andygardener Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 The number of times that we actually have too much wind is very small though - it's not really that big an issue and the payments to stop making power is a political problem. If renewable targets are going to be met then it will become an increasing issue though surely as they don't supply core load so while the method in the op may not be the most efficient method being looked at it must be sensible to develop a method of storing excess renewable energy rather than just keep switching them off surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 For free energy and perpetual motion to be possible it would require the current laws to be completely wrong. And if that was the case, we would have some indication of that. The reasons why we don't get free energy are pretty well understood. For it to suddenly be possible would require centuries of research and understanding to all be completely wrong. And we're not talking about a "flat earth" style wrongness - that was primarily driven by assumption, and was disproved as soon as people started researching it and experimenting and they found the results did not match the hypothesis. I'd also point out the the Greeks knew the Earth wasn't flat milennia ago -they even used it to make some reasonable guesses at the Solar distance. The argument that *everyone* thought the Earth was flat falls over because hardly anyone ever thought that the world was flat, although they were not especially sure of the exact size or shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 If renewable targets are going to be met then it will become an increasing issue though surely as they don't supply core load so while the method in the op may not be the most efficient method being looked at it must be sensible to develop a method of storing excess renewable energy rather than just keep switching them off surely? A good way of doing this is to have two resevoirs one above the other, and use excess electricity to pump water to the top resevoir and then release the water to drive hydroelectric generators when you need the electricity again. It effectively turns some hills and water into a giant battery. While it has some losses, it's an awful lot more efficient than turning water into hydrogen, capturing carbon dioxide and turning that all into petrol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Where are you going to get 3GW of renewable power from? That's the same as three Sizewell B nuclear plants and is effectivly our entire installed renewable capacity, most of which goes to provide power to the grid. All that to produce less than 1% of the total hydrocarbon demand in the UK. Just saying.... It’s a future plan so I imagine they are thinking about storing some of the future renewable capacity and using that stored energy to power cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Total Chaos Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/scientists-turn-fresh-air-into-petrol-is-breakthrough-a-milestone-on-the-road-to-clean-energy-16226456.html I was on a thread a while ago where I mooted the thought that 'probably' someone somewhere could make a car run with just fresh air. I was soundly derided. Although this isn't quite the same. It's a good as, in my book. Of course it will be years before it's perfected for mass production, but I wonder if the oil companies will try to bury the idea? If anyone ever did they would end up dead in a "accidental" accident,if you know what i mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 For free energy and perpetual motion to be possible it would require the current laws to be completely wrong. And if that was the case, we would have some indication of that. The reasons why we don't get free energy are pretty well understood. For it to suddenly be possible would require centuries of research and understanding to all be completely wrong. And we're not talking about a "flat earth" style wrongness - that was primarily driven by assumption, and was disproved as soon as people started researching it and experimenting and they found the results did not match the hypothesis. I think when people are talking about free energy they are referring to excess energy, energy that we produce but don’t need at the time it is produced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 A good way of doing this is to have two resevoirs one above the other, and use excess electricity to pump water to the top resevoir and then release the water to drive hydroelectric generators when you need the electricity again. It effectively turns some hills and water into a giant battery. While it has some losses, it's an awful lot more efficient than turning water into hydrogen, capturing carbon dioxide and turning that all into petrol. How would one run a car from this stored energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 It’s a future plan so I imagine they are thinking about storing some of the future renewable capacity and using that stored energy to power cars. But you would still be much much better off finding ways to store the excess electricity directly and use that to power the cars of the future, rather than convert it using a process with pathetically terrible efficiency to a legacy fuel. I think when people are talking about free energy they are referring to excess energy, energy that we produce but don’t need at the time it is produced. No, they're talking about a way of getting more energy out of a system than is input. It's an idea that's been floating around for donkey's years and despite the tonnes of evidence that it's not possible, it's still a popular problem that non-scientific types should and will be solved. How would one run a car from this stored energy? Use it to charge batteries to be used in electric vehicles? Use it to generate hydrogen for fuel cells? It's not a method for running cars, it's a way of storing electricity on an industrial scale for use when you need it and using up excess generating capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 But you would still be much much better off finding ways to store the excess electricity directly and use that to power the cars of the future, rather than convert it using a process with pathetically terrible efficiency to a legacy fuel. The question then comes back to why are they bothering and why do other engineers and scientists think they are onto something, if the idea is a non starter and pathetically inefficient, they surely wouldn't have wasted their time and money doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 No, they're talking about a way of getting more energy out of a system than is input. It's an idea that's been floating around for donkey's years and despite the tonnes of evidence that it's not possible, it's still a popular problem that non-scientific types should and will be solved.And despite this some of the best minds on the planet are working on fusion reactors in which one would get more energy out than goes in, so far their attempts have resulted in more power going in than coming out, the question must then be why are they trying if it was known to be impossible. Use it to charge batteries to be used in electric vehicles? Use it to generate hydrogen for fuel cells? It's not a method for running cars, it's a way of storing electricity on an industrial scale for use when you need it and using up excess generating capacity.Very costly, much cheaper to make petrol and fill the cars up that already exist and using the petrol stations that already exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.