Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Titan Thread (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Titan and LNG

Unread postby Jenab » Thu 14 Oct 2004, 12:41:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mmm', 'I')f Titan is covered in LNG, doesn't that mean that Natural Gas is not a fossil fuel (produced from decaying plant/animal matter)? And if LNG isn't a fossil fuel, doesn't that mean coil and oil are also probably not fossil fuels as well, since they are often not found together?

There is such a thing as primordial methane, which formed in the interstellar medium prior to the collapse of the gas cloud that became the sun and planets of our solar system.

The universe probably appeared as the result of the required uncertainty in vacuum energy states. There's a physical law called the uncertainty principle that says that the product of changes in energy level and the length of an interval of time cannot exceed a certain (very small) number. What that means is this: while it is permitted for something to add up to zero energy when all its component parts are summed, the distribution of the positives and negatives must remain open to flux.

Hence, even in a "perfect" vacuum, there's always this boiling of energy potentials, as electric and magnetic fields randomly vary within. We don't see this turbulence because it takes place on a quantum scale, much too small for our eyes to notice, and the fluxes tend to cancel each other out by the time you reach the scale of size that we are equipped to deal with.

Our universe might be a result of that boiling: a bubble of spacetime having contents that add up to zero, or almost, which from the outside might pop in-and-out of existence so fast that it wouldn't be noticed, but which from the inside seems to persist because we adjudge "time" to be a dimension that the universe has in ample measure.

Anyway, the first thing to appear within our universe was a sea of pure radiation, probably having a blackbody distribution, but with a characteristic temperature so high that the peak of that distribution was far off in the high gamma-ray spectrum. Shazam! Let there be light.

Now, when radiation is composed of photons that energetic, what tends to happen is something called pair production. Photons find themselves unstable under Bose-Einstein statistics, so some cosmic gremlin comes along and changes a sign in the denominator of those statistics, so that they click over to Fermi-Dirac statistics, at which time they are no longer photons, but quarks, anti-quarks, electrons, positrons, neutrinos, or anti-neutrinos.

(I'm not all that wise about how pair production actually happens; I just know that it does, so I invented the gremlin to cover my ignorance.)

Of course, there's some early matter-antimatter annihilation, which produces some secondary gamma radiation. But after all is said and done, the universe has a net surplus of matter, in the form of quarks and leptons, to go with the radiation which is now mostly composed of photons under 1 MeV.

(Neutrinos and electrons are among the more important leptons.)

The quarks team up with other quarks and become bonded with the strong nuclear force, forming muons (2-quark particles) and baryons (3-quark particles). Protons are probably the most important of the baryons thus produced. Some of the protons capture electrons and become neutrons, a time reverse of the beta-decay process.

Also, a few protons and neutrons happen to locate each other to form deuterium and helium nuclei.

Now hydrogen is simply a proton. When it has an electron to go with it, it is "neutral hydrogen." Without the electron, it's "ionized hydrogen."

At first, the temperature of the universe is too high for electrons to form stable orbits around protons, so all the matter in the universe is ionized, which means, among other things, that space isn't yet dark, or black. It's white-hot. Everywhere glows.

But as space keeps expanding, the positive energy of the radiation in it must spread over more volume, which brings the temperature down. When the temperature falls under 3000 Kelvin, electrons start clicking into stable energy states around protons, and matter shifts from the plasma state into the un-ionized gaseous state.

Gravity has been working all this time to pry the clouds of plasma, and then gas, into clumps, using the initially small asymmetries in the spatial distribution of material as leverage. The clouds of hydrogen and helium fall into great big clumps, which have internal asymmetries of their own. So the great big clumps fission into smaller clumps, each of which contract under its own gravity, and this process of fission and contraction continues until galaxies and stars are born.

The first stars contain nothing heavier than helium. The big ones of those go through their whole life cycle creating those heavier elements through nucleosynthesis, and finally explode as supernovas. The galaxies meanwhile still contain a fair bit of unaccreted gas in the form of nebulae, and the exploding supernovas send massive waves of heavy-element enriched gas through them. This not only laces those nebulae with carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and other elements, it also causes a shock-wave compression of the nebula, which might increase the density of the nebula to the point where it can contract under its own gravity into new stars.

The later generations of stars, then, have metals. (Stellar astronomers refer to all elements heavier than helium as "metals," which means they don't speak quite the same language that chemists do.) The planets that form around these later stars also contain stuff like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc.

Now, it often happens inside of nebulae, that the lonely carbon atom will encounter, and shack up with, some number of willing hydrogen atoms. That's how methane forms in interstellar space. More complicated molecules have also been known to form, but methane is among the more common molecules. But as the density of a nebula grows in response to gravitational accretion, say, into a planet like Jupiter or a moon like Titan, it becomes more likely that the lonely carbon atom will get lucky in finding hydrogen atoms to consort with.

That's why there's so much primordial methane in the outer solar system.

But Earth formed too close to the sun for it to keep its primordial methane. The sun got rid of it by two processes: thermally agitated escape and photochemical dissociation. All the methane on Earth, or anyway, the great preponderance thereof, is the result of chemical reactions that took place later, and most of those reactions are those that produced the other fossil fuels. Methane is a paraffin, the simplest one. The others are ethane, butane, propane, pentane, hexane, heptane, octane...gasoline, kerosene, etc.

Jerry Abbott
Last edited by Jenab on Thu 14 Oct 2004, 21:57:13, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jenab
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia

Re: Burn it in jovian orbit and beam power to Earth

Unread postby Jenab » Thu 14 Oct 2004, 21:41:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ted', 'O')ther posters have already pointed out that adding more combustion on Earth is probably a bad idea. Repent's initial post implicitly suggested this by pointing out that all the oxygen in our atmosphere would not burn the fuel available on Jupiter (or Titan, for that matter).

Quite right. In any case, we should forget about trying to preserve industrial civilization at the planetary scale: it's simply too big to be safe. Terrestrial culture should have remained at the feudal level, except for an elite of high-tech spacefarers, whose mission was to carry the seed of Earth's life to other habitable planets, keeping the spark of technology alive at least until that had been done.

Notice that what has occurred is that a relatively tiny percentage of people did very, very well by this global civilization, while the fortunes of the masses are no better than, and in some cases worse than, they'd have been in a feudal world - though, of course, a feudal world would have only 10% as many people as ours does. The world was deliberately ruined by a comparative handful of selfish men who managed to subvert governments, buy the laws they wanted, and arrange things so that most of the guns would point in the directions of their choosing.

Now I'm not a Christian, but I think that Ezekiel 18:13 makes a very wise statement about what to do with usurers, preferably before the usurers get the kind of power they wield in our world.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ezekiel 18:13', 'A') man who has made a loan upon interest, and has gained thereby, should not be permitted to live: whoever commits such abominations must die; his blood shall be upon him.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ted', 'A') better way to exploit extraterrestrial fuels for exothermic reactions would be to include oxygen and halogens in the "fuel" category, and burn the fuels near their extraction points to power lasers pumping a network of space stations that relay the power likewise to where it's needed, namely the Moon, the Earth, and elsewhere throughout the solar system.

Resources should be extracted only according to a constructive need for them, in the context of furthering the mission of spreading Earthly life through the universe. If one resource is a bottleneck, then other resources should be used only to the level permitted by the bottleneck, until it is loosened to permit greater throughput. If using a resource for one purpose endangers something of higher value, then the resource should not be used until the danger is removed. Such simple rules. So easily disregarded by selfish men.

Lasers are very high-gain emissions of radiation. But the gain isn't infinite. The beams do spread, even in TEM 00 radiation mode (Gaussian cross-sectional intensity profile). They aren't going to solve your problems of transmitting power across interplanetary distances.

Jerry Abbott
User avatar
Jenab
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia

Unread postby mortifiedpenguin » Mon 25 Oct 2004, 16:45:58

This topic has given me a real problem. You see, I'm trying to keep the impression that I'm a nice guy, while trying to tell Repent that this is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.
mortifiedpenguin
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri 15 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

THE Titan Thread (merged)

Unread postby duff_beer_dragon » Mon 01 Nov 2004, 13:59:33

the frogurt is also cursed
duff_beer_dragon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: the Village

Unread postby frankthetank » Mon 01 Nov 2004, 16:46:34

We'd' be better off getting moon matter...and using it in nuclear reactors.

I'm still trying to figure out this Mars mission. We can't make it, what 2 years, in an Arizona biosphere, but we plan on making it to Mars and back? Good luck.
User avatar
frankthetank
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6202
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Southwest WI

God helps those who help themselves, not hinder themselves

Unread postby duff_beer_dragon » Tue 02 Nov 2004, 09:17:51

Yeah that's right, just keep going the wrong way. What sort of plan is that? You know that fossil fuels shouldn't have been selected over what was already availible, yet, despite those things still being availible plus a whole lot more of it's kind, you are still thinking of trying to re-create the Sun on a planet orbiting it to use for power. How stupid do you have to be? Are you part of an imbecile contest to see just how wrong the wrong way you can all go ? Cause to me your constant ignoring of actual reality and desperation to go headlong into oblivion and take as many others with you as you possibly can, smacks of 'i think there are gods or aliens up there and i'm going to do everything wrong to make them show their faces' - cause what you are like just doesn't make any normal kind of sense at all.

DOWNSIZE - most wealth anyway doesn't really exist. Look at how much stuff gets made for nothing, it isn't managed properly because of the idiot hostility to a one world way of doing things.

On biospheres - first of all, how is an artificial biosphere that is trying to mimic an entire planet in anyway connected to being in space?! Do you think the space stations are like that biosphere on this planet? You do realise that they were using plants to keep the oxygen levels up, and that in all likelihood it wouldn't have worked because they put too many people to plant and airspace ratios, plus probably the wrong amount of plants for the airspace availible, and on top of that - it's a little bit smaller than Earth, it doesn't have weather and an upper atmosphere that joins up with outer space. In one way it probably did mimic what would happen here - the plants wouldn't be altering their CO2 and O2 levels of output to suit us if there was some kind of imbalance ; we depend on them, so the ecosystem would need to lose us first because it can re-generate from the plants.

(You cannot petition the lord with prayer.)
the frogurt is also cursed
duff_beer_dragon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: the Village

Unread postby Lightning » Wed 10 Nov 2004, 04:25:00

New info!

Last week the air force proved teleportation possible!

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology ... 41103.html

After all if it wasn't they wouldn't have spent 7.5 million dollars.

So we can use p-teleportation (psychic) to transfer matter from jupiter to the earth for free.
User avatar
Lightning
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed 10 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Unread postby dhickerson » Wed 10 Nov 2004, 16:36:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Concerned', 'T')itan : No Smoking :lol::P

Somehow I doubt there is sufficient oxygen availible there to create an actual fire/explosion, let alone smoke.

With all this talk about bringing hydrocarbons or hydrogen from Jupiter or Saturn (or one of their moons) I think we are missing a more realistic idea. Our own moon. Although it has little or no useable resources except helium 3 (which may or may not be present in useable quantities and may or may not be useful if it is present) it does have almost 24/7 access to the sun uninhibited by our weather. Wouldn't it be much more feasible to build solar colectors on the moon and then transmit that energy back to earth?

I'm not convinced it is even possible to do this, but it has to be more likely than gathering jovian resources (at least at this stage in our development).
User avatar
dhickerson
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Ohio
Top

Unread postby Flint749 » Fri 12 Nov 2004, 12:38:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') previous post said Extracting methane from Jupiter would be limited to a 100 ton extraction. Why? Methane in a frozen state in the vacuum of space could be transported externally to the space vessel. It could be like a space train- 200 or more 100 ton extractions hooked up in sequence- external to the space vessel.


I don't find the idea of harvesting resources from other bodies in the solar system ridiculous. I think, though, that it's too late. We reached a terminal point, a point of no return, when we no longer had sufficient excess energy to reasonably fund such a project, or to fund a major project to find an alternative to oil and build the necessary infrastructure.

People had better get used to the idea of making their own clothes, food and energy. Or make your peace with God.
User avatar
Flint749
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri 12 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby BILL_THA_PHARMACIZT » Fri 12 Nov 2004, 12:46:02

why not just go to the moon and extract the helium 3...?

my guess is we probably never went in hte first place.

say what u want...

everything in this world is a scam one way or another.
User avatar
BILL_THA_PHARMACIZT
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue 17 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Rod_Cloutier » Fri 07 Jan 2005, 21:03:25

I really feel this article should be moved back to a more serious forum. As remarked before it deals exclusively with real issues of hydrocarbon depletion, and space based resource possiblities.

If space resources are going to be developed in time (ie when the oil is exhaused around 2040) then we need to begin planning and harvesting these resources in the near term. Very real space resource possiblities need to be brought to the front and center of contemporary political discussion and debate.

As we are faced with the certain and inevitable exhaustion of carbon resources on Earth, we must begin to quickly find suitable supplies elsewhere. Without these planetary resources we will certainly meet an equally certain depression and/or die-off when our supplies run out.
Rod_Cloutier
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Winnipeg, Canada

Unread postby clv101 » Sat 08 Jan 2005, 04:39:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Repent', 'I') really feel this article should be moved back to a more serious forum.

I don't.

The space industry is one of the most energy intensive, energy expensive things we do. It's not something to promote when facing a lower energy future.

At best it will provide a source of energy... so human civilisation will just hit the next buffer be it pollution, water, dieses etc. A techno solution is not and can not be a long term solution. It just delays the inevitable, delays the point when growth has to stop. The longer we manage to patch up the existing system the bigger the problems will be in the future.

At worst (and far more likely in my opinion) it will divert scarce resources, energy, brain power etc from useful projects concerned with the transition to sustainable civilisation.

I’ve said it many times on the site, the worse thing we can do is to try and maintain exiting civilisation against the odds. It's fundamentally unsustainable, the sooner we recognise this and act accordingly the better.

Massively complex technology based endeavours are not the future!
User avatar
clv101
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed 02 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Bristol, UK
Top

Unread postby 2007 » Sat 08 Jan 2005, 10:46:42

Just read this article on BBC about something called 'gamma-ray bursts' - whatever that is.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')RBs are the most powerful explosions in the Universe, releasing more than one hundred billion times the energy our Sun emits in a year.

Wow! what an eroei
User avatar
2007
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon 23 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Sat 08 Jan 2005, 13:25:23

Yeah, gamma rays can kill. If there was is supernova in our neck o' the galaxy, the gamma rays would strip away our ozone and turn the sky brown. No more carying capacity problem because no more carrying capacity!
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There

Unread postby 0mar » Sat 08 Jan 2005, 17:11:56

The "best" space fuel right now for our needs would probably be He-3.

Of course, He-3 needs a working fusion reactor, something we haven't quite gotten to yet.

In all seriousness, space fuels and such are only useful for a Type-1 or Type 1.5 civilization. I'd say right now, we are at a Type .3 or less.

For those that don't know what I'm talking about.

Type 1 - complete harnessing of the Planet
Type 2 - complete harnessing of the solar system
Type 3 - complete harnessing of the galaxy
Type 4 - complete harnessing over the known universe
Joseph Stalin
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
User avatar
0mar
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Davis, California

Unread postby rerere » Sat 08 Jan 2005, 19:55:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flint749', ' ')We reached a terminal point, a point of no return, when we no longer had sufficient excess energy to reasonably fund such a project, .


Bull.

There is X about of harvestable solar energy (wind/PV/Plant-animal oils) that hits this planet every day. If Y people consume Z amount, a point can be made where either Z or Y drops and the excess X can be converted into rocket fuel/space elevators/et la.

It becomes a matter if society decides that 'yes, "we" need to get to space to accomplish some task" either by force of government(s) or to, say, alter a meteor so it does not enter the earth's gravity well.
User avatar
rerere
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby rerere » Sat 08 Jan 2005, 20:01:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Repent', 'A')s we are faced with the certain and inevitable exhaustion of carbon resources on Earth, .


Incorrect.

The carbon is not 'exhausted' - it is in a lower energy form - CO2.

Your proposed 'solution' - bring in Methane from Jupiter adds Carbon and Hydrogen then reacts it with Oxygen.

No where does your 'lets go to space and gey Carbon/Hydrogen' deal with the reacted Oxygen (That means LESS O2 for breathing), the additional weight, more water, and increased CO2 in the air.

Exactly how does your 'lets go to space' plan answer the above?
User avatar
rerere
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Rod_Cloutier » Sat 08 Jan 2005, 21:53:22

rerere- Its possible to be pro- global warming. Life on Earth is most abundant in tropical hot areas, less glaciation and permafrost almost certainly means increased ecological abundance.

Melting glaciers, polar caps and other ice cover release free oxygen trapped within the ice which would make up for the oxygen being used. I don't know of anyone concerned with the added weight of putting carbon in the atmosphere, higher atmospheric pressures would likely mean less storm activity (storms form in low pressure weather patterns).

Finally why not look to space for energy? Do we all have to be so pessimistic about the future that we have to accept all the "doom and gloom" forcasts in regards to the peak oil problem.
Rod_Cloutier
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Winnipeg, Canada

Unread postby rerere » Sat 08 Jan 2005, 23:22:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Repent', 'r')erere- Its possible to be pro- global warming. Life on Earth is most abundant in tropical hot areas, less glaciation and permafrost almost certainly means increased ecological abundance.

Melting glaciers, polar caps and other ice cover release free oxygen trapped within the ice which would make up for the oxygen being used. .


So you are ignoring the additional weight and ignoring the Permian mass extinction.
Oh, and this O2 - do you actually have volume numbers, or are ya just waving your hands about?

The only good thing about your 'lets go to space and get methane' is any future childern will be dead. The downside - to kill you, your idea, and kids off is by whipping out most of the planet in a global warming induced methane 'burp'.

Adding energy or matter to the closed Earth system without keeping the system in balance WILL result in the destruction of the biosphere. It is too bad you do not understand such a simple idea.

But when one comes from a position of a gluttonous consumption, moderation looses out to 'going and getting more'. The whole basis of your proposal is becuse YOU can't accept that Hydrocarbons are stored solar power that you didn't store, but feel you should reap the reward of energy gathering and concentration over many thousands of years.

Now, propose a plan where energy in space is harvested, materials are refined in space and the very high value refined materials are shipped back to Earth while lower value bits of Earth are shipped off to keep the mass a zero sum game, great.
User avatar
rerere
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby brentmeister » Sun 09 Jan 2005, 07:51:25

This thread was just a wind-up, right?
User avatar
brentmeister
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue 23 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: melbourne

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest