Jump to content

Energy scenario for unlimited green, cooling down the planet, energy without carbondioxide emmisions


Recommended Posts

296px-Geologic_time_scale.jpg

22 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

that argument works if its Co2 warming the planet and then the next argument so what if the planet is getting warmer.
Its been warmer and had more C02 in the past and yet here we are.

You refer to the Cambrian age. That was -489.5  million years ago.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Geologic_time_scale.jpg/296px-Geologic_time_scale.jpg
That was in ancient times you need to have feeling for geological timescale.
There is one famous book about this subject that was written by a professor of mine.
Salomon Kroonenberg, the human scale.
Salomon Kroonenberg Professor Geology TU Delft
 

Resume of this famous professor, he is rich because of his best selling books.
You might say I am a fan of his work.
CV-Salomon-Kroonenberg.pdf

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Here we go again.

A a striptease performer? How Late is it where you live...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Schakel said:

You refer to the Carbonius age
That was in ancient times you need to have geological timescale.
There is one famous book about this subject that was written by a professor of mine.
Salomon Kroonenberg, the human scale.
Salomon Kroonenberg Professor Geology TU Delft
 

some good stuff there I will get reading..

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Schakel said:

Your remarks maybe true in savanah condition.
But what when you place these cells in desserts?


 

I was providing a reference for Ncik since he asked and Sailabout hadn't provided one.

I'm not personally bothered by heat-islanding as a major factor but I do believe the phenomena exists and is worthy of some consideration.   The physics are involved but actually pretty straight forward and a large solar array isn't any different than any other large man made structure like a parking lot.   Depending on what it's covering, the local temperature can go up or down.  COMSOL even has a canned example for the 'umbrella on beach' problem. 

 

image.png.cb9c5e3e8a551a54c4ebd56630d7cbee.png

The MASSIVE proposed arrays necessary to meet overall energy requirements are kind of eye-popping.   I REALLY like the Indian approach of putting solar panels over canals.   THAT is a really well conceived project IMHO reducing water loss, keeping the panels cooler, and using space that's committed anyway.  I'd actually exicted to see how it turns out.

I think the half-life issue is misplaced.  Bananas are radioactive - the potassium in them has a half life of 125,000,000 years.  Are Bananas bad a priori?  Carbon-14 is 'radioactive' and lasts almost 6000 years.  Stop breathing?  The issue with radiation is always how long and how much.  How long the harmful emissions last and what are the nature of those emissions which depends on which technology is under consideration. 

Subjuction disposal is a pretty fringe idea and I'm not aware of any serious consideration of that strategy.   Most of the proposed strategies involve entombment in tectonically dead and inaccessible areas - either in cement caskets or bound up with glass and injected into deep wells.

The loss of biodiversity and the death of major lakes in Asia are pretty hard :( to watch. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BeSafe said:

Subjuction disposal is a pretty fringe idea and I'm not aware of any serious consideration of that strategy.   Most of the proposed strategies involve entombment in tectonically dead and inaccessible areas - either in cement caskets or bound up with glass and injected into deep wells.

Which is its own kind of problem.

  

On 10/9/2018 at 6:21 AM, Seriatim Tom said:

FPL wins right to store radioactive waste under Florida's drinking water

A bit of an alarmist headline. Deep well injection of waste has been a disposal practice in Florida for decades. There are briny layers way down there and putting something in them is said to be "getting rid of it forever."

Forever is a long time.

Another way to phrase it would be:

FPL wins right to store radioactive waste IN Florida's drinking water.

The Florida Aquifer is large and complex but I don't think you can really say any one part is "forever" isolated from the rest.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Seriatim Tom said:

Which is its own kind of problem.

  

 

True.  And forever is a long time. 

Personally I believe there are good places to store it but that's for another thread :P.  

Although maybe not.  I thought we were talking about formic acid as an energy storage medium, to which I recommended other options and now we're into heat islands and nuclear waste disposal!  So many topics!   

Fwiw, PA may have some serious people but this isn't a serious place.  Making that mistake just leads to frustration.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Schakel said:

You people make about a mess of about everything.
I know SA is a brawl. How much did you people drink at the moment....

As said before it is highly advanced good educated discussion. Not late night brawling.
Although I don't mind but do not take yourself to serious please.

Here we go again...

Sorry, I am often not-serious, and it's a serious topic. I'll try not to spill my drink on the papers.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sorry, I am often not-serious, and it's a serious topic. I'll try not to spill my drink on the papers.

- DSK

I am used to second hand drinking, in the cafés where I come the liquer odour is such that via my lungs it gets in my blood, second hand drinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

FPL wins right to store radioactive waste under Florida's drinking water

A bit of an alarmist headline. Deep well injection of waste has been a disposal practice in Florida for decades. There are briny layers way down there and putting something in them is said to be "getting rid of it forever."

Forever is a long time.

Another way to phrase it would be:

FPL wins right to store radioactive waste IN Florida's drinking water.

The Florida Aquifer is large and complex but I don't think you can really say any one part is "forever" isolated from the rest.

Underground storage and Isolation is often the only solution for radioactive waste, together with storage in drums. Remember it must be controlled and monitored for 10^12 year which is rougly 10.000 longer then the age of the earth which is 8*10^9. Good luck.

Cheers! 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to topic:
Ethanol tankers can provide the world with green energy, made by solar cells in far away sunbathed countries.
It's sustainable energy that does cool the planet down and therefore decreases sealevel rise in the future.
%E3%83%97%E3%83%AC%E3%82%BC%E3%83%B3%E3%
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Schakel said:

Back to topic:
Ethanol tankers can provide the world with green energy, made by solar cells in far away sunbathed countries.
It's sustainable energy that does cool the planet down and therefore decreases sealevel rise in the future.
%E3%83%97%E3%83%AC%E3%82%BC%E3%83%B3%E3%
 

And these far away countries will just let it happen. They will be so concerned about the rest of the world they would never jack prices. Never use it as a power play. All these far away countries have nice stable governments that would never consider being assholes when they have the rest of the world by the balls.

Your ideas are great, but you continually ignore the human element. Especially when potentially huge sums of money are involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Schakel said:

Back to topic:
Ethanol tankers can provide the world with green energy, made by solar cells in far away sunbathed countries.
It's sustainable energy that does cool the planet down and therefore decreases sealevel rise in the future.
%E3%83%97%E3%83%AC%E3%82%BC%E3%83%B3%E3%
 

Except I need 1-2m of sea level rise so I have a deep waterfront property, so - no.

And anyway, how & what feedstocks do you propose to create the ethanol?

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Except I need 1-2m of sea level rise so I have a deep waterfront property, so - no.

And anyway, how & what feedstocks do you propose to create the ethanol?

FKT

You might have a problem then. I have ordered the 18m rise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Schakel said:

Back to topic:
Ethanol tankers can provide the world with green energy, made by solar cells in far away sunbathed countries.
It's sustainable energy that does cool the planet down and therefore decreases sealevel rise in the future.
%E3%83%97%E3%83%AC%E3%82%BC%E3%83%B3%E3%
 

There's actually a thread for that, and some of us are tired of ethanol wrecking our carburetors and think that ethanol doesn't belong in boats.

It doesn't come from sunbathed tropics. It comes from subsidized midwestern agricultural conglomerates at the expense of the "family farms" the politicians say they're trying to save.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of the 'energy from plants' schemes, Eucalyptus Trees and Switch Grass Variants probably make the most sense.

Both have issues though - harvested biomass is more valuable than static old growth.  There are places where it makes sense from an energy standpoint but unless rich countries offset the value of existing forest / coastal habitat, its a bad cycle.

Sugars -> Alcohol -> Combustion Engines is about the worst energy cycle that can be derived and should have ended 20+ years ago.  Just terrible and totally unjustifiable from any engineering perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BeSafe said:

Of the 'energy from plants' schemes, Eucalyptus Trees and Switch Grass Variants probably make the most sense.

Rudolf Diesel designed his engine to run on oil and a sensible one at the time was hemp seed oil.

As for biomass generation, does anything beat cannabis?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Seriatim Tom said:

Rudolf Diesel designed his engine to run on oil and a sensible one at the time was hemp seed oil.

As for biomass generation, does anything beat cannabis?

Using precious agricultural land and groundwater for fuel production is a very bad idea 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

There's actually a thread for that, and some of us are tired of ethanol wrecking our carburetors and think that ethanol doesn't belong in boats.

It doesn't come from sunbathed tropics. It comes from subsidized midwestern agricultural conglomerates at the expense of the "family farms" the politicians say they're trying to save.

Buy enzyme fuel treatment. No the plan is to have it (ChCooh) distilled and extract Hydrogen out and make a product with the remaining C2 to  fill the tanker on het way  back. It's under research by a friend of mine and I can't say who but he is sure it's possible.
And it's been done by the use of catalysts.
IMG_6622.thumb.JPG.9d60dd9b5cbbf11bb8d4e534c5f972cb.JPG
IMG_6623.thumb.JPG.59a24c7fa8fd2ce4228b18e33c7beafc.JPG
 

So we are discussing  afdavanced refinery chemical engineering which is not for everyone.
With this Hydrogen a turbine is driven and with this turbine you generate electricity.


2118456299_hydrogenturbineFinsang.thumb.jpg.f37679b68da1a08cae237b167da6afc9.jpg

This how a hydrogen turbine looks like by Siemens AG.
Ja ich weiß, es sind ja deutscher.


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Schakel said:
3 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

and some of us are tired of ethanol wrecking our carburetors and think that ethanol doesn't belong in boats.

It doesn't come from sunbathed tropics. It comes from subsidized midwestern agricultural conglomerates at the expense of the "family farms" the politicians say they're trying to save.

Buy enzyme fuel treatment. ....
 

Or when you rebuild your old carbs, use the very slightly more expensive ethanol resistant kit.

Or just get used to the fact that nothing lasts forever, the fact of your possessing an old outboard does not burden the rest of the world with the obligation to provide fuel for it that you like. Forever.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Or when you rebuild your old carbs, use the very slightly more expensive ethanol resistant kit.

Or just get used to the fact that nothing lasts forever, the fact of your possessing an old outboard does not burden the rest of the world with the obligation to provide fuel for it that you like. Forever.

- DSK

Ethanol when burned still releases a significant ammount of Carbon dioxide. The refineries build on both sides, at the sunbathed part for instance Suriname.
And at the recieving post side let's say Botlek Rotterdam, will cost a bundle but the result is zero co2 emmision. Me and my colleagues are hundred procent sure it can be done. The procees is pending at a Patent attorney office at the moment. The officer was positive at first, I know him longtime.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Schakel said:

Ethanol when burned still releases a significant ammount of Carbon dioxide. The refineries build on both sides, at the sunbathed part for instance Suriname.
And at the recieving post side let's say Botlek Rotterdam, will cost a bundle but the result is zero co2 emmision. Me and my colleagues are hundred procent sure it can be done. The procees is pending at a Patent attorney office at the moment. The officer was positive at first, I know him longtime.

In the end … wind , solar,  hydrogen …are a big waste of time and money 

Dilithium Crystals are cheap , clean and child friendly 

a pocketful can easily power a large city 

 

1404C047-E245-4CC2-8A90-252309FEE0AC.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Schakel said:

Buy enzyme fuel treatment. No the plan is to have it (ChCooh) distilled and extract Hydrogen out and make a product with the remaining C2 to  fill the tanker on het way  back. It's under research by a friend of mine and I can't say who but he is sure it's possible.

I repeat - WHERE are you going to get the ethanol from?

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites

The enzyme is an organic catalyst to help combustion.  One of the odd features of ethanol alone is that it unzips too quickly and tends to leave residual carbon (i.e., soot).   Hence, the additives.

The corrosion problem with ethanol is the azeotrope with water.  If you have water in your gas, you can add some EtOH or methanol to get rid of it.  But if you've got nothing but EtOH, then you're guaranteed to have a tiny bit of water along for the ride and that means exaggerated corrosion on conventional low grade engine parts.  EtOH is also a solvent that sneaks into rubbers which is why it tends to degrade cheap seals and tubing.  Not as bad as methanol but bad enough.  Better polymers resist the corrosion but cost more.  Better metals resist the corrosion but cost more.

If you're going to go with 'energy plants' or crops to energy, then the best strategy is a simple grass or a high-oil plant and then either (a) and atmospheric gassifier where you deal with the N2 dilution in the name of simplicity,  collect your medium cut to sell as a naptha-kerosene surrogate, use the light cut to drive a fuel cell or carnot engine for local power, and plow the left over carbon char back into the ground as soil enhancer/fertilizer. 

If you want to go the full monty and assume you're going to electrolyze a bunch of water, then you can take the the oxygen and hydrogen in, along with biomass in an oxygen gassifier and catalyzed H2 shift reactor to create 99% CH4, liquid CO2 for sequestration, and about 3-4% leftover carbon char for fertilizer.  That's about 3 levels of invention at scale but would result in the highest reduction in atmospheric CO2 and a high grade fuel (CNG) that plops right in to the existing energy infrastructure.

Sugar+water ->yeast ->Ethanol+water->distillation -> Engines is just a bad cycle because of the water.  The Brazilians have demonstrated the benefits and drawbacks at length.  The best ERORI is 8ish and it costs enormous suffering just to get that.

If you want plant based energy, it can't have "added water" on top of the water already required just to grow the plant.  The energy balance breaks down.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, BeSafe said:

The enzyme is an organic catalyst to help combustion.  One of the odd features of ethanol alone is that it unzips too quickly and tends to leave residual carbon (i.e., soot).   Hence, the additives.

The corrosion problem with ethanol is the azeotrope with water.  If you have water in your gas, you can add some EtOH or methanol to get rid of it.  But if you've got nothing but EtOH, then you're guaranteed to have a tiny bit of water along for the ride and that means exaggerated corrosion on conventional low grade engine parts.  EtOH is also a solvent that sneaks into rubbers which is why it tends to degrade cheap seals and tubing.  Not as bad as methanol but bad enough.  Better polymers resist the corrosion but cost more.  Better metals resist the corrosion but cost more.

If you're going to go with 'energy plants' or crops to energy, then the best strategy is a simple grass or a high-oil plant and then either (a) and atmospheric gassifier where you deal with the N2 dilution in the name of simplicity,  collect your medium cut to sell as a naptha-kerosene surrogate, use the light cut to drive a fuel cell or carnot engine for local power, and plow the left over carbon char back into the ground as soil enhancer/fertilizer. 

If you want to go the full monty and assume you're going to electrolyze a bunch of water, then you can take the the oxygen and hydrogen in, along with biomass in an oxygen gassifier and catalyzed H2 shift reactor to create 99% CH4, liquid CO2 for sequestration, and about 3-4% leftover carbon char for fertilizer.  That's about 3 levels of invention at scale but would result in the highest reduction in atmospheric CO2 and a high grade fuel (CNG) that plops right in to the existing energy infrastructure.

Sugar+water ->yeast ->Ethanol+water->distillation -> Engines is just a bad cycle because of the water.  The Brazilians have demonstrated the benefits and drawbacks at length.  The best ERORI is 8ish and it costs enormous suffering just to get that.

If you want plant based energy, it can't have "added water" on top of the water already required just to grow the plant.  The energy balance breaks down.

 

OK so the ethanol comes from plants. What I thought.

Have you seen what's happening in places like Indonesia (palm oil) and Brazil?

From an environmental POV, alcohol production is TERRIBLE. Even in the USA and Australia, it diverts land from food production. We can afford to do that WRT food production but it still doesn't make it a good thing to do.

I'm far from a deep green type but unless you can find a way to produce ethanol from something other than biomass, forget it.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can grow diesel fuel. 

Don't need solar panel farms, or other big power sources, lithium or copper mines.

Renewable, sustainable, low resource input.

You get more energy out than you put in for a change too. 

If that's not green enough solar and hydrogen haven't got a chance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2021 at 2:14 AM, BeSafe said:

The value of the cargo has to pay for the trip and if the cargo is only 1/4th as valuable (i.e., it has 1/4th the energy), then is there actually enough value to warrant doing the trip in the first place?  The usual answer is 'economy of scale' which, in this case, means ships that are TWICE as big - at least.

I agree that formic acid doesn't look like the best way of transmitting PV power over long distances. Super high voltage DC power lines make more sense to me. The longest in the world is 2574 kM. This is a similar distance.  image.png.4465d8b2601db0b8f493ceca6e47bab2.png 

Actually the area required looks way smaller; more like this - 115,000 sq. miles. (339 miles on a side if a square). Africa is BIG. That area is the amount for the electricity demand for the whole world. But we could put some in the middle of the US, some in the middle of Siberia, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil etc etc.

image.thumb.png.edf32eddf9aafea076e1b1f9f1983ad8.png

 

But I think you're wrong about the costs of shipping. The value of a VLCC oil cargo: 2M barrels @ $50/barrel is about $100 M.  The cost of the voyage is a tiny fraction of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I repeat - WHERE are you going to get the ethanol from?

FKT

 

5 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I repeat - WHERE are you going to get the ethanol from?

FKT

Best question in the forum so far, it's chemical engineering done by

Step 1 produce  hydrogen by a process called electrlolysing of water. Lots of oxygen is by product and we do not use Na Cl as eletrolyte because of Chloride production.

Step2  H2 + 2CO  = CHCOOH

Step 3 where are going to get the Carbon monoxide from, and that is the secret of the smith : It is a by product of the stuff the tanker takes back when returning form the far away harbor for instance Rotterdam done catalystic reforming in refinery columns.

Are you an advanced chemical projectengineer Fah Kiew Tu? To solve this you may use all the advanced chemical fuelcell technology. Two of my PHD. coleagues who both work in this field for 20 years convinced me that is not the hardest part. Hardest part is transportation that is why we prefferer Ethanol above liquid hydrogen, Formic Acid, or Ammoniak.
1855141050_Ethanolmierenzuurvergelijking.PNG.c29d0c2582af4f366ad87f9121c925e0.PNG

Catalystic reforming is the answer Fah Kieuw Tu. Does this answer satifies your question?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zonker said:

I agree that formic acid doesn't look like the best way of transmitting PV power over long distances. Super high voltage DC power lines make more sense to me. The longest in the world is 2574 kM. This is a similar distance.  image.png.4465d8b2601db0b8f493ceca6e47bab2.png 

Actually the area required looks way smaller; more like this - 115,000 sq. miles. (339 miles on a side if a square). Africa is BIG. That area is the amount for the electricity demand for the whole world. But we could put some in the middle of the US, some in the middle of Siberia, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil etc etc.

image.thumb.png.edf32eddf9aafea076e1b1f9f1983ad8.png

 

But I think you're wrong about the costs of shipping. The value of a VLCC oil cargo: 2M barrels @ $50/barrel is about $100 M.  The cost of the voyage is a tiny fraction of that.

A tanker is free market, an eletric power cable losses too much energy when transporting.
And for security reasons transporting hydrogen is dangerous because of embrittlement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement

Tanker transportation by the rebuild of old oiltanker is easily obtainable. You can transport Ethanol with these tankers where the free marker takes you to.
For instance from Suriname to Rotterdam Botlek where the turbine is standing. Those hydrogen turbines can be build in every refinery. In this way we can provide the world with  an enourmous amount of green energy required by modern civilaisation.

The consumer is resposible as well, Isolation to prevent extra energy-loss, Underground storage of warmth that can be restored during winter.
Isolation to prevent overheated airconditioning. Simple measures that prevent high energy bills. Anything goes to prevent this.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Schakel said:

 

Best question in the forum so far, it's chemical engineering done by

Step 1 produce  hydrogen by a process called electrlolysing of water. Lots of oxygen is by product and we do not use Na Cl as eletrolyte because of Chloride production.

Step2  H2 + 2CO  = CHCOOH

Step 3 where are going to get the Carbon monoxide from, and that is the secret of the smith : It is a by product of the stuff the tanker takes back when returning form the far away harbor for instance Rotterdam done catalystic reforming in refinery columns.

Are you an advanced chemical projectengineer Fah Kiew Tu? To solve this you may use all the advanced chemical fuelcell technology. Two of my PHD. coleagues who both work in this field for 20 years convinced me that is not the hardest part. Hardest part is transportation that is why we prefferer Ethanol above liquid hydrogen, Formic Acid, or Ammoniak.
1855141050_Ethanolmierenzuurvergelijking.PNG.c29d0c2582af4f366ad87f9121c925e0.PNG

Catalystic reforming is the answer Fah Kieuw Tu. Does this answer satifies your question?

Yep - I was thinking you were going to regurgitate the old disproven biological ethanol caper.

I'm not a chemical engineer - retired scientist with a lot of hands-on engineering stuff in different fields from that. I'll take your word for the chemistry.

Always maintained that if you have enough energy, there's a hell of a lot that can be done to solve current problems. But the 'if you have enough energy' is the difficult part to date.

There's a lot of areas in Australia where a really big PV array is unlikely to do any harm and may even moderate the microclimate and do some good.

FKT

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Or when you rebuild your old carbs, use the very slightly more expensive ethanol resistant kit.

Or just get used to the fact that nothing lasts forever, the fact of your possessing an old outboard does not burden the rest of the world with the obligation to provide fuel for it that you like. Forever.

I'd just be happy if I didn't have to pay more for midwestern corn just because some idiots think corn squeezin's belong in our engines. I'd be pretty happy if we just let market forces kill that stupid idea instead of expecting me to pay for it. But that's not an idea that's going to win an Iowa primary, so it's a non-starter.

My larger point here is that we use the tools we have, and the tools we have in government are, well, a bunch of tools. Expecting smart results will always bring disappointment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

OK so the ethanol comes from plants. What I thought.

Have you seen what's happening in places like Indonesia (palm oil) and Brazil?

From an environmental POV, alcohol production is TERRIBLE. Even in the USA and Australia, it diverts land from food production. We can afford to do that WRT food production but it still doesn't make it a good thing to do.

I'm far from a deep green type but unless you can find a way to produce ethanol from something other than biomass, forget it.

FKT

You're preaching to the choir on ethanol.

I said earlier it was a bad terrible boodoggle that should have ended 20 years ago.

I said in the part you quoted "Sugar+water ->yeast ->Ethanol+water->distillation -> Engines is just a bad cycle because of the water.  The Brazilians have demonstrated the benefits and drawbacks at length.  The best ERORI is 8ish and it costs enormous suffering just to get that. "

Ethanol from sugar is a bad bad idea.

ITS BAD.

B

A

D

Not sure how much clearer I can be on that particular topic.

-------------------

Energy from plants as a concept is marginal, but not because of science.  That depends on the plant and depends on the process.  There are some plants and approaches that make sense.  I've mentioned two.  From a purely technical sense, plants are solar power with built in energy storage.  Its math and chemical engineering from there.  There are energy dense plants that grown in areas that aren't suitable for agriculture - people have been burning them for as long as there have been people.

The problem is economics.  Energy is usually worth more than food because its ubiquitous and easier to transport.  And it's ABSOLUTELY worth more than just leaving the ground alone if you don't put a value on old growth.   That's the hard truth.

Now we're getting to root of COP26 and the ongoing fight for the last two decades.  If you're a poor country and the only thing the world will actually buy from you is energy, what do you do?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Schakel said:

 

Best question in the forum so far, it's chemical engineering done by

Step 1 produce  hydrogen by a process called electrlolysing of water. Lots of oxygen is by product and we do not use Na Cl as eletrolyte because of Chloride production.

Step2  H2 + 2CO  = CHCOOH

Step 3 where are going to get the Carbon monoxide from, and that is the secret of the smith : It is a by product of the stuff the tanker takes back when returning form the far away harbor for instance Rotterdam done catalystic reforming in refinery columns.

 

That might be a decent polishing step but there are two big issues:

1)  There's not nearly enough CO byproduct - orders of magnitude too low.  The energy content of the residual gas is trivial.

2)  Concentrated CO leads interacts with the tank materials, creating trace amounts of Nickel and Iron Carbonyl that plate out up further reaction.  Same basic solution is required as the hydrogen embrittlement issue - you need to line the tanks which costs money and adds complexity.  CO isn't a stable molecule.  Its very tough to leverage in those ways.  There may not be any value left by the time you clean up the gas for formic acid production.  That I'd have to look into.

----

Both can be somewhat offset but what's going to happen is someone is going to get the bright idea to convert CH4 directly - you know, burn it - into CO/CO2 and then sell the CO to the formic acid industry.  That's what happened when China tried to incentivize the production of 'specific' chemicals via renewables.  There's not at easy way to distinguish 'renewable' from 'non-renewable' in the final product so then you end up with a 'state run enterprise' that has its own perverse incentives.

If you're already assuming you have H2, there are better chemical storage molecules to focus on IMHO.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BeSafe said:

You're preaching to the choir on ethanol.

I said earlier it was a bad terrible boodoggle that should have ended 20 years ago.

I said in the part you quoted "Sugar+water ->yeast ->Ethanol+water->distillation -> Engines is just a bad cycle because of the water.  The Brazilians have demonstrated the benefits and drawbacks at length.  The best ERORI is 8ish and it costs enormous suffering just to get that. "

Ethanol from sugar is a bad bad idea.

ITS BAD.

B

A

D

Not sure how much clearer I can be on that particular topic.

-------------------

Energy from plants as a concept is marginal, but not because of science.  That depends on the plant and depends on the process.  There are some plants and approaches that make sense.  I've mentioned two.  From a purely technical sense, plants are solar power with built in energy storage.  Its math and chemical engineering from there.  There are energy dense plants that grown in areas that aren't suitable for agriculture - people have been burning them for as long as there have been people.

The problem is economics.  Energy is usually worth more than food because its ubiquitous and easier to transport.  And it's ABSOLUTELY worth more than just leaving the ground alone if you don't put a value on old growth.   That's the hard truth.

Now we're getting to root of COP26 and the ongoing fight for the last two decades.  If you're a poor country and the only thing the world will actually buy from you is energy, what do you do?

 

ITS BAD.

B

A

D

Not sure how much clearer I can be on that particular topic.

The idea is as follows: solarcells produce eletrovoltage with which water can be seperated in Hydrogen and Oxygen (Electrolyse)
electrolyses.jpg.216f60a8dba4c9610d1bcd5631ff82a6.jpg
This Hydrogen is being stored and procesed to Ethanol by a distillerytower
853999357_Ethanoldistellerytower.jpg.182b63ea836be7520ad92c9038c15d54.jpg
 

The problem is economics.  Energy is usually worth more than food because its ubiquitous and easier to transport.  And it's ABSOLUTELY worth more than just leaving the ground alone if you don't put a value on old growth.   That's the hard truth.

Economics can be infuenced with taxes, susstainable energy has low taxes, and there fore rise in demand.
Carbon emmmiting energy goes up in taxes and down in demand,

Now we're getting to root of COP26 and the ongoing fight for the last two decades.  If you're a poor country and the only thing the world will actually buy from you is energy, what do you do?

These proposed solaspark are in sunbathed countries that are most poor, just like oil a certain percentage of the revenue goes to the poor county it self.
And you provide green enrgy in abundance in this poor country.

Clear enough?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

I'd just be happy if I didn't have to pay more for midwestern corn just because some idiots think corn squeezin's belong in our engines. I'd be pretty happy if we just let market forces kill that stupid idea instead of expecting me to pay for it. But that's not an idea that's going to win an Iowa primary, so it's a non-starter.

My larger point here is that we use the tools we have, and the tools we have in government are, well, a bunch of tools. Expecting smart results will always bring disappointment.

You're mad at the wrong people. But of course, distaste (at best) for gov't is a long-time part of American culture.

The people you should be angry at, remove your trust from, are the people running the major corporations that actually control your life. It's a bad trend that the gov't has been increasingly enabling & colluding with them for the past 2 generations, but most people confuse the passengers for the drivers here.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BeSafe said:

No.  Actully not.

Distillation is separation, not synthesis.  

These conversations have become random.  Good luck.

 

Correct it is synthesis.   Not too edgy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

4D0C93A2-C009-436C-8382-70CA0B6C07E6.jpeg

One might get easily mistaken. the two things do do belong to each other.
I'll give you another clue:
1637226625908.jpg.34a6859f036523c5423f297d8e106b45.jpg
Is that a destoyer marine ship with a windmill on it's frontdeck.
No it isn't, It's a destroyer lying next to a dock where they build a windmill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

Be careful what you wish for. Most fuels are so inferior to Hard Coal, know as Anthracite you’d be knocking down entire forests to feed those wood burners. 

All Anthracite Coal used in the U.S. is produced in the Northeast Region by American workers.
It’s currently the most abundant and economical fossil fuel available on the earth.
It burns at the highest level of BTUs of all fossil fuels, 25 million BTUs of heat per ton.
It’s very low in sulfur and volatile content compared to other competing fuels.
It’s primarily mined on the surface, retrieving coal that was abandoned from deep mines underground by drag-line shovels, better known as strip mining.
All Strip Mining Land is reclaimed and filled, and regulated by the government.
Environmentally Sound, Anthracite coal is a full-cycle resource. Burn it for heat, use the ashes for acetic landfill and crop fertilizers.
Safety – It is the safest fuel to use, maintain & burn, using low maintenance and self-serviceable burners. There are no concerns of chimney fires, leaking fuels or gases and is safely stored for extended periods

Now days CSX Railroad says it can move a ton of freight, 500 miles, on a single gallon of diesel fuel.

:lol:

Daffy Duck knows more than you about energy.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

Be careful what you wish for. Most fuels are so inferior to Hard Coal, know as Anthracite you’d be knocking down entire forests to feed those wood burners. 

All Anthracite Coal used in the U.S. is produced in the Northeast Region by American workers.
It’s currently the most abundant and economical fossil fuel available on the earth.
It burns at the highest level of BTUs of all fossil fuels, 25 million BTUs of heat per ton.
It’s very low in sulfur and volatile content compared to other competing fuels.
It’s primarily mined on the surface, retrieving coal that was abandoned from deep mines underground by drag-line shovels, better known as strip mining.
All Strip Mining Land is reclaimed and filled, and regulated by the government.
Environmentally Sound, Anthracite coal is a full-cycle resource. Burn it for heat, use the ashes for acetic landfill and crop fertilizers.
Safety – It is the safest fuel to use, maintain & burn, using low maintenance and self-serviceable burners. There are no concerns of chimney fires, leaking fuels or gases and is safely stored for extended periods

Now days CSX Railroad says it can move a ton of freight, 500 miles, on a single gallon of diesel fuel.

Coal is closing the demand, which is still almost insatiable.
global-energy-substitution.thumb.png.c61e6d9f16f334f37c62c13d78590716.png

I Guess mr Bravo Bravo comes from the US of A.
They have this graph:
US_energy_consumption_svg.thumb.png.2d6ac30a61cb1d8c76551a1f4874177f.png
So Coal s vanishing and renewables are rising th
at's good for cooling down the planet but is it good enough.
Our Eastern Neighbours ar doing all right:
fig1-installed-net-power-generation-capacity-germany-2002-2020.thumb.png.5db221913206fc194511229e980e7aa9.png
 

Or Iceland:
371364905_Icelandfuelconsumption.jpg.aa0e04b5b84b046ac9ba8d3d4b2843ec.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

What is the plan for disposing of dead batteries. How is the mining of the rare earth minerals weighed in the overall use of EV’s 

You do understand if things were reversed and civilization had been using EV’s , windmills and solar panels for energy usages and then came coal , oil and gas the discovery would be heralded as the greatest discovery in the modern world. 
Hmmm …. hate to tell you unicorn, rainbow and lollipop dreamer’s… fossil fuel still is ! 
 

I would love if there was a viable, scalable option but there simply is not one yet. 

Do not worry I studied mining and petroleum engineering.
And come from a family fully submerged in that world.
Geo- engineering is the modern way to look at subjects, It is well recieved and delivers an not ever seen before ammount of work.
Everything has to be redesigned, that's why with this plan we support poor solar countries by giving them an income like oil, gas and coal did in the past.
Only different with solar parks in far away countries, The eskimo's fall out of plan, they are the new indians.

The plan is gutsy I know. Saoudie Arabia is already on this track. Making more money is their goal, and they are good in it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

:lol:

Daffy Duck knows more than you about energy.

- DSK

Exectly, And I know it's spelled Exactly...

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Schakel said:

Do not worry I studied mining and petroleum engineering.
And come from a family fully submerged in that world.
Geo- engineering is the modern way to look at subjects, It is well recieved and delivers an not ever seen before ammount of work.
Everything has to be redesigned, that's why with this plan we support poor solar countries by giving them an income like oil, gas and coal did in the past.
Only different with solar parks in far away countries, The eskimo's fall out of plan, they are the new indians.

The plan is gutsy I know. Saoudie Arabia is already on this track. Making more money is their goal, and they are good in it.

 

None of that answers the question asked.

What is the plan for disposing of dead batteries. How is the mining of the rare earth minerals weighed in the overall use of EVs?

Yeah I know - if you have sufficient energy reserves, you can recycle lots of stuff. But first you need to *get* the energy over & above what's needed just to run a 21C tech industrial society. And get it to where it's usefully deployed.

Realistically hydro is maxed out now so it's off the table. PV arrays might be good, don't know, we've a lot of arid land though. Fucks over northern Europe though. No sun a lot of the time.

It's all interesting.

FKT

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

None of that answers the question asked.

What is the plan for disposing of dead batteries. How is the mining of the rare earth minerals weighed in the overall use of EVs?

Yeah I know - if you have sufficient energy reserves, you can recycle lots of stuff. But first you need to *get* the energy over & above what's needed just to run a 21C tech industrial society. And get it to where it's usefully deployed.

Realistically hydro is maxed out now so it's off the table. PV arrays might be good, don't know, we've a lot of arid land though. Fucks over northern Europe though. No sun a lot of the time.

It's all interesting.

FKT

 

The good news for lithium batteries is that the primary metals (Li, Ni, and Co) are all pretty easy to separate from each other so recycling makes sense.

Two of the ingredients in consumer grade lithium batteries (those in phones/laptops and every other lithium toy, appliance, and hand tool you can imagine) are carcinogenic and eventually are going to find their way into groundwater from landfills but for today, no one cares.  The answer to that will governments will stack a 'recycling core charge' on lithium batteries and devices - just like bottles and aluminum cans but they're going to be much higher since the products are worth a lot more than, say, a can of soda.

Industrial grade batteries are already recycled.  Lead and industrial NiCd are almost 100% recycled and, again, are an easy process.

But that's not really the question - its the amount of new materials that will be necessary.  That gets very complicated.  The answer is a lot.  And the term 'conflict minerals' comes up over and over.

FWIW, rare earths aren't as difficult as they're made out.  One of my former mentors was the chief chemist for Molycorp in Mountain Pass, NV.  The problem is waste.  Separating rare earths from each other is complicated and messy.  Not really chemically 'hard' - just VERY messy.  For the last 30 years, the world has gotten away with buying stuff out of China and then re-refining it, keeping the local waste accumulation to a minimum.  The French and Americans have been doing that for reagent grade Cerium and other Lanthanides for decades now.  No one actually trusts the Chinese product but if they rip 95% of the crap out and do rough cuts, it's a LOT easier to polish it up.  Where does all the messy stuff the Chinese produce end up?  Tibetan Highlands mostly.  Out of sight, out of mind.

One of my absolute favorite summaries of energy storage and generation comes from this guy(Tom Murphy)  https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/09/got-storage-how-hard-can-it-be/

He's apparently got an updated book but I haven't checked it out yet, but if you want a high level primer on the physics of energy and storage, he's a great place to dip a toe.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BeSafe said:

The good news for lithium batteries is that the primary metals (Li, Ni, and Co) are all pretty easy to separate from each other so recycling makes sense.

Two of the ingredients in consumer grade lithium batteries (those in phones/laptops and every other lithium toy, appliance, and hand tool you can imagine) are carcinogenic and eventually are going to find their way into groundwater from landfills but for today, no one cares.  The answer to that will governments will stack a 'recycling core charge' on lithium batteries and devices - just like bottles and aluminum cans but they're going to be much higher since the products are worth a lot more than, say, a can of soda.

Industrial grade batteries are already recycled.  Lead and industrial NiCd are almost 100% recycled and, again, are an easy process.

But that's not really the question - its the amount of new materials that will be necessary.  That gets very complicated.  The answer is a lot.  And the term 'conflict minerals' comes up over and over.

FWIW, rare earths aren't as difficult as they're made out.  One of my former mentors was the chief chemist for Molycorp in Mountain Pass, NV.  The problem is waste.  Separating rare earths from each other is complicated and messy.  Not really chemically 'hard' - just VERY messy.  For the last 30 years, the world has gotten away with buying stuff out of China and then re-refining it, keeping the local waste accumulation to a minimum.  The French and Americans have been doing that for reagent grade Cerium and other Lanthanides for decades now.  No one actually trusts the Chinese product but if they rip 95% of the crap out and do rough cuts, it's a LOT easier to polish it up.  Where does all the messy stuff the Chinese produce end up?  Tibetan Highlands mostly.  Out of sight, out of mind.

One of my absolute favorite summaries of energy storage and generation comes from this guy(Tom Murphy)  https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/09/got-storage-how-hard-can-it-be/

He's apparently got an updated book but I haven't checked it out yet, but if you want a high level primer on the physics of energy and storage, he's a great place to dip a toe.

 

It ends up in landfill projects like this. The creation of a very special future geologic layer.
It doesn't leak, so it's okay.
Fischer-Deponie_013w.jpg.35ed4f50677d169bedc4281a4e4e0654.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2021 at 7:26 AM, Steam Flyer said:

You're mad at the wrong people. But of course, distaste (at best) for gov't is a long-time part of American culture.

The people you should be angry at, remove your trust from, are the people running the major corporations that actually control your life. It's a bad trend that the gov't has been increasingly enabling & colluding with them for the past 2 generations, but most people confuse the passengers for the drivers here.

- DSK

What makes you think politicians are the sole targets of my ire when it comes to tariffs?

The companies that benefit are in my sights as well. On the ethanol boondoggle, I've repeatedly referred to ADM as a "giant, disgusting tick."

I'm not buying the idea that the politicians who enact these tariffs are just "passengers" with no active role. They take ADM (or FL sugar corp) money and they punish the rest of us with a tax. Yes, offering them money to punish us with a tax is bad.

So is taking the money and doing it. The whole silly idea should just die a market-induced death.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2021 at 10:48 AM, Seriatim Tom said:

What makes you think politicians are the sole targets of my ire when it comes to tariffs?

The companies that benefit are in my sights as well. On the ethanol boondoggle, I've repeatedly referred to ADM as a "giant, disgusting tick."

I'm not buying the idea that the politicians who enact these tariffs are just "passengers" with no active role. They take ADM (or FL sugar corp) money and they punish the rest of us with a tax. Yes, offering them money to punish us with a tax is bad.

So is taking the money and doing it. The whole silly idea should just die a market-induced death.

 

Sorry to say but in europe it doesn't work that way. It is tax driven. When you buy a car in norway and it's electrical you hardly pay any taxes, If you buy a diesel of carbonfueled you pay bigtime almost double the original price and there is a waiting list. Norway is planning to be fully electrical driven in 2025.
https://www.visitnorway.com/plan-your-trip/getting-around/by-car/electric-cars/

In the international law it is stated countries may choose their own tax strategy.
So when you are for instance living in Florida  Seriatim Tom the gouverner decides how taxstrategy works.
And I understood in California they are more leaning towards electric.  https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng/eligible-vehicles
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Schakel said:

Sorry to say but in europe it doesn't work that way. It is tax driven. When you buy a car in norway and it's electrical you hardly pay any taxes, If you buy a diesel of carbonfueled you pay bigtime almost double the original price and there is a waiting list. Norway is planning to be fully electrical driven in 2025.
https://www.visitnorway.com/plan-your-trip/getting-around/by-car/electric-cars/

In the international law it is stated countries may choose their own tax strategy.
So when you are for instance living in Florida  Seriatim Tom the gouverner decides how taxstrategy works.
And I understood in California they are more leaning towards electric.  https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng/eligible-vehicles
 

You always pay tax 

if tax on cars is lowered other taxes are raised

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2021 at 4:48 AM, Seriatim Tom said:

What makes you think politicians are the sole targets of my ire when it comes to tariffs?

The companies that benefit are in my sights as well. On the ethanol boondoggle, I've repeatedly referred to ADM as a "giant, disgusting tick."

I'm not buying the idea that the politicians who enact these tariffs are just "passengers" with no active role. They take ADM (or FL sugar corp) money and they punish the rest of us with a tax. Yes, offering them money to punish us with a tax is bad.

So is taking the money and doing it. The whole silly idea should just die a market-induced death.

 

Yah ethanol is a bad idea

time to shut it down 

precious agricultural land must bu used to grow food not fuel 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, slug zitski said:

You always pay tax 

if tax on cars is lowered other taxes are raised

 

 

Liquor or beer or cigarettes, are most taxed over here.
99923484_Marlboro8euro.gif.5f98003da082083e1310d68694399643.gif
8 Euro

Link to post
Share on other sites

'using less' is the most effective 'energy technology' there is, but it's off the table. 

 

bloody fucking hell have we cocked up with regard to existing on this finite planet, and there's no real end in sight. surreal, welcome to the downhill slide.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, 3to1 said:

'using less' is the most effective 'energy technology' there is, but it's off the table. 

 

bloody fucking hell have we cocked up with regard to existing on this finite planet, and there's no real end in sight. surreal, welcome to the downhill slide.

I couldn"t agree with you more. Wrappage for instance, how much plastic and glass is wasted on groceries?
Remco-supermarkt-plastic-groenten-1024x682.thumb.jpg.2333391bf85d0518a2b4a2fbb90fa71d.jpg
Thermal isolation, easy delivers money allmost instantly and nobody does it.
Rockwool-steenwol-isolatie-2.thumb.jpg.11a4a5fcbb77cc9eb3ebac4cc7429902.jpg

Electric car so you do not need oil and gas.
bmw_i3_255.thumb.jpeg.3a3db5382b0c006efdfbbd67ebe115f8.jpeg

It's all within a handreach obtainable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...