| Author |
Message |
    
Mr_grumpy
| | Posted on Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 01:56 am: | 
|
Coincidence, I mentioned recycling the gas from waste, well watching tv last night I saw a report saying that's what they're doing in Sweden, collecting the gas from the sewage farm to run city buses. |
Aaron_thomas
| | Posted on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 08:17 am: |
|
I believe that there will not a universal replacement of petroleum. It will depend on many different aspects. different countries, regions will utilize different technologies. as the world's population is close to reaching 9 billion using a food source as a fuel will go out the window. Similar to coal fired electrical plants are becoming a thing of the past in the US and many countries |
Elsinore74
| | Posted on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 09:27 am: |
|
What about coal gasification? Plentiful, existing resource within our borders. Maybe not cost-effective today, but who contemplated burning cow farts in the 1970s? Maybe it's time for another look.
Of course, there's the problem of getting the coal, and mining can be either deep and dangerous or shallow and toxic (to the eye as well as the environment; there's a large chunk of mountain missing in Western Md. along my drive home to WVa).
In the end, it's not getting us away from petroleum (if that's necessary), but improving the wheel you have may be preferable to inventing a new one.
I just can't see battery electric vehicles being more than local (less than 250 mile range) transportation. Certainly can't see long-haul trucking or heavy applications going electric, unless we're talking diesel/electric, like a locomotive. If/when battery electrics make up a larger percentage of wheeled vehicles, more nuclear power could help offset the increased load on the grid.
Even Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of Greenpeace, is pro-nuclear (although I'm not sure how sound of an endorsement that is, when arguing the minority position, I'll take any allies I can get). |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Sunday, November 17, 2013 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Coal to gasoline was explored during the Carter Admin. Billions of tax dollars were spent re-creating and updating the SAME process used by the Germans in WW2. It was profitable at $55 a barrel. Then the Saudis opened the taps a little more and made it uneconomical to compete with OPEC oil and it was dropped.
At current prices it's a moneymaker, big time, but because of the anti-coal stance of this administration no one is going to invest in the large chemical plant time operations to make that money. Even during Bush's admin. the big oil companies didn't see a way though a whole new EPA regulatory system that hasn't even been written yet.
As an aside, the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum did a restoration on a FW-190D they'd had sitting in storage since WW2. It turns out that the plane actually had the wrong wings on it, but this was not discovered for years until another "Dora" model was being restored across the country, and they noticed stuff that didn't line up....that HAD to if the plane was to function. Checking the Smithsonian's plane, they found it had their wing and vice-versa, so the museums swapped.
It turns out the Air Corp testing crews had partially disassembled the planes and simply bolted the wrong parts together when they were no longer to be flown, and sent to museums.
The AIR & Space folk are meticulous, but function is less of a concern to them than authenticity and making sure that future museums can tell what was original and what was fabricated later for restoration.
They found the wrong wings mounted on the plane still had fuel in the tanks from Germany and saving a few gallons, found it still good. Ran it in small engines, and saved a sample for future testing.
Left over from 1945.
So yes, coal to gasoline works, can be profitable, and is a great idea.
However, it's still using a fossil fuel, still using a non-renewable resource, and still is burning stored sunlight and releasing the carbon inside.
I care about the not-renewable part, not so much about the CO2, although THAT's the sticking point in the current world of Climate Con. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Sunday, November 17, 2013 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Aaron, Hydrogen is like a battery, you put power in, store it in the gas, and burn it ( in engine or fuel cell ) to get it back.
The trouble is that so far no way to make the stuff exists cheap enough to compete with oil.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115857/
not a bad flick, the only sci-fi part is the gizmo to make cheap hydrogen. The inventors of cheap energy get murdered and hunted down by the bad guys who want to keep the status quo. THAT part is not even a little bit sci-fi.
The last serious proposal to "go hydrogen" used a mini-chemical plant in the gas pump to turn gasoline into hydrogen. ( GODDESS WHY?????? ) because that way they could charge you existing gasoline tax. That's how messed up the energy policies are.
The other problem with using hydrogen as a battery, is storage.
Compressed gas is heavy, and not great for vehicles in accidents.
Metal Hydride storage usually involves having a way to heat a block of metal foam/technobabble to release the H2.
( like batteries using liquid Sodium, the annoying wait while you heat up the energy storage is far better than the fun of having the battery rupture in an accident releasing flaming metal......)
Cryogenic storage is best left to Astronauts, or other "brave and meticulous as test pilots" types, with a long record of blowing up spontaneously ( ortho and para form of the molecule and heat release are involved. ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_isomers_of_hydro gen
Also Hydrogen gas leaks through steel. So there are a lot of problems with using Hydrogen as a battery.
OTOH, it burns in IC engines, fuel cells, and is a very potent form of energy storage, so it sure is attractive. The only exhaust is usually a potent greenhouse gas, water vapor, but there is no carbon load for the religious cultists. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - 07:47 am: |
|
Bad news, My plan to solve the energy crisis with mono horned equine flatulence recovery was cut because they couldn't find enough virgins in D.C.
Looks like the Thunderdome system is our only hope. So my new proposal involves re-plumbing the Capitol for methane production ( largest concentration of pigs being the most efficient ) and adjustments in the ventilation system to recapture the Hot air. ( Note to self, cross ventilation system controls needs refinement ) |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Sunday, December 01, 2013 - 11:50 am: |
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/nro-energy/365147/greener-green-deroy-murdock
Now, I think it's ironic to claim wind turbines can cause a larger outbreak of West Nile Virus.
True, mind you.
And in historical perspective, expected.
Look at how many people have died because of "Silent Spring", a novel written by a women dying of cancer and furious with the world she was leaving. ( tens of millions dead )
OTOH look at how many have died ( and are still dying )by ignoring dystopian novels like "Animal Farm" or "1984". ( hundreds of millions murdered )
Not yet noticeable is the millions that may yet die as we ignore the warnings from sources like "Battlestar Galactica". You are sure to be considered a foolish alarmist to speak out today about autonomous killer robots. After all, they are a vital part of our National Strategy, and it's just speculation that such well armed slaves could ever turn on us.  |
Ferris_von_bueller
| | Posted on Sunday, December 01, 2013 - 12:46 pm: |
|
FUSION |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Sunday, December 01, 2013 - 06:26 pm: |
|
Want to burn through gas and make it scarce ?.... use it as an index backing against a new currency (ala the way gold used to be )
viola !
enjoy. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Monday, December 02, 2013 - 08:46 pm: |
|
Did you see the piston engine fusion reactor? It uses multiple pistons slamming into a sphere to compress the fuel. Super Diesel!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Fusion
In fact, if they use Steam instead of "compressed gas" to run the pistons, it's the Ultimate Steampunk item!
I'm kinda doubtful on this one.
I think the Bussard/Farnsworth Fusor concepts are the winners. |
Gregtonn
| | Posted on Monday, December 02, 2013 - 09:22 pm: |
|
What comes after petroleum?
There are several some-what viable options as a fuel source but, take a look around you.
What could replace all those other petroleum based products?
G |
Glitch
| | Posted on Monday, December 02, 2013 - 10:43 pm: |
|
http://freernrg.com/thorium-fueled-automobile-engi ne-needs-refueling-once-a-century/ |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Monday, December 02, 2013 - 11:15 pm: |
|
Ok, I'm a fan of Thorium reactors, but I have no idea what LPS is doing, other than selling other people's products.
Yes, there is some good information on the company web site, but it's all open source explanations as to why Thorium is a better deal than Uranium. ( no bomb-useful waste, more complete "burn" of material, etc. )
The above article has serious magic technology ( bogosity ) issues.
1. They are not using a Thorium powered laser to boil water for a steam engine. If they are, it a major breakthrough, and I'll eat my words.
2. Yes, Thorium "burned" in a reactor will release many ( many, many, many ) times the power that burning the same amount of coal will. It's so apples and potatoes it's silly.
It's the difference between breaking chemical bonds and actually turning matter into energy.
That's because the famous E=MC2 is in play, and for every 15 or so kilotons of TNT equiv. you are "Burning" about a Gram.
You sure aren't setting fire to the Thorium, ( possible, but stupid ) and doing so isn't a smart way to make power. ( might as well build a magnesium fueled boiler. Possible, but stupid ) And you sure aren't putting coal in a reactor and getting it to convert matter to energy.
It also has nothing to do with the "density" of the material involved. Burn 50 lb of Hydrogen & 50 lb of coal, and the less dense material produces more energy. ( although, to be fair, It's more likely that a larger atom is unstable than a smaller one. It's also most likely that this company is looking for stupid investors )
Not to say the Atomic Car is impossible. ( unlikely due to idiot politicians, but doable )
I don't see anyone using a chain-reaction fission reactor in cars, no matter what material is "burned".
The steam engine part is perfectly practical, and doesn't give a damn what boils the water.
So you can use reactor waste products to boil the water, and change out the "core" heat exchanger every few dozen years, depending on the mix of waste. By using a sealed unit where no boiler water is in contact with the waste material, it's perfectly safe, radiologically. And proper construction techniques would make it safe even if hit by a train.
That would work, but you'd never get approval for mass production, mostly for political idiocy, but also because there isn't enough reactor waste to power all the cars.
I want one, though. |
Torquehd
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2013 - 12:21 am: |
|
There are several some-what viable options as a fuel source but, take a look around you.
What could replace all those other petroleum based products?
CORN.
The same thing that could help replace a lot of fuel. We can grow it right here in America's heartland, supporting our farmers.
There has been a lot of negative press on corn-based products, and I believe a lot of it is carefully worded bologna (that's baloney...had to google the spelling).
An old timer at my church told me about when he was on the cutting edge of ethanol development, forty or fifty years ago now, and how the OPEC powers worked against him and those who worked with him. It was pure, old-fashioned sabotage. They have the money, they have the power to do as they please, regardless of morals (also remember, OPEC is largely comprised of islamic nations... but muslims never lie!!)
I believe Corn, and sunflower, are two of the most viable fuel/petroleum replacements in existence. Support the american farmer, boost the national economy, develop cheaper fuel, curb cost-of-living increases, reduce our dependence upon foreign countries and foreign liars.... nah, let's make sure Ethanol and Biodiesel get bad press instead, and keep my wallet fat.
Edit:
I also believe more development needs to be done on woodgas. The current technology is 60 years old... think about a modern woodgas engine, controlled by an ECM/ECU, with a full array of modern sensors and electronically controlled fuel/air/spark. And instead of having a basket of wood chunks, meter the fuel like a souped-up pellet stove or coal electricity plant. Then throw on a turbo with an intercooler, and find something we can grow that creates more power/gasification than wood (bamboo, eggplant, corn stalks, hemp??? who knows??). I think that area has room for development.
(Message edited by torquehd on December 03, 2013) |
Ferris_von_bueller
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2013 - 04:56 pm: |
|
using food as fuel makes perfect sense to me |
Sifo
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2013 - 06:06 pm: |
|
It's not like there's anyone hungry in the world. |
Torquehd
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2013 - 08:06 pm: |
|
using food as fuel makes perfect sense to me
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but there are millions? of acres that are not being farmed in the US because the government pays farmers NOT to farm them.
It's not like we're at max capacity for farm land currently in use. The government could actually try paying farmer to farm, for a change, and use the corn for ethanol development. Think about the massive framework of American jobs that intensive ethanol research and development would demand. |
Gregtonn
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2013 - 08:30 pm: |
|
...although, to be fair, It's more likely that a larger atom is unstable than a smaller one...
To be really fair, that theory starts falling apart beginning with the Hydrogen and Helium atoms.
G |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2013 - 09:56 pm: |
|
Gregtonn, how often does Helium spontaneously become another element? Ditto Hydrogen. Californium won't still be there in the box you put it in in a very short time. ( something else will be there, but it won't be the same stuff )
Hydrogen is Fusion fuel. There's a few other elements that are useful, but to get 2 Hydrogen atoms to fuse takes a lot of energy. To get the "best" fusion reaction, 4 Protons, to fuse ( and make Helium ) is literally astronomical.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fusio nfuel.php
There are exceptions, Tritium, for example, is "helium" and does decay. It would make a very expensive, but pretty birthday balloon. I'd have to do the math to see how bad an idea holding one would be. It would be interesting to see how bright a one foot balloon is too.
I don't think the densest stuff, like Osmium, is especially likely to decay by itself, but as a very rough rule of thumb, the bigger the atom, the less stable it is. Just more bits to hit with a passing neutron, basically.
My point was that with metals the "denser" it is, is not the issue. Thorium isn't as dense as Osmium. Osmium won't make a very good reactor fuel. The article pushing an atomic car with pictures of a Cadillac "future" car is full of bogus crap. Bad science, snake oil, con man stuff.
I still have no idea how a "small amount" of Thorium can produce a laser beam to boil water for a 19th century steam turbine. I'm very interested, but the company isn't telling. I'm also interested in Vrill Energy to run my Flying Saucer, but I'm not holding my breath, or selling you anything. ( I'm also not building one in my garage. An Airplane, maybe, a flying saucer? Only if I win the Lotto and decide to build a flying replica of the Vought V-173. ) |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 03, 2013 - 11:51 pm: |
|
Torquehd,
While it's true that the Evil Oil Companies spend a great deal on PR and propaganda, they don't pay me a damn thing.
Using current technology, ( not the stuff in labs, but the stuff you're burning NOW ) Corn to fuel really means you are converting diesel to booze. No appreciable net gain, and funded with your taxes, end to end.
The best studies show the results are between the error bars, so we may actually be using the worlds oil supply faster than if we just used the oil to power our cars, instead of the tractors, harvesters, breweries, distilleries, trucks and trains needed to make and distribute the "oil stretching" booze.
Yes, we could use fallow ground to grow the corn, and we are, but there is displacement of food crops for fuel crops, and this HAS raised the price of food, leading to riots and revolutions. ( see Africa & the Middle East. Before it all burns )
Not every revolution is precipitated by high food prices, or famine, ( the American Revolution was not, but the French Revolution was ) historically, it's a pattern going back further than the written record. ( which in India is way further back than the European record )
Support the american farmer, that is happening.
boost the national economy, Not so much. Never mind stock prices, how about jobs?
develop cheaper fuel, great idea, all for it. but not so far
curb cost-of-living increases, fail. more expensive energy is bad. It's more expensive now.
reduce our dependence upon foreign countries and foreign liars.... Now THAT would be great! but I don't see it. With the private land increases in domestic oil & gas production, we actually could be free from OPEC, but despite repeated lip service the last 50 plus years, it's not happening.
nah, let's make sure Ethanol and Biodiesel get bad press instead, and keep my wallet fat. Ethanol deserves a large portion of it's bad press. It's damned expensive in terms of damaged equipment and tax dollars. Biodiesel? Haven't heard a bad word about it, I think it's a great idea to recycle frying fats into fuel, and I have both a diesel car & tractor. All for it. I don't get how this all makes your wallet fat. If it is, you are ripping me off. Do YOU work for Exxon?
Full disclosure, I waaaaas hired by BP, last century. Alas, I never got paid, and never did a day's work. I did get a bunch of BP paid shots that made me sick as a dog for a few weeks, but before I could begin work, The Iranian Revolution took away my job. ( teaching machining to Iranians ) If the timing had been 2 weeks different, I might have been a hostage for over a year, or ( more probably ) shot by the Revolutionary Guard. I suppose that is why I'll never win the Lotto, I used all my Luck up.
There's a parallel here in the Airplane world. 100LL ( 110/100 octane, "low lead" ) fuel is only made by a few refiners, and there's an ongoing research effort to make a usable replacement. Most Lycoming/Continental/Wright/P&W engines from the 1940's on were designed for leaded gas, and will require new valves, seats & guides to run on no lead fuel. In many cases pistons as well, to reduce the octane needs. 10% alcohol car gas simply is not going to work in most of the general aviation fleet even after rebuilding thousands of engines to not need lead. The alcohol issues with your car are minor compared to airplanes. The alcohol dissolves the sealant used in fuel tanks in metal airplanes, and is incompatible with a lot of the fiberglass tanks in modern planes, including most homebuilts where the really good stuff is, today. A Cessna is 1947 tech, a Lancair is 1970-2000's tech and cruises at WW2 fighter plane speed.
Not to mention that booze in gas absorbs water right out of the air. With a modern pollution controlled car used nearly every day, the high turnover in fuel makes it not a big deal. Most private planes are flown once a month at best ( 110LL is EXPENSIVE ) and the water in E10 car gasoline just kill the engines. Usually right after takeoff. Then it can kill you.
There is a trend toward more modern engine designs, like the Rotax 912/914 and a few others, but it's not a retrofit situation.
There is also a trend toward turbine power, and using JetA or diesel, but fuel consumption goes up ( depending, about 3 times as much ) and unless you can add fuel tanks, range is cut badly. Often adding fuel tanks just isn't possible since balance and size are real issues. Cube square law.
Using agriculture waste, as you suggest, is a great idea. Turning the forests into fuel pellets is going to drive the Sierra Club types psycho, but Hemp is a real possibility, as soon as it becomes legal and taxed nationwide.
I was, BTW all in favor of using alcohol to stretch or oil supplies. I assumed that we'd use garbage, not food. That's just insane.
There IS a process for converting biowaste, like chicken guts to fuel, using a fairly new steam process. Pilot plants have been built, but I haven't heard a lot about it lately. I'm all for converting politicians and bureaucrats to fuel, and we have millions of them. |
Torquehd
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 04, 2013 - 12:31 am: |
|
Well so much for my hopes. No, I'm still going to hope that someday, ethanol will be a viable, affordable alternative fuel.
Someday, when I go back to school, I intend to devote some time to studying these kinds of things. I'd love to take part in the development of an alternative fuel. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 04, 2013 - 12:33 am: |
|
http://www.energy.udel.edu/thermochemical2013/Pyl_ UDWorkshop.pdf
http://www.dynamicfuelsllc.com/
Dynamic Fuels LLC is a Tyson Foods and Syntroleum Corp creation, so it's evil megacorps all the way. 
http://www.thecitywire.com/node/28947
Also worth remembering is the Eco-political aspects.
Technical.
http://www.experimentalaircraft.info/homebuilt-air craft/aviation-biofuel-2.php (airplane fuels)
http://www.naval-technology.com/features/featurefl ying-fuel-efficient/
And Economic ones.
http://stockgumshoe.com/reviews/scarcity-and-real- wealth/the-u-s-defense-department-has-already-test ed-this-new-age-biofuel-in-its-b-52-bomber-fleet/
Your fuel production method choice has to include that in the math. Political exploitation vs. science vs. economics.
Gearhead note. The B-52 is a good testing platform because it has a configurable fuel system that can isolate different fuels and pump them every which way across 8 Turbofan engines. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 04, 2013 - 12:50 am: |
|
I may be sarcastically Cynical, but I want some fuel, and ethanol is fine with me, to be 2 bucks a gallon and work. I don't want to use our fossil reserves.
I favor clean nuclear, fusion, and orbital Solar. Cheap and abundant electricity. Etc. Etc.
1st Industrial Revolution, factories & steam. 2nd Industrial Revolution, mass production. 3rd Industrial Revolution, Digital Age. Automation 4th?
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=8369 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Harry_Stine |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 04, 2013 - 08:53 am: |
|
It is a neat topic TorqueHD. The energy problem is really is a really interesting one because it is so fundamentally rooted in physics. Work is work (in a mathematical sense) and the scale of the problem is so HUGE that every little fraction of a decimal point is totally relevant.
Consider hydrogen, not so much because it might be the solution (it is really hard to package), but because it is a nice simple model to consider.
Take a gallon of water in a big glass jar with two separate spouts, and put a wire down each spout. Then take a large coil of wire on a shaft, and find a way to spin it through a big magnetic field. Use your hand, use a windmill, use a water wheel, put a pig on a treadmill, solar electric, nuclear, whatever. Insert a diode in series with the wire, and hook each end of the coil to the wires going into your two spouted jar.
Crank hard, and the electricity will cause the water (H20, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom) to separate into hydrogen at one of the wires, and oxygen at the other wire. The harder you crank, the more water you turn into hydrogen and oxygen.
Now take that hydrogen and put it in your car, and use it either as fuel (it burns great) or put it into a fuel cell (which takes hydrogen and converts it directly back to electricity). The "pollution" from the combustion is... water.
So in step one, you are putting energy into the water to convert it to hydrogen. In step two, you are taking the energy back out of the hydrogen and using it to drive your car.
The amount of work you did turning the crank to make the hydrogen is the same amount of work you can get out of the hydrogen to make your car accelerate. No free lunch.
The hydrogen is really just a battery.
Fossil fuels such as gasoline and coal are exactly the same.... it's just that the battery was pre-charged millions of years ago in balmy dinosaur filled rain forests basking in the sun. The carbon dioxide levels (you can call it a pollutant, I call it "plant food") were much higher than now, and the energy by the sun and was used by plants to convert carbon dioxide into carbon rich material that was interred before it could decompose. There that battery sits, already charged, waiting to be dug up and discharged. A yard of solar collector that ran for 10 years and you are going to discharge it to go buy a hamburger.
It's the same story...
We are burning up our stored batteries at a stupidly high rate. Should we conserve those batteries? Absolutely. But we should also be investing the easy energy in those batteries to develop future battery options. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 04, 2013 - 10:24 am: |
|
The energy problem is really is a really interesting one because it is so fundamentally rooted in physics.
While I wouldn't say that is wrong, it's only partly correct. The energy problem is as deeply rooted in politics as it is physics. The physics can be dealt with. The politics...? |
Glitch
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 04, 2013 - 04:03 pm: |
|
Anyone thought of Zinc-air Batteries? |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 04, 2013 - 07:21 pm: |
|
They are great.
So are Iron Acid batteries, as used in 1900's electric cars. ( downsides of Iron acid batteries are, they continuously outgas Hydrogen, and self discharge fairly quickly. )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc%E2%80%93air_batt ery
The problem is, how do you charge the batteries? Or, in the case of the Zinc-air Primary cell, how much power does it take to make or refurb the battery?
Zinc Primary cells as a fuel cell is interesting, you just "burn" the zinc, and reprocess it later. Far easier than collecting car exhaust and making it into gasoline. I don't expect to see any Zinc-air fuel cell reprocessing actually in a car. ( or IC exhaust reprocessing either... LOL )
In closed environments, like Spacecraft, Hydrogen-Oxygen fuel cells produce water which is then usually used for other purposes, like bathing and drinking. I don't think anyone has flown such cells with the equipment to break the water back down to fuel, even though it's possible if you had enough Solar or nuclear energy. |
Gschuette
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 04, 2013 - 07:34 pm: |
|
My money is on biomass, algae stuff. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 04, 2013 - 07:37 pm: |
|
My money is on farts. I can move a room full of people in seconds with a single fart! |
Gregtonn
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 04, 2013 - 10:03 pm: |
|
Aesquire,
"...but as a very rough rule of thumb, the bigger the atom, the less stable it is..."
Really? Drop a pellet of pure Na (Sodium 11 electrons) into water and you have an explosive chemical reaction. Drop a pellet of pure Ti (Titanium 22 electrons) into water and things are pretty boring. Drop a pellet of pure Au (Gold 79 electrons) and things get even more boring. Also consider the Noble (inert) gases Ne (Neon 10 electrons) and Ar (Argon 18 electrons) sit right next to the highly reactive elements F (Fluorine 9 electrons) and Cl (Chlorine 17 electrons) on the Periodic Table of the Elements. I could go on but I don't like to be that long winded.
G |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 04, 2013 - 10:57 pm: |
|
Oh! I mean on the atomic level.
You're completely right about the molecular level. 
Hydrogen ( and it doesn't get lighter ) is highly reactive. That's why it's great fuel ( or energy storage, in the bigger picture ) but has handling/storage issues.
Sifo, That's classic Biofuel. I go back to my suggestion of the "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" technology, and the Capitol.
Although farmers and Waste Management are already using manure and dumps to make use of Methane etc. I think the highest concentration of crap is in D.C. |
Prior
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 04, 2013 - 11:47 pm: |
|
Really really simplified version here, since we haven't hit solar too hard yet and that makes challenges...
Newton's first law- conservation of energy. Energy in a closed system is conserved. Say the earth was created (and a closed system) however it was created (another thread entirely). There was X amount of energy, and it still exists today. To simplify, there was a tree. Dinosaur ate it, farted, died and a volcano erupted, covering and and eventually making him a part of an oil field in Kilgore, TX. Aside from the oil extraction, this is his future, small parts laying in TX. The recoverable parts of him are pumped out of the ground, heated and become bitumen and gasoline, for simplification.
You burn a gallon of refined Barney in your car driving down the road partly paved by diesel burning paving equipment (poor dinosaur was probably used in paving too). Intake sucks in air, fuel injectors pull in fuel, spark plug hits, there's a bang, a flash, the flame moves across the piston. Pressure increases in the cylinder. The piston moves down, turns the crank shaft and heat builds with the friction between the rings and cylinder walls and connecting bearings. Transmission turns, and if it's an auto, it slushes fluid to and fro, converting hydraulic power to heat and some usable energy by the tires. Oh, and your OBDII compliant internal computer controls all of this as well as the Dr. Dre on the stereo.
One gallon of dinosaur leftovers has been converted, in this simple case to heat, light, kinetic energy, electrical energy and a potential energy if the car is parked on a hill and stored energy if some of him is still in the tank.
Newton was a smart guy. Untimely there's only so much energy, and we waste a lot on heat, light, and sound instead of the work we want to do, moving our Buell down the road.
Consider a self sufficient farmer whom grows and fertilizes his crops (he doesn't have any fallow land because he needs max output). How does he make a living, given sustainable energy sources, while keeping within Newton's laws? It cannot be done.
There is only so much finite energy available on earth. Period. Even nuclear power only has so many isotopes available (did you know that nuke plans lose a few pounds a year due to electron shedding)?
Anyway. Food for thought. After petrol, I'd say electricity- more sources of power and less of a kick to Mom Nature. Probably wouldn't make a really fun bike unless EBR and Zero were included. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, December 05, 2013 - 07:18 am: |
|
You have a good point, but you have to make your closed environment a bit bigger.
Include the Sun. ( which is burning up it's mass )
The plants the Dino ate were powered by the sun, so oil is just long stored solar. Plant based ethanol is also solar powered.
The Uranium etc. we burn in reactors is from outside the Solar system, being created by Fusion on Supernovas, ( which is why heavy metals are rarer ) As you say, once the Solar System was created, what we got is all we have.
While cosmic rays from outside the Solar System do affect the weather, I don't see them as a useful power source today, nor do I know of any interstellar clouds of gas the Sun is going to be replenished by, so.... while technically even the Solar system is part of a bigger whole, you can make a practical argument that what's on Earth, the Sun, and hopefully what we can mine from asteroids is all we have to work with.
Electricity is great. But you have to make it, usually by burning stored sunlight. Coal, oil, wood, beans, grass, algae, chickens, ( which eat plants ) etc. etc. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, December 07, 2013 - 10:41 pm: |
|
http://www.electraflyer.com/
http://www.pipistrel-usa.com/models/taurus-electro .html
Electric Airplanes. A couple you can buy today.
I love the solar trailer for the Taurus.
My budget's closer to the Trike, A flying Motorcycle type ride. |
|
