Recycling of synthetic fuel CO2?

[Remundo]

good if you're afraid of the waves, you can get on dry land... or in structures mounted above the waves. Some have fun planting wind turbines more than 100 m high in the middle of the ocean...

besides, I propose to use wind towers as pillars for a maritime PV field.

Obviously some will yell for the landscape... you have to know what you want too.

[Remundo]

anyway for fun, I wrote in my PHRSD patent from 2008...

The solar potential is very important since, with
a thermoelectric conversion efficiency of 60% and 100
W/m² of average annual solar power:
- a semi-industrial installation of 100 m² (i.e.
10x10m) has an average electrical power of 6 kW
adapted to a well-insulated building of 15 apartments
"3 pieces"
- a large installation of 900 km², in a single square
30 km on a side, or divided into several islands in
sea ​​would produce 54 GW, or the equivalent of 54
nuclear power plants, which would double the power
electricity installed in France.
These offshore platforms are quite
conceivable since they have been largely mastered since
years in the context of oil extraction and that
the electricity produced can transit by submarine cable.
Moreover, in the case of a construction close to the
continent, their large perimeter could be developed
in quays to unclog marinas.

The PHRSD was the ultimate CSP optimization system, both optical and thermodynamic.

In the meantime, PV panels have simplified things and I think they manage to get the kWh cheaper than CSP despite lower efficiency. They do better on diffuse solar radiation, and of course the virtual absence of maintenance compared to CSP where you have to orient the mirrors, circulate heat transfer fluids and manage rotating mechanics.

[NCSH]

anyway for fun, I wrote in my PHRSD patent from 2008...

The solar potential is very important since, with
a thermoelectric conversion efficiency of 60% and 100
W/m² of average annual solar power:
- a semi-industrial installation of 100 m² (i.e.
10x10m) has an average electrical power of 6 kW
adapted to a well-insulated building of 15 apartments
"3 pieces"
- a large installation of 900 km², in a single square
30 km on a side, or divided into several islands in
sea ​​would produce 54 GW, or the equivalent of 54
nuclear power plants, which would double the power
electricity installed in France.
These offshore platforms are quite
conceivable since they have been largely mastered since
years in the context of oil extraction and that
the electricity produced can transit by submarine cable.
Moreover, in the case of a construction close to the
continent, their large perimeter could be developed
in quays to unclog marinas.

The PHRSD was the ultimate CSP optimization system, both optical and thermodynamic.

In the meantime, PV panels have simplified things and I think they manage to get the kWh cheaper than CSP despite lower efficiency. They do better on diffuse solar radiation, and of course the virtual absence of maintenance compared to CSP where you have to orient the mirrors, circulate heat transfer fluids and manage rotating mechanics.

According to an IRENA report that I mention in another thread, the cost of a thermodynamic hydrogen production system is now much more expensive than with PV.

One project obtained European funding for almost 15 years: it was Hydrosol I, II and III. He used kinds of catalytic converters on which water vapor heated to 800°C was reacted, heated by fields of mirrors, like CSP.
The active compound was simply Iron!
Despite this, collector mirror fields would cost around €2/kWp.
Too much, too late...

[Remundo]

So much so that a Mediterranean square with a side of 10 km can extract an average power of 10 GW.

You can make calculations, but the sea is really a merciless universe, nothing that is immersed in it or that floats on it can resist it. No way, except offshore wind, which is above the sea.

oh good?

The wind towers are levitating above the sea? Just like oil rigs? The boats ?

[Christophe]

He's right, the sea is very dangerous: gas pipelines can't resist it!

[sicetaitsimple]

The wind towers are levitating above the sea? Just like oil rigs? The boats ?

Come on, don't play the fool, you understand very well what I mean....

[Remundo]

and you too, right?

[NCSH]

based on 20 kWh electricity / L

the performance is not good, because 1L of fuel is 10 thermal kWh, which once converted into mechanical gives 2-3 mechanical kWh.

we therefore have an energy gulf, 90% of electrical primary energy is consumed. It's even worse than hydrogen.

Whereas if we put these 20 kWh directly into an electric vehicle, we can expect 18 mechanical kWh.

We come to the following conclusion: these "e fuel" techniques, in the current state of the yields they offer, should be reserved for areas where it is impossible to do without liquid fuels: aviation, heavy machinery (truck, construction site...).

Even today, reasoning in France on a purely financial aspect, 20 kWh elec costs 4 € under tariff shield. To give 1L of gasoline at 1,7€ (but only 60 ct€ excluding tax), we see that it does not fit...

Let's take the numbers from the right end, from solar energy:

First stage: conversion of solar energy with PV, therefore 20 to 25%, against 0.5 to 1%, at best 2 for Biomass-Energy.
Second stage: Hydrogen obtained by alkaline electrolysis, therefore 65 to 70%.
Third step: DAC + FT, so 40 to 50%.
Fourth step: Modern internal combustion engine: 40 or even 50%.

Finally, we have 2 to 4% of mechanical energy, but at will anywhere on the globe, off the power grid, at any time of the day, at all latitudes...
With Biomass-Energy, we could only count on 0.2 to 1%.

If we count with respect to the primary electrical energy, we go for 10 to 17.5% of final mechanical energy.

Some will call this progress, the new possibilities of modernity, others will scream death: yield, yield, yield,...

In one case, we would have a world maximum of a few hundred Mtoe, in the other, a few thousand Mtoe, at a price roughly equivalent to current fuels, if not a little higher.
1 km000 in tropical zones would be necessary, ie approximately 000% of desert and semi-desert surfaces, with a low impact on biodiversity, no conflict of use.

[sicetaitsimple]

in the other, a few thousand Mtoe, at a price roughly equivalent to current fuels, if not a little higher.

On the price, you may have to wait a bit, right? That some Finnish academics tell their story with great enthusiasm, no problem, but then you have to get down to business, and there usually bad news comes, especially about the costs of the factories, which you can't really want to an academic to know nothing about it.

[NCSH]

in the other, a few thousand Mtoe, at a price roughly equivalent to current fuels, if not a little higher.

On the price, you may have to wait a bit, right? That some Finnish academics tell their story with great enthusiasm, no problem, but then you have to get down to business, and there usually bad news comes, especially about the costs of the factories, which you can't really want to an academic to know nothing about it.

As for being enthusiastic, you can hardly fault this small group of Finnish academics.
They drew their costing elements from German manufacturers and other leaders in these innovative processes.
Maybe with a bit of optimism...

In this year with a lot of disturbing bad news, they open new perspectives.
This is by far what is lacking the most: it is very easy to sink into doom.

Happy Christmas to all.