Kyle R. Mcallister feels frustrated that no one responded to this
message. I sympathize; no doubt he put a lot of effort into it, but I
suppose people do not feel qualified to discuss the issue. I
certainly cannot judge the chemistry, but I can address the last sentence:
Is there actually enough useable (as in, we can actually really
harness it) wind around the US to power all this? Solar?
Probably, but that depends upon efficiency. If you can convert ~25%
of the solar or wind energy into liquid fuel, I think this would be
viable but it would cost a terrific amount of money and take up a
great deal of space for the collectors. If it is only 0.1% efficient,
like photosynthesis, it would take up most of the North American land area.
If you can convert with 50% efficiency then not only would this be
viable, it would be profitable, and probably superior to today's
fossil fuel extraction, especially when you look at the big picture,
political issues and so on. At 70% (roughly the efficiency of
electrolysis) my guess is that it would be obscenely profitable.
Given our existing infrastructure, I think that producing liquid fuel
is probably the best method of tapping solar or wind energy on a
large-scale. I am assuming you can ship the fuel over existing gas
and oil pipelines from the southwest (perhaps after retrofitting them
with new equipment). The problem is that most intense sources of
solar and wind energy are far from population centers, and you cannot
ship electricity over such long distances. The most recent issue of
the Scientific American had a big article about using high
temperature superconducting power lines cooled by liquid hydrogen,
where both electricity and the hydrogen would be used as a source of
energy. This would be an ambitious undertaking! Shipping liquid fuel
seems more practical to me.
- Jed
- Re: [Vo]: Methane as fuel, recycling CO2? Jed Rothwell
-
