LNG economy | oceanic production | distribution | industry | Power to Gas | oceanic business alliance


I’d like to know where you stole that text from, because we know you didn’t write that.

Ok, Ellmer changed his post, removing the paragraphs from some other webpage, put them on his own site, and posted a link to his site.


No, he didn’t write it, nor did he claim to. I have no doubt, if he was on his own topic, he could write as effective a paper as I can on any subject I’m enthusiastic about.

My desire to teach skewed the results of an aptitude battery, which the VA was using to pluck viable traits from, for post-military education and professions… Life sucks and can really kill dreams, though.

Anyway, he got it from any one of a number of sources. I found it here:

(Wilfried Ellmer) #18

if looking for info sources on PTG technology check here / noanswer to @KatOnTri - reference (9)


IMHO, the best strategy is to make Methane and eliminate the LPG/LNG altogether. By using fossil fuels, we’re dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere. The CO2 can be mitigated, but laying waste to areas, due to man-made earthquakes and polluted water supplies is already too much of a problem. Fracking for NG reserves is shooting us in the foot. Raping the earth is not the solution.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #20

big fuel and oceanic kelp and algea farming can be industries that complement each other using the existing LNG / Methan/ Hydrogen infrastrucure to integrate - comming to a carbon neutral balance in the end (within 50 years )


Big fuel will switch when they run out of natural resources, or the damages and death-toll reach some level where the population revolts, not before.

Kelp and algae have failed on both the biogas, and the plant-based oil efforts. Growing more plants COULD mitigate the CO2 discharges, but nobody is collecting CO2 and permanently storing it, to remove it from the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration has not happened, and the continued deforestation is doing additional damage.

(Larry G) #22


Honestly, the carbon trading scheme will probably wreck the world economy, and it does nothing for us. But by all means, maximize your individual utility while it’s happening. You can’t stop it anyway.


Waste of effort. All they need is minor re-jetting of the appliances and carburetors.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #24

The energy solution will not be a “single thing” it will be a integrated sistem of stuff from wind, wave, solar, biomass methane, hydrogen etc… - the role of oceanic LNG infrastructure is that it is “the great integrator” that allows too hook all this seamless to our existing energy sistem based on oil fuels, ambient impact can be scaled gradually down without the need for “revolutionary changes” that are not on the horizon anyhow. The changes need to happen in the next 30 years and they need to be MASSIVE in their sum just to allow survival…the world must be decarbonized by 2050 and seasteads deploying oceanic LNG based industry infrastructure on large scale on floating infrastructure that imply “permanent dwellings” are the only way to get it done.

Kelp? and water?
Oceanic business alliance | key player network | ocean colonization | big five | get connected | get invested

Do you realise that once again you spent more words in your post to attack me than to promote seasteading?

(Wilfried Ellmer) #26

The beauty of the PTG concept is that you can hook a oceanic algea farm producing Methane to the worldwide energy grid seamless - what opens a world of possibilities for your concept of small scale steading based ocean farms. It is a bit like cattle farming on the western frontier without the train bringing the cattle and crops to the cities the prairie farm has no point to be - PTG technology is part of your infrastructure backbone for small ocean farms. You can hook oceanic windfarms, pelamis fields, algea farming, waste treatment, solar engergy, all together and distance to market does not matter anymore…so instead of fighting each other ALL existing energy forms become part of the solution…fulfilling the seasteading meta purpose of “stop fighting” on the energy technology level.


The problem is that converting to one form of energy to another will always introduce losses. LNG is always a loss because some energy must be burned to compress the NaturalGas vapors until it becomes Liquid. And then it must be transported in containers that can sustain the pressure.

There does not need to be any fight between energy sources. Algae can be grown to produce high energy-per-volume biodiesel for storage or export, and almost every other energy on the seastead can be used on the seastead. Seasteads may always be energy deficient, even when making biodiesel, because energy is used to move the algae, feed the algae, harvest the algae, extract and clean the oils, and finally pump it to a transport barge. There’s no fight, you simply use the appropriate energy form where you get the best efficiency.

For electrolysing water to hydrogen (which i presume you then want to make into methane?) Wikipedia states “Reported working efficiencies are in the range 60-75% for alkaline and 65–90% for PEM.”, which means throwing away 10% to 40% of the power used in the very first step of making the hydrogen. Liquifying air, the most common way to make hydrogen (and other gasses), are even worse efficiencies and more costly, but take up less room and can make H2 faster.


Actually, there’s not all that much pressure in an LP tank. The regulator reduces what there is, down to about 0.25 psi, to use in whatever, but once it’s liquefied, and in a proper container, it tends to stay liquid, until there is expansion, but it will only turn enough to gas, to maintain that equilibrium.

I only know, because a friend in Africa was looking into liquefied Methane storage. Heck, the pressures and intercooling can be handled by a series of three 3.5 hp ac compressors, but it still takes electricity to run those pumps.

That said, if you have a city-worth of biogas digester, then you ought to have enough methane to run the generator, to power the compressors, to reduce the storage volume of most of the methane. Just have to remove the siloxanes, SO2, and moisture, to prevent corrosion of the tank(s), and scrub the 35%+/- CO2 to maximize the efficiency of storage. Siloxanes are a gaseous silicon that, when burned, precipitate out into solids that will destroy an engine, among other things.


There’s lots of pressure in a LP tank at "room temperature"

Note at 25C/77F it’s at 1MPa/145psi?

For pure methane, the curve is scarier

Or this graph, which shows you cannot have only LNG above -25C

As you can see, above 25C it’s at least 10MPa, or 1500psi. Which is why LNG is in high pressure refridgerated flasks and seriously cold. Methane at room pressure will boil at -270C.

We are talking liquid methane here, not CNG, not propane, not butane, no mixtures?

(Larry G) #30

We’ve been through the pressures on Propane and LPG cylinders elsewhere on the forum. They range from 100-350 psi for most applications. Mobile apps require higher pressures for range. Automobile tanks for LG and Propane are often in the 5000 psi range. This is moderately dangerously high pressure.

If you’re producing your fuel locally, you have to look at efficiency a little differently. A lot of the transport costs of things are hidden or bundled for us in regular society. In a remote location, they are worth separating out and looking at individually. For example, I looked at the copra trade for a project in grad school, and the many inefficiencies there have never been overcome because of various reasons of local unavailability of leverage. No tools, no automation, no processing equipment, spotty transportation and unpredictable markets mainly. There’s a market, but it can’t be served very well because the cogs on the gears are missing in spots, so the machine never really turns over smoothly.

For a remote seastead, 20-40% production inefficiencies (in the sense of using some of your fuel to produce the rest) might be fine, because production is local and the cost of more-efficiently produced fuel transported at cost from elsewhere could still be more expensive. This is a point that illustrates the difference between effectiveness and efficiency, a point I often have to make in engineering complex systems. The seastead producing fuel locally but using a lot of it for the production process itself is still being effective. It’s being efficient as long as the overall cost is still less than importing.


Yes. You will most likely be better off using your methane on the seastead where you made it, exporting biodiesel if you can make it. Biodiesel is 30% more btu by volume than LNG, and infineately easier to handle, and there’s a ready market for it.

I don’t remember what the LP tank on my truck was certified to, but the LP i put into it (i had a key to the pump etc) was same pressure as a bbq grill tank of LP.


Running a bus on homemade methane in China–


(Wilfried Ellmer) #33

grid electric power from natural gas and biogas…fuel cell…


(system) closed #35

This topic was automatically closed 100 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.