Skip to main content

View Diary: The Utility of Light: Getting Real with the Existing Energy Infrastructure. (122 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Two of your reactions are highly endothermic. (0+ / 0-)

    Two of my reactions are exothermic.

    Like you, I don't have the time to produce the precise numbers.

    Actually there have been a number of advances recently IIRC in increasing the efficiency of electrolysis, particularly by manipulating temperatures.   Such manipulation is pretty easy when you have a system that rejects heat to the atmosphere, such as a power plant.

    In any case, I am looking at the carbon dioxide as an energy storage reactant, and not as a primary source of energy.   One would like to minimize thermodynamic losses of course, but my point is to phase out one fossil fuel, oil, by using the waste from a more readily available fuel's existing infrastructure, i.e. that of coal.

    •  rest assured, (0+ / 0-)
      I got your point, but the idea is still wrong.

      To retrofit a coal power plant for DME production using your scheme, you would add a nuclear power plant, a water splitting plant, and a DME synthesis plant.

      Using my scheme, you would add a nuclear reactor, hook it up to the old generator, a water splitting plant, a synthesis plant and throw the rest of the coal plant away.  In exchange for doing so, my nuke plant and water splitting plant are only half as big as yours.

      If the output is the same, but the plant is twice as big and uses up twice as much uranium only to produce twice as much waste heat and wear out twice as quickly, what is the mucking point of keeping the coal boiler running?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site