Re: Nothing like oil?
- From: jdnicoll@xxxxxxxxx (James Nicoll)
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:03:49 +0000 (UTC)
In article <ssCdneuUltXNpCTanZ2dnUVZ8ternZ2d@xxxxxx>,
Mike Dworetsky <platinum198@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"James Nicoll" <jdnicoll@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fp9bn8$so1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <u9WdnTN73ddJeCraRVnyigA@xxxxxx>,
Mike Dworetsky <platinum198@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
but I doubt we are gonna find fossil fuels on the Moon, Mars,
Asteroids,
Ringworlds or anyplace else we are likely to colonize or terraform.
No fossils to make fuel.
Titan has craploads of hydrocarbons,
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-release-details.cfm?newsID=814
Our fossil fuels may have a biological stage but there
are other ways to end up with lakes of what I will for the sake
of conversation "oil".
Due to strange behaviour of Outlook Express, the previous comments appeared
to be from me, not the previous poster. For some reason I could not get
reply quote > to work on that message.
Though the fact that Titan has lots of hydrocarbons is not disputed, going
to Saturn, landing on Titan, extracting it, and transporting it back to
Earth for consumption on or near the surface by machines doesn't seem
energetically reasonable to me. (What energy source provides the delta-Vee
needed?) It sounds a bit like claiming that space travel will solve the
population problem, by transporting our surplus mases as colonists away from
earth, when condoms used here are much cheaper.
But the original statement didn't have anything to do with "Is
this reasonable", only "Can we find oil in space."
In theory, it should be possible to move material from Titan
to Earth with almost no expenditure of energy (in the context of
the Sun, we're downhill and it should be possible to use the potential
energy of material 9 AU out to pay for the cost of hauling it off
Titan, away from Saturn and down 8 AU, but I have no idea how to
build such an interplanetary syphon). There are probably more
elegant solutions.
And it doesn't help with solving the global warming problem either.
And I was thinking more in the form of plastics, which are
kind of sequestered.
If you're making hydrocarbons as a fuel, it's probably best toAlso, hydrocarbons are made from the most common element
in the universe and the fourth most common element in the universe.
It's not like making the stuff requires material that we won't be
able to find.
True, but creating molecules packed with chemical energy requires energy
input equal (or greater, given the laws of thermodynamics) to that you will
get out later. It can be done, but the energy source for the process has to
be non-fossil fuel in the first place.
think of them as a battery, allowing energy from some large central source
to be converted and transported in a more convenient form.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Nothing like oil?
- From: Wayne Throop
- Re: Nothing like oil?
- References:
- Nothing like oil?
- From: David Tate
- Re: Nothing like oil?
- From: Mike Dworetsky
- Re: Nothing like oil?
- From: James Nicoll
- Re: Nothing like oil?
- From: Mike Dworetsky
- Nothing like oil?
- Prev by Date: Re: rasfw YASID stats for January 2008
- Next by Date: Re: Nothing like oil?
- Previous by thread: Re: Nothing like oil?
- Next by thread: Re: Nothing like oil?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|