Severe Drought in the West Will Greatly Reduce Electrical Production from Hydroelectric Turbines.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

17 minutes ago, turbguy said:

You can (and some do) put roof structures over coal piles.  It is RARE!  The stacker/reclaimers are tall, require significant investment, and the coal still combusts (via spontaneous combustion) anyhow.  It does help with controlling coal pile runnoff expenses. 

Typically the stacker/reclaimer runs on a central pivot with coal delivered via rail/rotary car dumper.

OK, I appreciate your expertise. I was talking about a flat system that could be done with bulldozers that pushed the coal into horizontal lines that were not tall.  There could be one smaller piled for the existing reclaimer. There could be separations that would localize fires. Something I was proposing that will never happen because engineers don't like to change their way of doing things and the bean counters don't like to spend money. Maybe rightly so. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by ronwagn
add

[Eric Gagen + 713]

11 hours ago, nsdp said:

 DOI/NASA overflights with the ER-2https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-biggest-methane-leak-in-america-is-in-new-mexico/#  "The high emissions were recorded in 2003, prior to the advent of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a technique used to extract oil and gas from shale reservoirs. But parts of the oil and gas system were leaking even before fracking, said Eric Kort, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan and lead author of the study." You  can find his papers at the U Mich .web site and in Geophysical Research Letters. Isotope profiles C13 and O18 over the Permian fingerprint Bravo Dome as  non local source. Alsohttps://www.hcn.org/issues/47.15/in-the-southwests-four-corners-methane-has-a-dark-side  I did the legal emissions report from 1981 to 1986 for Amoco Gas co who operated the gathering system,  Amoco Gas was glad to see the blame placed on Production Co and not the gathering system

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/aircraft/ER-2/index.html

I am recovering from eye surgery so I will give you a start and let you follow theleads

These are good sources documenting that there are methane leaks in oil and gas production systems, and I don't dispute them at all, but they do not support your claims.  You said that all oil and natural gas production systems leak a couple of percentage points a year (thats 2%) That's a volumetric statement that your evidence does not prove.  You also said that the Sprayberry CO2 flood in the SACROC field was leaking CO2, and none of your data discusses the permian basin in general or the sprayberry/SACROC CO2 flood within the permian basin at all.  

[Eric Gagen + 713]

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Only if you believe in the CO2 theory of Global Warming AKA Climate Change  OR Just Plain Weather. 

It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, or if it's true or not.  People are trying to sequester CO2 generated from fuel combustion, and personally I don't think they can do it in a way that helps the environment, or the well being of humans.   

[Eric Gagen + 713]

7 hours ago, ronwagn said:

OK, I appreciate your expertise. I was talking about a flat system that could be done with bulldozers that pushed the coal into horizontal lines that were not tall.  There could be one smaller piled for the existing reclaimer. There could be separations that would localize fires. Something I was proposing that will never happen because engineers don't like to change their way of doing things and the bean counters don't like to spend money. Maybe rightly so. 

As a non-expert who has however seen a few coal piles/storage at power plants I think the issue is just the sheer amount of coal stored there.  If you don't make gargantuan massive piles, and instead spread them out with space, lower stacking, etc. the amount of land required for the process gets to be enormous, and the efficiency of fuel gathering and usage goes down considerably.  The risk of a fire now and again is more acceptable than using and contaminating all that space.  

[nsdp + 449]

On 8/18/2021 at 6:50 AM, Eric Gagen said:

These are good sources documenting that there are methane leaks in oil and gas production systems, and I don't dispute them at all, but they do not support your claims.  You said that all oil and natural gas production systems leak a couple of percentage points a year (thats 2%) That's a volumetric statement that your evidence does not prove.  You also said that the Sprayberry CO2 flood in the SACROC field was leaking CO2, and none of your data discusses the permian basin in general or the sprayberry/SACROC CO2 flood within the permian basin at all.  

Eric there is a specific account in the FERC Form two for lost and unaccounted for each pipeline company that transports natural gas under Section 7 of the NGA or Section  311 of the NGPA.   In 50 years I have never seen any pipeline report a 0 loss or line gain in volumes received or delivered.   Oder 636(636, 636A-636C)(https://www.ferc.gov/order-no-636-restructuring-pipeline-services changed pipelines from merchants selling gas to transportation only and  necessitated a change in loss per allocation across all system system supply to % mmbtu/miles.  An extreme case would be Tennessee Gas pipeline from the PEMEX connection on the Rio Grande to terminus at Portland Maine.  Rates for compressor fuel vary by which line and which compressor stations are used.  Accepted accuracy is <0.25% at each meter site.  Teh summation of errors are resolved and thee difference goes on Form 2.

Determining Lost and Unaccounted For Gas Loss https://flowcal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Determining-Lost-and-Unaccounted-For-Gas-Loss.pdf

[specinho + 467]

On 8/13/2021 at 10:43 PM, Eric Gagen said:

This process doesn’t produce water - it consumes it.  All the water use for boiler feedstock and evaporation in cooling is where the water gets used up.  The amount produced by the gas combustion is to small to be worth measuring.  
 

It’s important to note also that this is also not a proposal for a power plant.  It’s a proposal for utilizing a type of fuel cycle.  In order to implement the proposed fuel cycle you first have to have pure oxygen.  

The production of pure oxygen is a very energy intensive process that emits large amounts of carbon.  Unless you happen to have a bunch of pure oxygen lying around there is nothing zero emission about this proposal. 

Or chemical process could be done without emitting much carbon?

Chemical oxygen generation[edit]

Chemical oxygen generators consist of chemical compounds that release O₂ upon some stimulation, usually heat. They are used in submarines and commercial aircraft, providing emergency oxygen. Oxygen is generated by high-temperature decomposition of sodium chlorate:^[1]

2 NaClO₃ → 2 NaCl + 3 O₂

Potassium permanganate also releases oxygen upon heating, but the yield is modest.

2 KMnO₄ → MnO₂ + K₂MnO₄ + O₂

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_evolution#Chemical_oxygen_generation

 

One more triggering mode......... gas turbine........ are we constraining the use on gas and steam from burning?? Or are we using highly pressurized gas to move the turbine, recycling the gas by compressing it and repeat? The gas can be any non toxic or disputable gas, no?

[Eric Gagen + 713]

9 hours ago, nsdp said:

Eric there is a specific account in the FERC Form two for lost and unaccounted for each pipeline company that transports natural gas under Section 7 of the NGA or Section  311 of the NGPA.   In 50 years I have never seen any pipeline report a 0 loss or line gain in volumes received or delivered.   Oder 636(636, 636A-636C)(https://www.ferc.gov/order-no-636-restructuring-pipeline-services changed pipelines from merchants selling gas to transportation only and  necessitated a change in loss per allocation across all system system supply to % mmbtu/miles.  An extreme case would be Tennessee Gas pipeline from the PEMEX connection on the Rio Grande to terminus at Portland Maine.  Rates for compressor fuel vary by which line and which compressor stations are used.  Accepted accuracy is <0.25% at each meter site.  Teh summation of errors are resolved and thee difference goes on Form 2.

Determining Lost and Unaccounted For Gas Loss https://flowcal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Determining-Lost-and-Unaccounted-For-Gas-Loss.pdf

Again, that’s data about losses in pipelines.  Not what you originally claimed.  This is a different subject than losses in and at the wellhead.  And there is no volumetric estimate here either - only a range of potentials to place on the forms.

[turbguy + 1,543]

4 hours ago, specinho said:

Or chemical process could be done without emitting much carbon?

 

 

Chemical oxygen generation[edit]

Chemical oxygen generators consist of chemical compounds that release O₂ upon some stimulation, usually heat. They are used in submarines and commercial aircraft, providing emergency oxygen. Oxygen is generated by high-temperature decomposition of sodium chlorate:^[1]

2 NaClO₃ → 2 NaCl + 3 O₂

Potassium permanganate also releases oxygen upon heating, but the yield is modest.

2 KMnO₄ → MnO₂ + K₂MnO₄ + O₂

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_evolution#Chemical_oxygen_generation

 

One more triggering mode......... gas turbine........ are we constraining the use on gas and steam from burning?? Or are we using highly pressurized gas to move the turbine, recycling the gas by compressing it and repeat? The gas can be any non toxic or disputable gas, no?

 

 

 

The chemical processes would work, as long as you have the energy input to obtain and "stimulate" the chemistry, which then detracts from the cycle output.  I doubt it would net a positive energy output.

Other gases can be (and are) used.  Consider the High Temperature Gas Cooled nuclear reactor cycles that uses helium as a working fluid.

In any event, some source of heat, and a sink, must be available for any heat engine to operate.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

9 hours ago, specinho said:

Or chemical process could be done without emitting much carbon?

 

 

Chemical oxygen generation[edit]

Chemical oxygen generators consist of chemical compounds that release O₂ upon some stimulation, usually heat. They are used in submarines and commercial aircraft, providing emergency oxygen. Oxygen is generated by high-temperature decomposition of sodium chlorate:^[1]

2 NaClO₃ → 2 NaCl + 3 O₂

Potassium permanganate also releases oxygen upon heating, but the yield is modest.

2 KMnO₄ → MnO₂ + K₂MnO₄ + O₂

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_evolution#Chemical_oxygen_generation

 

One more triggering mode......... gas turbine........ are we constraining the use on gas and steam from burning?? Or are we using highly pressurized gas to move the turbine, recycling the gas by compressing it and repeat? The gas can be any non toxic or disputable gas, no?

 

 

 

Now follow the production processes in your own links and see how these flammable oxygen producing chemicals are made and where the oxygen comes from.  The net cycle of energy is not positive, and cannot be as per the laws of thermodynamics.  This is why these reactions are used for specific esoteric purposes (emergency oxygen generators and rockets) and not for general purposes.  They do not produce energy - they consume it. 

[nsdp + 449]

19 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Again, that’s data about losses in pipelines.  Not what you originally claimed.  This is a different subject than losses in and at the wellhead.  And there is no volumetric estimate here either - only a range of potentials to place on the forg

Eric if you had looked  at the definitions  provided by OSTI for Form 2 you would find losses are broken down into 3 categories. First is well head including anything after the casing flange and before the gathering system starts.  , Second is gathering systems, and processing plants to minline facilities, Third is mainline to distributs monitoringion facilities..  The only things missed would be leakage around the well bore from casing leaks that means the well needs a new cement job or new casing to continue to operate and leaks on the distribution company side of the meter.Before Columbia Gas explosions, report finds thousands of leaks in Massachusetts. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/before-columbia-gas-explosions-report-finds-thousands-of-leaks-in-massachu/545503/ I think you are aware of the legal problems of a well bore leak. Lax and irregular enforcement  by states and DOI means there are some deficiencies on production side.  When it enters the gathering system  as defined by the US 5th Circuit in Hamman vs SOUTHWESTERN GAS PIPELINE, INC., 721 F.2d 140 (1983). This is why the RRC does not have full delegation of authority for enforcement from DOT.

ER-2 is part of the continuous monitoring over the entire US.  NASA and DOT are working on  a separate aircraft to monitor liquids lines line Colonial and Enbridge Line 6.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

10 hours ago, nsdp said:

Eric if you had looked  at the definitions  provided by OSTI for Form 2 you would find losses are broken down into 3 categories. First is well head including anything after the casing flange and before the gathering system starts.  , Second is gathering systems, and processing plants to minline facilities, Third is mainline to distributs monitoringion facilities..  The only things missed would be leakage around the well bore from casing leaks that means the well needs a new cement job or new casing to continue to operate and leaks on the distribution company side of the meter.Before Columbia Gas explosions, report finds thousands of leaks in Massachusetts. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/before-columbia-gas-explosions-report-finds-thousands-of-leaks-in-massachu/545503/ I think you are aware of the legal problems of a well bore leak. Lax and irregular enforcement  by states and DOI means there are some deficiencies on production side.  When it enters the gathering system  as defined by the US 5th Circuit in Hamman vs SOUTHWESTERN GAS PIPELINE, INC., 721 F.2d 140 (1983). This is why the RRC does not have full delegation of authority for enforcement from DOT.

ER-2 is part of the continuous monitoring over the entire US.  NASA and DOT are working on  a separate aircraft to monitor liquids lines line Colonial and Enbridge Line 6.

Yet a different subject. we weren't talking about the nature of the regulatory structure of the pipeline industry or leakage in urban distribution systems.  We were  talking about leakage in/at the well which you said was measured to be 2% of produced volume per year.  I would like you to prove it.  I don't care how the legal reporting forms are organized or conducted - I am interested in the science, and so far there isn't any.  Just formatting and science about pipeline and urban distribution systems.  

[nsdp + 449]

6 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Yet a different subject. we weren't talking about the nature of the regulatory structure of the pipeline industry or leakage in urban distribution systems.  We were  talking about leakage in/at the well which you said was measured to be 2% of produced volume per year.  I would like you to prove it.  I don't care how the legal reporting forms are organized or conducted - I am interested in the science, and so far there isn't any.  Just formatting and science about pipeline and urban distribution systems.  

Eric , did the dog eat your homework?   I don't work for you and you certainly did not even do basic research. You should have found this research (they have been doing it for API and EPA for over 40 years)  at Colorado State in less than 15 seconds.

Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6398/186.abstract

 

 

Edited August 21, 2021 by nsdp
correct grammar.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

14 hours ago, nsdp said:

Eric , did the dog eat your homework?   I don't work for you and you certainly did not even do basic research. You should have found this research (they have been doing it for API and EPA for over 40 years)  at Colorado State in less than 15 seconds.

Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6398/186.abstract

 

 

This looks like excellent research.  Not only carefully done, but it coincides with my experiences that most of the bad methane leaks can be found and fixed relatively easily once people start looking for them. Most of them are at  ‘in field’ gathering and processing facilities which are widely scattered and often not constructed and maintained as carefully as main line pipelines.  Up until very recently (2015 or so) most companies and organizations operating these types of gathering systems didn’t even have the sorts of equipment needed to find leaks of the sorts detailed in this article.  
 

I would be very curious to see what a ‘snapshot’ of current conditions looks like (it doesn’t exist - it takes several years to gather good data).  Some organizations have had significant success cutting down on fugitive methane and boosted their profitability quite handsomely as a result.  

Edited August 22, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Back to Severe Drought and Water Conservation. Please read this article.  https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/08/us/colorado-river-water-shortage It focuses on the history of Southest water development and the future. Things are looking really bad for water and hydroelectric power. 

Desalination is mentioned in passing but zilch about how to conserve existing water. 

Here is my topic on Water Conservation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s6vxrBPC_8XYQgSNK7-UuNbqsdDKflhXPDeswYFKDt0/edit

[turbguy + 1,543]

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Back to Severe Drought and Water Conservation. Please read this article.  https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/08/us/colorado-river-water-shortage It focuses on the history of Southest water development and the future. Things are looking really bad for water and hydroelectric power. 

Desalination is mentioned in passing but zilch about how to conserve existing water. 

Here is my topic on Water Conservation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s6vxrBPC_8XYQgSNK7-UuNbqsdDKflhXPDeswYFKDt0/edit

The "trick" will be to get more precip on the west side of the Continental Divide.  i don't know how to "make that happen".  The drought monitors show considerably poor conditions, without any improvement expected.  Snowfields and glaciers are receding year after year.

Water conservation on that side of the divide is a great concept and will certainty be required.  However, it is a reaction to the situation rather than a solution.  Desal is also a reaction, not a solution.

The continued lowering of Lake Mead is alarming.  If this continues (and there is no current reason to expect otherwise), generation from that facility will increasingly be derated, or even cease.  Reducing water usage upstream of Lake Mead cannot be reasonably achieved though desal.  Water conservation implemented downstream (and upstream) will assist with water available for agricultural purposes. 

The main product of Hoover Dam is water, not electric power.  Sales from generation was intended to PAY for the facility in the first place.

Lifestyle changes for some will be easy (they typically are), while some will be disturbed by them.  Lifestyle alterations are almost certain.  Again, those are a reaction, not a solution.

Reflect on the changes the natural environment (flora and fauna) will go through, as well.

 

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

16 hours ago, turbguy said:

The "trick" will be to get more precip on the west side of the Continental Divide.  i don't know how to "make that happen".  The drought monitors show considerably poor conditions, without any improvement expected.  Snowfields and glaciers are receding year after year.

Water conservation on that side of the divide is a great concept and will certainty be required.  However, it is a reaction to the situation rather than a solution.  Desal is also a reaction, not a solution.

The continued lowering of Lake Mead is alarming.  If this continues (and there is no current reason to expect otherwise), generation from that facility will increasingly be derated, or even cease.  Reducing water usage upstream of Lake Mead cannot be reasonably achieved though desal.  Water conservation implemented downstream (and upstream) will assist with water available for agricultural purposes. 

The main product of Hoover Dam is water, not electric power.  Sales from generation was intended to PAY for the facility in the first place.

Lifestyle changes for some will be easy (they typically are), while some will be disturbed by them.  Lifestyle alterations are almost certain.  Again, those are a reaction, not a solution.

Reflect on the changes the natural environment (flora and fauna) will go through, as well.

 

 

I am trying to be a realist, historic and prehistoric droughts have been worse and we have no way of knowing what will happen. We must use rational thinking. IMHO that includes ending watering grass and letting water run down the street. It also means agriculture must not waste water if it wants to continue to operate. That means indoor agriculture, drip irrigation, saving soil moisture from evaporation etc. Far more water is wasted than is used for high priority needs. Any rational analysis of water usage will show that. 

If the precipitation goes up for several years, policies can change. Next year will be crucial, but the current trend will not allow for agriculture and municipal water usage to function as it has in the past, period. I am very familiar with the West. It is not like the rest of the country. They are still working on ground water, as if there is no drought, in many places. 

The only other remedy that will be cost effective is piping water from the closest available rivers and paying the areas, from which it is taken. That will take a lot of time. Water conservation is the best answer for now. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 7/18/2021 at 8:02 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Nonsense. We're the people with all the fancy education, remember?

California is planning floating wind farms offshore to boost its power supply 

Northern California has some of the strongest offshore winds in the U.S., with immense potential to produce clean energy. But it has a problem. Its continental shelf drops off quickly, making building traditional wind turbines directly on the seafloor costly if not impossible.

Once water gets more than about 200 feet deep – roughly the height of an 18-story building – these “monopile” structures are pretty much out of the question.

A solution has emerged that’s being tested in several locations around the world: making wind turbines that float. In fact, in California, where drought is putting pressure on the hydropower supply and fires have threatened electricity imports from the Pacific Northwest, the state is moving forward on plans to develop the nation’s first floating offshore wind farms as we speak.

Planning schmanning

Here's the reality 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 8/18/2021 at 4:52 AM, Eric Gagen said:

It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, or if it's true or not.  People are trying to sequester CO2 generated from fuel combustion, and personally I don't think they can do it in a way that helps the environment, or the well being of humans.   

Take a look at the Minnkota project. 4 wells up to 10k feet deep to sequester the CO2. I thought I already posted a link to it here? 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

27 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Planning schmanning

Here's the reality 

@Ward SmithDid you notice who is putting in the temporary generators? It is the California Water Authority. That's because the CWA is both the biggest producer of electricity (dams) and the biggest consumer of electricity (pumps) in the state, ans they are a net consumer of electricity even in "normal" years.   They still need to pump that water over the mountain to Los Angeles, but they don't have the power to do ti with and they will need to pay too much if they buy power on the spot market. I assume Newsom (or somebody in the state government, anyway) authorized this because We don't have any excess power this summer and we had to do something, and authorizing CWA's plan was the easy solution.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

On 8/22/2021 at 5:59 AM, Eric Gagen said:

This looks like excellent research.  Not only carefully done, but it coincides with my experiences that most of the bad methane leaks can be found and fixed relatively easily once people start looking for them. Most of them are at  ‘in field’ gathering and processing facilities which are widely scattered and often not constructed and maintained as carefully as main line pipelines.  Up until very recently (2015 or so) most companies and organizations operating these types of gathering systems didn’t even have the sorts of equipment needed to find leaks of the sorts detailed in this article.  
 

I would be very curious to see what a ‘snapshot’ of current conditions looks like (it doesn’t exist - it takes several years to gather good data).  Some organizations have had significant success cutting down on fugitive methane and boosted their profitability quite handsomely as a result.  

Satellite sensing is improving very rapidly. This is the main reason we are suddenly learning about a lot of this, and it is also a huge incentive to companies to get their leaks under control, since the public will now know about them.  Apparently the methane signature is fairly easy to see from orbit.  I suspect that SpaceX will start equipping the next generation of Starlink satellites with "interesting" sensor suites because they can. Things that used to be done only from a few expensive satellites from sun-synchronous (12 hour) orbits will now be done from thousands of lower-orbiting satellites with near-continuous coverage. This becomes possible because SpaceX is radically reducing the launch costs per kg, so the extra payload mass won't matter much. (another other big sensor deal will be wildfire spotting.) The incremental cost of a sensor suite is quite small, since the satellite already has all of the other subsystems needed, especially high-bandwidth communication to the ground.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

56 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Take a look at the Minnkota project. 4 wells up to 10k feet deep to sequester the CO2. I thought I already posted a link to it here? 

Doesn't contradict what I said - I never said it couldn't be done.  I said " I don't think they can do it in a way that helps the environment, or the well being of humans."  The existence of early stage permitting for a project to execute one of those ideas doesn't mean it's a good idea.     

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Satellite sensing is improving very rapidly. This is the main reason we are suddenly learning about a lot of this, and it is also a huge incentive to companies to get their leaks under control, since the public will now know about them.  Apparently the methane signature is fairly easy to see from orbit.  I suspect that SpaceX will start equipping the next generation of Starlink satellites with "interesting" sensor suites because they can. Things that used to be done only from a few expensive satellites from sun-synchronous (12 hour) orbits will now be done from thousands of lower-orbiting satellites with near-continuous coverage. This becomes possible because SpaceX is radically reducing the launch costs per kg, so the extra payload mass won't matter much. (another other big sensor deal will be wildfire spotting.) The incremental cost of a sensor suite is quite small, since the satellite already has all of the other subsystems needed, especially high-bandwidth communication to the ground.

Introducing scanners that could detect different types of pollution (bubbles) geographically in real time would be very interesting. At the same time quite geopolitically embarrassing.

Musk would have a extremely powerful  leveraging tool at his disposal...Quite a concept,a extremely powerful concept. The Paris agreement would/Could take on a whole new meaning.

Edited August 24, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Planning schmanning

Here's the reality 

5 massive 30MW temporary generators for a total of 150MW, far less than the 300MW we lost a couple months ago when a 600MW CCGT blew up in Hayward.

The Russell City Energy Center got back up and running about 1:15 p.m. Thursday and is generating half the power it normally does, according to state regulators.

https://www.ktvu.com/news/hayward-power-plant-restarts-cause-of-explosion-still-unknown

[specinho + 467]

On 8/20/2021 at 9:23 PM, turbguy said:

The chemical processes would work, as long as you have the energy input to obtain and "stimulate" the chemistry, which then detracts from the cycle output.  I doubt it would net a positive energy output.

Other gases can be (and are) used.  Consider the High Temperature Gas Cooled nuclear reactor cycles that uses helium as a working fluid.

In any event, some source of heat, and a sink, must be available for any heat engine to operate.

 

On 8/21/2021 at 1:43 AM, Eric Gagen said:

Now follow the production processes in your own links and see how these flammable oxygen producing chemicals are made and where the oxygen comes from.  The net cycle of energy is not positive, and cannot be as per the laws of thermodynamics.  This is why these reactions are used for specific esoteric purposes (emergency oxygen generators and rockets) and not for general purposes.  They do not produce energy - they consume it. 

based on this summary taken from the link given ( https://netpower.com/technology/ )

not sure if it has been altered after reading our posts but...........

Judging from it, there might be a few problems with this design.

i) purify oxygen from the air. How, was not mentioned clearly.

ii) input CO2 into the combustor. CO2 reduces burning efficiency. Will this extinguish the burner unintentionally, somehow?

iii) water flow is not complete. If it acts as a coolant, after heated up, it does not show the water is returning or flowing somewhere but out of the chart.

iv) water separator. If this means condensation of waste vapor, CO2 might dissolve here. What is the efficiency of this flow?

v) the aim has not been to produce enough heat or steam to turn the turbine but gas CO2 to turn it??

 

1. Purify oxygen from the air. Mr. Eric mentioned this process is energy intensive and emits large amount of carbon. If net positive energy is not a prerequisite, would chemical reaction in the combustor, although consuming part of the energy, still stands in providing Oxygen without emitting carbon?

2. Helium as coolant...... Read it in Technoquest magazine about an interesting topic called superconductors, that liquid helium works at -250 'C....... Where is this pointer leading, Turb?

 

I have an interest in superconductors. May be this is where the answer for fast charging would be in the future. But, feeling something is amiss with the concept. Not able to pin point yet.... Anyone can enlighten me about how it works in laymen term? 

[surrept33 + 609]

3 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Satellite sensing is improving very rapidly. This is the main reason we are suddenly learning about a lot of this, and it is also a huge incentive to companies to get their leaks under control, since the public will now know about them.  Apparently the methane signature is fairly easy to see from orbit.  I suspect that SpaceX will start equipping the next generation of Starlink satellites with "interesting" sensor suites because they can. Things that used to be done only from a few expensive satellites from sun-synchronous (12 hour) orbits will now be done from thousands of lower-orbiting satellites with near-continuous coverage. This becomes possible because SpaceX is radically reducing the launch costs per kg, so the extra payload mass won't matter much. (another other big sensor deal will be wildfire spotting.) The incremental cost of a sensor suite is quite small, since the satellite already has all of the other subsystems needed, especially high-bandwidth communication to the ground.

Yup, and as a intermediate step, satellites like MethaneSAT are on their way in the next year or two:

https://www.methanesat.org/fit-with-other-missions/

The fundamental sensing technology is being deployed by a number of startups on land and in air as well, but world wide coverage is very important, both for understanding natural and unnatural sources of methane. 

Edited August 24, 2021 by surrept33