New oil technology

So this means that we now have a petroleum cycle like nature has a water cycle. Behind sustainable nuclear fusion, this might be the greatest thing of the 21st century, though I can't say for sure since sustainable nuclear fusion might not happen this century and we're only 12 years into the 21st century.

 
Interesting that somebody actually produced a device that ripps the Carbon of Carbondioxide and the Hydrogen of Water and pieces together longer chains (altough I doubt that it has never been done in a lab before).

The idea however is not new and has been dismissed various times as very energy intensive. You have to put way more energy (several orders of magnitude) into the production of a liter of petrol, than you can ever gain from burning it again. It would probably be easier to produce petrol out of plastics, but that stuff floats around in the pacific, not in the air
icon_neutral.gif.b0f83bb9a6c588186c360413f364d0ca.gif
.

It wouldn't really create a petrol circle, because we would have to put loads of electrical energy into it to keep it going. In the long run, it's probably a better idea to overthink transportation in general and use those power plants we would build for petrol-out-of-thin-air-factories to power homes.

The whole thing reminds me of a conversation I had with my dad about two months ago, about teraforming Mars. It was something like "...the atmosphere on Mars is 95% Carbondioxide.... I guess if they every build a large scale device for turning Carbondioxide into Carbon and Oxygen, they would probably come up with the idea of transporting the Carbon back to earth to fuel power plants here..."

 
Yeah, I figured this would probably be at least as energy intensive as producing hydrogen, the main advantage here would be that you wouldn't have to scale out a new fleet of vehicles.

As for terraforming, even if Mars had the perfect combination of gases in the atmosphere, wouldn't it still be way too thin because the gravity isn't strong enough to have a thick enough breathable atmosphere?

 
Yeah, I figured this would probably be at least as energy intensive as producing hydrogen, the main advantage here would be that you wouldn't have to scale out a new fleet of vehicles.
Click to expand...
Producing hydrogen is currently not as energy intensive, because industrial hydrogen is produced from oil as well. Basicly it works through ripping the hydrogen off and releasing the remaining carbon as CO2, so as a fuel for cars it would be just the same as burning oil, just less efficient.

On the other hand, getting hydrogen from from water through electrolysis is also very energy intensive.

As for terraforming, even if Mars had the perfect combination of gases in the atmosphere, wouldn't it still be way too thin because the gravity isn't strong enough to have a thick enough breathable atmosphere?
Click to expand...
Yes the atmosphere is pretty thin and airpressure is lower as on earth, but it shoould be breathable(?). AFAIK scientists don't yet agree on why Mars has such a thin atmosphere. A common theory I knwo is that was basicly blown away by solar winds, as Mars has no magnetic field to shield them off, like earth. Other theories include, of course, asteroid impacts, et cetera.

But even if you had a breathable atmosphere, you would still have temperatures like on the south pole.

It sure seems like this and sustainable nuclear fusion are the perfect couple.
Click to expand...
It might be an intermediate solution for a smoother transition to newer technology, but certainly nothing longterm. In the long run, we are probably better off using the power from fusion more efficiently for transportation, instead of using the most energy demanding way possible (excluding short distance teleportation).

Also, if it was a closed circle it would keep the global CO2 level constant, instead of reducing it, which would be better, as the status quo already includes a lot of damage to the environment through raised temperatures.

But then again, we would have to be carefull not to get all the CO2 sucked out of the air through plants, causing a global cooling effect^^.

 
It wouldn't really create a petrol circle, because we would have to put loads of electrical energy into it to keep it going.
Click to expand...
At the moment the use of hydrocarbons as fuel for transportation solves two problems - energy production and energy transmission.

As and when fusion power becomes available, the production issue will largely go away and the question will be the most efficient energy transmission. Roughly speaking, we can choose among chemical batteries, synthetic hydrocarbons and hydrogen.

- Batteries have very low energy density and long recharge times (with significant improvements being unlikely).

- Hydrogen is difficult to store and transport and has low volumetric energy density (but is clean burning).

- Hydrocarbons have good energy density and are easy to transport and store (but give off CO2 when burned).

All in all, if the synthetic hydrocarbon process can be made economic with the cheap power from fission/fusion and it can be used to recycle some or all of the CO2 it gives off in combustion, then it will be much preferable to either hydrogen or batteries.

The greatest thing is that with a power source like fusion, the use of hydrocarbons ceases to be a necessity and becomes a matter of convenience. The overall consumption of hydrocarbons will dramatically fall, as will probably the price (with the price of synthetic fuel being the upper limiting factor, or the "incremental barrel" cost).

Regards

 
Mars would have to have MUCH more pressure to be breathable. We could create such an atmosphere, but it would have to be continually replenished at a low rate because Mars has no magnetic field, so any atmosphere would slowly be tripped away by the solar wind.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top