Obelix Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I assumed Mega watt hours..if not then 3 mega watts for 24 hours is a huge amount of energy lost in this process.. Having run the numbers, the energy cost for generation is at minimum 11,200kJ/mol of product (assuming you are generating pure octane which seems a reasonable guess) A tonne of product is about 10,000 moles so you have a minimum energy input of 112GJ needed. That assumes the process is 100% efficient and generates no waste heat at all (that pesky second law again theough...) At 3MW output from this electrickery generator, for 86400 seconds a day that's 260GJ output. As such, I think they need it to run continuously to provide a teonne a day from 3MW input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Why? I mean seriously why does that make it a toy? Plug in and charge overnight and I have a commute of 15 miles each way to work. Such a car would be eminently feasible for me to use in everyday life. It's not of course going to be ideal if you do a long distance daily, or have to charge at your destination, but for a lot of people electric cars are very useful, apart from the high purchase cost and the battery costs. It might work for you, with a 15 mile commute. But it would be pretty useless for me tomorrow when I need to drive to York and back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 The article implies that that would haver to be run for a day to produce a tonne of fuel (1400 litres) A litre of fuel in energy terms is around 10 kwh so the day's production would give about 1.4 Mwh So you're putting twice as much energy in as you are getting out...maybe worse than that.. 24 hours in a day, so you're putting in 72Mwh and getting out 1.4Mwh, an amazing 2% efficiency! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Having run the numbers, the energy cost for generation is at minimum 11,200kJ/mol of product (assuming you are generating pure octane which seems a reasonable guess) A tonne of product is about 10,000 moles so you have a minimum energy input of 112GJ needed. That assumes the process is 100% efficient and generates no waste heat at all (that pesky second law again theough...) At 3MW output from this electrickery generator, for 86400 seconds a day that's 260GJ output. As such, I think they need it to run continuously to provide a teonne a day from 3MW input. Can you explain the implications of this in layman's terms please Obelix? Ah Cyclone already did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Can you explain the implications of this in layman's terms please Obelix? It's energetically a very expensive and wasteful process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 How can you think it was a good idea without knowing something about the science behind it? That's why your opinion isn't being widely applauded. I don't think it's a complete waste of time, but it's not free energy. Personally I don't post my opinions about fishing or football, that's because I know nothing about them and would probably end up looking foolish. You're not applying that principle though and then seem to get rather upset when you get corrected by someone... That's a strange logic. So you discuss nothing that you're not 100% conversant with? I post and discuss things that interest me. I might not understand or even want to know about the molecular science of it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't interest me. You'll find you don't post anything about football or fishing, not because you don't know anything about it, but simply that it doesn't interest you! I'm afraid, yes I do get upset when someone deliberately sets out to try to make a fool of me. With a superior attitude. But hey....life's a beach!....Back on topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 It's energetically a very expensive and wasteful process. From renewable energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Yes. That's energy that can be better used elsewhere - even direct electric heating would be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I discuss lots of things I'm not 100% conversant with, I'm not exactly an expert on turning air into fuel (but I have some basic knowledge). What I don't do is get all funny about it if someone corrects me, or declare that I'm not interested in the underlying principles as if that somehow validates my opinion. It's circular of course, I know nothing about football because it doesn't interest me, but I wouldn't argue about the details of the off side rule given that I barely understand it. Obelix didn't set out to make a fool of you, maybe you misinterpreted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Why spend money on new tech like that for a few islands when there are perfectly good battery systems..? Would you? The petrol becomes a second battery, and saves money on turning the wind turbines off. http://www.communitiesagainstturbinesscotland.com/2011/10/9453249-to-stand-idle-in-september-was-paid-to-wind-farms-in-scotland-contributing-to-the-inflated-energy-company-profits/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.