Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

gingerjon

We need a scientist

25 posts in this topic

We desperately need a psychiatrist to help section the people who have written the comments underneath the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a science fanatic, not a scientist, the problem that spring out for me is that electrolysis is not a cheap to do. You need a substantial amount of electricity. Now if you were to wire this up to a 'good' nuclear reactor, say you got permission to build a MSR thorium reactor or something like that, then the principles all work. Its just getting the electricity you need for that bit.

Also I'd be interested to know what goes in to, and comes out of every stage of the process, particularly the 'gasoline fuel reactor'.

It also doesn't mention the process used for getting the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Now it might be possible to make this easier/cheaper were you to put scrubbers on power stations like Drax and take the CO2 out of its exhaust but I'd guess that's a down the road thought. But whatever process used would I imagine take quite a bit of energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, it does depend on the cost of electricity. It may be that this is where wind power comes in. It MIGHT be possible to use wind turbines to power a small plant locally, rather than though the grid, as intermittent operation of the plant from an intermittent power source might be ok.

I have long thought that small local wind turbine powered electrolysis plants might be a viable way of producing hydrogen for use in hydrogen powered cars in effect, you have a wind turbine at the local filling station, with an electrolysis plant and hydrogen tank. No need for huge plants, huge tankers etc.

On a visit to Sunderland Uni some years ago, they had a Nissan Almeria powered by hydrogen fuelling its standard IC engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading something in a journal not long back John that suggested that wind power was not as intermittent as its detractors indicate, which would definitely support that view.

I'll have a dig round and see if I can find where I saw it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's young..he has lots of energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have long thought that small local wind turbine powered electrolysis plants might be a viable way of producing hydrogen for use in hydrogen powered cars in effect, you have a wind turbine at the local filling station, with an electrolysis plant and hydrogen tank. No need for huge plants, huge tankers etc.

Let's think it through. The kind of turbines currently being installed in the UK countryside (ie big ones) have a power output of about 2MW. If you lose half of that in translation to the car (a generous estimate), you're left with 1MW. A car is on for perhaps 100kW = 0.1MW, based on my humble Clio.

So that turbine can power ten cars. It's not always windy, but then again the cars aren't running all the time, so let's say each wind powered service station can deal with 20 cars. Hell, let's be generous and call it 50.

Right now, there are 9,000 petrol stations in the UK and 31 million cars. Each petrol station is therefore providing power to 3,500 cars on average. A lot more than 50.

Unless my maths is way off, it's not going to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two related, but distinct, problems here. The first is the need to reduce, or preferably remove, CO2 emissions as a result of energy use. The second, is the need to continue to supply increasing amounts of power.

There are only really two solutions that address both.

The first is massive use of solar power on a genuinely global scale. Large parts of the Sahara and other deserts, and large areas of the Pacific Ocean need covering in vast solar panels.

The second is nuclear fusion power stations. We'll get them to work one day, but when?

Unless one of those two comes through in the next 50 years, we're ######ed. It's as simple as that. You have to get the energy from somewhere. Everything else is shuffling deckchairs at worst, buying us time at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

what do you think of other types of fission, particularly here I mean thorium MSR? Certainly an option 3 and since we had one running in the 1950's wouldn't take us too long to get them up and running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's think it through. The kind of turbines currently being installed in the UK countryside (ie big ones) have a power output of about 2MW. If you lose half of that in translation to the car (a generous estimate), you're left with 1MW. A car is on for perhaps 100kW = 0.1MW, based on my humble Clio.

So that turbine can power ten cars. It's not always windy, but then again the cars aren't running all the time, so let's say each wind powered service station can deal with 20 cars. Hell, let's be generous and call it 50.

Right now, there are 9,000 petrol stations in the UK and 31 million cars. Each petrol station is therefore providing power to 3,500 cars on average. A lot more than 50.

Unless my maths is way off, it's not going to work.

as an initial look, then yes but there could be more to it than that. (as an aside, I wonder - but don't have the time to find out - if there is any detailed research going on into that sort of possibility)

for an example,a 10kw home wind turbine costs around £20K to install. Say it is generating 25% of the time ( its windy round here) i still only use my car 5% of the time. Then how to decouple energy production from use, store and recover the intermittently produced energy? As say Hydrogen through electrolysis or synthesising "petrol" from captured CO2 For sure the plant to do either will not be cheap.

Sure, New Clear energy has in my view to be the general way forward.

One thing is for sure, energy - gas, elec, hydrocarbon, is not going to reduce in price and indeed price will in the end dictate how much we use.

In any case we will have to reduce energy generation if we are to stop cooking the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for an example,a 10kw home wind turbine costs around £20K to install. Say it is generating 25% of the time ( its windy round here) i still only use my car 5% of the time.

Assuming you have a small car rated at 100kW that you use 5% of the time, that's an average power output of 5kW. A 10kW turbine running 25% of the time only gets you half way there, even if you make the obviously false assumption that you lose nothing in the transmission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what if I blow on the turbine when its not windy? :rolleyes:

the sums will change, though as the years go by, as pump prices continue to increase, tax and all. and in any case, I don't drive falt out all the time, either. Are you aware of any ( indpendent) research into the whole topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what if I blow on the turbine when its not windy? :rolleyes:

the sums will change, though as the years go by, as pump prices continue to increase, tax and all. and in any case, I don't drive falt out all the time, either. Are you aware of any ( indpendent) research into the whole topic?

The sums won't change John. It's not really about the price at the pump, it's about whether a wind turbine can ever realistically produce enough power to drive a car at all. It's physics, not economics.

I'm not aware of any research into this topic, but I think my back of the fag packet analysis is a good enough answer to satisfy me. If you find anything, let me know. I can't see a way to drive cars with windmills.

The general area of energy provision in the future is deeply scary. Most people haven't a clue about it. Right now, we need an effort on the scale of the Apollo moonshot or the Manhattan Project to solve it and we have nothing like that even being talked about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see a way to drive cars with windmills.chevroletvolt_5_600x0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sums won't change John. It's not really about the price at the pump, it's about whether a wind turbine can ever realistically produce enough power to drive a car at all. It's physics, not economics.

I'm not aware of any research into this topic, but I think my back of the fag packet analysis is a good enough answer to satisfy me. If you find anything, let me know. I can't see a way to drive cars with windmills.

The general area of energy provision in the future is deeply scary. Most people haven't a clue about it. Right now, we need an effort on the scale of the Apollo moonshot or the Manhattan Project to solve it and we have nothing like that even being talked about.

I'm completely ignorant on this: is this where the debate turns to nuclear and everyone starts mumbling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nope. its where I propose to spend £200,000 on a 100Kw wind turbine to produce enough electricity to cover the conversion losses in getting the energy through to my Pan European that has a maximum output of 87kW. Since I tootle around at say 25% of that, or less, say 20Kw, I reckon that a 100Kw wind turbine might suffice. All I need to figure out is how I get the electricity to my fuel tank.

So imagine that works and that say 25% of car owners follow my lead. Based on just one car per owner that means a mere 7.5 million 100kW wind turbines will be erected...but since these will mainly be in the more affluent but less windy home counties, we'd need say four times that number so that is 30 million wind turbines in the SouthEast

Here is a 50kW wind turbine. the tower is 24 m high, and the rotor diameter is 19 m it generates 168,927kWh at 6 metre/sec wind speed

Fancy 30 million of them?

endurance55-1-big.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already mentioned nuclear and everyone ignored it.

Tis the way forward. The way A level results are getting better and better, we can safely leave the issue of spent fuel processing in the high-achievers hands as eventually they, or their children or their children's children will eventually be clever enough to develop a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't got anything to add to this thread apart from laugh at Steve because he's admitted to owning a Clio. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tis the way forward. The way A level results are getting better and better, we can safely leave the issue of spent fuel processing in the high-achievers hands as eventually they, or their children or their children's children will eventually be clever enough to develop a solution.

Or, if you read up on thorium MSR as I suggested, the waste products are only unstable for about 150 years with ten time less waste than a conventional LW reactor for the same or greater energy output, with a far more abundant fuel in a reactor which can't go critical.

Sadly the view that all fission reactors are bad is prevalent though. Even though its demonstrably wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't got anything to add to this thread apart from laugh at Steve because he's admitted to owning a Clio. :lol:

:O

It's a cracking car. It uses almost no petrol and never breaks down. What more do I need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard this story on Radio Tees while driving into work this morning. My first thought was that it was a wind-up, an April fool joke in October, but they had an interview with someone who sounded quite convincing. I am still not convinced by it - I mean 5 litres of artificial petrol isn't going to solve the energy crisis - but I am not so dismissive as I was at first.

You are correct in thinking that such a system as this will require more energy input than it will give out. (The system is a reversible chemical reaction. One way it gives energy out - rolls downhill - and the other way you put energy in - push it uphill - it reminds me of respiration/photosynthesis). Because no system is 100% efficient, you always end up putting more energy in than you get out. This is why you're looking at nuclear or wind power for a cheap source of the energy.

There is a possible alternative, though. Some chemical (and biological) systems need less energy than you might suppose due to the action of catalysts (enzymes). It is just possible that some clever person has developed a catalyst for the uphill reaction which means that the system needs less energy than you might think. That would certainly change the economics of the process.

I emphasise that I do not know that this is the case, I just offer it for consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, if you read up on thorium MSR as I suggested, the waste products are only unstable for about 150 years with ten time less waste than a conventional LW reactor for the same or greater energy output, with a far more abundant fuel in a reactor which can't go critical.

Sadly the view that all fission reactors are bad is prevalent though. Even though its demonstrably wrong.

I may have misled you. I am pro nuclear power..done properly and lifecycle costs properly accounted for. Security of supply, etc etc.

My first trip to Dungeness B was in the late 1960s during construction. However, it was so late that the control computers we were putting in were actually obsolete before the station was generating. Similarly Dounreay PFR. The UK nuclear industry has a record of cost and time overruns second to none in the world. We have to avoid the problems also that France is having with its 80% reliance on nuclear.

State-owned EdF said its third-generation nuclear reactor EPR project at its Flamanville, northern France, plant will be delayed until 2016, due to "both structural and economic reasons," which will bring the project's total cost to EUR6 billion.Similarly, the cost of the French EPR to be built at Olkiuoto, Finland has escalated. Areva and the utility involved "are in bitter dispute over who will bear the cost overruns and there is a real risk now that the utility will default."

"Following Holland's victory in 2102, there may be a partial nuclear phase-out in France, with the Socialist party in favour of closing the oldest 24 reactors by 2025"

We are paying a huge cost for decommissioning existing plant. No problem wit that apart from teh fact that these costs were ignored, hidden or unknown when the stations were commissioned. Thorium, fusion, it doesn't matter. We have to know what we are letting ourselves in for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 24th July 2017