RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 02:25 pm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43384144/vp/43831415#43831415
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Aug, 2011 04:21 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQqDS9wGsxQ&feature=player_embedded#at=151

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/08/end-fossil-fuel-economic-growth-video.php
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2011 01:30 am
http://wardsauto.com/ar/thorium_power_car_110811/

http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/8-grams-of-thorium-could-replace-gasoline-in-cars-20110812/
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2011 06:22 pm
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/us-pumps-175m-advanced-auto-fuel-research-pro
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2011 05:05 am
@RexRed,
Probably thorium.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2011 05:08 am
@RexRed,
Electric cars will make sense if and only if somebody finally gets his act together with super capacitors. The whole world was hoping that EESTOR was something other than vapor.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2011 05:11 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Lord with even 100 percent efficient in solar power you still have the same amount of heat on the earth surface as when you used the power for any purpose such as moving cars the energy will end up back as heat.

See physics 101...............................


YOU need both physics 101 and English 101.

Some of that solar energy will have been turned into motion.






0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2011 10:26 pm
http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/navy-bomb-squads-get-a-solar-power-makeover.php
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2011 10:28 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Probably thorium.
Welcome to the energy discussion gungasnake Smile
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 01:10 am
http://inhabitat.com/electronics-will-charge-themselves-with-energy-harvesting-lcd-screens/
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Aug, 2011 11:48 pm
http://www.amnh.org/nationalcenter/youngnaturalistawards/2011/aidan.html
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 12:16 am
I wonder if we could genetically engineer a bacteria to take methanol and convert it into ethanol?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 07:03 am
Methanol is only one molecule away from ethanol and ethanol can be used straight in our combustion engines and there is a plentiful readily obtainable supply of methanol on earth.

There is only one problem from burning ethanol... (according to the oil and gas companies) The fumes from ethanol can cause birth defects. Ethanol is a bio based fuel. Petroleum is a fossil based fuel.

The fumes from ethanol also cause global warming to some degree. But it seems the oil and gas companies are hell bent on supplying fossil fuels to us in enormous quantity regardless of the effect it has on the environment. Be it oil sands or shale they have plans on how to extract oil from other things once the ready supply of free flowing oil are used up.

The question becomes if the formaldehyde based fumes of ethanol cause birth defects then what do the carbon monoxide fumes of fossil fuels cause? Do these fumes cause even greater harm to our DNA and our evolution? What is the lesser of the two evils? Can we somehow put a filter converter on our tailpipe and convert these formaldehyde fumes given off from bio fuels so that they are no longer harmful?

The only alternative to ethanol is hydrogen which puts off zero emissions I believe hydrogen puts off a tiny bit of radiation. Nuclear radiation is not a good thing either.

If ethanol is a viable alternative to fossil fuels, then, converting it from methanol is the next best thing to hydrogen also.

How is this conversion from methanol to ethanol achieved cheaply and without any energy or much cost?

We need the technological research and finance applied to the process of converting methanol to ethanol and even possibly the way to turn it back and why would the oil companies research this when they are making such profits on oil? If there was a cheap way to convert methanol to ethanol our energy problems would be solved overnight. Because methanol has only one molecule extra, the process of having methanol release this extra hydrogen molecule and once this molecule is released from methanol it becomes ethanol...

Just as simple the logic you could take ethanol and add a hydrogen molecule and get methanol.

There are perhaps trillions of gallons of methanol that are sitting on the surface of the ocean. We could easily mine this gas as we do oil. What is better ethanol or petroleum?

We do the same thing with fertilizers. There is organic fertilizer and there is synthetic fertilizer and they are the same except synthetic fertilizer is easier to make because it is just a simple molecule change as would be that of converting methanol to ethanol.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 03:19 pm
@RexRed,
I think you are very confused. Here are some relevant facts;
=> Bio ethanol is a renewable fuel that, on combustion yields water and CO2 gas (no formaldehyde)
=> Ethanol yields about 2/3rds the heat of combustion as an equal volume of gasoline.
=> The yield of bioethanol from various plant sources varies greatly. Cane sugar is a very energy (sugar) dense plant that yields a great deal of ethanol per ton of plant grown. The yield from corn is much less. That and the adverse effect on corn/food prices has led many to question the benefit of corn based ethanol from a GHG perspective. Estimating the GHG emitted in the process of growing the corn crop for ethanol is an uncertain process, but most estimates show a zero or slightly negative "benefit" - i.e. more CO2 is emitted growing the corn than is saved by replacing gasoline with the ethanol so produced.
=> hydrogen fuel is not a substitute for ethanol or gasoline because free hydrogen does not ovvur in nature. Hydrogen is a very reactive substance and it forms very tight bonds with free oxygen to form water. More energy is consumed in stripping the hydrogen from oxygen in water or from stripping it from petroleum compounds, than is released in burning it.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 05:47 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

I think you are very confused. Here are some relevant facts;
=> Bio ethanol is a renewable fuel that, on combustion yields water and CO2 gas (no formaldehyde)
=> Ethanol yields about 2/3rds the heat of combustion as an equal volume of gasoline.
=> The yield of bioethanol from various plant sources varies greatly. Cane sugar is a very energy (sugar) dense plant that yields a great deal of ethanol per ton of plant grown. The yield from corn is much less. That and the adverse effect on corn/food prices has led many to question the benefit of corn based ethanol from a GHG perspective. Estimating the GHG emitted in the process of growing the corn crop for ethanol is an uncertain process, but most estimates show a zero or slightly negative "benefit" - i.e. more CO2 is emitted growing the corn than is saved by replacing gasoline with the ethanol so produced.
=> hydrogen fuel is not a substitute for ethanol or gasoline because free hydrogen does not ovvur in nature. Hydrogen is a very reactive substance and it forms very tight bonds with free oxygen to form water. More energy is consumed in stripping the hydrogen from oxygen in water or from stripping it from petroleum compounds, than is released in burning it.


There is pure ethanol but people have been burning cooking oil in their cars too. I think that is a different thing. Ethanol when it is burned puts off different gasses than petroleum. Petroleum puts of carbon monoxide and I am not exactly sure what ethanol puts off but it is not much better. And no it is not formaldehyde but it is a close derivative..
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 06:22 pm
@RexRed,
The complete combustion of ethanol, whether pure or mixed with gasoline yields just water and CO2 - no fornaldahyde and no carbon monoxide. Internal combustion engines, when burning gasoline, ethanol or compressed natural gas release some carbon monoxide when the combustion itself is incomplete due to sub optimum fuel air mixtures. This is a characteristic of the engine - not the fuel.

There are other diesel fuels made from cooking and other vegetable oils (and animal fata) that involve more complex emissions. However, they are cheap to make and, because deisel engines are very efficient, have very low emissions per mile driven. However they are not useable in a conventional IC engine.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 06:56 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

The complete combustion of ethanol, whether pure or mixed with gasoline yields just water and CO2 - no fornaldahyde and no carbon monoxide. Internal combustion engines, when burning gasoline, ethanol or compressed natural gas release some carbon monoxide when the combustion itself is incomplete due to sub optimum fuel air mixtures. This is a characteristic of the engine - not the fuel.

There are other diesel fuels made from cooking and other vegetable oils (and animal fata) that involve more complex emissions. However, they are cheap to make and, because deisel engines are very efficient, have very low emissions per mile driven. However they are not useable in a conventional IC engine.


Until we find a way to power motor vehicles with something other than internal combustion engines, carbon monoxide and formaldehyde type emissions will be part of the equation.

Also these companies refine the bio fuels and refine the crude oil but how far do they refine it? Do they still leave certain chemicals in it because it is too expensive to refine it that further step.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 07:38 pm
@RexRed,
Well carbon monoxide is not really a problem in that it reacts quickly in the atmosphere with free oxygen to form CO2. I don't know where you suppose the formaldahyde comes from. I don't believe it is a significant problem.

The problem is that replacing IC engines in automobiles with (say) large rechargable electric batteries. merely moves the source of combustion to coal and natural gas fired power plants which involve the same emissions per unit of power produced as IC engines. Moreover roughly 30% of the energy nreleased in combustion at the power plants is lost in the extra energy conversion from thermal to mechanical to electric at the power plant and then again from electric back to mechanical in the vehicle. That involves a 30% increase in emissions per mile compared to a similar vehicle with an IC engine.

If instead we were to commence large-scale construction of new design nuclear power plants and use the power so produced to replace existing coal & gas powerplants then the use of electrical vehicles might make some sense.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Aug, 2011 07:32 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Well carbon monoxide is not really a problem in that it reacts quickly in the atmosphere with free oxygen to form CO2. I don't know where you suppose the formaldahyde comes from. I don't believe it is a significant problem.

The problem is that replacing IC engines in automobiles with (say) large rechargable electric batteries. merely moves the source of combustion to coal and natural gas fired power plants which involve the same emissions per unit of power produced as IC engines. Moreover roughly 30% of the energy nreleased in combustion at the power plants is lost in the extra energy conversion from thermal to mechanical to electric at the power plant and then again from electric back to mechanical in the vehicle. That involves a 30% increase in emissions per mile compared to a similar vehicle with an IC engine.

If instead we were to commence large-scale construction of new design nuclear power plants and use the power so produced to replace existing coal & gas powerplants then the use of electrical vehicles might make some sense.


The problem is we cannot be just using fossil fuels as if they are never going to run out and continue causing sever detriment to our environment.

There is a small growing portion of the energy sector that comprise of clean energy companies. These companies employ people right here at home and they provide energy at comparable prices and they are geared for the long term and often localized. Every clean energy source and solution should be boosted to eventually eclipse our need for fossil fuels. Fossil fuels should be used sparingly. Everything in our society is wasteful.

If you check as petrol has carbon monoxide that is also given off from a combustion engine so also ethanol puts off its own toxic gas. This toxic gas is related or similar to formaldehyde which has been determined to cause carcinogenic reaction in humans including birth defects.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Aug, 2011 10:56 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:

The problem is we cannot be just using fossil fuels as if they are never going to run out and continue causing sever detriment to our environment.

There is a small growing portion of the energy sector that comprise of clean energy companies. These companies employ people right here at home and they provide energy at comparable prices and they are geared for the long term and often localized. Every clean energy source and solution should be boosted to eventually eclipse our need for fossil fuels. Fossil fuels should be used sparingly. Everything in our society is wasteful.

If you check as petrol has carbon monoxide that is also given off from a combustion engine so also ethanol puts off its own toxic gas. This toxic gas is related or similar to formaldehyde which has been determined to cause carcinogenic reaction in humans including birth defects.


The world has lots of fossil fuels remaining. We have used well under half the world's known recoverable petroleum and more is being found every day. We have used even less of the recoverable natural gas, and the world's coal reserves are also very substantial. We have in hand enough fissionable nuclear fuel to power the country for a century or more, and much more is readily available in known mines.

The "clean" energy sources to which your refer (wind and solar) are far too expensive (more than three times the cost of nuclear or fossil fuel per unit of energy delivered) to enable large scale replacement of our current fossil fuel resources without destroying our economy, and causing widespread unemployment and poverty. Indeed, if we start down that road we won't have enough money left to continue. Wind and solar power exist only because of government subsidies and mandates - without them they would quickly disappear due to their very high cost and low capacity factors (the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine all the time).

You are dead wrong in suggesting that most of the industries supporting these technologies are domestic. China has a near lock on the manufacture of solar cells, and about half of wind turbines are manufactured in Europe. Our limited supply of engineers and our high labor costs will remain serious impediment to a growing role for our manufacturers in this market.

The world's population in now well over six billion people (though it is forecast to peak and start a slow decline in mid century). We cannot hope to feed, clothe and house that number of people without fossil fuels. That too would be an environmental catastrophe.
 

Related Topics

Perpetual Motion - Question by magnocrat
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Energy
  3. » Page 9
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/26/2024 at 12:21:14