Hi Keith,
You might want to also add that industrial processes are generally continuous processes. You need PV power that is not pseudo-random intermittent, unless you can also add batteries larger in size and lower price that do not blow the budget....
Cheers,
Darel
-- "Begin by doing what is necessary; then do what's possible; finally you will discover that you are doing the impossible." - St. Francis of Assisi
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/f4aa1ec9-579a-d227-5306-bb11d48826b7%40comcast.net.
Tom;
You wrote:
> If the already-produced petroleum is available to a generator, it becomes a somewhat
> perpetual motion machine (until sun burns out or bearings quit).
Except, of course, for the small matter of inefficiencies, both in
converting electricity to oil, and converting oil back to electricity
(say, via burning it, making steam, using that to run a turbine, and
using that to run a generator). The use of the oil as a battery in this
way would have an efficiency of maybe 30%.
- Kieran
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/029101d5989d%24a20483f0%24e60d8bd0%24%40sympatico.ca.
Tom;
You wrote:
> Inefficiencies would have to do with sizing the enterprise, and would affect the costs.
> There will be costs associate with separating CO2 and hydrogen from raw stock, and so forth.
> I remember reading somewhere that CO2 dissociates at about 1100 Centigrade; if thermal
> decomposition is the choice of processes, the gases need to be separated and stored.
>
> In the end there has to be a return on the invested capital so that the project does
> not simply deplete society's resources. This is how we keep score.
Fair points. But I was simply reacting to your earlier “perpetual motion machine”
comment, which of course is not the case if there’s any inefficiency at all in the
process.
- Kieran
On November 11, 2019 at 9:38 AM "Kieran A. Carroll" <k.a.c...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Tom;
You wrote:
> If the already-produced petroleum is available to a generator, it becomes a somewhat
> perpetual motion machine (until sun burns out or bearings quit).
Except, of course, for the small matter of inefficiencies, both in
converting electricity to oil, and converting oil back to electricity
(say, via burning it, making steam, using that to run a turbine, and
using that to run a generator). The use of the oil as a battery in this
way would have an efficiency of maybe 30%.
- Kieran
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/029101d5989d%24a20483f0%24e60d8bd0%24%40sympatico.ca.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/1584034114.1505209.1573958925005%40webmail.networksolutionsemail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/20191117070550.GB13760%40gate.kl-ic.com.
Hi Keith,
Please provide a source for your claim that "about 70%
of the net primary productivity (photosynthetic fixing of
carbon) is on land, as much as 800 grams of carbon per
square meter per year."
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/the-biological-productivity-of-the-ocean-70631104/
"There are no accumulations of living biomass in the marine
environment that compare with the forests and grasslands on land
(Sarmiento & Bender 1994). Nevertheless, ocean biology
is responsible for the storage of more carbon away from the
atmosphere than is the terrestrial biosphere (Broecker 1982).
This is achieved by the sinking of organic matter out of the
surface ocean and into the ocean interior before it is returned to
dissolved inorganic carbon and dissolved nutrients by bacterial
decomposition. Oceanographers often refer to this process as the "biological
pump," as it pumps carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the
surface ocean and atmosphere and into the voluminous deep ocean
(Volk & Hoffert 1985).
"Only a fraction of the organic matter produced in the surface ocean (typically much less than 1%) has the fate of being exported to the deep ocean. Of the organic matter produced by phytoplankton (NPP), most is respired back to dissolved inorganic forms within the surface ocean and thus recycled for use by phytoplankton (Eppley & Peterson 1979) (Figure 1). Most phytoplankton cells are too small to sink individually, so sinking occurs only once they aggregate into larger particles or are packaged into "fecal pellets" by zooplankton. The remains of zooplankton are also adequately large to sink. While sinking is a relatively rare fate for any given particle in the surface ocean, biomass and organic matter do not accumulate in the surface ocean, so export of organic matter by sinking is the ultimate fate for all of the nutrients that enter into the surface ocean in dissolved form — with the exceptions that (1) dissolved nutrients can be returned unused to the interior by the circulation in some polar regions (see below), and (2) circulation also carries dissolved organic matter from the surface ocean into the interior, a significant process (Hansell et al. 2009) that we will not address further. As organic matter settles through the ocean interior and onto the seafloor, it is nearly entirely decomposed back to dissolved chemicals (Emerson & Hedges 2003, Martin et al. 1987). This high efficiency of decomposition is due to the fact that the organisms carrying out the decomposition rely upon it as their sole source of chemical energy; in most of the open ocean, the heterotrophs only leave behind the organic matter that is too chemically resistant for it to be worth the investment to decompose. On the whole, only a tiny fraction (typically much less than 1%) of the organic carbon from NPP in the euphotic zone survives to be buried in deep sea sediments.
-- "Begin by doing what is necessary; then do what's possible; finally you will discover that you are doing the impossible." - St. Francis of Assisi
What about the carbon in calcium carbonate that ends up ln limestone?
Is there any connection or contribution there from organic vs inorganic carbon sources?
John S
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/4051cf63-e657-d5db-e4da-c3c8f58be3c2%40comcast.net.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/4051cf63-e657-d5db-e4da-c3c8f58be3c2%40comcast.net.
Hi Roger & Keith,
That has been tried before with iron seeding, the missing
element, (aOIF - artificial Ocean Iron Fertilization). It was
extremely controversial and is still studied
from that Martin hypothesis and experiments:
"Further investigation reveals that marine ecosystems tenaciously recycle much of the carbon back into the air, rather than sequestering it in the deep ocean. Other inefficiencies and damaging side effects cut enthusiasm even more. Fertilizing the vast tracts of ocean required would be hard to achieve, making the prospect even less attractive. - https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/dumping-iron-and-trading-carbon/
Does not have to be perfect, just something in the ball park.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/04CCB301-5466-48E7-8E0F-BDAB629F6F88%40gmail.com.
On Nov 21, 2019, at 10:45 AM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:My concern is $/kwh. That's what the real electric power industry cares about.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CACLqmgddHNCNLsCW7%3DWoQcUVAbqEpDV0DW%3DdPyUAiA9U94evTQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Attached you will find a chart of global primary production
from my old oceanography book. Not an easy thing to measure, still
very challenging to update. Note the massive production centered
around the south pole; also now called the south ocean. You can
see the constant heavy seas down there are extremely productive.
As it goes by the tip of Argentina/Chile, the Humboldt current has
a huge fish production rolling up the coast by Chile and Peru,
which they fight Chinese and Japanese fishermen in a constantly
simmering battle for these riches. I have always wanted to tour
the Tokyo's
Tsukuji fish market (Youtube) - one of the world's wonders.
NPP is a hypercritical number. It tells us the CO2 and O2 exchange from all plants to animals (not counting tube worms at black smokers at the ocean's bottom,etc.,). NPP has been changing as climate change is slowly raising global temperatures even, most particularly, in the southern ocean.
Darel
**IF** Facebook isn't blocking the post, I recently described some of what I saw in Korea last week, INCLUDING how I spoke about SPS on national TV as a kind of alternative to GROWING nuclearization and risk in that area.
There are two recent news stories that started this line of thinking.
First is the recent MIT release on a method to inexpensively capture CO2.
https://news.mit.edu/2019/mit-engineers-develop-new-way-remove-carbon-dioxide-air-1025
The second is the story about the world's lowest PV bid.
https://www.utilities-me.com/news/14081-dewa-receives-worlds-lowest-bid-of-usd-169-cents-per-kwh-for-900mw-5th-phase-of-the-mohammed-bin-rashid-al-maktoum
One much larger is being planned.
https://www.utilities-me.com/article-5367-japans-softbank-to-build-worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-in-saudi-arabia
The first article says the capture method will work in the air. It
takes about one GJ to capture a ton of CO2. A GJ is 278 kWh. At 1.69
cents per kWh, it will cost about $4.70 per ton of CO2. Or $17.23 per
ton of carbon. 14 tons of oil has 12 tons of carbon at a cost of
$206. Per bbl, the carbon would cost about $2.00
Oil is approximately CH2. Making hydrocarbons is scaled off the
34,000 bbl/day plant Sasol built 12 years ago in Qatar, it would take
about 30,000 plants. 10,000 if the plant size was moved up to 100,000
bbl/day, but that may take too large a PV farm.
CO2 + 3H2 yields CH2 + 2H2O
44 + 6 14 + 36
It may take reverse water gas shift to make the CO2 into CO. It is
also possible that the CO2 might be electrolyzed to CO and O2 at a
lower energy cost than making the extra hydrogen.
https://dioxidematerials.com/technology/co2-electrolysis/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-gas_shift_reaction#Reverse_water-gas_shift
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
At 50 MWh/ton, 6 tons of hydrogen would take 300 MWh. That makes 14
tons of oil or 21 MWh/ton of oil. At 7.33 bbl/ton the energy required
for a bbl of oil is about 3 MWh. For an energy cost of $16.90/MWh,
the hydrogen energy cost is very close to $50/bbl.
Add $2/bbl for carbon, and ~$10/bbl for the capital cost of the F/T
plant. Carbon-neutral synthetic oil (fuel actually) would cost
~$62/bbl, possibly less with more process optimization. For example,
there is no reason for inverters, the PV DC output can directly power
the electrolysis cells. This should reduce the cost of energy in
hydrogen below 1.69 cents per kWh.
The take-home is that in some places PV has gotten so inexpensive that
it would be possible to make carbon-neutral synthetic hydrocarbons to
replace natural oil for about the same price.
The area needed for the PV is huge, 120% of Saudia Arabia or about 28%
of the Sahara Desert. (check these numbers, 100 million
bbls/day/34,000 bbl.day, ~30,000 plants at ~90 square km/plant.)
34,000 bbl per day is a rate of around 1466 bbl/hr. At 3 MWh/bbl for
the hydrogen, the average input to the hydrogen cells would be 4.25 GW
and the peak about 4 times higher.
Sunlight comes down at a ~GW/km^2. Between the peak to average and
the PV efficiency, a factor of about ~20 needs to need to be applied.
This takes the PV area per plant up to 85-90 square km.
It could be done over a number of years, but the cost is going to be a
problem. If we built the plants at 3000 a year, that alone would be
$3 T. I am not sure what the capital cost for the PV would be,
probably 4-5 times the billion-dollar plant cost.
I don't believe this option has been considered in the context of the
global effects of CO2.
After checking the math and finding I had the area off by a factor of
ten, I am not so sure it is something that could be considered. The
Sasol plant cost a billion dollars. 30,000 would be $3 T a year for
ten years. Also, the area needed is so large that much black PV might
cause serious weather problems.
Sigh, it's not easy to make use of renewables, especially PV.
As Mike Sneed notes, for the same power from power satellites the
rectenna area would be around 1/5th.
Keith
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CAPiwVB7QA0DD7TSGGNw%2B2EzXCuOXr3h3AaAYFOfqa4%3DKv0O4MA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CAPiwVB7H3-yC4Fdog-FAbTk8NdTxtaba7ewB%3D5f0mRQ%3DuKfwnQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Hydrogen is hard to store, but ammonia is a good option for fuel cells, and it can be stored more easily.
Charlie
I like to provide Gigawatt or Terawatt rates and Gigawatt or Terawatt hours values for energy storage.
So for 4 months, how many Terawatts are needed, either as an average or a base load value. Base load is typically about 66-75% of the average load.
Also the storage efficiency: the energy in GWH out divided by the energy in GWH put into the storage system.
For example, a typical large but not huge city has a base load demand of at least 1 Gigawatt. 4 months of 1GW of power would be 2191 Gigawatt-hours.
With its large hydroelectric reservoir, the Niagara pump-generation system can probably store about 4 Gigawatt-hours of power, likely used at a rate of about 500 megawatts for 8 hours.
Thus, if this crude calculation is right, to store 2191 Gigawatt-hours would take about 550 Niagara sized reservoirs and the massive row of pump-generators to make them work.
Not all areas have topography to allow such storage.
However, pump-generators are surprisingly efficient and there is no loss of energy while the power is stored (other than tiny amounts of evaporation).
John S
From: power-satell...@googlegroups.com [mailto:power-satell...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Keith Henson
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 7:28 PM
To: Power Satellite Economics <power-satell...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A proposed way to replace natural oil with renewable oil
On Friday, 12 March 2021 at 15:30:33 UTC-8 Charlie Jackson wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/eb84563d-63ec-4fe4-a5de-1b34a4b08c37n%40googlegroups.com.
"Combined cycle turbines are over 60% so the round trip would be close to 33%."
Except, Keith, when Southern company built gas turbine plant
(Dahlberg), they were not combined cycle.
The reason? Because they are too expensive to build. All that
extra hardware is not free.
Darel
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/eb84563d-63ec-4fe4-a5de-1b34a4b08c37n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/eb84563d-63ec-4fe4-a5de-1b34a4b08c37n%40googlegroups.com.
"Not all areas have topography to allow such storage."
Good topography, geology & technology to match for bulk
storage are extremely rare. In this country the good (cost
effective) sites are built already. The previous owner and
parent company of APEX CAES for example identified 1500
candidate sites in Iowa for a CAES and still haven't built one -
7 years after Siemens bought the Dresser-Rand company to build a
CAES plant in Texas.
"The Iowa Stored Energy Park was an innovative, 270 Megawatt, $400 million compressed air energy storage (CAES) project proposed for in-service near Des Moines, Iowa, in 2015. After eight years in development the project was terminated because of site geological limitations. However, much was learned in the development process regarding what it takes to do a utility-scale, bulk energy storage facility and coordinate it with regional renewable wind energy resources in an Independent System Operator (ISO) marketplace.. https://www.tdworld.com/grid-innovations/distribution/article/20961512/lessons-from-iowa-development-of-a-270-megawatt-compressed-air-energy-storage-project-in-midwest-independent-system-operator
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/019501d71875%245d523d70%2417f6b850%24%40sbcglobal.net.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/fb6e701b-a796-d9d3-6408-17aa4ac37b77%40tpg.com.au.
Mark,There's a thought! Large radiators Instead of large solar arrays to get rid of 70% of the thermal energy.
Dallas BienhoffFounderCislunar Space Development Company, LLC8455 Chapelwood Ct.Annandale, VA 22003571-232-4554 (cell)571-459-2660 (Office)On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 7:46 PM Mark Sonter <sont...@tpg.com.au> wrote:Anybody ever thought about massive multi-Gigawatt NUCLEAR powerplants in
geostationary, powerbeaming to Earth???
Mark
Mark J Sonter