2O and emit nice energy dense hydrocarbons This is well studied by the US Navy and others. It's especially cost effective when drawn from the ocean. Wikiterms: 'sabatier reaction', 'power to gas', 'carbon neutral fuel'. > then we've got a long-term energy future. We're still going to have to act quickly, before the energy (and resources) required to initiate this industry is more than could be had with the then current reserves. A true debt. Thus squandering the selfless sacrifice made by dinosaurs many kilomillennia ago in order that we at least could bootstrap a space faring civilization.

XorNot 12y ago
It's a hilariously under-appreciated fact that the US military is on track to be one of the biggest investors in green power and fuels, as both are major logistics hassles and strategic concerns for it. The USAF would love to not have to worry about the long-term availability of fuel oil, and just depend on a desert array of concentrators somewhere in the US.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  The military, and most specifically the US Navy, have lead fuel innovations over the past 150 years. Wind -> coal (1850s) -> Oil (1910s/1920s) -> Nuclear (1950s) And now hybrid and synthetic fuels. Much of the more interesting peak-oil / collapse literature comes from military organizations, including in the US, Germany, and UK.
dredmorbius 12y ago
Fischer-Tropsch more than Sabatier, but yes. We're still going to have to act quickly That would be a true tragedy.... And it wasn't dinosaurs so much as algae and ancient plants, as well as the forebearance of the bacteria of that time to break down the material.

olegkikin 12y ago

Not true. Burning hydrogen produces water vapor.

jbert 12y ago
If you're making your chemical fuel from whatever is in the atmosphere, you're going to have a pollution-neutral cycle (if you can keep a lid on the secondary effects, like unburnt particles).