X-Message-Number: 9845
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 17:51:10 -0700
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #9836 Liquid nitrogen plants
References: <>

> Message #9836
> From: "den Otter" <>
> Subject: Liquid nitrogen plants & some other ideas
> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:56:03 +0200
> 
> As far as I know all cryonics orgs (that do long-term storage) buy their
> liquid nitrogen from a provider, instead of having their own LN2 plant(s).
> Is this because LN2 plants are too expensive, or are their other
> reasons involved?

Not only is the capital cost of a LN2 generator with a large enough
capacity quite large, but the cost of the electricity for it to produce
a liter of LN2 is higher than the cost of buying LN2 from a large bulk
producer. LN2 production, like so many things in the modern world, is
vastly more efficient when the volume is very large. In addition, the
cost from producers is artificially low because it is produced as a
byproduct of production of LOX and liquid argon from liquefying and
fractionating air. 

> One would think that even if you normally buy LN2
> from some company, it would be very useful to have a small plant (see
> also http://www.cryomech.com/lnp.html)

I contacted these people several years ago. Their 10 liter per day
generator is too small for a bigfoot. Their 40 liter per day would
probably be sufficient for 3 bigfoot patient dewars, but is was very
expensive (as I recall just under $100K, but I have emailed them for
current prices). It would certainly be useful and part of a fail-safe
plan to have such a plant on the patient storage premises, however, the
current patient volumes and patient funding does not allow for this
extra safety margin. 

>  handy in case of an emergency
> (preferably in combination with a diesel/wind/solar powered generator)
> Does any of the orgs have such a backup?

No cryonics storage organization currently has their own LN2 plant. If
some ideas for an advanced storage facility which I am currently working
on come to fruition, this will be something which I would like to have
at my facility within a very few years. 

> Obviously, a cryonics organization that makes its own LN2, and has its
> own power source(s) can have a lot more freedom when it comes to
> choosing its location for the long-term storage of patients.

This is quite true and is a major reason for wanting such a plant, not
just for backup but for normal use. The storage facility can then be
advantageously located away from major industrial centers. Of course,
one would then need to have *extra* LN2 generation capacity in case some
of the generators broke down.

> This is
> even increased when the whole setup is automated (so that the
> dewars no longer need to be filled, or checked, manually).

This automation, and consequent keeping patient containers sealed, will
also somewhat reduce LN2 consumption.

> Some
> relatively straightforward safety measures can virtually guarantee that
> even if the (all of the) plants break down, and/or the dewar(s) rupture
> the bodies stay immersed in LN2 for days or even weeks (or longer,
> if you make the reservoirs bigger and the insulation better).

Unruptured bigfoot dewars already have a boildown time of 60 to 90 days
and with the aid of an additional reservoir dewar could last even
longer.

> Some
> further refinements, like using (old) bunkers for storage, camera
> surveillance of the facility (esp. the dewars) & emergency installations
> with a sat ("beeper") link to off-site personnel make the setup even
> better.

Most organizations now had level sensing detectors connected to
telephone autodialers in operation for several years now. Camera
surveillance requires someone to be always looking. Infra-red intruder
detection is better.

> For extra safety, there could be a permanently occupied private
> quarters (or whole house) in or near the facility for quick interventions
> and general maintainance.

Again, most organizations have someone on site most of the time (Alcor
has someone there all the time).
 
> A facility like this could easily be made so that it's safe from natural
> disasters (underground bunker in an elevated, geologically stable region),
> fire (you could let the storage crypts slowly fill with evaporated LN2, which
> incidentally makes break-ins a potentially lethal undertaking (curse of
> the Pharaoh-style), lowers the LN2 boiloff rate and kills any bugs and
> rodents that might sneak in).

This true for the CryoSpan silo vaults which have an outlet to the
neighbor's parking lot, but for which we need not be concerned about
bugs or rodents. It will also be true for the interior of the cold room
in future designs which will require a "space suit" for navigation.

> Just some thoughts (there's more where this came from ;) I do wonder
> why most of these things have ever been implemented (because the
> present methods have worked ok so far?)

Your ideas are all excellent, but they have been thought of before and
some have been implemented.

> Though somewhat more
> expensive [than traditional methods] in the short term,

This is the problem with those which have not been, they are a "lot"
more expensive.

> the suggested
> improvements would ultimately make storage cheaper, imo,

Not until we reach much higher patient volumes.

> not to mention a lot safer.

Safer yes, but relative to our current good safety, not worth the
expense, IMO, until we reach a much larger patient population.

-- Paul --

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9845