More on ground solar

[Keith Henson]

The major advantage power satellites have over ground solar is
constant power. So ways to turn intermittent ground solar into steady
power improve the relative cost of ground solar.

This idea evolved out of the need for any renewable power source to
make some hydrocarbons for mobile use.

The cost of such fuel largely comes down to the cost of making
hydrogen. Electrolytic hydrogen takes 50 MWh/ton plus the capital
cost of the electrolyzers which is high due to the platinum in them
and, if they are fed on intermittent power, the poor capital
utilization.

Using electricity to heat carbon in steam takes 10 MWh/ton of hydrogen
because much of the energy is coming from carbon. Syngas made this
way has about 4 times the energy as the electricity used for heat to
make it. This should be relatively simple and low-cost. Alas, it is
not simple. Getting heat into a reaction vessel full of steam using
electric arcs does not look like an acceptable idea because the steam
will eat up the arc rods at a high rate.

The other way (used to melt steel) is a variation on an induction
furnace. They work by wrapping a coil around a non-conductive shell.
The magnetic field causes eddy currents in the material inside heating
it with relatively small losses. The cost of such a carbon vaporizer
is not certain, but on a hydrogen production per day basis, it should
be much less expensive than electrolysis cells.

The other problem is that it takes a ton and a half of steam for every
ton of carbon vaporized. Making steam is about 10% of the energy
used. The current thought about large vaporizers (9000 tons per day)
is to feed trash and coal into the top, along with water in pipes
around the sides, have the water heated to 1600 C in the pool of slag
at the bottom, and use the hot steam to make syngas out of the carbon.
The hot upflowing syngas would heat the steam pipes. The syngas will
be full of pyrolysis products (read smoke) and will need to go through
a hot cleaning process and be dried before the gas can be sent to
storage.

It is a big project, but it beats incinerators by not giving off any
dioxins, landfills by not producing methane and the stored gas can be
used in turbines. With a decent sized storage field, it can do
seasonable storage. or you can make jet fuel or diesel.

The main problem is that we don't make enough trash. But it will take
biomass in place of trash and coal.

Keith

[Paul Werbos]

On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 12:05 PM Keith Henson <hkeith...@gmail.com> wrote:

The major advantage power satellites have over ground solar is
constant power.  So ways to turn intermittent ground solar into steady
power improve the relative cost of ground solar.

Earth solar varies a LOT, especially as snake oil salesmen want to sell one thing (like subsidized solar panel from provincial governments in China) VERSUS the best technology for this purpose, as in the best IEEE sources. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14JNhumdUGzAkoOadlXiR1fqE79WPOLsL?usp=drive_link

The best technology includes the thermal storage technology pioneered and tested in Chile,

coupled to the best power tower thermal solar farm technology. That makes the solar farm output MORE VALUABLE than  any of the baseload technologies, because one can adapt the output to match actual time of day demand as it varies in real time. Batteries not needed.

 

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CAPiwVB5kW-8Wk9ZpkuR%3D09Em-2810fSVUFYgBQStSo3_kLj_Ng%40mail.gmail.com.

[Keith Henson]

Paul, this is a new approach to making cheap fuel from intermittent
solar and any carbon source. It is based on gas-making technology
from the mid-1800s.

It is the only method I know of that can store solar seasonally. It
does require a reduced carbon source, trash, coal, or biomass. If you
are using trash or biomass and are mostly making hydrogen and
sequestering the CO2, these plants provide energy *and* remove CO2
from the atmosphere.

It will take some heavy development and investment. Los Angeles will
take 9 or 10 three GW vaporizers and the installation of about 30 GW
in new solar farms.

Keith

[Tim Cash]

Perhaps we are being far too harsh on "snake oil salesmen".

Perhaps snake oil has positive benefits for human health that we have neither explored or understood?

How does the snake slither along the ground and underground without encountering serious injuries to his/her skin?

Think about it.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CAPiwVB7se2gxgk-nLaOMNETZGRkcQ1eSPwFS_TO-2JRHuBPd2A%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Tim Cash

cash...@gmail.com

[a.p.kothari astrox.com]

I suppose Shedding the skin is the endeavor it uses to remove erstwhile damaged skin.

Alas, we can’t do that!

 

 

------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Ajay P. Kothari

President

Astrox Corporation

 AIAA Associate Fellow

 

Ph: 301-935-5868

Web:  www.astrox.com

Email: a.p.k...@astrox.com

-------------------------------------------------------

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CAA%3Dt13yp%2BbrTwUFEoiuoDWVfrhGs6sb-B4mbriuu4NEnBNYfGQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Werbos]

On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 11:06 PM Keith Henson <hkeith...@gmail.com> wrote:

Paul, this is a new approach to making cheap fuel from intermittent
solar and any carbon source.  It is based on gas-making technology
from the mid-1800s.

Hi, Keith! 

I certainly remember that gas making technology. I had several joint papers with

Tom McAvoy of UMCP, who was the world leader in control of large energy chemical plants,

including Tennessee Eastmann, which was a major watershed in many ways. I remember the day when I complained to my wife I can't get a list of the inputs and outputs, and she laughed; she had the full plant design map on the PC we shared! From DOE, I funded Merrow and Hovarth of RAND to get us good calibrated cost estimates.

THE STORY 10 YEARS AGO

Ten years ago, I would have said -- the global energy market (see werbos.com climate links) is basically two or three segments -- electric power, transportation, and agriculture+related.

For electric power, the day to night storage problem is a major factor, because of the difference between day and night. SEASONAL storage is much easier. The best locations for solar farms tend to be in places closer to the equator, and the electricity market really does not "WANT" super expensive solutions like pools of hydrogen. (There are techniques like pumped hydro and market incentives

which reduce any remaining cost due to the seasonal issues.) 

Where plants like Tennessee Eastman could be most useful is in the transportation fuel sector.

In 2009, when I handled climate for Senator Specter, we even worked across party lines to craft a bill which would leave key decisions to the market, BUT ALSO have the effect of maximizing the market-based development of that technology. (See werbos.com/oil.htm.) FUEL STORAGE is not exactly a radical or unavailable idea in that sector.

SINCE THEN...

Oil company lobbyists (many of them people imported from international operations where the job was to influence foreign governments as quietly as possible) succeeded in gutting Bush's EISA law.

As a result... and as a result of them blocking Specter's bill... and as a result of success in electrification R&D... yes, we need to consider how the economic segments change when the market goes closer to all-electric than we had expected. 

But the numbers for fuels like hydrogen was SO bad, it would not make it even then. 

The last serious study I did of this was for the Solar Energy Research Consortium of Chile (which I am still connected to). The best way to handle seasonal variations was by trade between Chile and Brazil, which has the world's best pumped hydro and lots of storage in the agricultural sector, which is huge, a model for the entire earth. Now Argentina could strengthen all that a LOT, but lots of connections still need to be brought into balance. 

[Paul Werbos]

This gets back to the issue of longevity in biological species. Probably Keith would not want us to distract people by getting too deep into that topic.. even though for some of us longevity is

a very important issue in itself, with lots of science and politics of its own.

For global politics... Age Related Cognitive Decline (ARCD) really does cry out for new 

actions, but not on this list. I HAVE wondered about whether South America might have possibilities that way... 

[Steven Fowkes]

Snake oil, when fresh, has properties similar to cold-water fish and krill oils. The polyunsaturates fatty acids are highly anti-inflammatory and quite therapeutic under wound-healing and infectious circumstances.  PUFAs make membranes more permeable, which raises cellular respiration rate (BMR).  This has also been promoted for autoimmune diseases.  Snake oil was extracted by healers and shamans to very efficacious purposes, despite its long-term risks of peroxidation.

Of course, the snake oil sold by wagon-traveling salespersons in the 1800s was rancid.  Rancid polyunsaturated oils are carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic. They impair natural healing mechanisms.  They are a natural poison.  Rancid PUFAs are an ongoing risk to consumers to this day.  If you can taste acridity on your rear taste buds, the oil is “gone” and should be tossed in the garbage or your compost pit.  I also suggest using an old toothbrush to brush your molars with any suspect oil and judge any increase in gag reflex.

This was an “early" example of the human fad mentality.  The early reputation of snake oil was exploited by salespersons who knew nothing about peroxidation, which predictably boomeranged for the long-term reputation of snake oil.  It has become the meme for fraud.  

In out modern age, this has become entrenched as an investment strategy.  Buy a company with a good reputation, reformulate their product with cheap and/or inferior ingredients, and claim a higher profit as long as the reputation persists.  —Steve

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CAA%3Dt13yp%2BbrTwUFEoiuoDWVfrhGs6sb-B4mbriuu4NEnBNYfGQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Keith Henson]

On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 5:49 AM Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 11:06 PM Keith Henson <hkeith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Paul, this is a new approach to making cheap fuel from intermittent
>> solar and any carbon source. It is based on gas-making technology
>> from the mid-1800s.
>
> Hi, Keith!
> I certainly remember that gas making technology. I had several joint papers with
> Tom McAvoy of UMCP, who was the world leader in control of large energy chemical plants,
> including Tennessee Eastmann, which was a major watershed in many ways.

Do you know of anyone who has proposed using solar electricity to heat
carbon in steam to make syngas?

I think I am the first to propose this, but if someone proposed it
before I did, I am scrupulous about credit and will cite them.

> I remember the day when I complained to my wife I can't get a list of the inputs and outputs, and she laughed; she had the full plant design map on the PC we shared! From DOE, I funded Merrow and Hovarth of RAND to get us good calibrated cost estimates.

If you have reduced carbon, trash, coal, or biomass, the energetics
are interesting. It takes 3 MWh to vaporize a ton of carbon in steam,
the energy content of the syngas is around 13 MWh, a bit over 4 to
one.

A serious vaporizer is a major chunk of hardware, at 1000 tons per
hour, which is the rate for a local landfill over 9 hours it takes 3
GW of intermittent power. I have sweated for months over how to get
this much power in. Carbon arc heaters don't look promising because
they evaporate in the steam. The other alternative is an induction
furnace, but one 60 times larger than any so far built.

> THE STORY 10 YEARS AGO
>
> Ten years ago, I would have said -- the global energy market (see werbos.com climate links) is basically two or three segments -- electric power, transportation, and agriculture+related.
>
> For electric power, the day to night storage problem is a major factor, because of the difference between day and night. SEASONAL storage is much easier. The best locations for solar farms tend to be in places closer to the equator, and the electricity market really does not "WANT" super expensive solutions like pools of hydrogen.

Hydrogen is an awful way to store energy. It takes 50 MWh/ton to make
in addition to the capital charges for the poorly used electrolysis
cells. This method takes 10 MWh/ton and the vaporizer is much less
expensive since it is not full of platinum. You can sort out the
hydrogen, but it is a lot less complicated to just store the syngas
and burn it when the sun is down. This does take access to an oil or
gas field.

(There are techniques like pumped hydro and market incentives
> which reduce any remaining cost due to the seasonal issues.)

I am not aware of any seasonal pumped storage.

Keith