On 11/5/2013 10:17 AM, Henry Spencer wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, Henry Vanderbilt wrote:There have been a few small demo projects which have used electrolysis for making hydrogen, usually due to special circumstances...I'd be tempted to use the hydrogen produced plus carbon to produce CH4, which can be stored, transported, and used as vehicle fuel in mostly-standard vehicles with a wide range of affordable off-the-shelf technologies.Better yet is to go one step farther and make methanol (CH3OH), which is not quite as good a fuel, but is a room-temperature liquid, dramatically simplifying use in vehicles. (As a fuel, it has about the same issues as ethanol, i.e. there are some nuisances but it's practical.)
For fleet use, CH4's one-time setup costs may be outweighed by methanol/ethanol's ongoing maintenance costs. There are compatibility issues with some of the common materials used in automobiles; getting these out of the vehicles (and then reliably keeping them out of the spares supply chain) can be non-trivial.
Now THAT would be revolutionary - drill two ~$10 million fracked dry wells with the right geometry, pump water down one, get steam out of the other to run some number of megawatts of power plant indefinitely.The idea is an old one -- I remember seeing it suggested many years ago -- although fracking technology may make it work better. The main problem in earlier attempts, as I understand it, was establishing a long-lived network of fine cracks connecting the two wells. In particular, erosion had a bad habit of gradually concentrating the flow into a few wider channels, which didn't make nearly as good a heat exchanger.
Here's the article I saw the other month, http://www.technologyreview.com/news/520361/fracking-for-geothermal-heat-instead-of-gas/. Not a huge amount of detail, but searching geothermal fracking turns up other interesting results also. Short version, the various issues are being worked.
Henry