Home | Community | Message Board


SoulSpeciosa Kratom
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Science and Technology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Dehydrator, Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
Oil from agricultural waste?
    #2710401 - 05/21/04 10:57 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

I was disappointed not that long ago to hear that alcohol from corn requires more energy to produce than it produces in combustion. However, this looks like a better possibility for producing energy from agricultural waste (only 27000 more plants, or so, and we'll be totally free from foreign oil :rolleyes:)


Quote:


Waste-To-Oil Company Selling Oil Commercially
Wednesday May 19, 6:33 pm ET

CARTHAGE, Mo., May 19 /PRNewswire/ -- Renewable Environmental Solutions LLC (RES) today announced that its first commercial plant is selling an equivalent of crude oil No. 4, produced from agricultural waste products. The Carthage, Missouri, plant is currently producing 100-200 barrels of oil per day utilizing by-products from an adjacent turkey processing facility.

RES is a joint venture of Changing World Technologies, Inc. and ConAgra Foods, Inc. established in 2000 as the exclusive vehicle for processing agricultural waste material utilizing CWT's Thermal Conversion Process technology, throughout the world.

TCP is the first commercially viable method of reforming organic waste into a high-value energy resource. The oil being produced by RES is being sold to a local oil blender and to customers who will use it as a heat source for their operations.

Because TCP utilizes above-ground organic waste streams to produce a new energy source, it also has the potential to arrest global warming by reducing the use of fossil fuels, and to create a means of energy independence by reducing U.S. reliance on imported oil. At peak capacity, expected to be achieved by the end of this year, the first-out plant will produce 500 barrels of oil per day, as well as natural gas, liquid and solid fertilizer, and solid carbon.

"Until now our focus has been on completing commissioning of the plant, but now that we are selling oil commercially, our focus is shifting to what we can do with the TCP technology in the bigger global picture," says P.J. Samson, President of RES.

"TCP is based on simple science, and is the only proven solution to our mounting environmental and energy problems," said Brian Appel, Chairman and CEO of CWT.

Cornerstone Technology

TCP succeeds in breaking down long chains of organic polymers into their smallest units and reforming them into new combinations to produce clean solid, liquid and gaseous alternative fuels and specialty chemicals.

The process emulates the earth's natural geothermal activity, whereby organic material is converted into fossil fuel under conditions of extreme heat and pressure over millions of years. It mimics the earth's system by using pipes and controlling temperature and pressure to reduce the bio- remediation process from millions of years to mere hours.

    The process entails five steps:
    (1) Pulping and slurrying the organic feed with water.
    (2) Heating the slurry under pressure to the desired temperature.
    (3) Flashing the slurry to a lower pressure to separate the mixture.
    (4) Heating the slurry again (coking) to drive off water and produce
        light hydrocarbons.
    (5) Separating the end products.


TCP is more than 80% energy efficient. In addition, it generates its own energy to power the plant, and uses the steam naturally created by the process to heat incoming feedstock, In addition, TCP produces no emissions and no secondary hazardous waste streams.

For more information, log onto www.res-energy.com





Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Oil from agricultural waste? [Re: phi1618]
    #2710595 - 05/21/04 12:33 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

this has been around since like 91, but unfortunatly it becoming popular require and benificial on a large scale a lot of people need to loose money, there for this shit is only going to be implecated when the oil runs out


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAsanteA
light your candle on my love
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 51,502
Loc: Right Here - Right Now
Last seen: 36 minutes, 12 seconds
Re: Oil from agricultural waste? [Re: phi1618]
    #2710804 - 05/21/04 01:35 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

naww! The past's the future!

The thing we're moving towards is a society built on Hydrogen. And I mean thermonuclear, combustive and fuel cell Hydrogen. Its high time to take carbon out of the loop, even if we recycle it from the ecosystem. Oil is obsolete!

Now that TCP process is great to produce hydrocarbons, but considering scale and such I see it more useful in the production of enviromentally sound plastics (notably polyethylene and polypropylene) and in production of useful chemicals.

First there's centralized primary energy.
I think the best bet would be nuclear fusion reactors. The beauty of nuclear fusion reactors is that the radioactive "waste" of some reactions is itself a fuel so there is no radioactive waste to dispose of.

Once its underway all that goes into the reactor is tap-water Deuterium (non-radioactive: a gallon or so of water yields more deuterium energy then you'll use in your lifetime) and all that comes out the other end is Helium which we can use for SouthPark dialogue re-enactment on the tail end of trips :wink:
This energy source is inexhaustible, because it stalls stuff until we really get it together, meaning 4 H-1 --> He-4 which roughly is what gives the stars their sparkle.

If you think fusion reactors are full of shit then please go to
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3239806.stm  and watch us Europeans build the first thermonuke plant (pilot) aimed at 500 second bursts of 500 Megawatt. Beat that America! :evil:


But I'm jacking the fuel!
This TCP is a great process but not without its flaws. There will be fixed nitrogen and sulfur in there to either pollute as acid rain (if only :smirk:) or to cost an arm and a leg to remove. Looking at the process I'd say there will be some aromatics formed, carbon fuels create carbon particles below 2 microns which freak all enviromentalists out and if you use air in high-temperature combustion its inevitable to fixate nitrogen, acid rain & cancer again.

People are looking at Hydrogen as a means of storing energy (fuel) which has lots of benefits. First, there's the fuel cell: oxidizing hydrogen without burning or bad emissions into water and electricity.
If you pull electricity through water (well.. NaOH solution's more efficient!) it decomposes into the hydrogen & oxygen again for the fuel cell. This is fed by primary energy (fusion/solar cells etc)and you're quite literally "on the road".

For a quick refill Zinc metal is being looked into, with you basically filling 'm up with metallic macaroni :smile:
A good cheap alternative way to store energy would be magnesium metal (sea water contains 0.13% of it) or Aluminium.

To give you an idea as to the energy capacity involved:
if you pull at amps with a given voltage you get so much watts.
Since you can fiddle the volts & watts all you want producing electricity is basically all about the amperes.
Amperes are the number of electrons that are moved from A to B.
To move electrons you either need molecular or nuclear chemistry or neat physics to distract you with its smoke & mirrors from the chemistry of things. :grin:
Without going too far into it you get the same amount of amps going from:

9 lbs pure coal  =  7 lbs fuel oil  =  3 lb hydrogen

(please dont bother me with ionisation, heat of formation and BTU shite because without the amps you've only got excessive heat and the volts and watts can be fiddled with at will with radio shack components)

so the same weight of hydrogen will get you over twice as far in a same-efficiency vehicle, and this with no emissions. On the contrary you could make a closed system of electrolysis and fuel cell which would then be basically a rechargable battery but with unheard of storage capacity ( 1 lb Hydrogen = 7 lb Lithium of those costly durable batteries)


Since we should move towards renewables and away from carbon fuels and combustion I'd say the TCP is great for chem but too small-scale and polluting in the long run as a fuel source.


.


--------------------
CLICK ONE -->  :redpill:  :bluepill:  <-- GO PLACES
SEARCH ENGINE  SUPPORT TICKETS  STORE  SPONSORS/VENDORS  AMANI
PSYCHOSIS, SYNCHRONICITIES, SHAMANISM & THE SUPERNATURAL WA&F

From the Outcasts to the Incrowd, from the Clueless to the Helpful, it takes the whole Shroomery to help a n00b


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
Re: Oil from agricultural waste? [Re: Asante]
    #2712017 - 05/21/04 06:11 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

this has been around since like 91, but unfortunatly it becoming popular require and benificial on a large scale a lot of people need to loose money, there for this shit is only going to be implecated when the oil runs out



That's a bit incoherent, but I think I get the picture - this process will never become our primary source of fuel, because 1) like I said, 27,000 plants; 2) we probably don't have enough agricultural waste to feed that many plants.


Quote:

This TCP is a great process but not without its flaws. There will be fixed nitrogen and sulfur in there to either pollute as acid rain (if only ) or to cost an arm and a leg to remove. Looking at the process I'd say there will be some aromatics formed, carbon fuels create carbon particles below 2 microns which freak all enviromentalists out and if you use air in high-temperature combustion its inevitable to fixate nitrogen, acid rain & cancer again.




Quote:


At peak capacity, expected to be achieved by the end of this year, the first-out plant will produce 500 barrels of oil per day, as well as natural gas, liquid and solid fertilizer, and solid carbon.




non-carbon elements go to fertilizer; haven't heard anything about cyclic or aromatic compounds - it's supposed to be a really clean process, though :shrug:


In any case, the idea of a nuclear-driven hydrogen-fueled economy is a good one, but I'm not sure how close it is to realization.
The main problems are:
1) our present dependance on coal power (you might want to review your figures on the energy density of coal vs. oil); fusion might be great, but it's going to cost alot to get it up and running, in terms of research, demonstrating safety, and infrastructure. Old-fashioned fission plants might be a more practical short term solution.
2) hydrogen transportation. We need a safe way to transport alot of hydrogen in a small space to make fuel cells a good replacement for internal combustion.
You mentioned other ways of moving energy, like Mg... I don't know much about this.

In any case, your vision is nice, but not yet proven and almost certainly very expensive to realize.


So, while I agree that this process is way too small to be the solution to the world's energy problems, it seems to be a good use for agricultural waste.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAsanteA
light your candle on my love
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 51,502
Loc: Right Here - Right Now
Last seen: 36 minutes, 12 seconds
Re: Oil from agricultural waste? [Re: phi1618]
    #2712478 - 05/21/04 08:24 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

sounds perfect, but alas perfection is never achieved!

Organic life from the micobial to our size are well-known as sponges that suck up toxic materials and heavy metals. In fact many are investigated to rid landfills and spill sites from their toxics, to then harvest them and treat them as toxic waste.

Biomatter also holds protein. Protein consists of amines and sulfides sandwiched between hydrocarbons and aromatic compounds. Since these are apolar they will be taken into the organic phase especially since pyrolysis conditions that convert carbohydrates (HC-OH)into hydrocarbons (CH2) will readily turn amino acids and protein into even more apolar substances. From the top of my head I recall two kilos of generic dried plant material contains some 100 grams of protein which yields about one mole of amine nitrogen. (17gr NH3)
This means the plant material contains 0.7% amine nitrogen which is a lot as you consider thats 70kg to a 10 ton truck.

Carbohydrates (the bulk of the fuel) in the open air "technically" dehydrate to carbon and water on pyrolysis. Anyone who has baked a cake while high can vouch for some serious stingy vapors, even with purissimo carbs like cane sugar. Since hydrocarbons are formed in this reaction and pyrolysing carbs create multiple bonds, tars and such you can count on at least a small percentage of aromatics being in there. If any cost-effective cracking process or funky zeolite catalyst selectively eliminated aromatics all the corps would use this on gasoline etc.

"Really clean" never is truely clean, especially when it comes to the huge tonnage quantities that are required of any serious fuel. Lemme pull out of my ass that 1 kg of fuel oils have some 10 kWh to them.. thats say 100 liters of light fuel oil to said 800 kW household a year.

Times a million households for a bigass city equals 100 million liters of fuel oil. Even a 0.0001% contaminant would be a hundred liters of unpleasant goop. On top of that aromatics form during combustion along with the NO2 radical from air nitrogen which makes diesel fumes contain a four ring dinitro aromatic thats among the strongest carcinogens known to man.

They dont tell us everything. Stuff simply is witheld. Missing from the fusion article is the rather important observation that the initial Tritium that "is made from Lithium" is in fact made by massive neutron bombardment in a regular (dirty) nuclear plant which does produce more radioactive waste.

Once the reactor is underway the fusion neutrons create its own Tritium (hence the Lithium mantle, which also acts as a coolant and heat transfer to the turbine system) with no waste, but not with the initial batches of T. Whats also witheld is that France has a substantial number of nuclear fission reactors which is another "convienient placement" of the plant as international nuclear transports are more controversial then domestic ones.

As for now Tritium Deuteride gives the best pop but eventualy we'll move towards common household Deuterium fusion (like in Ivy Mike, the first hydrogen bomb) and finally we'll use regular hydrogen, which easily burns a million times fiercer weight-for-weight then coal, yet a glass of water contains 20 grams of it. (over 20 tons of coal to a glass.. now THATS an energy drink!)

Burning coal incidentally releases more radioactivity in the enviroment then a regular uranium/plutonium plant except for the canned waste which we'll dump in the sun within fifty years anyway.

Personally I believe small disposable nuclear uranium/plutonium
power units (like in submarines) some miles underground with the shaft collapsed shut on top of them are to be preferred enviromentally to what we're burning now, since there is no way it'll leak significant concentrations of shite upwards and a direct hit of a comet will mix it with so much debris the geiger count will be pretty low as compared to uranium ore areas.

One kilo of plutonium wastes is very nasty, but not as nasty as the millions of tons of CO2 and other wastes it replaces.. Put it in a capsule and hurl it into space with a rail gun. Cheap, safe, technology exists today (Greenpeace wants to club me like a seal for venturing beyond this taboo :blush:)

About coal vs hydrogen..
As I said I was talking of amperes, not watts. Amps are electrons (not the electromagnetic Watt force we use) since volts and watts are negotiable as long as you got the amps.

One mole of electrons moving is a Farad.
One Farad can be toyed with by oxidizing one gram of hydrogen, 3 grams of carbon or 2.33 grams of the :CH2 that approximates fuel oil.
The heat etc is relatively unimportant, its the number of electrons that count.

If you put a piece of aluminum foil in a glass of salty water (1 in 10) and a copper wire on the other side you get about 0.6 volts and X amps. If you put 10 of those in series you get 10x the volts, 10x the amps but 100x the Watts (which we want!)
If you use 1/10 the weight of aluminium in each cell you get all this from the same weight of aluminium, only in a 10x shorter duration. The copper isnt used up, in fact its cleaned as its rust turned to copper again. :grin:
So: volts & watts are negotiable if you got the amps. (electrons)

This is a rudimentary battery. But the beauty of it is that if you drive electricity through this simplified setup the oxidized metal will become a metal again thus the battery is charged (doesnt work exactly like that for aluminium, but basically it boils down to it) to be used once more.

Now Aluminium is particularly good to store amp energy as one Farad is stored in every 9 gram as opposed to the 104 grams of lead a car battery uses today. And Aluminium is abundant, relatively nontoxic, not a firehazard in sheet, shot or ingot, easily molten and transported AND packs 11.5x the juice as a car battery's lead.

Aluminium is abundant but not ubiquitous. Magnesium is more widespread and basically the same except its more reactive and its capacity is about 12.5gr per Farad which still kicks the crap out of lead.

If you run electricity through water you get the ?beratom Hydrogen that through the nuclear fire of the stars sprinkled its ashes (all the other atoms) around and birthed both our planet and us :laugh:
Hydrogen is a gas thats very flammable and hard to compress but it can be turned into hydrides (aluminium hydride: 4.5gr/Farad.. sexy.. :tongue:) for pressureless storage and if we can put a man on the moon and a loon in the white house we ought to be able to harnass working with a lil pressurized gas :crazy2:

The use of batteries is not just convenient transport but also that recharging can be done with erratic energy forms such as solar, (clouds happen :wink:) storage of immense quantities of potential electricity available for steady release when we need it.

A solar panel roof plus fuel cell setup will be able to power your household doing away with the grid. NY catches about 1MW per square meter, solar cells can easily provide 100 kW/year on said sq. meter so 8 sq. meter (a pretty small roof) can power said modest household..

Many lives get saved in the Third World through the combined technology of  Solar panel + Car battery + Laptop + Cellphone = Internet  which puts rural hospitals in contact with the outside world and medical knowledge. Since the equator region catches about 2.4MW instead of 1 solar-to-hydrogen/metal can yield them a valuable export product. (energy)

But since we need increasing amounts of juice we cannot escape Hydrogen fusion as solar wont do it all and windmills suck (I'm Dutch) and we have to abandon a carbon-fueled society.
Acid rain, global warming and what-have-you-not certainly wont kill the human species but will drive our generations to come behind glass and underground in a toxic overcrowded dead world, and this "Mars Colony on Earth" is just too sad to imagine. Even if we slack it for a century a second Carbon Age will wash all the surplus CO2 and NOx from the air but lets not count on that.

A renewable-energy Hydrogen fusion energy reactor: Europe is building his!


.


--------------------
CLICK ONE -->  :redpill:  :bluepill:  <-- GO PLACES
SEARCH ENGINE  SUPPORT TICKETS  STORE  SPONSORS/VENDORS  AMANI
PSYCHOSIS, SYNCHRONICITIES, SHAMANISM & THE SUPERNATURAL WA&F

From the Outcasts to the Incrowd, from the Clueless to the Helpful, it takes the whole Shroomery to help a n00b


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
Re: Oil from agricultural waste? [Re: Asante]
    #2713024 - 05/21/04 11:39 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Since these are apolar they will be taken into the organic phase especially since pyrolysis conditions that convert carbohydrates (HC-OH)into hydrocarbons (CH2) will readily turn amino acids and protein into even more apolar substances.




I can't claim to fully understand the chemistry behind this process, but I suspect that the nitrogenous products will be simple amines and amonia (based on the claim that liquid and solid fertilizers are produced), which are highly polar and water soluble. Same most likely goes for the sulfates - simple sulfates being polar and water soluble. To be clear, amino and sulfate functional groups are polar, but some compounds including these groups are nonpolar. As far as heavy metals etc. are concerned, this is food waste - the levels will be very low.

Quote:

Carbohydrates (the bulk of the fuel) in the open air "technically" dehydrate to carbon and water on pyrolysis. Anyone who has baked a cake while high can vouch for some serious stingy vapors, even with purissimo carbs like cane sugar.



The objective of this process is not to burn carbohydrates in oxygen, but to process them into hydrocarbons for future use. I seriously doubt that oxygen is present during this process, as it most certainly is when you bake a cake.

Quote:

bout coal vs hydrogen..
As I said I was talking of amperes, not watts. Amps are electrons (not the electromagnetic Watt force we use) since volts and watts are negotiable as long as you got the amps.



Talking about amps in this context is totally rediculous - burning coal generates heat which is used to turn a turbine; the turbine can be used to power a generator at any amperage or voltage, but with limited power (watts).
The important number isn't current generated, but total energy released and the efficiency of its use. Coal -> co2 + h2o releases more energy per unit weight than the combustion of oil; hydrogen releases more due to its small mass. additionally, fuel cells have the potential to be significantly more efficient than internal combustion engines (notice that in the internal combustion engine electricity isn't used at all, making the discussion of amperage totaly beside the point). The problem, as I mentioned before, is the storage of the hydrogen. Metal hydrides, fullerines, some kinda new-fangled nanotech - we don't really have a solution right now.


Quote:

f you put a piece of aluminum foil in a glass of salty water (1 in 10) and a copper wire on the other side you get about 0.6 volts and X amps. If you put 10 of those in series you get 10x the volts, 10x the amps but 100x the Watts (which we want!)
If you use 1/10 the weight of aluminium in each cell you get all this from the same weight of aluminium, only in a 10x shorter duration. The copper isnt used up, in fact its cleaned as its rust turned to copper again.
So: volts & watts are negotiable if you got the amps. (electrons)



ok, in this context your use of amperage is sensible - only so many electrons need be transfered to complete the redox reaction. However, the energy released is also limited - only so much energy is theoretically available from the reaction - as work and heat. For practical purposes, amperage is unimportant - what is important is energy available for work.

Electrochemical cells - batteries - can be used to power cars, but, for the most part, they aren't. Why? The cost of generating electricity, transmiting electricity, charging a battery - plus, the impracticality of an electric car for long trips, and the inability of most electric vehicles to deliver satisfactory performance.
Although new, improved batteries would allow great advances in many areas, there aren't any and there won't be, for theoretical reasons I never understood thouroughly. Tiny motors, fuel cells, but no super-electrochemical cells.


On solar power:
Right now, photovoltaic cells are competitive only in off-grid, niche markets - the cost of making a solar cell is too much to justify their widespread use right now.


On fission and fusion:
As far as nuclear vs. coal, I agree that a properly regulated nuclear power plant is far safer and cleaner than a coal power plant. We should be moving away from coal power - it is really dirty.
Fusion is so far unproven, but may be the way of the future, if it proves to be cleaner or cheaper than fission.

Back to the subject:
I don't claim this process is perfect. I don't know how much it costs, or what undesirable wastes are produced. However, it does produce alot of useful products, the company running it claims to have the profitability angle nailed w/o gov't subsidy, and it reduces US dependence on oil, and Saudi Arabia, right now.
All your visions of the future may come to pass, but right now they are pie in the sky.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAsanteA
light your candle on my love
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 51,502
Loc: Right Here - Right Now
Last seen: 36 minutes, 12 seconds
Re: Oil from agricultural waste? [Re: phi1618]
    #2715681 - 05/22/04 08:33 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

*sighs*
I'm pretty precise in what I write, please read it as such.
Too bad its just the two of us into this as its quite interesting.
Dont take this the wrong way but just a flyby:

I said sulfides, R-S-R' which are thio-ethers and quite lipophilic. In combustion they turn into the SO2 -- SO3  -- H2SO4 you speak of.

Aminogroups are quite polar but its all relative.
Methylamine is pretty aq. sol. indeed but if you extend the hydrocarbon chain this changes things drastically. Our buddy Tryptamine (decarboxylated Tryptophan) is almost insol. in water but very sol. in nonpolar solvents.

As carbohydrates contain over 50% of their weight in oxygen I dont think Oxygen can be excluded from the rxn. The pyrolysis of a cake or cane sugar is thermal decomposition and is independent of outside oxygen.

Please try to follow how I mean it and dont assume I'm wrong and read between that. For combustion you rely on heat. Electricity relies on electrons.

I understand the internal combustion engine uses combustion and that this is a heat-dependent thing and that a fuel cell to generate electricity depends on electrons. It would indeed be rediculous if i contradicted myself in it as I wrote tons about it. Please try to not disagree before deriving my logic from my words :wink:

Lets toss it in the blender and ignore the practicalities of carbon in a fuel cell for the sake of my example.

Hydrogen consists of hydrogen-to-hydrogen bonds
Carbon consists of carbon-to-carbon bonds
Hydrocarbons consist of a ~50/50 mixture thereof

Whether you burn these or use a fuel cell the -current- (amps = electron flow) is the same for a substance per gram.
3 gram carbon per farad, 2.33 gr hydrocarbon and 1 gr of hydrogen.

However the heat will be off because the bonds to be severed (H-H, C-C and mix) subtract different numbers relative to the electron flow.
This roughly equates combustion heat to Watts and the electron flow to Amps.

Since you can change voltage at will with electrical components you can up the wattage to your needs. If the battery empties out faster, you'll get more watts per second and the battery will be used up quicker. So all that matters in electricity is electrons per gram of substance as you with a lil tech can liberate these at any speed you want.

A battery usually consists of oxidizing a metal: diverting the electrons of a redox reaction.
Hydrogen is arguable the lightest alkali metal (its metallic if you press it hard enough at a low temp)
A fuel cell oxidises hydrogen to divert electrons.
Thus a fuel cell -IS- a battery, just an unusual-looking kind.

If you say "that will never happen" as to battery-powered electric car you say fuel cells (hydrogen batteries in this) will fail.
A big fuel cell (or several smaller ones) constitute a "Super-electrochemical cell" you insist arent and will not be invented.

You are so busy augumenting your opinion with logic that you forget you might miss a wee bit of the puzzle needed for the bigger picture.
Currently the zinc-powered car (thatsa he-man zinc battery) is seriously considered and some test models already drove considerable distances. You dont need to charge a battery on the spot: you can simply replace the anode and let the oxidized anode "waste" be recycled in a simple ore plant. An anode swap can be as fast as pumping gas.

As I said solar power cannot do it all. But if solar panels can deliver over 100 kW per sq. meter and if mass production would make their price drop significantly below gridprice (its almost deadlock now, if you governmentally increase scale Solar's on the road) you definately would want some around the house or on the car-roof to power high-performance halogen lights and add to your aux battery.

The latest thing in solar is the dye cell (Gr?tzel-cell, Dye Sensitized Solar Cell, DSSC) which basically can consist of a thin layer of graphite (pencil), aquous dye (ink), a thin layer of titanium dioxide (paint/teeth whitening paste) sandwiched between two plates of glass or plastic. Said examples are used in schools and we Dutch are really researching them and likely the price of solar cells will drop amazingly in a few years.

Fusion is unproven, yet the Europeans eagerly laid down billions and billions to build one, and build it we do. One does not start off a "manhattan project"-like endeavor if the experts arent convinced they can pull it off with existing technology. (you did click that link I hope?) Fusion reactors are unproven, but confidence is high :smile:

Fission cracks a radioactive element into two radioactive smaller ones whilst expelling several neutrons per atom, each capable of producing another radioactive atom.

Fusion involves less radioactive atoms in the fuel and in the fusion products and emits less neutrons. The unreacted radioactive fuel and radioactive fusion product (Tritium) is a superior fuel itself. The reactor is surrounded by lithium metal which will absorb most neutrons and form Tritium fuel. Thermonuclear fusion gives off a shitload of Gamma but gamma is just very hard UV light: if the reaction stops the light goes out and gamma does not make neighboring atoms radioactive.

This means Fusion can nuke its radioactive "waste" over and over until it stops sucking, the Tritiums popping hotter then tiny H-bombs.
Thus fusion by definition produces far less radioactive wastes, or about none with good housekeeping.

We should lose internal combustion of carbon thus the TCP technology will only be a transitional fuel technology at most. Since the carbon from the TCP is "green" anyway they can gas it with water to make producer gas (H2O + C + heat --> :CO + H2) like in the gaslight years and perhaps turn it into methanol for more green liquid fuel.
I read somewhere else that the TCP process is really pretty close to viability, just that gov't/corp $$$ boost needed for a breakthrough like with solar.


Hey man I may come off a lil harsh but you tripped my annoyance by blending emotional talk (Totally ridiculous) with statements that "it cant be done" which I both find very unsexy in scientific discussion. Pure logic will fail if you miss a key fact needed for applying that logic. Please dont take it personally, its great discussion and we both get the grey stuff humming & learning new stuff because of it. No hard feelings man :thumbup:

Now to lure some others in the fuel pit!
Anyone got more on the oil?


.


--------------------
CLICK ONE -->  :redpill:  :bluepill:  <-- GO PLACES
SEARCH ENGINE  SUPPORT TICKETS  STORE  SPONSORS/VENDORS  AMANI
PSYCHOSIS, SYNCHRONICITIES, SHAMANISM & THE SUPERNATURAL WA&F

From the Outcasts to the Incrowd, from the Clueless to the Helpful, it takes the whole Shroomery to help a n00b


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Amazon Shop for: Dehydrator, Scales

General Interest >> Science and Technology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Faster, more efficient hydrogen generation discovered DNKYD 716 1 11/05/06 03:22 AM
by Dexter_Morgan
* How do you envision us getting off of oil? Silversoul 899 17 08/01/07 03:41 PM
by DieCommie
* Hydrogen as solid fuel pellets wingnutx 2,564 19 04/21/03 08:10 PM
by JssMthrFcknChrst
* using hydrogen
( 1 2 all )
Corporal Kielbasa 1,750 22 09/30/06 04:38 PM
by Asante
* Practical Hydrogen? Madtowntripper 809 10 11/13/07 04:42 PM
by Diploid
* Hyping Hydrogen: The Energy Scam
( 1 2 all )
Ellis Dee 3,369 37 05/14/03 08:02 PM
by Papaver
* hydrogen producing bacteria JameZTheNewbie 1,363 7 05/26/05 06:17 AM
by ChuangTzu
* China's "Artificial Sun" Fusion Reactor--Operational next month? Madtowntripper 1,663 15 07/28/06 07:55 PM
by Asante

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Lana, trendal, Diploid, automan
906 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
FreeSpores.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.167 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.