Petrol from thin air

[Denis]

If you can get electricity into the "Damn near free" category(like say, if they crack the secrets of fusion tommorrow, or we actually get a president with vision and start mass producing LFTR reactors), then it becomes viable. At 9c/Kwhr? Not gonna happen.

Particularly when your electricity generating plants are burning hydrocarbons. And the electricity generated is going to... produce hydrocarbons. You'd be better off sticking your head up your own asshole, it's more efficient.

The best way this would make sense is if you're using electricity generated by non-hydrocarbon means (like solar or wind) that has availability issues and you're using this process to solve the power storage problem, instead of batteries or flywheels or whatnot. This might almost be worth doing, now.

Another way it could make sense would be if you had more electricity than you needed (would require tech advances, yes) and you wanted to turn some of that electricity into hydrocarbons because you wanted lubricants, say, or industrial feed stocks. In our current world, this makes negative sense.

You need to look at "A Step Further Out" by Jerry Pournelle. In the 1980's he was trying to sell the idea of space-based solar-power satellites to the Regan administration. The idea is you put vast solar-power satellites into space, where solar power is constant and free. They beam the collected energy to earth using microwaves. Microwaves are nasty, so you put the collector antennae in uninhabited deserts. Use deserts near the sea (there are some) and you have water. With "free" electricity plus air plus water you can synthesise all the hydrocarbon fuel you want.

As Pournelle points out, over 99% of the resources of our solar system are outside our atmosphere, and we're stuck using up the finite local ones too fast since we aren't going out to collect what we need from space because we don't have the transport: it's raining soup and we don't have a bowl to collect it.

[Greg]

If you can get electricity into the "Damn near free" category(like say, if they crack the secrets of fusion tommorrow, or we actually get a president with vision and start mass producing LFTR reactors), then it becomes viable. At 9c/Kwhr? Not gonna happen.

Particularly when your electricity generating plants are burning hydrocarbons. And the electricity generated is going to... produce hydrocarbons. You'd be better off sticking your head up your own asshole, it's more efficient.

The best way this would make sense is if you're using electricity generated by non-hydrocarbon means (like solar or wind) that has availability issues and you're using this process to solve the power storage problem, instead of batteries or flywheels or whatnot. This might almost be worth doing, now.

Another way it could make sense would be if you had more electricity than you needed (would require tech advances, yes) and you wanted to turn some of that electricity into hydrocarbons because you wanted lubricants, say, or industrial feed stocks. In our current world, this makes negative sense.

You need to look at "A Step Further Out" by Jerry Pournelle. In the 1980's he was trying to sell the idea of space-based solar-power satellites to the Regan administration. The idea is you put vast solar-power satellites into space, where solar power is constant and free. They beam the collected energy to earth using microwaves. Microwaves are nasty, so you put the collector antennae in uninhabited deserts. Use deserts near the sea (there are some) and you have water. With "free" electricity plus air plus water you can synthesise all the hydrocarbon fuel you want.

As Pournelle points out, over 99% of the resources of our solar system are outside our atmosphere, and we're stuck using up the finite local ones too fast since we aren't going out to collect what we need from space because we don't have the transport: it's raining soup and we don't have a bowl to collect it.

I've read it. It's pretty much my 'more electricity than you needed' case. Discovering Pournelle affected me in a big way in the mid 80's (my early teen years). I highly recommend his anthology series, at least as much for the non-fiction essay content he works in as for the fiction.

[Aglifter]

As I recall, there were two main problems w the space satellites

A) I think the scales of cells needed was staggering

B) Talk about the mother of all weapons/terrorist targets...

[Yogimus]

I am of 2 minds in this: One half of me is screaming and pointing out the net energy loss in the process, the other half is screaming about the potential, and where this technology would be if a few decades of true research (as opposed to hobbyist level underfunded research) would get us.

[Aglifter]

It's better put into better reactor designs, or superconducting transmission lines

Physics means that there will never be a very efficient way to turn CO2 to hydrocarbons

Plants, essentially, are a solar-powered hydrocarbon producing facilities, which use CO2 as feedstock.

Eliminating tariffs in fuel ethanol will allow profitable ethanol, AKA hydrocarbons, into the US.

Or, research into cellulosic ethanol, or a more efficient wood gas system for industrial purposes, all do the same thing.

[Yogimus]

You are preaching to the side of me that lives today, but the dreamer just won't shut up.

[HTRN]

Plants, essentially, are a solar-powered hydrocarbon producing facilities, which use CO2 as feedstock.

Photsynthesis method for breaking molecular bonds is much less energy intense than what we currently use. A fair bit of research is being devoted to understanding it, and hopefully industrializing the process.

[Aglifter]

I don't know how possible that is. Trying to breed an algae, etc which can either take advantage of more intense levels of light/grow in an environment which protects it enough to reduce some if the non-fuel producing energy, may be possible.

Sugar cane and sugar beets were bred to maximize energy storage - there's, probably, lots of work left there, ESP for a specialized environment, such as dome kind of bioreactor.

There are tremendous possibilities in extracting more energy, such as recovering list energy from cellulose - wood gas could fuel quite a few vehicles using waste saw dust etc.

But, the efficiency from a biochem reaction stems from things like sites which are rate controlled by quantum effects, and building molecules one atom at a time.

Industrializing that chain is unlikely, IMO - it's simply vastly more complicated than anything man does.

Now, embracing the idea that "life processes = magic," and learning to use it as such, could lead to done real break-throughs.

[Yogimus]

I always loved the "Corn = Fuel" circlejerk, when sugar producing crops such as beets and cane were available.

[Denis]

As I recall, there were two main problems w the space satellites

A) I think the scales of cells needed was staggering

B) Talk about the mother of all weapons/terrorist targets...

On A, solar-cell technology has advanced a lot since the proof-of-concept testing in the 80's. If you had decent space access, you could / should have factories in space making high-quality zero-G semiconductor photocells. Better still, use nanomachinery to build your solar panels on the moon.

For light reading on B, read "Fallen Angels" by Niven / Pournelle. It used to be available in the Baen free library, but doesn't seem to be there any more; perhaps the paper version has been re-published.