Why awe imminently replacing fossil fuel? (was 1 GW/day of new ca

>> > Over the next 30 years we have to replace fossil fuel.
>>
>> What makes you think that? Have you read this?:
>>
> http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/kurt-zenz-house/the-limits-of-
> energy-storage-technology
>> The bottom line is that nature has given us hydrocarbons in the
>> form of fossil carbon and biomass, and their energy-mass and
>> energy-volume densities are superior to the thermodynamic limits
>> of nearly all conceivable alternatives. Thus, it's quite likely
>> that hydrocarbons of one form or another will be humanity's primary
>> energy storage medium for quite a long time.
>
> Interesting turn of phrase: the implication being that anything that
> actually could replace hydrocarbons has been dismissed (by Kurt & Alex
> personally) as inconceivable. :)
>
> If Polywell doesn't work out, I'd agree with him for many long range
> applications. But I can 'conceive' of the possibility that Polywell might
> work out. And even then I can also 'conceive' of a world where most short
> range (<300km) vehicles are electric, because energy density in terms of
> either mass or volume are not the only (or even the most important, or even
> in the top five) criteria in ground vehicle design.
>
> If they can't then that says something rather damning about their
> imagination, and/or knowledge. Which is only to be expected as neither
> author is a qualified expert in car/plane/ship engineering.
>
> "Indeed, 1 kilogram of crude oil contains nearly 50 mega-joules of chemical
> potential energy, which is enough to lift 1 metric ton to a height of around
> 5,000 meters."
>
> Hmm. Let's be generous...
> 1kg (refined) oil ~ 50MJ * 40% = 20MJ of useful energy
> 1kg (advanced) battery ~ 5MJ * 90% = 4.5MJ of useful energy
>
> Oil still wins, but by a factor of four, not ten, which is what they claim.
> The fact that both fail to mention efficiency (that is the ability to turn
> stored energy into *useful* work) is an irredeemable level of stupidity and
> dishonesty in a work on this kind subject. :(

It's just chemistry. The political thing about synthetic oil made
from power sat energy is that it's solar and it's hydrogen. Think of
synthetic hydrocarbons as a way to carry around hydrogen without using
high pressure or making it into a liquid. Indeed, a gallon of
gasoline has more hydrogen than a gallon of liquid H2.

And if we have oceans of energy, which power sats will give us, we can
afford the 50% energy loss to make gasoline from CO2 out of the air
and electrolytic hydrogen.

Incidentally, you don't have to be an expert in aircraft design to say
that hydrocarbons are going to be used as aircraft fuel for a long
time.

Keith Henson