Replacement Fossil Fuel?

[Anvil]

(Watch this video before continuing.)


This could be a good thing for not only the continuing battle against environment problems, but for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels to power our vehicles and etc.

I see a negative side, because somehow I can see businesses and government trying to find a way to get money out of this... for example, they were talking of a gas and water hybrid. The government will not allow for the oil companies and oil tycoons to loose so much money because of an alternative method to fossil fuels.

Is this going to be a milestone in human existance?

 

[Silver Incubus]

Holy shit, that is very cool, although I am pretty sure there has been inventions like these that exist in Oil company wherehouses, like the efficient hydrogen cells, and I wouldn't be suprised if the big car companies buy this and shelf it as well.

Even still, the power of the cutting the metal is an amazing and safe. Thanks for the link

 

[The.Donut]

This is brilliant. Thanks for the link.

 

[DctrFeelGood]

I read something fairly similar to this in Scientific American. The article describes a process where low grade coal that is normally unused can be treated to be usable as a diesel fuel that has lower emissions than current low sulphur diesel. A business has already begun profiting from this process which allows them to sell the fuel at a lower price than other fuels go for. The process called gasification may help the united states cope with rising fuel costs while scientists research making alternate fueling methods such as hydrogen power commercially feasible.

 

[Justin S.]

All these "miraculous" alternative fuels share the same decisive flaw- They are not energy sources.

"Clean" energy storage mediums are useless on a large scale because they always, due to unavoidable laws of entropy, result in net losses of usable energy (start-up energy coming from polluting sources).

Take the device in the video. Water by itself produces no usable chemical energy, only kinetic (dams, mills, etc). Notice that he uses electricty- where and how is this generated, transported, stored? At every stage there are losses no matter how efficient. The ammount put in to the chemical reaction of water conversion will always be greater than the amount out- saying otherwise breaks with every discovery concerning matter and space time (in addition to your own personal experience).

I spent a great deal of time on a research paper dealing entirely with energy. There is no neat "solution".

 

[Ravenous Enemy]

apart from maybe nuclear fusion, if they ever pull it off.

I hve to say this 'invention' is a bit dubious. I don't think it's really anything that new /special.
Also, the precess of converting all oil burning systems to 'water' (or whaterever) would take o long time - probably enough for the oil companies to still get maximum profit from the oil.

 

[Justin S.]

I assume you meant "fusion". Thermodynamics and entropy still apply, its just that the reaction releases so much more energy than was put in (thanks to "storage" of atoms).

Waste and upkeep of infrastructure, distribution, etc. are all still very real problems regardless of the sources of energy.

The key issue always lurking is logistics (numbers). Until (far too optimistic word) we truly conceive of our population as an issue, all else is just games.

 

[judas69]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581824890/102-3149356-5266537?v=glance&n=283155

 

[Ravenous Enemy]

Thermodynamics and entropy still apply, its just that the reaction releases so much more energy than was put in (thanks to "storage" of atoms).

Well, seeing as all sources of energy are subject to the laws of thermodynamics etc., and the entropy of the universe will go on increasing regardless, your point is rendered irrelevant.

The more important issue is how oil consumers will go about weening themselves off it. What kind of swindles are going on right now to take advantage of government innitiatives to reduce dependency on oil? This issue is more important than climate change due to its relative immediacy. World Oil War could wipe us out before climate change has a chance.

Until (far too optimistic word) we truly conceive of our population as an issue, all else is just games.

... i don't know what this is supposed to mean.

 

[Justin S.]

Well, seeing as all sources of energy are subject to the laws of thermodynamics etc., and the entropy of the universe will go on increasing regardless, your point is rendered irrelevant.

No, it is the heart of the matter. What we call an "energy source" is something we can harness more energy from than is spent in acquiring and using it. How this process plays out under (for human intents and purposes) "universal laws" of thermodynamics determines everything.

The more important issue is how oil consumers will go about weening themselves off it. What kind of swindles are going on right now to take advantage of government innitiatives to reduce dependency on oil? This issue is more important than climate change due to its relative immediacy. World Oil War could wipe us out before climate change has a chance.

I disagree, both on climate change and the possiblity of wars, etc. I say the same thing, time and again- There is no "conspiracy". The logic and limits of global capitalism is laid out for all to see (the issue is who wants to look). Energy is so much more complicated than the simplistic scenarios I see being presented on this forum (that amazon link is pure comedy!)

... i don't know what this is supposed to mean.

It means this: If we are discussing human centered issues, there is always a coefficient of 6+ billion and counting. This is the factor that is passed over, swept under, and avoided at all costs, yet it is the most decisive. All plans are compromised so long as we ignore this over-writing force.

 

[speed]

I'm personally interested in that Black Gold book. Ive never heard such a theory before. Seriously, has it been studied? It seems pretty preposterous.

 

[speed]

No, it is the heart of the matter. What we call an "energy source" is something we can harness more energy from than is spent in acquiring and using it. How this process plays out under (for human intents and purposes) "universal laws" of thermodynamics determines everything.



I disagree, both on climate change and the possiblity of wars, etc. I say the same thing, time and again- There is no "conspiracy". The logic and limits of global capitalism is laid out for all to see (the issue is who wants to look). Energy is so much more complicated than the simplistic scenarios I see being presented on this forum (that amazon link is pure comedy!)




It means this: If we are discussing human centered issues, there is always a coefficient of 6+ billion and counting. This is the factor that is passed over, swept under, and avoided at all costs, yet it is the most decisive. All plans are compromised so long as we ignore this over-writing force.

I agree with you here, partially because what you write makes sense, and I have no background in energy--thus, I have no expertise in figuring out who is right.

However, I have done a number of population projections, and they are essentially worthless a few years out; hence, my comment that perhaps this population coefficient is a force, but maybe not as serious as one thinks. Remember, Malthus thought the world would starve in the 18th century. Anyway, my thought being, that every industrialized country but the United States (thanks to illegal immigration and our pathetic social services that reward the poor for having more children), has been logging negative population growth. Its like 1.25 in italy, 1.3 in Germany and Greece etc. Thus this population growth if you will, is coming from third world countries, that in the past, do not use very many resources. however, if globalisation continues at such a fast rate, then perhaps these fears will be realized. Even then however, once persons have higher standards of living, they will stop producing so many children.

 

[Justin S.]

I'm personally interested in that Black Gold book. Ive never heard such a theory before. Seriously, has it been studied? It seems pretty preposterous.

Wishful thinking about regenerating hydrocarbons is not new. Come on speed, "Black Gold Stranglehold"? This is not critical thought, its a WWF move.

 

[Justin S.]

I agree with you here, partially because what you write makes sense, and I have no background in energy--thus, I have no expertise in figuring out who is right.

However, I have done a number of population projections, and they are essentially worthless a few years out; hence, my comment that perhaps this population coefficient is a force, but maybe not as serious as one thinks. Remember, Malthus thought the world would starve in the 18th century. Anyway, my thought being, that every industrialized country but the United States (thanks to illegal immigration and our pathetic social services that reward the poor for having more children), has been logging negative population growth. Its like 1.25 in italy, 1.3 in Germany and Greece etc. Thus this population growth if you will, is coming from third world countries, that in the past, do not use very many resources. however, if globalisation continues at such a fast rate, then perhaps these fears will be realized. Even then however, once persons have higher standards of living, they will stop producing so many children.

I think the best approach to studing energy systems is to get a firm grounding in basic physics and thermodynamics, as well as a grasp on the "theoretical" (macro level energy systems). An interesting read, although biased, is the introduction to The Accursed Share by Georges Bataille- I think it treats the scope of "energy" quite well, at least as a starting point for more investigation.

About population, and projections: Regardless of the accuracy of models, the current population is an enormous logistical nightmare- so much so that it is laughably beyond direct control (something conspiracy theorists dont seem to understand).

6.5 billion human beings is an enormous factor. Take one small piece of the picture. 6.5 billion (and increasing every second) people require X amount of calories to survive (and the majority do receive enough not only to sustain, but to breed). This energy is cultivated from the soil or from animals. To do either of these on this scale requires macro mechanization and distribution- how much acreage, how many fossil fuel burning machines just to harvest grain? How do you quantify the expertise, the economy that can build such machines? Then to distribute it via ship, rail, or truck- What rail system, what highways, what ports? All require massive energy apparatuses both in terms of harnessing energy sources as well as labor. Not to mention centralized nation states, mass education to have the necessary technically trained population to support such a system- the physical and philosophical implications are enormous.

These systems rely on an abundant, easily accessed energy source with high return. The only game in town is fossil fuels. One might respond with "what about nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen?". All of these are researched, manufactured, distributed, and dependent upon fossil fuels. Fossil fuels= modernity.

 

[Ravenous Enemy]

No, it is the heart of the matter. What we call an "energy source" is something we can harness more energy from than is spent in acquiring and using it. How this process plays out under (for human intents and purposes) "universal laws" of thermodynamics determines everything.

what you say here makes sense, but you seem to have changed your point. I never disputed that the laws of thermodynamics and entropy apply, it's just your point seems a bit 'pointless' (!) - we are always looking for the best highest energy yielding source for the lowest input, hopefully in the cleanest way, and this automatically takes into account these things. It's common sense.

I disagree, both on climate change and the possiblity of wars, etc. I say the same thing, time and again- There is no "conspiracy".

Well you'd be wrong there, since it is already known that companies and corporations have reported that it is much more difficult to 'get clean' than it actually is, thus obtaining more grants/time/benefits by which to reduce emissions/waste etc. - it's just pure and simple capitalist greed at work.

So you are saying that the world will remain as peaceful as it is now over the next fifty years or so? The US will provoke the middle east more, and the middle east will simply retaliate for whatever reason. Not forgetting gas - russia - china, and South American oil too.

 

[speed]

Wishful thinking about regenerating hydrocarbons is not new. Come on speed, "Black Gold Stranglehold"? This is not critical thought, its a WWF move.

Hehe. Its still the first time I've encounter anything about this; thus, before I scoff at it, I like to know why to scoff at it.

 

[speed]

I think the best approach to studing energy systems is to get a firm grounding in basic physics and thermodynamics, as well as a grasp on the "theoretical" (macro level energy systems). An interesting read, although biased, is the introduction to The Accursed Share by Georges Bataille- I think it treats the scope of "energy" quite well, at least as a starting point for more investigation.

About population, and projections: Regardless of the accuracy of models, the current population is an enormous logistical nightmare- so much so that it is laughably beyond direct control (something conspiracy theorists dont seem to understand).

6.5 billion human beings is an enormous factor. Take one small piece of the picture. 6.5 billion (and increasing every second) people require X amount of calories to survive (and the majority do receive enough not only to sustain, but to breed). This energy is cultivated from the soil or from animals. To do either of these on this scale requires macro mechanization and distribution- how much acreage, how many fossil fuel burning machines just to harvest grain? How do you quantify the expertise, the economy that can build such machines? Then to distribute it via ship, rail, or truck- What rail system, what highways, what ports? All require massive energy apparatuses both in terms of harnessing energy sources as well as labor. Not to mention centralized nation states, mass education to have the necessary technically trained population to support such a system- the physical and philosophical implications are enormous.

These systems rely on an abundant, easily accessed energy source with high return. The only game in town is fossil fuels. One might respond with "what about nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen?". All of these are researched, manufactured, distributed, and dependent upon fossil fuels. Fossil fuels= modernity.

I suppose that is the necessary equation. Maybe I'll skim this book. Although there are alternative sources of power out there. They just arent as cost-efficient (for now).

 

[Justin S.]

I suppose that is the necessary equation. Maybe I'll skim this book. Although there are alternative sources of power out there. They just arent as cost-efficient (for now).

Although there are many ways to generate "power", true energy sources are fairly limited. Most "alternative fuels/energy" technologies are really conversion mediums mistaken for sources. There clearly are issues of ambiguity in the terminology as it is used in the public realm (most likely the cause for the great majority of arguments and confusion).

As I mentioned previously, take any alternative/green fuel or "source" you like- It cannot exist without fossil fuels. In contrast, you can obtain energy from fossil fuels with very primitive technology (fire, pressure). One cannot just dump solar panels, hydrogen cells, or uranium into a furnace and produce the release like you can from petroleum or coal. They require manufacture (by fossil fuel powered economies), fossil fuels require extraction. Of course, long ago we depleted the easily accessed deposits, and so now retrieving oil requires oil.

Every time I engage in this discussion, I am always faced with the same assertions: "well, there are still other sources, they are just not profitable yet, or are suppressed by the government/corporations, etc."

I ask: What and where are these sources? The burden of proof is on those making propositions.

 

[RookParliament]

Although there are many ways to generate "power", true energy sources are fairly limited. Most "alternative fuels/energy" technologies are really conversion mediums mistaken for sources. There clearly are issues of ambiguity in the terminology as it is used in the public realm (most likely the cause for the great majority of arguments and confusion).

As I mentioned previously, take any alternative/green fuel or "source" you like- It cannot exist without fossil fuels. In contrast, you can obtain energy from fossil fuels with very primitive technology (fire, pressure). One cannot just dump solar panels, hydrogen cells, or uranium into a furnace and produce the release like you can from petroleum or coal. They require manufacture (by fossil fuel powered economies), fossil fuels require extraction. Of course, long ago we depleted the easily accessed deposits, and so now retrieving oil requires oil.

Every time I engage in this discussion, I am always faced with the same assertions: "well, there are still other sources, they are just not profitable yet, or are suppressed by the government/corporations, etc."

I ask: What and where are these sources? The burden of proof is on those making propositions.

If utilizing fossil based infrastructure we create an overlapping and self-sustaining sytem of nuclear fission plants could that not replace the coil/oil/natural gas plants we have now?

Edit: By self sustaining I meant they would just need water and uranium to keep going. I also don't imply that cars/mining equipment will start running on fission engines.

 

[Justin S.]

If utilizing fossil based infrastructure we create an overlapping and self-sustaining sytem of nuclear fission plants could that not replace the coil/oil/natural gas plants we have now?

Edit: By self sustaining I meant they would just need water and uranium to keep going. I also don't imply that cars/mining equipment will start running on fission engines.

We certainly have the ability to change the ratios (to a degree) of fossil to alternative fuels in the energy mix, however, it will always be a mixture due to innumerable reasons.

That said, lets look at your question concerning fission.

The plants could never be self-sustaining because they are constructed by, and composed of, petroleum based products that always require maintenance. Parts become worn, technology changes, greater efficiency is required, EPA regulations demand such and such modifications, waste must be transported and stored, the list goes on and on. At every step a fossil fuel economy supports fission.

Also, what type of energy do these plants produce? Initially steam, which is converted into electricity. This is geared for powering static infrastructure and is poorly suited for mobile functions. The conversion of mechanical energy to electricity and back again to mechanical (for example electricity based cars) is costly and inefficient, not simply due to the status of the technology, but the inherent loss of usable energy in the transfers themselves (entropy).

Another overlooked problem is the scarcity of fissile material. There is only so much heavy metal on the planet (har har), the great majority of which must undergo extensive refining to produce the proper isotopes (very rare in nature). Not only does this diminishing return cut into the net energy yield, it creates a lot of highly toxic waste, which no one is happy about.

From most estimates, if the US alone were to transfer its generation exclusively to fission (which would require hundreds of more plants!) we would exhaust all fissile material (that would have positive return) on the planet in 30-50 years. Fission is simply not viable as the foundation of an energy economy, but can and should be used as a very important contributing element of a diverse mix that takes advantage of the strength and weaknesses of each source.