Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists



420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated March 20)
The Future of Energy by Angus Trotlock - Tue, 16 Oct 2018 09:19:50 EST ID:AECV3w0N No.37529 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1539695990200.jpg -(251227B / 245.34KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 251227
Reading current trends, this is what I see as most likely for the future of Energy production in the world:

It is possible to turn solar energy into either jet fuel or liquid ammonia. The former captures carbon from the atmosphere in the process but puts it back once it is burned so it is carbon neutral. The latter process produces a fuel which does not contain any carbon and therefore is also carbon neutral. Both fuels can be used to power fuel cells and jet fuel can also be burned to power generators. Both fuels already have the infrastructure designed to transport them and can be scaled up easily.

Certain areas on the planet are exposed to more solar irradiance than others (deserts mostly) and they are ideal locations for solar plants. The problem with that is that it would be very expensive to run power transmission lines from places with high solar irradiance to places that need the power, and you would also lose some power because it's inefficient to transfer power over long distances using electrical wire. Converting the solar energy into liquid fuel on site that can be shipped anywhere solves this problem. Areas that have lots of cheap land with high solar irradiance that is near traditional shipping lanes will become major hubs to produce carbon neutral liquid fuels to power fuel cells. What's really cool is that many of the major fossil fuel producing countries in the Middle East actually fit these criteria perfectly. They will be perfectly situated to move into this industry once it opens up and becomes commonplace.

I think that the solar plants themselves will adopt concentrated solar rather than photovoltaic because the materials will be cheaper as it just uses mirrors which can be cheaply mass produced. Systems using molten salts would probably not be needed as they could just churn out as much fuel as possible during the daylight hours and ignore dark hours meaning that the technology for this already exists today and can simply be scaled up.

The only thing that could kill this is intellectual property rights. I have a suspicion that some of the companies funding the research into fuel cell breakthroughs actually get their money from fossil fuels and they're funding the research in order to get the patents so they can stop them from ever being used. I've seen big breakthroughs go nowhere. This is the same thing they do in the pharmaceutical industry. Promising research is funded only so that it can be locked in a drawer never to see the light of day. Scientists go in thinking they're going to make a difference only to find no one cares about their breakthrough because it could potentially actually cure diseases that they want to just "treat". Oh well, at the moment I remain optimistic that this will be implemented within the next two decades at the very latest. Our days of relying on oil are over because we realize it's starting to fuck with the climate.
Fuck Brookson - Thu, 18 Oct 2018 20:18:11 EST ID:xnmW28Zy No.37530 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Personally I'm quite excited about advancements in using glucose as an energy storage technology. Nature got it right first, why fix it if it's not broken, sugars are amazingly energy dense molecules. I think when we see rechargeable sugar based batteries we will finally achieve the power/weight ratio that really lets robotics take off (go figure, to engineer something that has the same mechanical capabilities as living tissue, you need something that has a comparable power output to living tissue.)
Walter Blytheville - Mon, 22 Oct 2018 08:12:45 EST ID:AECV3w0N No.37535 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Jet fuel has 3 times the energy density of sugar though.

I just found out Bill Gates already has a company that captures CO2 and turns it into fuel using solar power. Thank you Bill fucking Gates. The one guy to become a billionaire because of intelligence rather than psychopathy.
Eugene Brishman - Tue, 23 Oct 2018 15:41:00 EST ID:xnmW28Zy No.37540 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>Jet fuel has 3 times the energy density of sugar though.
Oh right, we're waiting for jet fueled powered robotics and cellphones for our technology to really take off. How could I have missed that?

>>Honey, did you put the roomba back on the jet fuel charger?
>>No sweetie, our entire house has exploded and we are all dead
Therm0ptic !cyBOrG7t12 - Tue, 23 Oct 2018 18:33:42 EST ID:44pyuxIG No.37542 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Matilda Drucklelodge - Thu, 25 Oct 2018 07:46:56 EST ID:AECV3w0N No.37543 Ignore Report Quick Reply
nigga, do you even know what batteries are made out of? Not only are they highly combustible they're also pressurized and have exploded many times before. We also use gasoline to power our cars and appliances and you don't see people freaking out because it can be combusted, in fact that's kind of the whole point. Fuel cells also don't combust it so you can just build them in a sturdy enclosure to make sure the fuel doesn't leak out.

Martin Duckcocke - Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:01:20 EST ID:xnmW28Zy No.37544 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>pulling weight about fucking batteries
>>comparing the explosive potential of batteries and jet fuel
>>fuel cells don't combust
>>"make sure" the fuel doesn't leak out
You know what place they really, really "make sure" fuel doesn't leak out? Rocket fuel tanks. You know the number of times rocket fuel tanks have failed? Not zero.
Look, no one is denying jet fuel is more energy dense than batteries or sugar, by about 2000x. And while I admit it is pretty cool we can find ways to get energy out of hydrocarbons without combusting them, that doesn't change the fact that they are volatile, toxic fossil fuels that are infinitely more dangerous when an inevitable failure does happen than even highly explosive lithium batteries (like lithium itself is anything but stone-age by the standard of cutting edge battery tech.)

I mean, I guess its good to have the option to use fossil fuels in a slightly less destructive way, but is that the direction we really want to go? Why don't we use gasoline to power robots right now, then?
Betsy Murdspear - Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:13:47 EST ID:KXfK2XaG No.37545 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You know, hydrogen power cells don't go off IRL like in Terminator 3 and Quantum Of Solace.

And, I'll say it again, something something ocean thermal power, something something Dymaxion global energy grid.
Free energy is there, it's just a matter of scale.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.