2
$\begingroup$

Despite the cost, what is the crude oil that is hydrocarbons energy equivalent which Titan could provide as referred to crude oil Gbbl compared to Earth? (Joules as common denominator)

Here is what is left on our planet.

Consumption rate is ~ 36.5 Gbbpl p.a. oil left on Earth in 2019

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hmm. Titan has mainly methane and ethane as far as I know. The rest of it could be charitably called tholin gunk, which likely doesn't bear much similarity to crude oil. When you say 'equivalent', do you specifically mean in terms of crude oil, or more generally mean in terms of combustible hydrocarbons? $\endgroup$ – Ingolifs Apr 11 '19 at 9:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Titan has no crude oil. Stop trying to invade everything, 'Murrica. $\endgroup$ – AtmosphericPrisonEscape Apr 11 '19 at 10:39
  • $\begingroup$ ^ corrected: "ENERGY equivalent". $\endgroup$ – J. Doe Apr 11 '19 at 10:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Ingolifs combastible would also depend on the oxidator, isn't it. Therefore just the bottom line to have an idea. $\endgroup$ – J. Doe Apr 11 '19 at 10:55
5
$\begingroup$

A smart person over on another site has calculated: Titan has over 50 quadrillion kilograms (5 times 10 to the power 16 or $5 \times 10^{16}$ kg) of methane in its atmosphere.

The energy density of methane is 50–55.5 MJ/kg, or $50 \times 10^{6}$ J per kg.

Thus the energy of the methane of Titan is around $250$ x $10^{22}$ J, or $250$ x$10^{13}$ GJ.

Crude Oil = 6.119 GJ/bbl; therefore 1 Gbbl = $6.1194$ x $10^9$ GJ.

So Titan is about 400,000, or let's call it half-a-million, Gbbl. Assuming I haven't messed up any of my conversion factors along the way.

(Of course, this is just the atmospheric methane -- the methane sea is a whole other ball of wax.)

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ well cool thanks - didn't think it still would look a little bit finite quantity. That is, exponentially growing space colonies in solar systems really need to think about alternative energy sources in prospect of some hundreds of years. Sure there are gas giants but it seems unlikely a mining craft could ever leave them again. $\endgroup$ – J. Doe Apr 11 '19 at 17:08
  • $\begingroup$ Given the relevant energy densities, the future in space is going to be pure nuclear, even on a body with huge petroleum reserves, unless the body is unusual and just has absolutely no uranium. $\endgroup$ – Chris B. Behrens Apr 11 '19 at 17:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not sure if you are already familliar with MathJax. I converted a few scientific notations to show how it's done in case not. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Apr 11 '19 at 23:42
  • $\begingroup$ @J.Doe, remember if the plan is to burn it you will also need a source of free oxygen. Entropy means that we are probably not going to find a 'burnable' energy source anywhere there is not life to drive chemistry in directions away from equilibrium. $\endgroup$ – GremlinWranger Apr 12 '19 at 5:46
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't know about the notational markup -- thanks everyone! $\endgroup$ – Roger Apr 12 '19 at 15:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.