Cyclone Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 From renewable energy? It wastes a lot of energy no matter where it comes from. I'm not convinced that it wastes more than producing hydrogen if we took into account the costs of retooling to a hydrogen based distribution system. But it's definitely wasteful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 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. There was no deliberate attempt at all. You were the one that started throwing the mud first remember. If you seriously think there was any attempt at all to make a fool of you then I fear you may be prone to overreacting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 24 hours in a day, so you're putting in 72Mwh and getting out 1.4Mwh, an amazing 2% efficiency! Yep as I said before I ,wrongly as it appears , assumed it was 3mega watt hours..not a 3mw station running for 24 hours..the energy return can't be that bad surely..if it is why is anybody interested at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 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/ You need the turbines to produce the electricity to produce the "petrol from air" ....I'm not sure what you're saying..could you clarify it for me ..having a senior moment here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 Yep as I said before I ,wrongly as it appears , assumed it was 3mega watt hours..not a 3mw station running for 24 hours..the energy return can't be that bad surely..if it is why is anybody interested at all? I wondered that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 And quite rightly so, because schemes like this, and the Fischer Tropsch et al need an energy input. You can't just make it from air - you have to add in a considerable amount of energy from a power station. EROEI but it's a much cleaner and clearer product than petrol derived from fossil oilBut is it as energy rich as conventional fuel? And what if this took off? What would happen if we took too much CO2 out of the atmosphere? What caused reduction in CO2 leading to the ice ages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 There was no deliberate attempt at all. You were the one that started throwing the mud first remember. If you seriously think there was any attempt at all to make a fool of you then I fear you may be prone to overreacting. Well, I didn't feel like I was the one who started anything. But if that's your opinion then so be it. It's your superior attitude that grates with me I'm afraid....Like your post #101...who did you think was actually going to understand that? Evan Cavegirl asked you to speak in laymans terms. Clash of personalities I'm afraid Obelix. I'm not prone to everreacting. You just seem to press the wrong buttons as far as I'm concerned. Lets not lose sleep over it though.....hey I might agree with you one day about something! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I wondered that! But that's what the figures show..in simple terms.. 3MW from the grid for 24 hours = 72MW this produces approx 1400 lites of fuel a litr of petrol is equivalent to around 10kwh so energy in petrol produced is 10,000*1400 = 1.4 MWh about 1.9% efficient.. Something's not right..probably my maths.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 EROEI But is it as energy rich as conventional fuel? And what if this took off? What would happen if we took too much CO2 out of the atmosphere? What caused reduction in CO2 leading to the ice ages? As we used it the CO2 would be out back into the atmosphere...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 It's your superior attitude that grates with me I'm afraid....Like your post #101...who did you think was actually going to understand that? Sorry to say I did and my physics and chemistry stopped after A level...a joule is the SI unit for energy..a mole is the amount of "stuff"..all obelix was saying was how much enegry was required to produce an amount of fuel..but he was using the proper units for the calculation rather than mixing and matching..in some ways it's easier and leads to less confusion.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.