dosxuk Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 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. Because there are some minor uses for it where petrol is the most suitable fuel source. From what I've seen it's only the media and people unfamiliar with the science behind it who are touting it as a solution for dwindling oil supplies to fuel everybodys cars. Look back a page. This process needs the equivalent of 3 Sizewell nuclear power plants running continously to generate the electricity needed to make 1000 litres of fuel a day. Even if they doubled the efficiency, it would still require a ridiculous amount of power to make enough fuel for the cars in just this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 Erm ... I'm not getting into an argument about this. All I'm pointing out is that things which seem absolute aren't necessarily so, as has been proved on many occasions. The human brain is very small in the scheme of things. The scientific minds on here..cannot see beyond the box that the current science dictates. Lets all go live in a cave eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener 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. I agree that there will be different storage methods that work much more efficiently in pure energy retention terms than that in the OP and I believe we already do use some of these in the UK. However there is clearly currently excess energy available or the wind turbines wouldn't keep being switched off so if there are other ways that can be used it seems sensible to explore them. It may not be the same chemical process as that in the OP but the USN is a long way down the road of converting their Nimitz class carriers to produce jet fuel from seawater. This would be powered by excess energy from the nuclear reactors and estimates have been a production of of around $6 a gallon, less than it's costing them to get the fuel on board the carriers now. It would also give their strike groups unlimited fuel for their aircraft while deployed, a significant tactical advantage. So there are definitely some applications where production of fuel from other energy sources is advantageous. In general remote locations where fuel is expensive/difficult to supply and which have access to renewable sources of energy are the most likely to benefit from the technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 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. Very costly, much cheaper to make petrol and fill the cars up that already exist and using the petrol stations that already exist. It is? Almost all houses currently have a connection to the electricity grid, so the distribution system is already there. What we don't have is a system that is as quick at recharging as a petrol pump is. To get around that requires a rethink of how we drive, but it's nothing compared to the rethink that we underwent when we got rid of the horse and cart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingray-man Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 The scientific minds on here..cannot see beyond the box that the current science dictates. Lets all go live in a cave eh? well if your so brilliant pete then it must be very easy for you to provb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingray-man Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 The scientific minds on here..cannot see beyond the box that the current science dictates. Lets all go live in a cave eh? well if your so brilliant pete then it must be very easy for you to prove them wrong, so we are waiting... I dont think i will hold my breath though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 However there is clearly currently excess energy available or the wind turbines wouldn't keep being switched off so if there are other ways that can be used it seems sensible to explore them. Is this not going to be because disconnecting a wind turbine is the easiest of our power generators to disconnect. Both nuclear and coal require hours notice of a change in demand, and gas, while better still needs a fair bit of notice. Where as wind is just a "don't need you, pull the plug". It may not be the same chemical process as that in the OP but the USN is a long way down the road of converting their Nimitz class carriers to produce jet fuel from seawater. This would be powered by excess energy from the nuclear reactors and estimates have been a production of of around $6 a gallon, less than it's costing them to get the fuel on board the carriers now. It would also give their strike groups unlimited fuel for their aircraft while deployed, a significant tactical advantage. So there are definitely some applications where production of fuel from other energy sources is advantageous. In general remote locations where fuel is expensive/difficult to supply and which have access to renewable sources of energy are the most likely to benefit from the technology. This is exactly the sort of place this technology will be useful for. An abundance of power which you can't quickly scale to demand, a local requirement for fuel, and all the materials you need to make it. And as you say, it's a bit tricky to get fuel to an aircraft carrier anyway. What we don't have in this country is such a large abundance of power, and the amount of fuel the process can currently generate wouldn't even touch the sides of the nations vehicles. Various sites on the internet say we use several million litres of fuel a day, just in the UK. Being able to make 1000 litres a day is completely insignificant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 If the first law of thermodynamics was wrong wouldn't you have expected to have seen some evidence of it..surely it would happen even if we didn't know it existed..eg spinning wheels speeding up after they are started,engines needing no fuel once they've got going etcetc?.. But nobody has claimed the first law is wrong. It's right as far as we know with current understanding. All I am purporting is that we need to be open minded about our 'current' understanding!...It's not a huge leap of faith. It's being open minded! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Because there are some minor uses for it where petrol is the most suitable fuel source. From what I've seen it's only the media and people unfamiliar with the science behind it who are touting it as a solution for dwindling oil supplies to fuel everybodys cars. Look back a page. This process needs the equivalent of 3 Sizewell nuclear power plants running continously to generate the electricity needed to make 1000 litres of fuel a day. Even if they doubled the efficiency, it would still require a ridiculous amount of power to make enough fuel for the cars in just this country. I haven't seen any media reports that are touting it as a solution for dwindling oil supplies to fuel everybody’s cars, what I know comes from their website and its looks like an idea worthy of further development which some British engineers and scientists agree with. I'm mystified as to why they would think it’s such a good idea when the forums resident scientists think it’s such a crap idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 It is? Almost all houses currently have a connection to the electricity grid, so the distribution system is already there. What we don't have is a system that is as quick at recharging as a petrol pump is. To get around that requires a rethink of how we drive, but it's nothing compared to the rethink that we underwent when we got rid of the horse and cart. Or we make petrol from renewable energy and use the existing infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.