The Lurker Lounge Forums
my new hero - Printable Version

+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: my new hero (/thread-4917.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

my new hero - jahcs - 02-08-2006

We'd need some incredibly efficient solar cells to make enough energy to convert enough water to make this viable.

my new hero - Assur - 02-08-2006

jahcs,Feb 8 2006, 01:05 AM Wrote:We'd need some incredibly efficient solar cells to make enough energy to convert enough water to make this viable.
[right][snapback]101491[/snapback][/right]

If they ever get round the problem of safely storing and transporting hydrogen windfarms could be the answer. I seem to recall there being lots and lots of empty space in the midwest :)

my new hero - Occhidiangela - 02-08-2006

Ammonium,Feb 7 2006, 06:12 PM Wrote:The problem with ethanol is that it, like oil, produces CO2, which is the culprit of the greenhouse effect.  Renewablility is only one factor.  As far as I'm concerned, forget any fuel that produces CO2. 

The greenhouse effect is real and is a very bad thing.
Addon:
[right][snapback]101487[/snapback][/right]
Hey, check your basic biology course, CO2 is universal plant food. It makes plants happy; it is a plant's version of tortilla chips and queso; it makes more O2 when plants defacate that after eating CO2. We breath plant turds.

Take your CO2 phobia and eat some spinach: CO2 makes spinach yummy.

Occhi

EDIT. Cleaned up a Faulkneresque ramble. I should also have added "then plant some spinach to eat the CO2" at the end, but I didn't. Boooooooo me. Haste makes waste, or fertilizer. ;)

Occhi

my new hero - whyBish - 02-08-2006

Occhidiangela,Feb 3 2006, 06:35 PM Wrote:Plant more corn, less dope, problem solved, eh?  :w00t:

Occhi
[right][snapback]100907[/snapback][/right]
Plant more dope, and less corn, and there wont be anyone to care about the problem ... but the munchies would be an issue :P

my new hero - whyBish - 02-08-2006

Jester,Feb 4 2006, 01:45 PM Wrote:Any fuel that we have to synthesize will, by definition, require more energy put in than we get out of it.
-Jester
[right][snapback]101047[/snapback][/right]
Yeah, but if you are getting your energy inputs for free, who cares?

<Energy input from free source (solar/tidal/wind)> - <energy lost in processing/transportation/ inefficiency> = bingo :P

But you are also correct about people forgetting the energy balance. Some people over here are pushing hydrogen cars, forgetting that the electricity to split the molecules has to be geenerated (which means that the problem is not creating hydrogen, but creating the energy to create hydrogen) Like you point out, people over here seem to forget that hydrogen is a very dirty fuel if your electricity is coming from coal fired power plants :(

Having solar panels on cars is inefficient compared to having large scale solar farms. The only potential benefit of a solar panel on a car would be for an electric (not hydrogen) powered car that can power itself solely from the direct (non-stored) input (which I'm guessing is essentially impossible). Without the benefit of direct drive, you are going to have to take the inefficiency hit of having a storage device (battery or hydrogen tank) so you might as well mass produce the energy / fuel.

my new hero - whyBish - 02-08-2006

kandrathe,Feb 3 2006, 07:20 AM Wrote:Does anyone move electricity across oceans?
[right][snapback]100857[/snapback][/right]
Yes. (Although technically I'm thinking of a straight, not an ocean)

In NZ the bulk of our hydro generation is from the (larger) south island. Consumption is larger in the (more populous) north island. Hence an undersea cable exists. (Sidenote: we have an undersea telecommunication cable direct to the U.S. (which is a freakin long distance), so in terms of technical feasibility, the under-ocean cabling side of things is possible. Not sure what additional challenges would come with energy transmission as opposed to just fibreoptics though... there are losses through resistance in any electricity lines)



my new hero - Ammonium - 02-08-2006

Occhidiangela,Feb 7 2006, 09:50 PM Wrote:Hey, check your basic biology course, CO2 is universal plant food.&nbsp; It makes plants happy, it is a plant's version of tortilla chips and quesom it makes more O2 when plants defacate that after eating CO2.&nbsp; We breath plant turds.

Take your CO2 phobia and eat some spinach: CO2 makes spinach yummy.

Occhi
[right][snapback]101504[/snapback][/right]

Hey check your basic chemistry course. There is too much CO2. The atmosphere is out of equilibrium. The added CO2 traps more heat, raising the global temperature, thus global warming. ;)

my new hero - Ammonium - 02-08-2006

jahcs,Feb 7 2006, 07:05 PM Wrote:We'd need some incredibly efficient solar cells to make enough energy to convert enough water to make this viable.
[right][snapback]101491[/snapback][/right]


That was in my plan! Those lazy scientists need to get working on that. :whip:

my new hero - Ammonium - 02-08-2006

whyBish,Feb 7 2006, 10:30 PM Wrote:Not sure what additional challenges would come with energy transmission as opposed to just fibreoptics though... there are losses through resistance in any electricity lines
[right][snapback]101513[/snapback][/right]

Yep. That power line would have to be massive, I would guess around 200 jigawatts :whistling:

my new hero - Ammonium - 02-08-2006

whyBish,Feb 7 2006, 10:22 PM Wrote:The only potential benefit of a solar panel on a car would be for an electric (not hydrogen) powered car that can power itself solely from the direct (non-stored) input (which I'm guessing is essentially impossible).&nbsp;
[right][snapback]101509[/snapback][/right]

You'd have a tough time on a cloudy day :D

my new hero - Rhydderch Hael - 02-08-2006

Assur,Feb 7 2006, 05:27 PM Wrote:If they ever get round the problem of safely storing and transporting hydrogen windfarms could be the answer... [right][snapback]101493[/snapback][/right]
Metastabilized metallic deuterium. It's a pipe dream, but at least it one that involves battlecruisers in high orbit blasting the crap out of Alf and his friends.

my new hero - kandrathe - 02-08-2006

Ammonium,Feb 8 2006, 12:06 AM Wrote:Hey check your basic chemistry course.&nbsp; There is too much CO2.&nbsp; The atmosphere is out of equilibrium.&nbsp; The added CO2 traps more heat, raising the global temperature, thus global warming.&nbsp; ;)
[right][snapback]101518[/snapback][/right]
I think the most exciting use of ethanol is for Hydrogen Fuel Cells. The problem with current CO2 emissions is that the CO2 was trapped in the oil or NG, and is released into the atmosphere with no ability for the earth to reabsorb the gas. The CO2 produced by Ethanol is no more than the CO2 consumed by the original plant crop, making the CO2 recyclable.

Also, consideration must be given to the entire energy/chemical cycle of tilling, fertilizing, planting, cultivating and harvesting the plant material used to produce the fuel. Of course that can be extremely variable depending on which plants are used and the techniques used by the farmer. People tend to forget the maintenance and original energy investment (e.g. a solar panel, or a wind tubine) when calculating energy return on investment.

We should figure out a way to make fuel from Eurasian water-milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), which has invaded our midwestern lakes and due to the abundance of excess nutrients in lakes the plant needs continous harvesting. Another interesting technology I've been watching is using microbial fuel cells to generate power while cleaning waste water.

my new hero - eppie - 02-08-2006

To Kandrathe:
the making of bioethanol, or biodiesel is a very good thing to do. OK you don't create energy from nothing, but a lot more than you would if you let those plants rot on the ground. That and you stop the incredible amount of methane rotting plants release.
Methane can be used, and better be burned than released in the atmosphere because it is a lot stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 is.

I guess that what you end up with is a mineral rich pulp which might be used as fertilizer. Europe is now actually starting to get more and more interested in biofuels. But as said before in this thread, if you purposely plant things like sugarbeets for getting fuel, it will cost you a lot of space. And remving dead material from forrest to convert into biodiesel will seriously alter the biome there..so also not an option.

my new hero - Occhidiangela - 02-08-2006

Ammonium,Feb 7 2006, 11:06 PM Wrote:Hey check your basic chemistry course.&nbsp; There is too much CO2.&nbsp; The atmosphere is out of equilibrium.&nbsp; The added CO2 traps more heat, raising the global temperature, thus global warming.&nbsp; ;)
[right][snapback]101518[/snapback][/right]
And the problem with replanting more green plants to absorb it is what? ;) Quite a bit of the world has desertified over the past few decades. Reclamation projects help prevent erosion, add plant life, and all sorts of other good things.

I also agree with your basic premise, however, that reducing the gross output of carbon fuels per unit time is a worthy goal.

More nuclear power plants.

Occhi

my new hero - kandrathe - 02-08-2006

eppie,Feb 8 2006, 03:31 AM Wrote:...But as said before in this thread, if you purposely plant things like sugarbeets for getting fuel, it will cost you a lot of space. And remving dead material from forrest to convert into biodiesel will seriously alter the biome there..so also not an option.
[right][snapback]101545[/snapback][/right]
::Nod::
That is why I would think we could look to fast growing (nuisance) plants, especially ones that go out of control due to our vast mountains of excreted fertilizer. I'm not sure what the best crop yield/acre is for bio-fuel production.

" The agricultural residues that could be harvested sustainably in the United States today, for example, could yield 14.5 billion gallons of ethanol (four times the current output). "Energy crops," such as hardy grasses and fast growing trees, have higher ethanol yields and better energy balances than conventional starch crops. One likely candidate is switchgrass, a tall perennial grass used by farmers to protect land from erosion. It requires minimal irrigation, fertilizer, or herbicides but yields 2-3 times more ethanol per acre than corn does. Such crops could potentially be harvested on marginal land, avoiding the conversion of healthy cropland or forests to energy-crop production."
Analysis: Ethanol's Potential -- Looking Beyond Corn

I suppose we might also be able to develop conveyored (solar powered) hydroponic plant factories that might utilize waste water for fertilizers and vertical space to conserve land.

my new hero - Occhidiangela - 02-08-2006

kandrathe,Feb 8 2006, 10:20 AM Wrote:::Nod::&nbsp; &nbsp;
[right][snapback]101582[/snapback][/right]
Treated sewage. Know of any good studies covering the "flushed" biomass as a potential fuel source?

Something tells me that the analogous "human chip" exploitation based on the buffalo chip fires Indians used on the Great Plains has a low harvestable power density, but not a zero fuel density. (Higher in nitrates, I suspect.)

Occhi


my new hero - Ammonium - 02-09-2006

Occhidiangela,Feb 8 2006, 08:01 AM Wrote:More nuclear power plants.
[right][snapback]101566[/snapback][/right]

Don't forget about nuclear waste :P . Utah will eventually be full, so we'll need something to do with the stuff.


my new hero - kandrathe - 02-09-2006

Ammonium,Feb 8 2006, 07:31 PM Wrote:Don't forget about nuclear waste&nbsp; :P .&nbsp; Utah will eventually be full, so we'll need something to do with the stuff.
[right][snapback]101621[/snapback][/right]
The Europeans seem to have solved it. :) Yucca Mountain Fact Sheets

[Image: NH4OH.jpg] might be a good avatar for you.

my new hero - Ammonium - 02-09-2006

kandrathe,Feb 8 2006, 07:10 PM Wrote:The Europeans seem to have solved it.&nbsp; :)&nbsp; Yucca Mountain Fact Sheets

[right][snapback]101622[/snapback][/right]


Bah those crazy Europeans!


Thanks for the avatar :D

my new hero - kandrathe - 02-09-2006

Occhidiangela,Feb 8 2006, 12:40 PM Wrote:Treated sewage.&nbsp; Know of any good studies covering the "flushed" biomass as a potential fuel source?

Something tells me that the analogous "human chip" exploitation based on the buffalo chip fires Indians used on the Great Plains has a low harvestable power density, but not a zero fuel density. (Higher in nitrates, I suspect.)

Occhi
[right][snapback]101591[/snapback][/right]
Combustion is generally an inefficient chemical reaction, and much of the energy produced is lost as heat into the environment. I still think one of the better ideas for sewage to energy is in using microbial fuel cells.

The solar to plant, plant to fuel, fuel to kinetic energy process is very inefficient. Perhaps better physics will help us find a way to power vehicles without so much environmentally unfriendly and complex chemistry providing the potential energy. Maybe trade in the motor for a very large wind up spring. :) Rather than gas stations, we just have rewinding stations.

The current process using corn grain requires 29% more energy than the ethanol fuel produces. Using switchgrass requires 50% more; wood biomass: 57% more. Biodiesel production using soybeans requires 27% more energy than the biodiesel fuel produces. Biodiesel production from sunflower: 118% more. source

But, we are just beginning to work with ethanol, so I expect efficiencies to increase. After the farming related energy expenditures, the other is the heat required to boil the ethanol out of the fermented mash. I'm sure we could do better with more focus on reducing energy expenditures in farming, and in producing the ethanol with non-fossil energy sources. Our biggest problem is the limited amount of solar energy captured in plants.